Evolutionists have discussed a wide variety of mechanisms to produce the biological change their theory requires. Horizontal gene transfer, cell fusions, directed mutations and domain shuffling are some of the more exotic mechanisms to go along with the more traditional mechanisms such as genetic mutations. But these mechanisms were not available in that warm little pond (or deep sea vent, or comet hurtling toward earth, or ...) where evolution got its start. The very mechanisms of evolution had to have, at some point, evolved. You can read more about this here and here. We now hear evolutionists speaking of "the evolution of evolvability," and "preprogrammed evolution." Simply put, evolution had to have created evolution. Does this make sense?
Evolutionists see no problem with their idea that evolution creates evolution. As one evolutionist rhetorically explained, "Does fire create fire?" Indeed, fire certainly does create fire. Does this resolve the problem that evolution must have created evolution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess you would argue for some of the evolution of evolvabilty along the line you assert the anthropic principle.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Dr. Hunter is going to give us his alternative explanation to the current evolutionary theory that he appears to dislike so much.
ReplyDeleteDr. Hunter?
I seem to have lost a post. Recapping:
ReplyDelete1) The fire begets fire quote was a snarky remark following a real defense. In the context of phenotypic change in birds, the conversation went:
Hunter: So evolution created evolution?
Me: Genetic changes, accumulated over time, created allelic diversity for natural selection to act on. Does fire create fire?
Crazy me! Pointing out the obvious. Hunter apparently liked the snark enough to create a new thread. My snark is now dishonestly presented as a total defense I offered of a new subject. Instant quotemine.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/03/global-warming-effect disproves.html?showComment=1268424044913#c466433880403117918
2) Note that Hunter uses 'evolution' for cause and effect, process and concept. He does so to introduce semantic misunderstanding, and to make evolutionary logic appear more circular. Broken out (like above), he finds it more difficult to argue with.
3) Note also the total lack of advocacy. Does life evolve? Is life designed to evolve? Is there a hypothesis offered? It is always interesting to debate with someone who does not offer an alternative position-especially in science, where hypothesis testing is not just philosophical, but core to the whole endeavor.
4) Evolvablility-
Is likely an evolved trait. After all, a species that poorly accumulates (and tolerates) genetic diversity seems unfit to respond to change. A species that lacks the mechanisms to evolve, will not. That species either occupies a unchanging niche, or is lost to history.
Admin has an interesting suggestion-if we are surrounded by the success stories of evolution, then what else do we expect to observe. Life and proto life that didn't evolve is gone. Once that first genetic self-replicator formed (in ways we can suggest, but likely never know), we were set down the path of evolution and evolvability.
Evolvability as a field is more fascinating that Hunter's complaint, or my Snark. If you are interested, try:
Evolution and evolvability: celebrating Darwin 200.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/1/44.long
(free full text)
Alan Fox:
ReplyDelete===
Perhaps Dr. Hunter is going to give us his alternative explanation to the current evolutionary theory that he appears to dislike so much.
===
My alternative is for evolutionists to keep their religion out of science.
Robert:
ReplyDelete====
1) The fire begets fire quote was a snarky remark following a real defense. In the context of phenotypic change in birds, the conversation went:
Hunter: So evolution created evolution?
Me: Genetic changes, accumulated over time, created allelic diversity for natural selection to act on. Does fire create fire?
Crazy me! Pointing out the obvious. Hunter apparently liked the snark enough to create a new thread. My snark is now dishonestly presented as a total defense I offered of a new subject. Instant quotemine.
====
It is remarkable that you feel that "Genetic changes, accumulated over time, created allelic diversity for natural selection to act on." resolves the issue. "Fire creates fire" is a good summary. You seem to fail to comprehend the serendipity that evolution requires.
====
2) Note that Hunter uses 'evolution' for cause and effect, process and concept. He does so to introduce semantic misunderstanding, and to make evolutionary logic appear more circular. Broken out (like above), he finds it more difficult to argue with.
====
No. Such distinctions do not resolve the issue. Use whatever labels you want, the issue of evolution creating evolution remains.
=====
3) Note also the total lack of advocacy. Does life evolve? Is life designed to evolve? Is there a hypothesis offered? It is always interesting to debate with someone who does not offer an alternative position-especially in science, where hypothesis testing is not just philosophical, but core to the whole endeavor.
=====
If someone criticized what I was teaching or advocating, that last thing I would respond with is "well you fix my problem then." I would evaluate the criticism and either explain why it doesn't hold water or adjust accordingly if it did make some sense. Evolutionists have made a claim; namely, that evolution is a fact as much as is gravity, and therefore anyone who disagrees must be ignorant or disingenuous. That claim is obviously and unambiguously false, and yet when confronted with this inconvenient truth you have the temerity to blame the critic for not solving your problem. You're the one making the undefendable claim, not me.
====
Is likely an evolved trait. After all, a species that poorly accumulates (and tolerates) genetic diversity seems unfit to respond to change. A species that lacks the mechanisms to evolve, will not. That species either occupies a unchanging niche, or is lost to history.
Admin has an interesting suggestion-if we are surrounded by the success stories of evolution, then what else do we expect to observe. Life and proto life that didn't evolve is gone. Once that first genetic self-replicator formed (in ways we can suggest, but likely never know), we were set down the path of evolution and evolvability.
====
Sure, something like that has to be the evolutionary narrative. It evolved because it was selected; it was selected because it had higher fitness. What is remarkable is that evolutionists seem to think this just-so story lays the matter to rest.
Sorry Robert, I have to agree your fire creates fire "defense" was ill-advised.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't surprising your opponents in the Culture War would take advantage of it.
At least that is my view, for what it is worth.
Thought,
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Though my actual defense preceded that line, it was all too easy an opening.
And of course, a blog with no scientific substance (no hypotheses, no alternatives, no analysis other than the drumbeat of "evolution couldn't do that") would latch onto a soundbite, take it out of context, and present it as a 'defense' of a new topic rather than debating substance.
By the way,
Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?
Robert:
ReplyDelete===
Agreed. Though my actual defense preceded that line, it was all too easy an opening.
And of course, a blog with no scientific substance (no hypotheses, no alternatives, no analysis other than the drumbeat of "evolution couldn't do that") would latch onto a soundbite, take it out of context, and present it as a 'defense' of a new topic rather than debating substance.
===
I'll be happy to delete this blog entry if you like. I thought your response was typical and that this issue is yet another failed expectation of evolution.
Dr. Hunter, may I suggest this for a blog entry (or we can continue it here if you like).
ReplyDeleteA God Hypothesis.
Premise – There is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being who created the universe and man. Furthermore, mankind is the primary focus of this being’s benevolence.
For ease of reference, this being is called “God” which may or may not correspond to he who the Jews called יהוה.
God, by definition, would control the fabric and deflections of space-time which is our universe. By necessity, such a being would be timeless.
Since Quantum Mechanics informs us there is nothing material which exists outside of space-time wavefunctions, God is in direct control of all things we think of as material.
God’s benevolence towards mankind would likely include concern for mankind’s continued existence. Another probable act of benevolence would be the allowance of mankind to have Free Will.
There very well could have been a Garden of Eden approximately 6,014 years ago and Eve chose, for all mankind, to obtain the knowledge of good and evil. For all practical purposes, it doesn’t matter because God could have either instantly created a whole new reality complete with millions of year-old fossils and billions of year-old stars, or he could have known what Eve’s choice was going to be and honored it by taking billions of years to create Eve’s requested reality. Time doesn’t matter to a timeless being.
However, the premise presumes it does matter to God whether or not mankind survives. In the movie Matrix it was noted mankind would reject a utopian reality. If mankind does not struggle against adversity, its spirit dies. Man is also intelligent enough to see through a faux simulation of adversity. The adversity has to be real. This would include an inherent doubt of God’s existence. For man’s own good, God made it so his existence could never be known as a certainty which included providing scientists a difficult but consistent set of clues suggesting his existence was unnecessary.
Early on, God provided hints. The parting of the Red Sea was a piece of cake; “Brownian Motion, shift left and right”. The great flood wasn’t that much more difficult. God showed off a little with the Sun standing still trick, but give the guy a break, being a timeless being has got to be somewhat boring.
Currently, God’s plan is working perfectly (as if there was any doubt). Over 3.5 Billion people believe he exists but can’t be certain. Science is moving along at a good clip. We even managed to keep from blowing ourselves up (probably with God’s unseen help).
BTW, a scientific falsification of this hypothesis would be if mankind ceased to exists. I’m sure it would be enough to convince any E.T. scientists “nope, they weren’t God’s chosen”.
In conclusion, I suggest scientists, including Evolutionary Biologists, are just as likely doing God’s work as televangelists, maybe even more so.
Hi Robert,
ReplyDeleteYou asked...
"Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?"
As you probably could guess from my previous entry is, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter.
If God wanted me to be certain he/she/it exists, I would know.
Robert:
ReplyDelete"Does religion drive meteorology ... ?"
No, meteorologists do not say that low probability solutions must be a fact because their non scientific, religious beliefs mandate it
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete