Evolution’s Repeat Performances

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 24, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Would you believe that the blind, unguided process of evolution repeats itself? Would you believe that evolution somehow repeats striking patterns of change? Evolutionists do.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Excession states: "Don’t you mean that the modern evolutionary synthesis is the product of decades of research and careful refinement in the light of new evidence?" Yet the “complex interwoven network” finding is absolutely devastating for the population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright, since genes are now shown not to be the independent entities evolutionists required them to be (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005). Nor does it appear that evolution has any non-coding sections in the genome left to pull off its duplication/random mutation smoke and mirrors with any longer. Here are a few articles announcing these "revolutionary" interwoven complexity findings of the ENCODE study: BETHESDA, Md., Wed., June 13, 2007 -" An international research consortium (ENCODE) today published a set of papers that promise to reshape our understanding of how the human genome functions. The findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood." http://www.genome.gov/25521554 Encyclopedia Of DNA: New Findings Challenge Established Views On Human Genome: The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613131932.htm Psalm 139: 14-15 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; ,,,, When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body." A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle: "The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/?page=1 Junk DNA - Another Failed Prediction Of Evolution - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNVfCAvrac Concluding paragraph of the ENCODE study: At the outset of the ENCODE Project, many believed that the broad collection of experimental data would nicely dovetail with the detailed evolutionary information derived from comparing multiple mammalian sequences to provide a neat 'dictionary' of conserved genomic elements, each with a growing annotation about their biochemical function(s). In one sense, this was achieved; the majority of constrained bases in the ENCODE regions are now associated with at least some experimentally derived information about function. However, we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more 'neutral' view of many of the functions conferred by the genome. http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity in the genome: "There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). (Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005) Believe it or not, materialists use to insist that most of the 95% of the genome, which did not directly code for proteins, was useless "Junk DNA": Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Orgel LE, Crick FH. The DNA of higher organisms usually falls into two classes, one specific and the other comparatively nonspecific. It seems plausible that most of the latter originates by the spreading of sequences which had little or no effect on the phenotype. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7366731 Kimura (1968)6 developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional. The slow, painful death of junk DNA: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically....Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation...Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties. http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death Some materialists, I've debated, have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA was totally functionless (as if this helps them explain the "higher level" functionality being found for the "Junk DNA"): These following quotes expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists: Susumu Ohno, a leader in the field of genetics and evolutionary biology, explained in 1972 in an early study of non-coding DNA that, "they are the remains of nature's experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?" In 1994, the authoritative textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, co-authored by National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts, suggested (incorrectly!) that introns are "largely genetic 'junk'": Unlike the sequence of an exon, the exact nucleotide sequence of an intron seems to be unimportant. Thus introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk” Soon thereafter, the 1995 edition of Voet & Voet's Biochemistry textbook explained that "a possibility that must be seriously entertained is that much repetitive DNA serves no useful purpose whatever for its host. Rather, it is selfish or junk DNA, a molecular parasite that, over many generations, has disseminated itself throughout the genome..." Will Darwinists try to Rewrite the History of Junk-DNA? In 1996, leading origin of life theorist Christian de Duve wrote: "The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA." (Richard Dawkins makes similar pronouncements that DNA is junk in an article after 1998) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/will_darwinists_try_to_pull_a.html Another leading biologist, Sydney Brenner argued in a biology journal in 1998 that: "The excess DNA in our genomes is junk, and it is there because it is harmless, as well as being useless, and because the molecular processes generating extra DNA outpace those getting rid of it." The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk: “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John S. Mattick Scientific American (November, 2003) http://www.evolutionnews.org/ Despite the unfounded disappointment of materialists, a large sampling of recent studies indicates that high level regulatory function is to be found for all sorts of previous "Junk DNA" sequences across the entire spectrum of the human genome. Sequences which were adamantly claimed to be absolute proof for Junk DNA by materialists, as well as adamantly claimed to be absolute proof for common ancestry by them. Yet if Junk DNA sequences show high-level regulatory function, then clearly the Junk DNA sequences can not possibly be considered "recent evolutionary add-ons", and as such, nor can they be construed as proof for common ancestry. These following sites are excellent and have over one hundred peer-reviewed papers refuting every single class of Junk DNA that has been put forth by materialists: How Scientific Evidence is Changing the Tide of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate by Wade Schauer: List Of "Junk DNA discussed: Tandem Repeats, Transposons/Retrotransposons, SINE/Alu Sequences, LINES, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) and LTR retrotransposons, Pseudogenes, C-Value Enigma, “Junk DNA” becomes “The Transcriptome”, "Junk DNA – the biggest mistake in the history of biology", EVOLUTIONARY CONSERVATION, Human Accelerated Regions (HARs), ....What can we conclude from the evidence presented in this essay: · Every type of “Junk DNA” presented by pro-evolution websites has been found to have functional roles in organisms, which severely undermines the “shared errors” argument; www.geocities.com/wade_schauer/Changing_Tide.pdf On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system: - Sternberg R. It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian "narratives" have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

DonaldM: "All of the sub-hypothesis came about because the evidence didn’t turn out as expected by Darwin’s theory." Don't you mean that the modern evolutionary synthesis is the product of decades of research and careful refinement in the light of new evidence? Darwin was wrong about many things but the core of his evolutionary hypothesis was that organisms change from generation to generation in response to changing selection pressures using a mechanism of inheritance and divergence. (i.e imperfect replicators) None of the things you cite undermine this core so the periphery of the theory is refined in the light of new discoveries, just as it ought as a scientific theory.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

herb: "sharks and dolphins are both torpedo-shaped." You kind of put your finger on it there. I don't really see what the big issue is. Torpedo shapes are one of a very few shapes that are hydrodynamic so if you want to move fast through water it is the shape to be. If evolution can, as one of the claims goes, adapt a morphology for a niche then torpedo shaped sea creatures ought to emerge. If you want to design something to travel underwater as speed then you would use a torpedo shaped ... torpedo. All for the same reasons - the physics of the environment constrain your design options.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Excession
Convergence is an expected result of evolution so seeing convergent evolution in systems hypothesised to have evolved does not ‘contradict evolutionary expectations’ as Cornelius claims.
From Wikipedia we have this definition and description of convergent evolution. From this, what precisely is it that evolution predicts: convergence?, divergence?, analogy?, homology?, relay evolution?, parallel evolution? Punctuated equalibrium? All of the sub-hypothesis came about because the evidence didn't turn out as expected by Darwin's theory. Evolution, it seems, can predict and accomodate absolutely any outcome! What was that adage...that which explains everything, explains nothing. Hmmm...DonaldM_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

bornagain77:"But Darwins main prediction is ever widening dissimilarity at the tips and nodes of his now discredited tree of life." The tree metaphor works quite well here, the tips in totality grow further apart but not everything is growing outward, some branches grow inward and converge with others. "“What would Darwin have made of that?”" He probably would have welcomed the correction and exclaimed - "of course, trees have roots!" Metaphors are not predictions.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Are there any strongly supported instances of convergent evolution? The Elliott Sober article cited in the Evolution's Religion Revealed thread mentions how sharks and dolphins are both torpedo-shaped. In fact, if dolphins did indeed evolve from land mammals, then their transformation into a fish-like shape would seem a very dramatic example of convergence.herb_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Excesssion
Given that constraints of various forms exist it seems (to me) likely that certain similar looking patterns would appear more than once. If you factor in recurring ecological changes, like a niche slowly changing because of an eroding river valley then you may well see repeating cycles of adaptation.
Do the contraints to which you refer lie in the environment or the organism or both? If the contraint lies within the organism, that runs counter to what most evolutionary biologist claim...that there are not limits to evolutionary change. That claim forms the basis of a lot of the criticism tossed Michael Behe's way regarding his latest book The Edge of Evolution, the basic claim of which is that there are limits to what evolution can produce. So, if there is no restraint on biological evolutionary change, then why would we expect to see the same patterns emerge from similar enviromental changes, continents and eons apart? Even the late Stephen J. Gould once remarked that if we re-wound the tape of life, things would not be the same. The underlying assumption of evolution seems to be anything is possible. The hypothesis of "convergence" came about precisely because what was obeserved was not expected...actually the very opposite of what was expected. And now, in the case cited on the OP by Cornelius Hunter, we have yet another example of something contrary to what evolution would predict, so once again we stretch the theory to accomodate the contrary evidence. Evolution is the most elastic theory ever! No matter what turns up...evolution did it! There can be NO contrary evidence or falsification...it just HAS to work as advertised.DonaldM_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Excession:
seeing convergent evolution in systems hypothesised to have evolved does not ‘contradict evolutionary expectations’
Agreed. The hypothesis of convergent evolution does not contradict the other expectations or hypotheses of evolution.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Excession states: "Convergence is an expected result of evolution so seeing convergent evolution in systems hypothesised to have evolved does not ‘contradict evolutionary expectations’" But Darwins main prediction is ever widening dissimilarity at the tips and nodes of his now discredited tree of life. Syvanen says. ...."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html As with everything else that disagrees with Darwinism, the evidence is "imagined" away with superficial rationalizations (epicycles).bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

"Let me get this straight: Darwin used convergent evolution, which requires evolution as a foundation, as evidence in support of evolution?" I think its called a prediction. You can use newtons laws to make predictions about how objects will behave under the influence of gravity, and confirm hypotheses about the effects of gravity, but it does rely on gravity in the first place. Convergence is an expected result of evolution so seeing convergent evolution in systems hypothesised to have evolved does not 'contradict evolutionary expectations' as Cornelius claims.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Excession: You are mistaking evidence that fits within evolution for evidence that supports it. Unrelated anteaters fit but do not support evolution. If anything they leave evolution with more to explain. How does the fuzzy concept of an environmental niche define such a precise form?
It has been observed in the sense that different organisms show similar traits that in many cases appear to be adaptations to similar environmental pressures.
No, it has been observed that different organisms show similar traits.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Anthony states of the video in 9: "It’s a strawman." To which I ask, "If evolution is this great powerhouse of innovation through trial and error processes why do we not see evolution performing real experiments with "real strawmen"? Why is comprehensible sentience, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, to be limited to the animal kingdom? Or As Charles Darwin asked in the Origin Of Species "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?"bornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Sadly, Darwin passed on before testing his hypothesis that similar selective pressures were the causes of the similar features he observed. Let me get this straight: Darwin used convergent evolution, which requires evolution as a foundation, as evidence in support of evolution?ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: "We know that carnivorous plants converged because look! - there are different plants with different origins, and that’s how it happens. Convergence isn’t astronomically unlikely. See, it’s already happened. Populations in similar circumstances follow similar trajectories because there are similar populations in similar environments, and how else would they get that way?" "You haven’t provided anything except rewordings of your conclusion." But those were all your words? Convergent evolution is just the acquisition of a similar trait in organisms that don't share a direct proximal heritage. It has been observed in the sense that different organisms show similar traits that in many cases appear to be adaptations to similar environmental pressures. The theory of convergent evolution places these observations in a framework that explains how they can (and indeed ought to) occur via evolution. I am not proposing convergence, that was done a long time ago, I am not concluding that it is true either I'm just pointing out that contrary to what Cornelius claims it is not unexpected nor unlikely as a product of evolution. IF evolution works then we ought to see plenty of examples of convergence - we do see plenty of examples of convergence. They for a small part of the body of evidence for evolution. Legs are a very crude example of the general idea of convergence. Can you imagine any other way for a land animal to move around? The options are pretty limited so if evolution can work then legs are a likely outcome. True they are not the only one but to my knowledge nature appears to prefer walking and slithering to rolling on wheels.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Tajimas D. "We’ve known about convergent and parallel evolution for quite some time now," Indeed. Some of the I.D. commentators here who seem to be hoping that it is evidence against naturalistic evolution would be surprised at how long. There was a guy called Charles Darwin in the 19th century who knew about it and was fascinated by it. He considered it to be evidence in support of his theory, and explained it by different organisms facing similar selection pressures sometimes developing similar characteristics.iconofid_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Excession: There's no point to reasoning that uses its premise as evidence. We know that carnivorous plants converged because look! - there are different plants with different origins, and that's how it happens. Convergence isn't astronomically unlikely. See, it's already happened. Populations in similar circumstances follow similar trajectories because there are similar populations in similar environments, and how else would they get that way? You haven't provided anything except rewordings of your conclusion.ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

JTaylor: "Were not expected by who?" Granville Sewell (Quoting) "...appears to be intrinsically unlikely to many authors so that they have tried to avoid the hypothesis of convergence as far as possible. Yet, molecular comparisons have corroborated the independent origin of at least five of the carnivorous plant groups." So the idea of convergence (the hypothesis) existed but some scientists found it difficult to grasp until it was corroborated. That kind of indicates that is was expected, but only by those who developed the hypothesis. I'm a little unclear of what you are getting at here, you say that there are multiple examples of convergence but you also allude to not believing that it occurs? I'm also not clear how you calculate the odds against convergence - surely one occurrence is a possible indicator that the odds against are not all that high, which would make two occurrences even more likely. As has already been expressed, similar populations in similar circumstances are likely to follow similar trajectories.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Tajimas D:
We’ve known about convergent and parallel evolution for quite some time now.
Someone unfamiliar with the subject could easily read this and conclude that a) something is known about convergent and/or parallel evolution, and b) it has been known for quite some time now. I'm intrigued by the proposition that in different parts of the world there are separate environmental niches that call for anteaters, and others that call for badgers. Is there any science behind this notion of environmental niches specifying the exact forms that will inhabit them, or is it assumed because it is required to explain so-called convergent evolution?ScottAndrews_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

JTaylor, See p5 of the Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences article on Carnivorous Plants here (lower left paragraph): "The independent origin of complex synorganized structures, which are often anatomically and physiologially very similar to each other, appears to be intrinsically unlikely to many authors so that they have tried to avoid the hypothesis of convergence as far as possible. Yet, molecular comparisons have corroborated the independent origin of at least five of the carnivorous plant groups." And see the previous paragraph for multiple examples of such "convergence". Of course I can understand that anyone who is capable of believing that (for example) the eye arose once by chance processes would not find it too much harder to believe it arose several times through chance processes, but it does add to the (already astronomical) odds against.Granville Sewell_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

I believe it takes more belief to not believe in the ToE than it takes to believe the ToE, and for anybody regularly reading Cornelius Hunter, it's hard to believe the Dr. has professional qualifications.Nnoel_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, I noticed in the video that some of the images repeated. Is this an example of convergent, or parallel evolution? :)CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Nice video, very funny! It reminded me of this except that, as far as I understand, he was not a fake. Joking aside I suppose you could argue that the contents of the video are more what you would expect a designer to produce if you assume they could re-use parts of existing designs. The idea that the slow, incremental changes in evolution would lead to a bird suddenly acquiring a rabbits head is clearly a joke but if we are to attribute nature to a designer then is is more feasible - indeed the photos in the video are a simulacrum of this design blending process. Part of my work involves designing and making machines and it isn't unusual to take a functional subsystem from one machine and bolt it on to a different machine that has a substantially different lineage. The process is analogous to the way the creatures in the video would have to be created (if they were real).Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Bornagain, whomever made that video simply does not understand evolution or what evolution entails. It's downright silly. It's a strawman.Anthony09_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Though this following video does not do this subject nearly enough justice, it crudely portrays the trial and error processes we would naturally expect to see if blind processes truly had the ability to produce the stunning diversity of life we see in life. What The World Would Actually Look Like If Darwinism Were True http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT3-jfA1vVUbornagain77_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Yet again, Cornelius Hunter gets it completely wrong. He wrote: "But before such findings were discovered, they were not expected by evolutionary theory, which views change as blind and unguided." Evolutionary theory has NEVER - even from its earliest inception - viewed the changes as "unguided". The clue is in the phrase "natural selection" - by definition, "selection" is guided and in this case the selection is carried out by environmental factors (such as access to food or sexual selection). I'm sure you've been told this many times but you refuse to listen. And the reason is that you have your own, private religion with one of the articles of faith being that evolution is unguided; and you can't bear the prospect that your religion is wrong, so you refuse to listen to the evidence because it proves you wrong.Gaz_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Cornelius "But before such findings were discovered, they were not expected by evolutionary theory, which views change as blind and unguided." This may be a root of your misunderstanding, change may be blind in the temporal sense of not able to predict the future but change is guided by the interaction of the phenotype with the environment, which then affects reproductive success. As Tajimas D points out, two organisms in a similar niche with a common genetic heritage would be likely to follow a similar evolutionary trajectory. "... once you believe in convergent evolution, this finding is easy to swallow. But not so for those who recognize the problems with convergent evolution." It may help us if you briefly outline these problems.Excession_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

JTaylor:
Perhaps there is, I’m just curious - so it would be helpful to back up your assertion with a reference.
I suspect it would be difficult to find evolutionists from years back explaining how they expect step-by-step evolutionary sequences of detailed designs to repeat themselves (or not repeat themselves). Tajimas:
Whose expectations? We’ve known about convergent and parallel evolution for quite some time now.
You are justifying one problem with another. We don't "know" about convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is a hypothesis to try to explain how evolution can pull off the impossible, and create the same designs in different environments and from different initial conditions in an astronomical design space. Sure, if you believe that the squid and human eye are amazingly similar because lightning struck twice in the unguided process of evolution, then this new finding will not faze you.
A niche exists, and we expect evolution to sometimes stumble upon the “good tricks” needed to fill that niche again and again.
Why is that? Why do we expect evolution to "stumble upon the good tricks" again and again? This is the sort of just-so story that abounds in evolutionary theory to explain away the unexpected. (ps--I may be slow in responding to more comments to this post)Cornelius Hunter_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Would you believe that the blind, unguided process of evolution repeats itself?
Yes.
Would you believe that evolution somehow repeats striking patterns of change? Evolutionists do...This evidence contradicts evolutionary expectations, but what's new?
Whose expectations? We've known about convergent and parallel evolution for quite some time now. A niche exists, and we expect evolution to sometimes stumble upon the "good tricks" needed to fill that niche again and again. Sometimes independently from different starting points, as in "convergent evolution". Sometimes independently from the same starting point, as in the case of "parallel evolution". The article you've linked to isn't making a sweeping, unexpected condemnation of evolutionary biology. It's stating a simple fact:
...the origin of ascus and costal shield was highly likely with sufficient possibilities afforded by time.
It's the same logic that allows me to say that "the origin of dog-like animals was historically contingent but likely". You have eutherian wolves originating in the Palearctic, and then you look and you see the Tassie tiger convergently filling that niche elsewhere. Parallel evolution (as in the article you linked to) is even more likely, because multiple lineages can inherit from their common ancestor the same genetic or developmental closeness to "learning" that good trick.Tajimas D_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

"But before such findings were discovered, they were not expected by evolutionary theory, which views change as blind and unguided." Were not expected by who? Was there a prediction by somebody (Darwin?) that the eye (for example) only evolved once, even though it is now known it to have evolved more than once. Perhaps there is, I'm just curious - so it would be helpful to back up your assertion with a reference.JTaylor_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

I’m don’t see how any of this is inconsistent with the core of the evolutionary hypothesis. What expectations are these? (and whose exactly?).
There is no inconsistency with evolutionary theory when appropriately amended with explanations that need to justification beyond thought experiment. But before such findings were discovered, they were not expected by evolutionary theory, which views change as blind and unguided.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply