Berlinski’s Question Remains Unanswered

_{Barry Arrington

May 7, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In a recent post I asked the following question.

I have a question for non-ID proponents only and it is very simple: Is there even one tenet of modern evolutionary theory that is universally agreed upon by the proponents of modern evolutionary theory?

Then I waited for the answers to come in. I was not disappointed, and I would like to express a hearty “thank you” to the proponents of modern evolutionary theory who participated in the exercise.

I have gone through the comments, and the proponents have nominated the following list as tenets on which all proponents of modern evolutionary theory agree:

1. Common descent

2. Modern organisms descend from very ancient ones.

3. The differences among related lineages have accumulated over many generations of change.

4. The basis of (some of) the differences among individuals is heritable.

5. The relative success of those heritable traits is the basis of evolutionary change.

6. Selection is an important evolution force.

7. Populations connected by gene flow evolve together absent very strong selection pull each population in different directions.

8. Selection is important (I am not sure how this is different from 6).

9. Drift exists.

10. Allopatric speciation is possible.

11. Most speciation processes fit somewhere between the extremes of sympatric speciation and allopatric speciation.

12. All of modern life shares common ancestry, HGT and orphan genes notwithstanding.

13. The following mechanisms of genetic change cause change in lineages, with a bias against reversal:
Mutation (point, indel, duplication and rearrangement)
Gene Conversion
Recombination (several mechanisms including HGT)

14. A parallel process of concentration/dilution of such variant alleles occurs (concentration of one is inevitably dilution of the other), by both sample error (drift) and systematic bias (selection).

15. Only frequency-dependent selection can oppose the progress of such an allele through to the fixation of one variant and elimination of the other. This is rare, so origin-fixation is the norm, long-term. [Later withdrawn]

16. Iterated occurrences of such fixations inevitably change lineages.

17. Isolated gene pools diverge.

18. Species differences are fundamentally due to the tendency of this divergence to proceed beyond the point of interfertility (isolation through prezygotic and postzygotic mechanisms).

19. Higher taxa result from ongoing divergences of historic species.

20. Transition-transversion biases in substitution are due to a biochemical tendency increasing yields of one product over the other.

21. Codon position biases occur and are due to the relative effects of selection and drift on synonymous vs nonsynonymous sites.

OK then. Let’s take a look at this list. They seem to fall into the following five categories.

Category 1: Who doesn’t believe that?

Pretty much everyone on the planet would agree with the following proposition: Animals and plants are different now than they were in the past. Thus, the proposition – while at some trivial level a tenant of modern evolutionary theory – is not that which sets it apart from other theories and accounts for its unique purported explanatory power. Even young earth creationists believe it. Therefore, these propositions cannot be the basis for any claim that the theory (as opposed to some other theory) is true. From the above list the following fall into this category: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.

Category 2: Trivial

4. The basis of (some of) the differences among individuals is heritable.

Yes, all evolution proponents agree that genetics exists.

Category 3. It is simply not true that all evolution proponents believe it

It is simply not true, for example, that all evolution proponents believe that natural selection plays more than a non-trivial role in the process. It is also not true that all proponents believe sympatric speciation occurs. 5, 8 and 11 fall into this category. See here and here.

Category 4. I Don’t know what claim is being made

Is the proponent of this claim stating that genetic change and only genetic change causes change in a lineage? If so, it is clearly not the case that all proponents of the theory agree with this; indeed most of them would dispute it. Is the proponent claiming merely that genetics change occurs and somehow that gets fixed in a species? If that is the case, it would fall under category 1.

Catategory 5. Withdrawn: claim 15.

CONCLUSIONS

My suspicions have been confirmed. Proponents of modern evolutionary theory all agree on a set of propositions that even most fervent young earth creationist would also agree on. And nothing more as far as I can tell.

What I was really trying to get at was this: Is there any “core” proposition on which all proponents of modern evolutionary theory agree. By “core” proposition, I do not mean basic facts of biology that pretty much everyone from YECs to Richard Dawkins agrees are true. I mean a proposition upon which the theory stands or falls, and, as I said above, sets it apart from other theories and accounts for its unique purported explanatory power

I have in mind a proposition that would answer David Berlinski’s famous question:

I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?

Indeed. What does modern evolutionary theory offer in comparison? How can the theory ever hope to be as “solid as any explanation in science” when its proponents cannot seem to agree on a single tenet, the falsification of which would, in Berlinski’s words, shatter the theory?

UPDATE:

In the comments eigenstate pulls Haldane’s famous “rabbit in the Cambrian” out of his hat. I will address that here:

Everyone knows there are no rabbit fossils in the strata that have been labeled “Cambrian.” First, eigen’s sputtering to the contrary notwithstanding, the primary reason a stratum would be called “Cambrian” in the first place is because of the absence of rabbit fossils.

Set that aside for the moment and consider this. The fact that there are no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian strata is a datum. It is a datum for evolutionary theory; it is a datum for young earth creationists; it is a datum for ID proponents. It is a fact on the ground in the same way that people are stuck to the earth with a force of 1G is a fact on the ground. Saying “a rabbit in a Cambrian stratum would destroy Darwinism” is equivalent to saying “if people start floating off into space it would destroy general relativity.” Well, people are not floating off into space and they are not about to. No rabbits have been found in the Cambrian strata and none ever will be. Haldane’s observation amounts to nothing more than “if the facts were different the theory to explain those facts would have to be different too.” It is trivially true and singularly unhelpful.

I take it that Berlinski’s point is very different. The mathematical models of quantum electrodynamics and general relativity make extremely precise predictions (13 decimal points). It follows that those theories have exposed themselves to an enormously high degree of “risk,” because if an observation were to vary from prediction by even an astronomically small degree it would falsify the theory.

Now consider the following exchange:

Barry: And yet unlike respectable scientific theories, there is not universal agreement on a single one of those details that sets [evolutionary] theory apart as an explanatory mechanism.

eigenstate: so what?

Well, here is what. Paul R. Gross’ asserted that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Berlinski retorted that the assertion is preposterous. The point of the OP is that Berlinski is certainly correct. There is not even agreement among evolutionary theorists on what the model should be in the first place; far less has anyone developed a model that would make exquisitely precise predictions equivalent to those made by quantum electrodynamics and general relativity. Thank you eigenstate for confirming Berlinski’s point with your “so what.’

Comments

Zachriel: A hill-climber doesn’t have know if it is a hill. In which case it won't know if it's headed up or down the hill. Good luck with that. And just a bit silly to call it a hill-climber then. Does the hill know it's a hill?Mung_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Carpathian, even Dawkins admits that Weasel does not model evolution. Why are you insisting that it does?Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Box:
Intelligence is the result of evolution/variation. Not the cause of evolution/variation.
Of course intelligence is a cause of evolution. An intelligent predator can affect the ecosystem and drive evolution of the prey. If the prey don't evolve a biological response to a successful predator, the prey may go extinct. Look what man has done to marine life. With our technology, i.e., intelligence, we have fished some species nearly to extinction.
Carp: Students are allowed to use their intelligence when selecting sentences. It doesn’t go against what we see in nature.

Box: Sure, it does. Despite appearances to the contrary, change of the nucleotide sequence is not modeled by students using their intelligence.
It is the environment, i.e, ecosystem that does the "selection" for DNA and it is the environment, i.e., the students in the classroom that do the "selection" for sentences. The "environment" is the term used that which "rejects" certain sequences. The selection/variance "algorithm" is not concerned with what the parameters mean to the population.Carpathian_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Box:
Carp: Lastly, the computer keyboard used by weasel works whether you intelligently select a new parent or roll a pair of dice. The result would still be a real English sentence due to selection.

