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. 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

    LOL

  3. Frankie,

    From that theory that doesn’t exist? It postulated deep time. He put an outrageous entailment out there.. and won.

  4. Frankie: 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?

    The obvious point that you’re missing here is that if something isn’t formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” then it has to be formed “as is” or by abrupt large modifications.

    Those are positive claims: find an invertebrate giving birth to a vertebrate (as Torley beliefs vertebrates originated) or how that’s even possible, and evolution is falsified

  6. Richie:

    From that theory that doesn’t exist?

    It isn’t a scientific theory and barely qualifies, if it even does, as a general theory

    It postulated deep time

    That “theory” is supposed to be a biological theory. That is not a biological claim. By your logic it fails as a biological theory. Nice own goal

  7. Frankie:
    Yes! Over 800 off-topic comments and still counting!

    Now that you understand why negative arguments are not worth anyone’s time, you have the answer to that

    “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/

  8. So I’ll happily address “unguided” evolution to the best of my knowledge when you address unfarted electromagnetism.

  9. dazz:

    The obvious point that you’re missing here is that if something isn’t formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” then it has to be formed “as is” or by abrupt large modifications.

    Except I didn’t miss that.

    Those are positive claims: find an invertebrate giving birth to a vertebrate (as Torley beliefs vertebrates originated) or how that’s even possible, and evolution is falsified

    Stop equivocating, especially in this thread, duh. What you don’t have is a positive case for the existence of invertebrates and vertebrates. That is because evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is untestable claptrap.

  10. dazz, negative arguments are the basis for all design inferences. So clearly you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

    And the point of evolution #6 is there isn’t any positive evidence to support it. It can’t be tested. It can’t be modeled. And it isn’t used for anything but indoctrinating kids.

  11. Frankie: What you don’t have is a positive case for the existence of invertebrates and vertebrates

    The positive claim is that they evolved from a common ancestor, by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

    So yes, you missed that obvious conclusion. Unsurprisingly, of course

  13. Frankie: dazz, negative arguments are the basis for all design inferences

    No, those are called arguments from ignorance, are fallacious claptrap and you just conceded defeat right there.

    You’ve been arguing for eons that ID makes positive claims. Now you claim the opposite.

    Game. Set. and match. It’s game over but thanks for playing

  15. Frankie:
    BTW genetic algorithms model guided evolution very nicely. So at least we have that

    That’s a positive claim you can’t back up. GA’s are trial and error algos that work on random variation. They model standard evolution by random variation and natural selection. I can point to the exact instructions/functions that implement that for a given GA. You can’t point to the guiding ones, so another failure on your part

  17. Frankie:
    BTW genetic algorithms model guided evolution very nicely. So at least we have that

    JoeFibs:

    “Yes I have programmed and used GAs to find solutions to encryption issues.”
    “Name ONE GA expert here- besides me (yes I have used and written them) ”
    “Look at it this way- Star Trek: Next generation- Lt Data was able to rewire his neuro networks due to the algorithms INSIDE OF HIM”
    “My IQ is only 150.”

  18. Frankie:
    dazz- yours can’t explain the existence of electromagnetism.

    Farts. Farts explain the existence of electromagnetism. You can’t show electromagnetism is unfarted. Farted electromagnetism doesn’t deal with who, when, or how it was farted into existence though, so don’t even ask. Just show how electromagnetism can be unfarted, Chubs

  20. dazz: The obvious point that you’re missing here is that if something isn’t formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” then it has to be formed “as is” or by abrupt large modifications.

    So? Symbiogenesis.

  21. Mung: Hi Richard,

    Where would we be without the NOT AND (negative AND)– NAND gate?

    The gates of… wait for it… WAIT FOR IT MUNG!

    The gates of hell!!!!

  23. The NAND gate is significant because any boolean function can be implemented by using a combination of NAND gates. This property is called functional completeness. It shares this property with the NOR gate.

    NAND and NOR. What do you think Richard? Perhaps negation is useful after all.

    I wonder if Avida uses NAND, NOR, or both.

  24. Mung: NAND and NOR. What do you think Richard? Perhaps negation is useful after all.

    I wonder if Avida uses NAND, NOR, or both.

    WTF?

  25. Frankie:
    Tree rings do not fit the definition of a code. They cannot pass the litmus test.

    Ahh, litmus paper. Originally derived by the observation that certain natural compounds change colour with different pH levels. Another code with no intelligent cause. Thanks for pointing this one out Joe. You are the gift that just keeps on giving. Something like herpes.

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

    Then try to get lysine from the codon CCU.

  30. dazz: That’s a positive claim you can’t back up. GA’s are trial and error algos that work on random variation. They model standard evolution by random variation and natural selection. I can point to the exact instructions/functions that implement that for a given GA. You can’t point to the guiding ones, so another failure on your part

    Lizzie has argued, convincingly to me, that GAs aren’t models of evolution but examples of evolution.

  31. Patrick: Lizzie has argued, convincingly to me, that GAs aren’t models of evolution but examples of evolution.

    Evolution by means of intelligent design. GAs are not examples of blind and mindless processes.

  32. dazz- GAs are active searches whereas evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is not. GAs are goal-oriented whereas evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is not. GAs are guided towards a solution whereas evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is not.

  33. Frankie: GAs are not examples of blind and mindless processes.

    Yes there are. If you’ve written them, as you claim, you can explain what line of code had the “mind” and what had the “sight”.

  34. dazz:

    No, those are called arguments from ignorance, are fallacious claptrap and you just conceded defeat right there.

    Your ignorance, maybe. But Stonehenge fits the bill as it is said that blind and mindless processes could not have produced it. The same goes for murder and arson. But then again I doubt that you know how to conduct an investigation

    You’ve been arguing for eons that ID makes positive claims. Now you claim the opposite.

    What an imbecilic thing to say. AGAIN- all design inferences must first eliminate blind and mindless processes- science 101. Once that is done then you look for the positive evidence which I discussed in the post on how to test ID

  35. OMagain, your posts prove that you don’t know jack about GAs and you have issues with your selection reading.

    GAs are active searches whereas blind and mindless processes are not. GAs are goal-oriented whereas blind and mindless processes are not. There isn’t anything about GAs that support blind and mindless evolution.

  36. BTW genetic algorithms model guided evolution very nicely. So at least we have that

    Richie chokes

  37. dazz:

    The positive claim is that they evolved from a common ancestor, by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

    That’s a bald assertion and you didn’t provide a mechanism. That can’t be a positive argument if no one can test it.

  38. negative evidence:

    Negative evidence

    See the main article on this topic: Negative evidence
    A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, as the hatnote up top says, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”.

    It is very telling that dazz didn’t understand that

  39. Frankie: There isn’t anything about GAs that support blind and mindless evolution.

    In biology, what is being searched for? Who set that target? Who or what has the “mind” in biology?

  40. Frankie: That can’t be a positive argument if no one can test it.

    Souns a lot like your arguments for Intelligent Design -untestable.

  41. LoL! @ OMagain- so you can’t even bring yourself to admit that you were wrong about GAs. Pathetic.

    And it is strange that IDists have said exactly how to test ID’s claims.

    So you don’t seem to know anything.

  42. Frankie: LoL! @ OMagain- so you can’t even bring yourself to admit that you were wrong about GAs. Pathetic.

    I’m asking questions. Questions you can’t answer.

    Frankie: And it is strange that IDists have said exactly how to test ID’s claims.

    Well, go on then.

    Frankie: So you don’t seem to know anything.

    That’s why you are winning!

  43. “Thanks for pointing this one out Joe. You are the gift that just keeps on giving. Something like herpes.”

    Joe isn’t like herpes. Herpes can reproduce.

  44. OMagain:

    I’m asking questions.

    Why? You need to focus on your lame-ass position. And when you and yours start answering my questions I may get to yours, if they are relevant

  46. Frankie: 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

    Sorry, too many comments to go back

  47. colewd: Tree rings with humans counting and recording = code.

    Tree rings without humans counting and recording=tree rings.

    So indecipherable code is not a code?

  48. dazz: 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

    But God the designer is always looking! Checkmate evolutionists!

  49. Robin: But God the designer is always looking! Checkmate evolutionists!

    Robin, if you think DNA translation is a chemical process then you don’t know jack about DNA translation

  50. Frankie: Why?

    To highlight the fact that rather then answer questions based on your stated position you instead hurl abuse.

    Frankie: You need to focus on your lame-ass position.

    Seems to me it’s doing alright. It’s taught in all good universities for a start.

    Frankie: And when you and yours start answering my questions I may get to yours, if they are relevant

    What questions do you have then? It may not be possible however to spoon feed you some of the more esoteric concepts as they simply can’t be broken down into chunks small enough to fit in your mind simultaneously. But somehow I doubt we’ll have that problem.

    So, what are your questions? And out of interest, does your stated position have answers to those questions? If so, could you add them as you ask each question, for reference.

Leave a Reply