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:
- Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
- Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
- Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
- The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
- Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
- “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…
Even newton agrees there is a difference between ice and water
Yes you do say some amazingly retarded things.
We’ll be looking forward to your published scientific research where you take a Lego gene and have it produce a Lego amino acid. The material doesn’t matter in FrankenJoe land, remember? 🙂
Moved several comments to Guano. Making an admin laugh doesn’t get around the rules.
For adapa: The arbitrariness of the genetic code:
That supports my claim
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary:
b : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
adapa:
Wow, how did you invent that retarded response from the fact that the genetic code is not determined by physics or chemistry? I never said, thought nor implied the material doesn’t matter.
Water is the name for H2O. Depending on the temperature and pressure it can take different phases, liquid ,solid ,gas. Just like nitrogen exists as a gas ,solid and liquid. It still is nitrogen
Water is made from melting solid water ( ice)
newton:
Dihydrogen monoxide is the name for H2O. It isn’t liquid, solid or gas if you have only one molecule.
Then you should have no problem copying and pasting the quote where I said that the water molecule was a code. A simple task if what you said was not a lie. An impossible task if you were simply lying. I await the quote.
If the material matters then physics and chemistry are important.
Talk about being dense. Just because the material matters with the genetic code does not mean the code is determined by physics and chemistry. The genetic code is still arbitrary even though the materials used are physical and chemical in nature.
And I already answered acartia’s nonsense-
Everyone can read the discussion and my claim is correct
Then what the hell is deuterium oxide?
Heavy water or D2O (2H2O). Each hydrogen atom’s nucleus has a neutron making it heavier than regular hydrogen. With H2O the hydrogen atoms do not have neutrons.
So, you can’t find anywhere that I claimed that the water molecule is a code. Thank you for confirming that you lied.
Perhaps acartia was home-schooled in Canada and that is where it learned about the molecular code that converts water into ice @ zero C. I bet that is where it learned about the genetic code and how the nucleotides fit well (chemically) with the amino acids.
I can’t wait for a continuation of the concepts. Maybe there’s a book in the works…
Who said only one molecule?
ETA: this is all about whether a single molecule is water, ice ,or gas?
No one said anything about only one molecule. I was just making a point.
This is about the fact that hail is made up of ice, not water. Rain is made up of water. And there is a difference.
The pattern is arbitrary? Or what name we call each member?
Already covered, newton. And upright biped covered this ad nauseum too
Thanks believe that
“It isn’t liquid, solid or gas if you have only one molecule.” What was that point?
Rain is made up of liquid water, hail is made up of solid water, liquid and solid describe the phase. They are the same ( water) and different ( liquid ,solid) . Snow is solid water, hail is solid water.
Way to dig in your heels and double down. Another example of FrankenJoe’s pathological inability to admit a mistake.
If the debate about whether Joe is a liar or if water = ice, then I guess the debate is on.
A recent picture of Joe has surfaced.
Doesn’t look chubby to me.
I know. I was surprised as well.
But Frankie, there isn’t any such thing as one molecule of water, remember?
That’s what I just said. Did you read what you were responding to? Did you have a point beyond asking a question that was answered in the part you quoted?
Water does not equal ice. Again the matrix and surface tension of ice do not equal the matrix and surface tension of water.
You have to be an absolute imbecile to think ice, a solid, is the same as liquid water. But then again you have to be an imbecile to believe in evolutionism
Acartia’ sock is in italics:
Is H2O a code?
I was talking about the molecule itself, not the symbol.
“The molecule is not a code. It doesn’t fit the definition.”
Really? So the fact that it crystallized at zero C is just magic? Or is their a built in molecular code?
There it is! You either think it was magic or a molecular code that turns water into ice. And your responses show that you think it was a molecular code
You obviously have honesty issues
Yeah FrankenJoe, you’ve been humping that woo you don’t understand for a decade too. A philosophy paper arguing if chemistry worked differently then the mapping of codons to amino acids could be different. But chemistry doesn’t work differently.
Let us know how you’re coming on that Lego demonstration of transcription and translation. I was going to suggest using M&Ms or donut holes but you’d never get past the first triplet.
So, where exactly did I say that the water molecule was a code? You obviously don’t understand the concept of the question mark. Or the equal sign. Or what the definition of “lie” is.
Willful ignorance is not an argument, adapa, and it isn’t a refutation. Even talk origins says the genetic code is arbitrary- of course they also say it is more like a “cypher” than a code. Not one scientist doubts it.
Even Larry Moran calls the genetic code a real code in the same sense as Morse code. And that means it is arbitrary. You can’t find one peer-reviewed paper that says the genetic code is determined by physical and chemical properties. Why is that?
With you it’s more of a lifestyle. Tell us FrankenJoe, what would a not real code look like?
Dr. Moran also only compared the genetic code to Morse in that each map the inputs to the outputs. He didn’t come close to saying the genetic code was an intelligently designed code using arbitrary symbols as abstractions like Morse is. Looks like you got caught lying again FrankenJoe. You do that a lot I’ve noticed.
Keep working on that Lego demo. 😀
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution19.asp
Whoops- the next page has the clincher: https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution20.asp
Now what, adapa? Your foot stomping isn’t going to change the facts
There is not a single human made code that is arbitrary.
I disagree. 🙂
Perhaps, in the spirit of this wonderful site, we can engage in a rational discussion and find out why we disagree on such a simple matter.
What do you mean? In what sense is the Morse Code or the ASCII code not arbitrary?
code biology:
Every human code is arbitrary. That is the very nature of codes.
Can anyone tell us the physical connection between the dots and dashes of Morse code to the alphabet? Or is it an arbitrary correlation? Did … have to be “S”? No
LOL! Christ you’re a dumbass. Your simple “tutorial” (you posted the same one twice) is using human language as an analogy to explain the homologous patterns we see in common descent. In discussing the “frozen accident” hypothesis for DNA origin it only says the mapping patterns we see now were established early on, not that ANY mapping pattern (which is what arbitrary means) would work equally well.
I can see your dumbass desperately Googling “code” and “arbitrary” and blindly C&Ping whatever pops up.
Arbitrary means “based on random choice or personal whim…” There are definitely codes that are based on random keys, but the decision to do that was not random. Personal whim? OK. This may be more relavent. But even morse code was modified to account for the telegraph operator. Even the Qwerty keyboard was not based on a personal whim, although with modern keyboards, it appears to be the case.
All human made codes involve human rationale.
No FrankenJoe. That is only a property of human designed codes used to pass messages between a sender and receiver. DNA is not a human designed code. It doesn’t use arbitrary symbols or arbitrary materials. There is no sender, no receiver.
How many years are you IDiots going to equivocate with this same dumb argument?
CONTEXT dictates what definition is being used. And in the context of the genetic code I provided the definition being used:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary:
b : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
Every single human code is arbitrary in that sense. There isn’t any law that says … = S. There isn’t any law that says UGG has to code for tryptophan. They are both arbitrary arrangements. Not that my detractors will understand that
All you have to do is search on genetic code crick frozen accident to see that the genetic code is arbitrary and no one has been able to refute that even though many have tried and are trying.
Here FrankenJoe, since you’re still lying about what talkOrigins said
The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a “stop” marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step — from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal — is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
There’s a small bit of arbitrariness in that more than one codon can map to an amino acid but that’s it. DNA is not like a human designed code.
There’s a good reason you IDiots are still bottom dwelling never-was clowns as viewed by the scientific community.
Only in the sense that out of the billions of possible configuration of matter only a very limited number could use the laws of chemistry and physics to form life. The form we see now may have arbitrarily won out from that very limited number.
Sorry FrankenJoe this IDiot argument is dead and buried.
LoL! You can disagree with me all you want. But unless you can say what determined the pairings in the genetic code, you don’t have anything but an “argument” from ignorance which can be dismissed out-of-hand.
And the fact that you can’t find anything tat determines what codon represents which amino acid is evidence the genetic code is arbitrary.
Did adapoa really dis a book on the evidence for evolution by zoologist Mark Ridley? Really? Talk about desperation
“tat” – Sure sign of a Joe G meltdown. 🙂