In the viviparous lizard Trachylepis ivensi (Scincidae) of central Africa, reproducing females ovulate tiny ∼1 mm eggs and supply the nutrients for development by placental means. Histological study shows that this species has evolved an extraordinary placental pattern long thought to be confined to mammals, in which fetal tissues invade the uterine lining to contact maternal blood vessels. The vestigial shell membrane disappears very early in development, allowing the egg to absorb uterine secretions. The yolk is enveloped precocially by the trilaminar yolk sac and no isolated yolk mass or yolk cleft develops. Early placentas are formed from the chorion and choriovitelline membranes during the neurula through pharyngula stages. During implantation, cells of the chorionic ectoderm penetrate between uterine epithelial cells. The penetrating tissue undergoes hypertrophy and hyperplasia, giving rise to sheets of epithelial tissue that invade beneath the uterine epithelium, stripping it away. As a result, fetal epithelium entirely replaces the uterine epithelium, and lies in direct contact with maternal capillaries and connective tissue. Placentation is endotheliochorial and fundamentally different from that of all other viviparous reptiles known. Further, the pattern of fetal membrane development (with successive loss and re-establishment of an extensive choriovitelline membrane) is unique among vertebrates. T. ivensi represents a new extreme in placental specializations of reptiles, and is the most striking case of convergence on the developmental features of viviparous mammals known.
Or in plain English:
In central Africa, an unassuming little lizard has evolved a spectacular and oddly human feature of gestation: a complex placenta. It is the first time that scientists have observed such an advanced version of this organ connecting the fetus to the womb in nonmammals.
Biologist Alexander Flemming made the anatomical find, announced late last year, while sorting through specimens at the Port Elizabeth natural history museum in South Africa. Flemming and his collaborator, Daniel Blackburn, knew that about 20 percent of lizards give birth to live young, but finding the placenta came as a shock.
Whereas virtually all cold-blooded reptiles supply embryos with nutrients from a large egg yolk, five-inch-long Trachylepis ivensi females ovulate small, yolk-poor eggs that implant in the uterus. As the fetus develops, its tissues become intimately entangled with the blood vessels of its mother, providing ready access to nutrients and oxygen in the mother’s blood. Sound familiar? “The fetal tissues actually invade the uterine ones, much like in humans,” Blackburn says. “It’s totally unexpected.”
A lizard with a human-like reproduction system? It is yet another example in the long list of evolutionary expectations gone wrong. We must believe that random mutations just happened to replicate a complex, mammalian-like placental pattern in a lizard, though it had a perfectly good reproductive system to begin with.
Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.
Darn CH, that's amazing! For the 2477th time you've managed to disprove evolutionary theory with only your acute powers of observation. Amazing also that all those millions of practicing scientists somehow missed that a case of convergent evolution totally destroys their silly theory. How sad it is that they all keep working, doing productive science and making discoveries while living such a lie. But not a forward thinker like you, no siree.
ReplyDeleteIn honor of this latest ToE-killing hit right where it counts blow you've delivered, I hear the scientific community is considering renaming an important part of the mammalian reproductive system after you. Many have already started.
What lame excuse will you come up with when whole identical genes are discovered in distant branches of the tree of life, genes that could not have been inherited via common descent? Will convergence be enough to explain lateral genes or will you finally start jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth?
DeleteLouis -
DeleteWhat lame excuse will you come up with when whole identical genes are discovered in distant branches of the tree of life, genes that could not have been inherited via common descent?
How about you wait until that actually happens and then you'll see.
But I wouldn't hold my breath for it...
"What lame excuse will you come up with when whole identical genes are discovered in distant branches of the tree of life, genes that could not have been inherited via common descent?"
DeleteThat would be very interesting, and would certainly require a major change in our understanding of biology.
Let me know when it happens.
In my opinion, the reason it has not yet been found is that nobody is really looking. A non-nested tree of life is a prediction of intelligent design, from my vantage point. This should be a priority among ID researchers. It would also clearly falsify Darwinian evolution but, of course, the evolutionists will conjure up more lame excuses.
DeleteA non-nested tree of life is a prediction of intelligent design, from my vantage point.
Delete...
This should be a priority among ID researchers.
...
the reason it has not yet been found is that nobody is really looking.
Try putting these sentences together. Read between the lines. If this would be such a knock-down piece of evidence for the ID-ers then WHY isn't anyone doing any work on it?
Seriously, think on it...
Seriously, think on it...
DeleteThere is nothing to think on. It's a no-brainer, in my opinion. If I had the funds, I would immediately invest in research in this area. The problem with many Christian IDers is that they are not willing to put their money where their mouths are. All they really need is faith and the rest will fall into place automatically.
On a side note, Cornelius Hunter got a degree in Computational Biology, didn't he? This sort of thing should be right up his alley. How about it, Hunter? Will the Discovery Institute fund research in this area? Or do they just talk the talk?
The problem with many Christian IDers is that they are not willing to put their money where their mouths are.
DeleteAbsolutely! Now why might THAT be, I wonder...
Will the Discovery Institute fund research in this area? Or do they just talk the talk?
An excellent suggestion! I back this 100%.
Cornelius...?
BTW Cornelius, I don't suppose you could take time from your busy schedule disproving evolution to explain to us how this lizard's reproductive system did come about, could you?
ReplyDeleteWhy would the Designer take a lizard that you say "had a perfectly good reproductive system to begin with" and modify it with this hybrid kluge? Why don't all lizards have it?
It's funny how Thorton continually makes Hunter's point for him without realizing it. How lame.
DeleteIt seems that the absence of expected consistency is so commonplace in the GTOE that believers just say "so what?" when it happens for the 2477th time.
ReplyDeleteDaleFlannery
DeleteIt seems that the absence of expected consistency is so commonplace in the GTOE that believers just say "so what?" when it happens for the 2477th time.
What absence of expected consistency would that be? ToE doesn't predict or rely on 100% fidelity in every lineage, just the opposite. We do have a huge amount of consistency in lineages that form an easily discernible and objective nested hierarchical pattern. We also have some lineages that have evolved unique one-off solutions to their particular environmental pressures. Some distantly related lineages occasionally hit upon a similar solution (convergent solution) to a similar set of pressures.
Why Creationists think interesting finds like this are some sort of fatal problem for evolution is hard to fathom.
Thorton:
DeletePlease clarify your response. It seems as if you are saying scientists expect consistency except when they don't.
In other words, both "A" and "Not A" confirm the theory of evolution.
Doublee
DeletePlease clarify your response. It seems as if you are saying scientists expect consistency except when they don't.
In other words, both "A" and "Not A" confirm the theory of evolution.
I already did. Consistency doesn't mean 100% fidelity. Learn to read for comprehension.
BTW, why did you cut and run from our conversation about Behe's claim that the malaria parasite was deliberately designed? Bailing out like that is a sure admission of defeat.
Thorton:
Delete[W]hy did you cut and run from our conversation about Behe's claim that the malaria parasite was deliberately designed?
You will have to refresh my memory. I have not posted here for quite some time.
I do recall Behe saying something to the effect of "You'll have to live with it."
I have also posed the question myself and certainly the answer - if there really is a satisfactory answer - would make for an interesting discussion.
A number of thoughts have crossed my mind but I don't consider any of them very satisfactory.
The problem arises when we assume that the designer is God. We cannot fathom why the God of the Bible would create such an organism.
If we assume that the designer is not God then maybe the existence of a designed malaria parasite can be tolerated. This begs the question of who is this designer?
If we do accept that the designer is God and that the malaria parasite was designed by Him, then this would be one more problem for theodicy to solve and this problem is beyond my ken.
MSEE
DeleteA number of thoughts have crossed my mind but I don't consider any of them very satisfactory.
The problem arises when we assume that the designer is God. We cannot fathom why the God of the Bible would create such an organism.
If we assume that the designer is not God then maybe the existence of a designed malaria parasite can be tolerated. This begs the question of who is this designer?
If we do accept that the designer is God and that the malaria parasite was designed by Him, then this would be one more problem for theodicy to solve and this problem is beyond my ken.
OK, fair enough answer.
Of course scientists have been pointing out this dilemma to the religiously motivated IDC proponents since day 1.
Props to you for being the first (on this blog anyway) to admit the problem exists.
Not the first. But your right it doesn't happen nearly enough. So many people assume ID means christian because it's championed by christians, when in fact any theory that tries to make speculations on a creator immediately breaks down on itself for bearing a false foundation. The fact that it's often used to levy religious interests also hurts it's chances at being taken as a serious science... which I actually think it is.
DeleteThorton: Why would the Designer take a lizard that you say "had a perfectly good reproductive system to begin with" and modify it with this hybrid kluge? Why don't all lizards have it?
ReplyDeleteBecause, "That's just what the designer must have wanted."
CH -
ReplyDeleteHow ridiculous. This is an example of convergence - nothing more.
Granted this is a reasonably notable resemblance, but there is absolutely nothing here that even approaches a blow to ToE.
Vertibrates have in fact evolved live birth no fewer than 132 times. It is not at all surprising that some of those should be rather similar.
Nor is the live birth of Trachylepis ivensi identical to mammalian reproduction - though the embryo imbeds itself in the oviduct wall like a mammal, unlike a mammal the embryo gets most of its food through a yolk rather than through the placenta.
So no, this is not an 'evolutionary expectation gone wrong'.
We must believe that random mutations just happened to replicate...
No, Cornelius, we are not. We should believe that such a feature evolved - which is absolutely not a process of random chance. I really don't know how many times you have to have this pointed out to you. It's not even a point you contest - you just ignore it. I'd like to think because you're intelligent enough to know that you're wrong. In which case, why you keep repeating the error is a mystery:
EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM CHANCE!!!!
Imagine a man sitting at a desk rolling dice. He rolls them individually until he gets a 6. When he does so, he puts it aside and rolls another. Calling evolution 'random chance' is like saying this man is getting an enormously long string of 6's by 'random chance'.
In your dice rolling game you show a distinctively random nature. It's not even a faint to use the term random mutations because that's is how mutations are perceived in standard evolutionary theory. Coupled with other naturalistic processes it become evolution, which is not quite so random.
DeleteA few related notes on reproduction:
ReplyDeleteAlexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70
Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012
Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.'
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html
A Piece from the Developmental Symphony - February 2012
Excerpt: Embryonic development is an astounding process that seems to happen "automatically.",,, The timing of each step is too precise and the complexity is too intricate to assume that these processes are the mere accumulation by happenstance of changes to regulatory genes. Each gene plays its role at a certain time, and like a symphony, each is activated and silenced in turn such that the final result is a grand performance of orchestrated effort that could only have occurred through design.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/a_piece_from_th055921.html
Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Paul Nelson - April 7, 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html
Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - No Evidence For Body Plan Morphogenesis From Embryonic Mutations - Paul Nelson - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/modern_synthesis_of_neo_darwinism_is_dead_paul_nelson/
The mouse is not enough - February 2011
Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/
Revisiting Those Early Developmental Stages: A Response to PZ Myers - Jonathan M. June 22, 2011
Excerpt: Let's take an illustrative example. Anurans and urodeles are both modern amphibian groups which we would consider to be closely related. However, there is significant difference in the source of their primordial germ cells. For instance, in urodeles, they arise from unspecific ectodermal cells at the blastula stage; whereas, in anurans, they arise from specific cells of endodermal origin, the cells possessing cytoplasmic granules that originated in the unfertilized egg. Now, here's the conundrum. The difference relates to organs of extreme importance -- i.e. the germ cells. The difference is not only substantial, but it occurs extremely early in development.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/revisiting_those_early_develop047571.html
Here is a excellent deconstruction of PZ Myer's favorite Icon Of Evolution (PZ named his 'science' blog after it!);
Challenging the Precious Pharyngula - Casey Luskin - July 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/challenging_the_precious_phary048291.html
Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's Embryos - January 2011 - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kHPw3LaG8
Here's a interesting talk by Dr. John Sanford. Starting at the 17 minute mark going to the 22 minute mark, he relates how slightly detrimental mutations, that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.
DeleteJohn Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) Down - Not Up 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsu94HQrL0
Notes from video:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
* Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
*Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
*60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
From the paper:
ReplyDelete"Nevertheless, reproductive characteristics of T. ivensi should not be viewed as “mammalian,” nor should the unique specializations of this species be overlooked. For example, early development is unmistakably reptilian from early cleavage through late pharyngula stages. Aspects of eutherian development (e.g., blastocyst formation and cavitation: Luckett,1977b; Mossman,1987) do not occur in this species. Likewise, the endotheliochorial placenta of T. ivensi is formed from the yolk sac, whereas that of eutherians develops from the chorioallantois. Furthermore, the mechanism and results of invasive implantation differ in T. ivensi and eutherian mammals. The uterus of this lizard is like that of other viviparous squamates (Blackburn,1998), differing mainly in development of an expanded lamina propria. Therefore, the mucosal lining is far too thin to accommodate invasive implantation of the conceptus and surrounding fetal membranes. As a result, implantation takes the form of uterine epithelial stripping, and the conceptus remains entirely within the uterine lumen. In contrast, in various mammals with invasive implantation, the uterus has a thick endometrial lining that can become fully invaded by the blastocyst (Luckett,1977b; Mossman,1987). As the conceptus grows, this mucosal lining hypertrophies to accommodate it. In view of these important differences in early development and placental formation, similarities of T. ivensi, and mammals should not be overstated in an effort to draw parallels between these two groups."
As the authors point out, these lizards shed some very interesting light on the evolution of placental mammals.
They certainly don't suggest a violation of nested hierarchies, though. Or do you think they do, Cornelius? If so, why do you think there are such major differences in the mechanisms, despite homologous functions?
It would falsify the nested hierarchies prediction of Darwinian evolution if subsequent genetic analysis showed that huge sections of the genes responsible for placental development were identical in both mammals and T. ivensi. The question is, who in the ID community is willing to conduct (or fund) the genetic analysis?
Delete....explain to us how this lizard's reproductive system did come about, could you?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you want an illusion of knowledge like convergent evolution and so on which are contrasted with other imaginary events? Exactly what is wrong with: "I don't know." Is that simply impossible for you and you simply must claim that you have or are progressively on your way toward some type of knowledge?
Why would the Designer take a lizard that you say "had a perfectly good reproductive system to begin with" and modify it with this hybrid kluge?
Spreading common characteristics or styles over a work of art is common to artists, not to mention the added benefit of making people who try to explain commonalities of that sort away look like idiots. As long as we're imagining things, how would you design things to illustrate common design and knowledge if you knew that idiots were going to come along and try to imagine everything as the result of common descent based on ignorance.
Perhaps a more important question, why would a Designer let your ignorant brain events exist if they are the material of satire?
That is a whole lot of knowledge about the Designer. He designs like humans, he is sort of a prankster, he has an artistic temperament ,he is aware of and cares what his designs think, our brains are either faulty,capable of errors,or he designed us with free will..What gave you this knowledge?
DeleteI imagined it. Is there a rule against imagining things? That would be ironic if so. Lol...
DeleteAfter all, the only rule there seems to be is that one cannot imagine what a Creator would do. But you can imagine what they would not do and advance that as if it is the epistemic equivalent of experimental or empirical evidence or the verification of a scientific theory.
In contrast, it seems that no one is to be allowed to imagine what a Creator would do. I'm surprised that people go along with this but I suppose that losing your professional identity is a powerful motivation to imagine things in only one way and never another. So it's little wonder that people are only imagining what a Creator wouldn't do.
Are they corrupted by concern for their professional identity, stupid, uncreative or merely lacking in imagination and a philosophical education? You be the judge.
EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM CHANCE!!!!
ReplyDeleteImagine a man sitting at a desk rolling dice.
That's not random "chance" either, whatever you may be imagining of it. Or are you saying that his hand or the dice violate the laws of physics? If you knew the force with which he threw the dice and their trajectory then as your knowledge advanced your concept of imaginary chance would disappear.
He rolls them individually until he gets a 6. When he does so, he puts it aside and rolls another.
There's still nothing there. You've only included a little bit of chance/ignorance in your mind of the synaptic gaps. You're merely adding up the way that you've imagined nothing and trying to get something out of it. You know nothing.
Calling evolution 'random chance' is like saying this man is getting an enormously long string of 6's by 'random chance'.
Even if the way that you imagine things contained knowledge instead of your ignorance one could just as easily imagine that when he threw the dice again that they "randomly" went over and hit the dice he already threw and destroyed his sixes before he could add more. I.e. one could imagine that there is no safe place to build what you're trying to build based on what you imagine of chance/ignorance.
Putting aside imagining things about chance entirely and focusing on empirical and experimental evidence... physical limitations (space, time, etc.) are evident and adding specification based on the laws of physics alone is a finite process. In the real world, the dice that you imagine contain "chance"/nothing get hit and there is no gap to safely store their information in. Not to mention the fact that chance is a statement of ignorance in the real world anyway.
But you seem more interested in imagination than observation...
What?
DeleteI've understood virtually nothing of what you've said there. And I think it's because you don't really understand what you're going on about either. Quite clearly you don't grasp probability.
If a man rolls a die, it is random chance whether he gets a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. He keeps rolling until he gets a 6. When that happens, he puts it aside, takes another and does the same thing. Eventually, he will have a collection of dice showing 6's.
Thus, a string of 100 6's really is not difficult to achieve. It is not improbable at all. Because the man's selection of the 6's makes the process non-random. The 6's are retained, and only the non-6's are re-rolled.
The man is a metaphor for natural selection - the process which extracts order from chaos and makes evolution a decidedly non-random process. 'Good' mutations are retained while 'bad' ones are lost. The accumulation of 'good' mutations therefore is not random chance.
No-one should leave high school without knowing this stuff. It is not difficult. That Cornelius could have a Ph.D in Biophysics without knowing this is utterly beyond belief. The only conclusion, sadly, is that he is lying. Besides some accident or brain disorder producing an inability to recall absolute fundamental stuff about a topic he has previously studied, he simply MUST know that what he is saying is not true.
One problem is that you have a well understood background chance of 1 in 6 for 'natural' selection to work with. Whereas in the real world natural selection has around a 10^77 chance (D.Axe) for natural selection to work with. As to your dissing of Dr. Hunter's understanding of probability, sadly the plain fact of the matter is that it is neo-Darwinists who have no clue how to properly apply probability:
DeleteHere Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012
Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assume the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/here-are-those-two-protein-evolution.html
Here’s That Monumental Evolution Blunder About Probability Again - March 2012
Excerpt: Laplace didn’t rebuke this argument two centuries ago for no good reason—the fallacy has been around forever and evolutionists continue to employ it.,,, It is truly incredible to see evolutionists work their chicanery so they can uphold complete nonsense as the truth. So the evolutionists would credulously accept all manner of bizarre events. If all their roulette wheel bets turned out winners, if their poker hands always gave a royal flush, if random Scrabble letters spelled out CONSTANTINOPLE, it all would be just another small probability event from which nothing can be concluded. This monumental blunder leads them into all kinds of ridiculous conclusions:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/heres-that-monumental-evolution-blunder.html
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012
DeleteExcerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html
Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011
Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html
The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009
DeleteExcerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,,
cΩu = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108
cΩg = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96
cΩs = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85
cΩe = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27
Programming of Life - Probability - Defining Probable, Possible, Feasible etc.. - video
http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/8/kckv0wVBYpA
BA -
DeleteYou're playing the numbers game. That's not the point. The point is randomness. A system is random or it is not. Evolution is not random. Cornelius continually states (or, at least, heavily implies) that it is. In this he is wrong. Flat wrong. That he does not know better is absurd. Ergo, he must know that he is lying.
I could leave it there, since that was the whole point of my post, which you totally missed. But just while I'm here...
Whereas in the real world natural selection has around a 10^77 chance (D.Axe) for natural selection to work with.
Are you saying that whenever a new individual is born, with all their thousands of genes, there's a 10^77 chance of them carrying even a single mutation...?
Think about why that is not the case and you might see why what are saying is silly.
Besides, will not accept any post from this blog as authoritative. Frankly, Cornelius makes elementary mistakes on practically every post. Take the first one you linked to, for example. Even a cursory glimpse at the comments exposes the flaws in what CH is saying.
I quote:
The authors were studying how quickly the proteins in a bacteriophage could advance up the fitness landscape through 'adaptive walks' of one mutational substitution at a time. What they found was that their laboratory specimens would rapidly increase in fitness but tended to get stuck in local maxima instead of finding the absolute fitness peak exhibited by a wild type phage. The researchers estimate that to find the absolute fitness peak would take 10^70 tries if the evolution was limited to single random substitution mutations.
Which is indeed right.
So stop playing the Creationist game of throwing around silly numbers to try to make evolution sound improbable. The whole point of the Mount Improbable metaphor is to demonstrate that highly unlikely events become perfectly plausible when taken in incremental steps.
'when taken in incremental steps.'
DeleteAnd exactly how does natural selection 'see ahead' to the 10^77 functional sequence of a protein before it has achieved functionality? ,,, Before functionality is achieved for a hypothetical aa sequence all selection sees is a unnecessary energetic burden on the cell:
Experimental Evolution of Gene Duplicates in a Bacterial Plasmid Model
Excerpt: In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp471464014664w8/
Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason (Part II) - April 2010
Excerpt: ,,, since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/arriving-at-intelligence-through-the-corridors-of-reason-part-ii/
When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/
In fact, Natural Selection, though repeatedly invoked by Darwinists as this 'great creative engine' for evolution that knows no bounds to its power, in reality, away from the Darwinian rhetoric and imagination, actually consistently reduces the genetic information of organisms. Here are some more videos, papers, and quotes clearly making this point:
Falsification of Natural Selection
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=10WqN_Z_2GjzhPQUVe7QmcMZDPObJCG45XqgF7pZVcVM
As to:
DeleteAre you saying that whenever a new individual is born, with all their thousands of genes, there's a 10^77 chance of them carrying even a single mutation...?
Actually the mutation rate is far higher than even what population geneticists agree is a 'acceptable' mutation rate:
We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us (per generation) - June 2011
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm
Here's a interesting talk by Dr. John Sanford. Starting at the 17 minute mark going to the 22 minute mark. He relates how slightly detrimental mutations, that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.
John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsu94HQrL0
Notes from John Sanford's preceding video:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
* Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
*Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
*60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
Interestingly, this ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 60 to 175, per generation is far greater than what even evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them in any given genome:
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm
Human evolution or extinction (with Dr. John Sanford) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM
And exactly how does natural selection 'see ahead' to the 10^77 functional sequence of a protein before it has achieved functionality?
DeleteIt doesn't. Are you just pretending to not understand?
Actually the mutation rate is far higher than even what population geneticists agree is a 'acceptable' mutation rate:
Ha! First you claim the probability is too low - now you think it is too HIGH! Make your mind up!
And you skate right past the fact that THIS WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST!!
Cornelius regularly misrepresents Evolution as random chance. It isn't. Those are facts you are donig nothing to challenge.
If a man rolls a die, it is random chance whether he gets a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6.
DeleteNo it isn't. The number that turns up is defined by the way the dice are thrown and physical forces. Where is the random chance in that? What is chance according to you, an effect without a cause?
He keeps rolling until he gets a 6. When that happens, he puts it aside...
Except if one imagines that it falls off the table or that another dice hits it "by chance" when he throws the next one. Although I suspect that it is against the rules of this game to imagine things in any way but the way that you do. Lol..
Eventually, he will have a collection of dice showing 6's.
No he won't because I just imagined that he didn't have enough time to throw the dice before he died. After all, there are physical realities and resources involved in the throwing of dice.
Thus, a string of 100 6's really is not difficult to achieve.
Why not a string of a billion? After all, I can imagine that the man lives long enough to throw the dice that many times.
It is not improbable at all.
Indeed, so why not a trillion 6's all in a row?
Because the man's selection of the 6's makes the process non-random. The 6's are retained, and only the non-6's are re-rolled.
Well, if you can imagine it so. Not that imagining things actually means much....
The man is a metaphor for natural selection - the process which extracts order from chaos and makes evolution a decidedly non-random process.
What would a random process be?
No-one should leave high school without knowing this stuff. It is not difficult.
That's true. Indeed, any schoolboy can imagine "order out of chaos" with this method but it takes order and chaos existing in the first place. And what defines chaos or chance?
That Cornelius could have a Ph.D in Biophysics without knowing this is utterly beyond belief.
Given that natural culling is not random then what is guiding it?
Ritchie, you may want to just scroll past batspit77's huge C&P piles and angry blithering. The rest of us do. It's not like he ever learns from any references he's given or can produce coherent thoughts.
DeleteNo point in mud wrestling with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Ritchie, exactly how do organism's having slightly detrimental mutations every time they reproduce equate to Neo-Darwinian processes crossing a 10^77 universe wide chasm of functionless proteins on its way to finding a functional protein. You state:
Delete'Are you saying that whenever a new individual is born, with all their thousands of genes, there's a 10^77 chance of them carrying even a single mutation...?'
NO! I said there is a 1 in 10^77 chance of finding a functional protein from a nonfunctional sequence of amino acids.
Moreover changing, or slightly modifying, a existing functional protein to a different functional protein, by neo-Darwinian processes, is found not to be feasible:
When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/
Ritchie, I would gladly admit that neo-Darwinian processes can do all that you claim, incrementally, step by step, save for the fact that, besides all the neo-Darwinian bluster, there is no one piece of actual evidence in existence of neo-Darwinism accomplishing anything at all gradually:
DeleteNothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual - Doug Axe PhD. - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. -
Doug Axe PhD.
mynym -
DeleteNo it isn't. The number that turns up is defined by the way the dice are thrown and physical forces. Where is the random chance in that?
You are creating problems unnecessarily. It is random as far as we are concerned since no-one can calculate every single contributing factor and accurately predict a roll of a die. If we could, casinos would be out of business.
Except if one imagines that it falls off the table or that another dice hits it "by chance" when he throws the next one. Although I suspect that it is against the rules of this game to imagine things in any way but the way that you do. Lol..
Yet again with the inventing problems needlessly. This one doesn't even serve to illustrate a point - you're just messing around.
No he won't because I just imagined that he didn't have enough time to throw the dice before he died.
Again...
Why not a string of a billion?
Why not indeed. But the number really doesn't matter. The point is that 100 6's is much, much easier to achieve by putting any dice aside whenever they come up 6 than by throwing all 100 dice over and over again until you get 100 6's.
What would a random process be?
Random mutation, taken alone, is random. And is, I suspect, the basis of the Creationist strawman that 'evolution is random'. But these random mutations then undergo natural selction - a system which selects the good mutations and discards the bad - like a man keeping the dice which show up 6 and rerolling the others. This makes the entire process, taken as a whole, non-random.
Given that natural culling is not random then what is guiding it?
Easy. Natural selection.
Thornton -
DeleteHope springs eternal, my friend.
BA -
DeleteRitchie, exactly how do organism's having slightly detrimental mutations every time they reproduce...
???
equate to Neo-Darwinian processes crossing a 10^77 universe wide chasm of functionless proteins on its way to finding a functional protein.
It's like you're asking 'How do Neo-Darwinian processes leap up this enormous cliff face on Mount Improbable?'
The answer, as always, is 'in incremental steps'.
NO! I said there is a 1 in 10^77 chance of finding a functional protein from a nonfunctional sequence of amino acids.
And what have amino acids got to do with anything? I'm talking about the distinction between random chance and non-random processes.
Moreover changing, or slightly modifying, a existing functional protein to a different functional protein, by neo-Darwinian processes, is found not to be feasible:
That is an astoundingly ridiculous claim. What you're saying, essentially, is that you have absolute proof that evolution, as a process, is impossible. Odd that I haven't heard this on the news. Your link, sadly, is broken, but just going by the fact that it was written by Douglas Axe - whose goal is to discredit evolution and promote religious ID - casts a whopping great shadow of doubt over it's accuracy for a start.
Ritchie, I would gladly admit that neo-Darwinian processes can do all that you claim, incrementally, step by step, save for the fact that, besides all the neo-Darwinian bluster, there is no one piece of actual evidence in existence of neo-Darwinism accomplishing anything at all gradually
Oh but there is. You just won't read about it on blogs dedicated to promoting ID at any cost (usually the truth).
Why don't you try reading actual science journals? There are ones specialising in genetics if that's the field you want:
Try,
Genetica
Genetics
Heredity
Journal of Genetics
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
Unless, of course, you think month after month all they publish is a blank sheet of paper with 'Still nothing...' written on it.
Corrected link:
DeleteWhen Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide
Well Ritchie you presuppose that proteins can change function easily by neo-Darwinian processes, yet you cite no specific paper but just broadbrush journals as it this settles the matter. Well, I'm not so easily persuaded by bluster Ritchie.,,, Perhaps a few more specific links to show how misguided you are in your presupposition;
Wheel of Fortune: New Work by Thornton's Group Supports Time-Asymmetric Dollo's Law - Michael Behe - October 5, 2011
Excerpt: Darwinian selection will fit a protein to its current task as tightly as it can. In the process, it makes it extremely difficult to adapt to a new task or revert to an old task by random mutation plus selection.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/wheel_of_fortune_new_work_by_t051621.html
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975
Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? - Ann Gauger - October 11, 2011
Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/luck_or_design051801.html
“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed - along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)
"A problem with the evolution of proteins having new shapes is that proteins are highly constrained, and producing a functional protein from a functional protein having a significantly different shape would typically require many mutations of the gene producing the protein. All the proteins produced during this transition would not be functional, that is, they would not be beneficial to the organism, or possibly they would still have their original function but not confer any advantage to the organism. It turns out that this scenario has severe mathematical problems that call the theory of evolution into question. Unless these problems can be overcome, the theory of evolution is in trouble."
DeleteProblems in Protein Evolution:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors - Doug Axe
Excerpt: Contrary to the prevalent view, then, enzyme function places severe constraints on residue identities at positions showing evolutionary variability, and at exterior non-active-site positions, in particular.
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/AxeProteinEvolution.pdf
Darwin's God: Post Synaptic Proteins Intolerant of Change - December 2010
Excerpt: Not only is there scant evidence of intermediate designs leading to the known proteins, but the evidence we do have is that these proteins do not tolerate change.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/post-synaptic-proteins-intolerant-of.html
As well, the 'errors/mutations' that are found to 'naturally' occur in protein sequences are found to be 'designed errors':
Cells Defend Themselves from Viruses, Bacteria With Armor of Protein Errors - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: These "regulated errors" comprise a novel non-genetic mechanism by which cells can rapidly make important proteins more resistant to attack when stressed,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125134701.htm
Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
Delete"A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order."
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/
Cruise Control permeating the whole of the protein structure??? This is an absolutely fascinating discovery. The equations of calculus involved in achieving even a simple process control loop, such as a dynamic cruise control loop, are very complex. In fact it seems readily apparent to me that highly advanced mathematical information must reside 'transcendentally' along the entirety of the protein structure, in order to achieve such control of the overall protein structure. This fact gives us clear evidence that there is far more functional information residing in proteins than meets the eye. Moreover this ‘oneness’ of cruise control, within the protein structure, can only be achieved through quantum computation/entanglement principles, and is inexplicable to the reductive materialistic approach of neo-Darwinism! For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to 'engineer' even a simple process control loop like cruise control for a single protein, please see this following site:
PID controller
A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
It is in realizing the staggering level of engineering that must be dealt with to achieve ‘cruise control’ for each individual protein, along the entirety of the protein structure, that it becomes apparent even Axe’s 1 in 10^77 estimate for rarity of finding specific functional proteins within sequence space is far, far too generous. In fact probabilities over various ‘specific’ configurations of material particles simply do not even apply, at all, since the 'cause' of the non-local quantum information does not reside within the material particles in the first place (i.e. falsification of local realism; Alain Aspect).
Here is corroborating evidence that 'protein specific' quantum information/entanglement resides in functional proteins:
DeleteQuantum states in proteins and protein assemblies:
The essence of life? – STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI
Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign.
http://www.tony5m17h.net/SHJTQprotein.pdf
In fact since quantum entanglement falsified reductive materialism/local realism (Alain Aspect) then finding quantum entanglement/information to be ‘protein specific’ is absolutely shattering to any hope that materialists had in whatever slim probabilities there were, since a ‘transcendent’ cause must be supplied which is specific to each unique protein structure. Materialism is simply at a complete loss to supply such a 'non-local' transcendent cause, whereas Theism has always postulated a transcendent cause for life!
Though the authors of the 'cruise control' paper tried to put a evolution friendly spin on the 'cruise control' evidence, for finding a highly advanced 'Process Control Loop' at such a base molecular level, before natural selection even has a chance to select for any morphological novelty of a protein, this limit to variability is very much to be expected as a Intelligent Design/Genetic Entropy feature, and is in fact a very constraining thing to the amount of variation we should reasonably expect from any 'kind' of species in the first place.
BA -
DeleteYou really do make you posts completely incomprehensible, you know. Who on Earth do you think is actually reading all these links you post?
You always just reply with an absolute wall of links and references. Doubtless because you think you can bowl over any opposition with the sheer weight of numbers. But all it really does is to make your posts completely incomprehensible. Each link you have posted here is like a blogpost on this site. Do you really expect me, in a comments box, to go through, read each one, and then reply as to why each individual link is flawed/does not show what you want it to, knowing that you'll just reply with another 20 links to sift through?
That would take me days for each individual reply.
I'm not saying please don't source your arguments. In general it's a good thing to do. But be selective with it, for goodness' sake. Make a point SUCCINCTLY, and, if you feel the need, back it up with one, maybe two links which prove the point you are trying to make. That will serve you far better than this Blitzkrieg mentality of "Here's a link to every article/video ever made which has the slightest passing resemblance to what we're talking about" which, I am sure, just puts people off replying.
Make your point, but do it briefly. If I want you to provide evidence to substanciate a point, then I'll ask.
Well Ritchie, you made a dogmatic claim that functional proteins could easily change into other functional proteins by neo-Darwinian processes. And you simply broad-brushed references to several journals to support this dogmatic claim of yours without reference to any specific experimental work. Since I adamantly disagree, I showed you why they don't from several specific papers. Experimental work from several angles which gives a very exciting insight into 'non-local, transcendent quantum information's' foundational role in constraining proteins into a thermodynamically stable state. Now since science is primarily concerned about relentlessly pursuing the truth, then I would think that if one actually concerned with finding the truth about reality then he would be overjoyed to see such experimental work contrary to what he had erroneously believed. But no, this is not what you do! You, instead of showing even one specific paper to the contrary, or instead of being filled with wonder at the staggering implications of it all, instead wish to lecture me on how I should post. Well, Perhaps I would consider your advice much more favorably if I saw you treat the specific matter at hand even remotely honestly! Instead of in the dishonest and deceptive manner I've seen you move thus far!!!
DeleteBA -
DeleteI was specifically up-braiding Cornelius about inferring that evolution was a random process, when he must know full well that it wasn't.
Then you barged in and threw enough urls to fill a telephone directory, linking to every point you can think of, relevant or no, and now you're lecturing me on quantum physics and proteins?
And you wonder why I'm not bowing down agog at your pearls of wisdom?
I'm not adverse to discussion but you seem to be Hell-bent on making it as difficult and unpleasant as possible. It is not a difficult concpet to grasp.
Simply pick a point and make it. Briefly. And it would help if it held some relavence to the discussion at hand.
Simply throwing dozens of copy-pasted links at people and then chiding them for not having read them all and fully, when each individual one could potentially spawn a discussion as long as one of CH's posts, is totally unreasonable.
And just for the record, how many of these links actually link to peer-reviewed scientific journals? How many are genuine pieces of scientific work? Because just a cursory glance over the links reveals some of them to be from this very blogsite, evolutionnews, biologicinstitute, and uncommondescent - sites which frankly hold as much scientific merit as wwww.ibelieveinfairies.com. These are blogsites set up purposely for the misapplication of science. That is their raison d'etre - to filter science to Creationists in such a way as to make their religion look plausible. Avoiding them and going straight to actual scientific papers might help. Just sayin'...
They certainly don't suggest a violation of nested hierarchies, though.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing to violate in a Rorschach test.
If so, why do you think there are such major differences in the mechanisms, despite homologous functions?
According to the way that Darwin saw things in the hypothetical goo of his evolution it seems that only one thing is certain and there is only one specification to his hypotheses: "To the extend that we know anything we know that it was not designed." It doesn't even really matter if people see totally contradictory things in different Rorschach tests. As far as one can tell, there is only one specification and that is the absence of design as a criteria of knowledge.
Just imagine if physicists had proceeded in the same way: "We don't know (ignorance) what laws these objects are following but we are on our way toward knowing that they were not designed (transmuted to knowledge). Indeed, separating design is the method that our knowledge of these things is based on. Therefore, everyone has to play pretend with us that we do know or are methodically on our way toward knowing something about these things."
Ironically, the main reason that people know more is the intelligent design of technology and not anything new in their minds and their mythologies. In that, there is nothing new under the sun.
There is nothing to violate in a Rorschach test.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the morphological characteristics of living things are not distributed as a nested hierarchy?
Do you think Linnaeus just made that hierarchy up?
According to the way that Darwin saw things in the hypothetical goo of his evolution....
Darwin did not hypothesise "goo". What he hypothesised was a few, or one, common ancestor(s) into which life was initially "breathed":
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
...it seems that only one thing is certain and there is only one specification to his hypotheses: "To the extend that we know anything we know that it was not designed."
You must be thinking of a different Darwin to the one I'm thinking of.
It doesn't even really matter if people see totally contradictory things in different Rorschach tests. As far as one can tell, there is only one specification and that is the absence of design as a criteria of knowledge.
The issue here is whether the characteristics of living things are, or are not, distributed as a nested hierarchy. At first glance, this lizard would seem to violate that hierarchy. However, on closer inspection (see the passage from the paper I quoted) the hierarchy is not violated.
I don't know if you are claiming that there is no nested hierarchy, or that Darwinism is an inadequate explanation of it, or that common descent is an inadequate explanation of it.
But if it is the first, I'd be interested in your take on Linnaeus. Oddly, I've seen Linnaeus's observed hierarchy cited as evidence in favour of design.
But presumably you'd reject that argument, right?
Are you suggesting that the morphological characteristics of living things are not distributed as a nested hierarchy?
DeleteI'm suggesting that the way that you choose to organize and classify organisms has little to do with a specified or singular theory of evolution that can be "violated" or verified.
Do you think that there is a general "theory of evolution" that has been encoded in the language of mathematics?
CH: A lizard with a human-like reproduction system? It is yet another example in the long list of evolutionary expectations gone wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat, in evolutionary theory, would lead one to expect that similar solutions would not evolve in different lineages?
What evolutionary theory would definitely lead one NOT to expect, is that those similar solutions would be coded by similar genetic sequences, or be identical in mechanism. Functional similarity is actually expected, because of natural selection, and the fact that that some solutions are more readily "reachable" than others, vivipary being one (some sharks are also viviparous). However, the probability that similar functional solutions would evolve using the same genetic sequences, or even the same mechanisms, separately in different lineages is of course extremely low. Were you to be reporting this, you would have a very interesting point.
But this is not what is reported here. So not only is it not a problem for evolution, it does not even violate a prediction being made by evolutionary theory. In fact, it's an example of what evolutionists originally rather expected - that similar habitats would result in similar solutions. As we now know, this kind of "selective determinism" fails to take account of drift, so we would not expect to see it all that often. But it certainly does not violate the predictions of evolutionary theory.
Identical, or similar, genetic sequences, or even identical, or very similar developmental patterns of gene expression involved, would.
CH: We must believe that random mutations just happened to replicate a complex, mammalian-like placental pattern in a lizard, though it had a perfectly good reproductive system to begin with.
Yes. Because even if you already have a "perfectly good reproductive system", if a "random mutation" happens to come along and give you a slightly different but just as good reproductive system, there is nothing to stop that happening. Why a designer might tinker with something that's already "perfectly good" is more puzzling. It's not puzzling at all in evolutionary theory.
Moreover, the system does not "replicate" the complex mammalian reproductive system. That really would be extraordinary, and would violate the nested hierarchies that indicate common descent, and for which evolutionary theory provides an explanation. The lizard system is merely functionally similar to the mammalian system, and probably employs at least some of the same developmental regulatory and protein coding genes that were present in their common ancestor. That it is different from the mammalian system in many key details makes it fit a common-ancestry model far better than some kind of chimera model, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
Chimeras - identical, or near identical, genetic sequences with near identical functional develomental expression in two species hypothesised to belong to separate lineages in which these sequences are hypothesised to have evolved after the separation - would be a major problem for common descent.
For example, if we found a pig with a yellow nose, and found that the yellow nose was caused by the expression of a gene otherwise found only in jelly fish, nested hierarchies would indeed be violated, and evolutionary theory would need to be altered. We might even need to hypothesise that an intelligent designer had deliberately transplanted the jellyfish gene into the pig.
Oh, wait....
That is one cute pig.
DeleteElizabeth claims:
Delete'identical, or near identical, genetic sequences with near identical functional develomental expression in two species hypothesised to belong to separate lineages in which these sequences are hypothesised to have evolved after the separation - would be a major problem for common descent.'
And,,
Identical forms of echolocation show up in widely divergent species. This finding is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective, yet this finding is exactly what we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse optimal designs:
Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010
Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator.
http://www.reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty
Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011
Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html
Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins - Liu et al (2010)
Excerpt: We previously reported that the Prestin gene has undergone sequence convergence among unrelated lineages of echolocating bat [3]. Here we report that this gene has also undergone convergent amino acid substitutions in echolocating dolphins,
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2902073-9
Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design - February 2011 - Podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-21T10_59_16-08_00
Here's a figure showing bats and dolphins group together on the same tree based on Prestin sequence comparisons.
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580955_215152708593734_182588468516825_355811_30197372_n.jpg
Something tells me Elizabeth will get over this 'major problem for common descent' in fairly short order.
Elizabeth, check you definition of Chimeras. Are you referring to mythology or genetics or something else outside the normal usage of the term?
Delete--
Anyway, just want to know specifically what you are asking for regarding the violation of the nested hierarchy. Similar genes in "distant" branches of the phlogenetic tree?
What do you mean that evolutionary theory would need to be altered?
Two questions BA, why would one be able to presuppose anything about a Designer's strategy without leaving themselves open to the questions about the Designers other choices? And how do you know the echolocation is optimal?
DeleteElizabeth, check you definition of Chimeras. Are you referring to mythology or genetics or something else outside the normal usage of the term?
DeleteI was talking about both. A chimera usually means a mythical creature that is part one animal and part a quite different animal (gryphon, basilisk, cockatrice, hippogriff). Of course genetic chimeras between two sibling animals sometimes happen, and so do hybrids between related species (tigons, ligers, mules). So what I meant would be a living chimera of the mythological kind - an animal that had genetic and morphological features from two quite different, completely non-interbreeding species, as in my jellyfish/pig example.
If that was observed, it would be a major challenge to the assumption that once a lineage has separated, you will not see big chunks of one critter in one lineage reappear spontaneously in the lineage of another. We would have to postulate some weird unknown kind of hybridisation mechanisms, or, indeed, genetic engineering by some genetic engineer!
Convergence is of course possible if driven by natural selection, but finding something like that fluorescent-nosed pig would be very hard to accommodate within our current model.
Anyway, just want to know specifically what you are asking for regarding the violation of the nested hierarchy. Similar genes in "distant" branches of the phlogenetic tree?
Well, not only in distant branches, but in a pair of species where it would not have been present in the putative common ancestor. It's possible a mechanism could be found of course (for instance several mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer have been identified, not forgetting, of course, intelligent genetic engineers!), and convergence, especially if driven by natural selection, is possible.
What do you mean that evolutionary theory would need to be altered?
Well, we know that genes are transferred longitudinally (heritability). We also know that genes can be transferred horizontally by various means, including human interference. We also know that convergent evolution takes place, and of course we know that sometimes the same mutation occurs in the same place independently.
However, if none of these mechanisms was adequate to explain the degree of similarity, we'd have to think of alternative explanations, and, if our hypotheses were confirmed, alter/enlarge the theory.
For instance, we could postulated that aliens had visited earth at some point in biological history, conducted some genetic engineering experiments, or even designed some novel sequences and inserted them into widely different species, then left :)
Or something else.
Does that make sense?
vel as to:
Delete,why would one be able to presuppose anything about a Designer's strategy without leaving themselves open to the questions about the Designers other choices?
Exactly what Dr. Hunter has been pointing out!!!
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011
Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html
Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010
Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8).
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214a
Vel, as to:
how do you know the echolocation is optimal?
The bionic antinomy of Darwinism
Excerpt: For example, the bats have an echometer emitting 100 kHz supersonic pulses at a frequency of 30 times per second. These waves are reflected and distorted by the surrounding objects and their echoes are intercepted and elaborated by the bat to catch its prey and also just to get around. The signal processing of these echoes is so accurate to allow bats to fly, twisting, looping and zig-zagging through the air, into a completely dark room intersected by tens pianoforte strings without grazing them. The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/
A comparison of signal detection between an echolocating dolphin and an optimal receiver - 1989
Excerpt: The results of experiment II indicated that the dolphin required approximately 7.4 dB higherE e /N than an optimal detector to detect the phantom target.
http://profiles.wizfolio.com/loisdankiewicz/publications/2260/27414/
A false killer whale adjusts its hearing when it echolocates.- 2008
Excerpt: the animal has an active 'automatic gain control' mechanism in her hearing based on both forward masking that balances outgoing pulse intensity and time between pulse and echo, and active hearing control.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18490386
Related notes:
DeleteWhale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed
http://vimeo.com/30921402
Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/
Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using 'designed' echolocation to hunt a giant squid:
Sperm Whale Vs Giant Squid - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710
also of note:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
So why did you presuppose ? I don't doubt that the present form of echolocation is helpful but optimal?
DeleteVel perhaps you would do very well to ask yourself why do you believe in a scientific theory that depends so heavily on sophomoric theological premises instead of asking me, a born again Christian, why I believe in God.
DeleteIs Intelligent Design Bad Theology? - podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Anika Smith interviews Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jay Richards about the bizarre claim made by certain atheists that intelligent design is bad theology.
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-06-23T15_08_28-07_00
vel you still question the 'optimality' of echolocation??? after I've shown two studies that show the echolocation in bats and whales to exceed the best of what human engineers have accomplished??? Perhaps you would care to present your evidence that the echolocation systems are pieces of randomly assembled junk as would be expected from neo-Darwinism. (as if even that expectation kludged together junk is warranted from neo-Darwinism). Seriously Vel, you need to start realizing that what is actually predicted by the neo-Darwinian framework is a far, far, cry from what is actually found in reality.
DeleteTake a chill pill,BA. 100 years ago human engineering was incapable of flight, typewriters were state of the art, radar non existent .Today we are capable of landing a spacecraft on another planet, computers which improve geometrically and MRIs which can see inside a human body in incredible detail.
DeleteWhat will engineers be capable of a hundred years from now? Will the bat's echolocation seem optimal then, how about five hundred years? You are judging design by human present day standards. Even a non divine designer has been at this game for billions of years.
So no, I don't accept, since we can't do it today, is proof that it is optimal.
As for whether these designs could happen by a natural process, given the evidence today? It seems to me only one side has any actual answers,the other side, as they say hereabouts,is all hat and no cattle. So no, I will go with the natural way even if is wrong,if for no other reason than I hope that scientist ,who spent 40 years nurturing slime,is right
But that doesn't mean I couldn't change my mind
So no, I will go with the natural way even if is wrong,if for no other reason than I hope that scientist ,who spent 40 years nurturing slime,is right.
DeleteAt least your honest.
A few more points of interest; Nature has never been seen generating a single functional protein by purely material processes. Neither have natural processes been observed generating functional information over and above what is already present in a cell. Yet, the functional information in a cell greatly exceeds, by orders of magnitude, the best computer programming achieved by man. Thus, though you may emotionally prefer the 'natural' way to be true, the fact is that the 'natural' way is not the rational way, not by a long shot!
William Bialek - Professor Of Physics - Princeton University:
DeleteExcerpt: "A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things “work” in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.,,,The idea of performance near the physical limits crosses many levels of biological organization, from single molecules to cells to perception and learning in the brain,,,,"
http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html
"Organisms are not cobbled together as a series of adequate compromises but are close to optimality. Examples of supposedly “poor design” often turn out to be “very well engineered indeed”. Simon Conway Morris
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/even-evolutionists-admit-its-mess.html
Physicists Finding Perfection… in Biology — June 1st, 2009 by Biologic Staff
Excerpt: "biological processes tend to be optimal in cases where this can be tested."
http://biologicinstitute.org/2009/06/01/physicists-finding-perfection-in-biology/
What would be the point in dishonesty? Feel like answer my question honestly now, besides the fact that are primitive engineering skills can't create the echolocation system in bats yet,what leads you to believe that it is optimal?
DeleteAs for your tests, has the designer been observed,has he been observed creating a protein? What exactly is functional information,is it cumulative?
If you demand physical proof, you need to provide a better physical explanation .
I don't doubt that things work well enough,that is consistent with evolution as well, resources are limited, conditions change. My rule in life is that things are more complicated than they seem. We just don't notice until they go wrong. So optimal why?
Well vel, since you seem to be content with me doing all you searching, let me google that for you:
Deletehttp://lmgtfy.com/?q=optimal+enzmes+functional+proteins
Your words BA,
Delete" we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse Optimal Designs"
Perhaps I misunderstood,you meant ,not optimum, but better than we can produce as humans presently.
Typically if your draw a conclusion from a fact, it is up to you to justify the fact as true.
Well vel, I have optimality on several fronts, and echolocation past the best man has achieved by purposeful design (frankly I'm not interested in searching further just for you). If you want to believe life is an accident after that, go for it, I have done my part, and you have offered no compelling reason other than emotional attachment to 'natural' that it should be otherwise.
DeleteBA ,
DeleteI am presenting no argument ,I would just like for you to explain use of optimal, again just because present day engineering is incapable,does not mean the system is optimal,could the answer be the assumption that Optimal design is proof of a designer? Or did I misunderstand your argument?
And you have no emotional attachment to the designer ,mon ami?
Vel, you claim to be presenting no argument but yet you presuppose prestin is sub-optimal. And Yet you have presented absolutely no empirical reason why you should presuppose as such other than you want it to be that way (natural?), and indeed in reality you have no empirical evidence whatsoever of even a single protein being generated by purely material (accidental) processes, whereas I have optimality on several fronts,,, including prestin now:
DeletePrestin-driven cochlear amplification is not limited by the outer hair cell membrane time constant. - June 2011
Excerpt: Outer hair cells (OHCs) provide amplification in the mammalian cochlea using somatic force generation underpinned by voltage-dependent conformational changes of the motor protein prestin. However, prestin must be gated by changes in membrane potential on a cycle-by-cycle basis and the periodic component of the receptor potential may be greatly attenuated by low-pass filtering due to the OHC time constant (Ď„(m)), questioning the functional relevance of this mechanism.,,, These data suggest that minimal Ď„(m) filtering in vivo ensures optimal activation of prestin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21689600
Power Efficiency of Outer Hair Cell Somatic Electromotility -
Excerpt: Results show that the motor (OHC) is highly efficient over a broad range of auditory frequencies. Results also show that the motor is likely controlled by the brain in a way that allows the listener to focus attention on specific frequencies, thus improving the ability to distinguish sounds of interest in a noisy environment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705677/
If that is still not good enough for you Vel, there is this,,
The normal human ear can distinguish between some 400,000 different sounds, some weak enough to cause the eardrum to move as little as one-tenth (1/10) the diameter of a hydrogen molecule.
Now vel, if you want to quibble over moving a eardrum one-tenth (1/10) the diameter of a hydrogen molecule, saying that such fine-tuning is not optimal, well, there is really nothing further I can say further to change your mind.
Human hear at freq 10- 20,000, dogs up to 60,000 , the bats 150,000. If the Designer " reuses optimal designs" why a give dogs a Ferrari and humans a Pinto?
DeleteIt is your argument that optimal designs in nature are proof that an outside force is present. Prestin may be quite good at what it does, but is it optimum? There are lots of possible proteins not in the human body,is it impossible that one of them might be better?
The question always has been, if you don't know all the possible choices how can you judge the optimum?
Just asking, this is more philosophical than experimental.
Dr Hunter,
ReplyDeleteSince you were so kind to alter your misleading quote by Judge Jones with a slightly less misleading version for my benefit ,I thought I'd pass along a tip.In the March 21 edition of Molecular Biology Evolution scientists report they have mapped the genome of a protozoan,Collodictyon, which they believe represents an entirely new Kingdom.
While I thought it was fascinating insight into how weirdly obsessed scientists are ( it took forty years to grow enough of this "goo" to analyse its genome) in the right man's hands this could be the mother lode.
"A Lannister always pays his debts"
OT In astronomy news this month, supermoon, a transit of Venus,last for our lifetimes, an solar eclipse in the western US
Thanks for astronomy bits. Here is a Venus transit
DeleteDid your see that Apod picture of the meteor over Crater Lake?
Deletemeteor over Crater Lake
DeleteBeautiful picture, never seen it before. Much nicer than my Venus transit. I missed Lyrids this year because of cloudy weather.
I was too lazy to get out of my warm bed.
DeleteMy best meteor experience was in Guadeloupe National Park. Just before sunrise,still in my sleeping bag,but half out the tent. I watched a meteor streak overhead but at a low enough altitude that I swear I heard a soft whoosh as it passed over head.
DeleteHope there was no Brokeback Mountain event :)
DeleteAnyway sounds great.
I watched this one in Feb break up in pieces during morning commute. Many reported seeing it,too. I definitely imagined swooshing sound.
No,not that there anything wrong with that.
DeleteGood reference for the month, mcdonaldobservatory.org, worth a visit if in this neck of the the woods
Thanks for the link, I'll save that
Delete"Something tells me Elizabeth will get over this 'major problem for common descent' in fairly short order."
ReplyDeleteI've read those two papers, BA77. They are very interesting.
From the first:
"To investigate the causes of this convergent signal, we estimated rates of nucleotide substitutions that changed the amino acid (non-synonymous rate) or left no change (synonymous rate) at each site, for different parts of the species tree. The ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous rates (ω) measures the strength of selection at a site, from 0 for strong purifying selection to greater than 1 for positive selection. For sites that have evolved neutrally, we found no relationship between ω and the support for convergence, whereas sites under purifying selection showed a significant negative relationship between ω and support for convergence. However, the ω for sites showing a shift in functional constraint in the echolocating whales correlated significantly with support for convergence (p ∼ 0.018), and, of 33 sites predicted to fall into this category, 31 (94%) had ω values greater than one (Figure 1C, Table S2). Finally, none of these relationships were significant when sites were modelled as varying in ω within the bats showing convergence.
Our results suggest that the observed sequence convergence between dolphins and CF bats in Prestin has been driven by adaptive evolution of the dolphin gene. To date, no specific anatomical parallels have been drawn between these groups, perhaps with the exception of the fine tuning of the cochlear basal membrane in the porpoise (Phocoena) [9]. However, detailed comparisons of OHC length and fine-scale structure in cetaceans and bats are lacking [4], and could provide clues given the high frequency hearing thresholds recorded in dolphins and some CF bats. Regardless, our findings of adaptive sequence convergence between two highly divergent groups that share a complex phenotype is unprecedented, and suggests sequence convergence may be more common than previously suspected."
The second tackles the nested hierarchy full on, as, not surprisingly, the tree found using the prestin protein contradicts the species tree.
The authors consider a number of possible reasons (including horizontal gene transfer) which they dismiss as unlikely, and focus on convergent evolution.
They do not consider genetic modification by an intelligent designer, but perhaps you might like suggest a test of that hypothesis.
Instead, they systematically investigate which amino acid sites cause the "misplacement" of the species in the prestin tree, and find that at least 7 are responsible, in other words 7 sites would have to be explained by convergence.
They also demonstrate that natural selection, rather than drift, played a part (under the assumption, of course, that the species tree is correct).
You could probably work out the probability of seven sites converging (with selection) in the number of generations thought to separate dolphins and bats.
It could be the key piece of evidence ID needs to bring common descent to its knees!
Elizabeth, what will you do with the example from bornagain77 regarding bat and whale echolocation?
ReplyDelete"Yang Liu from the East China Normal University had previously shown that echolocating bats share very similar versions of Prestin, even species that were only distantly related. This time, he sequenced the gene in even more bats as well as a wide range of whales. These included toothed species (dolphins, porpoises, orcas and sperm whales) that use sonar, and baleen species that don't.
Based on the DNA sequences of these Prestin versions, Liu drew a mammal family tree (a 'phylogeny'). It looked much like what you would expect, with the whales and bats clustering in separate family groups. But convert the sequences into amino acids and the picture changes dramatically. Suddenly, the family tree becomes utterly misleading. The echolocating mammals, be they bats or whales, are united as close relatives, to the exclusion of their rightful evolutionary kin."
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/echolocation_in_bats_and_whales_based_on_same_changes_to_sam.php
Of course, convergent evolution (which explains nothing) is said to be responsible. So, evolutionists have already discovered similar genes in distant phylogenetic branches and they attribute it to convergence. Convergence is the evolutionists "joker" or wild card. Whenever their sequence is not matching they can use their wild card to always get a good hand. It makes a mockery of science.
There is a mixing and matching of morphology and genetic sequences throughout the mosaic of life. The debate is moving forward from where it was just a couple years ago. Putting out tests of how the nested hierarchy could be violated is so 1990ish. It has been invalidiated. Convergence is the evolutionists answer.
It seems to me that the evidence for evolution tends to be. Its based on lots of inference and extrapolation. Or its based on negative reasoning. Evolutionists claim that this is okay the preponderance of evidence is in favor of evolution. But when we look at the details, we see lots of problems that require apologetics. That makes me question whether the preponderance of evidence is all that strong.
ReplyDeleteThat, I'm afraid, is because you read sites like this, which are geared towards presenting evolution to you in the most mocking terms possible to make it seem highly problematic. Presumably because you WANT to hear that it is so.
DeleteIn reality, it is not.
That probably sounds arrogant, but do you REALLY want to understand or learn anything about evolution? Do you actually want to know how it works and why it is one of the most well-evidenced and entrenched theories in the whole of science? Or do you just want to hear that it is rubbish and that believing in God is just as scientifically credible? Really?
Ritchie, well-evidenced? As in bird beaks, moth coloration, and E.Coli cell membrane transport of citrates?
DeleteYou keep saying it's well evidenced, but by what? Bird beaks? Like we said before your evidence is like using a flat field to show the earth is flat.
Shouldn't unique lizard reproduction or echolocation in bats and whales (some whales only) give you pause to consider the contradictions of your position? That the sea squirt can not be classified objectively is not a problem? Do you actually think that these kinds of issues will lesson as more discoveries are made. You may draw security from trivial observations of natural selection, but repeating the same tired phrases will not answer these questions that that are hammering the Darwinian Tree of life to pieces.
Ritchie, well-evidenced? As in bird beaks, moth coloration, and E.Coli cell membrane transport of citrates?
DeleteYou keep saying it's well evidenced, but by what? Bird beaks? Like we said before your evidence is like using a flat field to show the earth is flat.
Well, you give nice examples of actual real-time observation of Darwinian processes in action, both in lab and field. In addition we have morphological phylogenetic trees, which map well, if not perfectly (but interestingly imperfectly) on to genetic phylogenetic trees, as well as on to the fossil data, which maps well on to the dating of the strata.
And computational biology and population genetics models are also consilient.
There's a lot more too, but the above is actually huge.
Ritchie, well-evidenced? As in bird beaks, moth coloration, and E.Coli cell membrane transport of citrates?
DeleteTo name but a few. As Elizabeth said, there is a vast cache of evidence if you care to look.
Bird beaks? Like we said before your evidence is like using a flat field to show the earth is flat.
No, you made this bizarre claim and failed to substanciate it. The beaks did not hit any boundary or elastic limit.
Shouldn't unique lizard reproduction or echolocation in bats and whales (some whales only) give you pause to consider the contradictions of your position? That the sea squirt can not be classified objectively is not a problem?
I don't see why they should, since none of those contradict ToE in the slightest. For all you silly Creationists claimnig 'OMG, here's a lizard with a placenta a bit like a human's... EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED' and the choir chiming in with the 'Hallelujahs', actual scientists know that this is a interesting discovery and a remarkable observation of convergence - which has been known about and exceedingly well documented for decades.
The observations are always bounded. That's my point. Observations. I don't think we know enough about biosystems to fully explain why they are bounded but that is what we observe. What we do know is that the cell has many complex functions that maintain its genetic integrity. What evolutionists do is take advantage of this ignorance and run with it. But, it remains that every observation we make has been bounded. Speculation about future activity is not evidence.
DeleteThirty five years ago I was an evolutionist. I became skeptical of its grand claims. The more I study it, the more I'm convinced it is pure hogwash from the get go. This is why evolution must equate evolution with natural selection and oscillating patterns of variation. Evolution has at least seven or eight different definitions. Bottom line it is as the Oxford dictionary says "1. the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.". Sorry, but oscillating variation of bird beak sizes and E. Coli losing its function to block Citrates from going through its membrane doesn't cut it from a scientific perspective.
Tedford the idiot
DeleteThe observations are always bounded.
The only 'bound' identified is the relatively short length of time (decades vs. millions of years ) scientists have been making observations.
Amazing that anyone would be so clueless as to still present the "we didn't see it in real time so it didn't happen" argument. But I guess this is Tedford the idiot we're dealing with.
The observations are always bounded. That's my point.
DeleteNo they are not. No-one has ever identified any 'boundaries'. They are the stuff of myth.
I cannot see why you cannot dislodge this utter nonsense in your head. It's a drum you've picked up from Goodness-knows-where and you're determined to keep drumming away at it, deaf to what the rest of the band are playing.
Darwin's finches (your favourite example) demonstrated no boundary!
Unless, of course, you'd like to demonstrate in great and graphic detail why it was genetically impossible for the mean beak size to grow even half a millimeter more...?
Thirty five years ago I was an evolutionist.
Ah, I love stories that start like this. Doubtless what you actually mean was 'Thirty five years ago I was happy to go along with evolution, even though I didn't really understand it too well.' If you had, then you would have been far better equipped to spot ID for the nonsense it is and resist falling into it's trap.
Well, see my response to Ba77. But to address your points specifically:
ReplyDeleteOf course, convergent evolution (which explains nothing) is said to be responsible.
Convergent evolution certain does not "explain nothing"! And in fact, the researchers specifically tested that hypothesis against alternative hypotheses.
So, evolutionists have already discovered similar genes in distant phylogenetic branches and they attribute it to convergence. Convergence is the evolutionists "joker" or wild card. Whenever their sequence is not matching they can use their wild card to always get a good hand. It makes a mockery of science.
Well, it would if it wasn't testable. But it is, and they did.
The answer is not conclusive, but highly suggestive.
If ID proponents are serious about ID scientists, they should probably try to figure out the minimum number of independent changes (assuming selectability for the first round) that would have been required to produce the convergence, and see whether this exceeds reasonable bounds, given estimates of generations and population sizes.
But recall it is in a gene common to both lineages, and that the protein is expressed in all lineages. It's expressed specifically in the hairs of the mammalian cochlea, and is essential for hearing. What has converged (if converged it has) is the exact aa sequence of the prestin protein, in a way that optimises it for spatial location.
The thing is, Neal, is that evolutionary theory isn't just a mish-mash of excuses for failed predictions, as some here seem to think. It's a coherent body of hypotheses that form an extensive theory that is continually being expanded and corrected. I do blame some evolutionary promoters for over-selling and over-simplifying, and, indeed, some of them for implying that evolution-means-no-god. It's not an ideology, it's just a workaday scientific theory that the overwhelming majority of biologists and other scientists in biological fields accept because it is a framework that has proved hugely productive of successfully tested hypotheses.
That's not to say it hasn't generated failed hypotheses too - it has. And has changed as a result. But this is a sign of its robustness, not of its weakness.
What I find frustrating about these conversations is that it is also no threat to theism or at least no more so than any workaday scientific theory with comparable explanatory power. Cornelius, interestingly, is one of the few IDist I have met who sees this. But nor is it driven by theism, any more than it is driven by atheism. It's driven by the need to make explanatory models that help us understand the world in general and biology in particular. Without its framework, we would have been able to make far less sense of biology, and thus find out far less about how we work, and how to heal ourselves when we don't work as well as we should!
It's also awesome :)
Sorry meant to write: "If ID proponents are serious about ID science..."
DeleteJust curious. What experimental evidence do we have that random mutations and natural selection working in tandem lead to evolutionary adaptation?
ReplyDeleteWell, there's Lenski's E coli work. That's very direct, and meticulous.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDelete> Well, there's Lenski's E coli work. That's very direct, and meticulous. <
Is that it?
Is that it?
DeleteNot at all. But it's a good start.
Here's a nice index you might find handy for more evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s - “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp
Deletehttp://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
Ritchie,
DeleteThe question was: "What experimental evidence do we have that random mutations and natural selection working in tandem lead to evolutionary adaptation?"
The only evidence that I have received thus far concerns adaptations exhibited in antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Alastair -
DeleteThe only evidence that I have received thus far concerns adaptations exhibited in antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Lenski's E.Coli study is probably the best because it is so meticulously records the process.
I can pluck a couple of field studies off the top of my head:
http://www.environment.ucla.edu/ctr/symposium/presentations/PDFs/friday/0820-Reznick.pdf
and this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Ritchie,
DeleteNeither of those studies identified any random mutations.
List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
Deletehttp://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Antibiotic resistance is ancient - September 2011
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110922
Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations)
Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011
Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
Michael Behe's Quarterly Review of Biology Paper Critiques Richard Lenski's E. Coli Evolution Experiments - December 2010
Excerpt: After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that the observed adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of Functional Coding ElemenTs (FCTs)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_quarterly_review041221.html
As to the two linked studies of guppies and lizards:
DeleteBiological Variation - Cornelius Hunter
Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye.
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation
Evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits without positive Darwinian selection - A L Hughes - November 2011
Recent evidence suggests the frequent occurrence of a simple non-Darwinian (but non-Lamarckian) model for the evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits, here entitled the plasticity–relaxation–mutation (PRM) mechanism. This mechanism involves ancestral phenotypic plasticity followed by specialization in one alternative environment and thus the permanent expression of one alternative phenotype. Once this specialization occurs, purifying selection on the molecular basis of other phenotypes is relaxed. Finally, mutations that permanently eliminate the pathways leading to alternative phenotypes can be fixed by genetic drift. Although the generality of the PRM mechanism is at present unknown, I discuss evidence for its widespread occurrence, including the prevalence of exaptations in evolution, evidence that phenotypic plasticity has preceded adaptation in a number of taxa and evidence that adaptive traits have resulted from loss of alternative developmental pathways. The PRM mechanism can easily explain cases of explosive adaptive radiation,
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/hdy201197a.html
Moreover, these rapid adaptations that neo-Darwinists claim as proof for Darwinian evolution are actually found to be 'non-random' changes which are orchestrated by the epigenetic information in the cell:
Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009
Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
Epigenetic changes don't last - September 2011
DeleteExcerpt: They found that epigenetic changes are many orders of magnitude more frequent than conventional DNA mutations, but also often short lived. They are therefore probably much less important for long-term evolution than previously thought.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-epigenetic-dont.html
A Modest Comeback for Lamarck, and a Reminder of the Edge of Evolution
Excerpt: 'Our study demonstrates that this can be done in a completely new way: through the transmission of extrachromosomal information.' ,,, Lamarck is now shown not to have been completely wrong about inheritance but only in the sense that, like the Darwinian mechanic, the Lamarckian one works by knocking things out, not building them up.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_modest_comeba053861.html
further notes:
Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave (4 million year old) Microbiome - April 2012
Excerpt: 'Antibiotic resistance is manifested through a number of different mechanisms including target alteration, control of drug influx and efflux, and through highly efficient enzyme-mediated inactivation. Resistance can emerge relatively quickly in the case of some mutations in target genes and there is evidence that antibiotics themselves can promote such mutations [43], [44], [45], [46]; however, resistance to most antibiotics occurs through the aegis of extremely efficient enzymes, efflux proteins and other transport systems that often are highly specialized towards specific antibiotic molecules.'
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034953
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011
Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/
Alistair, Lenski's work wasn't on antibiotic resistant bacteria. It's on a colony of E-coli he has had in his lab for over 20 years now.
DeleteIt's a true experimental study with meticulous controls. Not only that, but some of the original colony were frozen and can be revived so that the fitness of the descendent populations can be compared with the fitness of the ancestral population in the same environment.
They have also done meticulous genetic analyses, including, again, true experimental work in which genetic sequences were transferred from one lineage to another.
It's a fascinating study, and continues to generate fascinating papers.
In fact, it's exactly what you asked for. Do read the papers.
There's a wiki page on it here, which should get you started. There are some good links at the bottom of the page, including links to lists of publications from the study.
Elizabeth,
Delete> It's a fascinating study, and continues to generate fascinating papers.
In fact, it's exactly what you asked for. Do read the papers. <
Okay. I've read the Wiki article on Lenski's E. coli experiments.
Question:
What about "adaptive mutations" (apparently nonrandom mutations also involving E. coli)?
What about "adaptive mutations" (apparently nonrandom mutations also involving E. coli)?
DeleteWhat about them? Sorry, your question's not clear.
Adaptive mutations seem to contravene the primary tenet of evolutionary theory - i.e. that mutagenesis occurs randomly.
Delete"Evolutionary theory describes that mutagenesis occurs randomly, regardless of the utility of a genetic mutation to the organism. If it is beneficial or neutral, the organism will survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation. However, molecular biologist John Cairns has proposed that "when populations of single cells are subject to certain forms of strong selection pressure, variants emerge bearing changes in DNA sequence that bring about an appropriate change in phenotype."
(source: Wikipedia: Adaptive mutation)
Did you read the rest of the Wiki article? There seems to be a question in the validity of the experiment's methodology
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletevelikovskys,
DeleteYes, this is true. This is why the employment of quantum mechanics has been proposed as the best way to properly describe the experiment.
"In fact, the acknowledgment of fundamental limitations on our ability to separate between mutation selection and detection has led Vasily Ogryzko to suggest that for the proper description of the Cairns' experiments, the formalism of quantum theory would be required, with the phenomenon of adaptive mutations naturally following from such an approach.[1]"
(source: Wikipedia: Adaptive mutation)
A biological system that adapts requires the knowledge of under what conditions adaptation should occur (when), which adaptations should be employed (what) and how to actually build those adaptations (how).
DeleteIn other words, the key question here is: how was the knowledge used to build the biosphere, as found in the genome, created?
If said knowledge was pre-programmed (front-loaded) into some ULCA, then not only would it's genome need to contain the knowledge of when, what and how it should adapt, but the when, what and how for all future organisms under all future conditions.
What is the origin of this knowledge? How could it account for future conditions, interactions with other organisms, climate changes, variations in food supplies, natural disasters, extinction events, etc? Where does this massive "lookup table" exist in each organism? Where does the knowledge of how to build each potentially needed adaptation for itself, and future organisms, located? If it doesn't exist, then how does an organism know when, what and how to adapt?
Merely saying some designer wanted an organism to adapt, and could because it has no defined limitations, doesn't explain the origin of this knowledge, how it is formatted and stored, etc. it's just pushing the problem into some unexplainable realm.
In other words, the underlying explanation of evolutionary theory is that knowledge is created via a process of conjecture and refutation. Specifically conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.
This would include the knowledge of how to adapt to it's environment, such as the immune system, etc.
People also use conjecture and refutation to create knowledge. However, people are universal explainers. That is, they can create explanatory theories, which include details about how things are, in reality. As such, people use explanations as a criteria to determine which possibilities to test and which to discard.
This results in the creation of explanatory knowledge.
On the other hand, evolutionary process are not people. As such, they cannot create explanations and use them as a criteria to discard conjectured genetic variations.
This results in the creation of non-explanatory knowledge.
So, my point here is that biological systems that adapt could be built using either explanatory or non-explanatory knowledge. Which, again, this leads us to the question of the origin of the knowledge use to build the biosphere.
However, ID does not address the origin of this knowledge at all.
A designer that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptable biological systems, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economical state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptable biological systems, already present in it's genome.
However, evolutionary theory does have an expiation for the origin of this knowledge. It's a form of conjecture and refutation.
Elizabeth, Why a designer might tinker with something that's already "perfectly good" is more puzzling. It's not puzzling at all in evolutionary theory.
ReplyDelete--
Rationalizations like this is typical of evolutionists. Where to start.
Designers don't tinker with things that are perfectly good? Do you even want to defend that?
Wow. You must have not given that comment much thought or what.
--
Moving on (or back) ---
Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates share many complex functions in the mitrocondria that are unique to them and not their supposed ancestors. They are distant on the imaginary phylogenetic or morphological tree.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/you-wont-believe-this-one-even.html
Evolutionists had to call it cascades of convergent evolution. Wow. One must give them credit for coming up with fancy terms that explain nothing.
This is not easily dismissed. I consider this to be among the strongest data against the objective nested hierarchy. We apparently have to come up with finding a mythical creature now. No... that would not do it. Have you considered the platypus? Right. That's what I thought. Evolutionists have no criteria for making a falsification of the objective nested hierarchy. Whatever examples we give you are not puzzling, but easy. Lizards with unique reproduction is not a problem for evolutionists... because of what, again? Some whales and bats with the same gene sequence meet you criteria earlier today, but apparently is likewise not puzzling.
So what about the Euglenids and the Dinoflagellates similarities. Does that meet your criteria for altering evolutionary theory?
"Designers don't tinker with things that are perfectly good? Do you even want to defend that?
DeleteWow. You must have not given that comment much thought or what."
OK, then maybe they do. But if they do, then why shouldn't evolution? If a thing can be better, or as good, but different, evolution can find it, and, I guess, a designer can too.
So let's call it a wash. It's a problem for neither.
OK, I don't know about the Euglenids and Dinoflagellates.
I'll check it out, thanks.
I should point out, though, that most interesting papers on evolution are interesting precisely because they entail an alteration to evolutionary theory.
Which is, then, duly altered :)
But I'll be interested to read the papers you mention.
If this is "convergent evolution" then what is the similar force that picked placental type birth out of all the other possible methods that on average evolved while the environment was searching for this solution?
ReplyDeleteCan we compare the reproductive success of this organism to it's supposed evolutionary relatives to see which method is better to see if a new method was even necessary? If not, then how strong can that selection force be?
Why is everyone using just their imaginations? Where is the science?
John
DeleteWhy is everyone using just their imaginations? Where is the science?
It's in the paper, and the references provided in the paper, and in the further references those provide.
Won't help a bit if you refuse to read them though.
A hen in Sir Lanka gave live birth after incubating a check inside it's body. While the hen may have died due to internal injuries, it's genes were passed on to the chick.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2012/04/hen-gives-birth-to-live-eggless-chick-in-sri-lanka.html
So, we have what appears to be the first well documented case of a bird species giving birth to live young.
The question is, was this due to some sort of genetic variation? That would require sequencing the hens genes and compare them to other hens.
If this is "convergent evolution" then what is the similar force that picked placental type birth out of all the other possible methods that on average evolved while the environment was searching for this solution?
ReplyDeleteOh John, you just have to have faith that evolution is magic and can do anything evolutionists need it to do. ;-)
Birds are supposed to lay eggs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a hen gave live birth in Sir Lanka after the egg it was incubating in it's body hatched and the chick emerged without it's shell. While the mother hen died due to internal injuries, it did pass it's genes on to the chick.
http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2012/04/hen-gives-birth-to-live-eggless-chick-in-sri-lanka.html
This could be the first well documented case of live birth of a bird species.
Of course, the question is, was this due to genetic variation? That would require sequencing the hen's genes.
So maybe a hopeful monster? to live birth from eggs in one go? I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say no. Do you care to make a wager with me?
DeleteJohn, did you actually read the article?
DeleteThe egg hatched inside the hen, rather than hatching externally. Again, the question becomes, why did the egg remain in the hen?
It could be due to some sort of environmental factor, genetic factor or some combination. as such, If the chick is female, it too might give live birth, etc. At which point, selection pressures that did not exist before, in regards to live birth, would be in effect due to a chick remaining in the hen's body, etc.
In over words, no one thinks the reproduction changes in the lizard happened all at once for no reason at all. It could have started out with changes as small as this chicken.
Thorton: "It's in the paper, and the references provided in the paper, and in the further references those provide."
ReplyDeleteThe original is behind a pay wall. So did you just assume this without even checking yourself? Actually the comments at the discover magazine link say, "Blackburn wants to reconstruct the evolution of this complex organ from simpler versions in other lizards. Doing so might even tell us about how the human placenta evolved. 'It goes to show,' he says, 'that you never know what diversity may be out there until you look.'"
So is it possible now that you didn't read EITHER LINK? If one of the authors even says they don't know, how can you claim they know?
So, I'll ask again, what does the paper say is the force (which should be easy to identify given that it is so strong) that pushed for this adaptation? What other methods have been developed that were discarded? Which of the current methods is more successful? Since you have access to this paper, please let us know.
Otherwise I feel I cannot accept the various day dreams about how it happened.
John
ReplyDeleteOtherwise I feel I cannot accept the various day dreams about how it happened.
Why is it that Creationists are always so intellectually lazy? Why do they demand to be spoon fed years of college level biology for free and won't lift a finger to educate themselves?
If you want to read that particular paper, pay for the paper like everyone else. Or search the scientific literature for other, similar articles. Many species of lizards and snakes are know to have evolved viviparity. There are over 100 known instances of the independent evolution of live-bearing. All involve the loss of the eggshell as in this case. Blackburn himself has several earlier papers with background investigation on this particular species, and there are dozens of others on the evolutionary history of the Trachylepis skinks.
Like I said, if you refuse to do any work yourself don't be surprised when you stay ignorant.
This is a excellent thread.
ReplyDeleteFirst it demonstrates the error of classifying creatures by their reproductive abilities.
Then it one again makes unlikely the idea of convergent evolution.
Then it shows once again that need is the origin of biology.
It doesn't surprise me about this lizard because it been a error to classify creatures by reproduction tactics.
Yes lizards birth by eggs or live and snakes and everything.
Its no big deal even if mechanism is not understood since the lizard probably once did not have this placenta.
My favourite idea is that marsupials were wrongly classified as different creatures then placentals just because, largely, they have marsupial reproductive details.
Then when they are found in striking likeness to placental creatures CONVERGENT evolution must be invoked to explain it.
When in fact reproductive differences should not be seen as important in classification.
This lizard is still a lizard and is not a mammal or halfway there.
A paradigm shift is needed here.
You are creating problems unnecessarily. It is random as far as we are concerned since no-one can calculate every single contributing factor and accurately predict a roll of a die.
ReplyDeleteBut the problems that I am creating in your imaginary scenarios by imagining things otherwise are all that is necessary to refute imaginary events of that sort. Meanwhile, back in the real world it can be observed that the man would die before throwing a billion sixes because in the real world it takes time to throw dice. You can combine that with my imaginary evidence of the dice "randomly" hitting the other dice that he's already thrown and knocking your string of sixes apart. After all, things of that sort actually happen in the real world too.
If we could, casinos would be out of business.
The more scientia/science one has, the closer charlatans and those who profit off of ignorance are to being out of business. That's why the business of Darwinism would decline without total State support, as decentralized networks are emerging due to technology generally created as a result of capitalism. Ironic, given that the so-called "theory of evolution" was generally just a projection of capitalism onto nature anyway.
Yet again with the inventing problems needlessly. This one doesn't even serve to illustrate a point....
ReplyDeleteIt illustrates a point, what you imagine of "chance" can just as easily be invoked against mythologies of progress toward an end (in this case, an imaginary string of sixes) as for it. The only way out of this problem is to rig the game and invent rules, which is exactly what proponents of imagining things about chance in this way do. It is similar to the rule about imagining what God wouldn't do and never allowing anyone to imagine what God would do. It seems that when it comes to citing imaginary evidence to support a desired result, proponents of the result need rules.
Why not a string of a billion?
Why not indeed. But the number really doesn't matter.
Indeed... that's why I said that you might as well imagine a trillion sixes. There is no limit.
Random mutation, taken alone, is random.
It's not really. It's just that you want to say that you've reached the limit of knowledge in that area.
And is, I suspect, the basis of the Creationist strawman that 'evolution is random'.
It's not a strawman when leading proponents of "evolution" throughout society keep saying that order has emerged from chaos and subsume that idea in evolution. It is merely what they've said and with public funding generally drawn from creationists no less. Or is this like the rule about only imagining what God wouldn't do and never allowing anyone to imagine what God would do? In other words, various public representatives of evolution can subsume the idea that order spontaneously arose from chaos but then when creationists reply that it did not... well.
But these random mutations then undergo natural selction - a system which selects the good mutations and discards the bad...
Natural culling doesn't necessarily select the good and discard the bad, a bad result that results in less adaptability and less intelligence over all can be selected for just as easily as the good result of more intelligence, adaptability and order.
...- like a man keeping the dice which show up 6 and rerolling the others. This makes the entire process, taken as a whole, non-random.
Very well... taking the way that you're imagining things for granted and with no regard for reality (where dice get knocked over, the man dies, etc.), what is the non-random process generally directed toward?
Given that natural culling is not random then what is guiding it?
Easy. Natural selection.
But I just said that. Natural selection is natural culling, naturally... and given that you've said that it isn't "random"* then what is it generally directed toward?
*Again, note that the contrast between non-random and random is actually just an illusion brought about by an absence of knowledge anyway. So it is not as if one actually contrasts with the other. Instead, that's just the way that you've decided to play pretend about things. And given that, what is "non-random" natural culling generally directed toward?
Thorton: "Why do they demand to be spoon fed years of college level biology for free and won't lift a finger to educate themselves?"
ReplyDeleteBecause of the signal is so strong, it should be easy to identify be definition. But if there is no signal, then there is no selection pressure by definition. Just asking you to decide - something that should be easy for you after "years of college level biology"
Thorton: "Like I said, if you refuse to do any work yourself don't be surprised when you stay ignorant."
Show the first respect for knowledge, and I'll care what knowledge you might think you have. Because as of now, it seems to me that you have either not read the paper and are bluffing, or that the paper does not answer the questions I posed. I feel bad that you will go to the grave with so much unshared "knowledge".
John: "Because of the signal is so strong, it should be easy to identify be definition."
Deleteof->if
be->by
Scott: "John, did you actually read the article?"
ReplyDeleteJohn: "Do you care to make a wager with me?"
Scott, I think something "just got stuck". I think any offspring would go on producing the normal way. But you are welcome to take the other side of the wager.