A key question for evolution has always been: How does biological variation arise? Darwin’s theory of evolution explained that natural selection killed off the less-fit variations, but how did the variation arise in the first place? In the nineteenth century the mechanisms of biological variation were not well understood and it was possible to imagine a sort of simple, perturbing force at work which gradually altered designs. This model did not match up very well with what Gregor Mendel was discovering about change in pea plants. About the same time that Darwin was working on revisions to his book Mendel was uncovering the fundamental laws of genetics. But Mendelian genetics would call for discrete jumps in biological variation rather than gradual modifications. It would take much work but about half a century later Mendel’s findings were integrated with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This neo-Darwinism was thought to be a great advance. Was not the poorly understood source of biological variation now revealed and reconciled with Darwin’s theory? But the neo-Darwinists had turned a blind eye to the elephant that was now in the room: Evolution now required a complex Mendelian machine to generate the needed biological variation.This problem with neo-Darwinism is very simple. In order for evolution to continue, evolution first had to create the complex Mendelian variation machine. In other words, evolution creates the mechanism that evolution requires to work. It was an absurd level of serendipity that no one cared to notice.
Since the formulation of neo-Darwinism this problem of serendipity has only become worse. For the genes, alleles and various machinery required by Mendelian genetics were only the beginning. Indeed, it became increasingly understood that Mendel provided only a portion of the needed biological change.
Today evolutionists call upon a dizzying array of phenomenally complex mechanisms to produce jumps in biological change in an attempt to explain evolution. Horizontal gene transfer, cell fusions, directed mutations, domain shuffling and cis-acting regulatory changes are but a few of the new breed of mechanisms called upon to generate evolution’s new designs. Evolution created genes that can be transfered, mechanisms that do the transferring, cells that can be fused, DNA that can be mutated, processes to direct the mutations, domains that can be shuffled, regulatory schemes that can bring about changes, and so forth. As one evolutionist concluded, “hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering.”
Natural genetic engineering? This is neo-Darwinism on steroids and its astronomical level of serendipity is absurd. Do evolutionists seriously think people will believe it is an undeniable truth that evolution created the phenomenally complex process of evolution, which then enabled evolution to occur?
How about an undeniable tale?
The evolutionist’s failure to reckon with their own credulity is astonishing. They contrive a truly silly idea while proclaiming it to be a fact we must accept. I would be the first to proclaim evolution as true if the evidence was there. But the evolutionists have not only failed to deliver—they have made themselves appear foolish.
Cornelius Hunter, most everything you post seems to be an argument from incredulity. You point to something complicated, throw up your hands, then exclaim it couldn't have just happened. Your conclusion is that generations of scientists are not only wrong, but "foolish" because they can't see what is obvious to you.
ReplyDeleteA valid replacement theory will not only explain the discrepancies, but explain why the old theory seemed plausible. Just saying the vast majority of scientists are fools is not a tenable position. And that requires understanding why scientists have thus far been unconvinced by your arguments.
You should start with what we can show with some certainty. Multicellular organisms arose only long after life had appeared. Fishopods. Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Whales with hind limbs. Primitive hominids. Common Descent.
@Zachriel, "You point to something complicated"
ReplyDeleteActually, he points to something logically self-contradictory. A mechanism that requires the pre-existence of machinery is solely responsible for the existence of that machinery.
"most everything you post seems to be an argument from incredulity."
It is easy to prove mathematically that you can't get odd numbers by adding together even numbers. Would you also call that an argument from incredulity?
Lars: Actually, he points to something logically self-contradictory. A mechanism that requires the pre-existence of machinery is solely responsible for the existence of that machinery.
ReplyDeleteExcept it's not logically contradictory, only beyond what Cornelius Hunter considers consistent with his understanding of natural processes. In fact, complex molecules which were once thought to be unique to life can form spontaneously. And even random amino acid sequences can fold into complex three-dimensional "machines" with biological function. So it's not a logical argument.
Lars: It is easy to prove mathematically that you can't get odd numbers by adding together even numbers. Would you also call that an argument from incredulity?
No. That would a logical argument from given axioms.
To expand on that last point, the evolutionary claim today is rather like saying, "We don't know HOW nature got 3 by adding 2's together over and over. We just know for a fact that it did. After all, it had many millions of years. Any suggestion of additional operations, such as division, or input of odd numbers, is unscientific. Anyone who can't believe in the production of odd numbers from adding even numbers simply lacks imagination."
ReplyDeleteIf cause A has been shown to be unsufficient to produce effect B (or even if cause A merely has not been shown to be sufficient to produce effect B -- everyone agrees OOL research has failed to do this), those are valid scientific reasons not to promote "A caused B" from hypothesis to fact. How is that an argument from incredulity?
"unsufficient" -> "insufficient"
ReplyDeleteLars: How is that an argument from incredulity?
ReplyDeleteBecause no on claims to have completely solved the problem of abiogenesis. It's called a Gap in scientific knowledge. However, there are a number of testable hypotheses that have proved fruitful, including those associated with RNA World; e.g. stereochemical affinities. There are no testable hypotheses that suggest Intelligent Design. In any case, there are no known *logical* barriers.
More importantly, we don't examine particulars in isolation. We start with what we can establish with some scientific certainty. That includes the evolution of complex structures and diversification from common ancestors.
Where does the theory of evolution stand with respect to knowledge of what it takes to effect a major, or even minor, morphological change?
ReplyDeleteAs a reader of the popular books and a frequenter of many blogs such as this one, I have yet to see a serious discussion of what it would take for evolution to accomplish what is claimed for it. The mantra of random variation and natural selection is repeated over and over. This is just a mere wisp of an explanation for the formidable engineering problem that I see.
To re-engineer a body plan, it would seem, is a very complicated process. Has anyone even outlined the steps necessary to accomplish such a feat?
An engineer, when he wishes to make something new or change an existing design, needs to define the details of what I would call the three "p's": parts, plans, and process.
Plans. A morphological change would require an alteration of the mechanism -- the process -- used to build the modified body plan. The "plan" needs knowledge of which parts to manufacture and when to provide them to the assembly line. Where is all this information stored and how is it modified to effect the morphological change?
Parts. The fundamental part is the protein. Then proteins have to be assembled into tissues and organs, and tissues and organs have to be assembled into the "final product", the new or altered body plan. The organization of all these parts into the final product is also part of the plan.
It seems that if science does not have an understanding of this process, then it is premature to claim that the theory of evolution has the same epistemological status as the theory of gravity.
Doublee: Where does the theory of evolution stand with respect to knowledge of what it takes to effect a major, or even minor, morphological change?
ReplyDeleteTo understand that, we need to first look at the evidence for Common Descent.
Doublee: A morphological change would require an alteration of the mechanism -- the process -- used to build the modified body plan.
ReplyDeleteGenetics has been unraveling this mystery. Evolution works by slightly modifying the existing process, and it can be shown that small changes to developmental genes can change developmental patterns.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how the evidence for common descent would provide any clues to the intricate mechanisms required to effect a morphological transformation. If possible, could you expand upon your answer?
It seems to me that what I am asking can only come from very painstaking work in the laboratory. In other words how does the zygote "know" what to do next? How do the cells know how to differentiate themselves? Once they do, how do they know where to go?
And can a genetic mutation in and of itself affect all these processes? Doesn't a genetic mutation merely specify a new protein?
To phrase my (layman's) question in even broader terms, what is required of the putative random variation such that it creates a viable step in a morphological tranformation?
Indeed, how does that complex Mendelian machine create the needed variation required by evolution?
Doublee: I fail to see how the evidence for common descent would provide any clues to the intricate mechanisms required to effect a morphological transformation.
ReplyDeleteBecause Common Descent defines the changes that are required. For instance, knowing that whales descended from land mammals determines the types of changes required. So we have this pattern of descent, and the question then becomes, what is the mechanism?
Doublee: And can a genetic mutation in and of itself affect all these processes? Doesn't a genetic mutation merely specify a new protein?
Developmental genes (such as hox genes) can affect many aspects of an organism. Think of a change that makes a skeleton longer, well, that one genetic change causes multiple changes in morphology so that other aspects of the organism scale with length. Everything gets longer (more or less). Otherwise nothing would work. Muscles and arteries wouldn't connect. There has been a lot of progress on how this process works.
Doublee: Indeed, how does that complex Mendelian machine create the needed variation required by evolution?
We really don't need to know how it works in detail in order to find strong evidence for evolution. Nevertheless, the evidence from developmental studies supports evolution.
Zachriel says:
ReplyDelete"Just saying the vast majority of scientists are fools is not a tenable position."
I don't recall having read this "saying" in Hunters blog. The majority of those in the life sciences are committed to the postulates of scientific materialism, which is a small minority viewpoint not only throughout history, but today in the USA as well. This is why scientists are regarded by many lay folks as an alien species. As there are plenty of anecdotal accounts of the private doubts of some in the life sciences that philosophical naturalism can account for EVERYTHING, the fact that these doubts are not made public should tell you something -- that something being fear of ostracism and loss of funding. This is why the life scientists that do come out with their doubts regarding neo-Darwinism, (and lets be real, there are plenty of them) are mostly retired. This has nothing to do with labeling anyone a fool, and everything to do with a philosophical hegemony which will eventually collapse, just as did its radical counterpart, Marxism.
Zachriel: Just saying the vast majority of scientists are fools is not a tenable position.
ReplyDeleteMSEE: I don't recall having read this "saying" in Hunters blog.
Cornelius Hunter: I would be the first to proclaim evolution as true if the evidence was there. But the evolutionists have not only failed to deliver—they have made themselves appear foolish.
"Appear foolish" because they have no evidence to support the fundamental claims of their scientific field of expertise, even as they sequence genomes and unravel the mysteries of heredity and development. We stand corrected.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"Cornelius Hunter, most everything you post seems to be an argument from incredulity."
So astrology is a fact, because if we are skeptical we are guilty of incredulity. Evolutionists love having it both ways.
"You point to something complicated, throw up your hands, then exclaim it couldn't have just happened."
Except I never said that, but who cares about that.
"Your conclusion is that generations of scientists are not only wrong, "
Yes, and generations of scientists certainly have never been wrong before. How foolish to think the authorities could be wrong (when I agree with them, that is).
"but 'foolish' because they can't see what is obvious to you."
Obvious to anyone who can see the facts before him.
Zachriel: Cornelius Hunter, most everything you post seems to be an argument from incredulity.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: So astrology is a fact, because if we are skeptical we are guilty of incredulity.
Nope. Reasonable skepticism is good. And we have reason to be skeptical of astrology, lack of empirical support, lack of a mechanism. But that wasn't your stated position.
Cornelius Hunter: Yes, and generations of scientists certainly have never been wrong before.
Yes, and there have certainly been foolish scientists, and scientists who "appear foolish." But there are usually reasons why there is a strong consensus in support of a theory, reasons grounded in evidence.
Nor is this a complaint about an ad hominem. Rather it is taked as your conjecture as to why the vast majority of biologists miss the facts that are so very obvious to you. But as such, it is a very weak conjecture, especially considering that these biologists include those who have sequenced the human genome and are unraveling the mysteries of development.
Cornelius Hunter: Except I never said that, but who cares about that.
Cornelius Hunter: In order for evolution to continue, evolution first had to create the complex Mendelian variation machine. In other words, evolution creates the mechanism that evolution requires to work.
Except that Mendelian variation is not required for evolution. Prokaryotes do quite well without it. And Mendelian variation is posited to have evolutionary predecessors, such as primitive gene exchange.
Of course there are going to be Gaps! That's why it is best to start with what can be most firmly established, including Common Descent. Once establishing Common Descent, then we can try to determine plausible mechanisms.
Zachriel writes:
ReplyDelete"We really don't need to know how [the complex Mendelian mechanism] works in detail in order to find strong evidence for evolution."
If we don’t need to know the details of the putative mechanism of evolution, then I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “strong evidence for evolution”. (It's akin to saying that we haven't found all the evidence yet, but we know he's guilty and we'll go to court with what we have.)
The veracity of the theory of evolution ultimately depends upon understanding the details. Science may not know all the details yet, but it seems that science at least needs to clearly understand the nature of the engineering problem that is presented by even the simplest morphological change and what is required to effect that change. If science cannot even do that, how can we be expected to believe that a land mammal can evolve into a whale? Now there is an engineering problem extraordinaire!
If the plausibility of the evolutionary mechanism cannot be demonstrated even in broad outline, then on what basis can you claim that there is strong evidence for evolution?
Doublee -
ReplyDelete"If we don’t need to know the details of the putative mechanism of evolution, then I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “strong evidence for evolution”. (It's akin to saying that we haven't found all the evidence yet, but we know he's guilty and we'll go to court with what we have.) The veracity of the theory of evolution ultimately depends upon understanding the details."
Imagine this - you gate-crash the family reunion of a family you have never met. You select two random people. You take blood samples from them. We can, with these blood samples, show how these two people are related. We can tell if, for example, these two people are siblings, cousins, or are unrelated to each other by blood.
And yet there might still be considerable facts missing. If the two were half-siblings, we might not know which parent they share. But that does not cast doubt on the fact that we know them to be half-siblings. If the two are unrelated, then we would not know why they are at the party - perhaps they are married to someone there, or are just guests. But that lack of knowledge doesn't mean we aren't sure that the two are unrelated by blood.
In short, we can be as confident as we could ever hope to be how two random people were related and still not know fairly significant facts about either of them.
The same is true of animals. We know, for example, that all breeds of dog share a common ancestor. Genetics can determine this for a fact, and yet it does not necessarily tell us much about that common ancestor. We think it lived about 10-12,000 years ago, and that it was some sort of grey wolf, but beyond that our knowledge is sketchy. But that does not cast doubt on whether all dogs are related or not.
The same is true of all mammals - from bats to humans to dogs to whales, we know for a fact that we all share a common ancestor which dates back around 60 million years. And yet the details about it are rather hazy. We are fairly confident it was a small shrew-like animal, but beyond that we don't know a lot. But that does not cast doubt on our confidence that all mammals are related.
My point is that it is not wise to refuse to accept ANY part of evolution until is has answered ALL the details. We can determine whether or not creatures are related without knowing too many specifics on how.
"If science cannot even do that, how can we be expected to believe that a land mammal can evolve into a whale? Now there is an engineering problem extraordinaire!"
And yet, we know it happened. From a cache of fossils which nicely chart the transition of the whale from a dog-like land mammal to the marine creature we see today, including Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon.
Surely the idea that these creature are unrelated is by far the more unlikely one? Pakicetus lived around 52 million years ago. And then, it disappears and Ambulocetus happens to appear - which looks a lot like Pakicetus, and in fact shares certain unique features, though also slightly better adapted to life in the water. And yet the two are unrelated... And then about 45 million years ago Ambulocetus just happened to disappear and Rhodocetus just happened to appear - which looks a lot like Ambulocetus, and in fact shares certain unique features, though also slightly better adapted for life in the water. And yet the two are unrelated... and so on.
When you put these finds side by side, isn't it far more statistically unlikely that these creatures are unrelated, and just happen to look so similar, including sharing several unique features? Doesn't the idea that they are actually related make far more sense to you?
"If the plausibility of the evolutionary mechanism cannot be demonstrated even in broad outline, then on what basis can you claim that there is strong evidence for evolution?"
It can be demonstrated. What do you know of Lenski's E. coli bacteria experiment?
The problem is that a the mechanism for evolution is iteslf the product of evolution. But in order to create the product of evolution, you need evolution itself to ahve already evolved. But how could it have evolved without evolution, if it deoends on evolution. It the chicken and the egg scenario.
ReplyDeleteDoublee: If we don’t need to know the details of the putative mechanism of evolution, then I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “strong evidence for evolution”.
ReplyDeleteDarwin proposed a strongly supported theory of evolution and didn't have a working theory of genetics. He started by establishing Common Descent, then determined that natural variations and selection were sufficient to explain the rates and patterns of evolutionary change. Darwin's theory has been expanded and modified over the last 150 years, but the fundamentals remain intact.
Doublee: The veracity of the theory of evolution ultimately depends upon understanding the details.
Humans can know only the tiniest sliver of what there is to know. Science is capable of making progress into the void of ignorance, not by attempting the impossible and understanding everything, but by proposing and testing well-defined hypotheses. However, any new discoveries must be consistent with the theory, or the theory must be modified or discarded.
uoflcard: Most ID propents believe common descent to be true.
ReplyDeleteAs common descent is one of the most fundamental facts in biology—organisms are what they are because of what they once were—then it seems that would be something that the ID Community really needs to work on.
uoflcard: It has nothig to do with the natural production of functional, complex, specific information, though.
It has everything to do with explaining the patterns in biology, including the mechanisms of evolutionary change.
uoflcard: There is a fundamental difference between complexity and specified complexity.
Yes, we know. However, no one can provide a reliable metric of CSI, and from the qualitative definitions usually provided, evolution can produce CSI.
uoflcard: Now if the pile formed an image that is a perfect replica of the The Starry Night Over The Rhone, we would question it’s “accidental” formation.
Sigh. Starry Night Over The Rhone is a painting of a reflection.
Imagine you looked and saw a perfect image of yourself.
uoflcard: “Fruitful” abiogensis research is one thing, although it depends on your definitin of “fruitful”.
Testable hypotheses that lead to new discoveries.
uoflcard: If you mean findings that can give anyone without unyielding faith in naturalism that life formed on its own, I would have to disagree.
More like how if we hypothesize that extant protein synthesis evolved from a more primitive system, there would be stereochemical affinities between codons and amino acids.
laugh out loud -
ReplyDelete"The problem is that a the mechanism for evolution is iteslf the product of evolution."
Is it? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Imagine we have the first self-replicating cell bobbing around in the primordial soup. It starts to self-replicate. Making copies of itself which then self-replicate in turn. But there is only so much of whatever resources it feeds from/needs to survive to go round. So eventually there will come a point where there will be too many of these replicated cells, and some of these replicated cells will have enough sustenance to survive, and some won't. Thus begins competition between living creatures.
How is evolution needed for evolution to begin?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteImagine we have the first self-replicating cell bobbing around in the primordial soup. It starts to self-replicate. Making copies of itself which then self-replicate in turn.//
ReplyDeleteRichie, RNA molecules can only replicate once they have the necessary instructions to do so, human engineers succeed in the lab purely because they front-load these RNA molecules with the necessary base sequence.
Replication thus comes after information not before it. There is nothing magical about RNA molecules they don't generate their information required for replication by themselves.
Anyways I am glad to see that the origin of variation has moved over from random to non-random, we have indeed come a long way since Charlie, although I think it will still take time for evolutionists to comprehend the implications.
ReplyDeleteRitchie:
ReplyDeleteBut how do the surviving proto-cells change? They survived because of random luck. But evolution means survival because of change.
johan: There is nothing magical about RNA molecules they don't generate their information required for replication by themselves.
ReplyDeleteRandom RNA polymers can have autocatalytic activity.
laugh out loud: But how do the surviving proto-cells change?
ReplyDeleteImperfect replication. Once life begins the rest follows.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRandom RNA polymers can have autocatalytic activity.//
ReplyDeleteThis is false,functional RNA catalysts arise only once RNA bases are specifically-arranged into information-rich sequences.
--Johan--
Johan: This is false,functional RNA catalysts arise only once RNA bases are specifically-arranged into information-rich sequences.
ReplyDeleteBartel & Szostak, Isolation of new ribozymes from a large pool of random sequences, Science 1993.
“ribozyme engineering” experiments have failed to produce RNA replicators capable of copying more than about 10% of their nucleotide base sequences. (Wendy K. Johnston, et. al, “RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization,” Science 292 (2001): 1319-25.)
ReplyDeleteThis is with the help of intelligent agents.
johan: This is with the help of intelligent agents
ReplyDeleteThere is a reasonable probability of random sequences having biological functions, including autocatalysis. You had claimed otherwise. Please note that you pointed to a Gap as an argument. When that Gap was filled, you point to another Gap.
You're dated on RNA replicators.
Lincoln & Joyce, Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme, Science 2009.
So we have random sequences with autocatalytic capability. We have demonstration in principle of RNA replication. We have plausible natural synthesis of nucleotides. These results don't constitute a complete theory, of course, but they are significant confirmations of the RNA World Hypothesis.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteIn the dark chambers of Langley, your's is a classic 'plausible deniability' argument.
Sure, its a nifty card trick and all. But you'll have to brush up on the slight of hand technique. People are 'evolving' better 'eyesight' as we speak.
Maybe now is the right time to contemplate a career move.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"...it is assumed...that a magic catalyst existed to convert the activated nucleotides to a random ensemble of polynucleotide sequences, a subset of which had the ability to replicate. It seems to be implicit that such sequences replicate themselves but, for whatever reason, do not replicate unrelated neighbors"
ReplyDelete--Joyce and Orgel, ibid., p.7
"Incubation of the pool RNA...led to rapid and extensive aggregation; more than half of the pool RNA precipitated when incubated for 90 minutes at 37º C in high concentrations of Mg2+ and monovalent ions...and precipitation was even more rapid at higher temperatures. It appears that conditions that favor RNA intramolecular structure also stabilize intermolecular interactions; as molecules find regions of complementarity with more than one other molecule, RNA networks form and eventually become too large to remain in solution"
ReplyDelete--David P. Bartel and Jack W. Szostak, "Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences, " Science 261 (1993): 1411-1418; p. 1412.
There is a reasonable probability of random sequences having biological functions, including auto catalysis.//
ReplyDeleteThere is a fundamental difference between biological function and auto catalysis, biological function is dependent on non-physical symbolic representation(prescriptive information)where as auto catalysis is a purely dynamical process.
“there is nothing in the physico-chemical world that resembles reactions being determined by a sequence of codes between sequences"
--Yockey-- bioinformatician & theoretical biologist
johan: "...it is assumed..." Joyce and Orgel, ibid., p.7
ReplyDeleteDid you actually read Joyce and Orgel, or did you pick up the decades-old quote somewhere, ellipses and ibid included?
johan: "Incubation of the pool RNA..."
Is there a question in there somewhere?
johan: There is a fundamental difference between biological function and auto catalysis, biological function is dependent on non-physical symbolic representation(prescriptive information) ...
Apparently not. When a complex polymer folds and functions as an enzyme, then it is a functional enzyme. Many such enzymes have been discovered in random sequences, including but not only autocatalytic enzymes. You've been misled into believing that random sequences can't form into complex, functional three-dimensional structures. It's a confirmed prediction of the RNA World Hypothesis.