A software engineer on convergent evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 7, 2013

Convergent evolution}

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

Further to “Convergent evolution seen in 100s of genes,”

I’m a software engineer, and we re-use components all the time for different programs that have no “common ancestor”. E.g. – I can develop my String function library and use it in my web application and my Eclipse IDE plug-in, and those two Java programs have nothing in common. So you find the same bits in two different programs because I am the developer of both programs. But the two programs don’t extend from a common program that was used for some other purpose – they have no “common ancestor” program.

Now with that in mind, take a look at this recent article from Science Daily, which Mysterious Micah sent me. …

“We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible,” explains Dr Joe Parker, from Queen Mary’s School of Biological and Chemical Sciences and first author on the paper.

High rates of convergent evolution are only “incredible” if we simply assume as an article of faith that there is no design, and that therefore there is nothing to research. It shall remain then, forever, incredible. No matter why the design exists.

A price paid, shall we say, for dogmatism killing curiosity.

Comments

Jerad,
That’s not what evolutionary theory says. And we do have evidence even if you choose to disregard it
If you'd like, we can split hairs and say that evolutionary theory doesn't say that the mechanism of life's origin was an unguided event in chemical history, but evolutionary biology, as practiced, taught, written about, defended, and promoted by evolutionary biologists, very much says exactly that - with no evidence to demonstrate such a mechanism even exists. As far as disregarding evidence, there is no evidence anywhere on the surface of the planet for a mechanism demonstrating the rise of a semiotc system from inanimate matter. Consequently there is none to ignore. If you find this to be untrue, then by all means, present the evidence.
I did not ask for that kind of detail and you know it. I asked for, at least, some statement regarding WHEN design was implemented. How would be interesting of course. Why would add some explanatory power.
Jerad, as a defensive strategy, you place an impossible standard on ID evidence while accepting and defending a mechanism of life’s origin for which you have no evidence whatsoever that it exist in reality. Both halves of that statement are on record in this very thread.Upright BiPed_{September 10, 2013
September
09
Sep
10
10
2013
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

My comment has nothing to do with natural selection, it precedes it.
For those considering engaging with the commenter, Upright Biped and his semiotic argument, it might be worth noting that the argument is an attempt at demonstrating the "impossibility" of an unguided origin of life on Earth. So, as nobody yet has an evidence based theory to explain an unguided OOL, it might prove fruitless. For those that may be unaware of US's argument and its reception and consideration previously, some time may be saved by googling or see here for a start. Here tooAlan Fox_{September 10, 2013
September
09
Sep
10
10
2013
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

Hello again sigaba,
All of this is good, but…
Since Darwinian evolution requires those material conditions in order to function, it cannot be the source of those conditions.
Insofar as evolution creates more organisms, and those organisms manifest Darwinian evolution (as we’re using this term), I’d be compelled to disagree on this point. It would follow that insofar as evolution produces viable organisms, it self-sustains the conditions for future evolution. Aside from that it seems fine.
Darwinian evolution does not create organisms. Only the translation of recorded information creates organisms, requiring a unique set of material conditions which are found nowhere else in the physical world (except in any other instance of information translation). Darwinian evolution requires these material conditions to exist in order to exist itself. It therefore cannot be the mechanism behind the rise of those conditions. It’s actually very straightforward; Darwinian evolution requires the translation of recorded information in order to function; the translation of recorded information requires a set of unique material conditions; the rise of those conditions must be satisfied prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution.
Evolution doesn’t explain the genesis of life on Earth, I don’t think anybody claims otherwise.
Upthread, I mentioned to Jerad that while he chided ID proponents for not having evidence to back up a claim they do not make, he himself had no evidence for an unguided mechanism to satisfy the material conditions that Darwinian evolution requires to exist (which relates to a claim that ID proponents actually do make). You then entered the conversation and asked “Are you really saying that we have no material evidence of natural selection, propagation of beneficial traits, and mutation?”. Of course, each of these items you give in your response (selection, propagation of traits, and mutation) is indelibly tied to Darwinian evolution, conflating the functions of evolution with the onset of the material conditions required to translate recorded information. If that was merely a misplaced comment, then I can certainly accept that. You might be surprised at the number of times ID critics conflate the two.
I think the relation with semiotics is unnecessary
I disagree. Frankly, I am not certain how understanding the material conditions required for the onset of Darwinian evolution could possibly be unnecessary in understanding the onset of Darwinian evolution.
you’re claim just boils down to “evolution doesn’t explain abiogenesis.” All the information theory stuff is superfluous to this point.
Again I profoundly disagree. The translation of recorded information organizes biological function. It would be hard to imagine how it could be more relevant.
I know information theory gets used by some authorities to make unrelated points w/r/t Intelligent Design, but I don’t think it’s relevant here.
One needn’t be an authority to recognize the extreme relevance. The entire edifice of evolutionary biology is based on it. You are welcome to carry a descending opinion, but you must understand your opinion is vastly outside the reality on the ground. Again, it cannot be unimportant to understand the material conditions required to translate recorded information if the system you are interested in understanding requires the translation of recorded information. This should be obvious, It is, of course, unfortunate when it is not.Upright BiPed_{September 10, 2013
September
09
Sep
10
10
2013
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Actually the ball is in your court. Either you need to explain via chance and natural law how genes converged in 200 loci in two very disparate mammal linages, or you need to elucidate a cause other than law, chance, or design to explain the phenomena described. I’ll await an explanation superior to the claim that such arrangements occurred as the result of planning and intention.
I agree (to answer another query) that design can never be 'ruled out', how can you prove a negative? But if you look at ALL the evidence it is all consistent with an unguided, naturally driven process. The fossil evidence is consistent with a common descent with modification model. The genetic evidence is likewise consistent. As is morphological analysis. And the geographic distribution of life forms. We also have at least 2000 years of observations which show that genetic variation is great enough to generate wide morphological differences. Science prefers models and explanations that invoke the fewest possible causes. Especially those which have no independent evidence to support them. You can say that all that evidence is also consistent with design. But what isn't consistent with design? It's always possible to say: well, we can't know the motivations of the designer. But that explains nothing. Do some work and find something that cannot be explained by natural processes. Don't just point at gaps, gaps are not proof something didn't happen. And gaps in scientific knowledge have a habit of getting smaller and smaller. At this point universal common descent with modification via undirected natural processes is the best and most parsimonious model. It is consistent with the known data, it has predictive power and it explains the data.
So let us be clear… if science says “we do not yet know the mechanism of life’s origin, but it was obviously an unguided process” then you are comfortable defending your belief in that mechanism – despite the inescapable fact that you have no material evidence that such a mechanism even exists in reality. Isn’t that correct, Jerad? Are you not forced to assume such a mechanism in order to conclude it?
That's not what evolutionary theory says. And we do have evidence even if you choose to disregard it.
And let us continue to be clear… the central reason for your demand to know the designer’s hair color and shoe size is because you know very well that it’s an impossible standard of evidence which no one can ever meet – thereby providing you a convenient fallacy to hide behind while you throw rocks and pretend to dance in the light of science and reason. Is that not correct Jerad? Are you willing to allow yourself a forthright answer to this question, or will you say “No No No, I only believe in things that can be demonstrated”. In other words, will you choose the fallacy or the contradiction, Jerad?
I did not ask for that kind of detail and you know it. I asked for, at least, some statement regarding WHEN design was implemented. How would be interesting of course. Why would add some explanatory power. It's quite common for people on this forum to ask evolutionary theory to answer questions it can't possibly answer. Why don't you call them on that?Jerad_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

All of this is good, but...
Since Darwinian evolution requires those material conditions in order to function, it cannot be the source of those conditions.
Insofar as evolution creates more organisms, and those organisms manifest Darwinian evolution (as we're using this term), I'd be compelled to disagree on this point. It would follow that insofar as evolution produces viable organisms, it self-sustains the conditions for future evolution. Aside from that it seems fine. I'm not sure who exactly claims that the central dogma/neo-Darwinian synthesis is responsible for the initial conditions for evolution. Evolution doesn't explain the genesis of life on Earth, I don't think anybody claims otherwise. I think the relation with semiotics is unnecessary, it really doesn't matter the way you're using it, you're claim just boils down to "evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis." All the information theory stuff is superfluous to this point. I know information theory gets used by some authorities to make unrelated points w/r/t Intelligent Design, but I don't think it's relevant here.sigaba_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Hello sigaba,
I’ve seen this argument before and I don’t follow it– how is semiotics related to biology in this way? Semiotics starts with the signer and the sign defined axiomatically, you can’t prove one or the other exists within semiotics, they’re prior to semiotics.
The term "semiosis" was coined in the 1860's by the American philosopher and logician Charles Sanders Peirce. In its earliest usage, it was generally thought to occupy a single domain. That domain was human culture - the way in which humans communicate and interact with one another. Humans speak in symbolic languages and write books full of symbols (which we call letters and words). Then in the middle part of the 21st century, researchers began to appreciate that other living organisms had their own semiotic reality. For instance, ants produce pheromones which act as signals for the other ants to perceive and respond to. Honey bees returning to the hive will perform a dance in front of the other bees in order to communicate the direction of their feeding grounds. The sounds and gestures of animals throughout the animal world are all signals, symbols, and representations which have meaning. In 1963, Professor Emeritus Thomas Sebeok (Indiana University) proposed zoosemiosis to encompass the observation of semiosis within the larger animal kingdom. Later, the range of observed semiosis was expanded yet again with the observation of semiotic activity at the cellular level among the plant kingdom. This was designated phytosemiosis by German semiotician Martin Krampen in 1981. In short, semiosis is a defining characteristic of the biosphere itself. Even among the lowly bacteria, a lexicon of molecular symbols are exchanged in order to communicate with one another. The bottom line is that any form of recorded (transcribed) and translated information (including the genetic information stored in nucleotides within the genome) must have a material substrate and produce material effects - as such, it has material consequences which can be observed. So you have to put away the outdated anthropocentric ideas and view the material requirements which are fundamental to the translation of a medium into an physical effect. Doing so will clear up any ambiguities in the terms, and what you’ll find is a singular set of material conditions which present themselves intact in every single instance of translated information regardless of its source. You‘ll also find a set of material conditions which do not appear in the material record until they first appear as the basis of biological organization. They are the sufficient and necessary material conditions for the translation of recorded information, and represent the rise of the genome on earth.
Are you really saying that we have no material evidence of natural selection, propagation of beneficial traits, and mutation?
My comment has nothing to do with natural selection, it precedes it. When Darwinian evolution occurs, it is the recorded information itself which does the evolving, and is then selected for through reproduction and survival. That recorded information cannot exist and be translated without the existence of a semiotic state, and by extension, the unique material conditions required for a semiotic state to occur. Since Darwinian evolution requires those material conditions in order to function, it cannot be the source of those conditions. As stated earlier, to say otherwise is to say that a process which does not yet exist on the pre-biotic earth can cause something to happen. It can’t.Upright BiPed_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Please do not respond with “Darwinian Evolution”. That particular mechanism requires (as a demonstrated fact) a semiotic state consisting of recorded information
I've seen this argument before and I don't follow it-- how is semiotics related to biology in this way? Semiotics starts with the signer and the sign defined axiomatically, you can't prove one or the other exists within semiotics, they're prior to semiotics.
despite the inescapable fact that you have no material evidence that such a mechanism even exists in reality.
Are you really saying that we have no material evidence of natural selection, propagation of beneficial traits, and mutation?sigaba_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Jerad, would you mind answering your own question:
“Do you think ~~natural cause have been~~ design has been convincingly ruled out as a ’cause’ behind the development of life on earth?
From your comments here, it certainly appears that you do. If so, what are the specific details surrounding the unguided mechanism that convinced you? If you don't mind, I hope you'll be specific as possible. **Please do not respond with “Darwinian Evolution”. That particular mechanism requires (as a demonstrated fact) a semiotic state consisting of recorded information in conjuction with a material organization capable of producing specific effects from that recorded information (i.e. in other words, the entire abiogenesis project is an attempt to induce this state into a system without intelligent input). Darwinian evolution obviously cannot be the source of a system that it requires to exist – unless you’d like to propose that a process that does not yet exist (on a prebiotic earth) can cause something to happen. - - - - - - - - - Also…
ID claims that some undefined and unobserved agent implemented design sometime, somewhere, somehow. That’s a scientific theory? Really?
So let us be clear… if science says “we do not yet know the mechanism of life’s origin, but it was obviously an unguided process” then you are comfortable defending your belief in that mechanism - despite the inescapable fact that you have no material evidence that such a mechanism even exists in reality. Isn’t that correct, Jerad? Are you not forced to assume such a mechanism in order to conclude it? And let us continue to be clear… the central reason for your demand to know the designer's hair color and shoe size is because you know very well that it’s an impossible standard of evidence which no one can ever meet - thereby providing you a convenient fallacy to hide behind while you throw rocks and pretend to dance in the light of science and reason. Is that not correct Jerad? Are you willing to allow yourself a forthright answer to this question, or will you say “No No No, I only believe in things that can be demonstrated”. In other words, will you choose the fallacy or the contradiction, Jerad?Upright BiPed_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Either you need to explain via chance and natural law how genes converged in 200 loci in two very disparate mammal linages, or you need to elucidate a cause other than law, chance, or design to explain the phenomena described.
Selection pressure?sigaba_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Do you think natural cause have been convincingly ruled out as ’causes’ behind the development of life on earth? How can you prove that negative?
I can’t – neither could Pasteur. All I can say is we haven’t observed any cases of it, all information systems for which the origin is known result from design, and one could disprove this contention by observably and experimentally demonstrating otherwise. That is as far as any science can go in investigating past events.
“. . . where they should not.” What? You have experience of HUMANS creating complicated information streams. Fine. Were humans around way back . .. when was it again that the designer was supposed to have designed?
But what separates us as ‘human’ in cases of the design of specifically complex structures? Intelligence. If we found hieroglyphics on another planet humans had never been to, we wouldn’t say, “This is impossible, humans have never been here” we would consider that other creatures might share a specific trait with humans – the ability to convey certain levels of information.
How long did it take for microbiologists to find the agent behind germ theory? Was it even accepted before the agent was discovered and specified? The little critters were observed.
It was a process of course. A lot of scientists wed to the idea of abiogenesis ignored Pasteur. But so what? That is how science proceeds.
ID claims that some undefined and unobserved agent implemented design sometime, somewhere, somehow. That’s a scientific theory? Really?
All that is really important is that we know enough about life to eliminate one or more of the other three possibilities and this sort of finding about the appearance of sequences in disparate mammal lines lends itself to the design column, and away from the chance or law column. It’s that simple.
If you want the rest of us to take you seriously then spell out what you are talking about. Be specific. Present some evidence that’s independent of the phenomena that’s under discussion.
Actually the ball is in your court. Either you need to explain via chance and natural law how genes converged in 200 loci in two very disparate mammal linages, or you need to elucidate a cause other than law, chance, or design to explain the phenomena described. I’ll await an explanation superior to the claim that such arrangements occurred as the result of planning and intention.jhudson_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

This is rather lengthy conversation to jump into, but I think some clarification is necessary. ID is predicated on certain assumptions about the origination of structures and systems – namely that all systems and structures have 3 possible causes – law, chance and design. I have yet to see someone describe any other possible causes – which means if we eliminate any of the causes, it narrows the possibilities in such a way so that we can positively assert from a scientific perspective what the cause is. We may not be able to describe the mechanism (at this time) but this filter allows us to arrive at some conclusions.
Do you think natural cause have been convincingly ruled out as 'causes' behind the development of life on earth? How can you prove that negative?
In many ways that is where ID is in regard to cases like this one where sophisticated and specific codes occur in separate lineages where they should not. ID suggests based on what is known about codes and information systems that the only known way to originate such sequences is via the plans of a mind. There are no observed situations where information can be developed identically in disparate systems via either chance or any natural laws that we know of. That leaves design, whether or not we know the specific mechanisms that occur in the process. This is the process of elimination Pasteur employed, not a gaps argument. There is not an observed circumstance documented scientifically where disparate identical codes arise independently, and that is what defenders of evolution, like Jerad, need to provide to prove their case.
". . . where they should not." What? You have experience of HUMANS creating complicated information streams. Fine. Were humans around way back . .. when was it again that the designer was supposed to have designed? How long did it take for microbiologists to find the agent behind germ theory? Was it even accepted before the agent was discovered and specified? The little critters were observed. ID claims that some undefined and unobserved agent implemented design sometime, somewhere, somehow. That's a scientific theory? Really? If you want the rest of us to take you seriously then spell out what you are talking about. Be specific. Present some evidence that's independent of the phenomena that's under discussion.Jerad_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

1- Design is a mechanism- buy a dictionary
And it happens without an agent? Really?
2- A Targeted search is a specific mechanism used to design
Carried out by who? When?
3- “built-in responses to environmental cues” is a specific mechanism of design wrt biology (“Not By Chance” Spetner 1997) 4- Cause and effect relationships- we have observed natural selection but never observed it actually doing something. Differential reproduction just means you have more viable offspring. That doesn’t do anything beyond that.
Uh huh. Cumulative selection affects future generations. It seems pretty clear to me.
5- The evidence for design in biology is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology which is independent from the evidence ofor design in physics and chemistry
You are entitled to your opinion. But you have not found independent proof that an intelligent designer existed at . . what time was it? And what did they do exactly? Why don't you state clearly what you think this undefined designer did so we all know what you're talking about. And then do some work finding the evidence to establish that this designer existed independent of the artefact you're trying to argue was designed. That's a reasonable request. You'd probably say the same thing to someone who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. I hear what you're saying but . . . you've got to do a bit more work to establish your case. At least you could be more clear about what you're claiming. When was design implemented? That would be a good start. Can you at least do that?
And all you have to explain that is “sheer dumb luck”- you don’t have any evidence for your proposed mechanisms producing what we observe. If you had it you would present it.
The evidence is available in 1000s of research papers and books and talks. The fact that you can't be bothered to seek it out is not proof that it doesn't exist. Another argument from ignorance. Have you witnessed quantum tunnelling? Do you believe it happens? Have you witnessed continental drift? What about general relativity? We know you don't grasp the mathematics of infinity because you can't observe it in your daily life. So . . . if you can't see it do you not accept it? What sort of inferential reasoning do you accept?Jerad_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

This is rather lengthy conversation to jump into, but I think some clarification is necessary. ID is predicated on certain assumptions about the origination of structures and systems – namely that all systems and structures have 3 possible causes – law, chance and design. I have yet to see someone describe any other possible causes – which means if we eliminate any of the causes, it narrows the possibilities in such a way so that we can positively assert from a scientific perspective what the cause is. We may not be able to describe the mechanism (at this time) but this filter allows us to arrive at some conclusions. This is not unlike Pasteur’s now famous experiment demonstrating germ theory. He had two possibilities to consider – spontaneous generation or biogenesis. Now it was not necessary that Pasteur ‘disprove’ spontaneous generation, merely demonstrate that in the cases considered it wasn’t occurring – indeed in no case was it known to occur. The emphasis there is on what is known - one could imagine a case where spontaneous generation occurs, as many scientists claim happened with the origin of life. Pasteur didn’t prove that that it could never happen, merely that it wasn’t happening in cases where one could actually experiment on the process. And Pasteur wasn’t at the time able to articulate a detailed description of the mechanisms by which germs propagated (just as Mendel didn’t understand DNA) – but he narrowed the possibilities so that it became obvious that spontaneous generation wasn’t an option. In many ways that is where ID is in regard to cases like this one where sophisticated and specific codes occur in separate lineages where they should not. ID suggests based on what is known about codes and information systems that the only known way to originate such sequences is via the plans of a mind. There are no observed situations where information can be developed identically in disparate systems via either chance or any natural laws that we know of. That leaves design, whether or not we know the specific mechanisms that occur in the process. This is the process of elimination Pasteur employed, not a gaps argument. There is not an observed circumstance documented scientifically where disparate identical codes arise independently, and that is what defenders of evolution, like Jerad, need to provide to prove their case.jhudson_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

I should note that tested, found reliable empirical evidence per signs that design is the causal process for an object or entity etc, is evidence that relevant designers were there at the point in time. Just as accelerants, etc at a fire scene are signs of arson as causal process. We may infer onwards form design to designers as we do from arson to arsonists.
But there is independent evidence that a HUMAN agent was around at the time for your examples. So it's a fair inference. What intelligent agent was around . . . when was it? And what did they do exactly?
But then, per Lewontin’s cat out the bag remark, your likely real problem is that there is a candidate designer whom at all costs you wish to lock out of consideration. That is a very plausible reason why you seem to think a patent fallacy is a strong talking point.
I just want you to provide clear and solid independent evidence that a designer with . . . what abilities was it? . . . was around at . . . what time was it? You can't seem to do that so, I am skeptical.
Similarly, the notion that humans exhaust the set of actual or possible intelligences is not even sophomoric.
Perhaps you'd like to be more specific then regarding what kind of designer you are inferring? With what abilities? Do we have evidence of intelligence other than human intelligence with those abilities? If so, what is that evidence? You are making an extraordinary claim: that there was an intelligent agent who was capable of . . . well, you haven't said actually. Nor have you specified when this agent was around. Or what they did exactly. But you seem to want to grant them significant powers of analysis and manufacturing. But you can't seem to provide any independent evidence that such an agent exists or existed. Nor will you specify what they did or when.Jerad_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

From page 11 of "Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?":
There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution. "Divergent descent" is an evasive way of stating ancient relationships among living beings, but evolution is about the ways and mechanisms whereby species emerged and differentiated, say, from amoeba to elephant, from baterium to man or, as the current fashion has it, from molecules to man.- Giuseppe Sermonti- retired genetist, ret. professor and ret. editor of a peer-revieweed journal
Joe_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Jerad, Your bluffing is duly noted. 1- Design is a mechanism- buy a dictionary 2- A Targeted search is a specific mechanism used to design 3- "built-in responses to environmental cues" is a specific mechanism of design wrt biology ("Not By Chance" Spetner 1997) 4- Cause and effect relationships- we have observed natural selection but never observed it actually doing something. Differential reproduction just means you have more viable offspring. That doesn't do anything beyond that. 5- The evidence for design in biology is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology which is independent from the evidence ofor design in physics and chemistry From "The Privileged Planet":
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
And all you have to explain that is "sheer dumb luck"- you don't have any evidence for your proposed mechanisms producing what we observe. If you had it you would present it.Joe_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

J: You are now, unfortunately, recirculating already cogently answered points. Let's see. There are dozens of peer reviewed papers on the world of life side of ID, and much more on the cosmological side. Despite the best efforts of the evo mat thought police censors and career killers. I should note that tested, found reliable empirical evidence per signs that design is the causal process for an object or entity etc, is evidence that relevant designers were there at the point in time. Just as accelerants, etc at a fire scene are signs of arson as causal process. We may infer onwards form design to designers as we do from arson to arsonists. But then, per Lewontin's cat out the bag remark, your likely real problem is that there is a candidate designer whom at all costs you wish to lock out of consideration. That is a very plausible reason why you seem to think a patent fallacy is a strong talking point. FYI, I can be confident of arson on reliable signs thereof without having the slightest further evidence as to whodunit. And it is entirely legitimate for me to focus, for certain purposes, on identifying and evaluating reliable signs of arson. The same logic obtains for wider cases of signs of design. (And yes, inference to arson on signs is a case in point of inference to design.) Similarly, the notion that humans exhaust the set of actual or possible intelligences is not even sophomoric. I suggest you think again. KF That's before we note that appeal to peer review is appeal to authority, and too often, politically correct orthodoxy. No authority is better than facts, assumptions and logic, which is what is on the table and which you have been ducking and diverting from.kairosfocus_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Nice bluff. The theory needs to be in a peer-reviewed journal- Einstein had his in peer-review.
Rules out ID then eh? There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers elucidating evolutionary theory. You know that. Your feigned ignorance is amusing but wearisome.
Alternative to what? Please be specific.
I guess you don't really 'cause you never manage to answer the question. Your questions to me have mostly been answered. Maybe not all by me but they have been answered. You just choose to not read the answers.
Yes and I have presented it. OTOH your position still has nothing.
You have a guess but no mechanism or location. That's not evidence.
Convergent evolution, duh- and unlike your position it is founded on evidence. Then there is common design- which we have experience with.
We have experience of human intelligence. What else is there? Do you independent evidence?Jerad_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

J, to point out that a massively empirically warranted cause of a phenomenon — FSCO/I — is a superior explanation to one lacking both warrant and analytical plausibility [save to the ideological eye of darwinist faith] is neither an appeal to personal incredulity nor to ignorance. It is a proper inductive inference. But then we have been dealing with people challenged to accept self evident first principles. Be careful of sawing off the branch of inductive logic, science must sit on that branch.
If there's no designer to do the designing then . . . you're wrong. Have you got solid, independent evidence of a there being a designer around . . . when was it? That had the ability to . . . do . . . what was it?Jerad_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Lenski's long-running experiment has no new proteins and no new functionality in over 50,000 generations. And absolutely nothing taht would show macro-evolution is possible.Joe_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
Dr Lynn Margolis’ ideas are a famous historical example of someone having to fight tooth and nail to get their ideas accepted by the field.
And that idea still cannot be scientifically tested. All the idea has is "It looks like those structures could have been bacteria"Joe_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Jerad, Please link to this alleged evolutionary “theory”- or just admit that it doesn’t exist.
Read The Greatest Show On Earth. Or Why Evolution is True. Or Only a Theory. Or any university level evolutionary textbook.
Nice bluff. The theory needs to be in a peer-reviewed journal- Einstein had his in peer-review. Heck I bet you can't even produce a testable hypothesis for unfguided evolution. a) provide clear and independent evidence of natural selection actually doing something
See above answer.
So you can't. That's what I thought. b) present a clear and coherent of evolutionary theory that has explanatory power and is specific about what was evolved, how, and when?
See above answer.
Your bluff means nothing. c) Tell us how many mutations it takes to get a chordate from a population of non-chordates
No one will ever know how many mutations actually occurred. Besides, if one day you walk to the local shop and you take 4,385 steps does that means you took 4,385 steps last week or last month?
Umm there is an exact distance from where one starts to the local shop- it can be measured. OTOH your position has nothing to measure- it ain't science.
Joe is right and thousands and thousands of working biologists are wrong.
LoL! Those biologists don't have any evidence that unguided evolution can actually do something like construct a multi-protein configuration.
Have you got an alternative tha
Alternative to what? Please be specific.
a) explains all the genetic, morphological, bio-geographic diversity and morphological data?
Unguided evolution can't explain any of that.
b) is coherent, specific and explanatory?
Unguided evolution isn't any of that.
c) is not just a negative argument against evolutionary theory?
Only the willfully ignorant think that ID is only a negative argument against unguided evolution.
d) have you found evidence for extra coding in the cell that you choose to believe in without any indication of where it is or what structure carries it?
Yes and I have presented it. OTOH your position still has nothing.
e) try not to fall back on your canards: you’ve got no evidence, ID is not antithetical to common descent, etc. Your arguments are empty without details and you’ve been remarkably sparse with details.
Umm your position is void of details. It is also void of a testable hypothesis. OK so the evidence says that convergent evolution can explain similarities down to the genetic level. That means common descent is not the only explanation for those similarities.
If you have an idea then present it. Make sure it’s specific and founded on evidence.
Convergent evolution, duh- and unlike your position it is founded on evidence. Then there is common design- which we have experience with.Joe_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

PS: J, to point out that a massively empirically warranted cause of a phenomenon -- FSCO/I -- is a superior explanation to one lacking both warrant and analytical plausibility [save to the ideological eye of darwinist faith] is neither an appeal to personal incredulity nor to ignorance. It is a proper inductive inference. But then we have been dealing with people challenged to accept self evident first principles. Be careful of sawing off the branch of inductive logic, science must sit on that branch. Oh, the irony.kairosfocus_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Ducking the bouncers, it seems. Without a viable empirically grounded physicalist theory of OOL, the root of the darwinist tree is missing. No roots, nothing else. The pivotal OOL issue is precisely the need to account for FSCO/I, without the favourite "natural selection" smokescreen -- it has not got any actual creative force, it culls out, the real implied source of required info is chance variation [as in blind luck] -- around to distract attention. There is no bottom for the tub. Next,we DO have a massively empirically warranted cause for FSCO/I, design. The real issue is not lack of evidence, but ideology. Namely a priori materialism. Then, on origin of body plans, dozens of times over, one has to come up with 10 - 100+ mn bits of further FSCO/I, within the solar system's atomic resources. 500 bits is already far too much. Likewise, no credible observational evidence of capacity of blind chance and mechanical necessity. So, where we end up is with an utterly unwarranted ideological a priori imposed on science in order to prop up so-called "free thought" (what an ironic name) hiding in a lab coat. Multiplied by empirically unwarranted gross extrapolations of forces and factors that make minor changes within body plans. Game over. KFkairosfocus_{September 9, 2013
September
09
Sep
9
09
2013
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

I think 15 years will not pass before evolution is declared not only a non theory in biology but a unlikely hypothesis.
Wanna bet?Jerad_{September 8, 2013
September
09
Sep
8
08
2013
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

I don’t think they’d get away with that. Rabbits are mammals, that’s why they’re used in the scenario. It would unseat most of our accounts of animal evolution.
That's one reason it couldn't be swept under the carpet.Jerad_{September 8, 2013
September
09
Sep
8
08
2013
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Absolutely. Certain observed phenomena, such as genetic convergence and orphan genes, cannot be the result of natural (i.e., non-intelligent) processes. There is only one alternative: intelligent design.
Again, you're using an argument from ignorance to try an prove a negative and then jumping to a conclusion. You DO NOT know that natural processes are incapable of doing certain things. You have not proved that it's impossible for natural processes to have done those things. You do not get design EVEN IF you did manage to show natural processes to be inadequate. Meanwhile, the world waits to hear: a) what is THE theory/hypothesis of intelligent design? The one that has explanatory power and addresses some of the particular questions about when (at least) design was implemented. b) Where is the positive, unambiguous evidence that there was an intelligent designer around at the time capable of implementing the designs? You don't get designs without a designer do you? If you have design and therefore a designer then why can't you ask questions about the timing at least? c) Where is the ID research agenda? Why hasn't there been a conference where all the interested scientists have met and agreed on what should be worked on, what the goals are? Doing so would at least show some initiative and belief that there is something to work on and discover. You can pick and poke at evolutionary theory for a long while if you wish. As the gaps in the knowledge get smaller and smaller. But until you do some work and start providing some answers then you're not going to be taken very seriously. If you think the initial life form on earth was designed and created and then no more input was required start working on some obvious questions: What kind of critter/plant could it have been? How many would need to be created to start a viable population? How big would it's genome have been? If you think design was implemented many, many times during the history of the earth then . . . when? At what stages? What are the indications that design has been introduced? Lots and lots of questions. Who is trying to answer those questions? Anyone?Jerad_{September 8, 2013
September
09
Sep
8
08
2013
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

a. Today’s rabbits would simply be labeled as “living fossils” as was the coelacanth.
I don't think they'd get away with that. Rabbits are mammals, that's why they're used in the scenario. It would unseat most of our accounts of animal evolution.
b. The fossil would be assigned a different genus and species even though its phenotype was identical. This was done with insects trapped in amber and with fossil nautiloids and octopi.
Genuses and species are not relevant to natural history as such. It doesn't matter what we call something.
c. The strata would be identified as “reworked” or downwashed.
That would require geological evidence to support the conjecture. This wouldn't exist in a seabed fossil find. Note- you can argue yourself horse about the "conspiracy" of "Darwin's men" but it has no bearing on Intelligent Design, on the merits.
Its unreasonable to expect such like conclusions from segregated evolutionary processes in unrelated biological entities!
Assertions take on unassailable truth value when followed by an exclamation point!sigaba_{September 8, 2013
September
09
Sep
8
08
2013
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

I think all along convergent evolution has been the soft underbelly or evolutionary error! Its unreasonable to expect such like conclusions from segregated evolutionary processes in unrelated biological entities! Its predictable from a concept of a creator , especially observing jis stuff in physics, to see common laws and conclusions for like needs. Don't fix what's not broke! Biology shows complexity but based on a common blueprint. YEC teaches we don't live in the original blueprint because of the fall but its still noticable as a principal. Evolutionists surely would rather have, and point at us, unrelated biological entities have different conclusions to like needs due to unguided mitation evolution. Its not like that anywhere in biology. Put a fork in it ITS over for old chuck! I think 15 years will not pass before evolution is declared not only a non theory in biology but a unlikely hypothesis.Robert Byers_{September 8, 2013
September
09
Sep
8
08
2013
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Have you found the killer counter-example yet? A rabbit in the Cambrian say?
If a rabbit were indeed found in the Cambrian, it would prove nothing. Instead one of three things would happen: a. Today's rabbits would simply be labeled as "living fossils" as was the coelacanth. b. The fossil would be assigned a different genus and species even though its phenotype was identical. This was done with insects trapped in amber and with fossil nautiloids and octopi. c. The strata would be identified as "reworked" or downwashed. Thus such a discovery would pose no problem at all. Other fossils have already been handled in one of these ways.Querius_{September 8, 2013
September
09
Sep
8
08
2013
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply