Coffee!! Darwin’s finches wait your answer

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 11, 2011

Darwinism, Evolution}

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

In “Evolution Drives Many Plants and Animals to Be Bigger, Faster (ScienceDaily, Mar. 9, 2011), we learn:

For the vast majority of plants and animals, the ‘bigger is better’ view of evolution may not be far off the mark, says a new broad-scale study of natural selection. Organisms with bigger bodies or faster growth rates tend to live longer, mate more and produce more offspring, whether they are deer or damselflies, the authors report.

Researchers working at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center compiled and reviewed nearly 150 published estimates of natural selection, representing more than 100 species of birds, lizards, snakes, insects and plants. The results confirm that for most plants and animals, larger body size and earlier seasonal timing — such as earlier breeding, blooming or hatching — confer significant survival advantages.

“It’s a very widespread pattern,” said co-author Joel Kingsolver of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Hmmm. Various suggestions are offered, including

Another possibility is that environments simply change from one season to the next, such that the traits that confer the greatest advantage change over time. “In Darwin’s finches, for example, there are years where large-beaked birds have an advantage because large seeds are more abundant, and years where smaller-beaked birds do better because small seeds are more abundant,” Diamond said.

So, is it okay now to admit that Darwin’s finches are not evolving rapidly into new species, but rather one type or another is simply more likely to dominate, depending on the weather pattern?

Comments

ba77 - this is such a blatant case of goalpost-shifting. Why are you unable to stay on a topic for more than one post? So now you want to discuss long-extinct lineages... Perhaps you could make a few guesses yourself about trilobites. Consider the concepts of evolutionary constraints, perhaps. You want definitive answers for why something failed to happen, but we can only guess. We cannot study the genomics of trilobites, for example, which might help to answer some of these questions. Also, for about the third time, I am not trying to offer some blanket defence for "Darwinism". You, however, are incapable of seeing or discussing in any depth the merits of any aspects of neoDarwinian evolutionary theory, and favour throwing around insults and strawmen.
Perhaps you can throw enough big words at that crushing problem to deceive yourself even further into thinking you have no problems with scientific integrity by defending such a bankrupt theory!
This sort of empty talk is not worth responding to. I will suggest though that if you are having trouble with "big words" you may not be overly familiar with the literature that you are so contemptuous of, and are so willing to offhandedly dismiss.paulmc_{March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

well paulmc, perhaps you can dig through all your literary heroes of Darwinian storytelling and tell me exactly why trilobites suddenly appeared, rapidly radiated, demonstrated long term stasis, and then slowly lost diversity until they went extinct, without ever evolving into any other kind of animal during the entire 270 million years they were in the fossil record?!? I mean come on paulmc, 270 million years for Darwinism to work its all powerful magic!!! Perhaps you can throw enough big words at that crushing problem to deceive yourself even further into thinking you have no problems with scientific integrity by defending such a bankrupt theory! notes; Evolution vs. The Trilobite Eye - Prof. Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032589 The Optimal Trilobite Eye - per Dr. Don Johnson - Programming of Life page 68-66 and appendix F: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1TiZcs0eginyh6rijCGd3kwC3CeawjQV1AsC6Xvvnx44 Trilobites suddenly appeared in the Cambrian (lowest fossil-bearing) stratum with no record of ancestry. The trilobite eye is made of optically transparent calcium carbonate (calcite, the same mineral of its shell) with a precisely aligned optical axis that eliminates double images and two lenses affixed together to eliminate spherical aberrations [McC98, Gal00]. Paleontologist Niles Eldredge observed, “These lenses--technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses--optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on earth, hit upon the best possible lens that optical physics has ever been able to formulate” [Eld76]. Notice these lenses weren’t just good as, but were better than anything modern optical physicists have been able to conceive! ,,, “The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure” [Lev93p58].,,, The trilobite lens is particularly intriguing since the only other animal to use inorganic focusing material is man. The lens may be classified as a prosthetic device since it was non-biological, which also means the lens itself, with apparently no DNA inherent within, was not subject to Darwinian evolution. The manufacturing and controlling of the lenses were obviously biological processes, with an unknown number DNA-prescribed proteins (each with a prescriptive manufacturing program) for collecting and processing the raw materials to manufacture the precision lenses and create the refracting interface between the two lenses. The lenses do not decompose as any other animal’s lenses would, so they are subject to rigorous scientific investigation,,, Since no immediate precursors of trilobites have been found, Darwinists are without any evidence as to how an organism with an eye as complex as a trilobite could have arisen,,, especially in,, the lowest multi-cellular fossil-bearing stratum,,, Appendix F: “Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbe’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals” [Cla75] “the rigid trilobite doublet lens had remarkable depth of field (near and far focusing) and minimal spherical aberration” [Gon07] Physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti observes: “In fact, this doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery - that the refracting interface between the two elements in a trilobite’s eyes was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century - borders on sheer science fiction” [Lev93p57]. “The trilobites already had a highly advanced visual system. In fact, so far as we can tell from the fossil record thus far discovered, trilobite sight was far and away the most advanced in Kingdom Animalia at the base of the Cambrian,,, There is no other known occurrence of calcite eyes in the fossil record” [FM-trib]. Poster on the Trilobite Eye http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/photo.php?fbid=189852991030909&set=a.189852801030928.57121.100000186278779 Thinnest ever camera sees like a trilobite - December 2010 Excerpt: An unusual arthropod eye design that maximizes image resolution has inspired the design of the thinnest stills and video camera yet made. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19895-thinnest-ever-camera-sees-like-a-trilobite.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028115 "Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented (fairly deeply) in the fossil record, despite being told in many text books that only about 0.1% are in this category. The rocks testify that no macro-evolutionary change has ever occurred. With the Cambrian Explosion complex fish, trilobites and other creatures appear suddenly without any precursors. Evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record is highly contentious." Paul James-Griffiths via Dr. Arthur Jones http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/studentpaper1.php Fantasy Island: Evolutionary Weirdness Does Not Favor Islands - July 2010 Excerpt: “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet,” he said. “This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100708b Amazing Insects Defy Evolution – October 2010 Excerpt: India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201010.htm#20101026a Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.htmlbornagain77_{March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

ba77 - I'm well aware of the limitations of a strictly darwinian approach to fitness landscapes. In fact if you had read my post above about regulation of BMP4 you would see I discussed some of those limitations and the how the 'blindness' of Darwinian selection is limiting.
As for ‘adaptive radiations’ I can tell you that ‘parent species’ will have a propensity to rapidly radiate, while ‘newer species’ will have far less ability to radiate. This fact is consistent with what we expect for a ‘created kind’ radiating from a parent lineage, and is frustrating to Darwinists, since it once again illustrates strict limits to variation, not opened ended variation as required by atheists/Darwinists
The first sentence is fine. After this, everything is completely, and I sincerely mean completely untrue. I'd suggest you hit the primary literature sometime and steer clear of strawman caricatures of imaginary darwinists, who are apparently all atheists too, another point that is pointedly wrong. No evolutionary biologist/ecologist predicts a world of limitless morphological or phylogenetic variation. The limitations are understood on an additional level, through genetics, so it is not simply a case of wondering why some things evolve quickly (e.g. quantitative traits) while others do not (body plan, e.g.). Heard of evolutionary contraints, perhaps? Niche conservatism? These layers of understanding are part of what makes evolutionary biology a powerful tool for understanding life's diversity. Incidentally, the pattern of adaptive radiations follows our understanding of biogeography and ecological niche theory. Read some Glor or Rabosky or Losos (e.g. this paper).paulmc_{March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Well paulmc, let's see let's start here; 'I wonder whether Skell asked researchers who use simulations of random mutation and selection in designing electronics components and planes whether Darwin’s work is important to them.' Actually paul,,, 'In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin - the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation - as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is known to work well only on a limited class of problems. Watson R.A. - 2006 - Compositional Evolution - MIT Press - Pg. 272' you also state; 'However, if you are interested in how pesticide resistance arises, the question is certainly a neo-Darwinian one. What genetic changes would confer resistance? What is the population size of the pest? These factors will help to determine the longevity of the pesticide, based on assumptions about differential mortality in the population if resistant alleles arise.' Actually paulmc Dr. John Sanford, who invented the 'gene-gun', has done extensive work in this area, especially with plant breeding and 'genetic engineering' food crops. And his conclusion, after decades of stellar work, led him to a 'genetic entropy' conclusion, certainly not a neo-Darwinian one; Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/ In fact Dr. Sanford has written a computer program that gives an accurate account, for varying scenarios, of the 'change' we can expect from mutations spreading throughout various populations; Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances. Using realistic estimates for the relevant biological parameters, we investigate the rate of mutation accumulation, the distribution of the fitness effects of the accumulating mutations, and the overall effect on mean genotypic fitness. Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf As for 'adaptive radiations' I can tell you that 'parent species' will have a propensity to rapidly radiate, while 'newer species' will have far less ability to radiate. This fact is consistent with what we expect for a 'created kind' radiating from a parent lineage, and is frustrating to Darwinists, since it once again illustrates strict limits to variation, not opened ended variation as required by atheists/Darwinists,,, Biological Variation - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye. http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852 African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----surprising implication of the study?---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905 The following article is important in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth (Note: Trilobites are one of the most prolific 'kinds' found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the 'simple' creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record). The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html as well paulmc, don't you find it the least bit suspicious that when Dr. Behe set out to see exactly what neo-Darwinism could do, and found it severely wanting for any creative power, that he was so demonized by neo-Darwinists??? You would think that neo-Darwinists would be at the forefront in trying to clearly elucidate what neo-Darwinism is capable of instead of such despicable personal attacks!!!bornagain77_{March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Ba77->
paulmc, throwing a neo-Darwinian gloss over finch beak variation is severely misleading, for it takes for granted the primary question being debated, namely how did finch beaks originate in the first place?
Really? If you read what Proponentist had written and my response to it, it is quite clear that the question being debated in my response was 'why has a singularly superior beak not arisen in darwin's finches?' - not 'what are the origins of beaks?'. The question that Proponentist asked and I answered can be addressed in a neoDarwinian framework. I did not say anything about extending this observation to the origins of beaks.
I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance
If the researchers are interested in effective pest control, they will probably focus on the pathways by which the toxicity happens, its affect on non-target species, its ability to accumulate in soils or bioaccumulate. None of these questions require an evolutionary framework. However, if you are interested in how pesticide resistance arises, the question is certainly a neo-Darwinian one. What genetic changes would confer resistance? What is the population size of the pest? These factors will help to determine the longevity of the pesticide, based on assumptions about differential mortality in the population if resistant alleles arise. These researchers might not sit down and think about evolution, so it is possible they might not even directly appreciate the value of Darwin's work and the resulting evolutionary literature in underpinning their own. I wonder whether Skell asked researchers who use simulations of random mutation and selection in designing electronics components and planes whether Darwin's work is important to them. I wonder if Skell asked researchers studying the adaptive radiation of anole lizards in the Carribean (or any other study of biogeography) whether Darwin's work was important to them, either. Probably not.paulmc_{March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

paulmc, throwing a neo-Darwinian gloss over finch beak variation is severely misleading, for it takes for granted the primary question being debated, namely how did finch beaks originate in the first place? This is very similar to the blatant dishonesty that Darwinists impose on antibiotic resistance; as Philip Skell states; Evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms. What modern experimental biologists study are the mechanisms by which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving. Organisms oscillate about a median state; and if they deviate significantly from that state, they die. It has been research on these mechanisms of stability, not research guided by Darwin's theory, which has produced the major fruits of modern biology and medicine. And so I ask again: Why do we invoke Darwin? Philip Skell Fordham University Bronx, NY http://www.discovery.org/a/2950 Much less is Darwinism fruitful for research; I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. - Philip Skell http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/08/29/10/1/bornagain77_{March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Proponentist:
But my concern is that antibiotic resistance in bacteria doesn’t even seem to be to be a single step along what is a pathway of a nearly infinite number of intermediates that are required to move from bacteria to human
I completely understand your concern. The addition of organismal complexity is a massive challenge in explaining the full extent of life's diversity from bacteria to chordates, and one we can only infer from looking to the past. Previously, you had been discussing diversity in a general sense, an area in which finch beaks and bacterial resistance are quite useful, as they give plausible bases for the genesis of genetic divergence and co-existence. But these examples do not address changes in complexity. This is the domain of gene regulation, duplication, polypoidy, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis and so forth.
the author points out: “[there are] years where smaller-beaked birds do better because small seeds are more abundant”. This strikes me as trivial ... It also doesn’t answer the question, for example, as to why there are not finches that have beaks which are just as successful eating smaller seeds as larger ones — without needing any growth or change at all. Seed sizes have fluctuated for as long as birds have existed — why not a universal beak which has more advantages than either smaller or larger ones and thus no need to change when the climate does?
It is an interesting question. The most straightforward answer I can see is very much a Darwinian one. The target of selection in the finches is well known - it is the regulation of the bone morphogenic protein 4 (BMP4). When we look at the range of shapes produced by different regulatory regimes we see that the beaks do not simply change in size, but also in shape. Large seed cracking beaks are quite short and squat, while the smaller beaks are also longer and more slender. Hence, regulation of BMP4 does not appear to produce morphologies that suit all food types. There could be other more complex mutations that would produce the best all-round beak but selection is simply acting blindly on the short-term consequences of seed abundance. In other words, this is just the sort of thing we would expect to see under natural selection acting over a relatively short period of time. These observations are obviously not definitive. However, the evidence to date is certainly supportive of a naturalistic conclusion as I've briefly outlined above. To invoke an intelligent designer one might indeed ask - as you have - why a designer would not just make a better beak that suits a wider range of food. I'm sure ID can avoid the question by stating that we cannot second guess what a designer would do - but that certainly doesn't get us anywhere in terms of explaining why there are 14 or 15 finch species with different beak morphologies that change over time through differential mortality induced by the variability in food. However a neoDarwinian approach to evolutionary theory does.paulmc_{March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

paulmc,
Hence we are not just extrapolating from bacteria to all of life, there are numerous intermediate steps. However, you also have to be realistic about exactly what can and cannot be directly observed in one’s lifetime. If something falls outside of that time frame, it is not a failing of evolutionary theory.
Yes, I agree and I think you're careful about what you're defending (and I'm glad you distance yourself from Dawkins and some of the more common Darwinian claims). But my concern is that antibiotic resistance in bacteria doesn't even seem to be to be a single step along what is a pathway of a nearly infinite number of intermediates that are required to move from bacteria to human, for example -- and from bacteria to the hundreds of thousands of plant and animal species on earth. So, yes, this is just a news article with all the exaggerations and lack of precision one can expect, but evolutionary scientists actually say such things as "some animals get bigger with evolution". Incredibly, this is the language of Ph.D.'d experts in evolutionary biology also. In the very same commentary about increased size, the author points out: "[there are] years where smaller-beaked birds do better because small seeds are more abundant”. This strikes me as trivial and an insight of very little value. It also doesn't answer the question, for example, as to why there are not finches that have beaks which are just as successful eating smaller seeds as larger ones -- without needing any growth or change at all. Seed sizes have fluctuated for as long as birds have existed -- why not a universal beak which has more advantages than either smaller or larger ones and thus no need to change when the climate does?proponentist_{March 16, 2011
March
03
Mar
16
16
2011
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Clive:
The material world could indeed be an illusion and it still wouldn’t make evolution an incorrect interpretation of what we perceive. That is saying that we perceive evolution.
That may just be your perception :) What I said was that evolution is an interpretation - inference would have been better word - based on what we perceive as reality, regardless of whether than reality is real or not.paulmc_{March 16, 2011
March
03
Mar
16
16
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

paulmc,
The material world could indeed be an illusion and it still wouldn’t make evolution an incorrect interpretation of what we perceive.
That is saying that we perceive evolution.Clive Hayden_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

If you actually view this as a matter of you having "the truth" and me having to "admit it", we're not really having a fruitful discussion here, are we?paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

paulmc, one more time,,,, finding quantum entanglement in molecular biology falsifies neo-Darwinism since neo-Darwinism is built upon the materialistic framework. i.e. you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the same effect you are seeking to explain! Whether you personally 'find it important' or not I don't care for it is the truth whether you admit it or not. ,,, As far as your objection to the simplicity of the proof, I bet you really hate e=mc^2,, :)bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Clive, I said we perceive the material world, regardless of its reality or otherwise. I did not say that we perceive evolution.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

paulmc,
The material world could indeed be an illusion and it still wouldn’t make evolution an incorrect interpretation of what we perceive.
We don't perceive evolution, we infer it; we don't see the woodland ape in our backyard have babies that eventually morph into humans. By perception you must mean infer. That inference is invalid, by the way.Clive Hayden_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

I take it you don't actually read anything I write, you just paste another list of quotes and links related to your last thoughts. Otherwise you might have noticed I'd already discussed half of that directly above and concluded it wasn't important. The material world could indeed be an illusion and it still wouldn't make evolution an incorrect interpretation of what we perceive.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

paulmc, search as you may, but you will not find an explanation for a quantum entanglement phenomena within the materialistic framework. This is science paulmc, I care not one iota if the materialistic philosophy is overthrown by quantum mechanics, I only care that I am true to the evidence! Sure science can be done within the materialistic framework, much like work in science is still done within the Newtonian framework for gravity, but the point is that materialism is falsified whether it is useful or not! In the following article, Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what quantum mechanics reveals to us about the 'primary cause' of our 3D reality: Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (personally I feel the word "illusion" was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; "material reality is a "secondary reality" that is dependent on the primary reality of God's mind" to exist. Then again I'm not a professor of physics at a major university as Dr. Henry is.) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html Professor Henry's bluntness on the implications of quantum mechanics continues here: Quantum Enigma:Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ As Professor Henry pointed out, it has been known since the discovery of quantum mechanics itself, early last century, that the universe is indeed 'Mental', as is illustrated by these quotes from Max Planck. "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every, if not every, founder of each major branch of modern science also 'just so happened' to have a deep Christian connection.) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planckbornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Simple enough for you?
I can't imagine a situation where I would call the concepts you are referring to simple. I find it odd that you would link to Aspect's work on quantum entanglement and then ask if a couple vague sentences are 'simple enough', as if in jotting a few words you had comprehensively refuted the entirety of evolutionary biology. You have not. Provided the universe at the observed level of biology has properties that are consistent with our understanding of physical laws at that level, then *no* evolution has not been falsified. Evolutionary theory is a model of what we perceive - it is useful if it helps us to understand the world on the level we experience it - even if the physical world happened, unknowably, to be an illusion. Shadows on the wall of a cave, or the contemporaneous equivalent. There is further no reason to single out evolution. What you have claimed would apply to all material science, yet I wonder whether you bring such matters up in chemistry forums. Ecology cannot be explained in its entirety by biology, multicellular life cannot be fully explained by cellular processes alone, cells themselves cannot be reduced to chemistry, nor chemistry to physics etc. Each additional level in the hierarchy of organisiation has emergent properties, properties not readily explained by the lower level. A biologist may be largely ignorant of physics and still an excellent biologist.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

paulmc, if you are interested I have a few more references in this area of molecular biology that I can give you.,,, As well, if you are interested, the first part of this following paper has a bunch of references of much broader scope that may help you get a better grasp on the 'quantum topic', if you are genuinely struggling with incorporating quantum mechanics into your 'worldview', for lack of better word. Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

paulmc, quantum entanglement, through refutation of Einstein's hidden variable argument (Alain Aspect), has falsified local realism, better known as 'reductive materialism', The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 ,, reductive materialism is the premise upon which the entire neo-Darwinian edifice rests. Yet, Quantum entanglement is found to be foundational and integral to molecular biology; Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ ,, Thus since neo-Darwinism is based on reductive materialism, then it is impossible for neo-Darwinism to explain an quantum effect that has in fact falsified its premise in the first place. Simple enough for you? Or do you want to go through the whole history?bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Come on. I asked for specific criticisms instead of generic quotes. Somehow you think I'm playing stupid games? You've yet to address any of the points relevant to this thread.
THERE IS NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in your responses for me to respond to.
What about in post 9, referred to above as well, where I explained why evolutionary theory does not predict an abundance of short term universally beneficial mutations, but tradeoffs that are beneficial in some environments and not others? What about short-term selection on finch beaks?
instead of playing stupid games could you please tell me why evolution is not falsified here
Or perhaps you could explain how it is falsifed by your video links, in your own words? I have no expertise in quantum theory, and feel unqualified to comment in any detail or with any degree of authority. I don't see how 'quantum entanglement' such as the electron states in DNA, has any bearing on whether evolution has occurred. We are only beginning to learn about the weird properties of the quantum world. Just because these properties are weird and suprising and behave differently than the higher/emergent levels of organisation that we are more familiar with doesn't mean that these properties cause observations made at those higher levels to be false. It is in fact reductionism to assume that the higher levels of organisation do not have their own emergent properties that are unexplained by the fundamental levels.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

as well paulmc, instead of playing stupid games could you please tell me why evolution is not falsified here; https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/coffee-darwin%E2%80%99s-finches-wait-your-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-374021bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

paulmc, all you have stated is a bunch of 'just so excuses' as to why we don't ever find any hard evidence for evolution. i.e. it is all fluff, THERE IS NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in your responses for me to respond to.bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

BA77 - you right that I will say that has no relevance. I will go further and say it is complete non-sequitor and complete timewasting. You have addressed, so far, nothing of substance in anything I have written, and given a generic list of quotes, blogs and videos in lieu of meaningful responses. This time you have provided a list of a couple quotes that talk generally about evolutionary theory. Yet, you haven't given me an example of me writing something disningenuous. Linking to Answers in Genesis is not an argument against the substance of my writing. Your definition of me being disingenuous is effectively that I don't reject evolutionary theory. If you can't see the circularity in this in the context of this discussion, there is no hope for constructive dialogue between us. Alternatively, feel free to start again, and discuss any of the points that are actually made in this thread.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Here is your disingenuousness in a nutshell paulmc; When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble. - Phillip Johnson http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm or; Whoever thinks that macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.’ - Lee Spetner The failure to observe even one mutation that adds (functional prescriptive) information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory - Lee Spetner http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god Of course paulmc you will deny this has any relevance but the fact is that this is crushing to your theory and you will not honestly admit it. Thus you are thoroughly disingenuous to the evidence. If you take it and learn so much the better, but if you fail to be honest it will only serve to make you look worse!bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

BA77:
paulmc you are thoroughly disingenuous to the scientific evidence ... The ‘imaginary criterion’, as you put it, has been failed to be met time and time again.
I have already responded to this, and you did not respond to any of the points I made. It is not a valid criterion, as it does not match the predictions made under evolutionary theory. See post #9. Also, I have tried to be as transparent as possible about the scientific evidence. Your accusation of me being disingenuous is unreasonable, and adds no substance to your argument, which so far has consisted mostly of metacafe videos.
The whole point paulmc is that antibacterial resistance ALWAYS comes at a cost!
In the short term it does, yes. As I've already noted, this is consistent with evolutionary theory for quite specific reasons. Note, over longer evolutionary timescales it would be difficult to justify the 'ALWAYS' in your comment. Selection drives allele frequencies in populations based on the environment in question. The trade-off in other areas is more than compensated by the increased fitness conferred by resistance. This is the crux of the Darwinian part of evolutionary theory, because selection is a blind process without foresignt and without teleology.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Here is population genetics, you are so confident is a successful prediction of Darwinism for bacteria, extrapolated to whale evolution paulmc: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203bornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

paulmc you are thoroughly disingenuous to the scientific evidence when you state: 'I referred to antibacterial resistance in bacteria because there was an earlier claim in this thread that this somehow didn’t meet an imaginary criterion as a test of evolutionary theory.' The whole point paulmc is that antibacterial resistance ALWAYS comes at a cost! The 'imaginary criterion', as you put it, has been failed to be met time and time again. For you to use this as evidence for evolution, as it is generally taken to mean the progress from simple to complex, severely compromises any unbiased analysis I would have granted to you! Or as Phillipbornagain77_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Darwinian theory has been falsified. It made claims about all of the diversity of life on earth. Darwin’s followers have defended those claims for a long time. An appeal to a “range of processes” means that natural selection does not cause all of the variation in nature, as originally claimed.
This is one area where we need to be very careful about definitions. I understand the policy of this site is to use "Darwinism" and "evolutionary theory" more-or-less interchangeably. Yet they are not synonyms, and this is a time where the distinction is important. I agree that Darwinism, in the strict sense, is incomplete. It does not model the whole of evolution adequately, especially not at the DNA level. That does not mean it has been falsified, it means that it operates within certain bounds. I have stated several times that non-deterministic processes/stochastic processes - are central to understanding evolution. Of course, mutation is one such process, but so is genetic drift, and its 'relative' genetic draft. We can discuss these and their importance more if you like. I am not a Darwinist in the sense that I do not have the singular focus of someone like Richard Dawkins on selection. Selection is a part of the picture.
Again, what we have is a collection of ideas which are more or less accurate and which are often contradictory.
I fear that you are not appreciating the difference between models operating within limits and models when they are applied without consideration for their assumptions. It is the latter that causes contradictions, and I have no interest in defending such clumsiness.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

I think the lack of predictive power is evident in the way you minimalized the scope of evolutionary claims. The news item on this thread is about how plants and animals get bigger and faster, and some speculations are offered as to why that happens. So that’s the broader claim (actually only part of it) — and it speaks specifically only of Darwinian processes.
Well, it is a news story. The article it based on is much more measured and detailed. I don't know if you have access to a journal database to read it or not. I have no desire to defend news writing, I am no fan of how the literature is treated by journalists (or by the researchers when they exaggerate or oversimplify their claims for nice little quotes). However, ultimately there is no reason why we can't make the predictions about plants and animals to do with body size. They will be subject to noise as there are myriad interacting selection factors in nature. The problem is that we won't be able to observe large shifts in body size because these are predicted to occur over long periods of time. This is not a failing of evolutionary theory, it is the result of long generation times and relatively small population sizes in metazoans compared to bacteria. I referred to antibacterial resistance in bacteria because there was an earlier claim in this thread that this somehow didn't meet an imaginary criterion as a test of evolutionary theory. Also, antibacterial resistance occurs in timeframes that we can directly observe in standard studies. Many of the resistance alleles are easily studied, rather than the complex, multifactorial, quantitative traits affecting body size in animals. We do know that selection causes morphological shifts in metazoan traits - my first post above discussed this very thing in the context of the OP - Darwin's finches. This is just one example, there are plenty of others - but the Grants have done a great job getting to know the finches. Hence we are not just extrapolating from bacteria to all of life, there are numerous intermediate steps. However, you also have to be realistic about exactly what can and cannot be directly observed in one's lifetime. If something falls outside of that time frame, it is not a failing of evolutionary theory.paulmc_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Darwinian evolution – evolution by natural selection – is only a part of evolutionary theory, a range of stochastic/non-deterministic processes are also critical in understanding the maintenance of biodiversity.
I don't know if you'd agree, but I'd summarize it like this: Darwinian theory has been falsified. It made claims about all of the diversity of life on earth. Darwin's followers have defended those claims for a long time. An appeal to a "range of processes" means that natural selection does not cause all of the variation in nature, as originally claimed. So, I'd also conclude that the high degree of certainty that was claimed for Darwinian theory in the past was very much overstated. Now the "theory" (or collection of evolutionary ideas and claims) continually grows with complexity and uncertainty. However, we continue to find exaggerated claims about the explanatory power and importance of this idea. Evolutionary theory still fails to correctly predict what is found in nature -- in fact, there is no evolutinary theory which can consistently predict what will happen, or even accurately explain what did happen in the past. Again, what we have is a collection of ideas which are more or less accurate and which are often contradictory. I think if we could get more evolutionary scientists to agree with that last sentence, we could have far more success in learning about the development of nature.proponentist_{March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply