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. A method to separate temperature and precipitation signals encoded in tree-ring widths for the western Tien Shan Mountains, northwest China

    Can’t have encoding without a code

    Signals encoded in tree-ring widths means there was a code for doing so. What is the code that put that encoded information into the trees?

  2. Thank you for continuing to prove my point, adapa. Too bad this is just an obscure forum. More people should see how cowardly and dishonest evolutionists are on a daily basis.

  3. Frankie: Signals encoded in tree-ring widths means there was a code for doing so. What is the code that put that encoded information into the trees?

    The local climate.

    Seriously FrankenJoe, scientists have been using climate proxies for decades. Why are you too stupid to know about them and how they encode information about the past?

  4. So now the local climate is a code? Your comments just go from dumb to dumber. I bet you don’t even know what you are saying

  5. Wikipedia doesn’t support your claim that tree rings are a code. It doesn’t support your claim that the local climate is a code

  7. Frankie: Signals encoded in tree-ring widths means there was a code for doing so.

    Def encode:

    1
    a : to convert (as a body of information) from one system of communication into another; especially : to convert (a message) into code
    b : to convey symbolically

    The information about the climate is conveyed symbolically thru the tree rings

    What is the code that put that encoded information into the trees?

    Variations in climate affect ring growth. It probably can be expressed by an equation.

  8. newton, you are not paying attention. There must be a code for putting the information into tree rings if there is information encoded in them. adapa thinks the local climate is that code, but that is stupid talk.

  9. Frankie: newton, you are not paying attention. There must be a code for putting the information into tree rings if there is information encoded in them. adapa thinks the local climate is that code, but that is stupid talk.

    So your position is that the climate does not encode information into trees rings?

  10. It is my view that trees can be/ are data recorders. But you have to saw them down, sand down an exposed end so you can see the rings or drill out a core sample to get to it. And even then it takes training to understand that data and give it meaning.

    Data recorder. Data becomes information only once it is evaluated and given meaning. data and meaning

  12. Frankie:
    It is my view that trees can be/ are data recorders. But you have to saw them down, sand down an exposed end so you can see the rings or drill out a core sample to get to it. And even then it takes training to understand that data and give it meaning.

    How is this data recorded ?

    Data recorder. Data becomes information only once it is evaluated and given meaning. data and meaning

    So a code which you cannot decipher is not a code?

  14. newton, if you want to know how trees record the data then google it.

    Data recorder. Data becomes information only once it is evaluated and given meaning. data and meaning

    So a code which you cannot decipher is not a code?

    What? How did you get that from what you were responding to?

  15. Frankie, is it just me or are they trying desperately to make the case that codes require an intelligent designer to create them?

  16. Mung:
    Frankie, is it just me or are they trying desperately to make the case that codes require an intelligent designer to create them?

    It is just you

  18. Frankie:
    newton, if you want to know how trees record the data then google it.

    Data recorder. Data becomes information only once it is evaluated and given meaning. data and meaning

    What? How did you get that from what you were responding to?

    So then your position is the climate encodes data into tree rings?

  19. Mung:
    Frankie, is it just me or are they trying desperately to make the case that codes require an intelligent designer to create them?

    [John Wayne] Not if they can produce codes, it doesn’t [/John Wayne]

  20. And we are still waiting-

    Do tree rings meet the following criteria:

    This gives us an objective criterion for discovering organic codes and their existence is no longer a matter of speculation. It is, first and foremost, an experimental problem. More precisely, we can prove that an organic code exists, if we find three things: (1) two independents worlds of molecules, (2) a set of adaptors that create a mapping between them, and (3) the demonstration that the mapping is arbitrary because its rules can be changed, at least in principle, in countless different ways.

    If “yes” then show your work.

    Do any of your examples of a code meet that criteria? If “yes” show your work

  22. Frankie:
    And we are still waiting-

    Do tree rings meet the following criteria:

    This gives us an objective criterion for discovering organic codes and their existence is no longer a matter of speculation. It is, first and foremost, an experimental problem. More precisely, we can prove that an organic code exists, if we find three things: (1) two independents worlds of molecules, (2) a set of adaptors that create a mapping between them, and (3) the demonstration that the mapping is arbitrary because its rules can be changed, at least in principle, in countless different ways.

    If “yes” then show your work.

    Do any of your examples of a code meet that criteria? If “yes” show your work

    Curious , where is the quote from?

  23. Frankie:
    And we are still waiting-

    Do tree rings meet the following criteria:

    This gives us an objective criterion for discovering organic codes and their existence is no longer a matter of speculation. It is, first and foremost, an experimental problem. More precisely, we can prove that an organic code exists, if we find three things: (1) two independents worlds of molecules, (2) a set of adaptors that create a mapping between them, and (3) the demonstration that the mapping is arbitrary because its rules can be changed, at least in principle, in countless different ways.

    If “yes” then show your work.

    Do any of your examples of a code meet that criteria? If “yes” show your work

    Isn’t this your challenge?

    “Solve the problem, find/ discover a naturally occurring code- ie one that doesn’t require an intelligent source” ?

  24. newton:

    And DNA fits your definition of a code.

    The GENETIC code fits the definition of a code of which DNA is only part of. What we have been discussing is the existence of a code is evidence for ID because nature cannot produce them and in Intelligent agencies can.

    Tree rings do not fit the definition of a code. They cannot pass the litmus test. The quote is from Code Biology- I linked to it already, at least twice

  25. Frankie: Do tree rings meet the following criteria:

    Perhaps tree rings are an inorganic code. The product of a fevered imagination.

  26. Mung: Perhaps tree rings are an inorganic code. The product of a fevered imagination.

    Tree rings are data encoded into a organic medium caused by an inorganic source.

  27. Mung,

    <

    >Perhaps tree rings are an inorganic code. The product of a fevered imagination.

    Tree rings with humans counting and recording = code.

    Tree rings without humans counting and recording=tree rings.

  29. colewd:
    Mung,

    <

    Tree rings with humans counting and recording = code.

    Tree rings without humans counting and recording=tree rings.

    What’s a Morse code while nobody is playing it?

  30. dazz,

    What’s a Morse code while nobody is playing it?

    Dots and dashes on a piece of paper. Code= generate-send-transmit-receive-translate. In the imitation game the code was garbage until it could be translated.

  31. newton:

    Tree rings are data encoded into a organic medium caused by an inorganic source.

    You keep using those words ( “code” and “encode”). I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. (HT TPB)

  32. colewd:
    dazz,

    Dots and dashes on a piece of paper.Code= generate-send-transmit-receive-translate.In the imitation game the code was garbage until it could be translated.

    Yet DNA translation is a chemical process… it happens even if nobody’s “looking”
    DNA is a 100% natural code going by your own definition.

    Note: if you move the goalposts now, it’s over, I win, you lose

  33. dazz,

    Note: if you move the goalposts now, it’s over, I win, you lose

    So your the player and the ref. Cool 🙂

  34. dazz: DNA is a 100% natural code going by your own definition.

    natural supernatural natural supernatural natural supernatural

    chemically induced beliefs

  35. Yet DNA translation is a chemical process… it happens even if nobody’s “looking”
    DNA is a 100% natural code going by your own definition.

    The genetic code is not a chemical process. The sequence of DNA is not determined by chemical law. Which mRNA codon represents what amino acid is not determined by chemistry.

    Your premise is refuted

  36. colewd:
    dazz,

    So your the player and the ref.Cool

    I know you can’t argue without your fallacy toolbox. Oh well
    The thing is that you defined a code in your own terms, when we apply your definition to DNA, turns out it’s a natural code. The fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant. I was playing under your rules (your definition) and you lost. Deal with it 😎

  37. colewd,

    Yet DNA translation is a chemical process… it happens even if nobody’s “looking”

    generate code (DNA transcription/alternative splicing) transmit code (RNA move to ribosome) receive code (RNA engages ribosome) code translated (ribosome creates protein from RNA code)

    And we don’t have to look and it all happens in you body millions of times per second.

  39. Frankie: The sequence of DNA is not determined by chemical law.

    The sequence is determined by recombination and/or mutation. All natural processes.

    Frankie: Which mRNA codon represents what amino acid is not determined by chemistry.

    Irrelevant. That wasn’t Bill’s definition.

  40. colewd:
    dazz,

    Claude Shannon defined this all for us.

    So what?
    If a tree ring is just a tree ring until someone translates it to it’s encoded information, at which point it becomes a “code”, then DNA is just a bunch of molecules until it’s translated to proteins.

    Ironically, your definition (or Shannon’s), when applied to tree rings and DNA, implies that tree rings are codes that require intelligence while DNA doesn’t

  41. Look, dazz, the entire argument is that the genetic code is not reducible to chemical processes. Scientists have been trying to find the connection for over 50 years and have failed.

    That said there isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce DNA.

    And finally, tree rings do not fit the definition of a code. They don’t pass the litmus test

  42. Frankie: Look, dazz, the entire argument is that the genetic code is not reducible to chemical processes

    Go shove your negative arguments up where the sun don’t shine.

  43. Frankie: Look, dazz, the entire argument is that the genetic code is not reducible to chemical processes.

    That would entail any schema would work.

  44. dazz, You don’t have any positive arguments.

    dazz thinks saying nature can’t produce Stonehenge is a negative argument

  46. LoL! Richie late to the party and missed the references.

    1- The sequence of DNA is arbitrary, ie not determined by chemical law. Any sequence is possible.

    2- The mRNA codon to amino acid is also arbitrary as it is not determined by chemical law

    Code Biology:

    The genetic code
    In protein synthesis, a sequence of nucleotides is translated into a sequence of amino acids, and the bridge between them is realized by a third type of molecules, called transfer-RNAs, that act as adaptors and perform two distinct operations: at one site they recognize groups of three nucleotides, called codons, and at another site they receive amino acids from enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases. The key point is that there is no deterministic link between codons and amino acids since it has been shown that any codon can be associated with any amino acid (Schimmel 1987; Schimmel et al. 1993). Hou and Schimmel (1988), for example, introduced two extra nucleotides in a tRNA and found that that the resulting tRNA was carrying a different amino acid. This proved that the number of possible connections between codons and amino acids is potentially unlimited, and only the selection of a small set of adaptors can ensure a specific mapping. This is the genetic code: a fixed set of rules between nucleic acids and amino acids that are implemented by adaptors. In protein synthesis, in conclusion, we find all the three essential components of a code: (1) two independents worlds of molecules (nucleotides and amino acids), (2) a set of adaptors that create a mapping between them, and (3) the proof that the mapping is arbitrary because its rules can be changed.

  48. LoL! @ Richie, again:

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].

    “not” that most positive of words, indeed. Whereas science mandates all design inferences first eliminate blind and mindless processes first. How many times does that have to be explained to you, Richie?

  50. Richardthughes:
    Frankie,

    ‘Can’t’, the most positive of terms.

    Wait… “Can not”… “cannot,” “can’t”… look at all that Kolmogorov complexity! oh noez!!!!, just as ID predicted the information is right there in their negative arguments!

    God please forgive me for I’ve sinned!

Leave a Reply