Abiogenesis Challenge

_{Eric Anderson
November 16, 2015

Chemistry, Origin Of Life

3}_{Categories
Chemistry
Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities.

This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to.

I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again:

—–

For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arginine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, comets, dust clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.

Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all for the present exercise.

Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed?

—–

Note:

I also reiterate my open invitation for Zachriel, AVS, billmaz and anyone else to do a guest post laying out their strongest evidence for abiogenesis. There have been no takers yet, but the invitation remains open.

Comments

"Wikipedia: “Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.”" That in relation to the peppered moth that we have been discussing, has nothing to do with how moths originated and provides no mechanism for moths to become a new life form. Nothing to do with what mike asked and nothing to do with what I asked of you. You are falling back on equivocation because you cannot demonstrate what is being asked of you. "Nor have we purported to do so. Rather, we are attempting to set a foundation to answer mike1962’s question." Why do you keep using the term "we" when talking about yourself? You really are deluded in how you keep saying "we" Me and Mike are not interested in your dancing with the foundation. We already accept that survivors survive, it does not explain the origin of moths and provides no basis for a new type of life to arise. You can dance, you can equivocate but you can't demonstrate how it provides any means for moths to become a new type of life or how moths originated.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PST}

Jack Jones: Asserting it is not demonstrating it. Wikipedia: "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." USMP Glossary: "descent with modification" Dictionary: "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation" Jack Jones: You provided no evolution for how moths originated and no mechanism for moths to become anything other than a moth over time. Nor have we purported to do so. Rather, we are attempting to set a foundation to answer mike1962's question.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST}

"It’s evolution by definition." Asserting it is not demonstrating it. You can stack apple upon apple all the way to the ceiling, you will never get an orange, in the same way, You can multiply black moths zillions of times, you will never get anything other than a moth. You provided no evolution for how moths originated and no mechanism for moths to become anything other than a moth over time. "The mechanism at work with the peppered moth is called natural selection" It was me that gave you the peppered moth as a legitimate use of the term. So why you are telling me that is very strange. You are odd. It is not however a means for your evolutionary faith. You keep claiming it is but you keep failing to demonstrate it.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PST}

Jack Jones: No it is not and you failed to show how it is. It's evolution by definition. It doesn't answer mike1962's question which concerns the long span of evolutionary change. Jack Jones: Increasing the amount of already existing black moths provides no evolutionary mechanism. The mechanism at work with the peppered moth is called natural selection. Jack Jones: You still would have failed to give any mechanism to support the idea of one type of organism to give rise to a different type as this does not create a new body plan over time. As already noted, that requires understanding the historical sequence of incremental change and branching descent, as well as an understanding of natural selection. At that point, it would only be necessary to show incremental and selectable pathways to various complex adaptations.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST}

"The change in the population of peppered moths is evolution." No it is not and you failed to show how it is. " Are you okay with the definition of natural selection, and the observation of peppered moths as an example of natural selection" I was the one that granted the term as being ok to use with predator prey and gave you peppered moths to work with. Increasing the amount of already existing black moths provides no evolutionary mechanism. If you gave me an example of black moths becoming yellow moths or green moths over time instead of just multiplying. You still would have failed to give any mechanism to support the idea of one type of organism to give rise to a different type as this does not create a new body plan over time.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PST}

No need to give us the amino acids, we’ve already demonstrated they can form through early-earth models. No need for the amino acids to be non-racemic at the earliest stages of life either. No need for a precise relative percentage of these amino acids or for a precise concentration. No need to give us a specific energy environment, any old source of high temperature will do and the surrounding water will create a temperature gradient for us. Sure, things must be spatially and temporally linked, that represents somewhat of a challenge, but it can certainly be overcome. No need to prevent contaminating cross-reactions at this stage, just about every reaction is part of the random walk of molecular evolution. Sure, natural breakdown will always occur, but again, it can be overcome. Speaking of strawmen...Alicia Cartelli_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST}

Jack Jones: The increase of the black moths wouldn’t explain the origin of moths and provides no mechanism for a moth to give rise to a different type of life. Didn't say it did. Jack Jones: Increasing the amount of what already exists is not a mechanism for it to evolve to become a different type of life and did not explain how moths originated. Didn't say it did. Jack Jones: You have provided no example of evolution ... The change in the population of peppered moths is evolution. Jack Jones: and not answered what mike was asking you. No. The answer requires some fundamentals to be established. Are you okay with the history of generally gradual change and branching descent for many taxa? Are you okay with the definition of natural selection, and the observation of peppered moths as an example of natural selection? If not, then that has to be established first.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PST}

"Color is an adaptation in the peppered moth. It’s camouflage." The increase of the black moths wouldn't explain the origin of moths and provides no mechanism for a moth to give rise to a different type of life. "The peppered moth’s color helps camouflage the moth from predation by birds. This leads to a change in heritable traits in the moth population." Increasing the amount of what already exists is not a mechanism for it to evolve to become a different type of life and did not explain how moths originated. You have provided no example of moths evolving into existence and you have provided no mechanism for moths to evolve and eventually give rise to a different type of life. You have provided no example of evolution and not answered what mike was asking you. Furthermore, you have derailed this thread from what Mr Anderson was asking.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST}

Andre: Natural selection is responsible for differentiation in populations…. not adaptation. Color is an adaptation in the peppered moth. It's camouflage. Jack Jones: Eldredge and Gould disagree, they say the fossil record is inconsistent with this. Lieberman & Eldredge: "speciation typically takes on the order of 5,000 to 50,000 years to occur – far shorter than the average duration of species in the fossil record." http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Punctuated_equilibria In other words, the time is geologically brief, but still a very long time. Jack Jones: Mike wasn’t asking you about natural selection He was asking whether the proposed mechanisms were sufficient to explain the history of life. So, we have to determine the historical sequence, then examine the mechanism. Apparently, even a rudimentary understanding of natural selection, something you can look up in a book, evades this group. Phinehas: According to the predation story, there would have been a change in the population whether the trait was heritable or not. But if it wasn't hereditary, then the next generation would have the same mix of white and black coloration. That's not what is observed. Color is heritable in peppered moths. Phinehas: When a bird eats a moth, there is a change in the population. Only if there are differences within the population. In this case, the coloration can be shown to be under selection. Phinehas: Proving the bird ate the moth due to heritable vs. non-heritable traits seems problematic to me. That question has been researched in detail by several different studies, most recently by Cook et al., Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus, Biology Letters 2012. The peppered moth's color helps camouflage the moth from predation by birds. This leads to a change in heritable traits in the moth population.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PST}

Z:
JJ: Using the peppered moth example, then explain to me the evolution that you believe occurred … Z: There was a change in the population due to differences in heritable traits, a.k.a. natural selection.
According to the predation story, there would have been a change in the population whether the trait was heritable or not. There would also have been a change in the population whether there were two variants of the trait or not. When a bird eats a moth, there is a change in the population. Proving the bird ate the moth due to heritable vs. non-heritable traits seems problematic to me. Proving a single trait responsible for the impromptu meal also seems problematic to me. When you try to go beyond what survives, survives, the science falters as the speculation goes through the roof. The proffered "mechanism" starts to look a lot like Natural Speculation.Phinehas_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PST}

"Punctuated equilibrium still entails phenotypic gradualism." Eldredge and Gould disagree, they say the fossil record is inconsistent with this. "Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t posit that evolution happens in leaps." "Gould began studying land snails for his doctoral research at Columbia University in the 1960s. His careful documentation of their structure over space and time helped to form the basis of the punctuated equilibrium model, which he developed with colleague Niles Eldredge in 1972. The model suggested that evolution HAPPENS IN LEAPS of change separated by long stretches of very little change, which they called stasis" Gould's former assistant, Stephanie Keep ncse. What we actually see is that snails remain snails but still Gould was enthused about the fairy tale that he would later promote as an alternative to the failure of gradualism. "Neodarwinism has been old hat since the 1960s. Where you been? " Well the evolutionary community is divided over just what the theory is, where have you been? Coyne claims it is the modern theory and others say it is dead. Coyne says punctuated equilibrium is Bunk. "Common descent provides the historical sequence" No, common descent is an explanation that you agree with for the sequence. Evolutionists accommodated the sequence that was there. "understanding natural selection." Mike wasn't asking you about natural selection, Nothing that you have said about natural selection in relation to the peppered moth example answers what Mike or I was asking you. You have done one thing though, You have derailed the thread from a discussion on the beginning of your faith with the ool.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PST}

Zachriel Natural selection is responsible for differentiation in populations.... not adaptation.Andre_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PST}

Jack Jones: I quoted Darwin, he said that nature takes no leaps, Eldredge and Gould among others have pointed out that the fossil record is not consistent with gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium still entails phenotypic gradualism. Darwin included the rudiments of punctuated equilibrium in Origin of Species 1866. Jack Jones: And the biological learning center of Arizona stated that neo darwinism is about evolution happening at a uniform rate and they pointed out that Darwin embraced a uniformity of rate. A primary source, Darwin's own words, trump a secondary source. Jack Jones: You cannot hold to punctuated equilibrium which says evolution happens in leaps and hold to gradualism which says evolution happens at a uniform rate. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't posit that evolution happens in leaps. Rather, change occurs over many generations in small, isolated populations, that then overcome the parent population. This leaves steps in the fossil record. Jack Jones: You can’t hold to neo darwinism which emphasizes competition and survival of the fittest and hold to punctuated equilibrium where Eldredge says that the competition is removed through catastrophic events. Neodarwinism has been old hat since the 1960s. Where you been? Jack Jones: Then it is not dealing with what Mike and I were asking you. Yes. Gradual change, branching descent, and natural selection. Once we have those in place, we can proceed to answer the question, How do we empirically verify or falsify that the proposed mechanism can generate what occurred? Common descent provides the historical sequence that needs to be explained. We have direct observations of natural selection. To show natural selection's historical role, we might be able to demonstrate incremental and selectable steps in that history. Can't do that without agreement on the historical sequence, or without understanding natural selection.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PST}

"We quoted Darwin directly on the subject." Who is this we? You sound moronic using the term "we" to describe yourself. I quoted Darwin, he said that nature takes no leaps, Eldredge and Gould among others have pointed out that the fossil record is not consistent with gradualism. And the biological learning center of Arizona stated that neo darwinism is about evolution happening at a uniform rate and they pointed out that Darwin embraced a uniformity of rate. Punctuated equilibrium denies uniformity of rate. What Mr Arrington quoted was Darwin in the correct context. "As for the Modern Synthesis, it did emphasize phyletic gradualism. Now we know that this only explains some of the record. " No, that means you are compartmentalizing your mind. You cannot hold to punctuated equilibrium which says evolution happens in leaps and hold to gradualism which says evolution happens at a uniform rate. You can't hold to neo darwinism which emphasizes competition and survival of the fittest and hold to punctuated equilibrium where Eldredge says that the competition is removed through catastrophic events. "Never said it did. Indeed, we said quite the contrary several times. It’s a simple example of natural selection. " Nobody disputed that you could use that as an example of NS you moron, You're really dishonest in how you carry on. I granted predator prey relationships for the term selection, And I was the one that raised the example of peppered moths as an example where the term selection could be used, and you failed to show how it supports your evolutionary faith. I was asking you specific questions about evolution and what you were saying did not answer them. Why do you refer to yourself as "we" Have you got a screw loose or something? "Didn’t say it did. Natural selection is differential reproductive potential due to differences in heritable traits. " That was your response to the peppered moth example, there was no evolution there. The death of the light moths did not mean the black moths constitute a new form of life and did not explain their existence. There is no evolution in that example at all to support your faith. You were dancing because you cannot answer the questions that me or mike asked you.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PST}

Jack Jones: Not interested in your sophistry, One proposes leaps and the other proposes that evolution is uniform, one expects continuity in nature, the other is an excuse for the lack of continuity Not interested in your sophistry. Punctuated equilibrium posits geologically rapid speciation events in isolated populations, but the events still take many years. The result is steps in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium is not the only mechanism of speciation, and more gradual changes can also be found in the fossil record. Jack Jones: Gradualism (uniformity of rate), embraced by Darwin; later a key assumption of the Modern Synthesis. We quoted Darwin directly on the subject. As for the Modern Synthesis, it did emphasize phyletic gradualism. Now we know that this only explains some of the record. Jack Jones: Darwin said natura non facit saltum” — “nature does not make leaps” The steps in punctuated equilibrium are still due to phenotypic gradualism. The relatively rapid changes are occurring in small, isolated populations, but still over many generations. Jack Jones: Increasing the amount of black moths in proportion to the light did not create the light or dark moth and provides no mechanism moths to become another type of life. Never said it did. Indeed, we said quite the contrary several times. It's a simple example of natural selection. Jack Jones: How does increasing the amount of black moths in proportion to the light explain the existence of the light or dark moths and how does it provide a mechanism for a new type of organism to arise? We want to make sure that everyone is in agreement on the fundamentals. So far mike1962 agrees that the fossil record shows largely incremental change and branching descent for many taxa. Once we are in agreement on the nature of natural selection, we'll answer the original question, How do we empirically verify or falsify that the proposed mechanism can generate what occurred? Jack Jones: I got drawn in to zachs dishonesty of equating ns with evolution Natural selection is not equivalent to evolution. Natural selection is just one of many evolutionary mechanisms. It's best not to misrepresent someone's position when calling them dishonest. Jack Jones: No, The death of the light colored moth did not create the black moth and their death does not mean the surviving black moth constitutes a new type of life form. Didn't say it did. Natural selection is differential reproductive potential due to differences in heritable traits. Andre: Repeat after me….. Adaptation…… That's right, Andre. Natural selection drives adaptation. Barry Arrington: He candidly admits that the fossil record does not by and large support his theory. No. Darwin explains why the fossil record won't encapsulate every transition. First, because fossilization is necessarily incomplete; second, because stasis is more typical than change, so change will be less likely to be preserved; and third, because new species will often form in small, isolated populations, and are therefore unlikely to leave fossils. Barry Arrington: Eldredge and Tattersall could have spent decades studying Darwin and becoming two of the most famous evolutionary theorists on the planet and still not have a freaking clue about what Darwin predicted. Citing a primary source, Darwin's own words, trumps a secondary source. Gould and Eldredge were often criticized for overstatement. If the argument was that the Modern Synthesis overemphasized phyletic gradualism, then you might have a point.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PST}

GUN @ 142:
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982) The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 48 Ya know. I guess you might be right. Eldredge and Tattersall could have spent decades studying Darwin and becoming two of the most famous evolutionary theorists on the planet and still not have a freaking clue about what Darwin predicted. No, on second thought, you are wrong. That Darwin was flummoxed by the fossil record because it did not reveal what his theory predicted it should reveal (rampant transitions as far as the eye could see) is widely known. Are you really going to try to change that bit of history now? Good grief, do you people have no shame?Barry Arrington_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PST}

Barry, I don't see where you think Darwin is saying that the fossil record is giving a "false impression of general stasis" - it looks like he's saying that stasis is, indeed, the norm with evolution. The fossil record may, however, often give an impression of general disconnectedness of species and sudden jumps. The highlighted part of the quote gives the two reasons for this: This is because of 1) extinction (and thus nothing to connect to) and 2) That stasis is the norm. Meaning that catching a species in times of change requires some luck. It's not stasis that's a false impression - stasis is the cause of a false impression.
Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?
Because of extinction (without descendants) and the relatively long periods of stasis.goodusername_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PST}

JJ, we are going to take those strawmen apart point by point. Just, we are here underscoring just how patently they have nothing to say. All they can do is change the subject. And on natural selection, differential reproductive success leading to loss of varieties is a subtracter of information, not an adder. We are left with chance variation suggested as incrementally creating info. But given the island of function in huge config space imposed by needing well matched, correctly arranged and coupled parts, all you have is something that moves around in islands of function. It does not explain finding their isolated shorelines in beyond astronomically large seas of non function. Needle in haystack search on steroids. What they will not tell you and studiously ignore, the body plan origin challenge. And neutral drift at best is moving on flat plateux in islands of function, it meets the same obstacle in finding. And for a key example, protein fold domains in AA acid chain config spaces. Try how much 20^300 is as a number, and that is typical protein length. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PST}

Zach
Darwin held that evolution would be frequently characterized by stasis.
Barry
He did not. Zach, you just made that up. Darwin held that evolution was continual. The fossil record falsifies Darwinism as Darwin understood it. That is why they had to change the theory. "Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982) The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, p. 48
Zach quotes Origin of Species in reply:
Darwin, Origin of Species 1866: the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
Let’s put that quote in context (I will bold the snippit Zach took out):
On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though this appearance is often false, to have come in suddenly on the successive geological stages? I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which have certainly existed . . .Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form.
First Darwin says that his theory of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time predicts an infinitude of connection links and that every geological formation should be charged with such links. He candidly admits that the fossil record does not by and large support his theory. Then he goes on to explain why the theory should be accepted nevertheless. One of the reasons he gives is the one Zach snips out of context. Darwin says that the record might give a false impression of general stasis, because some species that happened to leave fossils became extinct without leaving descendants. Why does this leave a false impression? Because the record of an individual species that is not representative of the process of evolution as predicted by Darwin, by the sheer happenstance became the one that left a fossil record. What is going on here? Zach has used Darwin’s claim that certain fossils leave a FALSE impression of stasis to support Zach’s claim that Darwin actually predicted stasis. Or perhaps Zach knows something that world famous Darwinists Eldredge and Tattersall didn’t. And if you believe that, my ocean front property in Kansas is still for sale. So, my original conclusion stands: Zach, for someone who comments on these issues so often, you are astonishingly ignorant of basic facts. To which I would not add “and you show an alarming propensity to distort the facts to suit whatever argument you happen to be making.” Zach, if I were ignorant of basic facts and/or had to distort the facts to suit my argument it would bother me. I might even change my mind. Does it bother you? Is there any chance that the fact that you are wrong about so many things will change your mind about the subject of origins generally?Barry Arrington_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PST}

Zachriel Repeat after me..... Adaptation......Andre_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST}

"Mike1962 argued that natural selection is not an evolutionary mechanism" And he is correct "but natural selection clearly drives the change in color in the peppered moth. Push here and it changes there." No, The death of the light colored moth did not create the black moth and their death does not mean the surviving black moth constitutes a new type of life form. You can multiply the dark moth zillions of times, you still have not give a mechanism for the moths to give rise to a new type of life over time. You have failed to make any case that the peppered moth provides any mechanism for your faith to occur. It is a dead end for you and that is why you dance like a cat on a hot tin roof because it does not support your position.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST}

Sorry KF, I got drawn in to zachs dishonesty of equating ns with evolution, when he is asked to use specific language describing evolutionary change then he just doubles down and uses the same language which does not describe what is being asked. He was doing this dance with mike yesterday and is doing the dance with me today.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST}

I see discussion on evolution, not OOL. Looks like the empty chair continues, with Wiki and Rational wiki as strawmen.kairosfocus_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PST}

"Not in leaps, but rapid in geological terms." Not interested in your sophistry, One proposes leaps and the other proposes that evolution is uniform, one expects continuity in nature, the other is an excuse for the lack of continuity "Darwin posited that rates of morphological evolution would vary. Darwin, Origin of Species 1866: the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Gradualism (uniformity of rate), embraced by Darwin; later a key assumption of the Modern Synthesis. Discovering Evolution: II. Before Darwin Biology learning center university of Arizona Uniformity of rate was embraced by darwin and became a key assumption of the modern synthesis. Darwin said natura non facit saltum” — “nature does not make leaps” "Which was answered. There was a relative redistribution of color in the population." No you didn't, You failed to tell me how that supported your evolutionary position. Increasing the amount of black moths in proportion to the light did not create the light or dark moth and provides no mechanism moths to become another type of life. "See Cook et al., Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus, Biology Letters 2012." I didn't ask you for my benefit, I asked you to be specific and say what occurred so that we can analyze it because you are being dishonest. "It’s merely a simple example of natural selection, a mechanism mike1962 says doesn’t exist." Well in most instances the term is being used falsely so he is right for the most part, When the term is used to say that the survivors were selected then the term is false, or when we attribute non sentient environmental conditions the power of selection. As the term is commonly used then it is a false term but we can allow the term selection for predator-prey exceptions, but this is not evolution but elimination of part of the existing population. I will ask you again, How does increasing the amount of black moths in proportion to the light explain the existence of the light or dark moths and how does it provide a mechanism for a new type of organism to arise? You said to Andre "Mike1962 argued that natural selection is not an evolutionary mechanism, but natural selection clearly drives the change in color in the peppered moth. Push here and it changes there" No, Increasing the amount of black moths is not a mechanism for moths to become a new life form over time. How is increasing the amount of black moths going to change a moth so that a non moth arises? If all white humans died then the survivors wouldn't constitute a new life form. And you have not provided a mechanism for humans to give rise to a new type of living organism over time.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PST}

Andre: Color changes are adaptations. Mike1962 argued that natural selection is not an evolutionary mechanism, but natural selection clearly drives the change in color in the peppered moth. Push here and it changes there.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PST}

Zachriel Color changes are adaptations. Not a single person here would argue against that.Andre_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PST}

It’s merely a simple example of natural selection,
Unfortunately for you, you don't know if it was natural selection or design. Your bald declarations are neither evidence nor an argument.Virgil Cain_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PST}

Jack Jones: Punctuated equilibrium taught the reason that the fossil record was discontinuous is because that change happened in leaps leaving no trace of the transitionals behind. Not in leaps, but rapid in geological terms. Jack Jones: One teaches uniformity of rate, the other rejects uniformity of rate. Darwin posited that rates of morphological evolution would vary.
Darwin, Origin of Species 1866: the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
Jack Jones: I asked you where is the evolution in the example? Which was answered. There was a relative redistribution of color in the population. Jack Jones: Name the colors ... See Cook et al., Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus, Biology Letters 2012. Jack Jones: and tell me, what that has to do with the evolution from moths to a new type of life form or the origin of moths? It’s merely a simple example of natural selection, a mechanism mike1962 says doesn’t exist.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PST}

Zachy is UD's Pet Evolutionist Troll. There are others as well, but he is the best behaved. Andrewasauber_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST}

"Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t posit evolutionary leaps" Yes it does, Neo Darwinism was about Continuity in nature, that evolution occurred in a uniform and continuous manner, Punctuated equilibrium taught the reason that the fossil record was discontinuous is because that change happened in leaps leaving no trace of the transitionals behind. Darwin said natura non facit saltum" -- "nature does not make leaps". One teaches uniformity of rate, the other rejects uniformity of rate. Gradualism (uniformity of rate), embraced by Darwin; later a key assumption of the Modern Synthesis. Discovering Evolution: II. Before Darwin Biology learning center university of Arizona Uniformity of rate was embraced by darwin and became a key assumption of the modern synthesis. "either, but rather that evolution proceeds in small, isolated populations which then overtake the parent population, leaving a step in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium is consistent with population genetics, whereby fixation of traits can occur much quicker in small, isolated populations. " Neo Darwinism teaches continuity and uniformity of rate for the evolutionary process. Punctuated Equilibrium teaches discontinuity in nature and says nature takes leaps and does not happen in a uniform manner. Neo darwinism teaches one of Darwins Pillars, "natural selection" or survival of the fittest and competition between living things. Eldredge however did away with this idea and talked about the idea of catastrophic events removing the competition so that his postulated new life forms could be established. Lynn Marguilis "There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity."… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lynn-margulis-expresses-her-doubts-about-neo-darwinism-in-discover-magazine/ "There was a relative redistribution of color in the population due to differences in heritable coloration, a.k.a. natural selection." I didn't ask you to tell me what you term natural selection. I asked you where is the evolution in the example? Name the colors and tell me, what that has to do with the evolution from moths to a new type of life form or the origin of moths? Why are you dancing?Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Next