We can successfully predict the future arrangements of matter based on knowledge of the laws of physics that govern the interactions between particles. When too many particles exist to make detailed predictions about individual particles, we can use statistical physics to predict generally true and reliable outcomes of the larger system of particles. The 2nd law of thermodynamics provides us with a familiar example of outcomes based on statistical physics. If the future forms of living organisms are predictable, it will likewise be due to the ensemble of their systems of particles obeying fundamental laws of physics. “Evolution” is not a “law of physics” that is independent of or supersedes other known laws of physics.
Organisms respond in similar ways to similar circumstances.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Evolution has long been viewed as a largely unpredictable process, influenced by chaotic factors like environmental disruptions and mutations.
- However, researchers have demonstrated cases in some organisms of “replicated radiation,” in which similar sets of traits evolve independently in different regions. Now, researchers report the first evidence for replicated radiation in a plant lineage.
- As biology learns more about phenomena like replicated radiation, we might be able to predict the course of evolution.
Evolution has a reputation for being unpredictable, yet orderly. With mutations and the environment playing huge roles, it seems that predicting which species will evolve which traits is much like guessing the roll of a single die with millions of faces.
However, in some cases, researchers have found that the die rolls the same way again and again. A combination of separate organisms’ natural development and the environmental pressures placed on them can create very similar forms, or ecomorphs. Researchers call this phenomenon replicated radiation. (Sometimes, the term adaptive radiation is used synonymously.)
In a new paper published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, an international group of researchers demonstrated that a plant lineage living in 11 geographically isolated regions independently evolved new species with similar leaf forms. This marks the first example of replicated radiation in plants, and the groundbreaking research gives us more insight into the possible future workings of evolution.
Note: Reason suggests that the development of “similar leaf forms” stems from the fact that they all started from the same “plant lineage.” Furthermore, reason suggests that the original plant lineage had a built-in genomic variability that allowed the variant leaf forms to dominate when environmental pressures favored that form.
The article continues: Different species of Oreinotinus [Viburnum] have different types of leaves. Simply put, some have a large, hair-covered leaf, and others have a smaller, smooth leaf. Originally, experts postulated that both leaf forms evolved early in the group’s history and then dispersed separately through various mountain ranges, carried perhaps by birds. But the distribution pattern of the species, combined with the striking differences in leaf traits, gave researchers an ideal system to explore the possibility that these leaf forms evolved independently across different regions. In other words, they could explore whether this was a case of replicated radiation.
If replicated radiation is occurring, the researchers would expect two key results. First, species in the same area should be more closely related to each other than to species in different regions. Second, similar leaf traits should be present in most areas, but they should evolve independently of one another.
Turning over the same leaf
As Oreinotinus diversified, four major leaf types evolved independently from an ancestral leaf form. The four forms varied in size, shape, margin — that is, whether the edge of the leaf is smooth or toothed — and the presence of leaf hairs. The study grouped the leaves into four types. The researchers also backed up their assessments with a statistical analysis based on these characteristics.
Nine of the 11 areas harbor at least two leaf forms; four areas include three forms; and one, Oaxaca, is home to four. Based on simulations and models, the authors rejected the simple evolutionary model in which the leaf forms evolved before the species dispersed. They also found that chance alone does not likely explain why nine areas of endemism host two or more leaf forms. Based on these lines of evidence, the team concluded that leaf forms evolved separately within multiple regions. The leaf morphs did not originate early in Oreinotinus evolution. Rather, as different lineages diversified within different areas, each lineage “traversed the same regions of leaf morpho-space.”
So what is this clade telling us when it evolves different leaf forms? As it turns out, different leaves provide different advantages that suit particular climate niches. For example, the smaller leaves would allow more precise thermoregulation — the leaf won’t get too hot or too cold as the weather changes. On the other hand, large leaves would be better for lower-light, frequently cloudy environments, because they improve light capture and make photosynthesis more efficient. So the different leaf ecomorphs are adapted to specific sets of subtly different but often adjacent environmental niches.
The future of evolution
Researchers can now add Oreinotinus to an exclusive list of other groups of organisms known to have undergone replicated radiation, such as Anolis lizards in the Caribbean, cichlid fishes in African rift lakes, and spiders in Hawaii.
With a plant on the list, evolutionary biologists know this is not a trend exclusive to animals isolated on islands, where most of the other examples come from. Like island archipelagos, the cloud forest environments of Oreinotinus are separate from one another. A plant example will help evolutionary biologists pinpoint the broad circumstances under which we can make solid predictions about evolution.
Whether it’s Darwin’s finches, Oreinotinus, or a group of sugar-hungry E. coli, we are all subject to the mysterious workings of evolution. But perhaps, as a diverse set of research groups work to tackle the problem, the mystery will fade. As Michael Donoghue, a co-corresponding author of the Oreinotinus study, said in a statement, “Maybe evolutionary biology can become much more of a predictive science than we ever imagined in the past.”
Full article at Big Think.
Predictive success alone does not guarantee the success of a theory of how nature works. Additional consequences of a theory must also make sense and not contradict established laws of nature. Naturalistic evolution still contradicts the principle that natural causes will on average degrade the information content (loss of functional complexity) of a system over time.
“the mysterious workings of evolution”
What mysterious workings of evolution? Doesn’t Evolution provide intellectual fulfillment (for mush-minded statists) that is based on fact?
I don’t get it.
Andrew
Asauber @1,
Due to the complexities and flexibilities of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (aka “the mysterious workings of Evolution,” or mWOE), successful predictions are now usually made only in retrospect.
This saves Darwinan fundamentalists the embarrassments of such predictions as “vestigial organs,” “missing links,” and “junk DNA.”
-Q
“we are all subject to the mysterious workings of evolution.“
Screw you, you religious dip, NO ONE is subject to your magic force working and toiling daily. Adaptation comes with being a living organism not some mysterious force you claim to exist.
So if you want to believe in your magic mysterious force then I get to believe in mine. BUT don’t claim yours is science and mine is not
Niche
I can’t remember if it’s “the blind watchmaker” or its “The greatest show on earth” where Richard Dawkins describes evolution tirelessly toiling and adjusting every little thing on an organism
And yet one of the major criticisms of ID is the intervention argument were the designer intervenes creating and adjusting every little thing in the organism……..
AaronS1978 @3,
The OP quoted the article written by Jasna Hodži? from the Big Think, who wrote:
You might have misunderstood. My comment was meant to satirize the failure of Darwinism in successfully predicting anything in advance.
However, Darwinism is so squishy and malleable, it can mean anything and explain anything with mechanisms such as “parallel evolution” and “repeated independent evolution.” It comes up with what later turn out to be embarrassments such as “vestigial organs” (which turned out to have vital functionality), celebrated “missing links” (which turned out to be false), and “junk DNA” (much of which turns out to not be junk after all and, as a result, has now been renamed as “non-coding DNA).
So, no. Darwinism has a terrible track record of prediction.
-Q
AaronS78 @5,
I don’t think I’ve ever run into that criticism of ID. In fact, the operation of epigenetic adaptation points to even a much greater level of design.
For example, the celebrated adaptation of the beaks in Galapagos (aka Darwin’s) finches occurs in a
single generation, not hundreds of thousands of years! I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation by Darwinists of how epigenetic code could evolve by undirected incremental changes.
-Q
@Querius oh no nothing I said was directed at you and I knew it was satire I was mocking Jasna Hodži. I’m sorry it came across that way
And that criticism was in one of the previous threads two weeks ago, can’t remember which one though
AaronS1978 @8,
Oh, good! I wasn’t sure and it’s happened to me before.
-Q
They can predict all they want. It will end in the same lack of evidence and grasping at anything. Speciation continues to be without evidence to support the delusion.
as to “replicated radiation” …
Complex chemical mixtures should have evolved 100 times independently ??? In evolutionary unrelated species ?
Chemical mixtures so complex, that humans can’t replicate it in labs …
Seriously, what rational person can buy this nonsense …
Do Darwinists really believe in miracles ?
Replicated radiation ? :))))
So, synonymous morphologies, i.e. ‘ecomorphs’. finally prove that Darwinian evolution has predictive power, (like true scientific theories are suppose to have)?
There are a few problems with their claim that, via synonymous morphologies, i.e. ‘ecomorphs’, that Darwinian evolution has predictive power (like true scientific theories are suppose to have).
For one thing, the overall biological form, and/or defining morphology, of a specific organism is not reducible to mutations to DNA as is presupposed within Darwinian theory.
In fact, when Darwinists first formulated the modern synthesis, they excluded ‘biological form’ from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as being quote-unquote ‘irrelevant’
Needless to say, excluding ‘biological form’ from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis is NOT a minor omission for Darwin’s theory.
Yet, in spite of the fact that Darwinists themselves excluded biological form from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as being quote-unquote ‘irrelevant’, Darwinists still assume that changes to DNA have the potential to eventually change the basic biological form and/or body plan of any given species into a brand new body plan of a brand new species.
Yet, (directly contrary to what Darwinists have assumed without any warrant), biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, (nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars, (i.e. proteins, carbohydrates, etc..), in biology that Darwinists may wish to invoke).
As Dr. Jonathan Wells explains, “Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.”
And as Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig points out, “even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements”,,, “the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated”…
The ‘blueprint’ for the ‘biological form’ of any given species simply does not reside in DNA as Darwinists have presupposed it to within their reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution,
As Paul Davies stated, “DNA is not a blueprint for an organism,,,, Rather, DNA is a (mostly) passive repository for transcription of stored data into RNA,”
And as Antony Jose stated, “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life,”,,, “It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times.”,,,
And as Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy, states, “Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.”
And as Ken Richardson, formerly Senior Lecturer in Human Development at the Open University (U.K.). states, “Instructions are created on the hoof, far more intelligently than is possible from dumb DNA. That is why today’s molecular biologists are reporting “cognitive resources” in cells; “bio-information intelligence”; “cell intelligence”; “metabolic memory”; and “cell knowledge”—all terms appearing in recent literature.1,2 “Do cells think?” is the title of a 2007 paper in the journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.3 On the other hand the assumed developmental “program” coded in a genotype has never been described.”
Again, the ‘blueprint’ for the ‘biological form’ of any particular organism is simply not reducible to mutations to DNA as Darwinists had falsely presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwin’s theory.
Secondly, in the article in the OP the authors give a few other examples, i.e. “cichlid fishes in African rift lakes, Darwin’s finches, and sugar-hungry E. coli”, as other examples of “replicated radiation” and they apparently hope that these other examples of synonymous morphologies, i.e. ‘ectomorphs’, will also help reveal the “mysterious workings of evolution” and show that evolution is predictable, (as true scientific theories are suppose to have ‘predictive power’),
Yet none of those other examples offer support for Darwinian evolution but, in fact, all those other examples are all examples that falsify the ‘gene-centric’ claims of Darwinists.
Thus, it truly is sad that these researchers would try to use ‘repeated morphologies’, i.e. ‘ecomorph’, evidence,, evidence that in fact falsifies the ‘gene-centric’ presuppositions of Darwinists, as evidence for their claim that Darwinism has predictive power.
Only in the pseudo-scientific world of Darwinian evolution can such falsifying evidence to a theory possibly be seen as a good thing.
Apparently, as Dr. Hunter noted, “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news.”
Verse:
Are there any better representatives for Darwin out there?
I’d sure like to see them shoot their shot on here.
“Are there any better representatives for Darwin out there?”
Zw,
Better than Alan Fox? There must be.
Andrew
Of course there are. The problem is that Uncommon Descent doesn’t provide much of a challenge for the mainstream and so is largely ignored these days. “Intelligent Design” seems to be fighting a losing battle for attention.
“The problem is that Uncommon Descent doesn’t provide much of a challenge for the mainstream and so is largely ignored these days.”
Alan Fox,
I have to disagree. It’s largely ignored because it’s a challenge. Just easier for the mainstream to avoid looking bad coming here. Like you do. 😉
Andrew
Alan Fox,
For instance, just throwing the word “niche” against the wall like it becomes a work of art when it hits. It doesn’t solve any of the many basic problems people discuss here.
Andrew
Not convinced about the mainstream avoiding any “Intelligent Design” challenge. I mean, there is no ID hypothesis that could be remotely called scientific or testable. There used to be a trickle of allegedly pro-ID publications but nothing these days. I’m growing older and so is the ID community. There are no youngsters coming in and developing ID. The whole concept seems frozen in time.
It might help if folks here read up on the role of the niche as the design element in evolution. Constantly attacking the strawman of randomness does nothing to improve the reputation of ID proponents.
“Not convinced about the mainstream avoiding any “Intelligent Design” challenge.”
Alan Fox,
You should be. It’s just like a politician only taking softball questions. It’s the M.O.
Andrew
Not really. Every tub must stand on its own bottom as KFs old pappy was wont to remark. I mean there’s no problem if you are unpersuaded by evolutionary theory and the evidence for it. But what would get the attention of the scientific community and the wider world is an alternative explanation which is a better fit to the evidence. Simply talking amongst yourselves here deriding aspects of evolutionary theory while simultaneously demonstrating a poor grasp of the theory is getting you nowhere.
“But what would get the attention of the scientific community and the wider world is an alternative explanation which is a better fit to the evidence.”
Alan Fox,
There is a better fit to the evidence. The scientific community doesn’t like it. Just like a politician toes the party line, there is the expectation of conformity. It’s not rocket science.
Andrew
What is this better fit?
“What is this better fit?”
Alan Fox,
That the design apparent in nature is, in fact, design.
Andrew
Asauber: It’s largely ignored because it’s a challenge.
I’m sure you believe that but what actual evidence do you have that the biological community considers Intelligent Design a challenge, as in scientifically threatening to the widespread consensus.
Who has a good grasp and who has a poor grasp?
For example, those who compare ID to naturalistic process are those who are demonstrating a poor grasp of possible explanations. One is a historical, maybe a one time, event and the other is a process that is theoretically continually operating.
Alan fox joins the ranks of the black knights of monty python.
What kind of conceivable challenge would need to come forth to consider it legitimate, Alan?
And how would macroevolution be falsified?
Indeed. But evolutionary theory has a designer candidate – the niche. ID has…
… nothing to tell us about design.
AF, you know it does not. KF
Jerry, there is no ID explanation. You’ve said it’s just an additional step scientists could take. Nowhere has anyone suggested how this would work in practice.
AF at 31,
https://www.discovery.org/a/sixfold-evidence-for-intelligent-design/
Tonight on The Alan Fox Show, watch Alan Fox agree with himself…
I contend that evolution is an accumulation of three basic processes: anagenesis, cladogenesis, extinction. Macroevolution is not a different or additional process. It just involves more time.
I know what does not what?
By nature, science studies that which is observable, testable, natural….
A creator of the universe would not be observable and therefore kind of hard to test.
But, macroevolution is an unsupported hypothesis that has never been observed and cannot be tested as a result.
Also, the line of argumentation that ID doesn’t come to a conclusion on “whodunnit?” doesn’t negate the critique and the pile of valid arguments that stack against Neo-darwinistic macroevolution.
*chuckles*
Casey Luskin, DTOOL, Meyer misrepresenting the Cambrian period? Wow, I’m floored! 😉
Zweston: macroevolution
A lot of people use that term without defining it. What do you think it refers to, specifically.
True dat. Except why are you assuming who or whatever created this universe must not be observable? What is the reason for that assumption?
AF, you know full well that blind chance variation plus differential reproductive succes does not deliver intelligently directed configuration. So, you have willfully distorted language, just for starters. Before, we get to failing the Newton’s rule criterion of actual demonstrated causal capability. KF
Kairosfocus: you know full well that blind chance variation plus differential reproductive succes does not deliver intelligently directed configuration.
Good thing no one says it does then.
That is so not true.
There are whole sections of biology that are devoted to solving this issue. It is called synthetic biology.
This objection has been around UD since the beginning. Here is a comment I made about the absurdity of it 13 years ago
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-you-be-the-judge/#comment-305339
To deny design is to beg the question (a logical fallacy) that there not was a previous intelligence before humans. Didn’t Richard Dawkins agree this was the most likely explanation for life?
Jerry: I explained it to my niece in 4th grade and she understood it and thought it was neat. But she is really a bright kid.
Does she have a way of objectively detecting its presence or measuring the amount present? You know, in case a case came up that wasn’t clear . . .
We are talking past one another. Design of living, reproducing organisms is an outcome of evolutionary processes.
Not at all. It is ID proponents who have appropriated a perfectly reasonable word and injected it with spurious significance it was not designed to carry. I have to say it was about the most successful thing the ID community has achieved
The advantage I have over you is that I can make an effort at describing the theory of evolution and the evidence for it and draw on an enormous reserve of observations, papers, books, living scientists, I can even sniff and poke at reality myself.
You definitely hold a very short straw.
• The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”
• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”
“Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
JVL @ 37… just the conventional definition…
Alan Fox @ 38… 1. scientific consensus says our material universe had a finite beginning. Therefore, the creator would have to pre-exist and be super-natural (outside of nature)…as nature cannot create itself.
Not to say said creator couldn’t physically manifest themselves if they chose to.
—
That being said, you didn’t really answer what we would need to see in order for macroevolution to be falsified… have we ever observed macroevolution? if so, we have an untestable and verifiable hypothesis.
—
You can continue to say “it’s just a flesh wound” and “mostly everyone agrees with me” but one is false and the other is irrelevant and anti-science.
Zweston at 45,
That is the whole, complete answer.
I don’t deny design. I additionally have what I consider a reasonable explanation – evolution.
I agree that panspermia is an explanation for the origin of life on Earth. There is no evidence for that idea as yet. The James Webb telescope and Mars exploration may supply new data points on that.
Zweston: just the conventional definition
I never use the term myself and I’d rather not misinterpret you or put words in your mouth so, could you provide the definition you subscribe to.
The problem with all the papers you are quoting is they are based on methodological naturalism. Based on methodological naturalism blind and unguided is all you have because no other mechanism has surfaced to explain life’s complexities except reproduction which is more a copying mechanism and not an innovative one. The theory has hit the wall based on methodological naturalism.
How do you solve this and not be mislead by the idea that this is solvable given the constraints of science?
Maybe you didn’t like my answer. Macroevolution does not involve anything additional than the mechanisms described in evolutionary theory.
JVL… I know you don’t use the term because you probably don’t like it, because to make them separate concepts gives you a problem…because you also conflate the two.
Google says: The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.— that works for me for now.
Interestingly, macroevolution wasn’t a creationist invention but rather from secular scientists..
You have an untested and unobserved hypothesis. aka A faith position
“I’m sure you believe that but what actual evidence do you have that the biological community considers Intelligent Design a challenge, as in scientifically threatening to the widespread consensus.”
JVL,
“The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”
https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/News/evolution.html
Since this is a full sprint run away as fast as you can retreat from ID, they obviously see ID as a challenge. Dare I say they are afraid of it.
Andrew
Alan @ 50, I know that’s your position, but your claim is unsubstantiated and not demonstrable. Your claim is a hypothesis that is untested and unverifiable.
If I am wrong, please tell us how it has been observed and tested.
Science is a very practical pursuit, Bill. You make observations, measurements, try experiments based on hypotheses, discarding and refining. The process is coming up with predictive models that describe an aspect of reality accurately enough to be useful.
Why do I need to solve anything that appears to have no connection to or with observed reality?
“Macroevolution does not involve anything additional than the mechanisms described in evolutionary theory.”
Alan Fox,
Yes it does. It needs unknowable lengths of time for some magic to occur that wouldn’t otherwise.
Andrew
Zweston: The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
“Group” is not a taxonomic classification those being: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. Which of those do you think ‘group’ refers to?
Remember: taxonomy is a human invented system of classification which we apply to the natural world.
I know you don’t use the term because you probably don’t like it, because to make them separate concepts gives you a problem…because you also conflate the two.
I have no need for the term. Unguided evolution always happens over small steps.
Andrew at 52,
Of course they are afraid of it. People were taken to court over it. The big fear is that ID will get into schools. The idea of an actual Intelligent Designer will not be mentioned but those who are afraid of this know the chosen designer will be God, the Judeo-Christian God. So, the fear is real, and people will continue to post here as if they never knew this.
For at least the third time…
Macroevolution is not a different process.
Asauber: Since this is a full sprint run away as fast as you can retreat from ID, they obviously see ID as a challenge.
Doesn’t sound like they consider it a scientific challenge especially considering part of the statement:
JVL at 56,
“Unguided evolution always happens over small steps.”
I send an unguided, driverless car down a road. How long before it crashes and burns?
“Unguided evolution always happens over small steps.”
JVL,
So get specific. Show us a specific trail of small-step evidence, where unguided evolution occurred.
Andrew
AF at 58,
Tonight on The Alan Fox Show, Alan Fox sniffs and pokes at reality…
Ewwwwwwwwwwww.
We have fossil organisms, we have stratification that gives us times. We don't have rabbits in Cambrian deposits. Sure what evidence we do have is fragmentary and will always be incomplete. What we don't have are anomalies. The overall nested hierarchy of common descent fits all the available evidence, as does all the relatively new evidence of molecular phylogenetics.
ID has a neat name and a few ageing enthusiasts.
Alan, we must be talking past each other.. I think you must only be responding to this because you feel safe in your truism…
Can you unequivocally verify by observation or testing (or point to someone who has) that the same vehicle for microevolution has led to the development of unique body plans?
I know you aren’t dense. But your refusal to engage is noted.
“Doesn’t sound like they consider it a scientific challenge”
JVL,
Dr. Behe’s position is based on the work that he did experimentally as a scientist in the Department of Biological Sciences and on the similar work of other scientists. He sure pulled the wool over Lehigh’s eyes disguising it as not science.
Andrew
Well, I think there is a semantic issue in that I’m perfectly happy to agree with you (if you do) that evolution is a guided, a designed process. But I’m convinced that interaction between populations of organisms and the niche environments they occupy is the mechanism of design.
You now have a model that is most likely faulty based on methodological naturalism. That model is universal common descent. Thousands of papers are written assuming this is true and it is most likely not based on observed reality. The problem here ironically is scientific.
http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/article01036.html
RL calls. Maybe tomorrow.
Asauber: Dr. Behe’s position is based on the work that he did experimentally as a scientist in the Department of Biological Sciences and on the similar work of other scientists. He sure pulled the wool over Lehigh’s eyes disguising it as not science.
Well, I don’t think he submitted his work critical of unguided evolution to peer review and I know that many biologists have reviewed his work and pointed out flaws.
I don’t think the biological community considers his work a scientific threat. And I don’t think you have shown that they do.
JVL at 69,
https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-97602007000200002
“many biologists have reviewed his work and pointed out flaws.”
JVL,
Sounds like scientists doing science.
Andrew
Querius @7
as to “occurs in a single generation”
Have you ever heard of Senegal bichir ?
Get this:
by the way, i got it from a very interesting mainstream article (published June 2022):
As to: “many biologists have reviewed his (Behe’s) work and pointed out flaws.”
Hmm, I wonder why does that sentence not instead read as, “many biologists have reviewed his (Behe’s) work and have conducted, or referenced, experimental work that refutes his work.”
The reason why it doesn’t read that way is because there simply is no experimental work refuting Behe’s empirically derived results. Empirically derived results which show that there is a fairly strict 1 in 10^20 limit to what Darwinian processes can accomplish. So, apparently, all Darwinists are left with is for them to resort to misleading rhetoric in order to try to cast doubt on his straight-forward, empirically derived, results.
Needless to say, that is NOT ‘doing science’, but is resistance to following the evidence where it leads., which is the opposite of science.
Quote and verse:
Asauber: Sounds like scientists doing science.
Yes, it does. And . . .
The scientific attractiveness of ID is that it actually works. It doesn’t depend on theism. It doesn’t depend on science fantasy stories. And it doesn’t depend on alien intrusions.
All that ID claims is that living things appear intelligently designed, so that organelles, biochemical cycles, and genetic mechanisms that are poorly understood are more likely to function as if they were intelligently designed rather than as useless vestiges of undirected evolution.
Examples:
* Biologists once claimed over 100 “vestigial” organs in the human body, including the thyroid and other ductless glands. The was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It failed.
* Geneticists once believed in “junk” DNA, which is now termed non-coding DNA. Junk DNA was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It also failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the shrinking areas of DNA that they can still claim as junk.
* The skeletal remains of extinct animals called dinosaurs supposedly lived roughly 65-250 million years ago were ALL supposedly petrified artifacts without any possibility for organic matter to survive. This was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It’s also failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the unscientific possibility that 100 million years of background radiation miraculously allowed organic bone, stretchy connective tissue, and even red blood cells to survive.
* The half-life of DNA has been scientifically determined to be 521 years (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555). Thus, after only seven half lives or about 3,600 years, less than 1% of DNA would survive under ideal conditions (-5 C). It’s predicted that EVERY BOND in DNA would be destroyed in 6.8 million years. Nevertheless, Darwinists still claim that DNA sequences from insects in amber are 25-30 million years old (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411508/) and that Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced as far back as 430,000 years (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411508/).
So, as it should be obvious, the data doesn’t fit Darwinian expectations or timeline. Darwinism has been repeatedly falsified and should no longer be considered “science,” but rather “science fantasy” originally motivated by racist and colonialist ideologies.
On the other hand, ID has repeatedly been vindicated as new discoveries show that previously unknown organelles, biochemical cycles, and genetic mechanisms actually have function and should thus be investigated as if they were intelligently designed!
-Q
Bornagain77: Hmm, I wonder why does that sentence not instead read as, “many biologists have reviewed his (Behe’s) work and have conducted, or referenced, experimental work that refutes his work.”
Many of the objections had to do with Dr Behe’s interpretations of other people’s work. So, they pointed out how he had misread things. Are you sure you really are aware of the actual issues?
“Yes, it does. And . . .”
JVL,
So… Behe did do science. And scientists criticized it. Because… it… was… science….
Andrew
“Are you sure you really are aware of the actual issues?”
Yep. The actual issue(s) is that hard-core Darwinists, since they are emotionally, even religiously, committed to Atheism, could care less what the actual evidence says.
As I’ve pointed out numerous times before, Darwinism is not a science, but is, since Darwinists simply refuse to accept any experimental falsification of their theory, much more properly classified as a unfalsifiable pseudo-science, even classified as a religion for atheists, than ever being classified as a hard science.
Here are a few more instances where Darwinists simply refuse to accept falsification of their theory,
Verse:
Of supplemental note:
Asauber: So… Behe did do science. And scientists criticized it. Because… it… was… science….
So, you’ve run out of meaningful things to say. Noted.
Bornagain77: The actual issue(s) is that Darwinists could care less what the actual evidence says.
What if you and Dr Behe are wrong about the actual evidence? Who are you to judge? Are you a biologist? Or a chemist? Or a biochemist?
JVL, whatever.
“So, you’ve run out of meaningful things to say. Noted.”
JVL,
No, you’ve just decided to be obtuse. Again.
Andrew
JVL at 80,
Are you? 15 year olds in high school who are told blind, unguided forces made all living things are none of these, yet, if they accept evolution then that’s considered good science teaching. When anyone, scientist or not, suggests otherwise then problems occur. But they amount to empty objections.
People judge the information they’re getting all the time.
So I request this:
“So get specific. Show us a specific trail of small-step evidence, where unguided evolution occurred.”
…and unsurprisingly there are evasions and crickets.
Andrew
Asauber: So get specific. Show us a specific trail of small-step evidence, where unguided evolution occurred.
But will you reciprocate and offer a similar, detailed trail of design? You will not. Why should anyone do tons of work for someone with a double standard? For a view which has no detail or fine gradations?
This is a typical ID wheeze: you can’t show every single small step so your idea is bogus. But ID provides zero steps, no timeline, no mechanism, no steps at all. When you can provide even an attempt at your own explanation for the phenomena you query then we can talk. When it’s a fair discussion.
Relatd @83,
Remember the folk wisdom: “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get muddy and the pig likes it.”
Also note that there’s no dispute from the Darwinists here on the substantive information presented, nor do they provide anything that a reasonably well-programmed trollbot couldn’t also produce.
-Q
Relatd: Are you?
I read and listen to people who are chemists and biologists and biochemists and the vast majority disagree with Dr Behe. Maybe they’re all wrong. Maybe there is some vast conspiracy to uphold the accepted paradigm. But, conspiracy theories aside . . . I gotta think the evidence and the consensus is for unguided evolution.
Bornagain77: whatever.
What experiments did Dr Behe do to prove unguided evolution wrong? Please be specific.
JVL @85,
Already provided multiple times. For example, see @75.
-Q
Goodness me, get called away and a plethora of misrepresentation ensues. I’m shocked, shocked I say, to see that happening here. Querius at 75 is particularly egregious. For shame, for shame. Response tomorrow. Gnite.
“This is a typical ID wheeze: you can’t show every single small step so your idea is bogus.”
JVL,
So far you haven’t shown —->any<—– small step evidence.
Andrew
Ba77 at 78,
“The actual issue(s) is that hard-core Darwinists, since they are emotionally, even religiously, committed to Atheism, could care less what the actual evidence says.”
That sums up everything. Once atheists had Darwin, they had what seemed, for a while, to be a reason for believing that nothing made human beings. But the death of evolution will take time. Supporters here and elsewhere will have to keep promoting it. At the same time, they have to ignore the fact that all of the sentences here use word-symbols that are complex, specific and in the correct order to be understood correctly. Living things contain codes that operate in the same way.
But further attempts to deny that will continue.
Relatd: I send an unguided, driverless car down a road. How long before it crashes and burns?
Are you suggesting that the entirety of life on earth is equivalent to one driverless car heading down a road? Really?
You don’t seem to really grasp the unguided evolution idea. New life forms come from existing, viable forms. But the process is very wasteful, many offspring die, some before birth, some at birth, some soon after birth. So, yes, in some sense, there are a lot of cars crashing and burning. But some don’t.
JVL @88,
Scientific theories are never “proven” right or wrong. Evidence and experimentation shows them either stronger or weaker. This is seventh grade science.
-Q
Asauber: So far you haven’t shown —->any<—– small step evidence.
Neither have you. So?
IF I did provide that information what would you do?
“IF I did provide that information what would you do?”
JVL,
IF you did, I would scientifically scrutinize it, and let you know what I perceived.
Andrew
Querius: Already provided multiple times. For example, see @75.
First of all, most of the statements made in comment 75 are just assertions. Secondly, many of them are so egregiously wrong I’m surprised you reproduced them. Nonetheless . . .
Pick one of those assertions and we shall look into it. Which one will you pick . . .
Asauber: IF you did, I would scientifically scrutinize it, and let you know what I perceived.
Would you reciprocate and provide a step-by-step design explanation for the same situation?
Note that researchers have found that software simulations of ecosystems are typically unstable and crash after decimating the ecosystem’s carrying capacity. I’ve worked on this problem myself. Ecosystems also seem to be intelligently designed.
Thus, the driverless car analogy is apt.
-Q
“Would you reciprocate and provide a step-by-step design explanation for the same situation?”
JVL,
ID doesn’t claim to provide step by step design implementation.
But evolution claims to provide step by step implementation. So let’s go with that. Or is this going to end up with you not providing any evidence for your position? Again?
Andrew
Asauber: ID doesn’t claim to provide step by step design implementation.
Unguided evolution doesn’t claim to provide it either. They claim it exists.
Oh, and, by the way, ID is a “better” explanation when it cannot provide a better, more detailed explanation?
There is no way anyone can specifically provide a step-by-step mutational journey for any changes that happened in the past. DNA was only isolated in the 1950s and complete genome retrieval is still pretty expensive and time consuming. However, monitoring modern situations is providing some examples of small, step-by-step alterations. Some of these are well documented in Neil Shubin’s book Some Assembly Acquired. Perhaps you should read that book.
JVL @97,
Ok, I pick . . .
The half-life of DNA has been scientifically determined to be 521 years (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555). Thus, after only seven half lives or about 3,600 years, less than 1% of DNA would survive under ideal conditions (-5 C). It’s predicted that EVERY BOND in DNA would be destroyed in 6.8 million years. Nevertheless, Darwinists still claim that DNA sequences from insects in amber are 25-30 million years old (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411508/) and that Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced as far back as 430,000 years (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411508/).
– Q
“They claim it exists.”
JVL,
La de da. I claim to be King of Siam. Go clean my pool.
Andrew
Querius: The half-life of DNA has been scientifically determined to be 521 years (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555).
Okay. That seems okay with me. Which means that previous predictions about being able to recover ancient DNA were far too optimistic. AND the previous paper you cited was 20 YEARS older!! So, guess what, scientists may no longer be making that claim. NOT “Darwinists still claim”.
Are you even looking at the papers you cite?
Asauber: La de da. I claim to be King of Siam. Go clean my pool.
And you can’t even say when design was implemented. Not a guess, not a hypothesis, nothing.
And ID is a better explanation. Really?
“And ID is a better explanation. Really?”
JVL,
Yes ID doesn’t make claims it can’t deliver on. On the other hand, your unguided evolution position is literally a farce.
Andrew
Querius at 99,
So, blind, unguided chance kept spitting out random organisms until it got a few right, and THEN that organism, and the other, had to find the right niche?
Let’s create a human eye:
The lens is formed by accident.
The eyeball is formed by accident.
The optic nerve is formed by accident.
It is connected to the right location in the brain by accident.
The rods and cones in the eyes were created by accident so we can see color and black and white.
Two openings in the skull that fit the eyeballs are formed by accident and are the right distance apart for true stereoscopic vision, by accident.
Then an accident occurred to create eyelids and eyelashes.
Asauber: ID doesn’t make claims it can’t deliver on.
ID says almost nothing and that makes it a better explanation? Really? ID can’t say when design was implemented; some even say it can’t say anything about that. ID says zilch about how design was implemented. ID says double zilch about why design was implemented. In fact, ID makes almost no claims at all.
ID has one, single statement: some stuff looks designed. And the reasons? Firstly, we can’t see how natural processes could have come up with what we observe (a negative argument). Secondly, there’s a lot of complicated ‘directions’ in things like DNA and we’ve only observed intelligent beings coming up with stuff like that. BUT we’ve only noticed HUMAN BEINGS coming up with stuff like that. That doesn’t mean there were any other intelligent beings around at whatever time you can’t specify who did something you also can’t specify.
You can’t just ‘logic’ other beings into existence. Especially when you can’t even say when they were around.
I am perfect happy to consider the design inference when and if you guys come up with some more evidence and some more statements about when and how design was implemented. You can’t get more support for ID just by picking on unguided evolutionary theory because it doesn’t spell out every single step when you have zero intention of ever doing that yourself.
IF there was design it had to be implemented, ‘made flesh’. That had to happen at a particular time or times. It had to be carried out in a particular way. When you take pride in not even trying to address those questions you just show how shallow ID is at this time. IF you do some more work and put the whole endeavour on a firmer footing then you might have something. IF you do that.
Relatd: The lens is formed by accident.
You know very well that no one is claiming the things you cite all of a sudden came into existence. And if you don’t know that then you are not even trying to understand the theory you are opposing.
Either way, people are not going to take you seriously when you make such ludicrous statements.
So I request this:
“So get specific. Show us a specific trail of small-step evidence, where unguided evolution occurred.”
…and unsurprisingly there are evasions and crickets.
Andrew
JVL at 109,
You are the one making ludicrous statements. And “I don’t understand” a just-so story? Evolution is slow, except when it isn’t. Evolution makes unique features except when it doesn’t. With a storytelling formula like that, all that’s needed is imagination. Not credible. Just not credible.
If I told you that ID was implemented on a certain date, what would that change?
@ relatd 111
It sets it up so that EVERYTHING can constitute as evidence for evolution. Nothing counts against it. And it reflects in many of the posts by Alan Fox and JVL.
A lot of this is arguing the glass is half full vs half empty. It’s a matter of how you look at it.
Evolution is easily defendable because of its myriad of “just so stories” that are slightly plausible allowing anything to be evidence
So what’s not evidence for evolution?
The answer is there is no evidence against evolution because everything can be considered evidence for it
Point in case, I made a comment that it took 4 billion years to evolve the most complex structure of the universe “the human brain” but yet evolution can’t create a doormat
The retort by certain individuals here was “evolution created the human which created the doormat so evolution did create the doormat”
This is all god of gaps thinking.
It’s not that things support evolution, it’s just that people like Alan fox force all forms of evidence into the clay mush that is evolution and evolution theory fits around it
If Darwin did anything he created a godlessness of gaps argument, use time and probability. Simply garbage.
Not really. Darwin did (unintentionally)a good thing for the truth: he created a Fly Paper for all materialists.
Jesus talked about peoples like Darwin to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
AS1978 at 112,
What can be said about certain posters regarding evolution? They must defend it. They have no choice. Should evolution by blind, unguided chance fall then what will fill the vacuum? Intelligent Design. They know that, so they must continue. And yes, it requires no God so it must be defended.
JVL, don’t you recognise chance variation plus natural selection [= differential reproductive success] so called? That’s telling. KF
PS, note:
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection
>>Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.>>
Related @107,
Yes, exactly.
All those miraculous accidents involving the eye MUSTA happened because . . . we have eyes (ta-da). There, that proves it!
And the fossil record is absolutely FILLED with the accidents and failures of evolution (three eyes, one eye in the back of the skull, eye sockets in the palms of hands, etc.) that went extinct. Absolutely filled!
But fossils are very, very rare and we haven’t actually really ever found any of them . . . yet . . . in the ordinary, literal sense of the word, BUT, Top Scientists are supremely confident that eventually such fossils will be found!
No doubt about it! Top scientists!
-Q (LOL)
Thousands of messages, not a single mind has changed its position.
The summary can be encapsulated in 2 lines dialoque:
Atheist: You are dumb, there is no God.
Theist: No you are dumb, there is God .
….
Repeat with different words to sound like news.
….
Repeat.
….
Repeat.
@Sandy
You don’t say….
So is there any value in being honest rather than a propagandist?
Personally, I’m disappointed at the repetitive misrepresentation I’m seeing here. But maybe people are only mistaken and not doing it deliberately. Me, I don’t see the point in making statements that I know are not accurate, but then I’m not a politician or a realtor.
AF, kindly examine your recent track record. KF
Let’s compare notes, KF. Would you agree there is value in the inquisitorial method over the adversarial method in inquiring into issues? First agree the common ground and then argue over the differences.
Whilst you, KF, are far from the worst offenders here, you make an implied ad hominem attack. Do you honestly think I don’t mean what I say when I write comments here?
AF, I will ignore the polarising projections. Instead, let us ask you to start from evolutionary materialistic scientism [or your fellow traveller ideology of choice], and arrive at the rational, responsible freedom required to have enough morally governed mind that honesty is more than empty mouth noise that then becomes inherently a term of manipulation. Along the way, account for origin of life, address the multiple Nobel Prize winning evidence behind the summary that in D/RNA we find complex coded functional algorithmic information. Similarly, account for body plans, thence mind. In particular, answer adequately what J B S Haldane put on the table. KF
@ KF
You’ll have to put that into clear English if you want a response from me.
AF, personality loaded evasion. You know exactly what is being required but think you can play stylistics as rhetoric of dismissal. Absent a response on point, we can therefore safely conclude you and the wider penumbra of selective hyperskepticism do not have a cogent response. That has been precisely your track record, yet again, for months. KF
Also, why is the burden all on me to demonstrate the complete A to Z of evolutionary theory, yet here at Uncommon Descent, I can’t get anyone to give me any sort of clear explanation of how “Intelligent Design” works?
Seems unfair. 🙁
I’ll take that as a no.
Anyway, no rush, KF. I’m sure you have important matters to see to. As have I.
AF, doubling down on the loaded rhetorical evasion. I append a specific challenge. Answer it or stand exposed as having no cogent answer. KF
PS, Haldane, again:
AF, on your turnabout false projection, intelligently directed configuration is as close to hand as your cleverly constructed talking points. How do you compose text in English? There is your answer. Text in DNA expressing coded algorithms for making proteins has only one empirically warranted source. Language using intelligence with ability as a programmer backed by deep knowledge of polymer chemistry and molecular nanotech. You further know that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity face a needle in haystack search challenge in large configuration spaces that makes such maximally implausible. How do we know this? Simple, you implicitly assign text in this thread to mind, not functionality filtered lucky noise. We can go on and on and on, but all that would do is allow you to parade the same selective hyperskepticism and supercilious snideness you have exhibited for months. KF
PS, on the logic, principles and dynamics of inventive problem solving leading to technological evolution, we have repeatedly pointed to TRIZ. Of course, there is the studied pretence that this is not on the table. This is just one of dozens of cases pointing to selective hyperskepticism.
Relatd @107
all these are “small” things …
Get this – key words Mixing colors
(it will be a bit technical, but this is what human visual system is about … it is pretty technical, because it has been engineered… so it has to be technical … there is no other way around …. )
Human visual system works in RGB color space (like your TV or PC monitor, or a camcorder).
It just happened, by chance, that human eye features light sensitive cells responsive to a specific light wave length … RED light = 564 nm , GREEN light = 534 nm and BLUE light = 420 nm.
So let’s play an absurdly naive Darwnist and believe, that blind unguided natural process, without any knowledge of light properties, figured out how to make these light sensitive cells to be responsive EXACTLY to these 3 specific wave lengths in order to create visual system with 16,000,000+ color resolution … responsive means, when the light hit the photo-cell, an electrical signal is triggered, and this signal is processed by brain …
And now, the most important part …
If you want to mix 16,000,000+ colors, based on R/G/B information, you need a RGB color chart (so you know, what amount of RED and GREEN and BLUE color to add in to get a correct resulting color)
E.g. mixing red + green color gives you magenta … of course, it is much more complicated when mixing 16,000,000+ colors (like our brain does), you need to correctly mix all 3 colors (red green, blue,), plus, you need to count with light intensity and so on …
So my question is, and i never hear any answer/speculation:
Is human brain using RGB color chart ?
Or how did human brain figured out, how to correctly mix 16,000,000+ of colors ? Because there are 16,000,000+ of combinations how to mix red, green and blue color in order to get a correct color/result …
Here is a RGB color chart / calculator:
https://www.rapidtables.com/web/color/RGB_Color.html
Martin writes “ Complex chemical mixtures should have evolved 100 times independently ??? In evolutionary unrelated species ?”
THAT was the issue – the absurdity.
Then Fox introduces a Tu Quoque argument, irrelevant and immaterial as Tu Quoque arguments always are.
The rest is chaos.
JVL, 108, strawman tactics:
>>ID says almost nothing>>
– we both know that the empirically and analytically supported design inference is revolutionary, opening up a whole new domain for science, action of intelligent agency recognised from traces
– this is setting up further strawmen but is the chief strawman and it pivots on willful misrepresentation
>> and that makes it a better explanation? Really?>>
– strawman no 2 riding piggyback on strawman no 1
– restoring refusal to dominate a field through imposed ideologies that are allowed to censor analysis, publication, career prospects and more is a return of science from ideological captivity.
– do I need to quote Lewontin et al to underscore the point? You know better.
>>ID can’t say when design was implemented; >>
– we both know the first pivotal inference is THAT something shows signs that warrant that it is in key part a result of intelligently directed configuration, such as discovering complex, coded algorithms in D/RNA in the heart of the cell
– you duck that to try instead to pretend that the inference is not primarily about mechanisms, techniques and circumstances must be some telling defect.
– rubbish. Timelines and techniques are open for onward study.
– You full well know that with Venter et al, engineering of cell based life is a fact, and that there are technologies and methods of proved though primitive effectiveness. Indeed, there are even protest movements over genetic modification of organisms.
– all we need to say is, project our early days tech several generations forward. I am sure you are aware that a personal prediction is, I expect fresh synthesis of life in the molecular nanotech lab before this century is out.
– so, you are willfully mischaracterising us to try to gain rhetorical advantage. That, for cause, damages your credibility. You are better than this, JVL.
>>some even say it can’t say anything about that.>>
– the design inference, strict sense, is antecedent to such and as we just saw, there is abundant evidence of design and technologies already a commonplace.
>> ID says zilch about how design was implemented. >>
– The strict sense design inference is about THAT design happened; onward investigations along Venter’s lines or the like duly guided by TRIZ . . . yet another side-stepped matter . . . address design, invention, tech progress etc.
– strawman yet again, I trust this is never repeated, but this is a talk point that has had to be addressed many times. Indeed, it is addressed in the Weak Argument Correctives that so many objectors insist on dodging.
– that itself speaks sad volumes.
>>ID says double zilch about why design was implemented.>>
– we both know the strict sense design inference is THAT on empirical evidence of reliable sign, design is present.
– we further know that designers come with many motives that are not evident from signs of design. So you set up a selectively hyperskeptical demand for what cannot be responsibly offered as though “failure” to do that is a defect.
– that’s a fallacy of inversion, putting good for bad and bad for good
– meanwhile, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity stand as utterly incompetent to demonstrate observed ability to create FSCO/I as is found in the cell.
>> In fact, ID makes almost no claims at all. >>
– little more than pretending that a pivotal and reforming warranted conclusion does not exist.
– sad
KF
@Martin_r:
You are confused. Human eyes are sensitive to wavelengths approx. 380-750 nm. For instance, if you look at the sensitivity graph you will see, that at 564 nm two kinds of cones are highly sensitive.
What do you mean by “correct”? Where did you get the 16mio+ number from? I’ve heard humans can distinguish 10mio colors. Are you talking about web-colors, where each channel is represented by 8 bits?
Martin_r: figured out how to make these light sensitive cells to be responsive EXACTLY to these 3 specific wave lengths in order to create visual system
As has already been pointed out the three different cones in the human eye respond to ranges of frequencies. (Nice graph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell). As you can see, the ranges are not evenly spaced with the red and green cone cells having considerable overlap.
Any three different cone receptors that could detect around 100 different ‘colours’ each would give you millions of different combinations.
And no, the human brain does not use an RGB chart. The spectrum is a continuum; humans gave bands of the spectrum different names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision
Also, some creatures are monochromatic, they only have one type of cone (cetaceans, the owl monkey and the Australian sea lion); some are dichromats (including colour-blind humans); some are trichromats (like humans); some are tetrachromats (some birds, fish and amphibians); and, most impressively of all, mantis shrimp have between 12 and 16 different types of photoreceptors.
AC, you have convinced me to intervene. Instead of building on an insight, you have chosen to start with tearing down. Okay, the success of RGB visual technologies already hints that our eyes sense R, G and B and our brains use these colours to compose full colour images. That is roughly correct.
For example, we have metamerism, by which colours that are spectrally, physically, different can be visually matched, such as a native yellow matched through mixing red and green light.
This is the effect that colour displays, photography and printing take advantage of.
However, especially for objects that reflect light, consistent matching under daylight vs fluorescent light vs incandescent lights can be challenging.
For more detail, let us now see how we could get R, G & B colours (we are adding light in the eye) from how our cone cells [the actual sensors] work. Notice, the peaked colour responses for L ~564nm, M 534nm and S 420nm cones, and also the peak for rods, D, ~498nm and how close the L and M peaks are. That is a puzzle at first, and a hint that the eye is not simply adding R G and B. Also, let us note that rod cells are more dominant for low light levels, which is why our low light level vision is monochrome, with a greyish green tinge.
Roughly, L – M would pick up Red. S – (M+L) similarly gives blue, M is clearly green. So, we have RGB.
However, it is thought that in the sensor and neural networks in the retina, optic nerves and brain, an additive/subtractive process is carried out, which can be seen as in effect giving four colour channels, roughly, RGBY. Yes, three and four colour elements are involved, it seems. R/G channel, L-M. G/R, M-L. B/Y, S – (M+L), Y/B (M+L)-S, Y being yellow. And yes, there are four channel monitors that have a Y channel.
As for colour sensitivity and distinctions, a common estimate is ~ 10 million.
Some women are tetrachromats and reportedly may see up to ~ 100 million colours thanks to an orange sensitive cone.
The fundamental point is, we have a highly technical information processing system to explain, and to account for origin. Blind chance and/or mechanical necessity come up distinctly short here.
KF
KF/130
What’s the difference between “skepticism” and “hyperskepticism?” Is it like the difference between “clear” and “crystal clear?” Or “redundant” and “repetitively redundant?” Or “exaggerated” and “over exaggerated?”
@kairosfocus:
Naturally. Why would I build on a falsehood? I’ve corrected Martin_r and then I’ve asked him a question in order to learn more about what he’s talking about.
CD, the usual again. First, it is a major modern error to imagine skepticism a virtue . . . giving doubt the default, it is a counterfeit instead of one aspect of the virtue of prudence tied to right reason and adequacy of warrant. Second, classic hyperskepticism (which is ancient) seeks to deny all knowledge, and ends in obvious self referential incoherence. Claiming or implying knowledge that knowledge is impossible. Oops. Third, we find what Greenleaf termed the error of the skeptic, using hyperskepticism selectively to lock out cases, topics or fields of knowledge by demanding inconsistent and extreme degrees of warrant not properly applicable to such cases; try Cliffordian Evidentialism or the games played with the verification principle for cases in point in the literature. Hyperskepticism is real as the full blown form of parading skepticism as intellectual virtue. Thus, when it is present we see an arbitrary double standard of warrant, designed to dress the fallacy of the closed mind in robes of intellectual virtue. Meanwhile, Haldane’s challenge is yet again side stepped, a sure sign that there is no cogent answer to it. KF
Poor atheists how they try to deny the obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KG_AMMz4PQ
AF at 126,
You are an obfuscator. Admit it. ID is the complex, specific words in the correct order that I just typed. Living things require codes to carry out life functions. You pretend not to realize this.
@ Alan Fox you are an antagonist even your comment at 119 was a jab to prompt a fight literally giving a working example of what Sandy was talking about
Your whole comment can be summed up as this
I’m an atheist the rest of you are stupid but maybe you aren’t willfully stupid
Knock it off and try not implying you’re right in all of your comments. Maybe people will be less repetitive and more respectful if you stopped being an arrogant repetitive jerk
AaronS1978: stopped being an arrogant repetitive jerk
I trust you will apply the same criticism to any and all for whom the shoe fits?
This could be posted on nearly every thread at UD. It is one of the many takeaways from Dale Carnegie’s book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”
There is no winning arguments on UD. Just the continual reposting of the same things over and over. But that will not stop the commenters. They are here to rant or to irritate. Irritation get rants which generates more irritation because the obvious irritation worked.
Jerry at 145,
Oh? That’s it? The irritants are here for two reasons: The endless promotion of evolution and They enjoy being irritants.
And Dale Carnegie? Why bring him up? You should read the non-existant book by his counterpart, “How to Find People to Manipulate.”
Relatd: The irritants are here for two reasons: The endless promotion of evolution and They enjoy being irritants.
Not true actually. I have no intention of promoting evolution; I only answer questions posed to me out of politeness. Unless I think the poser will not reciprocate by answering a similar question of their own views.
I do feel that when I can clear up an obvious misunderstanding of what unguided evolution actually says then I tend to do so.
I am interested in what ID proponents think ID implies which is why I ask a lot of questions. Sadly, those are frequently thrown back at me in the form of a snide statement or question about unguided evolution with no attempt made at answering the question I posed.
@JVL
Did I mention you? This was directed at Alan.
Because his comment was directly a jab at people on the thread. Have you said anything to try to cause a fight other than trying to make me look like a hypocrite, no not really, but I can apply the criticism to you.
And if you think I don’t criticize people of like-minded belief to myself here you’re also very wrong and relatd can testify to that because him and have argued quite a bit on other threads
AaronS1978: And if you think I don’t criticize people of like-minded belief to myself here you’re also very wrong and relatd can testify to that because him and have argued quite a bit on other threads
Fair enough.
Him and I
Sorry
😆 What promotion of evolution ? They just repeat ad nauseam whatever Dawkins told them .
Anyway even Dawkins was forced to admit that the genetic code is a real code we have here few of his apprentices that are afraid to admit it because seems that they are aware(more than Dawkins is) of the logical consequences (at odds with evolution). That’s why they feel insecure to admit it .
LCD, good catch and of course his attempt to dismiss it as put together by natural selection does not pass the needle in haystack test. KF
I’m sorry, KF, but I’m not as gullible and naïve as Prof. Greenleaf.
BTW “hyperskeptical”:isn’t really a word……..
Am not.
Shan’t.
Isn’t.
You mean “template” not “code”.
I don’t expect you to believe this on the evidence of the comments you have written. But everything I write here is what I think, know or believe, although I could be mistaken about something, in which case I’m open to correction, especially where evidence is supplied to support a contra-argument.
I see my suggestion about frank and honest discussion fell on deaf ears and Querius needs dealing with. If I’m spared, I’ll pop in tomorrow.
Tonight on The Alan Fox Show, watch Alan Fox say nice things about Alan Fox.
AndyClue @135
Andy, i am afraid, that you are confused. You guys (Darwinists) always are, confused/wrong. Always.
However, i am glad that someone is willing to discuss this topic. This is Europe, it is late here, i am not sure i will be able to reply tonight, but i will try. If not, i will reply tomorrow 100%. So please check.
Thank you.
CD, you just tried to dismiss a founder of the modern anglophone theory of evidence with an insubstantial self-preening one liner. He is not on trial, you are. That’s telling, and it does nothing to undermine the point. And, words get coined all the time. Translation, you have no substance on hyperskepticism and still have nothing on the Haldane challenge. KF
AF, your quarrel is now also with Dawkins who admitted it’s a four state digital code. He then tried to say natural selection invented it but that fails instantly, indeed, this code is part of the systems that have to be in place for there to be self replicating life. Remember, any base can be succeeded by any other in the string, and we have a well known tabulated code with something like 24 dialects, most notably, mitochondrial DNA. That’s how bad the fail is. The insistence on such objections in the face of well established multiple Nobel Prize winning work and otherwise utterly uncontroversial conclusions shows just how telling this point is. But, oh it’s one of those ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked ID supporters so nothing he says can be right. KF
PS, it also shows selective hyperskepticism in action.
PS, try this
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Code
>>Genetic code refers to the instructions contained in a gene that tell a cell how to make a specific protein. Each gene’s code uses the four nucleotide bases of DNA: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — in various ways to spell out three-letter “codons” that specify which amino acid is needed at each position within a protein . . . >>
PPS, again,
https://biologydictionary.net/genetic-code/
>>
Genetic Code
BD Editors
By:
BD Editors
Reviewed by: BD Editors
Last Updated: May 18, 2017
Genetic Code Definition
The genetic code is the code our body uses to convert the instructions contained in our DNA the essential materials of life. It is typically discussed using the “codons” found in mRNA, as mRNA is the messenger that carries information from the DNA to the site of protein synthesis.
Everything in our cells is ultimately built based on the genetic code. Our hereditary information – that is, the information that’s passed down from parent to child – is stored in the form of DNA. That DNA is then used to build RNA, proteins, and ultimately cells, tissues, and organs.
Like binary code, DNA uses a chemical language with just a few letters to store information in a very efficient manner. While binary uses only ones and zeroes, DNA has four letters – the four nucleotides Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine/Uracil.
Thymine and Uracil are very similar to each other, except that “Thymine” is slightly more stable and is used in DNA. Uracil is used in RNA, and has all the same properties of Thymine except that it is slightly more prone to mutate.
This doesn’t matter in RNA, since new RNA copies can be produced from DNA at any time, and most RNA molecules are intentionally destroyed by the cell a short time after they’re produced so that the cell does not waste resources producing unneeded proteins from old RNA molecules.
Together, these four letters of A, C, G, and T/U are used to “spell” coded instructions for each amino acid, as well as other instructions like “start transcription” and “stop transcription.”
Instructions for “start,” “stop,” or for a given amino acid are “read” by the cell in three-letter blocks called “codons.” When we talk about “codons,” we usually mean codons in mRNA – the “messenger RNA” that is made by copying the information in DNA . . . >>
PPPS, Wikipedia has been shown the thumbscrews again,
>> The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences of nucleotide triplets, or codons) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links proteinogenic amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.
The codons specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis. With some exceptions,[1] a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. The vast majority of genes are encoded with a single scheme (see the RNA codon table). That scheme is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though variant codes (such as in mitochondria) exist. >>
A caption: >>A series of codons in part of a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. Each codon consists of three nucleotides, usually corresponding to a single amino acid. The nucleotides are abbreviated with the letters A, U, G and C. This is mRNA, which uses U (uracil). DNA uses T (thymine) instead. This mRNA molecule will instruct a ribosome to synthesize a protein according to this code.>>
See how ill founded this objectionism is?
AF has been corrected many times on this, we can freely conclude his credibility is negative.
KF
Well, we’ve at least established that “hyperskeptical” is not a real word. Better to use what you actually mean: closed-minded.
Greenleaf’s treatise on the rules of evidence, published over a century and a half ago, has long been superseded by the modern rules of evidence. Apropos my “self-preening one-liner,” Greenleaf’s publication using the Gospels as evidence for the truth of Jesus’ death and claimed resurrection is a work of pure motivated reasoning based upon Greenleaf’s own strong belief in Christianity. It is a work of advocacy, not objective truth. It was published, I believe in the 1840s at a time when Christian evangelism reached a fevered pitch in the northeastern US, e.g., the “Burned Over” district. And, in fact, it has been hailed one of the first true works of Christian apologetics. And apologetics is apologetics, not a search for the truth.
CD at 163,
What is a search for the truth? If Christianity is rejected then whatever secular men write is left.
How about unreasonably close-minded?
That should describe you fairly accurately. Maybe we can have a contest for the new most best word. But why not hyperskeptical now that we have a definition for it.
Relatd/164
You know, Relatd, there’s a lot more to the world than Christians and “secular men” (the sexism of your statement is duly noted). There are literally billions of folks out there that are neither Christian nor “secular” as you put it. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, and every other flavor of God worshiper you can imagine–they all have a claim on the truth.
CD, word games in distraction from the substantial. Hyperskepticism is a millennia-old problem, and has been identified and discussed. Selective forms have been observed in the wild, they were even part of the exchanges over sexual harassment at an atheist conference some years ago, where IIRC, they actually spoke of hyperskepticism. It’s a prob, it has a label, deal with the prob. KF
PS, truth claims are not equivalent to truth. That brings up the little matter of warrant. But then it seems we are going through a wave of recycled objections as there is little substance forthcoming on the Haldane challenge, just for starters. As for the attempt to deny that the genetic code is a code, that just shows desperation.
CD at 166,
You should understand that when I use the word men it is based on the word mankind.
Below is each religion’s total estimated population for 2020:
Christianity – 2.38 billion
Islam – 1.91 billion
Hinduism – 1.16 billion
Buddhism – 507 million
Folk Religions – 430 million
Other Religions – 61 million
Judaism – 14.6 million
Unaffiliated – 1.19 billion
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/religion-by-country
Relatd/168
Like I said, it’s a big world out there and most of it is not Christian……..
Still waiting on evolutionists to provide observable and testable direct data of an organism evolving to form a new family of organisms… As BA77 posts the quote all the time… what do we actually KNOW regarding macroevolution? Not infer, not presuppose, not hope, not think… what do we know?
Kairosfocus/167
Which is worse, “hyperskepticism” or its antithesis “hypercredulity” – an unquestioning belief in a faith, philosophy or person? Isn’t the wisest course of action that proposed by David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
What is the difference?
What is Haldane’s challenge other than the standard objection that we have no account as yet of how the conscious mind arises from the physical brain?
The concept of a code is a model of – or analogy for – the nature and function of the genome. But a model is not the same as the thing being modeled and the explanatory value of an analogy rests on taking full account of both the similarities and the differences of the cases being compared.
Sev, you are determined to go over old ground established from the first. Of course you wish to project hypercredulity as the “real” problem. Nope, it is a secondary issue as when one disbelieves what s/he should believe it is because s/he has a prior belief or ideological commitment that s/he should not; rendering the individual closed and sometimes hostile to what they resist beyond reason. In short, we are seeing crooked yardstick thinking by which the crooked is used to condemn the straight. And, the pivot is thus the pattern of demanding arbitrarily — irresponsibly — high warrant for what one disbelieves when for what one is inclined to believe no such demand is going to be made. This is the lurking error in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Nope, only reasonable and adequate warrant. BTW, Hume may well have opened the door to the hyperskepticism we are dealing with, through step two, oh there’s no evidence that X, where in fact there is wilful refusal to acknowledge evidence. As can be seen just above regarding the genetic code, which manifestly exemplifies and instantiates coded algorithms but that seems to be fatal for a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism as was inadvertently exposed by Lewontin and its fellow travellers. The ideology leads to the undue suspicion and resistance to what is manifestly well warranted, thence all sorts of specious deflective arguments. KF
PS, to claim truth — accurate description of reality — is not the same as to have it, which is obvious. This is well known.
PPS, the linked video clip in which Dawkins opens with the key admission (then immediately fails to recognise that the genetic code is antecedent to self replication so to differential reproductive success) has a telling comment thread. First, there is failure to recognise that digital means discrete state, and so a four state system is digital. There are demands for where are the numbers, failing to see that 1/0 is also hole/no hole for punched tape or card, high/low, true/false, N/S etc for two state elements. Here we have four state elements A/G/C/T (or U), forming an alphanumeric, discrete state system. These are then composed as s-t-r-i-n-g data structures where any of the four may follow any other of the four. Next, we have three element codons, defining a 64 state system that is reflected in code tables [with was it 24 variants]. In this context we have start and stop codons, with a chain of extending codons, which match anticodons of loaded tRNAs in the ribosome. At the other end of the tRNA as folded into an L, we have a standard CCA tool tip loaded at the COOH end with a particular AA. Notice, a universal joint, which means chemically any tRNA could bond with any AA; as Yockey illustrates, it is the loading enzymes that assign a particular AA from the key 20 to particular tRNAs, thus effecting the encoding. These L shaped molecules act as taxis for AAs and as position-arm devices that are used to click together the chained AAs. Folded, agglomerated and modified AA chains thus formed in the cells through onward steps of course are the proteins of life, the system uses such proteins, especially enzymes. That is we have a going concern chicken-egg loop. The YT commenters seem to struggle to acknowledge these well known points established through multiple Nobel Prize winning work. That is a flag as to what is going on, in a day where it is a few clicks away to learn what digital and code as well as algorithm mean.
F/N: I did a web search on digital, and can see a common failure to recognise that this is not just about two state elements but about discrete state elements. I recall here my introductory lecture for digital topics where the comparison was climbing a ladder vs a rope as continuous state. Binary, decimal, duodecimal, hexadecimal and sexagesimal cases were highlighted. Astronomers were still using 60-state numerals in the 1600’s for calculations. The last, always got a chuckle. I don’t know if many are aware that the USSR produced three state computers [and a textbook that extends the math of digital systems to arbitrary numbers of states], or that something like the 20-pin 74LS245 uses tri-state, eight line bidirectional bus buffers with a high impedance state as a control on information flow. Digital is not equivalent to binary digital. KF
PS, AmHD,
@Martin_r:
Yep, you’re confused.
Goodness me, KF. All that effort to argue semantics. As Seversky points out, your model doesn’t fit reality.
My template is a better fit
AF, more clever but self defeating rhetoric of denial games. Your desperation to not acknowledge the manifest tells us the true balance on merits is not in your favour. When your quarrel is with Dawkins’ open admission that we are dealing with 4-state digital information elements, that says a lot. KF
PS, what is your background in digital systems?
A primer for Querius on Junk DNA:
https://youtu.be/FOXrsaCpt-A
BTW, a Template is an analogue information system typically used to ensure consistency of manufactured elements that need to be precise. We are dealing with molecular nanotech. Similarly, while the map is not the territory, a good map is a sound guide to the territory, which extends to validated models, simulations etc.
Richard Dawkins is not God. He has written and said many things I agree with and some things I disagree with. So what?
Just out of curiosity, what particular issue do you think I disagree with him about?
Incidentally, Dr Stern-Cardinale’s video take-down of ICR’s Dr Tomkins has a bit about genetic “codes”. Watch Dan’s hands showing templating.
What is your background in biochemistry?
In old “heist” movies, the criminals would sometimes need to get a copy of the key used to open a lock to a secure vault. They would often find a way to take an impression of the key in a block of wax or clay. That impression would then be used to make a functional copy of the original key for use in the robbery.
The wax or clay impression of the key is a template. The sequences of DNA which are transcribed into RNA “impressions” are analogous to the key “template”. The strands of DNA can be viewed as a string of such physical templates. Are those strings a code or cipher? Is that how machine code or the various programming languages work in a computer?
AF, the evasions continue. It is time to draw conclusions.
You know full well that it is the consensus based on multiple Nobel Prize winning work, now taught literally starting in primary school [so much for how much Biochem do you know . . . the answer is primary, secondary and college level commonplace facts driven by organic chemistry applied to life and widely reported . . . ], that a molecular biology breakthrough from 1953 on established that there are string data structure, alphanumeric codes in D/RNA that express algorithms for protein synthesis.
Of course, such an extension of molecular nanotech is into digital technology, which is much less widely understood or taught. This is the point of general ignorance that seems exploitable.
So, as you try to discredit ID, you have realised that this consensus on facts at the core of life from Crick to the US NIH to Dawkins to Dictionaries to Wikipedia is ultimately fatal to your preferred evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers. So you have chosen to put up rhetoric to try to discredit it.
A clue should be that Wikipedia is unable to discredit and dismiss, nor Dawkins.
The latter deploys the favourite phrase, natural selection, neatly skipping over that protein synthesis is antecedent to self replication [and metabolism] therefore to differential reproductive success. So there is a dilemma, come up with a way to get evolution before evolution is at least possible or else deny a massive fact of digital information.
Dawkins is gored on the horn of reproduction, and you on that of a massively evident fact of digital technology in the heart of cell based life.
Fail.
KF
There is also an extensive series of blog posts about “junk DNA” and the “function wars” – discussing what is meant by “function” in genetics – on Larry Moran’s blog Sandwalk for anyone who is actually interested.
Sev, in order to object to function based on configuration of elements, thus functionally specific complex organisation and/or information, you have composed an alphanumeric string data structure expressing meaningful statements in English. Which you can readily contrast to repetitive, crystal cell like elements or the sort of random strings found in tars. This was pointed out in the 1970’s by Orgel and Wicken, on the record. The self referential incoherence is manifest. KF
The basis why some people won’t accept the reality of code is because they follow correctly where the logic would lead ( they don’t like the conclusion so they won’t accept the premise ) . Why wouldn’t they do it like Dawkins did : accept the obvious reality of the genetic code and then spin the logical significance ? What Dawkins did is smarter he doesn’t deny the obvious because he would sound crazy and lose his credibility instead he just tweak the logical conclusion.
F/N: Let’s call up AmHD, for an interesting subtlety of distraction:
The primary meaning underscores that templates are generally analogue information systems, used to set a pattern for precise replication, such as a cluster of drill holes or the like.
What opens up the rhetoric game is that DNA does serve as a template in one context: each DNA strand matches its complement which builds in redundancy. Then too, when RNAs are to be made, this property of complementarity is used to match the RNA strand. A-T and C-G. Where further, the three-letter anti-codon in tRNA uses this complementarity too.
What’s being side-stepped?
Much.
KF
Semantics
semantics (s??mænt?ks)
n (functioning as singular)
1. (Linguistics) the branch of linguistics that deals with the study of meaning, changes in meaning, and the principles that govern the relationship between sentences or words and their meanings
2. (Logic) the study of the relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent
3. (Logic) logic
a. the study of interpretations of a formal theory
b. the study of the relationship between the structure of a theory and its subject matter
c. (of a formal theory) the principles that determine the truth or falsehood of sentences within the theory, and the references of its terms
se?manticist n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Regarding your skills, KF…
What is your background in biochemistry?
And in digital systems, if you will permit me to point a finger at that, too?
AF, already answered above, on biochem we are not dealing with subtle esoterica but matters of the central dogma, taught in school from primary years up these days. On t/comms, digital electronics etc I am an applied physicist. And while these things are less taught they too are core basics. What do you think it means for me to report my students’ reactions to the ladder vs rope comparison for analogue vs digital? or why, time after time 60-state digital systems were the good for a chuckle case? BTW, I always thought duodecimal sounds like a digestive disorder. Back to the merits. KF
So no background in biochemistry then, KF. I thought not.
AF, I never claimed independence of thought in biochem, I am simply acknowledging what you cannot it seems, that there is a generally settled conclusion that for cause has won several Nobel Prizes that there is a genetic code involved in protein synthesis. Do you deny what is in 188 above, on what grounds and what would the leading figures have to say to that. KF
AndyClue
alright … i am confused and you are not.
Let’s get back to my question about brain’s color chart.
from a mainstream article:
My question is, how did blind unguided process figured out, how to “correctly” process millions of different colors based on these “signals”, unless there is a color chart hardcoded in our brain. E.g. this signal(s) stands for this color, that signal(s) for another color and so on …
Martin_r: My question is, how did blind unguided process figured out, how to “correctly” process millions of different colors based on these “signals”, unless there is a color chart hardcoded in our brain. E.g. this signal(s) stands for this color, that signal(s) for another color and so on …
Hang on, do you think there was a colour chart before humans came about? That the colours we recognise as blue or green or chartreuse were things before humans defined them?
Let’s just add to that: tell me what is blue? What is your definition of blue?
I’m perfectly content to refer to the triple codon system that is almost universal among living organisms as the genetic code. The name is not the issue. The way it leads you into misleading analogies is the problem.
Martin_r @72,
No, I hadn’t! Sorry I missed your post.
The information was fascinating! I also appreciated the link to the excellent article explaining why even mainstream scientists are now unhappy with the current theory of evolution as crude and misleading.
-Q
And not to mention that it’s long been known that . . .
* The half-life of DNA has been scientifically determined to be 521 years (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11555). Thus, after only seven half lives or about 3,600 years, less than 1% of DNA would survive under ideal conditions (-5 C). It’s predicted that EVERY BOND in DNA would be destroyed in 6.8 million years. Nevertheless, Darwinists still claim that DNA sequences from insects in amber are 25-30 million years old (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411508/) and that Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced as far back as 430,000 years (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1411508/).
The scientific evidence to the contrary keeps piling up while Darwinists cling to their 19th century racist and colonialist theory that doesn’t even work. I liked where the article pointed out that Darwinism simply cannot explain the origin of novel features outside of unbelievable amounts of luck.
-Q
Look at that I’m the 200 hundredth post
Carry on everyone
Looks like Alan Fox is way too busy trolling other posts and won’t be debunking DNA half life after all. LOL
-Q
I’ll see your 200 and raise you 1. (smile)
-Q
Querius:
Apparently you missed my previous comment about this so I shall respond again:
The half-life of DNA has been scientifically determined to be 521 years
Seems like a reasonable result. As always, things are subject to replication and review.
Nevertheless, Darwinists still claim that DNA sequences from insects in amber are 25-30 million years old
And that paper you refer to indicating that ‘Darwinists still claim . . . ‘ is 20 years older than the first paper! Hardly evidence that ‘Darwinists still claim’ is it? Perhaps you’d like to either change your claim or update your references.
I expect to see one of those changes before I see this statement a third time.
F/N: Kindly see the corrective OP here, particularly the clip from Lehninger. AF is grossly wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA
covers the ground quite well. Certainly better than Querius’ simplistic assertion. How long DNA survives depends on the conditions of preservation. Temperature, pH, corrosive contaminants all affect the chance of survival. Some of the oldest DNA has been recovered from frozen mammoths which makes a lot of sense.
From the Wikipedia article
There’s a link to Kirkpatrick’s paper for those interested.
ETA no claim of older examples of DNA have survived scrutiny and I’m not aware of anyone in the scientific mainstream continuing to justify them.
JVL
Indeed. For shame, Querius.
AF at 206,
Time to disengage. Bye.
I see that Alan Fox has done his extensive research from that bastion of scientific knowledge, Wikipedia. LOL
You’ve not been able to show any evidence that the half-life experiments done with the extinct moa were flawed, namely that the half-life of DNA was 521 year MAXIMUM at -5C and much less otherwise.
Instead, you use Wikipedia’s unsupported assertions that the half-life of DNA “musta” been longer under some (miraculous) conditions devoid of experimental science in order to conform with the current narrative. That’s not science. That’s baloney!
Your responses are all mouth without ANY experimental evidence that science demands. Instead, you continue to parrot science fantasy.
The good news is that you’ve exposed your ascientific ideological commitment.
Bye.
-Q
@ Querius
True I haven’t read the 1992 paper you linked to. A lot has happened since. You should always, as I do, check the references that Wikipedia provides.
The simple point is that how long ancient DNA retains enough structure to be meaningful is affected hugely by the circumstances, some of which I mentioned: temperature, pH, presence of aggressive chemicals.
I see the temperature of the buried moa bones that were studied are given as 13.1 °C.
Querius:
You haven’t admitted that your reference to ‘Darwinists still’ referred to papers that were published 20 years before the paper you referenced that should have changed responses. I assume that next time you try to make the point you will change your claim or your references.
JVL @210,
Ok, good. Then you must have located direct experimental evidence for a different half-life for DNA, right?
I’m not talking about DNA that “musta” survived a presumed 30 million years, but the observed and measured decay of DNA through primarily heat and background radiation (there are several other factors).
To argue that DNA half-life changed over thousands of years needs to demonstrate a cause for that rate change.
This subject was introduced here last year:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/does-dna-really-have-a-half-life-physicist-rob-sheldon-is-skeptical/
And here’s a link to the original publication in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences). I’ve not found any published study that falsifies these findings.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2012.1745
-Q
Oh, and here’s a paper from four years ago that disputes claimed long-age DNA sequencing:
https://elifesciences.org/articles/46205
The authors accept the 2012/13 findings.
-Q
I’m still waiting for a response to my challenge regarding DNA half life. In working with chemistry simulation software, I’ve seen what’s known to happen to complex molecules when the temperature of a solution increases and the molecular bonds begin to break.
This phenomenon is not theoretical. It doesn’t stop just because the molecule happens to be DNA. It’s a probabilistic physical process that can be verified in any lab.
The same is true for background radiation. Over time background ration also breaks bonds. It doesn’t stop just because the molecule happens to be DNA. It’s also a probabilistic physical process that can be verified in any lab.
Additional environmental factors such as humidity, pH, chemical reactions, and location (such as being buried in a natural uranium deposit) will only hasten the breakup of DNA.
There have been no direct experimental results that falsify the currently accepted value of 521 years as the MAXIMUM half-life of DNA.
As usual, fundamentalist Darwinists have fled the conversation, being unable to produce ANY contrary experimental evidence, once again demonstrating their disingenuousness, evasion, and ideological poisoning in the face of scientific evidence.
Pathetic trolls.
-Q
Having glanced through the paper (Allentoft et al, 2012), I note:
Our results indicate that short fragments of DNA could be present for a very long time; at –5°C, the model predicts a half-life of 158 000 years for a 30 bp mtDNA fragment in bone (table 1). Even rough estimates such as this imply that sequenceable bone DNA fragments may still be present more than 1 Myr after deposition in deep frozen environments. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that future research may identify authentic DNA that is significantly older than the current record of approximately 450–800 kyr from Greenlandic ice cores [47].
Half-life and sequenceable DNA fragments are different things.
Querius has not responded. It’s over half an hour! He’s fled, the coward. 😉
No, I haven’t fled, and I’ve presented a challenge that you’ve not answered, merely deflected to Wikipedia and pointless quibbles.
So, what’s the half-life of DNA under ideal conditions according to published experimental results?
-Q
@ Querius
The “fled” remark was in response to your 213 “pathetic trolls”. It was humour, there was a 😉 . Sorry for dropping to your level. Anyway as I already posted elsewhere, I’m on the move for a few days so you’ll have to wait until I have time.
Querius:
Nope. You’ve linked to a paper that gives a half-life for DNA in moa (an extinct flightless bird) bones found in soil deposits estimated to have a mean temperature of 13°C as 521 years.
But, quoting the paper:
It is tempting to suggest that we can now predict thetemporal limits of DNA survival, and finally refute theclaims of authentic DNA from Cretaceous and Miocenespecimens. This is, however, not straightforward. One needs information on the number of template molecules in living tissues, and estimates of post-mortem DNA decay rates for each tissue type. However, the half-life predictions (table 1) display the extreme improbability that an authentic 174 bp long mtDNA fragment of an80–85 Myr old bone could have been amplified [1]. Our results indicate that short fragments of DNA could be present for a very long time; at –58C, the model predicts a half-life of 158 000 years for a 30 bp mtDNA fragment in bone (table 1). Even rough estimates such as this imply that sequenceable bone DNA fragments may still be pre-sent more than 1 Myr after deposition in deep frozen environments. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that future research may identify authentic DNA that is significantly older than the current record of approximately450–800 kyr from Greenlandic ice cores [47]
So what is Querius challenging?
The authors, foresaw the problem and hypothesized that somehow, miraculously, magically, “short” segments of DNA MUSTA been able to survive.
So, the experimentally measured 521-year half-life of DNA has not been EXPERIMENTALLY falsified. Yet, claims of 25 million year old DNA has been announced and claims that the Neanderthal DNA has been SEQUENCED–all well beyond what experimental research can explain.
And you don’t see any problem with this? That’s because you have faith in science fantasy while ignoring experimental evidence. How sweet.
-Q
25 million year old DNA always looked dubious. Nobody in mainstream science sustains that claim. Evidence that fragments remain, particularly in teeth, for hundreds of thousands of years is more convincing. What puzzles me is what is so shocking to Querius about early PCR-based searches for ancient DNA turned out to be compromised by contamination.
So what is your challenge?
Alan Fox @220,
Oh, really? Always looked dubious? If so, they were published anyway. Have you seen any retractions, revisions, or updates? I haven’t.
Here are some studies published relatively recently (i.e. not from the 1990s):
The complete genome sequence of a Neandertal from the Altai Mountains (2013)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031459/
Researchers Sequenced 430,000-Year-Old DNA From Neanderthal (2015) https://www.iflscience.com/researchers-sequenced-430000-year-old-dna-neanderthal-relative-30662
Tiny segments of DNA do not make the grade of “DNA sequencing.” LOL
So what’s the experimentally measured half life of DNA extracted from animals in caves or other even more ideal environments such as permafrost? With a constant humidity and temperature, the effects of background radiation gain importance.
-Q
Yes, really. I don’t see anyone but you talking as if the survival of DNA fragments is controversial. Early attempts at recovery using PCR techniques were bugged by contamination. Now researchers are more careful. That’s progress.
AF, appeal to the bandwagon. The issue is not opinion or popularity but thermodynamics. Even medicines have expiry dates and instructions to refrigerate. What is that telling us? KF
PS, do I need to remind of the rule of thumb that for room temp, activation energy decay processes double their rate for every 8 degrees C increase? Which instantly tells us for any reasonable temperature, there is an ongoing spontaneous breakdown.
But that’s different, Kairsfocus! It’s a scientific appeal to the bandwagon! LOL
Most drug companies test experimental drugs, typically large molecules, in silico. I’ve had the opportunity to play with one of these, viewing molecular bonds breaking as I dial up the temperature. I’m sure that the same could be said of adding in background radiation (which includes the bones and dentin typically accessed for archaic DNA samples).
My question to Alan Fox remains unanswered:
-Q
Querius:
I just saw this. Off-hand I don’t know whether any research has been done to establish rates of decay over time in samples that contain DNA, other than the work on moa bones.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.160239#:~:text=We%20found%20an%20exponential%20decay,rate%20estimated%20for%20ancient%20bones.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/edn3.141
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/45/11/6310/3806656
The a href=”https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx36″>paper I refer to in 229, interesting in itself, has a list of citations that illustrate the breadth and usefulness of work on DNA fragments.
A point made in all of the above is decay rate is dependent on many more variables than just age.
AF, yes it would but a key driver is activation processes that are temp sensitive. DNA is highly endothermic and metastable, a pattern that is similar to many medications, explosives and many other organic chem derived things. KF
@ KF
The significance of that remark at 231, which I don’t disagree with per se is?
AF, evasion as usual. You know you need to come up with a reasonable empirically warranted decay curve for DNA, and particularly for why — independent of ideological impositions of evolutionary materialistic scientism — anyone should take seriously claims of sufficient survival for dozens of MY. KF
PS, as we are still on the topic of DNA, you were last challenged to address why you have tried to dismiss the point that it expresses coded information in part expressing algorithms, and do so i/l/o this from Lehninger’s literary heirs [bearing in mind the weight of that legacy]:
F/N: As a start, here is an estimate
https://garmaonhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Celluar-DNA-Damage.png
This estimates up to 500 k DNA modification events per cell PER DAY. Countered by active repair mechanisms but of course such can lead to cancer, aging effects and cell death.
Now, under reasonable circumstances, where does that go with death, decay etc on the table?
What’s the specific, not hurl an elephant, reasonable decay pattern and curve, backed by what empirical evidence.
KF
I repeat:
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/45/11/6310/3806656
KF
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/45/11/6310/3806656
Follow the link. Read the paper. Check the references.
Alan Fox,
First off, thank you for finding the references.
Temporal patterns of damage and decay kinetics of DNA retrieved from plant herbarium specimens
The fit to a log/exponential curve (linear on a log scale) is expected for specified temperatures and other environmental conditions. Preservation through drying might be explained by the removal of water from the plant.
Environmental DNA shedding and decay rates from diverse animal forms and thermal regimes
This study is irrelevant to our discussion due to the aquatic environment of eDNA that results in a half life measured in hours.
A new model for ancient DNA decay based on paleogenomic meta-analysis
This interesting study mentions both fragmentation and deamination. I was surprised that it didn’t also mention background radiation, however. The expected patterns seem to hold for samples 10,000 years old and less as with Bronze Age Europeans and Neolithic Aegeans, but my biggest objection is that it accepts paleontological time scales, working backwards to what the rate of DNA disintegration MUSTA been and speculate on possible causes. The result is a lack or correlation with time when considering fragmentation. This is highly suspect.
In any case, the “The complete genome sequence of a Neandertal from the Altai Mountains” (2013) and “Researchers Sequenced 430,000-Year-Old DNA From Neanderthal” (2015) remain highly suspect in light of the studies you provided!
In my opinion, the first study, published by the Royal Society, is the most interesting and they admit being puzzled by some of the data they obtained and attempt to speculate on why. The big takeaway is that after initial decomposition, DNA is observed to decay at a rate largely dependent on age and is not compatible with claims of paleogenomic finds and presumed dating.
After millions of years of exposure to temperature and background radiation, such DNA should be by now have been turned into powder–or the dating is wrong.
So I think I’ve proved my point in @102, right?
-Q
Yes, I suspect that’s right. You think you’ve proved a point. However, it’s evidence, not proof, that applies in science. DNA fragments long enough to enable phylogenetic analysis are extractible after hundreds of thousand years in suitable samples. Previous claims for multiple millions have been shown to result from contamination. The half-life figure is consistent with that. There is no controversy about ancient DNA and work will continue as long as it is fruitful.
I’m still unclear as to what your point is precisely and how it differs from what I’ve summarised in this comment.
AF, there goes that elephant, hooonk. Yes they say in effect activation processes fail, on samples dated on their timeline. That, embeds endless assumptions. What you need, is to show directly observed evidence similar to, as I pointed out, up to 500k spontaneous changes per day in a cell, leading to a significant repair process. KF
PS, your first link says:
That boils down to, we are baffled.
PPS, similarly, you have Lehninger’s heirs to answer.
PPPS, Nor is it just DNA, the discovery of apparent preservation of soft tissue samples such as collagen in dinosaur bones out to the typical 65 MY etc is a similar serious question.
You are missing the point. Do you know anything about tree ring dating? Samples overlap. DNA fragments overlap. Homology exists.
AF, more general dismissiveness and distractors. As clipped, they confirm presence of thermally linked degradation rates but say after a time for fragmentation on their model, it seems to effectively stop [”slows”]. The latter would imply, only partial vulnerability to activation processes leading to exhaustion. But if they had solid reasons for that they would NOT be talking about poorly understood dynamics, they would announce ta-da this is the part that breaks down, why. Obviously, they don’t: ” . . . the dynamics of DNA degradation are still poorly understood.” This sounds like floundering. KF
PS, Let’s observe a generally related discussion on stability:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.14.7933
Translation, we have a serious problem projecting to dozens of MY.
PPS, we still have the Lehninger problem, and you tried a double down above:
PPPS, Tree rings can give dating patterns to what 10’s kyr? That DNA fragmentation overlaps suggests there is NOT an exhaustion of a particularly vulnerable subset of bonds [contrast, decay of C where dramatically shorter lifespan gives reason to look for it as low hanging fruit . . . taking the same 100 C to 0 C ratio on t1/2, about 327k:1, we are looking at A, G with 0C t1/2 ~ 300ky, T 3 MY], and homology is part of circular arguments, down to circular redefinition on imposition of macroevo as baseline.
Q, I think the just above may be of interest, giving some relevant half lives and linked estimates. Of course, incidence of radioactive damage and damage from environment would depend on many factors. KF
PS, Wikipedia on GC-content of DNA throws in a monkey wrench, in its confessions:
Ancient DNA fragments can persist for several hundred thousand years depending on the immediate environmental conditions. Longer claimed dates have not stood up to scrutiny. Phylogeny confirms this. Focus, KF. If you disagree with that, fine. Say so and say why and we can have an exchange of view. But, focus.
I wondered whether my mention of tree ring overlap would be misunderstood. The reason DNA fragments can be useful is sequences overlap, allowing reconstruction of longer sequences.
Looks like something out of the ancient past.
Maybe from Cambrian.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/990804-Chabahar-IMG_6019-2.jpg
AF, I have put on the table what you failed to. That should be enough for Q. And you are still evading the point raised by Lehninger’s heirs. KF
Alan Fox @238,
Well, thank you. And thank you again for at least providing the links to the two relevant studies. I found them very interesting.
Complete agreement with you on that. Unfortunately, the findings are rarely qualified in an academic environment, promoting a false sense of scientific confidence to students rather than characterizing the evidence as not more than evidence leading to our theories. Students should understand that all scientific theories change and science progresses as the resistance to old theories collapses in light of new evidence.
For example, as reported in Live Science in March 2020, a study published in Natural Geoscience, researchers lead by geoscientist Benjamin Johnson reported that they have compelling evidence from isotope ratios regarding conditions on the early earth. It reads
Maybe new discoveries will reveal problems with Johnson’s work—who knows. But the idea is not to immediately reject evidence that runs counter to prevailing theories.
The “hundreds of thousands of years” is conjecture. It could just as easily and legitimately be argued that these samples are more likely to be thousands of years old instead, especially since there’s no evidence of the speculated unknown mechanism to preserve this DNA for that extraordinary length of time. The same study reported a factor of 6 between the half-life of plant versus animal DNA, and speculates why this might be the case—again something that could and should be subjected to experimental validation or falsification.
Exactly. And when these discoveries were made, they were accepted and published. The skeptical scientific conversation that followed presumably resulted in experimental data confirming the contamination of the samples, again not simply rejecting the previous data on philosophical grounds.
Then let me remind you of my previous challenges, to which you asked me to pick one of them for you to follow up on.
To your credit, you did so. And it turns out that the 20-30 million year-old DNA from insects in amber claim was later shown (I presume) to be due to contamination. The DNA could in no way be preserved for 20-30 million years. Even the supposed “complete” sequencing of 430,000 year old Neanderthal DNA should be highly suspect as well.
-Q
Jerry @246,
Nice. And do these remind you of anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7HTA6-bPy4
Notice that they’re called “living fossils.”
-Q
The Neanderthal Genome Project
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
A useful gateway to much primary literature.
Alan Fox @250,
Wikipedia articles are rarely a reliable source–I wouldn’t recommend using them. But you’re now diverging from my challenge regarding experimental (rather than conjectural) evidence of the half-life of DNA in ideal realistic environments.
Note that I’m not claiming DNA half-life as a viable dating method, but I am claiming that there’s no experimental evidence for DNA being able to survive in a scientifically useful form tens of thousands let alone millions of years.
A related question is “What constitutes the minimum useful fragment length of DNA?” Certainly not one or two base pairs, right? And then there’s DNA deamination to consider as well.
-Q