Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coffee!! Darwin’s finches wait your answer

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
We can predict how long it will take to spread to become the locally dominant allele based on the strength of selection. Where is the lack of predictive power in this?
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. But to indicate the predictive power of this process, you used anti-biotic resistence in bacteria as the model. This drastically reduces the scope of the argument. In the most simple organisms, we can predict how resistence will spread through a population with some degree of accuracy. But if this was a model for evolutionary theory on the grand scale, then there would be no need for the patchwork of hypotheses, corrections, reversals, falsifications and appeal to blind chance that we find in evolutionary science. Instead, bacterial resistance is a model for some minor adaptations. I requires an enormous leap to project those adaptations as the driving cause of the diversity of all plant and animal life. The challenge for evolutionary theory is to show the developmental path from bacterial resistance to higher organisms and then on to plants and animals which necessarily "driven to become bigger and faster".proponentist
March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
paulmc, If you think neo-Darwinian evolution is the best fit for the evidence you have been severely misguided, or you have severely deceived yourself! The 'best fit' for ALL THE EVIDENCE is top-down design not bottom up evolution. In fact the true rule for all biological adaptations is Genetic Entropy not neo-Darwinian evolution! Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/ for a list of consistent failed predictions of neo-Darwinian evolution, that has forced it into a hopeless tailspin, or is that 'tale-spin', of superfluous and convoluted excuses, see this site; Darwin’s Predictions http://www.darwinspredictions.com/bornagain77
March 15, 2011
March
03
Mar
15
15
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
**Sorry that last paragraph should read that I agree that Darwinian evolution cannot explain all diversity of life on earth.**paulmc
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
Proponentist says:
Evolutionary theory, in contrast, cannot explain why, under the same environmental conditions, some organisms grow larger and faster, while others do not.
It is your assertion that evolutionary theory cannot explain why some organisms grow larger and faster and others do not. The problem is there is a massive body of literature addressing these ideas in great detail. But also, pPart of the problem is statistical - I explain this below. I want to mainly address your other point however because this is critical, and relates to the above in any case:
When an environment changes, a bacterium may evolve a better fit to that environment. Yes, or it may not. In the end, this is not an explanation. It cannot predict what will happen. At best, it’s a speculation about what might have happened.
The problem with your line of thinking is that there isn't one thing that happens in nature. Some lineages evolve in a particular way and others do not. This is a statistical problem, not a deterministic one. Evolutionary theory doesn't predict X will happen when we there are probabilities that either X or Y will happen. It attempts to predict those probabilities, something that you are denying it. This is not so different from the analogy of tectonic plates and earthquakes. So, back to bacteria. Put into an environment containing an antibacterial agent, a bacterial species will either evolve a resistance, likely at a fitness cost in the original environment, or it will become locally extinct. If the antibacterial agent is not completely effective, the bacteria will be able to survive in reduced numbers with a selective pressure for antibacterial resistance. The smaller the change required to acquire resistance (e.g. a single nucleotide substitution) the more likely it is to occur. In a sufficiently large population given sufficient time, this change becomes effectively inevitable, and is a process that can be modelled. We can predict how long on average it will take for resistance to evolve from the mutation rate, generation time, and effective population size. We can predict how long it will take to spread to become the locally dominant allele based on the strength of selection. Where is the lack of predictive power in this? You also say:
I think it’s important to admit also that Darwinian theory purports to explain all of the diversity of life on earth.
I agree, as long as you mean Darwinian theory, sensu stricto. 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.paulmc
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
BA77 says:
paulmc, so no matter how we test for neo-Darwinian evolution (short-term, long term, hundreds of millions of years) it is unfalsifiable??? OK paulmc since no matter how we look at it we fail to falsify neo-Darwinian evolution in your view
Could you kindly point me to where I stated this?paulmc
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Plate tectonics theory explains why earthquakes happen in some places but not in others. Does that make it wrong?
If evolutionary theory worked in a similar way, then that would be a good analogy. Plate tectonics seeks explanations which are universally applicable. So, it's not a question of having to create an explaination for every geographical space on earth. If certain physical features and changes are present on the planet, then earthquakes will occur. Evolutionary theory, in contrast, cannot explain why, under the same environmental conditions, some organisms grow larger and faster, while others do not. Instead, it offers something more like this statement which I copied from one of your later replies on this thread: When an environment changes, a bacterium may evolve a better fit to that environment. Yes, or it may not. In the end, this is not an explanation. It cannot predict what will happen. At best, it's a speculation about what might have happened. I think it's important to admit also that Darwinian theory purports to explain all of the diversity of life on earth.proponentist
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
paulmc, so no matter how we test for neo-Darwinian evolution (short-term, long term, hundreds of millions of years) it is unfalsifiable??? OK paulmc since no matter how we look at it we fail to falsify neo-Darwinian evolution in your view, here is what does falsify neo-Darwinian evolution: Materialism, upon which neo-Darwinism is built, is falsified by quantum entanglement; The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm and yet paulmc, though materialism is falsified by quantum entanglement, now quantum entanglement is found in molecular biology; Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Further evidence that quantum entanglement/information is found throughout entire protein structures: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rescue-proteins-leave-evolutionists-in-the-ditch/#comment-373214 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ paulmc, It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology, for how can quantum entanglement/information, in molecular biology, possibly be explained by the materialistic framework of neo-Darwinism, a framework which is predicated on the presupposition of being constrained by time and space, when Alain Aspect and company have falsified the validity of local realism (reductive materialism) in the first place with quantum entanglement? It is simply ludicrous to appeal to the materialistic framework, which undergirds the entire neo-Darwinian framework, that has been falsified by the very same quantum entanglement effect that one is seeking an explanation to! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! Probability arguments, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply! i.e. there ARE NO LOOPHOLES for the framework of neo-Darwinian evolution to appeal to for explaining this! ---------------- further proof that transcendent information is 'central to life; Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/journals.asp?iid=47 4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for 'random' Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this 'four dimensional scaling' of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional 'expectation' for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an 'emergent' property of the 3-D material realm.bornagain77
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
paulmc, so no matter how we test for neo-Darwinian evolution (short-term, long term, hundreds of millions of years) it is unfalsifiable??? OK paulmc since no matter where we look we fail falsify neo-Darwinian evolution in your view, because of 'convoluted' excuses, here is what does falsify neo-Darwinian evolution: Materialism, upon which neo-Darwinism is built, is falsified by quantum entanglement; The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm and yet paulmc, though materialism is falsified by quantum entanglement, now quantum entanglement is found in molecular biology; Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Further evidence that quantum entanglement/information is found throughout entire protein structures: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/rescue-proteins-leave-evolutionists-in-the-ditch/#comment-373214 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ paulmc, It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology, for how can quantum entanglement, in molecular biology, possibly be explained by the materialistic framework of neo-Darwinism, a framework which is predicated on the presupposition of being constrained by time and space, when Alain Aspect and company have falsified the validity of local realism (reductive materialism) in the first place with quantum entanglement? It is simply ludicrous to appeal to the materialistic framework, which undergirds the entire neo-Darwinian framework, that has been falsified by the very same quantum entanglement effect that one is seeking an explanation to! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! Probability arguments, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply! i.e. there ARE NO LOOPHOLES for neo-Darwinian evolution to appeal to for explaining this! ---------------- further proof that transcendent information is 'central to life; Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/journals.asp?iid=47 4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/#comment-369806 Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for 'random' Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this 'four dimensional scaling' of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional 'expectation' for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an 'emergent' property of the 3-D material realm.bornagain77
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Also, I did not state that evolution is 'true'. Those are your words. What I have said is that evolution is the best-fit and simplest explanation for a plethora of observations in numerous and independent fields. I have also said that any alternative should be testable, and should have a better predictive power if it is going to introduce more complexity than the simpler model.paulmc
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
BA77:
pualmc, Since you think the test provided by Dr. Behe was too restrictive, Perhaps you care to show just one violation of the much broader ‘fitness test’, so as to tentatively falsify ID and validate neo-Darwinian evolution?
Behe was not too restrictive, he more plainly failed to provide the claimed test for falsifiability. If I understand it correctly from the websites/blogs you link to, the so called "fitness test" appears to demonstrate a misunderstanding of neoDarwinian evolution. When an environment changes, a bacterium may evolve a better fit to that environment. So, in the presence of an antibacterial agent, a mutation that results in survival is a genuine gain of fitness in the organism's current environment. Selection can only 'test' against the environment, otherwise it would be a teleological force, invalidating a principal component of neoDarwinism. Undoubtedly, many adaptations in organisms that occur in changing environments would be considered tradeoffs in other environments. All organisms are complex; why should there be adaptations that are fit for every conceivable environment? In this way, antibacterial resistance works precisely in the fashion we would expect by chance mutations that are under selection. Especially for short-term observations over a few years/decades. Futhermore, if organisms were had wholesale, across-the-board fitness gains, there would be far less co-existence of species within similar niches than we observe. The literature on fitness trade-offs in complex traits is so vast (one interesting example - seed size/number), I find it difficult to believe that there is some errant expectation that fitness tradeoffs shouldn't occur under neoDarwinian evolution.paulmc
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
pualmc, Since you think the test provided by Dr. Behe was too restrictive, Perhaps you care to show just one violation of the much broader 'fitness test', so as to tentatively falsify ID and validate neo-Darwinian evolution? Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html Or perhaps you could locate the 'proof' for neo-Darwinian evolution that Dr. Behe could not locate despite scouring four decades of lab work; “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Or perhaps paulmc you can tell me exactly why neo-Darwinian processes failed to generate any 'non-trivial' complexity in the largest real world tests that can be performed for Darwinian processes; A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135: "Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s.html Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." or perhaps paulmc you can tell me exactly why the oldest bacteria we can find look exactly like modern bacteria of today? Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 Though it is impossible to reconstruct the DNA of these earliest bacteria fossils, scientists find in the fossil record, and compare them to their descendants of today, there are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and 'revived' from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence. The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the 'Fitness Test' I had asked him about: Dr. Cano stated: "We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative "ancient" B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.": Fitness test which compared ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. paulmc, you say evolution is true, yet I can find no 'proof' that it is. All I can find is the blind faith, and blatant dishonesty, of neo-Darwinists to support the claim that Darwinism is true!bornagain77
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
BA77:
could you please provide a semi-exact falsification criteria for Darwinian evolution??? Such as the semi-exact falsification criteria that Dr. Behe presents here for ID
I'd note straight off that Darwinian evolution, by which I assume you mean evolutionary theory broadly (because you are contrasting it with ID), is not a single hypothesis. It is a large set of principles across many disciplines. I would recommend reading some of Arlin Stoltzfus's blog on the two meanings of theory if you are unsure what I am talking about. Perhaps you could choose a particular hypothesis that you would like to address and we could start there. There are already examples in the literature of adaptive evolution, speciation, positive and negative selection, gene duplication, mutagenesis and the spread of alleles in population-genetic frameworks, all of which are part bases for evolutionary theory. The simplest explanation I know of that is broadly consistent with our observations of biology and biological diversity is the theory of evolution. A more complicated explanation (introducing an unknown and perhaps unknowable agent of design) requires some positive evidence and better predictive power than the simpler theory. Now, I disagree that there is falsification criteria for ID. A major reason for this is that I do not see any justification for the principal claim that information in the genome could only be the result of intelligence (or that 'irreducible complexity' requires ID - see Muller, 1918). This is further complicated by the lack of a cohesive picture explaining what such a designer might look like (a perfect god that exists outside of time or an imperfect alien race acting within the boundaries of phyiscal laws?) and whether such a designer works through naturalistic or non-naturalistic means. Thus ID claims to absorb both good 'design' and bad or incomprehensible 'design' as being evidence for a designer, on the assumption that there must be designer if there is complex and (at least loosely) specified information. Specifically, in the video link you provide, Behe does not provide falsification criteria for ID. He provides one example of an experiment that he would consider sufficient to disprove his contention that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed. Further, the experiment is extremely unlikely to work. Under an evolutionary framework the bacterial flagellum is not expected to have sprung up out of no where, and is unlikely to evolve in a laboratory de novo. It comprises many parts and many of those parts have been co-opted into use in the flagellum (or at least so it would seem). Also, the more complex something is, the less likely for it to be repeated by a random process - more likely some other form of motility would evolve given enough time and given selective pressure for it to do so. Critically, at most, we could give such an experiment decades to run - even if someone was willing to run it. Decades, and not millions of years. Lastly, if - against all odds - someone were to actually do this experiment and if - against all odds - a bacterial flagellum actually evolved, this would still not disprove ID, regardless of what Behe says. It would show only that a bacterial flagellum does not require design. Other systems might require design, and the flagellum that exists in nature could still have been designed, whether it required design or not.paulmc
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
paulmc, could you please provide a semi-exact falsification criteria for Darwinian evolution??? Such as the semi-exact falsification criteria that Dr. Behe presents here for ID; Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A or as Dr. Gauger and company tried to do here; Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00bornagain77
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Proponentist says:
Evolution causes some animals to grow larger and faster. Evolution does not cause some animals to grow larger and faster. A theory in which both the thesis and anti-thesis are correct has no explanatory power. It has no real value at all.
Do you really believe the thesis of evolution is 'evolution makes some animals grow larger and faster but not others'. Plate tectonics theory explains why earthquakes happen in some places but not in others. Does that make it wrong?paulmc
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
What other “scientific theory” can explain everything and its exact opposite with equal ease and facility?
It explains that a potentially infinite variety of effects can result from the same or different causes, or that no effect at all may occur. This is dependent upon an unspecified number and kind of random environmental factors. Evolution causes some animals to grow larger and faster. Evolution does not cause some animals to grow larger and faster. A theory in which both the thesis and anti-thesis are correct has no explanatory power. It has no real value at all.proponentist
March 14, 2011
March
03
Mar
14
14
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Gill says:
The wonderments of Darwinian speculation never cease to amaze and titillate the mind. What other “scientific theory” can explain everything and its exact opposite with equal ease and facility?
That a theory can explain divergent patterns occurring in different situations would usually be seen as a strength, and not a weakness.paulmc
March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
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?
'Darwin's finches' already represent perhaps 15 species across 4 genera, divergent primarily on beak morphology. That selection acts in the short term on those beaks is widely discussed in the literature and certainly not something that needs 'admitting'. The principal researchers for decades have been the Grants. I'd recommend their excellent, plain-language book How and Why Species Multiply to understand how both speciation and short term adaptation have occurred in these species.paulmc
March 12, 2011
March
03
Mar
12
12
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Hmmm... Let us ponder this. Faster would seem to be better than slower, but snails are really, really slow and seem to have survived just fine. So slow is good, but fast (e.g., cheetahs) is equally good! If only snails could run as quickly as cheetahs we would really have something super-survivable! The wonderments of Darwinian speculation never cease to amaze and titillate the mind. What other "scientific theory" can explain everything and its exact opposite with equal ease and facility? Horse pucky can be smelled from a mile away, if you have a good nose and the wind is blowing in the right direction.GilDodgen
March 11, 2011
March
03
Mar
11
11
2011
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply