Biological Evolution- What is being debated

Posted on by

In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/

So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

  1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
  2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
  3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
  4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
  5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
  6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/

The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.

With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)

2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).

3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)

4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:

 

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene

However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…

1,113 thoughts on “Biological Evolution- What is being debated”

  1. This bit of nonsense appears to have been copy-pasted from Joe’s own blog, here. Might be amusing if folks posted comments there to see how the moderation works elsewhere. 🙂

  5. Alan Fox:
    This bit of nonsense appears to have been copy-pasted from Joe’s own blog, here. Might be amusing if folks posted comments there to see how the moderation works elsewhere.

    Why is it a bit of nonsense, Alan? Care to make a case or are bald assertions the best you can do?

    The moderation at Intelligent Reasoning works fine as long as the comments stay on topic and aren’t just attacks.

  6. Frankie: The moderation at Intelligent Reasoning works fine as long as the comments stay on topic and aren’t just attacks.

    Of course, you can’t judge for yourself 😉

  7. Well, this is bound to be an interesting discussion. Or not. What do the mods think?

    Alan’s already weighed in with a comment that violates Lizzie’s rules.

    dazz responds with an insightful and thought provoking “derp.”

    Richard just seems happy to have been invited to the party.

    Why discuss the OP?

  8. Given: that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the theory of evolution is consistent with all of it; and
    Given: that evolution cannot for theological reasons be permitted to have happened (much less be happening today);
    We can only conclude that we don’t understand it yet. – Mike Gene

    Which leaves us twisted into an interesting pretzel. The more deeply we understand anything, the less use we have for any gods, which can only mean our understanding gets LESS deep, the deeper it gets! The path to knowledge and understanding leads directly away from Truth.

  9. Is ‘Frankie’ the same as ‘Joe G’ at the Intelligent Reasoning blog ?
    I paid a quick visit. Yech. I just want to have a wash.

  10. Flint:

    Which leaves us twisted into an interesting pretzel. The more deeply we understand anything, the less use we have for any gods, which can only mean our understanding gets LESS deep, the deeper it gets! The path to knowledge and understanding leads directly away from Truth.

    And yet after over 150 years of research blind watchmaker evolution hasn’t given us anything related to knowledge, except it can’t be tested.

  11. ;

    Frankie: Why is it a bit of nonsense, Alan? Care to make a case or are bald assertions the best you can do?

    The moderation at Intelligent Reasoning works fine as long as the comments stay on topic and aren’t just attacks.

    So, are you saying that attacks like the following wouldn’t be allowed at “Intelligent Reasoning”?:

    “You are clueless.”

    “So either you address my arguments or admit that you are just a bluffing idiot.”

    “Only an imbecile on an agenda thinks I need to do any math to prove the definition is the same.”

    “You are either very stupid or just on an agenda to obfuscate.”

    “Are you an imbecile?”

    “But then again you are too stupid to understand that.”

    “You do the math, asshole-”

    “You are obviously retarded.”

    “Yes, Jared, you are too stupid to understand simple explanations.”

    “Liar.”

    “Seriously, you are demented.”

    ” You are just a belligerent asshole.”

    “That is you, moron.”

    “You “argue” like a spoiled brat who has soiled himself and no one will change you.”

    “Again- click here and read the article- and stop being such a douchebag.”

    “Look, dipshit, “

    Did you ban the commenter who made these statements?

  13. Frankie: Yeah I will be sure to wash my blog…

    You should take a page from Lizzie’s playbook. Create a “Moderation Issues” thread, close your other threads to comments, and tell people to take it up in moderation issues. Be sure to proclaim loudly that no one is being censored.

  14. Acartia: Continuing with my New Years resolution, I would just like to support Mung’s earlier claim that he is a moron.

    I thought that what I wrote was that I never denied being a moron. Are you misrepresenting what I wrote?

  15. Boooooorrrring. Do one on “Pyramid Power”, or “Other stars are needed to top gravity pulling the planets into the sun”

  19. ID isn’t anti-evolution, there is no such thing as evolution!!

    ID isn’t a mechanistic theory but design is the mechanism!!

    wavelength = frequency!!

    Ice isn’t water!!

    The Earth is young but made of old materials!!

    These and other IDCreationist gems brought to you by FrankenJoe, the world’s most ID savvy toaster repairman. 🙂

  20. ID isn’t anti-evolution, there is no such thing as evolution!!

    I never said that. Obviously adapa has a total lack of integrity

    ID isn’t a mechanistic theory but design is the mechanism!!

    ID isn’t a mechanistic theory. But that doesn’t prevent design from being a mechanism, duh

    And does anyone really not understand the difference between ice and water? Really?

    Authors should have moderation capabilities in their own threads.

  21. Evolution has several meanings. I don’t understand why people think this claim is contentious.

  22. Frankie: Authors should have moderation capabilities in their own threads.

    You do, on your plagiarized original. Duh.

  24. Mung,

    Over at Untelligent reasoning Joe’s had 2 cracks at this. He can moderate those how he likes.

  25. Mung:
    Evolution has several meanings. I don’t understand why people think this claim is contentious.

    It has the evos here all in a tizzy.

  27. Richardthughes: Over at Untelligent reasoning Joe’s had 2 cracks at this. He can moderate those how he likes.

    His blog. He can moderate it as he likes.

    Lizzies blog. She can moderate it as she likes.

  29. Over on my blog Richie has had two cracks at this. And now he has a third. And not once has he posted anything resembling a valid response. Talk about a total lack of integrity.

  31. Frankie,

    I’ve not actually commented on either of them (3 replies total for 2 posts) – or If I did chubbers didn’t let them though.

    Talk about a total lack of integrity.

  33. Frankie: I never said that. Obviously adapa has a total lack of integrity

    ID isn’t a mechanistic theory. But that doesn’t prevent design from being a mechanism, duh

    And does anyone really not understand the difference between ice and water? Really?

    Authors should have moderation capabilities in their own threads.

    But you didn’t deny your other intellectual gems. Like Frequency = Wavelength or Ice does not equal water.

  35. Frankie:
    Over on my blog Richie has had two cracks at this. And now he has a third. And not once has he posted anything resembling a valid response. Talk about a total lack of integrity.

    I have posted several times at your blog. Some you allow through. Others you don’t. We only have your say that the ones you didn’t allow through violated your rules. But, obviously, being an abnoxious, offensive, arrogant ass hole doesn’t violate your blog rules so I wonder what your reasons are for blocking comments.

  37. Richie, if your posts don’t go through it is because you did not follow the rules. Most likely that was due to off-topic gibberish or some other dickish move.

    Don’t blame me for your failings.

  38. Acartia is from Canada and doesn’t understand the difference between ice and water. Do hockey players skate on ice or water, Acartia?

  39. Frankie:
    Richie, if your posts don’t go through it is because you did not follow the rules. Most likely that was due to off-topic gibberish or some other dickish move.

    Don’t blame me for your failings.

    Would this statement be considered a dickish move:

    Look, asshole, your position doesn’t even deserve a place at probability discussions.

  40. Richie has difficulty learning. Every time the word “evolutionism” pops up he links to Wikipedia. Too bad Wikipedia is wrong in that Ernst Mayr used the word “evolutionism” in “What Evolution Is” to describe what Dawkins and Coyne describe as blind watchmaker evolution.

    This has all been explained to Richie many times and he just refuses to get it

  41. Frankie:
    Acartia is from Canada and doesn’t understand the difference between ice and water. Do hockey players skate on ice or water, Acartia?

    Canadian hockey players skate on frozen H2O. And Phelps swims in liquid H2O. And, more importantly, in Canada, Frequency does not equal Wavelength. Only morons would make that claim, and stick to it.

  43. There is a huge difference between frozen and liquid H2O/ Only morons would claim they are the same and stick to it. And that is exactly what my opponents are doing.

    And only douchebag losers would have something explained to them at length and still not get it.

  44. Acartia: Canadian hockey players skate on frozen H2O. And Phelps swims in liquid H2O. And, more importantly, in Canada, Frequency does not equal Wavelength. Only morons would make that claim, and stick to it.

    FrankenJoe has a long comical history of saying really stupid things then refusing to admit when he’s been shown dead wrong. Good ol’ chubbers. He might be the world’s most scientifically illiterate YEC but he’s our world’s most scientifically illiterate YEC. 🙂

  47. Frankie:
    Richie, what is it with you and your cowardly innuendos? Are you really that chicken-shit that you are afraid to make a case?

    Whatta are you gonna do FrankenJoe? Threaten to beat him up him in the empty parking lot again while you cower thirty miles away?

  49. We can’t all be Cable TV installers, Joe. You’ve yet to work out, you’re the comedy. It’s easy to get you so flustered you say something both asinine and hilarious – which I have, many many times.

  50. Frankie:
    You are good at cheerleading, throwing stones, poking, but you suck at science and everything else.

    Speaking of sucking at science – what is the mechanism the Designer used to physically manipulate matter to achieve the desired manufactured product?

    Here’s your usual cowardly dodge:

    YOUR SIDE HAS ON EVIDENCE!!

Leave a Reply