Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A year ago, Nature published an educational booklet with the title 15 Evolutionary gems (as a resource for the Darwin Bicentennial). Number 2 gem is Tiktaalik a well-preserved fish that has been widely acclaimed as documenting the transition from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik was an elpistostegalian fish: a large, shallow-water dwelling carnivore with tetrapod affinities yet possessing fins. Unfortunately, until Tiktaalik, most elpistostegids remains were poorly preserved fragments.

“In 2006, Edward Daeschler and his colleagues described spectacularly well preserved fossils of an elpistostegid known as Tiktaalik that allow us to build up a good picture of an aquatic predator with distinct similarities to tetrapods – from its flexible neck, to its very limb-like fin structure. The discovery and painstaking analysis of Tiktaalik illuminates the stage before tetrapods evolved, and shows how the fossil record throws up surprises, albeit ones that are entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking.”

Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported – throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: “can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years”. At a stroke, this rules out not only Tiktaalik as a tetrapod ancestor, but also all known representatives of the elpistostegids. The arrival of tetrapods is now considered to be 20 million years earlier than previously thought and these tetrapods must now be regarded as coexisting with the elpistostegids. Once again, the fossil record has thrown up a big surprise, but this one is not “entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking”. It is a find that was not predicted and it does not fit at all into the emerging consensus.

“Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.” (Janvier & Clement, 2010)

The Nature Editor’s summary explained: “The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates.” Henry Gee, one of the Nature editors, wrote in a blog:

“What does it all mean?
It means that the neatly gift-wrapped correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny, in which elpistostegids represent a transitional form in the swift evolution of tetrapods in the mid-Frasnian, is a cruel illusion. If – as the Polish footprints show – tetrapods already existed in the Eifelian, then an enormous evolutionary void has opened beneath our feet.”

For more, go here:
Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/01/09/lobbing_a_grenade_into_the_tetrapod_evol

Additional note: The Henry Gee quote is interesting for the words “elpistostegids represent a transitional form”. In some circles, transitional forms are ‘out’ because Darwinism presupposes gradualism and every form is no more and no less transitional than any other form. Gee reminds us that in the editorial office of Nature, it is still legitimate to refer to old-fashioned transitional forms!

Comments
Quick comments to Jerry, and then I'll retire. 1. You had said four laws of physics, not four forces. That's why I was confused. 2. YOu didn't answer my question directly about some confusion in your position: you said there is no evidence of evolution by small changes, but you've also said that there can be. Which is it? 3. Your example of the codon calculation is still just a calculation based on configuration - on pure chance combination: you have not addressed my questions about thngs changing from one state to another such as with the Lenski research. Dismissing it as not a big deal glosses over the fact that it is a counter-example the proves that mere pure chance calculations are inadequate. But no one at this site seems willing to address these issues, so I won't keep repeating myself.Aleta
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Timaeus,
. It makes the most sense of what we can see plainly with our eyes.
How do you rate that as a relevant argument? I can see plainly with my own eyes that the Sun revolves around the Earth. MY experience however, is that we need to go beyond our senses if we want to understand nature. Knowledge of nature is not intuitive, it often is counter-intuitive. What does that mean for may of the things that people believe without really knowing if they are true?Cabal
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
Something biological that wasn’t designed? Sickle-celled anemia. It is what happens when random effects creep into the design. In this case a single nucleotide switch- ie a point mutation.
But what process/mechanism is responsible for the preservation of this mutation in some populations while it is disappearing from other populations?Cabal
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
jerry,
The four forces of nature are gravity, electromagnetic, the weak force and the strong force. All other physical things flow from these.
In other words, strict reductionism, is that what you advocate? Organizational phenomena like, say, the phases of matter (like liquid, vapor or solid), are they not organizational phenomena? For example, Water ice has at least eleven eleven distinct crystalline phases. Emerging properties, where microscopic rules can be true and yet quite irrelevant to macroscopic phenomena. How is it possible to be dead certain about what nature can or cannot do as long as we can say with certainty that we still have a lot to learn, maybe even things that we won't ever be able to learn?Cabal
January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
Also I said 30 when it should have been 20 coding amino acid combinations.
You surely don't have to met that pathetic level of detail, Jerry.osteonectin
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
Just a couple quick comments before leaving for the night. They made a big deal out of Lenski's trivial change when it was announced. That should tell you something. Why so much hoopla over such minor stuff. The reason, is that they have nothing else. The second part of my comment was based on the comment by efren ts which I meant to include. "You’ve seemed helpful so far, so I don’t want to draw the conclusion that saying there “should not be too much differences” is just a way to get out of actually doing any CSI calculations. So, come on, dust off your calculator. You have a captive audience." Also I said 30 when it should have been 20 coding amino acid combinations.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
aleta, I suggest you go to the links in #110 and see if any of your questions are answered. When you are finished I will be glad to answer any other questions you have. The four forces of nature are gravity, electromagnetic, the weak force and the strong force. All other physical things flow from these.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
"I was led to understand that he wasn’t trying to generate the ability to process citrate, so it would probably be more accurate to say that it is excellent “pure dumb luck” research, no?" Yes, but you see the change is no big deal. After than many generations and mutations you would expect some changes. And one small change enabled citrate to pass over the boundary of the cell and then it could be metabolized. ID does not say that micro evolution does not work nor will there be no changes. I personally think it is great design. It is just that the changes that happen have always been quite simple and even simple changes can sometimes have a major effect. Again nothing ID denies. But what has not happened with Lenski's cultures is anything really novel developing. If it did then ID would acknowledge it and find it interesting. If you read my links, you will know that there is no science on the planet that ID objects to, only a few of the conclusions which it says are not warranted. Behe, said after the publication of his book,The Edge of Evolution, that what researchers should do to follow up on his thesis is research like Lenski's. That is why I say Lenski's research is good ID research carried out by an anti ID group of researchers. In that vein I wrote the example of what a secret ID supporter might do in terms of genome research. All as a way of supporting or disputing Behe's thesis. I already told you how to do it. Suppose there is a sequence (I am making this up) GGAGCTTAGCAAGCTTGAACTGGACGTAACTA of 33 nucleotides. The number of possible strings of length 32 is 4^32 or 7.4 x 10 ^19 or over a billion x a billion combinations. It is possible to divide the DNA up into codon or groups of three and there are about 22 different possibilities including start and stop possibilities but we will only consider the coding ones or 30 combinations. So we could look at this same sequence as 20^11 or 2 x 10^14 or roughly 200 trillion possibilities. Now a small gene is 100 amino acids or 300 nucleotides and the calculations get really large 20^100 or 1.3 x 10^130 and 20^200 or less than average gene or 1.6 x 10^260 total number of combinations. So whatever process that leads to the appearance of a protein of length 200 must find it out of this incredibly large number. Now these calculations are very rough and should be reduced by a few magnitudes for the fact that some amino acids can replace each other in certain situations. You notice I keep asking Mustela Nivalis about ATP Synthase.. This enzyme has about 2000 amino acids. I won't attempt the calculation but believe me it exhausts nearly all the probabilistic resources in all the multi verse scenarios they can dream up. So just imagine what the initial cell must have consumed in terms of probabilistic resources to arise naturally. As I said it is rough but it eats up all the multi verses no matter how you calculate it.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
That is really great that you are doing a king of great topic close to this good post. Furthermore I opine that that should be very good if some students buy the best dissertation and just dissertation with you help.mvKATIE
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Some response to Jerry: at 179, you write, "Just in case anyone is interested there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes. So to resort to such a cumulative process is just an assertion that has no basis in the data. A much more likely cumulative process is an improvement in the design every now and then or an adjustment in the design to meet ecological requirements. Some times this adjustment can be done naturally but it appears that sometimes it cannot. Explaining the latter and how did new functional complexity arose is what the whole debate is about. Gradual cumulative processes strike out every time." I'm not sure what you are asserting here. First you say that there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes, but later you say that sometimes an "adjustment" in the design "can be done naturally." Would not this be called evolution? For instance, when bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, as is a serious problem in hospitals these day, does this or does it not happen by the accumulation of small changes, naturally and not by design. Can you clarify, please? Also, at 181 you say some things that are well beyond the scope of the particular conversation we are happen, but which interest me and may illuminate some differences in our perspectives. You write, "If I understand you correctly ... you are saying that there may be properties of the chemistry involved which are inherent in the four laws of physics that would drive the building not just of random combinations but specific viable to life combinations." First of all, I am not sure what "four laws of physics" you are talking about, as I can think of quite a few more laws of physics than four. But leaving that aside, I'm curious about what you mean by "inherent." Let's take a non-biological example: gases in space sometime coalesce under the influence of gravity to form an approximately spherical body. If enough of them coalesce, under the influence of the pressure and heat caused by the increase in gravitational attraction, nuclear fusion occurs. At that point the body, now a star, emits heat and light, produces heavier elements which are released into space much later in the life of the star, etc. Would you say that the star and its by-products were "inherent" in the atoms of the original gases? Also, would you agree, or not, that the original gases turned into something quite different than just individual gas molecules by a succession of small steps? And in 188, when someone asked, "Can you calculate the FCSI changes between the before and after e.coli in Lenski’s experiment”, you answered, "my guess is that there should not be too much differences between before and after. If there was, they would have made a big deal of it. That is, if a new protein with remarkable characteristics developed." Well first of all, Lenski and other biologists don't even think about calculating FCSI because, for one thing, as we are discussing, there is no methodology for doing so for situations where things change over time, which surely happened in Lenski's research. But what about this: if CSI is merely a number based on the chance that all the base pairs happened by chance to be as they are, then if the length of the genome in the starting state was the same as at the ending state, irrespective of either the particular genetic changes or the resulting change in functioning, then the CSI wouldn't have changed: the end state would be just as improbable as the starting state. So when you say, "My guess is that there should not be too much differences between before and after," do you simply mean that the length of the starting and ending genomes would be almost the same? And does this mean that if the bacteria in Lenski's research had not developed any new functionality at all but retained the same length, they also would that they would have the same CSI. If so, in this case CSI does not distinguish between signficant change and functioning and no change in function at all, because it is based merely on the number of base pairs. Is that a very useful number? If so, how is that useful? And last, back in the first paragraph, you wrote, "Explaining the latter (adjustment by design) and how did new functional complexity arose is what the whole debate is about." That has not been the focus of our discussion. Our discussion has been much more limited: do calculations of some quantity called CSI which merely look at the configuration of something without regard to its history as it arose from previous states adequately model the real world? The question is merely whether the kinds of "blind chance" calculations for CSI that ID advocates offer allow us to infer anything about the world.Aleta
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Mr Timaeus, Ah yes, the engineer's perspective. The appeal to our sense of wonder. Our reproductive system is so marvelously balanced, it is a wonder we can reproduce at all. But what of birds? I'm sure you know your Latin, Mr Timaeus, and that cloaca means sewer. Should we have the same sense of marvel for the engineering design that uses the same tube for reproduction and defecation? What would the basis for that sense of wonder be? Is this good design or bad design? Is the answer self evident? Is the answer so self evident that it cannot be articulated, it just is? It seems to me that this argument of the "mode of the engineer" is either making an assumption of an incredibly anthropomorphic designer (the opposite of "His ways are not our ways") or assuming that good design is universally obvious. But we can see from arguments about giraffe nerves that this is not true. I'm left with the conclusion that you have designed the designer in your own image.Nakashima
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
EV- a trageted search. That is covered in "Signature in the Cell".Joseph
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Lenski, the discoverers of nylonase eating bacteria, the developers of flu vaccines, and researchers into observed speciation, among many others, would disagree with you.
Lenski- no new complex protein machinery Nylonase- loss of specification from an existing protein Observed speciation- no new body plans IOW you can't offer anything except that which supports baraminology. Go figure...Joseph
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Freelurker @ 154: Of course engineers and scientists do not factor intelligent agents into their “models of natural systems”, if by that you mean models of how natural systems work. Scientists and engineers look for efficient causes of things, and they don’t expect those efficient causes to be the actions of personal beings. I have never heard an ID proponent argue that the planets are pushed around the sun by angels, and I have never heard an ID proponent argue that any natural process that we observe today is managed locally by intelligent agency. Let’s take a biological example. The efficient cause of embryonic development isn’t personal, in my view. I don’t suppose that St. Anthony or Zeus or Krishna pushed molecules around in my developing embryo to make me the way that I am. I assume that sound engineering principles govern the way that matter is assembled and organized, to be turned into organisms, with the result that species regularly produce offspring like themselves. However, while I see no need to imagine the operation of an active intelligent agent in the embryonic development of any particular individual, I do infer that the embryonic *system* which produced me (and billions of other creatures) was intelligently designed. If someone tells me that the embryonic system arose by a series of evolutionary accidents, I ask them to provide a plausible pathway by which that could have happened. I never get an answer. When someone with an engineer’s mind-set looks at the reproductive system of, say a human being, with all the complex interacting parts whose workings must be precisely timed, with genetics, developmental processes, and the physiology of the mother all playing well-defined roles, that person is going to see design. No sense denying it. The system is clearly goal-directed, with an exquisite adjustment of means to ends. There are, as far as I know, only two ways of explaining this. First, the embryological system arose by sheer chance, but, because it was useful, it became a fixed part of living organisms. Second, the embryological system was put in place by someone or something which operates in a mode analogous to the mode of human intelligence. No one on earth can either prove or disprove either of these alternatives. But from an engineering perspective, intelligent design is the instinctive “default” explanation. It makes the most sense of what we can see plainly with our eyes. And since the greatest evolutionary biologists living cannot even come close to proving that such a system could have come about by chance, I go with the engineering mind-set. Computers and cars and running shoes and symphonies and five-course meals don’t come about by chance, not even chance aided by “natural selection”. Without much stronger evidence than we have, I see no reason to believe that living systems did, either. As for your remarks about random variables being treated as random only for the purposes of a model, and your suggestion that evolutionary biologists are not really making any claim that the evolutionary process is genuinely accidental, if you buy that, well, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. In fact in the specifically Darwinian understanding of evolution (and please note that I have never criticized evolution *except* in its Darwinian form, or in analogous forms which are heavily chance-dependent), the understanding is that the randomness is real, not merely a scientific convenience. Darwin wrote with the explicit intention of getting design out of the picture, as I have ascertained from a careful study of his writings (a study very few modern biologists have undertaken). And when Russell wrote *A Free Man’s Worship*, he was not speaking about only *apparent* chance or accident. Read the essay if you doubt it. Thus also, Gaylord Simpson, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Dawkins, Dennett, Singer, Weinberg, Provine, etc. It is not only ID people who discuss the alternative of chance vs. design. For anyone who knows anything about the history of ideas, the discussion about chance vs. design is 2500 years old, and is a fundamental and inescapable debate. Either you believe that mutations that are random (random with respect to selective fitness, as Ken Miller puts it) can build up complex new systems and organisms, or you don’t. Darwinism says they can. ID says they can’t, or least, that Darwinians have come nowhere close to proving that they can. By the way, design is not incompatible with evolution. Read Michael Denton, who advocates a wholly naturalistic model of evolution, based on pre-set parameters of nature which have been designed with life and man in mind. One can have design without miracles, and one can have design directing evolution. But one can’t have design with Darwinism. One must choose one or the other. I think that would be obvious who anyone who thinks in the mode of an engineer. T.Timaeus
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Upright Biped at 188, Once again, you’ve positd an incremental search powered by design as an analog to a random search powered by chance. Where'd I do that?Mustela Nivalis
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Jerry @ 186
Not in anything I ever wrote or anyone in ID ever wrote.
Okay, my misunderstanding. Sorry about that. So, then it would be possible to calculate the CSI/FCSI changes then? Cool.
Lenski’s work is excellent ID research.
I was led to understand that he wasn't trying to generate the ability to process citrate, so it would probably be more accurate to say that it is excellent "pure dumb luck" research, no? ;) Jerry @ 187
It shouldn’t be too hard if one had all the information (I am sorry I am not supposed to use that word because it doesn’t exists) and my guess is that there should not be too much differences between before and after. If there was, they would have made a big deal of it.
Umm, the announcement was right around when I started lurking around evolution and ID sites and it seems that a big deal was made of it. Search tells me that there was at least 7 posts here on UD that addressed Lenski directly. There is a few dozen posts referencing him at Evolution News and Views. Apparently, Behe commented on it. Even Conservapedia went after Lenski. I am not sure how much of a bigger deal could be made of it. You've seemed helpful so far, so I don't want to draw the conclusion that saying there "should not be too much differences" is just a way to get out of actually doing any CSI calculations. So, come on, dust off your calculator. You have a captive audience.efren ts
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Mustela 185, Once again, you've positd an incremental search powered by design as an analog to a random search powered by chance.Upright BiPed
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
"Can you calculate the FCSI changes between the before and after e.coli in Lenski’s experiment" It shouldn't be too hard if one had all the information (I am sorry I am not supposed to use that word because it doesn't exists) and my guess is that there should not be too much differences between before and after. If there was, they would have made a big deal of it. That is, if a new protein with remarkable characteristics developed. "While I appreciate you sharing the very interesting links with me, I think it is a little odd that you would suggest to me, a newcomer, that I should do the calculation when you have been involved in intelligent design for 10 years and have stated it is an easy calculation." Depends what you mean by easy. It is just 4^n where n is the number of nucleotides. This is a crude measure and it has to be modified by the fact that multiple codons translate to the same amino acid and that for some functions, similar amino acids are interchangeable. So to get a ball park estimate is not hard. But to get a refined estimate will take a lot more effort and requires a detailed knowledge of the chemistry of amino acids. The number 4^n gets incredibly large real quick so reducing it by a few magnitudes for multiple codons and interchangeable amino acids has little effect on the implications that each coding area is extremely, extremely rare. It is not rare because it is complex, but rare because it is complex and specifies another entity which is functional. You said you wanted to understand ID, so I sent you to the links. They were not going to answer everything. But now that you have read them you can eliminate a lot of the BS that comes up. For example, the fact that Mustela Nivalis resorted to micro evolution when he knows that has nothing to do with anything. ID has no problems there. So now you are ahead of Mustela Nivalis and can see through his irrelevant comments. Remember what was said about Tier 5.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
"Well, yes, but if I take what you say at face value, then you are basically saying that the changes in Lenski’s bacteria could not have happened." Not in anything I ever wrote or anyone in ID ever wrote. Lenski's work is excellent ID research. Behe, himself, said this is the type of thing that should be done and my example of mapping genomes would be another.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Upright Biped at 180, You analogy placed an incremental search powered by design, to a random search powered by chance. Hence my warning that the analogy should not be taken as an exact match. The point was to address Jerry's mathematical error, which it did. Why not posit an incremental search powered by chance, since that is the basis of your position? Thomas Schneider's ev is a good example of that.Mustela Nivalis
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
jerry at 179, Just in case anyone is interested there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes. Lenski, the discoverers of nylonase eating bacteria, the developers of flu vaccines, and researchers into observed speciation, among many others, would disagree with you. And they have evidence.Mustela Nivalis
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
jerry at 177, “It assumes two things, that sub parts are all functional and are added to a functional part so each part on the way up is functional. That is core to modern evolutionary theory.” Hello, there. We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about the origin of a protein. A protein generated by transcription of a genome. Any calculation of CSI is going to have to take into consideration known physics, chemistry, and, yes, evolutionary mechanisms (including incremental change over generations of populations) in order to be applicable to real world biological artifacts. You wanted some FCSI and the place to start is with the parts. What I am ideally looking for is a calculation of CSI, as described in No Free Lunch, for a real biological artifact, taking into account known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms. Given how often it is asserted here that CSI is a clear indication of design, I am amazed that no one can simply point me to a dozen worked examples. I'm not sure what "FCSI" is, and the glossary is no help. If it is simply the naive calculation of two to the power of the length of the genome, it's not applicable to the real world, for the reasons described above.Mustela Nivalis
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Jerry at 159:
Well I did tell you how to calculate it and all that is needed is one good size gene-protein coding region to get a number that is so improbable that naturalistic evolution becomes unreasonable. Didn’t you see that? Calculating it for a whole genome is what would be absurd and not necessary when one gene would be enough. All would be estimates but it is possible to lower bounds on it. I also gave you some references of scientists who are using essentially the same idea to calculate probabilities for functional sequences.
Well, yes, but if I take what you say at face value, then you are basically saying that the changes in Lenski's bacteria could not have happened. Obviously it did, so it would seem that your explanation needs to be revisited, or at least spelled out in more detail. Which brings me back to Mustela's comment at 157. Can you calculate the FCSI changes between the before and after e.coli in Lenski's experiment? While I appreciate you sharing the very interesting links with me, I think it is a little odd that you would suggest to me, a newcomer, that I should do the calculation when you have been involved in intelligent design for 10 years and have stated it is an easy calculation. I guess I am coming back around to asking you, the ID scientist, to show me how it is done. Could you, please? Unless of course, this is some secret initiation ritual for newcomers. Like sending me on a snipe hunt or asking me to go to the tool room and get a left-handed screwdriver. Surely, that isn't the case?efren ts
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Mr Jerry, Just in case anyone is interested there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes. A request for clarification, do you mean only macro-evolution here?Nakashima
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Aleta, If I understand you correctly and I haven't any more time today to devote to this, you are saying that there may be properties of the chemistry involved which are inherent in the four laws of physics that would drive the building not just of random combinations but specific viable to life combinations. If so a whole lot of people would be over joyed but the atheists and Darwinists would say I told you so but deny there was any design in the four laws that led to that. The theistic evolutionists would be ecstatic and I don't blame them. There is one problem, and that is all this would leave a trail and we see no trail. If there were a trail all would be on board and it would be easy to shout down the Darwinists as we pointed to the incredible design than not only is friendly to life but actually dictated that it must happen. Maybe there will be such a day.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Mustela, You analogy placed an incremental search powered by design, to a random search powered by chance. Why not posit an incremental search powered by chance, since that is the basis of your position?Upright BiPed
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Just in case anyone is interested there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes. That is why this site remains a thorn in the side of the know nothings. We keep repeating the obvious. So to resort to such a cumulative process is just an assertion that has no basis in the data. A much more likely cumulative process is an improvement in the design every now and then or an adjustment in the design to meet ecological requirements. Some times this adjustment can be done naturally but it appears that sometimes it cannot. Explaining the latter and how did new functional complexity arose is what the whole debate is about. Gradual cumulative processes strike out every time. So to assert it is just a waste of time. No one can demonstrate it so please let's not hear it again unless you have evidence to back it up.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
My example purposely removed the decision making that goes on in Yahtze and replaced it with analogies to natural processes, FWIW.Aleta
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
"It assumes two things, that sub parts are all functional and are added to a functional part so each part on the way up is functional. That is core to modern evolutionary theory. Only " Hello, there. We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about the origin of a protein. You wanted some FCSI and the place to start is with the parts. To keep you busy for the rest of your life, consider the ribosome or ATP synthase. Just stick to these two and report back when you have something. I will leave a note for my great great great grand children to be on the look out for it.jerry
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Upright Biped at 174, You presented an intelligently designed search as example of a random search. No, I contrasted the efficacy of an incremental search versus a random search. That was the only point of the analogy and the reason why I clearly labeled it as limited.Mustela Nivalis
January 18, 2010
January
01
Jan
18
18
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 14

Leave a Reply