How Darwinian Logic Works

_{Gil Dodgen

October 12, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

In this post we discover: According to Darwinian theory, new species emerge when mutations produce individuals who can outperform the stock they came from…

This statement, and so many like them, reveal how Darwinian “logic” is based primarily upon hyper-imaginative speculation, and not anything that could be described as science. Here’s how Darwinian logic works:

Given #1: A certain feature of a living system exists. (Let’s try a trivial example, like Mozart’s ability to write symphonies.)
Given #2: Since this feature exists, it must have a survival advantage.
Given #3: Since it is known (scientifically) that Darwinian mechanisms can explain everything about the history of life, there must have been a gradual pathway such that random mutations and natural selection could turn a microbe into Mozart. How could this not be obvious?

The ID proponent challenges the Darwinist with some obvious questions:

Which random mutations would be required to turn a microbe into Mozart? How long would this take? What is the probability that these beneficial mutations could take place, and what is the probability that they could be fixed in the population with the available reproductive and probabilistic resources? What about the fact that the simplest living cell is the most sophisticated and functionally-integrated information-processing system ever discovered?

The universal and entirely predictable Darwinist response to such challenges:

Are you a religious fanatic who wants to destroy science?

Comments

wd400 & Elizabeth: 1- The "populations evolve" is nonsense. Natural selection is an individual thing. Mutations happen to individuals. OTOH populations tend to stifle change, unless there is some very strong (selective) pressure. 2- Adaptation can and does lead to speciation. Ya see if I am not adapted for one environment I just move to another where I am and establish another population 3- How do you think new species arise, that is according to Darwinism or neo-darwinism?Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Do you agree, Joseph, that adaptation and speciation are different concepts, and that "when mutations produce individuals who can outperform the stock they came from" that is a definition of adaptation rather than speciation? (Not a very good one, though, IMO - populations evolve, not individuals)Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Joseph, please explain what you mean by "blind" and "undirected". Because as used in evolution, "blind" means: new variants are generated regardless of whether they will be better or worse at replicating than their parents, and "undirected" means much the same thing. It doesn't mean that the environment has no influence on whether a variant reproduces well or not. Quite the reverse. The environment has a huge influence on whether a variante reproduces well or not. So in another sense, you could say that the environment "directs" evolution - causes the population to adapt to optimise its reproduction rate within it. And exactly the same is true in an evolutionary algorithm - variants are randomly generated without regard for whether the result is a better or worse replicator than its parent (many will be neutral or worse, and the proportion that are neutral or worse will increase as the population gets better and better), and the process thus "blind" and "undirected" just as in nature. However, just as in nature, the environment determines to a large extent how well any given variant replicates, and so in that sense "directs" the evolution of the population.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

The one, referring to the film, that started this? According to Darwinian theory, new species emerge when mutations produce individuals who can outperform the stock they came from If you out compete someone you so because you perform better in the given environment therefore...wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Like this one?
At first this apparatus was quite primitive, probably limited to a caged metal atom capable of binding oxygen or tearing away its electrons, which are used in metabolism. But this basic chemical apparatus grew increasingly complex through time and evolution. At some point the metal atom was fixed inside a kind of flat molecular cage called a porphyrin ring, and later that porphyrin ring became embedded in larger organic compounds called proteins. These organic compounds themselves became increasingly varied through time and evolution. ... Then, sometime between one and two billion years ago, an amazing thing happened. Photosynthetic bacteria learned a new trick. Instead of carrying out photosynthesis with [H.sub.2]S, they used water, [H.sub.2]O. And instead of producing sulfur, this process produced molecular oxygen, [O.sub.2]. This remarkable event transformed the earth and all of the life on it. ... It is interesting to consider what the original function of the porphyrin ring may have been. ... In time, the hemoproteins could have been further modified to allow them to participate in other electron-transfer reactions or to take on entirely new functions.
Okay, I just picked the first one I saw. But what sort of hypothesis is this? Every critical juncture is either what apparently happened with no explanation or what might have happened but we're not sure. How does one test such a narrative? How does one falsify statements such as
In time, the hemoproteins could have been further modified to allow them to participate in other electron-transfer reactions or to take on entirely new functions.
ScottAndrews_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

What xmen quote?Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

The xmen quote describes adaptation? Does it not?wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Any paper that pertains to blind and undirected chemical processes? If not, then by evo "logic" (see Judge Jones) they don't count.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Wow, an evo can't support its claims and has a hissy fit- surprise, surprise.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Why should I think that LUCA could well have been the FUCA?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

I would really like to see the “detailed hypotheses” you speak of. Most evolutionary hypotheses are just about lines of descent, without any trace of causal explanation.
Well how about heomoglobin? There are any number of papers with hypotheses about the how it evolved.markf_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: I have already commented on that. See my post number 7, addressed to you.gpuccio_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: But that is irrelevant to my question, which is based on the understanding that the last half billion years of evolution has been mostly one of recombination and changes in regulation. Not my idea: it seems to be a point of common ground between mainstream and ID friendly theorists. You must be kidding. Almost half protein domains appeared after LUCA. It is true that the rate has been slowing down, but a lot of them appeared in natural history just the same. I link again a reference paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008378 You are making a point that creation of new protein domains is difficult and rare, and my understanding of mainstream biology is that there are few such instances among eukaryotes. Very few among vertebrates and fewer still among mammals. What about: 1984 in LUCA 494 in bacteria and archea 520 in eukaryota 86 in fungi 209 in metazoa So, it is true that a majority was formed near the beginning, but it is equally true that a lot of new protein domains emerged throughout evolutionary history. So it almost appears that the occurrence of biological invention follows a power law based on population size and time. It is much more credible that it follows the simple laws of what is necessary for engoneering of biological functions. I have already argued (and you have not commented) that most basci cellular functions were already present in LUCA, and that they have been reused by the designer in all following beings. One might speculate that as living things became more competitive, it became less possible for weak functionality to succeed. One might also look for evidence that modern domains are modifications of earlier domains. Be my guest. Look for that. And let me know.gpuccio_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Then the xmen quote is adaptation and you're (surprise, surprise) a waste of time.wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

You seem to be hedging when you say recombination and changes in expression "imply" new information. If it is in fact new information, I'd like to see how you calculate it. An example of a calculation. Suppose we take as an example of gene expression the incremental change from jaw bone to middle ear bone. We don't know how many specific mutations were involved, but you should be able to provide a formula that would allow plugging the number in, if it became available.Petrushka_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

wd400:
Adaptation is the process by which creatures fit their environment,
That is what I said: adaptation is when they are (best) suited to their environment. How is THAT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what you posted? Did you note I put best in ()? Or do you like being obtuse?Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Ahem 1,2,3 Adaptation is the process by which creatures fit their environment, and also the name given to a particular trait which is teh result of adaptation. It certainly isn't about the "best" fit - since evolution doesn't know about global optima.wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Anyway, it is obvious that the information for the individual blocks must already be present.
But that is irrelevant to my question, which is based on the understanding that the last half billion years of evolution has been mostly one of recombination and changes in regulation. Not my idea: it seems to be a point of common ground between mainstream and ID friendly theorists. You are making a point that creation of new protein domains is difficult and rare, and my understanding of mainstream biology is that there are few such instances among eukaryotes. Very few among vertebrates and fewer still among mammals. So it almost appears that the occurrence of biological invention follows a power law based on population size and time. Several people, including Shapiro and Koonin make the point that the invention of protein domains seems mostly to have occurred in the firs billion years of life on earth. One might speculate that as living things became more competitive, it became less possible for weak functionality to succeed. One might also look for evidence that modern domains are modifications of earlier domains.Petrushka_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

No, you don't get to baldly declare I am defining a word completely different than everyone else uses it.Joseph_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

No, you don't get to define a word completely different than everyone else that uses it.wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Could you please, being probably a moderate adaptationist, explain what is in your opinion the general mechanism by which new complex information (such as a new basic protein domain) emerges, according to darwinian theory? 1. You should drop the Darwinian business, because how ever you define it there is more than evolutionary biology than Darwinian forces. 2. I'm not sure there is a general mechanism by which complexity arises. It will often be the result of selection on point mutations (in the case of portein domains over a very long time). But it can also arise form, say, exon shuffling . I'm also convince some of the things we think of as complexity at the level of genome-level are really just emergent properties or even the result of a lack of selection preventing redundancies etc adding up (a la Lynch 2011wd400_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

And so?gpuccio_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: Combining existing domains to work together for a new function certainly implies new information. How much functional information should be analyzed by the methods I mentioned. Anyway, it is obvious that the information for the individual blocks must already be present. Incremental changes in gene expression imply new information. How much depends on how those changes are implemented at molecular level, and if the intermediate steps are selectable or not, and so on. Whatever the system, the principles of design detection are always the same.gpuccio_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: I was referring to the number of basis protein domains supposedly present in LUCA. This is the reference: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008378 You do know that the Last Universal Common Ancestor could well have been the First? You do know that Wikipedia, just as an example, states that LUCA "is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago"? You do know that there is no evidence at all that a FUCA, different form LUCA, ever existed?gpuccio_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Perhaps when pressed and when being careful they would not say that a feature has survival value just because it exists. Personally, however, I have seen many interviews, press releases and the like with biologists who make precisely that kind of statement.
You are probably thinking of features that appear to have led to speciation. In such a case, they do have a lot more evidence than the mere existence of a feature.Neil Rickert_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

What about the fact that the simplest living cell is the most sophisticated and functionally-integrated information-processing system ever discovered?
In what sense is said cell "the simplest" if it is also "the most sophisticated and functionally-integrated information-processing system ever discovered"? Are all biological systems as simple as the simplest cell, or are some simpler? What about the human brain? Do you not think that the human brain is a more functionally-integrated information-processing system than the simplest cell? After all, it consists of billions of cells, all interconnected by countless synapses. I think you made a logical slip there :)Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

To establish life in the beginning, a lot of basic protein information was necessary. About half of basic protein domains were implemented at that level.
On what evidence are you asserting this? You do know that the Last Universal Common Ancestor was not necessarily the First?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Sure, but science is an iterative, dialectic process. That's why it's so much fun.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

What else matters is reproduction, Eugene. "Survival of the Fittest" is less important than "reproduction of the fittest". And in this case, sexual selection is probably very important - indeed we know that tail-display is an important courtship behaviour. Why at the cost of so much redundancy? Because that's the kind of rabbit hole evolutionary processes tend to go down. Evolutionary processes produce some stunning designs, but not always the most functional! Because they are full of feedback loops, it's a chaotic (in the mathematical sense) system, and like many chaotic system, results in astonishing, complex, but unpredictable structures. Again, this is relatively easy to demonstrate mathematically or by simulation. I have produced some amazing patterns simply by building iterative programs with feedback loops, where the output of one iteration is an important input into the next iteration. There's a wiki piece on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Exponential_growth_in_female_preferenceElizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

"if all that mattered was survival" I think this lacks the necessary amount of "pathetic detail". What else matters? Sexual selection? But why at the cost of this much redundancy? In fact so much as to obviously endanger the poor peacock? For example, one can argue that to ensure a high mating success a crow's cry is perhaps more efficient than a nightingale's song. Why is there such a difference?Eugene S_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply