A Complicated Narrative
Strangely enough DNA replication that we see in today’s cells was not present in LUCA. Instead RNA polymerases performed that job. Later in evolutionary history, today’s complex and circuitous DNA replication incredibly evolved independently several times. Also the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases underwent considerable horizontal gene transfer (HGT).
This is but a small sampling of the complicated evolutionary narrative of early life. And what exactly is the evidence for this Darwinian choreography leading from OOL to LUCA and finally to the three cell domains? Well actually there is, err, none.
In fact, not only is there no evidence for this narrative, evolutionists have repeatedly been stymied in their attempts to demonstrate how it would work in the laboratory. In fact, they can’t even demonstrate how it would work outside of the laboratory. Even when evolutionists are free to speculate and hypothesize with computer models or cartoon renditions, the problem still resists solution because it is too unlikely.
And so why do evolutionists believe all these things about early evolution? Because this circuitous narrative is required if evolution is true. In other words, the evidence for all these things is the fact of evolution. If the species spontaneously arose, as evolutionists insist is a fact, then this early life narrative, in one form or another must have occurred.
They are forced to believe that the OOL somehow occurred, in spite of the science. They are forced to believe that incredible complexity evolved early in evolutionary history because today’s extant species have too much in common. From an evolutionary perspective, those similarities must have been present in LUCA. Likewise DNA replication must not have been present in LUCA because the DNA replication machinery in today’s species reveals too many differences.
Furthermore the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases fail to form an evolutionary tree. So evolutionists must believe HGT caused the confusion. There is no independent evidence that HGT changed around the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases. The evidence simply is the failure to find an adequate evolutionary tree to explain these enzymes.
Similarly there is no evidence that today’s complex and circuitous DNA replication evolved independently several times. Again it is a result of believing in evolution. If the species spontaneously arose then, yes, DNA replication must have evolved independently several times.
Early evolution is an example of how evolution violates Occam’s Razor. Science seeks parsimonious solutions, but evolution leads to circuitous narratives. Religion drives science, and it matters.
Dr. Hunter, this comment:
ReplyDelete"Even when evolutionists are free to speculate and hypothesize with computer models or cartoon renditions, the problem still resists solution because it is too unlikely."
Reminds me of this comment:
Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness
and also reminds me of this cartoon:
Atheist's logic 101
"If I can only create life here in the lab (or in my computer), it will prove that no intelligence was necessary to create life in the beginning"
http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/life-by-chance.jpg
Cornelius Hunter: Furthermore the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases fail to form an evolutionary tree.
ReplyDeleteFalse. Not only do AARSs form a phylogenetic tree, but the tree mostly conforms to established organismal phylogeny.
{snip all that follows from false premise}
"False. Not only do AARSs form a phylogenetic tree, but the tree mostly conforms to established organismal phylogeny."
DeleteWrong.
Molecular evolution of aminoacyl tRNA synthetase proteins in the early
history of life
Gregory P. Fournier1$, Cheryl P. Andam2,3, Eric J. Alm1, J. Peter Gogarten3$
"However, unlike the rest of the translation machinery, aaRS have undergone numerous ancient horizontal gene transfers, with several independent events detected between domains, and some possibly involving lineages diverging before the time of LUCA."
Blas: Molecular evolution of aminoacyl tRNA synthetase proteins in the early history of life
DeleteAs we said. The study you point to refers to *ancient* horizontal gene transfers, from the time of the LUCA and before.
Zachriel:
DeleteFalse. Not only do AARSs form a phylogenetic tree, but the tree mostly conforms to established organismal phylogeny.
No, sorry, it is not false, not in any meaningful sense, no matter how many “mostly”s you throw in to cloud the issue. This is an example of how evolutionists misrepresent science. It is true that, technically, they form a phylogenetic tree because, technically, *any* set of data, no matter how ridiculous or contradictory, can be forced into a phylogenetic tree. Just as the planetary data can be forced into geocentrism and they can be described as “mostly” conforming to the geocentrism model. But amongst themselves evolutionists agree that the AARSs require special events, such as HGT, to make sense of the data. This is right up there with your “ATP binding constitutes protein function” claim. Bottom line is scientists can always fool the non scientists using technicalities in the language the non scientists don’t understand or appreciate. It’s a terrible abuse of science.
As we said. The study you point to refers to *ancient* horizontal gene transfers, from the time of the LUCA and before.
More abuse of science. Of course evolutionists require HGT post LUCA. To imply otherwise is terribly misleading and another example of how evolution encourages and trades on ignorance.
Cornelius Hunter: No, sorry, it is not false
Deletehttp://www.google.com/search?q=aminoacyl+tRNA+synthetases+phylogeny&tbm=isch
Cornelius Hunter: It is true that, technically, they form a phylogenetic tree because, technically, *any* set of data, no matter how ridiculous or contradictory, can be forced into a phylogenetic tree.
AARSs phylogenetic trees are well-supported across most biological taxa. The exceptions are nearly all near the root of the tree, some within bacteria.
Cornelius Hunter: Just as the planetary data can be forced into geocentrism and they can be described as “mostly” conforming to the geocentrism model.
Geocentrism is only a correlation, not a causative model. Newtonian Mechanics explains why geocentric models works, as well as providing distinguishing predictions.
Zachriel:
DeleteAARSs phylogenetic trees are well-supported across most biological taxa. The exceptions are nearly all near the root of the tree, some within bacteria.
This is gross negligence and/or misrepresentation. To suggest that the AARS gene trees are congruent is simply a lie. Of course there are significant deviations far from the base.
Years ago when I first was discoursing with evolutionists, even in public, I was surprised to see just this sort of blatant misrepresentation. I thought that surely the scientific evidence would be a common ground for discourse. It isn't, it just isn't.
Since that I've just grown used to it. Evolutionists just have to have their theory be true. They will say whatever it takes to maintain that line. It's an incredible abuse of science.
DrHunter
DeleteSince that I've just grown used to it. Evolutionists just have to have their theory be true. They will say whatever it takes to maintain that line. It's an incredible abuse of science.
Perhaps now would be a good time to define what science is for you, since it differs from evolutionists think it is.
Unless you are saying evolutionists are by definition liars since they disagree with your true knowledge of what the evidence shows without even the possibility that you are the one mistaken in your accusations.
Perhaps religion drives your science as well.
Cornelius Hunter: This is gross negligence and/or misrepresentation.
DeleteWoese et al., Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases, the Genetic Code, and the Evolutionary Process, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 2000: "Examination of the phylogenetic trees for each of the AARSs reveals the following. (i) Their evolutionary relationships mostly conform to established organismal phylogeny ... The most far-ranging transfers of AARS genes have tended to occur in the distant evolutionary past. These findings are also used to refine the theory that at the evolutionary stage represented by the root of the universal phylogenetic tree, cells were far more primitive than their modern counterparts and thus exchanged genetic material in far less restricted ways, in effect evolving in a communal sense."
Hunter:
DeleteThis is gross negligence and/or misrepresentation.
In what ways?
To suggest that the AARS gene trees are congruent is simply a lie.
How can a claim be a lie? Please point out crippling incongruities.
Of course there are significant deviations far from the base.
Where?
Was it only the AARS genes that underwent so much horizontal gene transfer?
Delete"These findings are also used to refine the theory that at the evolutionary stage represented by the root of the universal phylogenetic tree, cells were far more primitive than their modern counterparts and thus exchanged genetic material in far less restricted ways, in effect evolving in a communal sense."
DeleteSo according to you Zachriel, the primitive life not only was lucky to get the 15-20 set of enzimes that allows to traduce the genetic code, but get different sets of 15-20 proteins that fits that task. And after get that set of 15-20 proteins able to traduce that cells allowed the exchange of them with the high chance the a wrong exchage led to extintion.
natschuster: Was it only the AARS genes that underwent so much horizontal gene transfer?
DeleteAARSs exhibit an unusual amount of horizontal movement. They are of interest because of their role in translation, an important adaptation in the history of life. However, they are not the only gene that undergoes horizontal movement. Horizontal evolution is common in modern bacteria. Overall, about 2% of core genes are the result of horizontal evolution while 98% are due to vertical evolution.
Ge, Wang & Kim, The Cobweb of Life Revealed by Genome-Scale Estimates of Horizontal Gene Transfer, PLOS Biology 2005: "We propose that HGT events, even when relatively common, still leave the treelike history of phylogenies intact, much like cobwebs hanging from tree branches."
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCH: This is gross negligence and/or misrepresentation. To suggest that the AARS gene trees are congruent is simply a lie. Of course there are significant deviations far from the base.
DeleteThis is what I’m referring to. Cornelius claims it is obviously a misrepresentation, yet there is a significant disconnect between virtually all of the scientific community. Something doesn’t add up here.
However, as I’ve pointed out, we can explain this disconnect in that Cornelius thinks science isn’t in the business of explaining how the world works, in reality, but merely predicting what we will experience. Of course, Cornelius keeps avoiding direct questions designed to disprove this explanation. It’s as if he thinks he can prevent us from making progress on the issue by refusing to explain what he means by science.
While I cannot prove this is his goal, his refusal to even acknowledge the issue has the effective result of reducing criticism of this explanation. Whether it’s intentional or not, is irrelevant, as the result is the same. And comments like these make him aware of the issue, so he cannot claim ignorance.
Furthermore, Cornelius objections do not exist in a vacuum. He makes arguments that imply he holds this view, such as claiming the question “Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?” is meaningless. However, it is only meaningless if one assumes science isn’t about explaining how the world works in reality, but merely predicting what people will observe.
Cornelius is personally free to hold whatever definition of science he wants, as is anyone here. But question becomes, who cares if evolution doesn’t meet his particular definition of science?
IOW, his argument falls apart when this implicit assumption is brought to light.
CH: Years ago when I first was discoursing with evolutionists, even in public, I was surprised to see just this sort of blatant misrepresentation. I thought that surely the scientific evidence would be a common ground for discourse. It isn't, it just isn't.
No one is suggesting that scientific evidence doesn’t play a critical role. Part of that discourse would include the role of evidence is in science. Yet, apparently, Cornelius does not think this is common ground for discourse, as he refuses to even acknowledge the issue in any meaningful way.
Here’s an example of how we approach observations that deviate from expected observations in science.
DeleteWhile testing a software project this week, my client noticed some of the due dates on JSON documents had the wrong date. One of the server-side developers started looking though his code to try to find a bug in the software. When he couldn’t find anything, he asked me if I had any ideas of where the bug was.
Rather than assuming the bug was in the software, I realized the test itself could have been in error which would also have resulted in observing different dates. IOW, observations of the dates themselves were based on explanations of how the test actually worked and that the results would be accurate only if it was setup correctly. Despite the observations of different dates, the software he wrote might have been operating correctly.
So, we had two possibilities: the software he wrote was wrong, or the test we devised was setup wrong. Furthermore, nothing is ever merely wrong compared to a theory. It’s wrong in a specific, concrete way. And this was no exception.
The dates weren’t just wrong, they were exactly three hours later that what we expected to observe. At this point, rather than trying to guess where the software was wrong, I quickly conjectured many explanations as to why the date would be wrong by exactly that amount. After briefly criticizing them all, the best explanation for this specific difference was that the virtual machines used to test the web tier from Microsoft (located on the west coast) had their timezone set to Pacific Time, but we were in Eastern Time. So, my prediction was that the error wasn’t in the software he wrote, but that the test itself was incorrectly setup, so it’s results were inaccurate.
When he checked the timezone on the virtual machines, they were indeed set to Pacific time.
Note that I didn’t have to even look at the code he wrote. It only took a few minutes to quickly conjecture and criticize a few explanations, then check the timezones on the virtual machines.
Also, note that the code itself wasn’t wrong. The dates we observed were correct, given specific environmental factors, which we predicted and actually found. This was possible because we were able to reconcile the exact difference between how the software was supposed to work and the results we actually observed.
In the same sense, when AARSs do not exactly form a phylogenetic tree, they diverge in very specific ways. Rather than simply assuming the theory itself is completely in error and throwing up our hands, we conjecture explanatory theories about why AARSs would diverge in that specific way, which can be empirically tested. One such explanation was HGT. On the other hand, the idea that AARSs deviated from the tree in this specific way because “that just what some supernatural designer must have wanted” was discarded because it’s a shallow and easily varied. It’s a bad explanation.
And when we looked for HGT in nature, which represented empirical criticism, we found it. This is the role that evidence plays in scientific theories.
No theory can account for every unrelated, yet parallel factor that could change what we observe. They will always be incomplete and contain errors to some degree. But this doesn’t mean that we cannot make progress by criticizing theories. We make progress by discarding errors in both our theories and our process by which we test those theories.
Of course, I’m being charitable here as assuming Cornelius actual wants to make progress. Should one believe the biosphere was the result of a supernatural inexplicable designer, it would come as no surprise they were not genuinely interested in making progress on this issue. In fact, they might find the very idea offensive, and merely try to sling mud at a theory they personally find objectionable.
V:
DeletePerhaps now would be a good time to define what science is for you, since it differs from evolutionists think it is.
But isn't this obscuring the obvious? I have been in public debates where the evolutionists have literally dismissed scientific problems with a wave of the hand. One said "those are all fallacies." No, they are well known problems. If evolution makes false predictions, doesn't that mean something? Do we really need to get into the demarcation problem to understand this?
Zachriel:
Delete"Examination of the phylogenetic trees for each of the AARSs reveals the following. (i) Their evolutionary relationships mostly conform to established organismal phylogeny
Mostly? Yes, and most of the planetary motions conform to geocentrism. Evolutionists do not take glaring deviations to be important because they simply invoke HGT whenever needed. Let’s look under the hood: “The evolutionary picture painted by the synthetases, however, is a world apart from this canonical pattern. Not only do the phylogenies fail to yield the canonical pattern in a number of cases, but also they typically violate the accepted taxonomic structure within the organismal domains. Furthermore, the molecular phylogenies inferred from the synthetases of different amino acid types tend not to agree with one another—but this is the telling point.”
And later: “Much has been said and written about aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases contradicting established organismal phylogenies. From the above analysis, one can see that in many cases they do so—sometimes in spectacular ways. In at least as many other cases, however, they do not. … The aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases do not confirm the branching orders among the major taxa within each domain. Here they present only a confused, and so unreliable, picture.”
The most far-ranging transfers of AARS genes have tended to occur in the distant evolutionary past. These findings …"
Oops, you left out the important part. Let’s try again: “The most far-ranging transfers of AARS genes have tended to occur in the distant evolutionary past, before or during formation of the primary organismal domains. These findings …” That would be post-LUCA.
These findings are also used to refine the theory that at the evolutionary stage represented by the root of the universal phylogenetic tree, cells were far more primitive than their modern counterparts and thus exchanged genetic material in far less restricted ways, in effect evolving in a communal sense."
Yes, this was Woese’ hypothesis for many years. Horizontal evolution on a massive scale involving communities and enormously complex mechanisms. Absolutely no empirical evidence for this. Nothing like this has ever been observed. As the OP explains, it’s all based on the assumption of evolution.
Pedant:
DeleteIn what ways?
Kidding right? By misrepresenting AARS gene trees as congruent; that is, misrepresenting empirical data to fit evolutionary dogma.
How can a claim be a lie?
Because AARS gene trees are well known not to be congruent.
Please point out crippling incongruities.
Um, ok. ArgRS phylogeny, regarding which even evolutionists admit “one cannot confidently state at this point whether ArgRS exhibits any canonical pattern.” I’m sure you are now reevaluating your position.
Cornelius Hunter: If evolution makes false predictions, doesn't that mean something?
DeleteSure. It could mean the theory has to be modified or discarded. However, this may not happen immediately, and may wait until the observations are otherwise explained. Perhaps there's a problem with the findings, which might be strengthened by independent means. A new theory or corollary could be proposed, which throws it back for further testing. Meanwhile, it becomes Newton's Theory of Gravity (except that unexplained Mercury anomaly thingy).
Cornelius Hunter: Yes, and most of the planetary motions conform to geocentrism.
All planetary motions conform to geocentrism. They also conform to Jovian-centrism, and Cornelius Hunter-centrism.
Cornelius Hunter: Nothing like this has ever been observed.
One doesn't observe "the distant evolutionary past".
Cornelius Hunter: "Not only do the phylogenies fail to yield the canonical pattern in a number of cases, but also they typically violate the accepted taxonomic structure within the organismal domains."
Much better. So the paper points out that there is a pattern, and that there are exceptions that stand out against this pattern.
Cornelius Hunter: That would be post-LUCA.
Right. So the paper points out that there is a pattern, and that there are exceptions that stand out against this pattern, and that the exceptions primarily occur in the "the distant evolutionary past".
Wht was it only the AARS thaty under went horizontal gene transfer? Why not the RNA Polymerase? See, this is why I don't find evolution intellectually satisfying. There is always an apologetic to explain away the weird stuff.
DeleteThe theory is that aaRSs came later, replacing ribozymic precursors.
DeleteBut why would that stop the polymerase from undergoing horizontal gene transfer?
Deletenatschuster: But why would that stop the polymerase from undergoing horizontal gene transfer?
DeleteThe evidence suggests that the evolution of primordial life was characterized by horizontal mechanisms. That would include RNA polymerase, and there is evidence supporting horizontal transfer in some lineages.
Rapid evolution to a local peak is expected. Once on a peak, things tend to become locked in place. Once cells reached a certain level of integration, then it became increasingly difficult for foreign strains to integrate. Different cellular systems reached this state before others. At some point after the divergence of the domains, evolution proceeded primarily through vertical inheritance.
Pedant: Please point out crippling incongruities.
DeleteHunter: Um, ok. ArgRS phylogeny, regarding which even evolutionists admit “one cannot confidently state at this point whether ArgRS exhibits any canonical pattern.” I’m sure you are now reevaluating your position.
If I had a position, and you provided a reason to reevaluate it, I would. But you just keep repeating vague assertions, and now you provide an unsourced quote devoid of context.
If you really had any solid evidence for your claims, you would have provided it.
CH: But isn't this obscuring the obvious?
DeleteSo, you haven’t disclosed what you mean by science because it’s obvious?
CH: I have been in public debates where the evolutionists have literally dismissed scientific problems with a wave of the hand. One said "those are all fallacies." No, they are well known problems.
As I’ve pointed out, all theories are incomplete and contain errors to some degree. It’s unclear why you think this obviously wouldn’t be the case. Care to enlighten us as why? (Be careful, in doing so you would give us insight as to what you mean by “science”)
Problems lead to solutions, which lead to even better problems, which lead to even better solutions, etc. On the other hand, you seem to think that any and all problems must be the end of the road for a theory. Again, care to enlighten us as to why? (Here’s a hint: the idea Popper was a naive falsificationist is a common misrepresentation)
What we would expect is a replacement theory that not only explains the same observations just as well, but explains even more observations. This includes observations that indicated the original theory was problematic in the first place.
For example, the OPERA experiment resulted in false predictions (observations of neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light). Did we just decide to throw in the towel on GR (which also is incomplete and contains errors to some degree)? No, the observations were not just wrong, they were wrong in a very specific way which led to even a better problem. Specifically, a replacement theory would need not only have the same explanatory power as GR, but also explain why neutrinos broke the speed limit in just the OPERA experiment. However, no such explanation was found. What we discovered instead was a loose ethernet cable and a timer ticking at the wrong rate.
Furthermore, contrary to what you imply, we want to find errors in our theories. That’s how we make progress. For example, we propose specific evolutionary histories for the explicit purpose of being found in error. The very idea that they can be found in error forms the the basis for which human knowledge can grow.
If we predicted a car, but observed a truck instead, does that falsify a theory based on a four wheel self-propelled vehicle? Of course not. By finding this error, the theory just became more accurate. Nor would being surprised because we had hypothetically never seen an El Camino before.
IOW, these particular objections are indeed represent fallacies.
CH:If evolution makes false predictions, doesn't that mean something? Do we really need to get into the demarcation problem to understand this?
DeleteOf course it does. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. The point of discourse is, what do false predictions mean? What do they tell us?
As I illustrated in another comment on this thread, predictions are not merely false. They are false in very specific ways. And the particular way they are false tells us something about reality, not merely that they are false. Furthermore, observations are themselves theory laden. The observation can be false, be cause it too is based on an explanation about how the world works, in reality.
On the other hand, you seem to think science is essentially prophecy, as predictions are merely something to be observed or not observed. But then science stops being about anything but what we will experience. This is an impoverished view of science.
IOW, it appears that predictions being false means significantly more to me that it does to you.
Of course, if you believe progress on this front is impossible or find the very idea of it objectionable, it would come as no surprise that you would essentially be an instrumentalist when it comes to evolutionary theory.
From the Wikipedia entry on Instrumentalism
In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a scientific theory is a useful instrument in understanding the world. A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.
Instrumentalism avoids the debate between anti-realism and philosophical or scientific realism. It may be better characterized as non-realism. Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually exist, and towards an analysis of whether the results and evaluation fit with observed phenomena.
Would this be an accurate description of your position? If not, please indicate where your position differs, in detail.
For example, to claim that the question “Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth” is meaningless is to claim it’s meaningless to ask if Earth actually goes around the Sun, or that it’s just a useful fiction to explain sunrises, sunsets, etc.
Which, I’d point out, is one of the general purpose means by which one could deny anything, including that dinosaurs are actually the explanation of fossils.
One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils.
Sound familiar?
Scott: Would [Instrumentalism] be an accurate description of your position? If not, please indicate where your position differs, in detail.
DeleteCH: [No responce]
Even when handed a reference to a specific definition by which he could compare and contrast, Cornelious simply refuses to elaborate on what he means by science.
And it gets even better.
DeleteRather than write a comment in which he discloses his view on science for the purpose of criticism, Cornelius wrote a comment in which he chastises CRU members for not disclosing data for the purpose of criticism.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/03/professor-proposes-dystopia-where.html?showComment=1395511646066#c3314503766865203421
Zachriel:
DeleteDoesn't horizontal gene transfer in bacteria depend on complex mechanisms like plasmids, pilliums and such? Did these things exist in early life? Or was there another mechanism. Or do we need another hypothetical mechanism.
natschuster: Doesn't horizontal gene transfer in bacteria depend on complex mechanisms like plasmids, pilliums and such?
DeleteThe trick for early life isn't horizontal transfer, but preventing it. The membrane has to be permeable to nutrients, but not permeable to invasions.
So, theoretically speaking, early life was different, hypothetically? This is why I don't find evolution intellectually satisfying. It requires so may epicycles and apologetics. It certainly doesn't seem parsimonious to me.
Deletenatschuster: So, theoretically speaking, early life was different, hypothetically?
DeleteOf course life was different. What part of "evolution" don't you get?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg
But we don't see nowadays what we are hypothesizing about in the past. So we can't really say that we have a known mechanism for all this stuff. We have to make up stuff. The present doesn't inform the past, like its suppose to.
Deletenatschuster: But we don't see nowadays what we are hypothesizing about in the past.
DeleteYet dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
natschuster: So we can't really say that we have a known mechanism for all this stuff.
From what we know, it takes a mechanism to *prevent* horizontal transfers. But there is a lot we don't know.
If we need to preventy horizontal gene transfer, why do bacteria need special things to do horizontal gene transfer?
Deletenatschuster: If we need to preventy horizontal gene transfer, why do bacteria need special things to do horizontal gene transfer?
DeleteThere's a tradeoff between fidelity and flexibility. Generally, an organism persists by making copies of itself, but if it is too rigid in reproduction, then it can't adapt over time. Some of these adaptations include trading genes with related organisms, and increased rates of mutation when under stress.
bornagain77: This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle.
ReplyDeleteComets may look miraculous, yet still be orbiting snowballs expelling gases.
bornagain77: "If I can only create life here in the lab (or in my computer), it will prove that no intelligence was necessary to create life in the beginning"
No, but if you can show that biologic activity arises in plausible primordial conditions, then it lends support to abiogenesis.
Always appreciate the homage to film, my question is which character are you,Henry Fonda or Lee J. Cobb?
ReplyDeleteHaa, ha.
DeleteCH: This is but a small sampling of the complicated evolutionary narrative of early life. And what exactly is the evidence for this Darwinian choreography leading from OOL to LUCA and finally to the three cell domains? Well actually there is, err, none.
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t the question of whether there is any evidence for evolutionary theory depend on the role that evidence plays in science? Given the title of the post “Guess the Evidence for Early Evolution” this would seem like a reasonable, well defined question, which would be highly relevant to the issue at hand, right?
In it’s absence, claiming evolutionary theory misrepresents science would be like a politician claiming someone misrepresented their position while, at the same time, refusing to disclosing exactly where their position differers, in detail.
Politician: My position isn’t X. You’re misrepresenting me.
Reporter: It’s not? Then what is your position?
P: It’s not X.
R: So, your position on your position is that it’s not X? But that tells us nothing about what aspect of your position was misrepresented. It’s a non-response.
P: Everyone knows what my position is, and it’s not X. So, it’s an obvious misrepresentation.
R: It’s obvious? Then why does your position on the issue flip flop depending on the circumstances you happen to find yourself in, such as your audience, the polls, etc.? Why don’t you humor me and remind us of what you position is.
P: I just told you, It’s not X. I have no further comment.
Furthermore, wouldn’t this be based not on what some people perceive the role evidence plays, but based on rational criticism of what scientists do, in practice? If not, it would seem the question of whether evolution is science would depend on one’s point of reference.
Does the question of whether evolution is scientific make no sense because it depends on one’s point of reference on the role that evidence plays in science?
Or, to use an example from a previous post….
CH: And what about the heliocentrism versus geocentrism question? It is a non scientific false dichotomy. The Earth does not “go around the sun,” any more than does the “sun go around the Earth.”
That is because neither statement makes sense. In order to make a meaningful statement about what goes around what, one first needs to specify a frame of reference. For an observer on the sun, the Earth circles the sun. And for an observer on Earth, the sun circles the Earth. That is “factual knowledge.”
While I would agree it’s factual that some people perceive the role of evidence in science as proving things are true, people also perceive the sun going around the Earth, as well. Must we throw up our hands and claim we cannot make any progress on this issue as well?
I would also point out, Cornelius’ claim that the question “Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?” is meaningless, implies a point of reference from which science isn’t about explaining how the world works in reality, but merely predicting what people will observe.
ReplyDeleteFrom this point of reference, I would agree that evolutionary theory isn’t science. However, from this same point of reference, science stops being about anything but merely what we will experience.
I'm very glad darwins-god is still kicking out the jams against Darwinian fundamentalist slop.
ReplyDeleteDarwinism = conjecture, speculation, story telling and mountains of overwhelming blind faith.
Found everywhere in its crumbling fortresses of materialism.
Darwinism is dead.
Even well known evolutionists are saying so.
William Provine, radical atheist, evolutionary biologist, stated, "every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false:
"1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation...
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution
8. Definition of "species" was clear...
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, ...evolution produces a tree of life..." -- William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts
The journal Biological Theory - "Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope." -- D. J. Depew, B. H. Weber, "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis", Vol. 6: 89-102, Dec 2011
Eugene Koonin said it all even more succinctly in Trends in Genetics stating, "the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" ..."all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution..."..."not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone" -Eugene Koonin, "The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?," Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473, 2009
So why is Darwinism still being piously preached as though it were still "as proved as gravity"?
Well the best explanation I've found is "Weekend at Bernies"
In the movie, Bernie is assassinated, but 2 dolts drag his corpse around, propping it up to make it look alive.
Everyone thinks Bernie is fine. But he's still dead as a doornail. This is modern Darwinism.
It died years ago with molecular biology, biosemiotics, the discovery of ZERO and the decimal place encoded in DNA, the understanding of genetic entropy, and on and on it goes - all refuting neo Darwinian BS.
Like Bernie, its corpse is still dragged around, nicely dressed, artificially propped up, wearing sunglasses with bozos moving the limbs, nodding the head, waving the hands; never too close for the stench of rotting flesh to give the show away.
"Weekend at Darwin's" would make an excellent movie too!
Hilariously demonstrating the fact of the death of neo-Darwinism.
A nice show piece of bad acting and sloppy FX would make it a great movie, worthy of the theory
Bernie is dead. So is neo Darwinism.
Dawkins, Coyne, PZ, Harris and the rest of the happy proppers run around with Darwin's corpse showing it to people everywhere as though alive and well; as alive as gravity lol!
Dawkins et al. are great actors, easily fooling the gullible and ignorant.
But in the end, Darwinism is still dead. Its about time it was buried.
RIP
Rest In Pieces
Gary H: Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process.
DeleteThat leaves out variation, not to mention happenstance.
Gary H: Darwinism is still dead.
Darwin's been dead a long time. You seem to be conflating "Darwinism" with "Neodarwinism" with modern evolutionary theory.
Zachriel do you think that happenstance is a mechanism?
DeleteBlas: do you think that happenstance is a mechanism?
DeleteHappenstance refers to a collection of mechanisms. A comet slamming into the Earth is a happenstance. So are orbital variations creating ice ages. So is a chance meeting between lovers.
So yes, chance is a mechanism.
DeleteBlas: chance is a mechanism.
DeleteNo, but various mechanisms may have a chance component. For instance, the timing of cometary impacts are random with respect to the needs of earthlings.
Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause.
DeleteVoltaire
Eugen: "Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause."
DeleteIt refers to a distribution of results, in particular the lack of correlation between independent variables. However, it is not, in itself, a cause.
Raise high the chants of super-stellar miracles
ReplyDeleteThat created hominoids and orbits nine.
Proclaim perfection's winsome debacles,
That sing with organs of negligent design.
MOG
Ecliptic aligned with
Deletedipoles in the heaven.
Go to bed man!
It is past eleven.
(also trying to send message to Velik :D )
Argh! Still " comment approval" system, too bad.....I 'll check-in in few weeks.
DeleteDr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. It was very revealing.