Box:Only if it’s intelligently pre-programmed to evolve certain targets. This is a well-known fact.
That is not the case. A Weasel program that accepts a command-line target has no information about the target. This is because a program must be compiled before it can run but the target string is provided when the the program is run, which is after the program is designed.Carpathian_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Mung: You mean ‘add information’ beyond what the hill climber already knows about the hill? A hill-climber doesn't have know if it is a hill. If it's a hill, the hill-climber will climb it without having to step at every point on the hill. It's a consequence of the algorithm with the given landscape. Barry Arrington: After your investigation in which you determine there are only blue M&Ms in the packet you give that packet a label. But scientists haven't exhaustively searched Cambrian strata, but because of the strength of the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, they are confident rabbits never existed in the Cambrian. Why would you or why would you not expect a rabbit existing in the Cambrian?Zachriel_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: A hill-climber doesn’t have to ‘add information’ to reach the top of a simple hill. You mean 'add information' beyond what the hill climber already knows about the hill? And the hill climber would need to have something driving it toward the local maxima.Mung_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Bob, you don't seem to understand my point. I will use your M&M analogy to explain it. Suppose you look though a packet of M&M's and determine it contains only blue M&Ms. After your investigation in which you determine there are only blue M&Ms in the packet you give that packet a label. You call it "Blue M&M Packet." It would be disingenuous for you to say, my view of M&Ms would be challenged if you showed me a red M&M in "Blue M&M Packet." Why? Because the whole reason you called it "Blue M&M Packet" in the first place is that you examined it and found no red M&Ms.Barry Arrington_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Selection is critical to the creative process. Right. Zachriel: Creativity is all about selection. Right again That's why evo theory loses.Mung_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

I think it would be more like opening up a box of cracker jacks or breakfast cereal and finding a toy.Mung_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Thanks for your clarification, Barry. But I now think you've also totally mis-understood Haldane's point.
The point, Bob, is that designating “rabbit fossil in the Cambrian” as a datum that would falsify Darwinism is disingenuous when “Cambrian stratum” is defined as a stratum that does not include fossils of that type.
That rabbit fossils are not "of that type" is the whole point - all of the Cambrian fossils we have are much smaller and look nothing like vertebrates, let alone mammals. So to find something so obviously different, and particularly which looks like fossils from hundreds of millions of years later, would be a decided oddity. It would be like (warning. poor analogy) buying a packet of blue M&Ms, and finding that one of them was red. You wouldn't then conclude that these were not M&Ms, you would conclude that that M&M was an oddity.Bob O'H_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Box: What unites all those theories of evolution is that natural selection (NS) is not a creative force. Selection is critical to the creative process. The painter can paint a picture of a cat, a flower, or a house. The painter selects a house. The painter can paint his own house, a farmer's house, or the mansion on the corner. The painter selects the farmer's house. The painter can paint the farmer's house with the farmer and his daughter in front, or just the house. The painter selects to have the farmer and daugher in front. The painter can paint the farmer's house with them in front just standing there, or the farmer holding a farm tool. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/images/standard/WebLarge/WebImg_000256/190741_3056034.jpg Creativity is all about selection.Zachriel_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Box: NS did not produce the adaptation, nor did the interplay with variation. If every organism that ever existed still existed, then we might imagine all manner of organisms hobbling around, some barely sustainable, some not even viable. But that's not the universe life finds itself in. Resources are necessarily limited. As organisms compete for resources, they become part of the environment itself. The effect over historical periods is the observation of trends. The end result is gazelles, quick and graceful. Box: All these original solutions are more ‘easily’ produced by variation unhampered by NS. If you had some familiarity with evolutionary algorithms, you would understand why this is not so. Resources are limited, and evolutionary algorithms only explore a tiny portion of possible solutions. It's because they only explore a tiny portion of possible solutions, and given a suitable landscape, that they can rapidly converge on the solution. You don't have to cover every step of a mountain to reach the top. Box: There is no way to beat a blind search without adding information. A hill-climber doesn't have to 'add information' to reach the top of a simple hill. Querius: History shows that the Darwnist assumption hindered scientific progress, that a “Darwin of the gaps” explanation is as unscientific as a “God of the gaps” explanation. The Darwinist assumption is that junk DNA would be minimal due to natural selection. Since Ohno, this has been a constant source of discussion and research, but the necessary tools for determining possible uses of non-coding DNA weren't available until recently. The Onion Test still implies that much of the genome is not necessary to the organism, and most evolutionary biologists today understand that drift and selection are both important mechanisms. Box: Here an article in which it is explained that evolution has no algorithm. The argument is fallacious. While an evolutionary algorithm doesn't reasonably model all aspects of the process, what it does model can provide important information about the process. That data doesn't go away because it misses other features of the process. The claim is "there is also nothing creative about the interplay between variation and selection." Evolutionary algorithms show otherwise. Querius: - That organisms reproduce is not an issue. It can be observed. We're agreed then. You had claimed circular reasoning, when we were pointing to empirical evidence. Querius: - Ancestors are not primitive, they are well–adapted to their environments. Primitive does not mean not well adapted. Modern organisms are derived from primitive ancestors, for instance, humans evolved from a rodent-like mammal, which was well-adapted to its own environment. Querius: - The fossil record shows that speciation leads to extinction. Not all speciation leads to extinction. Sometimes it leads to even more speciation. Querius: - There’s no evidence in the fossil record of common ancestry by way of intermediate forms rather than by way of speculative assertion. We not only have the fossil succession, successful expeditions to find intermediates, and microscopic studies of fossils, but the nested hierarchy, embryology, molecular studies, long term studies of evolution, and examples of speciation. Querius: - Lenski’s experiments actually lend support to Behe’s position in his book, The Edge of Evolution.” ... Lenski’s group has not reported the underlying molecular changes, but based on their previous results, this change seems likely due to a couple of knock-out mutations of the regulation mechanism of a citrate-transport gene, causing over-expression and an overall loss of function. Funny thing about that. Behe said, "If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT {Functional Coded elemenT} mutation.” Turns out that the evolved trait required at least two potentiating mutations, a tandem duplication placing the gene under control of a different regulatory module (rnk-citT), then copied repeatedly. This is a "noteworthy gain-of-FCT" per Behe. See Blount et al., Genomic Analysis of a Key Innovation in an Experimental E. coli Population, Nature 2012. Box: I still stand by what I said, but what I would like to add is that not only is NS not adding evolutionary information, but NS eliminates huge amounts of evolutionary information. Sure. It eliminates the less successful making room for the more successful. Important, evolution doesn't have to explore every branch of the less successful nodes. Natural selection hones the search. jw777: Can someone explain to me the evolutionary or adaptation advantage of aging versus not-aging. In complex organisms, the body is make up of cells that are multiple divisions of a single-celled zygote. Mutations occur during this process. As the organism ages or suffers injuries, these errors accumulate. Consequently, it takes increasing energy to maintain the organism, and there is increasing chance of a fatal mutation. Another factor is that, in nature, there are extrinsic dangers, so that selection for somatic maintenance is relaxed as the organism ages. We can test this by subjecting a species to different levels of extrinsic mortality. Those populations subject to high extrinsic mortality evolve to age more rapidly.Zachriel_{May 10, 2015
May
05
May
10
10
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Hi Darwinian enthusiasts. Can someone explain to me the evolutionary or adaptation advantage of aging versus not-aging. It seems to me that not-aging is a superior biological trait which confers endless selfish-gene benefit. However, aging is literally statistically and mathematically infinitely less effective at propagating. So, given that we exist in an alleged open system that does not defy laws of thermodynamics, why have all life forms preferentially evolved aging versus not-aging? This has always seemed to me more damning a fact than a Precambrian rabbit, because, as was conjectured on sand walk not all that long ago, evolutionary theory could still square a Precambrian rabbit, since it already operates outside the domain of reproducibility and falsifiability. So, again, why does biology keep choosing aging over not-aging despite the obvious contradiction to the basic premise of evolutionary theory?jw777_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, I was not making myself clear on natural selection. I said:
IOW I’m saying that NS does not add information to evolution. If you think it does, then show me how.
I still stand by what I said, but what I would like to add is that not only is NS not adding evolutionary information, but NS eliminates huge amounts of evolutionary information. Every viable replicator form, produced by variation and SDL (see #168), that is killed off for whatever temporary whim NS has, constitutes a huge loss of evolutionary information. IOW evolution is the blind search for viable replicators and the name of its saboteur is "Natural Selection".Box_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Zachriel @ 165 speculated
We happen to have evidence that organisms reproduce, and that they share primitive ancestors. We also have evidence that molecules can self-replicate.
Round and round the circle of mutually self-supporting speculation and tautology we go. Wheee! - That organisms reproduce is not an issue. It can be observed. - Ancestors are not primitive, they are well--adapted to their environments. - The fossil record shows that speciation leads to extinction. - There's no evidence in the fossil record of common ancestry by way of intermediate forms rather than by way of speculative assertion. - Lenski's experiments actually lend support to Behe's position in his book, The Edge of Evolution." E. coli already has the enzymes to metabolize citrate, but under aerobic conditions, it requires a citric permease to import citrate through the cell membrane. Lenski's group has not reported the underlying molecular changes, but based on their previous results, this change seems likely due to a couple of knock-out mutations of the regulation mechanism of a citrate-transport gene, causing over-expression and an overall loss of function. Lenski called his talk, “Time Travel in Experimental Evolution.” :-) If he really wanted to accelerate evolutionary time (I do time travel too, but just at the normal rate that everyone else does), his team should have subjected the nearly 60,000 generations to significantly elevated levels of background radiation. -QQuerius_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: It’s easy to show otherwise with evolutionary algorithms (...)
Here an article in which it is explained that evolution has no algorithm.
The only algorithm possible for evolutionary theory is what we might dub (after Berlinski) the SDLA: the "Sheer Dumb Luck" Algorithm. - - [source: evolutionnews.org]
Box_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Carpathian,
Q: In the far future, if a small blue planet remarkably like ours were seeded with an amazing spectrum of *human-designed* organisms that were left to adapt, migrate, or die, what would the result look like after millions of years, and how would that result differ from what we observe on our own small blue planet? C: We could probably see something like we do now.
Exactly.
If this was ID’s position, I would have no problem at all with ID.
I think it is. ID is a paradigm that presupposes function and design when unknown structures are encountered. It defends this stance from a basis of pragmatism. A good example is the way non-coding DNA was investigated: * Dr. Ohno assumed it was “junk” DNA and ascribed its presence as the genetic “fossil” remnants of evolution—a good hypothesis in my opinion. * ID proponents assumed that non-coding DNA had an unknown design and purpose behind it. History shows that the Darwnist assumption hindered scientific progress, that a “Darwin of the gaps” explanation is as unscientific as a “God of the gaps” explanation. That's why I invoke pragmatism. In contrast, Creationism is the assumption that God created the universe and life. This might be true, but it's not scientifically testable. It's a belief.
Q: By “spectrum,” I mean that these human-designed species are incredibly numerous due to the fact that undergraduates in future terrestrial college classes frequently design new species under the supervision of a qualified professor and then observe and analyze the results. C: This is the detail of ID I’d like to see someone explain. While the actual biological engineering of a simple single organism would be difficult, releasing it may be impossible once that ecosystem is populated by a large number of different species living in populations.
Great observation. The “hopeful monster” would either go extinct, which is likely, or it would disrupt the existing ecosystem. This is what the fossil record shows in my opinion.
My question is how do you insert a population of a new type of organism without having detailed knowledge of the future environment that would have incorporated these new organisms?
One cannot and should not. The ecological history of introducing species into Hawaii should serve as a warning: as one introduces species became a “pest” others were introduced to combat it, and successively became pests themselves. The introduction of feral pigs in the southern US and Asian fish species into mid-western rivers are also good examples of what not to do. Achieving a balanced ecosystem is surprisingly hard to do! As a project, I once tried writing a computer simulation of an ecosystem. I kept adjusting various parameters, but the inevitable result was always the destruction of the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
How would these students recall a mistake?
This would be extremely difficult. One could try to deal with the mistake by introducing a specific pathogen as was done in Australia to combat the exploding rabbit population (the myxoma virus).
I’m also uncomfortable with the thought that students would risk real lives for their education.
But these experiments are happening here, and it's not the students, but their professors, government agencies, and commercial interests operating in profound ignorance, arrogance, or greed. For example, where I live, local agencies are currently bulldozing the topsoil off of thousands of acres of land to “restore” them as wetlands while Federal agencies are ordering them to restore the topsoil. I believe the local plan is to allow developers to build on the wetlands that they own in trade for other land to be designated as “wetlands” such as the tops and sides of hills, and long-established farms and meadows. -QQuerius_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Zachriel,
Box: Not one single life form is the result of the alleged creative powers of Natural Selection (NS).

Zach: Hmm, for the umpteenth time, the ‘force’ of adaptation is the interplay between variation and selection.
Again, NS did not produce the adaptation, nor did the interplay with variation. All NS did was not touching it. Now, I'm no sucker for ‘wu wei’, so I give all the credit for the adaptation to variation. Variation produced the adaptation on its own and for once NS did not hamper variation by throwing things out.
Box: All life forms that roamed the earth (and many more) would also be here if NS was not in operation.

Zach: Natural selection is the inevitable result of fecundity and limited resources. Positing no natural selection means positing one of these mechanisms doesn’t exist.
Oh, but I do posit NS. However, I see it as it is: a restrictive conservative anti-creative force.
Box: there is also nothing creative about the interplay between variation and selection.

Zach: It’s easy to show otherwise with evolutionary algorithms, which often create original solutions to problems of various sorts.
All these original solutions are more ‘easily’ produced by variation unhampered by NS. - - Note, that what I’m saying is totally in line with 'conservation of information'. Filling the ‘viable replicator space’ can be modeled as a blind search for viable replicators. There is no way to beat a blind search without adding information. IOW I’m saying that NS does not add information to evolution. If you think it does, then show me how.Box_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Querius: According to the principle of spontaneous evolution, which supports the assertion that individual molecules must have self-replicated, which demonstrates the principle of spontaneous evolution, which supports the assertion . . . .” Well, no. We happen to have evidence that organisms reproduce, and that they share primitive ancestors. We also have evidence that molecules can self-replicate. Querius: But as Michael Behe pointed out, while variation can result in 1-2 small changes at a (low) frequency that has been successfully predicted by mathematical probability, the results have so far been deleterious. A counterexample would be the many beneficial mutations in Lenski's E. coli long term evolution experiment.Zachriel_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Box @ 132
What unites all those theories of evolution is that natural selection (NS) is not a creative force. NS throws stuff out. New things are not created by throwing old things out. NS is death, and death has never created anything new.
Nicely stated! This is where variation comes in. But as Michael Behe pointed out, while variation can result in 1-2 small changes at a (low) frequency that has been successfully predicted by mathematical probability, the results have so far been deleterious. In rare instances, random changes conferred a benefit by disabling a cellular process (the examples Behe used came from his study of malaria). However, what such small changes cannot do is build a functional aircraft by shaking pieces together, which is ridiculously simple compared to a living cell, a virus, or a self--sustaining biochemical cycle such as ADP-ATP by chance and small changes. What Darwinists try to do is insert a "memory" in the process that preserves intermediate benefit. The example that's been used has to do with birds that *could* have used their wings to catch insects before they were used for flying. No fossils were produced of course, and the mathematical probabilities are ludicrously low--many ages of the universe would be needed. -QQuerius_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 126
Z: Individual molecules can self-replicate, at least in principle. Mung: According to what principle?
According to the principle of spontaneous evolution, which supports the assertion that individual molecules must have self-replicated, which demonstrates the principle of spontaneous evolution, which supports the assertion . . . .” Mung, Z's circular logic is apparently ironclad. ;-) -QQuerius_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Box: Not one single life form is the result of the alleged creative powers of Natural Selection (NS). Hmm, for the umpteenth time, the 'force' of adaptation is the interplay between variation and selection. Box: All life forms that roamed the earth (and many more) would also be here if NS was not in operation. Natural selection is the inevitable result of fecundity and limited resources. Positing no natural selection means positing one of these mechanisms doesn't exist. Box: there is also nothing creative about the interplay between variation and selection. It's easy to show otherwise with evolutionary algorithms, which often create original solutions to problems of various sorts.Zachriel_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Carpathian
Carp: It models variation and selection.
‘Intelligent selection’ not ‘natural selection’.
Carp: Since predators are acting intelligently,
Irrelevant. They are not acting intelligent in the sense of having foresight wrt evolution.
Carp: natural selection is taking place as far as the prey/predator relationship is concerned. This behaviour is countered by the prey using their intelligence to avoid being consumed.
Intelligence is the result of evolution/variation. Not the cause of evolution/variation.
Carp: Students are allowed to use their intelligence when selecting sentences. It doesn’t go against what we see in nature.
Sure, it does. Despite appearances to the contrary, change of the nucleotide sequence is not modeled by students using their intelligence.
Carp: Lastly, the computer keyboard used by weasel works whether you intelligently select a new parent or roll a pair of dice. The result would still be a real English sentence due to selection.
Only if it’s intelligently pre-programmed to evolve certain targets. This is a well-known fact.Box_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Box, It models variation and selection. Since predators are acting intelligently, natural selection is taking place as far as the prey/predator relationship is concerned. This behaviour is countered by the prey using their intelligence to avoid being consumed. Students are allowed to use their intelligence when selecting sentences. It doesn't go against what we see in nature. Lastly, the computer keyboard used by weasel works whether you intelligently select a new parent or roll a pair of dice. The result would still be a real English sentence due to selection.Carpathian_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Carpathian #155, That's amusing story, but the involvement of intelligent agents doesn't model NS.Box_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

No Carp, you are incapable of thought and reason. ID is not anti-evolution- search this blog using those words and then read the article with that title.Joe_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Joe:
You are proud to be a willfully ignorant arse.
I guess you don't want to talk me anymore. That's fine with me.Carpathian_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

@Barry,
But in the context of the discussion, it should have been clear that I meant that the whole reason any particular stratum would have been designated “Cambrian” in the first place is because the fossils in it are the type of fossils we have come to associate with the strata we call “Cambrian” and not other fossils, which other fossils would include rabbit fossils. The point, Bob, is that designating “rabbit fossil in the Cambrian” as a datum that would falsify Darwinism is disingenuous when “Cambrian stratum” is defined as a stratum that does not include fossils of that type.
In context -- and this is how I understood it despite the clumsy wording provided -- it's incorrect on several levels. First, as a historical matter, that is not the criterion applied for naming, identifying or placing the Cambrian as a stratum. It's a geological classification. Second, even in in some hypothetical universe where the Cambrian *was* defined as a "stratum without rabbits (er, mammals)", that would still be all the more reason evolutionary theory would be cast into doubt, upon finding a rabbit fossil. If scientists in the hypothetical universe thought they were "safe" in cordoning off some layer(s) in the geological column free from certain kinds of fossils, then my point with the rabbit still holds a fortiori. Third, the "crisis factor" does not arise from a "fossil within a layer that no such fossils, supposedly". The problem, regardless of the particular stratum for the discovery, is that the developmental timeline is wrecked, and there now exists no remotely plausible path via the mechanisms of evolution to support a rabbit hopping around that long ago. So "Cambrian" is just a handy shorthand for "way too far back" -- "Ediacaran" would have worked just as well as "Cambrian". There's nothing in evolutionary theory that precludes rabbits in the Cambrian per se. If our fossil finds were different, and generally much earlier, then finding mammals in the Cambrian could be a perfectly mundane discovery; in that universe, the fossils of the precursors and ancestors of such mammals would be found much earlier, establishing a similar 'tree of life" but shifted back in time as a whole such that mammals were around at -500MYA. That is not this universe. Our fossil evidence cannot even hope to support such a timeline with a rabbit in the Cambrian. There's nothing special or "defined" about the Cambrian, as you seem to think, though. The Cambrian just has to be a geologic era came and went before mammals evolved. Your clarified point is now clear, for Bob O'H and others, but even clarified, it's still just confused and mistaken as it was when you first offered it.eigenstate_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Box: Not "The Weasel Program" but rather an interactive one. After each mutation, all the mutated strings would be displayed and a prompt would appear to allow entry of the string selected by the students as being the new parent. Since the new target string for each stage of mutation is selected by the students after variation, the target will assume a configuration not foreseen when the program was started. Since the children have to vote on the new target, no sole person knows what the target will be. This is novel creation by selection and variation.Carpathian_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Carp:
It’s ID’s problem because ID needs to insert large-scale changes which will have large-scale impact.
And your evidence for that straw man is?
Evolution doesn’t have this problem because evolution makes small changes which have a small impact.
You are proud to be a willfully ignorant arse.
ID also has to release populations all at once of new species while evolution simply mutates members of a population slowly.
You have no clue and just spew whatever you want.Joe_{May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply