But didn’t everyone know this about dogs?

Could somebody point me towards the full text (if at all available) or reviews of:

J. R. Koza "Artificial life: Spontaneous emergence of self-replicating and evolutionary self-improving computer programs"

Also, are there any reviews on it or similar models from the point of view of ID or from the standpoint of practicality? Thanks in advance! EugeneS

Ahh, that's the problem- there isn't a ToE. But yes the saying is that populations evolve but NS and fitness still pertain to individuals. Joe

Joe, Fair enough. I am not a biologist. But as far as I know, it is the current understanding within the ToE. EugeneS

EugeneS- Ernst Mayr made it clear in "What Evolution Is", that natural selection and fitness pertain to individuals. Darwin also made that clear in "On the Origin of Species...". Joe

IMHO, the difference between artificial and natural selection is whether it is active or passive. Active control makes all the difference. Active control assumes the ability to measure the output of the controlled system and apply changes to the input signal to get the desired/planned change in the output. All control does is map the current state to the set of desired or target states. Natural selection is a passive and coarse filter with no signal measurement capability beyond a binary yes/no. True, natural selection does take place and information can be generated by a random process. The question is though, how fast in practice is mathematically 'fast'? A second question, what are the assumptions under the contemporary spontaneous life emergence and self-improvement models and whether they are warranted. BTW, an object of evolution, according to contemporary ToE, is a population of individuals sharing a genetic pool, not an individual. So natural selection and fitness refer to a population. EugeneS

Tamara, I have corrected you ad nauseum. And I use "scrutinize" in the standard and accepted way. Obviously you have issues. And it speaks volumes that you have to lie and misrepresent what I post. Not only that you have been totally unable to support your loser diatribe. But anyway Tamara has been totally unable to refute anything I have said and she has been totally unable to support anything that she has said. It has become obvious that she is clueless when it comes to both natural selection and biological fitness. You are pathetic, Tamara. Joe

YOU rudely spew errors and misconceptions

Which you seem incapable of correcting for me

My ideas can handle scrutiny. You just don’t know how to scrutinize.

So now we can add "scrutinize" to this list of standard definitions you use to mean something non standard. To "scrutinize" is to hear and unquestioningly accept the Gospel according to Joe?

How does that reflect poorly on me?

That you need to ask that question speaks volumes. Tamara Knight

centrestream is just upset because its socks- Acartia_Bogart and william spearshake- keep getting booted for insipidity. My bet is more of its socks have also been booted for the same reason. Joe

centrestream has serious issues. Someone lied about me- blatant lies- and all I did was call that person on her lies. How does that reflect poorly on me? Joe

Tamara Knight:

Yet Joe, you once again rudely ignore an opportunity to correct my errors and misconceptions.

LoL! YOU rudely spew errors and misconceptions as if it means something.

If you are so frightened of exposing your ideas to close scrutiny, why do you so persistently shout them from the rooftops in the first place?

LoL! My ideas can handle scrutiny. You just don't know how to scrutinize. Joe

centrestream, I note that Joe is doing his best in trying to be civil towards Darwinists and that you continue to try to provoke Joe towards hostility instead of trying to cultivate civility in return. Why is this? If you were genuinely honest in your search for truth should you not seek reconciliation instead of retribution? As kf would say, 'please try to do better'. bornagain77

If that is your attempt at a genuine assessment then you are more disturbed than I could imagine. The part you quoted does not support your assessment.

Yet Joe, you once again rudely ignore an opportunity to correct my errors and misconceptions. If you are so frightened of exposing your ideas to close scrutiny, why do you so persistently shout them from the rooftops in the first place? Tamara Knight

Joe #353: "I never made that claim. Obviously you are just a liar who got caught being ignorant about fitness and natural selection so you have to lie about your opponent." The jury is now in. Barry is found guilty of lying when he said that Joe had had is last warning. Oh, wait. Barry you sly devil. You get to remain honest by never warning Joe again. To quote the UD moderator, Barry, you are "a pathetic snivelling coward". centrestream

Tamara Knight:

They were not lies Joe, they were my genuine assessment of the meaning of your previous replies to my posts aimed at clarifying your position.

If that is your attempt at a genuine assessment then you are more disturbed than I could imagine. The part you quoted does not support your assessment. Seeing that you have no intention of supporting anything you have claimed with respect to natural selection and fitness, we are obviously done here. And I am sure you will remain willfully ignorant of both terms. Joe

But alas Tamara, empirical evidence has the last word in science. I don't care for what you imagine may be possible, nor for un-cited papers you say may exist to contest the 4 decades of laboratory work that Behe examined. bornagain77

I never made that claim. I never made that claim. Obviously you are just a liar who got caught being ignorant about fitness and natural selection so you have to lie about your opponent.

They were not lies Joe, they were my genuine assessment of the meaning of your previous replies to my posts aimed at clarifying your position Look at post 338 Joe

Me:

So for the record, do you accept that there are beneficial mutations resulting from nothing but copying errors, that can result in what you would call an increase in “specificity”, but what an evolutionary biologist would call increased fitness?

You:

No idea. Do you have any evidence for such a thing? I have never seen any.

Please, add some extra words to correct anything I'm misinterpreting about your position. Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight:

Joe of course gets around this problem by a blanket claim that such beneficial mutations can only ever result from the designers front loading.

I never made that claim.

Joe chooses to avoid such a debate by proclaiming that random beneficial mutations simply do not exist.

I never made that claim. Obviously you are just a liar who got caught being ignorant about fitness and natural selection so you have to lie about your opponent. Joe

Adapa, If you ever demonstrated any knowledge at all, I would be surprised. Joe

@bornagain77 You seem to be backing off now, but it is not a question of degree. It is either "some" or "none", as only one such mutation demonstrates it is possible. I've not read the paper you cited, but it cannot be quite as you claimed. All Behe (or anyone else) can claim is that he is UNAWARE of a case where a bebefical mutation does not occur at the expense of breaking something in the cell, but I'm also sure there must be many papers contesting this. I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, there are many benefical mutations where there is only a detrimental effect on the cells of a homozygous carrier (e.g. Sickle cell). And I see no reason why over time, further mutations cannot reduce the impact of the the gene on a homozygous carrier living in an environment where not having even a single copy of the gene is as risky as having two copies. Joe of course gets around this problem by a blanket claim that such beneficial mutations can only ever result from the designers front loading. Tamara Knight

Actually Tamara Knight, if you are a defending a Darwinian point of you, I am far closer to Joe's position of there being no 'truly' beneficial mutations than I am to yours that there are 'some' beneficial random mutations.,,, When one examines the so called beneficial 'random' mutations in detail, one finds no evidence of truly beneficial, information building, 'random' mutations. But, as Behe has shown in the paper I have referenced, the 'random' mutations always occur at the expense of breaking something in the cell. Moreover, the evidence of 'directed' mutations, (J. Shapiro (mutations which are properly considered non-Darwinian mutations)) adding information, such as in, compensatory mutations or in the immune system, are extremely limited, even designed, in their scope. bornagain77

Joe All you and your ilk ever do is bait and provoke. And that is because you have nothing else Only if you define "bait and provoke" as "provide scientific evidence that refutes Joe's ignorance based claims". Joe can't handle being shown wrong all the time so he responds with the cursing and insults. It's the only defense he knows. Adapa

bornagain77 ...it might interest you to know that the rate of beneficial mutation to deleterious mutation is not nearly enough for Darwinism to be considered plausible:

Welll that's a surprise!. Having skimmed over a few of your previous posts, I would have thought you would have been one of the last people to post in my defence. As you have probably noticed, I've been trying over many posts to tease out Joe's position, which I suspected to be much as he finally couldn't avoid stating (well almost stating) at post 338. As you correctly observe, assessing the ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations is central to any debate about the plausibility of the mechanism. Joe chooses to avoid such a debate by proclaiming that random beneficial mutations simply do not exist. With you on my side who knows, he might shift his position. Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight as to you fallacious belief in beneficial mutations, it might interest you to know that the rate of beneficial mutation to deleterious mutation is not nearly enough for Darwinism to be considered plausible: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Dr. John Sanford Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome 1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 2/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8KbM-xkfVk of supplemental note: The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective - February 2011 Excerpt: "Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/04/26/dna_repair_mechanisms_reveal_a_contradic "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") bornagain77

All you and your ilk ever do is bait and provoke. And that is because you have nothing else. Joe

Ba77: "Just keep your cool Joe and you will be alright" Nobody is baiting and provoking Joe. My one sided discussion is with Barry. centrestream

centrestream stomping madly:

Mommy, mommy, mean Joe keeps exposing us and I want it to stop! wah, wah, wah

LoL! Joe

Joe: "Wow, what a cry-baby you are. Why is it that you are such a little baby, centrestream? Our opponents lie, misrepresent and obfuscate. That is all they can do as they don’t know anything else. Don’t blame me for calling them on their dishonesty." So Barry, are you an honest man or a liar? Your actions will be very telling. centrestream

Thank you- that is why I took a long break yesterday- that and I had to re-build an acoustic guitar for my daughter's music project- I messed up our first attempt over the weekend. Thanks again Joe

Just keep your cool Joe and you will be alright. It is clear that atheists want you banned from UD first and foremost since you consistently expose their arguments as fraudulent.,,, No need to fall for their trying to bait you and get angry at them. (i.e. no need to act as the majority of dogmatic atheists do on other places on the internet) bornagain77

Wow, what a cry-baby you are. Why is it that you are such a little baby, centrestream? Our opponents lie, misrepresent and obfuscate. That is all they can do as they don't know anything else. Don't blame me for calling them on their dishonesty. Joe

I see that when Barry says "last warning", it doesn't apply to Joe. Barry, you are a lawyer, what is the word for that? Is it liar or hypocrite? Or, you could simply be honest and admit that you have two sets of posting rules; a very restrictive one that applies to ID opponents and a second set...well, maybe there is only one set of rules. Only s dishonest person would claim that they enforce their postings rules fairly, regardless of position, when this is obviously not the case. I suspect that you will simply call me a troll and ban me, but we both know that this would just be a coward's move. I look forward to you posting a revised (honest) set of rules. centrestream

So for the record, do you accept that there are benficial mutations resulting from nothing but copying errors, that can result in what you would call an increase in “specificity”, but what an evolutionary biologist would call increased fitness?

No idea. Do you have any evidence for such a thing? I have never seen any. Joe

What weasel words? And why can't you make your point? Joe

Me: So for the record, do you accept that there are benficial mutations resulting from nothing but copying errors,

Joe: It is possible. As I have said a loss of specificity can be beneficial.

And there you go again with the weasle words. So for the record, do you accept that there are benficial mutations resulting from nothing but copying errors, that can result in what you would call an increase in "specificity", but what an evolutionary biologist would call increased fitness? Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight:

I thought the idea was that a designer did the designing, not individual single-celled organisms.

The organisms were intelligently designed to respond to environmental cues.

But that aside, once again you try to hide what you you think in the weasel words of your own definitions.

Once again you are trying to hide behind false accusations.

So for the record, do you accept that there are benficial mutations resulting from nothing but copying errors,

It is possible. As I have said a loss of specificity can be beneficial. Sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, can be beneficial.

or are you using your personnal definition of “beneficial mutation”

I don't have a personal definition of "beneficial mutation". Nothing I have posted suggests that I do. You are doing quite a bit to avoid the actual point. And you have yet to find support for any of your claims. Why is that? Joe

Yes, Tamara, there are beneficial mutations. Intelligent Design evolution depends on them. We say organisms produce their own beneficial mutations

That is a new one on me. I thought the idea was that a designer did the designing, not individual single-celled organisms. But that aside, once again you try to hide what you you think in the weasel words of your own definitions. So for the record, do you accept that there are benficial mutations resulting from nothing but copying errors, or are you using your personnal definition of "beneficial mutation" to restrict their influence to inheritable changes in DNA/RNA decided upon by every organism from the HIV virus to man? Did you choose to give your children the mutations that have made them Nobel prize winning Olympic gold medalists? If not, why not? Tamara Knight

Yes, Tamara, there are beneficial mutations. Intelligent Design evolution depends on them. We say organisms produce their own beneficial mutations. Immune systems are one example of this.

Why does anything I’ve said lead you to the conclusion that I would object to anything in that definition?

You claim that mutations can be separated from natural selection. They cannot.

If you use “natural selection” to mean the process that determines which part of one generation gives birth to the next, then I am happy to concede that “natural selection is an eliminative process”

Natural selection requires the variation/ mutations be accidents, errors or mistakes. And I don't care what you concede as it is a fact that natural selection is an eliminative process. You can choose to accept the fact or try to argue against it.

If you use the definition you posted above it is most definitely not!

Which definition? What is most definitely not? Not what?

Beneficial mutation plus differential reproductive success in additive.

In what way? And what does any of this have to do with my claim that biological fitness pertains to natural and not artificial selection? Joe

And you can’t claim there is no such thing as a benficial mutation

Joe:I never made that claim.

I didn't mean to claim you had. perhaps I should have said "And one can't..." However, since your response is to deny making such a claim rather than confirm what you actually think, can you confirm for the record that you accept there are beneficial mutations?

Natural Selection- - If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.

Why does anything I've said lead you to the conclusion that I would object to anything in that definition? What I am objecting to is you changing you definitions mid argument. If you use "natural selection" to mean the process that determines which part of one generation gives birth to the next, then I am happy to concede that "natural selection is an eliminative process" If you use the definition you posted above it is most definitely not! Beneficial mutation plus differential reproductive success in additive. Tamara Knight

Natural Selection- - If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. Joe

Tamara:

No, you have picked three quotes that you can interpret in such a way that you can claim to adhere to the standard definitions of terms, whilst using those terms when only your own special meaning is relevant to the discussion.

So you say yet cannot support. Gee I wonder why that is?

I can’t see any mainstream biologist contesting Ernst Mayr’s statement that natural selection eliminates the less fit.

That's good because they can't.

Claiming natural selection is just eliminative is fine provided you don’t then stretch its definition to include mutation.

Natural selection includes mutations, Tamara. That is a fact and it is derived from the definition.

Saying that natural selection starts with mutation is just a piece of prose equivalent to saying learning to drive begins with applying for a licence.

No, Tamara. Variation, ie mutation, is part of natural selection. And the definitions I provided all say that. Your ignorance means nothing to me and I have noticed that you have FAILED to support your claim.

Once you cite a statement like that to redefine natural selection to include mutation,

I didn't redefine anything so please shut up.

then the natural selection you are now discussing is no longer constrained to be JUST eliminative, because you are adding variation.

I did NOT add variation. Variation has ALWAYS been part of NS. Again your ignorance means nothing to me.

And you can’t claim there is no such thing as a benficial mutation

I never made that claim. What is wrong with you? So Tamara, are you ever going to support your claim that mutation is not part of NS? Tamara, I provided 3 different sources that state natural selection is a result and that mutation (variation) is part of the equation that produces the result. Your whining will never change that fact. And guess what? I know I can provide more references that support my claim. How can that be if I am so wrong? Why can't you support your claims if you are so right? Joe

I provided 3 different sources that state natural selection is a result and that mutation (variation) is part of the equation that produces the result.

No, you have picked three quotes that you can interpret in such a way that you can claim to adhere to the standard definitions of terms, whilst using those terms when only your own special meaning is relevant to the discussion. Just like a religious fundametalist twisting scripture to find some truth that he already knew anyway. I can't see any mainstream biologist contesting Ernst Mayr's statement that natural selection eliminates the less fit. Claiming natural selection is just eliminative is fine provided you don't then stretch its definition to include mutation. Saying that natural selection starts with mutation is just a piece of prose equivalent to saying learning to drive begins with applying for a licence. Once you cite a statement like that to redefine natural selection to include mutation, then the natural selection you are now discussing is no longer constrained to be JUST eliminative, because you are adding variation. You can't have it both ways. And you can't claim there is no such thing as a benficial mutation and still claim to agree with standard definitions either. Beneficial mutations either exist, or every extant mutation has been present from the day of abiogenesis, unless the Designer has been slipping in intelligent mutations at a frequency so low as to have no detectable statistical significance. And once you concede beneficial mutation, however caused, then the discussion must become about what are the limits of [the process of] natural selection. Because there must then be some product of mutation rate and number of offspring created that will ineveitably lead to an increase in fitness in the next generation. Tamara Knight

The most common definition of random is all outcomes have a uniform probability distribution, i.e. over time all outcomes will occur equally.

Reference please. Joe

BA @ 324 The most common definition of random is all outcomes have a uniform probability distribution, i.e. over time all outcomes will occur equally. This is not the case in roulette where you bet on red or black with an even money payout but the green 0 and 00 slots give the house an extra 5% chance of winning every spin. A book on basic probability theory would help you understand the concept of non-uniform probability distributions. Or to help you understand we can play a simple betting game. We each take turns rolling a standard six-sided die. If it comes up 6 I give you a dollar. If it comes up 1,2,3,4,or 5 you give me a dollar. Since the roll of the die is random the game is fair, right? When scientists say the outcome of natural selection is non-random they mean the probabilities of outcomes for different variations in the population are non-uniform. Not every strong healthy animal mates, not every weak sickly one dies before mating, but on average that is what happens. Adapa

BTW a roulette wheel is chaotic, not stochastic. Joe

And more personal attacks from substance-free Adapa. A roulette wheel is random in that not only is the number unpredictable it is an unplanned and a happenstance occurrence. Random means more than an equal probability distribution. And because the house always has an advantage I am smart enough to avoid Casinos. :razz: Joe

Adapa @ 323: Actually, the casinos love even better rubes who don't understand basic probability theory. Do you really think that the 0 and 00 make the results of a roulette wheel non-random? Wow. Barry Arrington

Joe And a roulette wheel is random No. A roulette wheel is stochastic. Any single roll can't be specifically predicted but because of the non-uniform probability distribution caused by 0 and 00 the house has an unbeatable 5% long term advantage. Casinos love marks like Joe who don't understand basic probability and think all chances are 50-50. Adapa

Tamara, I provided 3 different sources that state natural selection is a result and that mutation (variation) is part of the equation that produces the result. I have also provided Ernst Mayr who says that natural selection eliminates the less fit. He also explains the difference between a selection process and an eliminative process. Joe

Tamara Knight:

So how about you start to use the term natural elimination for your version

It isn't my version. Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis says NS is eliminative. He knows more than you do and what he says about it actually counts.

and reserve the use of the term natural selection for the NS part of RM+NS, like biologists do.

Except educated biologists don't do that.

But the consequence of eliminating in that “meaningless way” is a resulting relative frequency of traits that is non-random, yes?

No. Whatever is good enough doesn't get eliminated. That means it is as non-random as the spray pattern of a sawed-off shotgun shooting bird shot. And a roulette wheel is random. Joe

Natural selection is non-random in a meaningless way- that being not every individual has the same probability of being eliminated.

And Joe, would you expect a Casino to attract punters if its tag line was "Don't worry, our roulette wheel is only non-random in a meaningless way- that being that not every number has the same probability of being the last one not to be eliminated"? Tamara Knight

Natural selection doesn’t select, it eliminates.

So how about you start to use the term natural elimination for your version, and reserve the use of the term natural selection for the NS part of RM+NS, like biologists do.

Natural selection is non-random in a meaningless way- that being not every individual has the same probability of being eliminated.

But the consequence of eliminating in that "meaningless way" is a resulting relative frequency of traits that is non-random, yes? Tamara Knight

Natural selection doesn't select, it eliminates. Joe

LoL! @ Adapa- nothing in that quote demonstrates that I said natural selection doesn't exist. Try again. Site admins, hopefully you are watching this. Joe

No Tamara, the standard definitions make it clear that natural selection is a result and random mutations are part of the processes that produces the result. Random mutation cannot be separated from NS as it is part of the input to NS. Natural selection is non-random in a meaningless way- that being not every individual has the same probability of being eliminated. Perhaps you need to step back and learn what it is you are trying to defend. Joe

Joe It takes a real genius to not understand how many different things it posted as false accusations. Poor Joe, caught in another lie.

Joe January 12, 2014 at 12:58 pm Except natural selection doesn’t select and accumulations of genetic accidents can’t explain consciousness. link

Par for the course. Adapa

Only in your mind, Tamara.

Then make it clear for me Joe. The standard definitions you claim to follow make it unambiuously clear that random mutation and natural selection combine to produce evolution. The former is (unsurprisingly) random. The latter is undirected yes, but most definitely not random in its outcome. My perception of your position is that you choose to insist that random mutation can not be separated from natural selection, and so you can continue to chant your mantra that natural selection is random. Am I wrong? Tamara Knight

It takes a real genius to not understand how many different things it posted as false accusations. Joe

Adapa, I NEVER said there is no natural selection. NEVER. You lied. I also never said there are no unguided mutations. You lied. And unguided evolution has plenty of evidence for causing disease and deformities. So you are a liar. That there isn't any ToE is a fact that you cannot refute. Joe

Joe Site admin- Adapa is lying and that should not be tolerated. Not only that Adapa can’t even find this alleged ToE! ROFL! It takes a real genius to accuse someone of lying and then demonstrate exactly what was said in the same sentence. Real "genius". :) Adapa

Site admin- Adapa is lying and that should not be tolerated. Not only that Adapa can't even find this alleged ToE! Joe

Tamara Knight You are hiding behind semantics and your own personal definitions again Joe That's when he's not posting his usual Monty Python "Argument Clinic" defense... "There is no ToE!!! "There is no NS!!" "There are no unguided mutations!!" "Your side has no evidence!!" Adapa

Only in your mind, Tamara. Joe

You are hiding behind semantics and your own personal definitions again Joe Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight:

I’m not denying that selection operates ON mutation am I.

NS doesn't operate on anything. Joe

Natural selection is blind and mindless. If the mutations are directed then the process is not blind and mindless and that means it isn't natural selection. Joe

Obviously you have a very limited view of natural selection and it isn’t up to me to educate you.

No you don't, but please do. I'm not denying that selection operates ON mutation am I. Why would a biologist need to say that evoloution requires random mutation then natural selection, if "natural selection" on its own covers all the bases? Tamara Knight

The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, Genetic variation occurs by MUTATIONS. “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition Heritable traits vary by MUTATIONS to the genome. “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley Variation refers to MUTATIONS. Joe

Tamara- The variation refers to mutations. And yes, natural selection requires that the mutations be accidents, errors and mistakes, otherwise it isn't NS. Random, as in chance/ happenstance, variation is part of the equation. Obviously you have a very limited view of natural selection and it isn't up to me to educate you. Joe

Joe: I just provided accepted definitions of natural selection....

Indeed you did.

....and they all include mutations.

No they don't. Not one of them mentions mutation.

Natural selection- The process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population- Mayr “What Evolution Is” The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation...

I don't contest the part you attribute to Mayr. It is not clear that the rest is quoted from the same source, but even if it is you are assigning more significance to a word than the author intended. "Selection" operates by selecting from existing variation ONLY, but the limits to what it can achieve are severely constrained without a constant source of new variation

Natural selection requires the mutations to be accidents, errors and mistakes.

No it doesn't. In the wild, natural selection operates on ALL variation, however it is caused. If a GM gene ever becomes established in the wild it will be via intelligent mutation and NATURAL selection. Claiming that natural selection needs to determine the source of a mutation before acting is akin to proposing that this week's lottery balls conspire with each other about which is coming out to avoid breaking the law of averages. Note this does NOT preclude you claiming that traits of the resulting organism are not a product of naturalistic evolution, but exist only because of an historical input from a designer, in this case a GM engineer. Tamara Knight

So Tamara tried to tell us about evolution and ended up getting schooled on the entailments of natural selection. Glad we could help Joe

Tamara, I just provided accepted definitions of natural selection and they all include mutations. Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis said mutations are part of natural selection-

Natural selection- The process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population- Mayr "What Evolution Is" The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance also plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction. Ibid

Natural selection requires the mutations to be accidents, errors and mistakes. Joe

Joe Natural selection includes mutations.

No it doesn't Joe. The clue is in the name. Natural selection simply increases the frequency of some existing mutations at the expense of the frequency of other existing mutations. Darwin did not even know what a mutation was. Evolution as a biologist understands it is natural selection acting on random mutation. Animal husbandry is artificial selection acting on random mutation.

And if the fish adapted themselves to the net size then that is a different story.

Not sure what you mean here. By "if the fish adapted themselves", do you mean "if the fish decided to evolve into smaller fish", then that would certainly be a different story. But I'm only proposing that the fish that already have genes which predispose them to reproduction over growth will become more common in the presence on predation by fishing net. Tamara Knight

Tamara, Natural selection includes mutations. Haven't you been following along? And if the fish adapted themselves to the net size then that is a different story. Joe

Are you prepared to agree now that selective predation by insects, and unintended selective predation (i.e fishing net mesh size) by humans are examples of natural selection?

Joe It all depends on whether or not the mutations were accidents, errors or mistakes.

You're jumping the gun there, we're still on selection! For the sake of this argument, don't add the complication of mutations. We are just talking about changing the ratios of existing genes across populations. The bell curve of "looks like food" moves to the "I don't fancy eating that" end of the spectrum, and the "age and size at sexual maturity" bell curve moves towards the "stay small and do it young" end. Then is it unambiguously natural selection? Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight:

I’m might contest that minor point later, because fitness is meaningless without reproductive success.

Exactly, however the trait or traits do not have to be heritable.

Are you prepared to agree now that selective predation by insects, and unintended selective predation (i.e fishing net mesh size) by humans are examples of natural selection?

It all depends on whether or not the mutations were accidents, errors or mistakes. Joe

Joe Check that- individual fitness does not require the traits to be heritable.

I'm might contest that minor point later, because fitness is meaningless without reproductive success. It traits that improve fitness (however you define it) are not inherited, then the next generation is necessarily less fit. But that said, superficially there seems little in your post to disagree with. I wonder though why you were so reluctant to categorise the examples of selection I posted pages ago. Are you prepared to agree now that selective predation by insects, and unintended selective predation (i.e fishing net mesh size) by humans are examples of natural selection?

Someone else meaning not yourself and an intelligent agency acting consciously to help you.

That seems a perfectly acceptable definition to me. Unless of course your definition of "intelligent agency acting consciously" includes purposeless acts from intelligent agents, or bacteria just deciding it's time to evolve some anti-biotic resistance. Other than that, we seem good on the selection side. Maybe we can move on to the mutation side. Tamara Knight

Silver Asiatic With a few very minor exceptions, the effects of natural selection are not estimated or predicted. It can’t even be predicted which mutations confer an adaptive advantage because so much depends on environmental factors, resources, competitive pressures and even the effect of other mutations in the same organism.

Wow, and ID proponent who almost understands evolution!

They’re written as if nature selects traits that confer greater fitness.

If this is so it is not a deliberate intention, and is rather at odds with the idea of an undirected blind watchmaker. Far more likely down to carry over from the woo-merchants promoting the Gaia hypothesis Tamara Knight

Fixed broken link insular dwarfism. Adapa

Silver Asiatic With a few very minor exceptions, the effects of natural selection are not estimated or predicted. It can’t even be predicted which mutations confer an adaptive advantage because so much depends on environmental factors, resources, competitive pressures and even the effect of other mutations in the same organism. Specific mutations can't be predicted but overall trends certainly can be. One good example is insular dwarfism.

Insular dwarfism, a form of phyletic dwarfism, is the process and condition of the reduction in size of large animals over a number of generations[a] when their population's range is limited to a small environment, primarily islands. This natural process is distinct from the intentional creation of dwarf breeds, called dwarfing. This process has occurred many times throughout evolutionary history, with examples including dinosaurs, like Europasaurus, and modern animals such as elephants and their relatives. This process, and other "island genetics" artifacts, can occur not only on traditional islands, but also in other situations where an ecosystem is isolated from external resources and breeding. This can include caves, desert oases, isolated valleys and isolated mountains ("sky islands"). Insular dwarfism is one aspect of the more general "island rule", which posits that when mainland animals colonize islands, small species tend to evolve larger bodies, and large species tend to evolve smaller bodies.

Casinos can't predict the result of individual roulette rolls but they know for sure in the long run the house will win money. Beyond that, natural selection is not a force that causes anything. Nothing is selected. Animals that survive to reproduce in a population have been naturally selected by definition. Are these layman's weak semantic games all you have to offer? Do you think that will impress professional biologists and geneticists, make them reject evolutionary theory? Adapa

Gravity causes the water to move to a local point of lower potential energy. Is a similar way natural selection causes a population to move to a local point of increased reproductive fitness.

Comparing natural selection to gravity. The first, most obvious difference is that we can predict, with a high degree of accuracy, the effects of gravity. Secondly, gravity is a force or a causation. With a few very minor exceptions, the effects of natural selection are not estimated or predicted. It can't even be predicted which mutations confer an adaptive advantage because so much depends on environmental factors, resources, competitive pressures and even the effect of other mutations in the same organism. Beyond that, natural selection is not a force that causes anything. Nothing is selected. So, natural selection is like gravity? That's one of the games that evolutionists like to play: "Evolution is more certain than gravity", as I've heard it said. Silver Asiatic

Joe:

Darwin used “natural selection” to fool people into thinking nature actually selects and there is power to the process. ... I have encountered evolutionists who think nature actually selects.

I have encountered evolutionists who think that same thing -- and many in the general public think that. I've seen the same think in popular science articles. They're written as if nature selects traits that confer greater fitness. Adapa:

Natural selection is merely the name we give to the differential reproductive success ...

They call it natural selection rather than "differential reproductive success" for a reason. Natural selection is the blind watchmaker. It's the unintelligent designer (which actually doesn't select or design - in fact, it's not an agent that does anything). So, the term "natural selection" is deceptive and powerful enough to fool lots of people. That's why we don't call it "differential reproductive success", which is a more accurate term. Silver Asiatic

Check that- individual fitness does not require the traits to be heritable. Joe

Tamara, That definition is the accepted definition of natural selection. I provided support for that claim:

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin: Variation Inheritance Fecundity which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

Please tell us how what I posted differs from those. So what if Darwin failed to fool people? I bet he fooled many back in his day. And I have encountered evolutionists who think nature actually selects. Fitness is all about traits- heritable traits- that allow the organism to survive and have a chance at reproduction. Someone helping you is not a heritable trait. Someone helping you means you didn't do it and most likely would have been eliminated if left to your own devices. You required someone else's traits to save you. Someone else meaning not yourself and an intelligent agency acting consciously to help you. Now why don't YOU start saying what you think natural selection, artificial selection and fitness mean in your world. Joe

Joe, you say

I accept the standard definitions of fitness and natural selection.

then two posts later:

Natural selection is differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in happenstance) variation.

you give us your own definition! Progress of a kind I quess, at least you put a position on record. Can we have your take on the "standard defintion" of fitness next please?

Darwin used “natural selection” to fool people into thinking nature actually selects and there is power to the process.

If that was his intention, he seems to have failed dismally. He didn't fool evolutionary biologists, and presumably you don't think he fooled you and your ilk, so who are the people he did fool?

And if you can’t figure that out then we cannot have a discussion. It is very clear and my 12 year old understands it.

But I see the whole point of the discussion is to explore and understand the views of others. If you think you have a consistent view of the science of life, why parrot the views of others if you can dazzle me with your insight? Please explain in language a twelve year old could understand precisely what you mean by “help from someone else” in the context of an organism's survival. Must that "someone" be a person? Must the someone have intended to "help"? Or maybe introduce your twelve year old to UD and let him/her explain it. (And see how Dad handles himself on a public forum too). Tamara Knight

Adapa:

Natural selection is merely the name we give to the differential reproductive success empirically observed in wild animal populations.

That is incorrect and even elementary school kids know it is incorrect. Natural selection is differential reproduction due to heritable random (as in happenstance) variation. Darwin used "natural selection" to fool people into thinking nature actually selects and there is power to the process. Joe

Adapa:

How can evolutionary theory have standard definitions of fitness and natural selection when you say evolutionary theory doesn’t exist?

LoL! I never said anything about any evolutionary theory. Definitions of fitness and natural selection can exist without any evolutionary theory. You didn't think that through, did you? Joe

I accept the standard definitions of fitness and natural selection.

No you hide behind your personal definitions.

No, you do not get to tell me what I do and don't do. I accept and use the standard definitions of both fitness and natural selection. There isn't any evidence to the contrary and Tamara cannot make a case for her claims.

As a working definition that’s okay for now provided we agree the nature of “help from someone else”.

And if you can't figure that out then we cannot have a discussion. It is very clear and my 12 year old understands it. Joe

Axel Likewise, ‘natural selection’, in itself, is a nonsense. The act of ‘selecting’ requires a mind and will. Rather, it seems to be a misnomer for an ‘inherited aptitude for survival in a particular environment’. Er, no. Natural selection is merely the name we give to the differential reproductive success empirically observed in wild animal populations. There is no mind or will required. Selection of breeding requiring a human mind and will we call artificial selection. C'mon guys, these are basic concepts most elementary school kids can understand. Adapa

@ Adapa #279 'How can evolutionary theory have standard definitions of fitness and natural selection when you say evolutionary theory doesn’t exist?' Res ipsa loquitur. When Joe said evolutionary theory doesn't exist, he would have meant that it is entirely factitious, a fantasy. However, since it is the atheists' received 'wisdom', in that capacity, i.e. as a widely-shared fantasy of theirs, of course it can and, indeed, would have a standard definition. Likewise, 'natural selection', in itself, is a nonsense. The act of 'selecting' requires a mind and will. Rather, it seems to be a misnomer for an 'inherited aptitude for survival in a particular environment'. Axel

Joe I accept the standard definitions of fitness and natural selection.

No you hide behind your personal definitions. You state:

That fitness refers to that which can survive and reproduce without any help from someone else.

As a working definition that's okay for now provided we agree the nature of "help from someone else". So when I ask:

So Joe, just to clarify, you are stating you think the term fitness only applies until “someone” (i.e. a person) purposefully tries to manipulate nature.

The answer is not "Nope, keep fishing." The response from somebody interested in honest debate and with confidence in his own ideas would be to say exactly which words in that sentence he disagrees with. Tamara Knight

Joe Tamara, I accept the standard definitions of fitness and natural selection. Obviously the problem is with you. How can evolutionary theory have standard definitions of fitness and natural selection when you say evolutionary theory doesn't exist? Didn't think that one through very well did you? :) Adapa

Tamara, I accept the standard definitions of fitness and natural selection. Obviously the problem is with you. Joe

Joe All you are doping is fishing, Tamara. And no, you were not trying to have a meaningful discussion. That much is clear from your posts.

See it your way Joe. I can understand your frustration that 99.9% of the scientifically literate fail to recognise your genius. But trust me, that won't change unless you explain your ideas. Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight

Gravity causes the water to move to a local point of lower potential energy.

The lower the point, the more the water travels to reach it.

Is a similar way natural selection causes a population to move to a local point of increased reproductive fitness.

The [ ...] the [ ... ] natural selection causes [ ...]. Silver Asiatic

All you are doping is fishing, Tamara. And no, you were not trying to have a meaningful discussion. That much is clear from your posts. Joe

Joe Nope, keep fishing.

I wasn't fishing Joe, and I have no intention of starting. I was trying to have a meaningful discussion, but since you are clearly intent on taking all the secrets of your wonderous insights into the natural world with you to your grave, there seems little point continuing. Tamara Knight

At least gravity has an effect. Natural selection has proven to be impotent. Joe

Silver Asiatic Evolution establishes a target (reproductive success) and then “fitter” means “closer to perfection in reaching the target”. Completely wrong. Evolution no more establishes a target of reproductive success than gravity establishes a target of "making water flow downhill". Of course, it makes no sense. Let’s skip the fact that nobody explains WHY organisms have to reach that target. What good is survival or reproduction? There’s nothing good or bad in the evolutionary sense. Life is not better than non-life. Non-living compounds don’t “want” to live. They don’t care about anything. Flowing water don't "want" to flow downhill to a "perfect target". Gravity causes the water to move to a local point of lower potential energy. Is a similar way natural selection causes a population to move to a local point of increased reproductive fitness. Both NS and gravity are natural unguided processes. Adapa

Tamara Knight In the evolutionary sense it most certainly does not, fitter means it is better optimised for its purpose. Mung And yet that’s exactly the same mistake you accuse Joe of making. “Fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”. Tamara Knight Evolution is not about perfection Mung, because there is no perfection to get to. It is about finding (or rather stumbling across) a solution to the problems of self-replication that is more effective than that of your siblings. Period.

I know Mung can answer this but I couldn't help joining in on the fun. Notice the bold phrases. All of these mean the same thing - as Mung pointed out "closer to an idealized perfection". We see the obvious reference to a scale of perfection. Tamara said "better optimized". Of course, there's better and better - until we get to the "best" (perfection). Tamara also said "more effective". We have more and more, until we have the "most" effective (perfection). Evolution establishes a target (reproductive success) and then "fitter" means "closer to perfection in reaching the target". Of course, it makes no sense. Let's skip the fact that nobody explains WHY organisms have to reach that target. What good is survival or reproduction? There's nothing good or bad in the evolutionary sense. Life is not better than non-life. Non-living compounds don't "want" to live. They don't care about anything. Silver Asiatic

Tamara Knight:

So Joe, just to clarify, you are stating you think the term fitness only applies until “someone” (i.e. a person) purposefully tries to manipulate nature.

Nope, keep fishing.

Not only did Adapta did not claim dogs could be bred back to wolves, nobody else did either.

That's good because it can't happen.

He/She was pointing out your erroneous use of the term “higher forms”.

And yet no one can say how it is erroneous.

Wolves degenerate into Dog Breeds, which in the absence of humans could degenerate still further,

Evidence please. I doubt that dog breeds could degenerate further without us.

And you keep throwing things at me to read.

That is because your knowledge base appears to be very thin. Education cures that. Joe

First, your claim that fitness [according to Joe] is about idealized perfection is just ludicrous.

No, I didn't claim anything. That comment in context was part of an unsucessful appeal to Joe for clarification of his meaning of "fitness".

You provide a definition of “fitness.” According to you this is what fitness means “in the evolutionary sense.”

No, I claim that is how an evolutionary biologist defines fitness. How do YOU think an evolutionary biologist defines fitness? Because your next comment below shows that you completely misunderstand an evolutionary biologists take on the world. If you insist on disagreeing that's fine, but then it really simplifies subsequent discussion if you first establish what you are disagreeing with.

And yet that’s exactly the same mistake you accuse Joe of making. “Fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”.

Evolution is not about perfection Mung, because there is no perfection to get to. It is about finding (or rather stumbling across) a solution to the problems of self-replication that is more effective than that of your siblings. Period. Tamara Knight

Tamara, I am laughing because you're making as fool of yourself. You. No one else. Not me. Not Joe. You. I laugh because instead of addressing the claims you make you ask me to address the claims Joe makes. So lets' start with this claim you made:

You [Joe] seem to think “fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”. In the evolutionary sense it most certainly does not, fitter means it is better optimised for its purpose.

First, your claim that fitness [according to Joe] is about idealized perfection is just ludicrous. You provide a definition of "fitness." According to you this is what fitness means "in the evolutionary sense." And yet that's exactly the same mistake you accuse Joe of making. “Fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”. I laugh, because I find irony is humorous. Mung

So Joe, just to clarify, you are stating you think the term fitness only applies until "someone" (i.e. a person) purposefully tries to manipulate nature. Is that right? Because you have worked very hard to avoid saying so in previous posts.

Please provide a reference to support your claim. Then provide the evidence which demonstrates dogs could be bred back into wolves. Thanks.

Not only did Adapta did not claim dogs could be bred back to wolves, nobody else did either. He/She was pointing out your erroneous use of the term "higher forms". You were the only person who brought up the concept of dog breeds degenerating into wolves in response to my post. I asked you to explain the apparent paradox in your position: Wolves degenerate into Dog Breeds, which in the absence of humans could degenerate still further, and yet become something fitter for their new environment. And you keep throwing things at me to read. Give me a quick precis of the key points. A always find trying to condense the essence of somebody else's ideas into my own words is a good way of assessing both the quality of their arguments and my understanding of them. Tamara Knight

Adapa- Please provide a reference to support your claim. Then provide the evidence which demonstrates dogs could be bred back into wolves. Thanks. Joe

Joe Modern dog breeds cannot degenerate into wolves because wolves would be the higher form. Sorry Joe but in biology there are no "higher" or "more evolved" forms. That's a serious Creationist misunderstanding you are toting around. Adapa

That fitness refers to that which can survive and reproduce without any help from someone else.

So even in the context of your own definition, you can’t specify the required “intelligence” and purpose of the provider of this “help”.

Twist away- Intelligence is merely the ability to manipulate nature for a purpose. And if someone aids the weak and otherwise unfit, to reproduce, then they, the weak, are not doing it on their own. As for correcting you if you are wrong, well, I don't have enough time to keep correcting you. You seem hell-bent on proving some point, all the while keeping it a secret.Good luck with that. Oh, read "Not By Chance", "Evolution in 4 Dimensions", "Evolution- A View from the 21st Century" (read this one if you can only read 1) and "The Evolution Revolution". Those have the evidence that organisms have control over genetic change. Modern dog breeds cannot degenerate into wolves because wolves would be the higher form. And anti-biotic resistance is a loss of specificity even if it was guided. Joe

You have a future as an incorrect psychic…

Is there any other kind?

Yes, Tamara, we all know that you have to twist what people actually think.

I can't twist what you think until you tell us what it is I have to twist. Why are you so very reluctant to do this, perhaps because it seems bizarre even to you once you see it written down?

That fitness refers to that which can survive and reproduce without any help from someone else.

So even in the context of your own definition, you can't specify the required "intelligence" and purpose of the provider of this "help"

Otherwise wolves can regress to Jack Russells under artifical selection,

Good luck with that.

Since you only quote the first clause on my comment, I'm missing your point here. Are you now claiming modern dog breeds are not degenerate wolves? Or just avoiding facing the logical consequence of your take on the rest of the sentence, i.e. regress plus regress some more can lead to a fitter organism?

However there is evidence that organisms do have control over what changes and when.

Wow, you have real evidence for something. So let's see it then, but remember not long ago you confidently stated

Anti-biotic resistance is a loss of specificity. It is a regression.

How can you make a statement like that if you know organisms may have the ability to decide they need to evolve? If a staphylococcus aureus can just decide it wants to become penicillin resistant, that tells us a lot about the mimimum required intelligence of a Designer. Or are you now proposing that this would only be micro Intelligent Design, and macro Intelligent Design requires a much more intelligent designer. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression from your previous posts is that you believe there are things about the nature of life that us mere humans will never understand. But somehow understanding how to manipulate it is well within the mental abilities of an amoeba. Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight:

So Joe, having spent all that time trying to separate natural selection from artifical selection, what are you now proposing?

Nothing new.

Supernatural selection and single-celled organisms deciding for themseleves it’s time to evolve into something else?

I never said nor implied anything about the supernatural. However there is evidence that organisms do have control over what changes and when.

Otherwise wolves can regress to Jack Russells under artifical selection,

Good luck with that.

So, after page after page of posts, I think I can summarise your position as “Science could be wrong about anything, and is probably wrong about everything”.

Yes, Tamara, we all know that you have to twist what people actually think.

Can you give examples of scientific discoveries you accept as a mainstream scientist would?

That fitness refers to that which can survive and reproduce without any help from someone else. You have a future as an incorrect psychic... Joe

So Joe, having spent all that time trying to separate natural selection from artifical selection, what are you now proposing? Supernatural selection and single-celled organisms deciding for themseleves it's time to evolve into something else? Are you serious? Otherwise wolves can regress to Jack Russells under artifical selection, and then regress some more by some undefined method, and still end up "fitter" in the evolutionary biology sense. I couldn't make it up! So, after page after page of posts, I think I can summarise your position as "Science could be wrong about anything, and is probably wrong about everything". Can you give examples of scientific discoveries you accept as a mainstream scientist would? I'm begining to think you have a future career as a control in trials of programs attempting to pass the Turing Test. As the first likely candidates begin to emerge, I can see your debating style triggering a lot of false positives. Tamara Knight

We don't know if anti-biotic resistance is natural selection or not. We do not know enough about living organisms to make the claim that all genetic change is a happenstance occurrence. There is plenty of evidence organisms actually direct change to happen.

And the pedigree dogs would regress still further under natural selection and become fit feral dogs right?

That is a possibility. However we wouldn't know if natural selection did it or not.

How does that work Joe?

It works mostly by changing behavior patterns. Joe

Anti-biotic resistance is a loss of specificity. It is a regression.

But it is natural selection nontheless right? And the pedigree dogs would regress still further under natural selection and become fit feral dogs right? How does that work Joe? Tamara Knight

markf- Please support your claim that natural selection could produce the dog breeds and that natural selection produced the different human races. Joe

Tamara Knight has no idea who Ernst Mayr is. And he uses "fittest" in scare quotes for a reason. Dog breeding is loosely classed as animal husbandry? Are you serious? Without us dogs would breed with whatever other dog it can. Jack Russells wouldn't be any different. Natural selection would strip away the breeds and bring all dogs to the feral state. And you have people driving around sleeping- who can't see a hedgehog in the road? Anti-biotic resistance is a loss of specificity. It is a regression. Joe

Joe

Natural selection is eliminative. Artificial selection is actual selection. As Mayr said: From “What Evolution Is” page 117:

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

I have no idea who Mayr is, but I have no quibble with this quoted opinion. I think progress would be quicker if you explained your position rather than quoting someone else's, particularly when it seems to be at odds with your previously stated position. I have no quibble with the other pair of quotes either, as far as they go. I read him as defining artificial selection as selective hyper-elimination towards a targeted outcome. He is even happy to use the term "fittest" with regard to artificial selection which you were not. The only flaw in his argument I see is that it implicitly requires constraint on the number of offspring. If, say, he maintains artificial selection requires the (targeted) elimination of 90% of offspring, then his basic argument completely falls down when applied to creatures producing 10's or even 100's of thousands of eggs over their lifetime to replace themselves. However, as you are now using him as your guru, are you now happy that "fittest" does not have to just apply to natural selection, and that a deliberate selection decision by an "intelligent" agent is required to produce artificial selection. The consequences of selective predation by preying mantis, smaller fish in response to net mesh sizes, preference for run-away rather than curl-up behaviour in reponse to road traffic in hedgehogs, antibiotic resistant bacteria; all are examples of natural selection. Progress indeed!

No Joe there isn’t a definite difference.

Yes, there is. For example natural selection could never produce dog breeds. Natural selection can eliminate dog breeds once we stop helping dogs.

No Joe, that is an example of where something that might loosely be classed as animal husbandry produces a creature dependant on human help for it's survival. It is at an undisputed point on a spectrum, not proof of a definite difference. Some dog breeds could survive without us, espcially in a place like Great Britain where there are no big wild predators. If a virulent infection were to wipe out most of humanity, I could see Jack Russells surviving quite well on the plague of rats exploiting the resulting detritus. But of course the one thing where I suspect I may differ from youy Mr(s) Mayr is in the effect of random muation. I'm sure he/she is going to claim that it cannot, under any circumstance, add anything new. Every feature of every dog breed must come from something present in the ancestoral wolf. Am I right? Tamara Knight

Yes, there is. For example natural selection could never produce dog breeds. Natural selection can eliminate dog breeds once we stop helping dogs.

Rubbish. A breed it just another name for what biologists usually call a race. NS produced human breeds. It may have produced some dog breeds - we don't know that they were all intentionally created by artificial selection. markf

Tamara Knight:

No Joe there isn’t a definite difference.

Yes, there is. For example natural selection could never produce dog breeds. Natural selection can eliminate dog breeds once we stop helping dogs. Natural selection is eliminative. Artificial selection is actual selection. As Mayr said: From "What Evolution Is" page 117:

What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.

Page 118:

Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.

Joe

Joe says:

All I have claimed is that fitness, wrt biology, pertains to natural selection.

I respond:

A meaningless claim unless you can precisely define what you consider natural selection.

Mung replies:

hilarious. simply. hilarious.

You keep saying that Mung. I glad I amuse you, but I ask again, can you explain what is so funny? Or are you like the little kid laughing at the big boys' jokes to be part of the gang, whilst praying nobody will ask him what he is laughing at? Perhaps you could help Joe out with a definition of where natural selection stops and artificial selection starts? Clearly he doesn't know, even though the need to separate them seems to be a major pillar upon which his assertions must stand Tamara Knight

There is a definite difference between animal husbandry and natural selection.

No Joe there isn't a definite difference. There are some clear cases of natural selection, and some clear cases of animal husbandry. But even if that was your metric for separating natural from artificial, (which is not what your previous comments suggest) there are many cases that cannot be so conveniently categorised as one or the other. Not only do you not have a working definition of the boundary between artifical and natural, you are not even prepared to categorise the specific examples I presented you with, because you realise you are on a slippery slope. If you have a definition of intelligence, why not state what it is in the context of determining if an evolutionary path it triggers is natural (as your understanding of how an evolutionary biologist would define it) or artificial? Perhaps because you can see where that inevitably leads in a greyscale world? Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight @ 245:

All I have claimed is that fitness, wrt biology, pertains to natural selection. A meaningless claim unless you can precisely define what you consider natural selection.

hilarious. simply. hilarious. Mung

Tamara:

I’m asking you to clarify exactly what YOU mean by “natural selection”, because it can’t be what an evolutionary biologist means.

And yet it is so most likely you are the problem.

You seem to want a rigid line between “natural” selection (i.e. Chance only) and “artificial” selection (involving “intelligence”).

There is a definite difference between animal husbandry and natural selection. Mayr goes over the difference between selection and elimination.

And you can’t draw that line, especially as you do not have a definition of intelligence.

What? Of course I have a definition of intelligence.

The natural world is not the black and white place you desperately seem to need it to be.

Might as well end with a BS accusation. You are desperate for something. I don't know what that is though. Joe

And evolutionary biologists say that fitness, wrt biology, pertains to natural selection. Go fight with them or prove them wrong, if you can. But you can’t do that, can you Tamara?

But I'm not arguing with evolutionary biologists Joe, I agree with them. I'm asking you to clarify exactly what YOU mean by "natural selection", because it can't be what an evolutionary biologist means. You seem to want a rigid line between "natural" selection (i.e. Chance only) and "artificial" selection (involving "intelligence"). And you can't draw that line, especially as you do not have a definition of intelligence. And you realise you are on a hiding to nothing discussing where that line can be drawn, so you avoid considering it at all costs. The natural world is not the black and white place you desperately seem to need it to be. Tamara Knight

Differential reproduction due to heritable, random (as in accidental) variation-

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

Mayr, "What Evolution Is" page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force

What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population

On the role of chance:

The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.

Joe

Tamara Knight- Natural selection has been defined by evolutionary biologists. Fitness wrt biology has also been defined. I use the standard and accepted definitions. And evolutionary biologists say that fitness, wrt biology, pertains to natural selection. Go fight with them or prove them wrong, if you can. But you can't do that, can you Tamara? Joe

@WJM Better optimised = increase chance of reproductive success. There is no other purpose in an evolutionary model. It's not rocket science. Tamara Knight

All I have claimed is that fitness, wrt biology, pertains to natural selection. A meaningless claim unless you can precisely define what you consider natural selection. And you can't do that can you Joe? Tamara Knight

TK said:

You seem to think “fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”. In the evolutionary sense it most certainly does not, fitter means it is better optimised for its purpose.

Then, she said:

But you seem to be unable or unwilling to explain why you found the comment funny. Why is that? Do you perceive unintended meaning in my comment or is there some fundamental point about the ID positon I am missing?

It's funny because unless there is an idealized gradient towards some "perfection" value of how that purpose is best met, there is no way to consider anything better optimized for the purpose in question. IOW, better optimized according to what? It can only be according to an idea of what the purpose is and how it can best be served. William J Murray

Tamara Knight:

I can, so we now have to agree where the limits of what you call “natural” selection are.

What? So now I have a definition of natural selection that is different from mainstream biology? As for the limits, well those are observed and NS is impotent. But anyway all of this has NOTHING to do with what I have claimed. All I have claimed is that fitness, wrt biology, pertains to natural selection. I have asked you if you agree or disagree but you refuse to answer. What is your problem? Joe

I bring it up because Tamara thought it was worth defending.

And Mung, in the context it was originally made, I still do. But you seem to be unable or unwilling to explain why you found the comment funny. Why is that? Do you perceive unintended meaning in my comment or is there some fundamental point about the ID positon I am missing? Tamara Knight

Tamara Knight:

You seem to think “fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”. In the evolutionary sense it most certainly does not, fitter means it is better optimised for its purpose.

worth another laugh. this one belongs on the all time list. I bring it up because Tamara thought it was worth defending. Mung

Astroman:

Mung, would you say that I designed my post?

I don't know who designed your post. Do you? Are you saying it was not designed? Or are you saying that it was designed but not by you? Astroman:

If so, are you saying that I or some other human being designed the universe, life, evolution, etc.?

Let's say that you admit that you designed your post. Let's even say that I was correct in inferring that your post was intelligently designed. How would it follow that you designed the universe, life, evolution, etc? How do you make the leap from one to the other or even infer that I would make that leap? Astroman:

The ID mechanism in question pertains to the claim by ID proponents that the universe, including life, evolution, etc. was designed by an intelligent being.

But not you. Obviously. Does it follow that you are not intelligent and that you did not design our post? Astroman:

Maybe you’d be willing to explain how your response pertains to my question, and maybe you’d honestly answer my question?

I thought I did honestly answer your question. Why do you think I didn't? Maybe you'd be willing to explain how you can be so dense. Mung

Joe replies @189 I was making the point that evolutionary biology uses fitness wrt natural selection. Run with that

I can, so we now have to agree where the limits of what you call "natural" selection are. But in response to a few examples requiring classification, you throw in smart-arse reponses to avoid having to address the issues being raised.

My question: How intelligent does the agent of selection have to be. Is a spider with a dislike of green food artificially selecting the colour of flies?

Your response: I would think all flies would die if stuck in the web. Does your imaginary spider somehow unstick, untangle and let some go? Cool.

See what I mean? Have your joke Joe, but why not continue "But if we are talking about a preying Mantis, then....."

My question: Does the intelligent agent have to be using its intelligence to select?

Your response: If one is selecting there has to be some intelligence at play.

In British English, use of "one" as an indefinite pronoun is a bit posh, in American English I think much more so. But in both it relates to a person. Is a preying mantis "intelligent" enought to "select" Joe?

My question: If hedgehogs lose the habit of curling into a ball when threatened because they get accidently killed by cars driven by intelligent agents, what sort of selection would that be?

Your response: How do you know they were accidentally killed?

And again! Car drivers go out of their way to target curled-up hedgehogs they have not even consciously noticed?

My question: Or if the average size of a mature Cod decreases because smaller ones are more likely to escape from a trawer’s net: natural or artificial selection?

Your response: Spetnerian selection, after Dr Lee Spetner

I've no idea what that is Joe, but is it Natural or Artifical? When your world view depends so strongly on black and white thinking, you have to be able to tell black from white. And I never thought I would hear anybody say this, but there is much to be learned from reading about fifty shades of grey! Tamara Knight

Mung @212

And the laugh of the day is given to us by Tamara Knight @ 92:

You seem to think “fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”. In the evolutionary sense it most certainly does not, fitter means it is better optimised for its purpose.

Thanks Tamara!

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you find that funny Mung. If it is because you see it as a statement of the obvious then I agree, but it was made in an attempt to get Joe to confirm that it was obvious to him too. Or maybe you see teleology implied where none is required. Its "Purpose" is simply to reproduce itself (and do so better than its siblings and cousins) Tamara Knight

Wolves only look like dogs the way I resemble Miss World - I'm white, old and will be wrinkly before much longer! As wolves have lots of differences from dogs I think they are an example of God using the basic blueprint full of DNA he used for dogs and just tweaked it to make the wolves. He did create both 'domestic' and 'wild' animals remember? I am sure Adam and Eve had nothing to fear from al the herbivorous wild and domestic animals so I think by domestic we have to accept animals that respond readily to herding and enclosing and being used and wild to mean anything that has no direct use to Adam and Eve and is a bit difficult to keep close? r1xlx

astroman- you should focus on unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution's inability to explain wolves and dogs. :razz: Joe

wolf101, your claims about wolves and dogs and their histories are so wrong that it's not even funny. If I had the time and ambition I would take apart your claims one by one but you're obviously not worth the effort. I will say this, though: I know people who study, own, raise, train and/or rehabilitate wolves and/or wolf-dog hybrids. Some of those people study wolves in the wild, some operate wolf and/or wolf-dog hybrid sanctuaries, rehab facilities, and/or nature parks, and some of them have wolves or hybrids living with them in their home, usually with other animals (dogs, cats, birds, etc.) and children. Some of those people also take the wolves or hybrids to schools and other places to teach kids and adults about wolves and hybrids and to let the kids and adults PET and HUG them. The wolves they care for vary in age from newborn to old, and many of the wolves are from the wild (parents were killed, forest fire caused pup abandonment, some wolves are injured, some are too habituated to human settlements, some are causing problems with livestock, etc.) Some wolves are eventually released into or back into the wild. Your fear mongering about wolves is nothing but uneducated paranoia and unwarranted hatred of wolves. Get a real education about wolves (and dogs). Astroman

Unguided evolution can't explain wolves nor dogs. And it's very telling that evos choose to ignore that fact. Joe

wolf101 said: Enkidu I just ignore dna data as it is a load of bs that changes every year, and it’s conclusions are only to match the outset false theory of evolution the research started with. I see. You ignore all the empirical scientific evidence in favor of an irrational, fact-free, emotional argument from personal incredulity. There's nothing more to be said then. You can't reason a man out of a position he wasn't reasoned into. Oh, and you never did say where wolves and dogs came from if they're not related. Enkidu

wolf101:

Enkidu I just ignore dna data as it is a load of bs that changes every year, and it’s conclusions are only to match the outset false theory of evolution the research started with.

:-)

You don’t even bother to look into my suggestion of critical thinking,

:-):-):-) keith s

Astroman:

Maybe you’d be willing to explain how your response pertains to my question, and maybe you’d honestly answer my question?

Since you are now accusing me of being dishonest, I can only conclude that I misunderstood your question. What was your question? Mung

Astroman:

Mung, would you say that I designed my post?

I don't know who you are. Would you say that you designed your post, or do you not know who you are? Mung

Enkidu I just ignore dna data as it is a load of bs that changes every year, and it's conclusions are only to match the outset false theory of evolution the research started with. Anyway it does not say that dogs derive from gray wolves but from a possible 'common ancestor', that the dog derived from an ancient form of european wolf which implies a size of body skull, jaws and teeth impossible to cohabit with paleolithic humans without a dog-attack suit used in dog army training (lol). I would suggest them to try to start to adopt a couple of wild wolves and then try to make something useful out of these mighty predators, within the life span of said adopter, if he survives. You oblige me to obey to your way of reasoning and to explain uncomprehensible scientific data and show you fossile records for this or that while you yourself have none. You have dogs and wolves and that's it. You have no in between wolf-dog fossils nada, like with everything evolutionists try to You did not answer nothing about my remark that never dog breeders select traits to create a race : they race mix to create one, always! This is the most evident false outset of this whole theory that dogbreeding proves evolution as it is the contrary. PLEASE list here which dog race has been bred all by itself just by selecting, name ONE. The german shepperd is a mix of wolf and ancient german shpperd dog. The american akita is a mix of japanese akita and european mastiff. THEN after the mix they selected the outcome. Do you get this difference? This is not trait -selecting at all as in nature. Do I have to spell it? This invalids the whole article, I hope you get it now instead of coming up with new questions in order no to answer on the ones I already have laid out for you. You don't even bother to look into my suggestion of critical thinking, to imagine a 250 pound ancient grey wolf crawling inside your cavern with your cro magnon kids for centuries hoping once he will bark to warn you or help you hunting, which today's wolf lovers are unable to. Wolves escape, destroy, bite and don't obey nothing. To imagine the ancestor of the grey wolf living with cromagnon is a fairy tale just like out of africa, of we lost hair because we made clothes and the endless list of non sense spouted by evonauts. As for you dna data : a mercedes benz and a bmw are not related to each other, they come out of different factory lines, but at the same time they have almost a 99% matching equipment. The creator of this universe would use for animals with a very close inner and outer appearance to perform in slightly different environments the same chemical codes, or wouldn't he? So the fact that dna codes are related or not does not prove to me they are related or came forth one out of the other, just they had the same matrix encoded by a creator. But I'm mostly fed up with scientific articles about dna as they change every year and all start with 'scientists find that blablabla' while in the end it is nothing else than the skull already told us : the siberian dog skull was of a dog. So deal with you do not have a single clue how dogs got here nor when, nor do I by the way . And don't forget, male modern gray wolves are frightening buddies to have in your living room, but even more so for the ancestor of the gray wolf, not the dire wolf of this vid, but close to it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa7kMtn7Fx8 wolf101

wolf101 at 224 said: I have to pay to read your linked article and I hate to debate with links, as it substracts you from rational thinking. It's true many scientific papers are behind paywalls but if you search lots of times you can find the originals on the author's personal or university website. Here is an open source copy of the same paper: Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs Please read the paper and point out for me the parts you think the researchers got wrong and more importantly why they are wrong. Thanks. Enkidu

Wolf101 I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning but it seems like you're making up your facts ad hoc. If dogs aren't related to wolves then where did dogs (and wolves for that matter) come from? How do you justify ignoring the DNA data on the dog/wolf ancestral relationship I just showed you? You also said this Does the fact that you can mate with an eskimo girl and have kids show you evolved from an eskimo? No but it does show the Eskimo girl and I shared a common ancestor in the not too distant (probably less than 100K years) past. We're the same species. the link that smashes wolf into dog evolution as told by the scientists themselves : Sorry but the DNA analysis of that particular 33,000 year old Altai dog shows it had wolf ancestry too. Ancient DNA Analysis Affirms the Canid from Altai as a Primitive Dog From the paper:

"In conclusion, our analyses support the hypothesis that the Altai specimen is more closely related to domestic dogs than to extant wolves, but we stress the point that these analyses were limited to a single, maternally inherited locus and more sequence data would be needed to obtain a statistically well supported phylogeny and unambiguously resolve the genetic relationship of the Altai specimen. However, this preliminary analysis affirms the conclusion that the Altai specimen is likely an ancient dog with a shallow divergence from ancient wolves. These results suggest a more ancient history of the dog outside the Middle East or East Asia, previously suggested as centres of dog origin. Additional discoveries of ancient dog-like remains are essential for further narrowing the time and region of origin for the domestic dog"

In science you don't get to ignore data just because you don't like the implications. Enkidu

wolf101:

I have to pay to read your linked article and I hate to debate with links, as it substracts you from rational thinking.

wolf101, Please, please repeat that to bornagain77. And then repeat it some more. keith s

the link that smashes wolf into dog evolution as told by the scientists themselves : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-dogs-wolves-russia-domestication-animals-science-evolution/ Think of it this way. 40.000 years ago (and I red somewhere else 200.000 to be proven), man had already a perfect dog. Since 40.000BC till now nothing happens, as always with evotales. This means the intelligent selection and breeding from wolves into dogs should have happened WAY before 40.000, yes it should have been done by homo habilis himself almost at the rate of -40.000 years/nothing happens- this highly demanding task of educating hungry wolf cubs in your family with your cuddlers around. Now instead of camping on your interbreeding position, explain us how you see our ancestors would integrate wolves in their homes for no other reason than cuddling. And explain why nothing happened from 40.000 till now among dogs on the scale of evolution, despite 2 ice ages, sabre tigers and giant deer and giant wolves and mammoth disappearing etc, the wheel being invented, but the dog who evolved so fast from wolf to dog while living with homo sapiens remained the same probably 50.000 or more. This lady explains how it is even today very dangerous to raise not wolves but wolf hybrids with high wolf dna content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCFhlckMC4o So if today in our luxury situation with harness, mauling clicks whatever you can not raise a hybrid wolf, how could our ancestors raise in their fight for survival raise wolf cubs? Also remind you that wolves prior to 15.000 BC were GIANT, while cro magnon was only a little average higher, wolves were 1/3 the size bigger or almost. Nice with your kids! So before you debate about whether this or that can derive from genetically think logically about what/why and how 'our' ancestors would raise wolf cubs in the first place. wolf101

I have to pay to read your linked article and I hate to debate with links, as it substracts you from rational thinking. Anyway here is your reply from the evonauts themselves for this same find I talked about first ; the oldest known dog found in the world in Siberia of 36000 years ago >> ""The team compared the Russian dog fossils with the bones of wild wolves, modern wolves, domesticated dogs, and early doglike canids that lived before 26,500 years ago. The results showed that the dog—which probably looked like a modern-day Samoyed—most closely resembled fully domesticated dogs from Greenland in size and shape.""""!!!! Got it? The oldest dog was a dog. Everthing else is speculation. As always ,no missing links. That wolves have dna in common with dogs is not more relevant as we have 50% in common with bananas. You still did not grasp the concept of selection by racemixing which has nothing to do with supposed evolution. The modern breeding of dogs is done by racemixing period. THEY ARE NOT EVEN CAPABLE OF OUTBREEDING THE COMMON BACK PROBLEM OF GERMAN SHEPPERD DUE TO WOLFMIXING UNLESS MIXING THEM BACK WITH BEFORE THE WOLF MIX DOG LINES. In other words the breeders select nothing just mix. As for you to insist that interbreeding proves something. You can also interbreed girafes and camels and lamas, all from very different continents. Now what does that tell you? That there was a smart guy who created our universe with a related matrix for all living beings that's all, not more nor less. Does the fact that you can mate with an eskimo girl and have kids show you evolved from an eskimo? Maybe dogs 'evolved' from wolves, I doubt it, because of the above decribed complexity of house rules. I can not grasp the idea my ancestors tamed wild wolves just by them roaming around the camp. Give it a try, I would say in Yellowstone. wolf101

I found this paper published just last year in Science that seems relevant.

Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs Editor's Summary: The precise details of the domestication and origins of domestic dogs are unclear. Thalmann et al. (p. 871; see the cover) analyzed complete mitochondrial genomes from present-day dogs and wolves, as well as 18 fossil canids dating from 1000 to 36,000 years ago from the Old and New Worlds. The data suggest that an ancient, now extinct, central European population of wolves was directly ancestral to domestic dogs. Furthermore, several ancient dogs may represent failed domestication events

This seems to be pretty conclusive evidence that modern dogs originated from wolves back at the very end of the Pleistocene epoch. Can you find anything wrong with the data or conclusions? Enkidu

wolf101 at 221 "Because archeologists labelled them as dogs, same as dogs today, and not wolves, that’s why" Thanks but I didn't ask what archaeologists do. I asked how you would tell which of the three groups it belonged to. Can you describe the process of fossil species identification? I suggest, and am sure until shown otherwise, that dogs have always existed since there was mankind, and that the varieties of dogs is the interbreeding of 3 or 4 dog races If dogs and wolves are separately created kinds with no shared ancestry why is it that they can successfully breed and produce fertile offspring today? Doesn't that violate the "kinds" boundary? Enkidu

""Huh? Are you implying wolves and dogs can’t breed? We have plenty of wolf-dog mixes alive today.""" what does "huh" mean? ""Just curious. If we found a new 40,000 year old canine fossil how would you tell if it was a wolf, a dog, or a wolf-dog hybrid?"" Because archeologists labelled them as dogs, same as dogs today, and not wolves, that's why. Apparently you don't get the difference between selectioning traits from an existing stock, which only allows for a promoting of the expression bigger, smaller or darker or lihter phenotypes, but will never add any information and selectioning traits of a race mixing, which is what happened with dogs. I suggest, and am sure until shown otherwise, that dogs have always existed since there was mankind, and that the varieties of dogs is the interbreeding of 3 or 4 dog races from asia, africa, europe, which has given us pool of traits to select with, but nothing 'evolved' or was selected to evolve, impossible in your lifetime. Got it? if not reread my post. For those colorblind you see it right in front of you, everyday : africans will always be black even in a trillion years and asians sort of yellow and whites white, if you believe that blacks become white by mingling among each other or vice versa please explain but you will drown in the overwhelming irrational non sense of the current story of supposed skin color and loss of hair on human skin change. It is only through interbreeding that you can develop new standards, which we are currently witnessing btw among humans. Humans have always been 4 races from the start with. This is nothing creationist, the chinese scientist do think so too. I do not wish to diverge this conversation to humans, but it is all the same everywhere, you are discussing evolution on an adopted acceptation of their fairy tailes, be it the adoption of wolfs as dogs, the out of africa theory or whatever. wolf101

Wolf101 at 217 said: "The earliest dogs found now date at 40.000 BC and they are just that dogs, and not some big wolf dog." Just curious. If we found a new 40,000 year old canine fossil how would you tell if it was a wolf, a dog, or a wolf-dog hybrid? "The whole debate is fake from the beginning as no one has found intermediate wolf-dogs anyway." Huh? Are you implying wolves and dogs can't breed? We have plenty of wolf-dog mixes alive today. Enkidu

A: first, take time to understand rather than snip, fit into a rhetorical agenda, snipe. I suggest read here on for a start -- but as you are showing signs of the indoctrinated, hostile, closed mind, can only say that the horse has to choose to drink. KF kairosfocus

Thorton, of course means to dismiss what Lewontin said as of no significance and/or as quote-mined. An examination of the linked more extensive cite and notes then the list of further cites including NAS and NSTA, will show that it is relevant, is not misleadingly snipped out of context, and is not unrepresentative. There is a demonstrable Kulturkampf afoot driven by hostility to and fear of God, multiplied by hostility and even hate of those who believe in him. Dawkins is probably poster boy no 1 on this. That feeds some serious fever swamp distortions across the board, and is setting up a rising tide of abuses of freedom of conscience, thought and expression that should give us serious pause. It is time to wake up and face the reality in front of us. KF kairosfocus

The whole debate is fake from the beginning as no one has found intermediate wolf-dogs anyway. The earliest dogs found ow date at 40.000 BC and they are just that dogs, and not some big wolf dog. With each find the date of the human companion is dating farther in the mist of time. I would ask you to consider why the hell a cro magnon would have the insane idea to have wolf cubs living among his kids for the first place, or being a toll on the daily food supply while not being able to do something useful, barking or herding or hunting. Those who live with wolves today in very comfortable housing know how destructive an older wolf can be and how peculiar and anxious animal this is. Further I would ask any one how he would suggest to make from a Daeschhund a german shepperd. I 'll give you a thousand years and all you have is a couple of thoroughbred daeshhunds. See if you make something else than daeschhunds without interbreeding with other dog races. It will at least no happen in your generation, and I doubt any one is capable of doing such a thing even if he passes the kennel and the plan to further generations. Very small, big dogs, very different dogs have always existed. The breeding has occurred by mixing dogs from different countries and continents. The german shepperd was created by mixing an already old german shepperd type of dog with a wolf, period. No selection of any trait whatsoever in the existing dog, and so it goes for all the other races. Just like Goering made the ancestral Heck rind by mixing all types of bovine races. It was not selecting a trait it was selecting a mix of races. Therefore indeed, dogs are not a proof of evolution but as anything else a guiding hand helping nature. wolf101

timmy:

When Shapiro or Spenter can actually demonstrate intelligent external guidance of mutations

LoL! Do computers require external programming or is it all internal? The mainstream scientific literature supports Shapiro and Spetner. If timmy wasn't so willfully ignorant he would have known that. Joe

Mung, would you say that I designed my post? If so, are you saying that I or some other human being designed the universe, life, evolution, etc.? The ID mechanism in question pertains to the claim by ID proponents that the universe, including life, evolution, etc. was designed by an intelligent being. Maybe you'd be willing to explain how your response pertains to my question, and maybe you'd honestly answer my question? Astroman

Astroman:

My question to all ID proponents again: Do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of the God of the Bible?

I don't think "the God of the Bible" designed your post. Mung

Astroman:

kairosfocus, you, Joe, Andre, Mung, and almost all other ID proponents are guests here too. Barry Arrington may be the only non-guest. Kindly apply your reminder to yourself and all other ID proponents.

Yes, I am guest here. So? I managed to offend you somehow? Just wondering what hat you grabbed my name out of, and why. Mung

And the laugh of the day is given to us by Tamara Knight @ 92:

You seem to think “fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”. In the evolutionary sense it most certainly does not, fitter means it is better optimised for its purpose.

Thanks Tamara! Mung

Definition of a troll, per Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

Thorton: you are a troll. Please leave. PaV

"The ribosome protein assembly entity (which reads a molecular tape, mRNA), could be produced in an advanced molecular nanotech factory." Not yet, at least not without using components purified from living things. By the way, when human engineers want to re-design a ribosome (say to read 4 bases instead of three), know what they do? They randomize the bits, and select for novel functions. Why hasn't ID defined the "design principles" that would let us make single working designs from this "machine?" Encoding multiple unnatural amino acids via evolution of a quadruplet-decoding ribosome http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/cv464/n7287/full/nature08817.html REC

Joke

I stuck my foot in my mouth

Every time you post Joke. Thorton

Joke

Not according to James Shapiro and many others, including Spetner.

When Shapiro or Spenter can actually demonstrate intelligent external guidance of mutations instead of just speculating in popular press books let us know. Meanwhile I'll go with the mainstream scientific literature. Thorton

kairosfocus, pardon but you need some new material, and a big dose of courage and honesty. Kindly do better. Astroman

Natural selection can exist absent a theory, duh. And biological fitness still only pertains to natural selection. I can't help it if you are too dim or too dishonest to admit that. Joe

astroboy:

Joe, studying, describing, and explaining natural selection is also part of Evolutionary Theory.

Darwin's, yes. He is the only one to come close to presenting an evolutionary theory. Obviously you have serious issues as I have already been over that. Joe

timmy:

realizes he stuck his foot in his mouth

I stuck my foot in my mouth because you are trying to change the discussion? Talk about pathetic. Joe

Joe, studying, describing, and explaining natural selection is also part of Evolutionary Theory. Your willful ignorance is tiresome. Astroman

thorton:

It’s an empirically verified fact that genetic variations which happen in reproduction have a random (i.e stochastic) effect on reproductive fitness

Not according to James Shapiro and many others, including Spetner. But that has nothing to do with whether or not something is directing them you limited tool. Joe

astroboy:

You guys sure don’t know anything about dogs and wolves

More than you. There isn't anything you said that I didn't already know.

Joe, studying, describing, and explaining biological fitness is a part of Evolutionary Theory.

How do you know? You have never read it. I say that according to evolutionary biologists it is part of natural selection only. Joe

Joe said: "We were talking about biological fitness. We weren’t discussing any theory." Joe, studying, describing, and explaining biological fitness is a part of Evolutionary Theory. If you were as knowledgeable as you say you are you would know that. Your claim that there's no such thing as Evolutionary Theory is just a childish demonstration of your insecure desperation in trying to protect your ID beliefs from scrutiny. Astroman

Joe said: "Dogs are only successful thanks to us. Without us the wolves would just eat them." phoodoo said: "Try putting a couple of chihuahuas into a forest in Alaska and see how well it does. Or better still, put it anywhere and don’t feed it, let’s see how great their genetics are." You guys sure don't know anything about dogs and wolves, and not all dogs are Chihuahuas. You're also ignorant of the fact that millions of dogs around the world are feral and do not get food or any other help from humans, and many of the feral dogs that do get food from humans only get a little bit and often only by raiding garbage cans and dumps which means that they are also hunting and killing other feral animals or wildlife for food. Many dogs, cats, and other feral animals do just fine in the wild and produce lots of offspring. Many are so abundant and destructive that they are a huge problem for native wildlife and ecosystems. Wolves are mostly declining and are listed, or should be, as endangered, threatened, extirpated, or extinct in most of their original ranges, and for your information many bears, wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc., are killed by vicious dogs that are set upon them by sadistic jerks who call themselves hunters. It's also known that wild wolves sometimes mate with dogs instead of killing them, and dogs are often used by ranchers in many parts of the world to protect their livestock from large and small native predators, and other dogs. You guys have got a lot to learn. Astroman

LEWONTIN!!! :) ...some things never change. Thorton

Rich and Thorton, let's lay out the agenda I speak of not in my words but the previously lined ones by Lewontin:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out [--> notice a raft of begged questions and ideological triumphalism?] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> notice, hint, hint, to believe the supernatural is to be equated with the irrational and superstitious], the demons that exist only in their imaginations [--> demonising], and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Lewontin, NYRB, Jan 1997, if you wish to dismiss this as quote mined, itself a false accusation of dishonesty, kindly take time first to read the fuller cite and notes here]

If you think this is idiosyncratic or isolated, let me add this, on Sci Edu from the Board of the US national Science Teacher's Association:

Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> that begs BIG worldview level questions] supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [[--> question begging and ideological loading of the very definition and methods of science taught to students in school] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> a willful distortion of the design view, which ever since Plato in The Laws Bk X has raised the real issue, nature vs art, phusis vs tekne, i.e. mechanical necessity and linked chance vs intelligently and skillfully directed configuration, assessed on empirically tested, reliable sign] in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]

Much more can be cited, and those plus the ruthless tactics in the penumbra of attack sites, as well as the sort of shennanigans we just saw above in distortion of a reasonable and sincere answer, all speak volumes in substantiation that we have a kulturkampf in progress in our civilisation and it is simply to speak the truth to say that. In the teeth of that radical secularist evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers agenda, what I have first stood for is -- horror of horrors -- logic and rationality. As in, first principles of right reason. Silly notions like once there is a distinct identity of say a bright red ball on a table, A, the world has a partition, W = { A | NOT_A }, which entails certain first principles of right reason, identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, even in the teeth of attempts to dismiss, and to abuse quantum mechanics to do so. Worse, I stood up for that horrible religious sentiment that if A is, we may ask and try to find out why, which leads to that awful superstition that if A begins or is contingent, it is caused. Horror, how dare you impose that on our culture. Worse yet, that we see necessary causal factors and the possibility of necessary beings such as starting with the number 2 etc. Awful, those devilish religious fanatics. Then, to get worse and worse, horror of horrors, I take induction seriously as a pattern of credible as opposed to absolute knowledge, especially that deception known as inference to best current explanation. It is on these horrible doctrines imposed by Torquemada and ilk, that I then looked at the fact of FSCO/I such as the text in this thread or the organisaiton of an ABU Cardinal Fishing reel or a PC or a ribosome and the mRNA tape that controls it with a code. I had the religious effrontery to then hold that we can observe a general pattern of the cause of FSCO/I, that it comes from intelligently directed contingency. Horrible, that must come from the Westminster Catechism or something awful like that, or the frightful book, the Bible. Worse, I actually pulled out ye olde HP calculator (that secret weapon of the Jesuits, yes he went to a Jesuit High School, he must be a Jesuitical subversive . . . ) and worked out the scope of search the solar system could take up, comparing it to the scope of the possibilities for 500 bits, and finding that we are looking at one straw to a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy's central bulge, more or less. Horrible! Secret religious conspiracies! I then actually had the temerity to put it all together and infer that per vera causa -- ooh, Latin, Jesuit conspiracy proved! -- we should explain FSCO/I on its inductively grounded best explanation, intelligently directed contintgency, AKA design. QED! That horrible, frightful Divine Foot in the door!!!!!! Do you not see the bigotry and disrespect for truth and decency in the way you have been talking? For shame! KF kairosfocus

Joke

You are. I was talking about biological fitness and how it pertains to natural selection and not artificial selection- wolves vs dogs. Then you tards came in to help Mark Frank not look so stupid.

Joke realizes he stuck his foot in his mouth, desperately tries to change the subject.

Nope- built-in responses to environmental cues. There isn’t anything random about it.

It's an empirically verified fact that genetic variations which happen in reproduction have a random (i.e stochastic) effect on reproductive fitness Joke. If your Magic Designer exists he is exactly emulating unguided evolution. Your IDiot meaningless catch-phrases won't help you out on this one. Thorton

timmy:

We’re talking about a single population with each animal being unique

You are. I was talking about biological fitness and how it pertains to natural selection and not artificial selection- wolves vs dogs. Then you tards came in to help Mark Frank not look so stupid.

So the “design” has each individual copy introduce random copying variations, some good some bad, and lets natural selection sort out the working ones?

Nope- built-in responses to environmental cues. There isn't anything random about it. Joe

Joke

No, from different populations of designs that perform the same function.

We're talking about a single population with each animal being unique Joke. The competition is between individuals of the same "design", not other populations of different designs.

LoL! That is the beauty of the design- the ability to change on its own.

So the "design" has each individual copy introduce random copying variations, some good some bad, and lets natural selection sort out the working ones? Gee, that sounds exactly like unguided evolution. Joke machine guns his poor feet yet again. Thorton

thorton:

Not between supposedly identical copies of a design from the same manufacturer they aren’t.

No, from different populations of designs that perform the same function.

Another side question is why the Designer who created the entire universe and the “Privileged Planet” just for humans was so incompetent he can’t get his creations to replicate without every copy having unique variations, sometimes significant ones.

LoL! That is the beauty of the design- the ability to change on its own. You are such a limited dolt, timmy. Joe

Joke

Capitalism is the epitome of competition. Consumers are the selectors

Not between supposedly identical copies of a design from the same manufacturer they aren't. Unless you want to claim each individual animal in a species has its own separate Designer. Another side question is why the Designer who created the entire universe and the "Privileged Planet" just for humans was so incompetent he can't get his creations to replicate without every copy having unique variations, sometimes significant ones. But we all know ID doesn't answer questions. Thorton

thorton:

Why would the concept of reproductive fitness and natural selection be applicable to a design scenario?

They both exist. What does your question have to do with what I was discussing?

Designers I know make a design single item them manufacture thousands of identical copies all to work in the identical way.

Your experience is limited. That isn't a refutation nor an argument.

There is no competition between individual units, no selection.

Capitalism is the epitome of competition. Consumers are the selectors

In the real world we see a population of animals, each individual with slight differences, who compete with each other for resources. The slight differences that give some an advantage let them reproduce and get passed on to the next generation.

Yes, I know. However cooperation seems to be more of the rule in nature and advantage can be gained in any number of ways, as I have said above.

The only time human designers use such a scenario is in evolutionary algorithms where that are merely emulating observed natural evolutionary processes.

That is incorrect and displays willful ignorance on your part. Evolutionary algorithms model intelligent design evolution as they are targeted search heuristics actively searching for a solution. In contrast there are natural evolutionary processes which are not search heuristics and cannot be simulated by one. Duh Joe

Joke

The concepts of biological fitness, natural selection and artificial selection exist regardless of the missing and alleged theory of evolution.

Why would the concept of reproductive fitness and natural selection be applicable to a design scenario? Designers I know make a design single item them manufacture thousands of identical copies all to work in the identical way. There is no competition between individual units, no selection. In the real world we see a population of animals, each individual with slight differences, who compete with each other for resources. The slight differences that give some an advantage let them reproduce and get passed on to the next generation. The only time human designers use such a scenario is in evolutionary algorithms where that are merely emulating observed natural evolutionary processes. Looks like Joke has shot himself in the foot yet again. Thorton

Tamara, It is not up to me to define these terms. I use the standard and well accepted definitions. "Limits of natural selection"? What?

Actually, you are making the point that YOU only use biological fitness in the context of natural selection, but let’s run with that.

I was making the point that evolutionary biology uses fitness wrt natural selection. Run with that

How intelligent does the agent of selection have to be. Is a spider with a dislike of green food artificially selecting the colour of flies?

I would think all flies would die if stuck in the web. Does your imaginary spider somehow unstick, untangle and let some go? Cool.

Does the intelligent agent have to be using its intelligence to select?

If one is selecting there has to be some intelligence at play.

If hedgehogs lose the habit of curling into a ball when threatened because they get accidently killed by cars driven by intelligent agents, what sort of selection would that be?

How do you know they were accidentally killed?

Or if the average size of a mature Cod decreases because smaller ones are more likely to escape from a trawer’s net: natural or artificial selection?

Spetnerian selection, after Dr Lee Spetner Joe

Who was defining? I was making a point which is biological fitness is only used in the context of natural selection.

Actually, you are making the point that YOU only use biological fitness in the context of natural selection, but let's run with that. Defining things means we have to think about them, and thus any inconsitancies reveal themselves. How are you defing the limits of "natural selection"? How intelligent does the agent of selection have to be. Is a spider with a dislike of green food artificially selecting the colour of flies? Does the intelligent agent have to be using its intelligence to select? If hedgehogs lose the habit of curling into a ball when threatened because they get accidently killed by cars driven by intelligent agents, what sort of selection would that be? Or if the average size of a mature Cod decreases because smaller ones are more likely to escape from a trawer's net: natural or artificial selection? Tamara Knight

The concepts of biological fitness, natural selection and artificial selection exist regardless of the missing and alleged theory of evolution. But it's funny that people think they can write about the theory of evolution without actually knowing what it says. And they don't know what it says because they have never read it. Unless of course we use Darwin's attempt Joe

LoL! We were talking about biological fitness. We weren't discussing any theory. Biology textbooks exist regardless of the missing theory of evolution. We don't need that missing "work" at all. Unguided evolution is a useless heuristic. Well it helps in understanding disease and deformities. And evolution happens regardless of the missing theory. Trick or Treat Joe

Joe, how can Tamara's questions be answered in a variety of biology textbooks as well as books written by evolutionary biologists if there's no such thing as Evolutionary Theory? Astroman

astroman:

Joe, then you’re claiming there is no CSI in Stonehenge and that only DNA has CSI?

You are very disturbed if you came to that inference from what I posted. It means there are better and more efficient design detection methods THAT I PREFER TO USE when given the object (and perhaps all relevant evidence). OTOH DNA is readily translated into bits. Joe

Joe, then you're claiming there is no CSI in Stonehenge and that only DNA has CSI? Astroman

I'm not the one who wears an astroboy costume every day, even though today is the only appropriate day. :razz: Joe

Nice projection astroboy. I'm insecure because evos are cowardly liars? How does that work? I'm disturbed because evos are cowardly liars? How does that work? Joe

Tamara, Joe is obviously a very insecure and disturbed person. Your patience is admirable, but Joe is not willing to have a serious, honest discussion. Of course you can keep trying if you want. Good luck. Astroman

Tamara Knight:

“biological fitness refers to natural selection” defines nothing.

Who was defining? I was making a point which is biological fitness is only used in the context of natural selection. As for your other questions they are answered in a variety of biology textbooks as well as books written by evolutionary biologists. You aren't in any position to question me so don't even go there. Joe

Astroman, Obviously you don't have a clue. CSI is ONE design detection tool and one I would not use except where applicable. With DNA CSI is applicable. With Stonehenge I wouldn't use it Joe

Joe, you now say that you wouldn't use CSI for determining if an object is designed but haven't you claimed for a long time that using (calculating) CSI is necessary for determining design? If you wouldn't use CSI, what would you use to determine design? Astroman

I ask: Your position is that “fitter” is equivalent to “more likely to achieve reproductive success in the face of natural selection”.

Joe replies: That doesn’t even make sense to me. Why can’t you just read what I post? Why do you have to twist it?

How is that twisting Joe? I'm just trying to find a definition we can agree on so we can discuss the areas where we differ. "biological fitness refers to natural selection" defines nothing. How does fitness intereact with natural selection, and does it have meaning in the face of any other kind of selection? Tamara Knight

Also I was NOT calculating the CSI of a cake. The calculations are to see if X has CSI. Joe

My question to all ID proponents again: Do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of the God of the Bible? Astroman

5+ years later and Rich is still lost in the fog. Trick or Treat Joe

Rich is so clueless. Those posts were because the evos were pestering me about calculating the CSI of an object- not the proper question and I have told them that too. I told them I wouldn't use CSI for determining if an object is designed. But after years of being buttheads I gave them that. And they choked on it. Rich is so upset he is still bothered by it. And he still can't get it right. Trick or Treat Joe

Joe : "One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it. Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains. I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it. And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information? Again just count the bits in the instructions. For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. Have you ever had to assemble something? The object you assembled would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the assembly instructions." Rich

So let me explain-

The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.- Artifact

It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.

One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control) A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art. What does this have to do with oleg? Oleg said:

First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe.

Seems like a real stupid assumption now doesn’t it. And it certainly ain’t what I assumed at all.< Joe

Now what do we do when all we have is an object? One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it. Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains. I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it. And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information? Again just count the bits in the instructions. For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe. At a minimum. Joe

All the context you need, the full exchange: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009/03/measuring-information-specified.html Rich

Joe: "Now what do we do when all we have is an object? One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it. Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains. " Rich

Nice quote-mining, rich. The CONTEXT is all important and the CONTEXT is what rich is too cowardly to present. Joe

Joe: "For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe." Rich

Astroman- go find the alleged theory of evolution and bring it back. Then find an evolutionary biologist who disagrees with what I said about genetic accidents. Do that and I will consider your questions. And if you don't I will take that as an admission that I am right and you evos are liars Joe

Blog admins, thorton is a liar and he has been lying since he came back here. I never said that I can calculate the CSI of a cake by merely counting the letters in the recipe. thorton has to lie because he a pathetic little imp. Joe

Tamara- biological fitness refers to natural selection. Tamara Knight:

I think that’s progress.

You didn't know that before? Mark Frank doesn't.

Your position is that “fitter” is equivalent to “more likely to achieve reproductive success in the face of natural selection”.

That doesn't even make sense to me. Why can't you just read what I post? Why do you have to twist it? Joe

Rich

We can’t all create CSI of Caek, Choo Choo math Joe. I’m happy looking at Benford’s law and Compressive Sensing.

C'mon Rich, Joke already told us he can calculate the CSI in a caek by counting the letters in the recipe. What he never explained is why the CSI changes if the recipe is translated to a different language. :) Thorton

Joe, I have read the Bible. I didn't ask you what ID requires or what my opinion of the Bible is. Here are my questions to you again: Joe, then do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of a God or Gods other than the Biblical God? If so, which God or Gods? What is it about the God of the Bible that makes you say “...but personally I hope not- or I hope that the God of the Bible is depicted incorrectly.”? Astroman

Silver Asiatic

Yes, I asked how you would compare evidence of inteligent design to that of non-design. For example, how DNA code compares with human generated code. What are the characteristics that indicate design or non-design in each?

In that specific case it's because human produced codes use arbitrarily chosen symbols as abstract representations of other values. There are no such arbitrary symbols or abstractions in DNA. You meed to look at the differences, not the superficial similarities.

As above, in some cases we conclude design without knowing the identity or capability of the designer (Shroud of Turin). So, without knowing those, how do you scientifically measure and determine the characteristics of design?

I already told you. Science hypothesizes the capabilities and limitations of a designer, then tests against them. For the Shroud of Turin it was assumed the shroud was created by humans since we know humans can create shrouds with images on them. Further testing showed this hypothesis was correct. Thorton

Tamara- biological fitness refers to natural selection.

I think that's progress. Your position is that "fitter" is equivalent to "more likely to achieve reproductive success in the face of natural selection". Is that a fair summary? Tamara Knight

Silver Asiatic

I didn’t see much of the science there.

(facepalm) It was just a page giving the definition. Sheez... Thorton

True Rich, but YOU can choke on all of that. You're happy being a cheerleader and a cupcake. Joe

We can't all create CSI of Caek, Choo Choo math Joe. I'm happy looking at Benford's law and Compressive Sensing. Rich

Thorton

Take the case of geofacts.

From the linked article

A geofact (a portmanteau of "geology" and "artifact") is a naturally formed stone formation that is difficult to distinguish from a man-made artifact. Geofacts could be fluvially reworked and be misinterpreted as an artifact.[1] Possible examples include several purported prominent ancient artifacts, such as the Venus of Berekhat Ram and the Venus of Tan-Tan. These are thought by many in the archaeological community to be geofacts. Two sites which show an abundance of what are likely geofacts are Calico Early Man Site and the Gulf of Cambay.

I didn't see much of the science there.

In real science the process involves collecting evidence besides the actual object in question.

Detecting evidence for intelligent design in nature is real science - agreed.

Investigators compare the object to other known designed similar ones.

Yes, I asked how you would compare evidence of inteligent design to that of non-design. For example, how DNA code compares with human generated code. What are the characteristics that indicate design or non-design in each?

They try to identify the source of raw materials. They look for tools or implements used by the hypothesized designer in manufacturing. Most importantly they try to identify the capabilities and identity of the designer.

As above, in some cases we conclude design without knowing the identity or capability of the designer (Shroud of Turin). So, without knowing those, how do you scientifically measure and determine the characteristics of design? Silver Asiatic

Tamara, Who told you that 99% of life science professionals except the ToE? phoodoo

Tamara:

You seem to think “fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”.

What part of your body did you pull that from, Tamara? You definitely didn't get that from my posts. Joe

richie pom-poms, always the cheerleader and never a contributor. It's definitely Halloween- richie is wearing his cute little cheering outfit Joe

Over 99% of all life science professionals including many devout Christians accept ToE.

Nonsense. They can't even find it!

How much have you studied evolutionary theory at the college or professional level?

More than you, obviously. Joe

Tamara Knight:

How does your notion of “fitness” differ from mine?

I don't know. "My" notion comes from Darwin, Mayr and other evolutionary biologists. It refers to natural selection, which eliminates the less fit.

Is a blind cave fish trapped in an isolated underground lake necessarily less fit than its otherwise identical twin brother?

Not necessarily. Back to the point, Tamara- biological fitness refers to natural selection. Do you agree with that? Joe

In real science the process involves collecting evidence besides the actual object in question.

Intelligent Design does that

Investigators compare the object to other known designed similar ones.

Intelligent Design does that, too.

They try to identify the source of raw materials.

Exactly.

They look for tools or implements used by the hypothesized designer in manufacturing.

Not always successful so not a requirement

Most importantly they try to identify the capabilities and identity of the designer.

Definitely not always successful and definitely not required to first determine intelligent design exists. Joe

Not in a place that doesn’t have any light

Clearly the one thing you have learnt in all that time is how to sidestep awkward questions. How does your notion of “fitness” differ from mine? Is a blind cave fish necessarily less fit than its sighted ancestor?

Joe, let me change my last post to reduce wriggle room How does your notion of “fitness” differ from mine? Is a blind cave fish trapped in an isolated underground lake necessarily less fit than its otherwise identical twin brother? Tamara Knight

Silver Asiatic

Teaching degrees are given by colleges who employ college professors.

Teaching degrees don't require scientific courses. Science degrees require scientific courses.

As above, even with professional scientific training they’re not convinced by evolutionary claims.

Over 99% of all life science professionals including many devout Christians accept ToE. The handful that don't reject it due to their personal religious beliefs, not from any scientific evidence.

I’ll say the same for myself — I don’t find it convincing at all. Far from it.

How much have you studied evolutionary theory at the college or professional level? You told me before it was none. How can you judge the science when you don't even know what it says? Thorton

"Is a nod as good as a wink to a blind man?" Another sidestep. You need to apologize, Joe. Rich

Astroman:

Joe, then do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of a God or Gods other than the Biblical God? If so, which God or Gods?

Why a God or Gods? ID doesn't require that.

What is it about the God of the Bible that makes you say “…but personally I hope not- or I hope that the God of the Bible is depicted incorrectly.”?

Read the Bible. Joe

Tamara Knight:

Clearly the one thing you have learnt in all that time is how to sidestep awkward questions.

No idea what you are referring to. You falsely accused me of something so please apologize.

How does your notion of “fitness” differ from mine?

I don't know. You have somehow bastardized my comments so I don't know what you think my notion of fitness is. And how is this relevant to what Mark and I were discussing? Fitness refers to natural selection. If you think otherwise make your case. Darwin, Mayr, et al., have made mine.

Is a blind cave fish necessarily less fit than its sighted ancestor?

Is a nod as good as a wink to a blind man? Joe

Silver Asiatic

1. How did you scientifically distinguish design from non-design?

Take the case of geofacts. In real science the process involves collecting evidence besides the actual object in question. Investigators compare the object to other known designed similar ones. They try to identify the source of raw materials. They look for tools or implements used by the hypothesized designer in manufacturing. Most importantly they try to identify the capabilities and identity of the designer. The line about "ID only cares about the designed object" is so much worthless horsecrap. Thorton

"If I have to, I will. And I will get the ACLU to help me. :razz:" - Good luck with that.Make sure you post all the details. Rich

rich- the topic of the lawsuit will be over Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. And I will watch as the NCSE craps themselves. Joe

Not in a place that doesn’t have any light

Clearly the one thing you have learnt in all that time is how to sidestep awkward questions. How does your notion of "fitness" differ from mine? Is a blind cave fish necessarily less fit than its sighted ancestor? Tamara Knight

Joe, then do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of a God or Gods other than the Biblical God? If so, which God or Gods? What is it about the God of the Bible that makes you say "...but personally I hope not- or I hope that the God of the Bible is depicted incorrectly."? And before you ask, I don't believe in any Gods but I suppose that I could be convinced otherwise with solid evidence. I guess I could be described as an agnostic atheist but that's a label that can have multiple definitions. Astroman

rich:

Joe, you should start a lawsuit.

If I have to, I will. And I will get the ACLU to help me. :razz: Joe

Silver Asiatic- I would love to ask this alleged scientific community where the theory of evolution is (so people can read it), what is the positive evidence for it and what was the methodologies used. Right now their methodology is "life exists, we know (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, nod) that there ain't no designer, and because of that, materialistic naturalism wins." Joe

Joe, you should start a lawsuit. Get the Thomas More Law Center to represent you and have a bunch of ID experts ready to testify, just for them to run off at the last minute. Rich

Joe

Also this alleged scientific community can’t support the claims of its position. So why would anyone listen to them?

I think that's a problem for the scientific community when they have to claim that science teachers themselves are a threat to science. But since they can't support their grand claims about the power of evolution, even people who teach science are not convinced by them. Silver Asiatic

Thorton

In the U.S. most if not all public school districts don’t require their science teachers to have an actual science degree. Teaching degrees yes, formal scientific training no.

Teaching degrees are given by colleges who employ college professors. So, the colleges are producing teachers who are a threat to science. It looks like the college professors who are doing the credentialing are the problem.

even some teachers with scientific training are still faithful to their YEC beliefs and will deliberately avoid the prescribed curricula and push their YEC nonsense.

As above, even with professional scientific training they're not convinced by evolutionary claims. Evolutionary science, at least in those cases, was not persuasive enough. I'll say the same for myself -- I don't find it convincing at all. Far from it. Silver Asiatic

If my daughter is taught evolutionism in school I will ask the teachers to reference the theory of evolution. And when they cannot I will ask them to not teach it. Joe

If the prescribed curricula includes the bogus evolutionism then teachers should avoid it. Also this alleged scientific community can't support the claims of its position. So why would anyone listen to them? Joe

kairosfocus: "Thorton, I beg to remind you and others on tone and language, based on what just caught my eye, now in at least a second thread within 24 hours. This is not a bar-room, or a Youtube comment box. Freedom to express a view does not involve freedom to be vulgar or do the equivalent of allowing your dog to drag garbage unto your neighbour’s lawn. You sir, are the equivalent of a guest on someone else’s property and nickel; kindly act like it." kairosfocus, you, Joe, Andre, Mung, and almost all other ID proponents are guests here too. Barry Arrington may be the only non-guest. Kindly apply your reminder to yourself and all other ID proponents. Astroman

Silver Asiatic

Science teachers are not part of the scientific community? That sounds strange to me.

Science teachers at the elementary and high school levels are not. The scientific community consists of those who actively engage in science as their full time occupation, not teach basics to children an hour a week.

I believe science teachers are trained and credentialed by scientifically-trained college professors..

That is incorrect. In the U.S. most if not all public school districts don't require their science teachers to have an actual science degree. Teaching degrees yes, formal scientific training no. Some do but most don't.

So, we have science teachers who are a threat to the scientific community — and yet were actually produced by the very same scientific community who disowns them once they become credentialed as teachers?

False as I have explained above.The real problem is that even some teachers with scientific training are still faithful to their YEC beliefs and will deliberately avoid the prescribed curricula and push their YEC nonsense. There have been a number of court cases over this too. Thorton

Then they came for me—

And now they are gone with a whimper. Joe

They will always have the opportunity to show that evolutionism is strictly a scientific endeavor and not a religious and political agenda but I doubt that they will ever succeed in that. But hey, they can't even find that elusive theory of evolution. Joe

But ID isn’t about religion or politics, no siree.

I'd expect you to argue against ID's religion and politics then. But I haven't seen much at all about that. Silver Asiatic

KF, Here : "A: Kindly, pause to read what I just commented to you concerning motive mongering, before going further. Pardon, your agenda is showing. KF" KF, Other thread: "That said, there is a great cultural battle underway, and key institutions such as science and science education are being taken hostage to longstanding agendas like this: ....." SNIP "...Eventually, the ideological subversion of science, education and much more will fail, but Burke has aptly reminded us all that all that is required for evil to triumph is for the fundamentally decent to stand by and do nothing. Here, is the warning Martin Niemoller left us all, in a blood-bought lesson of history that sixty million ghosts beg to remind us of: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me KF" Rich

Thorton #98

SA: Is there evidence of intelligent design in nature? TH: Sure. Humans are part of nature and design things all the time. Birds’ nests, spider webs, beaver dams all require some intelligence and planning. There just isn’t any evidence that life itself was intelligently designed.

Ok, you agree that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. There are many questions that are important at this point, but we can start with just a few ... 1. How did you scientifically distinguish design from non-design? 2. What scientific measurements did you use to determine that some things were designed by intelligence? 3. Design requires planning (for the future). What is the evolutionary origin for future-state planning? 4. What are the key characteristics of designed things and why do you think those characteristics are not found in the origin of life? 5. In what way are animal and human designs comparable to things that appear to be designed in nature? Silver Asiatic

"There just isn’t any evidence that life itself was intelligently designed." - Thorton and yet,,, Biology meets geometry: Describing geometry of common cellular structure - Oct. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Architecture imitates life, at least when it comes to those spiral ramps in multistory parking garages. Stacked and connecting parallel levels, the ramps are replications of helical structures found in a ubiquitous membrane structure in the cells of the body. Dubbed Terasaki ramps after their discoverer, they reside in an organelle called the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), a network of membranes found throughout the cell and connected to and surrounding the cell nucleus.,,, ER consists of a number of more or less regular stacks of evenly spaced connected sheets, a structure that reflects its function as the shop floor of protein synthesis within a cell.,,, Last year,, it was discovered that these connections are formed by spiral ramps running up through the stack of sheets. ,, this came as a surprise because spiral geometries had never previously been observed in biological membranes.,, Attached to the membrane, ribosomes, which serve as the primary site for protein synthesis, dot the ER like cars populating a densely packed parking structure. "The ribosomes have to be a certain distance apart because otherwise they can't synthesize proteins," Huber explained. "So how do you get as many ribosomes per unit volume as possible but not have them bump up against each other?" Huber asked. "The cell seems to have solved that problem by folding surfaces into layers that are nearly parallel to each other and allow a high density of ribosomes.",, ,,,the parallel surfaces or stacks are connected by Terasaki spiral ramps. In some cases, one ramp is left-handed and the other right-handed—the parking-garage geometry—which is what Terasaki and colleagues (including Huber) found last year. "We propose that the essential building blocks within the stack are not individual spiral ramps but a 'parking garage' organized around two gently pitched ramps, one of which is the mirror image of the other—a dipole," said Guven, who was assisted in his research by one of his students, Dulce María Valencia. "This architecture minimizes energy and is consistent with the laminar structure of the stacks but is also stable.",,, http://phys.org/news/2014-10-biology-geometry.html Romans 1 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. bornagain77

Astroman:

Joe, do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of the God of the Bible?

It is a possibility but personally I hope not- or I hope that the God of the Bible is depicted incorrectly. Joe

thorton:

There just isn’t any evidence that life itself was intelligently designed. There isn't any evidence that blind and undirected processes can produce life so perhaps we don't exist. But I digress as thorton doesn't know what evidence is nor how to assess it.

Joe

Thorton #97

Most elementary and high school teachers (where the problems lie) have very little actual science training. Many have none. They aren’t part of the professional scientific community.

Science teachers are not part of the scientific community? That sounds strange to me.

Notice that the “Academic Freedom” bills are all aimed at the lower education levels and impressionable children and never at colleges? That’s because college professors are scientifically trained and won’t put up with the bullshit.

I believe science teachers are trained and credentialed by scientifically-trained college professors. So, we have science teachers who are a threat to the scientific community -- and yet were actually produced by the very same scientific community who disowns them once they become credentialed as teachers? It doesn't make sense. It seems the finger-pointing just circles back to the scientific community. Science teachers are not convinced by evolutionary claims, in the very topics they've been trained to teach in. This is a problem internal to the scientific community and it shows a profound lack of credibility when the teachers themselves are considered a threat to science. Silver Asiatic

Tamara Knight:

Joe, from the comments in posts above it seems you have been critisizing Evolution for many years, and despite that you have still failed to grasp its essence at even the most simple level.

LoL! I bet I grasp it better than you ever will.

You seem to think “fitter” means that it is closer to an idealised “perfection”.

Nope. That thought never crossed my mind.

And its purpose is to survive long enough to produce offspring capable of reproducing. Nothing else matters.

Yes, I know.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Not in a place that doesn't have any light Joe

'The term “liars for Jesus” wasn’t coined for nothing.' Dawkins will have your guts for garters, seeking to disparage, indeed, to make nothing of, 'nothing', Thortless. Axel

kairosfocus, your response is what I expected but is not the honesty I hoped for. I followed your links and I have previously seen those pages and more. Frankly, your voluminous writings are thoroughly convincing evidence that design thought is indeed Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. I am also not impressed by your appeal to your credentials or by your ancestry and pompous huffing and puffing. Among other things you said: "I find the casual assumption or insinuation of lying, dissimulation or hypocrisy on the part of design thinkers extremely offensive, rude, disrespectful and unwarranted; serving only an agenda of atmosphere poisoning and polarisation." I'm sure that your opponents feel the same way when you and other ID proponents constantly do those things and worse. P.S. I have Irish, Scottish, English ancestry and who knows what before that, and it doesn't matter one bit in debates about Evolutionary Theory and ID. P.P.S. I'll give you another chance to be honest: kairosfocus, do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of the God of the Bible? Astroman

jerry

This is not the official ID site. For that go to the Discovery Organization.

Ah, the Discovery Institute. That's the right wing Christian think tank whose primary goal is clearly stated in their "Wedge Document".

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The strategy also aims to affirm what it calls "God's reality." Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log to represent an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public's understanding of science.

But ID isn't about religion or politics, no siree. :) Thorton

@Astroman #103 'Based on what I’ve seen from ID proponents I’d have to agree. They will always have the opportunity to show that ID is strictly a scientific endeavor and not a religious and political agenda but I doubt that they will ever succeed in that.' When will they learn, Astroman? When will they ever learn, as the song goes? There's only one thing for it; tried and trusted, moreover. The 'wheelers and dealers' in the academic Establishment will have to just keep taking a baseball-bat to them. 'You don't follow our line, we're gonna hit you outa da park! We doan need no steenkin' "God's foot in da door." Capisce?' Axel

Thorton, since Darwinism cannot be falsified by experimental observation yet ID can, then Darwinism is not a proper science, and ID is! Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 More Irreducible Complexity Is Found in Flagellar Assembly - September 24, 2013 Concluding Statement: Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It's a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives! - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/more_irreducibl077051.html bornagain77

Mark Frank @ 73 writes in part,

I had in mind the biologist’s definition of the success of a species. This is purely and simply the species ability to reproduce in the world as it is . . . The genome is only relevant to the extent that it contributes to this. Any other definition of success leads to the odd result that a species could be highly “successful” but failing to survive.

Thank you, we'll use your definition. We would not want any odd results. Let's see if we can dodge another one. According to your definition, evolutionary success has only to do with the genome (of the organism in question) so far as it informs the ability to reproduce in the world as it is. Is that about right? In the case of domesticated dogs, I am informed that there is a loss of genetic information, that success results in dog breeds in response to specific environmental ends (e.g. we like dogs that chase sheep without eating them, so we feed them kibble and help them reproduce.) Is that about right? I have heard from that guy, Behe, that such is generally the case for malaria-resistance -- that the battle involves organisms "enjoying" loss of genomic info, to better get over on malaria, (oh, and in turn, strains of plasmodium falciparum doing the same). Mark Frank, please correct me if I am wrong, but don't most (all?) scientists in that field agree with this narrative? Ok, so here is my question (er, eventually). It seems to me (and that is as far as I will go right now) that an organism's response to the environment ("in the world as it is") involves dumping, if necessary, genomic information to succeed. Whether the selection is artificial or natural, the far, far, easier pathway for organisms is to lose genomic information. In fact, this is the dominant, almost universal, response according to scientific studies. . . I guess you can see where I am going with this. How could this possibly square with the claim that evolution (along with its numerical "success") is the driver of increased information in the genome, not only in a given organism, but for all organisms over the entire history of life on earth? Tim

jerry

So deal with the science if you can.

As soon as ID can present some actual science to make its positive case and not just "ToE can't explain this!!", we will. Thorton

as to: “There just isn’t any evidence that life itself was intelligently designed.” - Thorton and yet,,, DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive - Science Magazine, August-16-2012 Excerpt: "When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute - video https://vimeo.com/47615970 Quote from preceding video: "The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA." Sriram Kosuri PhD. - Wyss Institute Storing information in DNA - Test-tube data - Jan 26th 2013 Excerpt: Dr Goldman’s new scheme is significant in several ways. He and his team have managed to set a record (739.3 kilobytes) for the amount of unique information encoded. But it has been designed to do far more than that. It should, think the researchers, be easily capable of swallowing the roughly 3 zettabytes (a zettabyte is one billion trillion or 10²¹ bytes) of digital data thought presently to exist in the world and still have room for plenty more. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21570671-archives-could-last-thousands-years-when-stored-dna-instead-magnetic bornagain77

Both sides know it.” Based on what I’ve seen from ID proponents I’d have to agree. They will always have the opportunity to show that ID is strictly a scientific endeavor and not a religious and political agenda but I doubt that they will ever succeed in that.

Mostly a nonsense comment with some elements of truth. I believe creationism as it is espoused by the YEC's is junk science and so do many others here who support ID. So deal with the science if you can. My experience is that people like you who make these types of comments cannot deal with the science while many of the pro ID people can. The idea that ID is religious or political is just an outflow of many looking for the truth just as the advocacy of Darwinian ideas leads to the same thing amongst their followers. If you were honest about this then you would admit this. This is not the official ID site. For that go to the Discovery Organization. jerry

KF, This is not your thread but on those that you control the following comment from yesterday by me may be of some use for you and other authors here. It will have the effect of actually focusing on the discussion at hand or else it gets moved to name calling thread. ---------- May I suggest a strategy with dealing with all the irrelevant comments to a thread which quickly descend into either name calling or unrelated ideas. Create a parallel thread where everyone can call each other names or discuss OT ideas. Allow their comments to exist but in another place. That way there might be an intelligent discussion and not mindless or immaterial or at best peripheral comments. This would be a good place to start. That way even the anti-ID people might be forced to make responsive statements instead of just negative criticism in its various forms. It would allow people to follow discussions as opposed to have to wade through gibberish. jerry

TH: You are now patently speaking in disregard to quite evident truth manifest in this thread where questions asked have been seriously and sincerely answered and explanations given with contexts where much more can be had, in the hope and intent that what you say or suggest is taken as true. That is sad, but it does explain a lot of what you have done, how. KF kairosfocus

A: Kindly, pause to read what I just commented to you concerning motive mongering, before going further. Pardon, your agenda is showing. KF kairosfocus

Thorton, I beg to remind you and others on tone and language, based on what just caught my eye, now in at least a second thread within 24 hours. This is not a bar-room, or a Youtube comment box. Freedom to express a view does not involve freedom to be vulgar or do the equivalent of allowing your dog to drag garbage unto your neighbour's lawn. You sir, are the equivalent of a guest on someone else's property and nickel; kindly act like it. Others who need the reminder, should take notice too. And, without giving details just now, your assumptions and insinuations also call for serious correction, though I don't have time just now. All I will say for now is that there is significant evidence of sobering erosion of freedom of thought, conscience and expression in especially the USA, strongly driven by secularist activists and targetting especially Christians. The pattern is sufficiently serious to warrant correction before it becomes too late; history counsels, freedom can be lost by those who do not understand it, its foundations and the price in blood paid for it. KF kairosfocus

Thorton: "ID’s purpose isn’t to answer questions or provide explanations. ID’s purpose is to sow doubt about actual science among the lay public to make it easier to get Creationist pseudoscience sneaked back into public schools. Both sides know it." Based on what I've seen from ID proponents I'd have to agree. They will always have the opportunity to show that ID is strictly a scientific endeavor and not a religious and political agenda but I doubt that they will ever succeed in that. Astroman

A: utterly irrelevant, my discussion is philosophical -- epistemological and inductive logic -- and scientific, not theological. And that is an honest answer, I think you need to look again at what you are projecting and accusing or insinuating. I assume, because you have been primed with the implication or assumption that design thought is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. And BTW, UD is not a theology blog, though theological ideas do come up. Until the worldview level and core warrant issues are addressed all teh wayback to assenting to first principles of right reason these days, attempting a theological discussion would be futile and of no positive effect. KF PS: If you genuinely want to see what my worldview happens to look like, on what basis, at 101 level try here on in context. FYI, if the evidence warranted a world origins model in which chance and necessity were adequate for life to form and develop in a branching tree pattern and were backed by empirical observations of capability of chance and necessity to form entities manifesting significant FSCO/I to adequate warrant -- as in there are ZERO observed cases of FSCO/I credibly arising by design, but literally trillions of it arising by design in our direct cross-check observation -- I would have worldview and theological options well within the Christian scheme to accept that. The reason I accept the validity of the design inference is not a worldview level a priori imposition before the evidence and logic are allowed to speak, it is because I find my self compelled by its logic and evidence in light of my experience with design and with scientific thinking. FYFI, I find the casual assumption or insinuation of lying, dissimulation or hypocrisy on the part of design thinkers extremely offensive, rude, disrespectful and unwarranted; serving only an agenda of atmosphere poisoning and polarisation. I would suggest to you instead that you rethink why someone who is educated in the sciences, has served as a science educator, and has a reasonable working knowledge of relevant phil, just might have reasons for both his position on science issues and on worldviews issues. Where, there is actually a simple and direct way to overturn the design inference and associated school of thought . . . . show that blind chance and mechanical necessity with reasonable likelihood, can create FSCO/I without inadvertently injecting it in the way the demo is set up (a very common problem with claimed cases). FYYFI, the too common Dawkinsian attitude that those who beg to differ with evolutionary materialism -- which BTW is irretrievably self referentially incoherent, self refuting and necessarily false -- "must" be ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked. I will freely admit to the usual human struggle to grow in the truth and the right, but sir I am of a family such that honour to the point of sacrifice of life is quite literally written into my name. Which, further, carries the import bide and fecht, or in Latin, roughly my old school's motto -- after a martyr -- Fortis in Fide et Opere. Try, just try, just try to understand a tiny inkling what that little slice of Scotland and Jamaica means, even in an utterly degenerate C21. kairosfocus

corrected link; Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – Diagram http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkRRa65sIo/TlltZupczfI/AAAAAAAAE1s/nVSv_5HRpZg/s1600/pathway-1b.png bornagain77

as to: "There just isn’t any evidence that life itself was intelligently designed." and yet,,, Here is, according to a Darwinist, a ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway chart: ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell - Diagram http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf Part of the ‘horrendous complexity’ inherent in metabolic pathways is gone over here: The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8 At the 14:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production: Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Chris Ashcraft - video - citric acid cycle at 14:00 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rUV4CSs0HzI#t=746 Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/glycolysis-and-citric-acid-cycle.html bornagain77

The phrase "In nature" is yet another one that can have multiple definitions. To me, humans are part of nature but many of the things that humans do are described by humans as artificial. It seems that no matter how many words are available, communication can still be problematic. Astroman

Silver Asiatic

Interesting comment. Is there evidence of intelligent design in nature?

Sure. Humans are part of nature and design things all the time. Birds' nests, spider webs, beaver dams all require some intelligence and planning. There just isn't any evidence that life itself was intelligently designed. Thorton

Silver Asiatic

I’m very skeptical of that claim and I think we see posts and comments on this site just about every day that indicate that the mechanisms are not sufficient to account for that grand claim. I’ll say also that scientists who know more about the topic than I do will say the same thing.

Empty claims from website ID pushers aren't a way to learn about science. You have to take some actual classes or go read the primary scientific literature. It takes work, hard work to really understand the topics. Notice that the ID pushers here almost never cite the primary scientific literature and when they do they just dishonestly quote-mine snippets. The term "liars for Jesus" wasn't coined for nothing.

Beyond that, somehow we have Creationist science teachers in schools — so I’d say that they’re part of the science community. I mean if science teachers themselves aren’t convinced by evolutionary claims, there’s clearly a problem with the evidence

Most elementary and high school teachers (where the problems lie) have very little actual science training. Many have none. They aren't part of the professional scientific community. Notice that the "Academic Freedom" bills are all aimed at the lower education levels and impressionable children and never at colleges? That's because college professors are scientifically trained and won't put up with the bullshit. Thorton

The use of the phrase “In nature” obviously does not mean “as opposed to being in a man-made environment”.

Interesting comment. Is there evidence of intelligent design in nature? Silver Asiatic

Astroman

ID proponent Michael Behe: “Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.” Question to ID proponents: How did complex biological structures arise? Response from ID proponents: ID isn’t about how. Question to ID proponents: How did complex biological structures arise? Response from ID proponents: By design. Question to ID proponents: What is the proposed mechanism of design? Response from ID proponents: Design. Question to ID proponents: How was the design implemented? Response from ID proponents: ID isn’t about how. Any comments?

ID's purpose isn't to answer questions or provide explanations. ID's purpose is to sow doubt about actual science among the lay public to make it easier to get Creationist pseudoscience sneaked back into public schools. Both sides know it. Thorton

Thorton #45

The theory of evolution describes specific mechanisms for genetic and morphological change along with empirical verification that the mechanisms work.

Yes, that's the claim. There is supposedly empirical verification that the mechanisms can account for the development of all biological life on earth. For myself, I'm very skeptical of that claim and I think we see posts and comments on this site just about every day that indicate that the mechanisms are not sufficient to account for that grand claim. I'll say also that scientists who know more about the topic than I do will say the same thing. Thorton #46

You’re not everyone and you don’t speak for everyone. Every few weeks there’s a school board or state legislature presented with an attack the Creationists disguise as Academic Freedom Bills. Ones where the fine print allow Creationist teachers to teach Biblical YEC claims under the guise of “freedom to teach both sides”.

Ok, but you stated that "the whole ID/Creationism movement is a threat" -- I think that's an exaggeration because there are a lot of ID supporters like me who are not fundamentalist Christians and who are not interested in the political activism. Beyond that, somehow we have Creationist science teachers in schools -- so I'd say that they're part of the science community. I mean if science teachers themselves aren't convinced by evolutionary claims, there's clearly a problem with the evidence. And if non-creationist politicians are trying to stop creationist science teachers, there's clearly a "both sides" at work. Silver Asiatic

Joe, do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of the God of the Bible? And the same question to all other ID proponents. Astroman

Natural selection = the survival of the fittest/ elimination of the less fit, Mark.

Joe, from the comments in posts above it seems you have been critisizing Evolution for many years, and despite that you have still failed to grasp its essence at even the most simple level. You seem to think "fitter" means that it is closer to an idealised "perfection". In the evolutionary sense it most certainly does not, fitter means it is better optimised for its purpose. And its purpose is to survive long enough to produce offspring capable of reproducing. Nothing else matters. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. I have seen film somewhere of a species of fish where there are two distinct types of males. Big ponderous strong ones (for whom fitness is their ability to fight off many other males from their harem), and tiny nimble ones (for whom fitness is the ability to dart in around the spawning females and deposit their sperm amongst that of the alpha male) Which males are fittest in your simplistic view of the mechanism of evolution Joe? Tamara Knight

kairosfocus, what I hoped for is an answer that is understandable, relevant, and honest. I'll try it another way: kairosfocus, do you believe that the ID mechanism is the existence, knowledge, and purposeful creative power of the God of the Bible? Astroman

Natural selection = the survival of the fittest/ elimination of the less fit, Mark. Joe

Mark Frank:

The use of the phrase “In nature” obviously does not mean “as opposed to being in a man-made environment”.

Of course it does. Biological fitness refers to natural selection, Mark. Read Mayr "What Evolution Is". Natural selection, Mark, not artificial selection. Joe

Joe -

artificially keeping something alive is not part of fitness. How can it be?

Evolving so that another species keeps you alive is most definitely part of fitness (ask a tapeworm). It makes no difference whether that species is a human doing it deliberately or a caterpillar providing live food to a wasp reluctantly (I assume). They are both part of the environment. #85 The use of the phrase "In nature" obviously does not mean "as opposed to being in a man-made environment". Surely even you can see that? It means "fitness - when we are studying natural history" as opposed to "fitness - when we are talking about sports or how sexually attractive someone is". In this sense man is part of nature. Mark Frank

if evolution were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only 'life' that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the 'fittest' are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here: Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically 'selected' for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. But that is not what we find. Time after time We find organisms cooperating with each other in ways that have knothing to with their individual ‘fitness to reproduce’: The following researchers recently were ‘surprised’ by what they found: Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists - April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory — at least in one case. "It was completely unexpected," says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan's school of natural resources & environment. "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?" The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. "We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists," Cardinale says. "When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled.",,, Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. "Maybe species are co-evolving," he adds. "Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong." http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html Indeed, instead of eating us, time after time these different types of microbial life are found to be helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their ability to successfully reproduce,,, NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it's impacting us more than previously thought - February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing "germs" or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens." http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs of related note on 'fitness' Study demonstrates evolutionary ‘fitness’ not the most important determinant of success – February 7, 2014 – with illustration Excerpt: "The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales." per physorg bornagain77

A: Already said in o/l, perhaps you expect a match to the template of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory plus OOL modelling plus some twist on string theory for cosmology. That range already warns, not to expect a simple correspondence. Design thought has a different main focus, and seeks to answer a simple but subtle question: are there scientifically amenable empirical signs of design that ground inferences on causal factors at work, that are observable in the natural world? Given issues connected to scientific thought on origins, that has potentially revolutionary impact. Indeed, it may have implications for the hard problem of consciousness (hence the interest of and opposition from those bound up in naturalism-dominated AI systems). Design in itself is a causal force or factor, and involves 1 --> intelligently directed contingency that 2 --> in relevant contexts will generate complex, functionally specific entities that 3 --> to be detectable as designed, will exhibit well-tested, found reliable signs. Intelligently directed contingency or configuration yielding relevantly functional states is both a description and a general means. To execute such, an entity must be intelligent, knowledgeable, skilled and creative. Direction entails ability to form means to ends, and to configure based on forces and materials of nature (requiring insight). Consequently, in contexts where we cannot directly see the causal process -- esp. the remote, deep past of origins but also humbler cases such as potential arson or poisoning or fraud etc -- signs of design may be vital in constraining our inferred explanation towards truth. That is, accuracy to what actually obtained. Configuration expresses such a plan, involving components, forces and materials, knowledge, skills and so forth. Beyond this, there is more than one way to skin a catfish, e.g. I elected to compose this post as an ASCII character, English Language text string using the combox, and to phrase it in this particular way. A jeweller forming a brilliant cut diamond uses machines and skills in a different way, as would one building a castle with lego bricks, sand or real stone or wood (many actual castles were wood). A tape reader designer could use electromechanical engineering, or nowadays, 0.1 inch pitch perfboard and associated components. The ribosome protein assembly entity (which reads a molecular tape, mRNA), could be produced in an advanced molecular nanotech factory. This can also include a fair bit of programmed in adaptability -- going beyond what our immune systems do, i.e., front loading of considerable branching -- think, the dog-wolf family and how red deer from Europe and the "elk" of North America as well as a tiny deer in Asia seem to be all connected, indeed in NZ elk and reds interbred freely it seems. Cichlids are another case in point of apparently built in radiation. The protein assembly instructions can obviously be symbolised -- we use ACGT/U -- and can then be expressed in strings. To build a cosmos fine tuned for life is beyond our imagination, save that perhaps the astonishing power of mathematics in physical science is a hint that the math was established first in the ontological sense then the physics instantiated it. In short the math based sim world comes before the instantiated one we experience. Some suggest, we live in and as part of a sim world, perhaps on a computer somewhere, others, that the cosmic order itself is rationally intelligent without necessarily being a person as westerners understand such. And so forth. All these can be elaborated and tested logically and perhaps physically. Though, with string theory physical observational testing may be fading. And so forth. Notice, the range of things brought together under the rubric, design and signs of design. This goes on to code-cracking, and TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving and technology evo. Market manipulations may be giving off detectable signals. And more. No, such is not directly parallel to the CV + NS --> DWIM --Branching tree evo pattern we all learned in school. But, it may be enough to spot the flaw no 1 at the root in Darwin's warm pond or the like OOL scenario, and it may be enough to spotlight critical flaws in the macroevolutionary just-so narratives that have been driven by a priori evolutionary materialism. Accounting for FSCO/I is a very clear issue for both. On trillions of examples, backed by sobering needle in haystack analyses, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity is not a good candidate. The only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is design, and the config space challenge backs up why. Cf here for starters. Calling attention back to empirical grounding can serve very important roles in long term science progress. KF kairosfocus

Your reference says "in nature", Mark. Ooops Joe

Mark- artificially keeping something alive is not part of fitness. How can it be? Joe

The interesting thing about Darwinists denying that Intelligence is the only known causal mechanism in existence known to be sufficient to generate functional information is that they then must deny that they themselves are intelligent casual agents capable of writing their sentences that they are writing in these posts. i.e. "Atheists must climb up in God's lap in order to be able to slap him" Van Til The Atheist's Guide to Intellectual Suicide - James N. Anderson, PhD - video https://vimeo.com/75897668 bornagain77

#77 Joe

Their fitness refers to nature and not artificial selection.

Rubbish. Fitness refers to reproductive success in whatever environment the species finds itself - including artificial selection. Here's a definition of fitness - you will see no mention of the type of selection. If you disagree find a definition that excluses artificial selection. Mark Frank

An intelligent agency purposely arranging parts for a purpose is another design mechanism. Intelligent Design evolution is modeled by evolutionary and genetic algorithms. No one has figured out how to model unguided evolution. Joe

I just told you what 2 possible design mechanisms are and design is a mechanism by definition. And it is just as valid as natural selection and drift. Joe

kairosfocus, what is the proposed mechanism of design? Astroman

Astroman- ID is about the DESIGN. Everything else comes by examining it. Joe

Mark Frank:

I had in mind the biologist’s definition of the success of a species.

Their fitness refers to nature and not artificial selection. Joe

drift Joe

thorton, Design is a mechanism by definition. A targeted search is a specific design mechanism. Built-in responses to environmental cues is another. Grow up. All you have is natural selection and rift. Joe

Case in point, the bulldog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo&t=2m42s fryether

Tim #54 Of course you can define "success" however you please. I had in mind the biologist's definition of the success of a species. This is purely and simply the species ability to reproduce in the world as it is - not in the world as it was, or in some hypothetical world. The genome is only relevant to the extent that it contributes to this. Any other definition of success leads to the odd result that a species could be highly "successful" but failing to survive. Mark Frank

Astroman @70 ID is Inductive reasoning : when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable to Darwinist, must be the truth. Random mutations, environment, genetic drift, predator dynamics cannot help in Macro evolution of complex structures and consciousness, so what is left is Intelligent agency. An intelligent agent may not be God. Just as you can't answer why gravity derives from the mass of an object and not from some other property of object, ID can't explain how intelligent agent works today. However as science progresses and new processes like Quantum Mechanics which defy normal natural laws are found, we can explain in future based on these new laws. Me_Think

PS: On Irreducible complexity, cf here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-3-irreducible-complexity-as-concept-as-fact-as-macro-evolution-obstacle-and-as-sign-of-design/ kairosfocus

A: The induction, on evidence that there are empirically observable, reliable signatures of design that MAY be present in objects or entities is an important achievement. We also know of design -- intelligently directed configuration -- that it may be achieved in many distinct ways that do not alter this core point. There's more than one way to skin a catfish. So, that tweredun is distinct from how twerdun specifically. Though if design weredun it entails, per the read signature, that the process entailed intelligently directed configuration, presumably towards a desired end and involving as means and constraints the forces, materials and energy flows/constraints of nature. Consequent upon such, we may see in various aspects, signs of mechanical necessity, chance and design. In the case of Behe, he has highlighted that there are many structures in the world of life that involve core clusters of well-matched, properly organised and coupled parts to achieve an evident complex and specific function such that removal or knocking out of any one or more of the parts cripples the function. This principle is in fact commonly used to identify gene functions per knockout studies. He then pointed out that incremental achievement by proposed Darwinian mechanisms would be frustrated by that mutual necessity. Menuge points out that for exaptation to work, there are significant constraints of matching, mutual availability etc that make such less than plausible. So, irreducibly complex cores are a reasonable index of design as best explanation, save to those committed to locking out design. Where we have seen this go to the extreme of dismissing first principles of reason. KF kairosfocus

ID proponent Michael Behe: "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." Question to ID proponents: How did complex biological structures arise? Response from ID proponents: ID isn't about how. Question to ID proponents: How did complex biological structures arise? Response from ID proponents: By design. Question to ID proponents: What is the proposed mechanism of design? Response from ID proponents: Design. Question to ID proponents: How was the design implemented? Response from ID proponents: ID isn't about how. Any comments? Astroman

moreover, there is no other 'mechanism' in existence besides agent causality,,, A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf Random Chance and Necessity (i.e. law) have never ‘caused’ anything to happen in the universe: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/one-of-the-four-horsemen-of-the-atheist-apocalypse-sort-of-thinks-there-is-free-will/#comment-519756 “In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.” C.S. Lewis - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk "to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen" - CS Lewis bornagain77

Mapoo

If design is not a mechanism, what mechanism designed the computer you’re using?

This computer owes its existence to many mechanisms. A conceptualization stage, probably a breadboard or prototyping stage using a custom built motherboard, a manufacturing stage involving the production of the core processor chips and support ICs using wafer technology, plastic injection for the case, fabricating the LCD display from glass, metal, and crystal filers, winding the copper core for the power supply and converter components, final assembly and test. Merely saying "design" does not identify any mechanism. Thorton

unguided evolution has several barriers to macro-evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/keiths-bomb-defused-debunked/#comment-523360 bornagain77

What an imbecile- that is the barrier for unguided evolution. Joe

What an imbecile- that is the barrier for unguided evolution. Joe

One more time. Thortonista contradicting himself, as always:

If “design” is a mechanism then merely saying “evolution” is a mechanism too.

If design is not a mechanism, what mechanism designed the computer you’re using? Darwinian evolution? Spirit? What a moron. Why are Darwinists so stupid? Inquiring minds and all that. Mapou

Thortonista contradicting himself, as always: If “design” is a mechanism then merely saying “evolution” is a mechanism too. If design is not a mechanism, what mechanism designed the computer you're using? Darwinian evolution? Spirit? What a moron. Why are Darwinists so stupid? Inquiring minds and all that. Mapou

Poor chubby Joke Gallien, caught in yet another lie

Joe "The barrier to macroevolution is two-fold-

Joke is still to stupid to understand that on the web his lies get archived. Thorton

If a mechanism is "a way or means of achieving a result" and design is "to create or construct something according to a plan", then even a first grader can see that design is a mechanism. So what is thorton's issue? Joe

How do you get common descent over 500 million years of life without macroevolution?

All that IDist claim is Macro evolution is not possible by piling up Micro evolution. Me_Think

thorton is a LIAR. I have never made the claims he attributes to me. He is a lowlife loser who needs a diaper change.

How do you get common descent over 500 million years of life without macroevolution?

All science so far!!!11!1!!!!! Joe

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution I know timmy will ignore it because willful ignorance is its trade-mark Joe

ID is OK with evolution, timmy. And there still isn't any ToE but evolutionism is the position that sez it has a step-by-step process. That would mean it has to deliver it. Don't blame us because no one can. We aren't asking for any more than evos are saying they have. You are just proud to be a clueless dipstick. Amazing Joe

Mung

Do you have a quote somewhere of Joe saying ID is not compatible with common descent?

There are plenty of him claiming there’s no such thing as evolution and that macroevolution is impossible. How do you get common descent over 500 million years of life without macroevolution? Thorton

Thorton, since you hate 'religion' so much, why are you not equally enraged that so many dogmatic Atheists openly seek converts to their religion in the classrooms? Or is it only Theism that you are so prejudiced against being taught in the classroom? Here are several examples of atheists themselves violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by openly proselytizing their own atheistic religion in the classroom: "Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom" (from 2008): John G. West – video http://www.discovery.org/v/40/2 God, Darwin and My College Biology Class – Barash – Sept. 2014 Excerpt: EVERY year around this time, with the college year starting, I give my students The Talk. It isn’t, as you might expect, about sex, but about evolution and religion, and how they get along. More to the point, how they don’t. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html?_r=0 Darwinian Blithering - (John C. Wright dismantles David P Barash's evolutionary 'atheistic talk' to freshmen students piece by piece) - Oct. 14, 2014 http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/darwinian-blithering/ Dr. Will Provine - EXPELLED - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJ5dHtmNtU Intelligent Design's Implications Don't Discredit Its Scientific Merit: Opposing Views, Part 3 - (Several Quotes from secular humanists (atheists) who support Darwinism) - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-11-09T16_52_26-08_00 Zeal for Darwin's House Consumes Them - podcast On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin examines how, contrary to the stereotype, it's actually the atheistic supporters of evolution who encourage violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. This podcast is excerpted from a law review article published in Liberty University Law Review. (Linked at site) http://www.idthefuture.com/2013/04/zeal_for_darwins_house_consume_1.html How the Scientific "Consensus" on Darwinism Is Maintained - David Klinghoffer - September 30, 2014 Excerpt: how it is that a scientist gets to evangelize for atheism at one public university while another at a different public university, Ball State physicist Eric Hedin, gets censured and silenced merely for apprising students of the existence of books offering scientific evidence for intelligent design. Hedin is well liked by his students according to RateMyProfessors.com, and makes an interesting comparison to David Barash who gets complaints about how he is "definitely an atheist and has an agenda to push," "tries to throw dirt on those who believe in anything other than his 'marvelous' theories," has a "clear agenda to push, as he's always rambling off topic about how biology proves that God doesn't exist." Barash even publishes his sermon notes in the New York Times so no one can miss what he's doing in his classroom, and that is just fine as far as I can tell with the administration across town here in Seattle at the University of Washington. It cannot be repeated too often that this is how the scientific "consensus" on Darwinism theory is maintained: one side in the controversy is coddled, the other intimidated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/at_the_universi090151.html Oh well, so much for the argument that Darwinism is religiously neutral. What They Really Teach Students In A Evolutionary Biology Class – cartoon http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-96cpSHPgIL4/VCftJobtPmI/AAAAAAAALf8/ZVyC7GB9dm0/s1600/Darwinism_See%2BNo.jpg -------------------------- Atheism and the Law - Matt Dillahunty Excerpt: "... whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture." "Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of 'ultimate concern' that for her occupy a 'place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,' those beliefs represent her religion." "We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) ('If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.')" "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions" http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742 Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Atheistic Philosopher bornagain77

Mapoo

Get a clue. Design is certainly a mechanism.

If "design" is a mechanism then merely saying "evolution" is a mechanism too. I'll try that answer next time the IDiots demand ToE provide mutation-by-mutation evolutionary pathways. Science has the physical details, ID-Creationism has hot air. Thorton

Back @9 Mark Frank writes:

Absolutely it is my scientific opinion.

which he then backs up with a rather compelling set of support . . .

In biology success is breeding in the available environment. As a result there are about 400 million dogs in the world. There are about 200,000 wolves and they are extinct or endangered in many geographies. It is irrelevant how they would thrive without us. We are the dog’s environment and they have exploited that very effectively getting us to care for them by manipulating our parental instincts (and also providing some services).

I especially like that last part where he speaks of humans in the role of environment. I just need a wee bit of explanation, so I'll offer a bit of an olive branch. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate his entire paragraph with one question. What does he mean by success? Is it evolutionary success? I just need a bit more than "outnumber"; after all, the outnumbering was a result of the success, but is it the success. "Breeding in the available environment" . . . is that the success? Breeding is not a success, breeding is an activity. I guess "successful" breeding (i.e. getting comparatively more puppies) is a success, but the circularity is evident. What is needed is a differential in outcomes to measure actual success. Numbers of dogs, although offered as a measure of success, is of no help on its own. Phenotype isn't enough either, as Mark Frank points out "it is irrelevant how they would survive without us". Changes in phenotype could be read as nothing more than "response to environment", same with number. For example, as long as we have people who like dogs small enough to bag and take to resto's, we will "enjoy" the phenotype of minute little dogs (that I view as nothing more than a menace). However, by the same reasoning, should we lose that environment (God forbid! I happen to like little old French ladies, sans "les chiens"), we must assume that the phenotype would disappear. No, the result that must be "counted" for success is not only number, not only phenotype, but genotype! Here is where the argument starts. If my premises concerning the "count for success" are reasonable -- what results are there that can we count that are independent of environment -- then we must count genetic information. In domesticated dogs that information, so I am told, has decreased. I am left to wonder how someone who supports evolutionary success writ large could point to our friend the canine as an evidence. Tim

Thortonista:

What specific mechanisms does ID propose. And no, “design” isn’t a mechanism.

Get a clue. Design is certainly a mechanism. It is part of a reasoning process called cause-effect reasoning and trial and error development. We know enough about how design occurs among humans to predict that over a long period of time the evolution of design always results in a nested hierarchy of classes of objects. This is so well-known in engineering that modern computer languages are strictly based on class hierarchies. One thing about designed hierarchies, though, is that they are not strictly nested. Multiple inheritance (horizontal gene sharing) is common and supported by some object oriented languages. In languages that do not support it, it is easy for the programmer to copy and paste the functionality of a distant class into another and implement the necessary interfaces needed to make it work. By contrast, Darwin the Bozo proposed a strictly nested hierarchy. This has long been squarely and humiliatingly disproven. Mapou

Thorton:

There are plenty of him claiming there’s no such thing as evolution and that macroevolution is impossible. How do you get common descent over 500 million years of life without microevolution?

Do you have a quote somewhere of Joe saying ID is not compatible with common descent? Mung

thorton is a lowlife- I never said there is no such thing as evolution and that macroevolution is impossible. timmy has mental issues. Joe

There isn't any theory of evolution and according to the experts design is a mechanism. thorton is just an ignorant puke. Joe

as to: "it’s a conscious effort" Thorton, How can it possibly be a 'conscious effort' on anyone's part since conscious intention does not even exist in your atheistic worldview??? i.e. Why in blue blazes, if you really believe you have no mind with free will, do you act as if anyone has a mind with free will??? ,,, You really need to own up to your atheistic/materialistic presuppositions and quit borrowing theistic concepts to make your arguments, such as the theistic concept that 'you' are a real person with a real mind that is able to make logical choices in what you do! It is called being consistent! bornagain77

Fixed link: Academic Freedom bills Thorton

Silver Asiatic

I’m an ID supporter and I have no interest or intention towards those goals.

You're not everyone and you don't speak for everyone. Every few weeks there's a school board or state legislature presented with an attack the Creationists disguise as Academic Freedom Bills. Ones where the fine print allow Creationist teachers to teach Biblical YEC claims under the guise of "freedom to teach both sides". Here's a list of relatively recent ones. Fortunately most have been defeated but not without costing science and scientists real time and real money. Time and money that could have been used much more productively elsewhere. Thorton

The whole ID/Creationism movement is a threat in that it’s a conscious effort to hurt the quality of U.S. science education merely to pander to Christian Fundamentalist belief

I'm an ID supporter and I have no interest or intention towards those goals. So you're exaggerating here and it seems you have fear that evolutionary science will not convince people on its own merits. From what I know it hasn't convinced me at all so i'd understand that fear. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic

The tree says nothing about a mechanism.

The theory of evolution describes specific mechanisms for genetic and morphological change along with empirical verification that the mechanisms work. What specific mechanisms does ID propose. And no, "design" isn't a mechanism. Thorton

The tree says nothing about a mechanism. Silver Asiatic

Typo: How do you get common descent over 500 million years of life without macroevolution? Thorton

Mung

Thorton, I am not Joe.

Thank goodness. One obscenity-spewing porn-posting dullard is plenty.

Do you have a quote somewhere of Joe saying ID is not compatible with common descent?

There are plenty of him claiming there’s no such thing as evolution and that macroevolution is impossible. How do you get common descent over 500 million years of life without microevolution? Thorton

Well, keith s, with your head planted up your arse I am sure it is difficult to tell the difference between any two people. Joe

thorton is confused, as usual. He thinks that common descent is the theory of evolution. But no, I never said ID is not compatible with common descent. As a matter of fact the only way for universal common descent to be true is via Intelligent Design. However it needs some evidence first. Joe

Mung:

Thorton, I am not Joe.

It's hard to tell the difference sometimes. keith s

Thorton, I am not Joe. Do you have a quote somewhere of Joe saying ID is not compatible with common descent? Mung

There isn't any theory of evolution- that is why I keep saying it. And that tree does not show macroevolution. Your ignorance is bursting through, as usual. BTW Mung didn't say anything about any theory, loser. And unguided evolution doesn't explain your data. I am sure that bothers you. Joe

Mung

Thorton has been taken in by the keiths nonsense that ID is incompatible with common descent.

But Mung, Joe keeps telling us there's no such thing as evolution and besides macroevolution is impossible. Why don't you two get your story straight? Feel free to give us your ID explanation for the canid phylogenetic data. No one else will. Thorton

timmy:

Just checking to see if any ID proponent has offered the ID explanation for the empirically observed canid phylogenetic tree data.

What's the unguided evolutionary explanation? Oops it can't explain anything... Still nothing on the theory of evolution search. Why is that, timmy? Joe

Thorton has been taken in by the keiths nonsense that ID is incompatible with common descent. Mung

Just checking to see if any ID proponent has offered the ID explanation for the empirically observed canid phylogenetic tree data. Nothing yet. What should one make of the inability to answer? Thorton

Does Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig address the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)? Like the dog and wolf, it has 78 chromosomes so it should be capable of interbreeding with the fore-mentioned. And like the wolf, its reproductive success is independent of humans. Does Lönnig claim it Lycaon an example of "degeneration" and/or natural evolution? rhampton7

German Scientist out of Max Planck Institute referring to Dembski's & Behe's work is cool. Expect to see more of that in the future. Exciting times, like 100 or so years ago when Classical (Newtonian) Physics had their minds blown by Quantum Physics. Classical (Darwinian) Biology in "mind blow" transition currently. Exciting Times. ppolish

"Our study shows that complex parallel phenotypes in similar environments can evolve very rapidly, repeatedly and yet via different evolutionary routes. This is a microevolutionary example of rewinding Gould's tape and resulting in the evolution of two very similar species, albeit by non-parallel evolutionary routes", sums up Axel Meyer. http://phys.org/news/2014-10-outcome-evolution.html Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, comments "For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing." Dr. Arthur Jones - did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids - Fish, Fossils and Evolution - Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14 bornagain77

semi related note: Is the outcome of evolution predictable? - Oct 28, 2014 Excerpt: There are only very few circumstances in which one can investigate the repeatability of evolution, because spatially independent environments that are populated by the same species are extremely rare in nature. "The young and completely isolated crater lakes along the Central American Volcanic Arc in Nicaragua provide an ideal setting to study parallel evolution. Several crater lakes house populations of Midas cichlid fish that have developed independently from the ancestral population in the nearby great lakes of Nicaragua. This setting is like a natural experiment", explains Axel Meyer. In two of these crater lakes, Apoyo and Xiloá, new types of Midas cichlids evolved, independently from each other, in less than 10,000 years. These new species show identical morphological adaptations that are not found in the ancestral population: from the shallow, murky water to the new habitat of the deep, clear water of the crater lakes. "In each of the two crater lakes new species of the Midas cichlid evolved with an elongated body – a phenotype that does not exist in ancestral lakes from which the colonisers of crater lakes came from", explains Meyer http://phys.org/news/2014-10-outcome-evolution.html bornagain77

Although there are some traits that are enhanced or minimized in dog breeds, I think we can see a general pattern that the farther from the original wolf you get, the more health problems you get. Chihuaha's can't even breed without human help. Daschund's have tons of health problems. Larger dogs too have major issues, such as hip displasia, heart problems, and cancer. The highly bred dogs often have intelligence deficiencies. The herding dogs are usually very "wolf-like" in appearance. Take the border collie or the australian shepherd. They are healthier and smarter than most other dogs. This pattern is not perfect, but as a general principal, I think it challenges the notion of malleability of species. Collin

Too funny:

If someone is genuinely interested in the science I’m more than happy to teach.

Timmy you have been proven to be ignorant of science and you are a cowardly equivocator. You are too stupid to teach anything but how to be a total loser. Joe

Any one of you ID scientists want to give me the ID explanation for the observed phylogenetic pattern in the canidae?

They evolved by design via built-in responses to environmental cues. Joe

Only ignorant and deluded morons on an agenda would think I am a YEC- enter Timmy Horton. As for atbc- LoL! That site proves that evos are clueless children. Nice own-goal there occam/ timmy. Joe

Canidae in no way represents macroevolution. thorton is ignorant wrt the entailments of macroevolution. Joe

Silver Asiatic

I’ve heard enough claims about convergent evolution to know that it’s speculative and ad hoc.

The canid phlogenetic tree I posted has nothing to do with convergent evolution. If someone is genuinely interested in the science I'm more than happy to teach. I only get snarky with the asses who earn it like Joe Gallien and Phoodoo. Joe in particular has been a YEC troll for years all over the web. He has a whole 260+ page thread dedicated just to his juvenile antics here. The whole ID/Creationism movement is a threat in that it's a conscious effort to hurt the quality of U.S. science education merely to pander to Christian Fundamentalist beliefs. Since the U.S. relies so heavily on its technological and scientific skills for its leadership position any such threat must be taken seriously. If the ID-Creationists quit trying to sway school boards and get their crap forced back into public schools there would be no problem. But they don't. They're the herpes sores of the scientific world. Thorton

Thorton - I'd suggest that you should try to be convincing somehow. That doesn't guarantee that anyone will accept it, but it strikes me as being more effective than hostility, ridicule, outrage and insults. I've heard enough claims about convergent evolution to know that it's speculative and ad hoc. But again, if you want to try to convince a non-scientist who is learning about the topic, then you could do that. Or you could continue to drive a deeper wedge between people, like me, who distrust the evolutionary establishment. It's up to you. Why come across as so defensive? You've already mentioned that ID is a "threat". Can you really be serious? Something that, supposedly, no scientists support is a threat to the scientific community? To me, it sounds like evolutionary claims really lack any power to convince skeptics. Your attitude only strengthens my opinion on that. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic

Genetically and physically, walruses look a lot like red foxes – therefore one evolved from the other, or else they evolved convergently.

Walruses don't look like red foxes except at a deep morphological and genetic level. They last shared a common mammalian ancestor over 100 million years ago. Are you just pretending to be really clueless or is it genuine? Thorton

OK SA, thanks for the admission. I'm happy to answer questions on the actual scientific evidence and the papers I post. In the case of the canids we have solid physical evidence of their common descent from a common canid ancestor. That's what the phylogenetic tree I posted shows. We can also tell by the degrees of genetic similarities approximately when the branching of each lineage took place. This information is real empirically measured data, it's available for anyone to study. The theory of evolution explains the observed patterns quite nicely. Of course the ID people won't address the actual evidence to save their lives. Thorton

Genetically and physically, walruses look a lot like red foxes - therefore one evolved from the other, or else they evolved convergently. The great part is, evolution teaches us that we have direct evidence that they did or didn't evolve convergently so we can have 100% confidence in our claims. As with birds evolving from dinosaurs. No problem at all there. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic

We observed similarities – therefore they evolved convergently. I think that works out perfectly every time.

So you think all the different foxes, wolves, domestic dogs, jackals, coyotes, dholes, and dingos aren't related but are just the result of convergent evolution??? Good grief. I don't even know how to respond to that bit of creationist "wisdom." Thorton

Before we go much farther, Thorton, I'll just say that you're looking for a scientist and I'm not one. I'm just one who is learning about evolution and ID. I'm open to what you have to say. Silver Asiatic

We observed similarities - therefore they evolved convergently. I think that works out perfectly every time. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic Thorton #11 Convergent evolution caused each species to evolve independently from different ancestors? What in the world is that non-sequitur suppose to mean? What does that have to do with the empirically observed phylogenetic tree? Thorton

Thorton #11 Convergent evolution caused each species to evolve independently from different ancestors? Silver Asiatic

Survival of the Best Designed makes good science sense. Rich in information. Survival of the Fittest tells us squat. ppolish

ciphertext #8 Yes, that's it. We're talking about functions generated by evolutionary mechanisms. Sheep herding has nothing to do with that. Silver Asiatic

Any one of you ID scientists want to give me the ID explanation for the observed phylogenetic pattern in the canidae? Phylogeny of canid species. Since I'm told macroevolution is impossible was each of these species a separately created "kind"? OK, let the excuse making and childish insults in lieu of any ID answers begin. :) Thorton

Mark proves he isn't a scientist. The ONLY reason dogs have any success in breeding is because of us. Joe

#3 phoodoo Absolutely it is my scientific opinion. In biology success is breeding in the available environment. As a result there are about 400 million dogs in the world. There are about 200,000 wolves and they are extinct or endangered in many geographies. It is irrelevant how they would thrive without us. We are the dog's environment and they have exploited that very effectively getting us to care for them by manipulating our parental instincts (and also providing some services). Mark Frank

rounding up sheep without being tempted to eat them seems like an increase in function to me

Indeed, at least when the sheep herder that employs the dog makes the judgement However, for a function to be even evaluated as either an increase or decrease over its prior requires just that...an evaluation. Nature makes no such evaluation does it? It couldn't, as that would presuppose a direction or goal for the function, would it not? ciphertext

My daughter's Havanese could hunt chipmunks, mice and squirrels. She's pretty good too. Unfortunately she would get eaten by the bigger predators. Joe

Phoodoo, a wolf released in NYC might not last as long as a chihuahua in the wild. "Success" needs to be measurable. Dog Industry, (Purina, IAMS, Etc, Etc,) is much more successful than Wolf Industry. Dogs generate far more love too, which a materialist would agree is measurable. Of course, all that success is by design. No NS & RM anywhere in sight. Teaching NS & RM to kids in school is child brain abuse. It's sad. ppolish

I predicted that the increase in genetic information was the barrier to macro evolution. I was right :) Now over to Keith S and Thornton and their predictions... Anything we can verify gentleman? Andre

rounding up sheep without being tempted to eat them seems like an increase in function to me

I'm surprised by that comment and really don't understand it. Silver Asiatic

Mark, Is that your scientific opinion? Try putting a couple of chihuahuas into a forest in Alaska and see how well it does. Or better still, put it anywhere and don't feed it, let's see how great their genetics are. phoodoo

Dogs are only successful thanks to us. Without us the wolves would just eat them. Joe

Well dogs are certainly a much more successful species than wolves. What counts as a loss of function seems a bit subjective - rounding up sheep without being tempted to eat them seems like an increase in function to me. Mark Frank