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. Tree rings are not a code, netwon. They don’t fit the definition and they don’t pass the test.

  2. Frankie:
    newton:

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

    To convey symbolically,

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

    What sort of process is it then, if not a chemical one?

    Does chemistry have nothing to do with it?

    How are you defining “chemistry” here?

    How’s retirement going? Is it all you thought it would be? Thinking of booking a flight to Switzerland yet? Happy with what you’ve made of your only life are you?

  4. Frankie: Tree rings are not a code, netwon. They don’t fit the definition and they don’t pass the test.

    List some codes that pass the test. Explain how they are different from tree rings.

    You know, grow some.

  5. om:

    To highlight the fact that rather then answer questions based on your stated position…

    And yet I have answered questions pertaining to ID. OTOH you have never answered any questions pertaining to evolutionism. And why is evolutionism being taught in universities? It cannot be tested and isn’t even used for anything.

  6. OM:

    List some codes that pass the test. Explain how they are different from tree rings.

    Already have. OTOH neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate tree rings are a code.

  7. Frankie: And yet I have answered questions pertaining to ID.

    We’re on a discussion board. You started an OP. I’m asking you questions on the topic you are currently taking about. Now you are saying that the reason you are not answering those questions is because at some point in the past you have answered questions pertaining to ID.

    You know how weak that sounds right?

    Frankie: OTOH you have never answered any questions pertaining to evolutionism.

    Ask an informed question, rather then one based on misrepresentations and you might get an answer. Try it!

    Frankie: And why is evolutionism being taught in universities?

    It’s what best matches the available data.

    Frankie: It cannot be tested and isn’t even used for anything.

    Says you. And as we’ve established you don’t have a very deep knowledge of the subject you are attempting to critique.

  8. Frankie: OTOH neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate tree rings are a code.

    Does it fail to pass the Explanatory Filter then? Can you give an example of how you determined that 😛

  9. Frankie: Already have. OTOH neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate tree rings are a code.

    This definition?

    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.

    How does morse code pass that test?

  10. OM:

    And as we’ve established you don’t have a very deep knowledge of the subject you are attempting to critique.

    Bullshit. I know more about it than you ever will

  13. newton: Are you saying the climate has no causative ability?

    Actually I think it’s quite telling Mung posted that. It suggests he can’t imagine there could be something other than intelligence behind a cause.

  14. Robin: Actually I think it’s quite telling Mung posted that. It suggests he can’t imagine there could be something other than intelligence behind a cause.

    Cuz you say so? That isn’t an argument.

    Climate is not a code and tree rings are not a code. They don’t fit any definition of code. Not even the scientists who study them call them a code.

  15. dazz:

    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/

    You are wrong about negative arguments and it is the evolutionary biologists making the claim of “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless” processes. Don’t blame me for your misunderstandings of evolutionism.

  16. Robin’s grand equivocation:

    So this isn’t a test:

    http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

    If not, why not?

    What’s it a test of, Robin? As far as I can tell it is only a test for the organism’s existence. It isn’t a test of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process

    And this:

    http://www.ecology.com/2010/06/07/evolution-of-whales/

    If not, why not?

    What’s it a test of, Robin? As far as I can tell it is only a test for the organism’s existence. It isn’t a test of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process. Heck you don’t even know if the transformations required are even possible via genetic changes.

    and this:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm

    If not, why not?

    Fruit flies evolving into fruit flies? What’s that a test of, baraminology?

    Robin’s grand equivocation is complete. And it tries to call me an uneducated troll. Pathetic

  17. Frankie:
    dazz:

    You are wrong about negative arguments and it is the evolutionary biologists making the claim of “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless” processes. Don’t blame me for your misunderstandings of evolutionism.

    Why is it that nearly all of Joe’s comments amount to: “I didn’t borrow the car and it already had a dent when I got it!”

    LOL!

  18. Robin: You are wrong about negative arguments and it is the evolutionary biologists making the claim of “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless” processes. Don’t blame me for your misunderstandings of evolutionism.

    Why is it that nearly all of Joe’s comments amount to: “I didn’t borrow the car and it already had a dent when I got it!”

    LOL!

    What a cowardly response, even for Robin. make your case, I dare you.

  20. Frankie:
    Robin’s grand equivocation:

    What’s it a test of, Robin?

    The accuracy of the hypotheses surrounding cetacean evolution, particularly:

    a) where likely transitions exist in whale ancestry
    b) when they likely existed
    c) where in world they’d likely be found

    As far as I can tell it is only a test for the organism’s existence. It isn’t a test of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process

    Why would tests of evolution be limited to natural selection, drift, or other blind and mindless process? Seems your statement above pretty much sums up why you aren’t a scientist or taken seriously as a science critic.

    What’s it a test of, Robin?

    The validity of hypothesis of the correlation between molecular change and fossil change.

    As far as I can tell it is only a test for the organism’s existence. It isn’t a test of natural selection, drift or any other blind and mindless process. Heck you don’t even know if the transformations required are even possible via genetic changes.

    Why would tests of evolution be limited to natural selection, drift, or other blind and mindless process? Seems your statement above pretty much sums up why you aren’t a scientist or taken seriously as a science critic.

    Fruit flies evolving into fruit flies? What’s that a test of, baraminology?

    Mutation spreading through a population via natural selection. You know…blind and mindless process testing.

    Robin’s grand equivocation is complete. And it tries to call me an uneducated troll. Pathetic

    Thank you for demonstrating both your (lack of) reading skills and comprehension and your lack of any real understanding of how science, nevermind evolution, works.

  22. Robin: The accuracy of the hypotheses surrounding cetacean evolution, particularly:
    a) where likely transitions exist in whale ancestry
    b) when they likely existed
    c) where in world they’d likely be found

    You need a mechanism to account for the changes. With the advent of the modern synthesis you have to unpack evolution at the genetic level. It isn’t enough to say “this looks like it could have been…”

    Why would tests of evolution be limited to natural selection, drift, or other blind and mindless process?

    Ask Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Larry Moran, Ernst Mary- read Darwin. Every modern incantation of evolutionism only posit those processes. Otherwise evolution by means of intelligent design would be allowed in classrooms. Teleology is not allowed.

    So tests of evolutionism are limited to natural selection, drift, or other blind and mindless processes because that is all it posits. I linked to Jerry Coyne- you are more than welcome to talk to him. I can’t force you to read about the subject. But starting with Darwin it has always been about natural selection, drift, or other blind and mindless processes.

    So I don’t understand your problem and I know that you can’t refute what I said.

    Mutation spreading through a population via natural selection.

    Question begging

  23. Robin: Shorter Joe:

    Except that child has the chance to grow up into an adult. Some adults stay children however.

  24. The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Initiative

    September 9, 2005

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    The claim has been made and so it needs to be tested. That claim started with Darwin.

    This is why you will never be taken seriously, Robin. Your claims are easily refuted

  26. Frankie: Climate is not a code and tree rings are not a code. They don’t fit any definition of code. Not even the scientists who study them call them a code.

    No Frankie , climate is not a code, it creates thru a known mechanism a record of data( your term) Tree rings are symbolic representation of of that data( the data is encoded ( conveyed symbolically) in the tree rings.

    You are correct about scientists ,they call tree rings a proxy for the climate. A representation. Then scientists aren’t trying to show non intelligence can form a code.

  27. Frankie: Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    “Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative This organization has 38 Nobel laureates, who wrote a letter calling upon the Kansas Board of Education to reject intelligent design. “Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.”

  28. Frankie: You need a mechanism to account for the changes. With the advent of the modern synthesis you have to unpack evolution at the genetic level. It isn’t enough to say “this looks like it could have been…”

    Lordy Joe…you really need to get a grasp on the difference between hypothesis and theory and how they are related and (and this is key to this whooooole discussion) what science actually works on in terms of testing.

    Ask Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Larry Moran, Ernst Mary- read Darwin. Every modern incantation of evolutionism only posit those processes. Otherwise evolution by means of intelligent design would be allowed in classrooms. Teleology is not allowed.

    See above Joe. If science doesn’t test the predictability of hypotheses within the overall theoretical framework, simply testing the validity of mechanism models doesn’t mean much.

    So tests of evolutionism are limited tonatural selection, drift, or other blind and mindless processes because that is all it posits.

    LOL! Once again, a really good illustration of why you are not a scientist or taken seriously as a science critic.

    I linked to Jerry Coyne- you are more than welcome to talk to him.

    Don’t have to; already have the degree thank you.

    I can’t force you to read about the subject. But starting with Darwin it has always been aboutnatural selection, drift, or other blind and mindless processes.

    Projection is your strong suit, Joe. But I would not brag about that…

    So I don’t understand your problem and I know that you can’t refute what I said.

    LOL! Actual science performed by actual professional scientists is all that is needed to refute your claims Joe. Like the actual research I linked to refutes your claims…

    Question begging

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s what the test demonstrates Joe!

    Oh my…your criticisms would have just a teensy bit more weight if you actually knew what the terms you try to use meant.

  29. OMagain: Except that child has the chance to grow up into an adult. Some adults stay children however.

    True, but you gotta admit…that girl’s face really does capture Joe’s apparent emotional state. 🙂

  30. Frankie: You need a mechanism to account for the changes. With the advent of the modern synthesis you have to unpack evolution at the genetic level. It isn’t enough to say “this looks like it could have been…”

    Until you produce an alternate mechanism , a flawed mechanism is more useful than none at all.

  32. Robin: Lordy Joe…you really need to get a grasp on the difference between hypothesis and theory and how they are related and (and this is key to this whooooole discussion) what science actually works on in terms of testing.

    LoL! Make your case or stuff it, already.

    If science doesn’t test the predictability of hypotheses within the overall theoretical framework, simply testing the validity of mechanism models doesn’t mean much.

    Evolutionism isn’t science. That’s the whole point.

    Once again, a really good illustration of why you are not a scientist or taken seriously as a science critic.

    Your opinion is meaningless, Robin.

    Your posts prove that you don’t have a clue nor do you want one. And you sure as hell can’t form a coherent argument.

  33. Robin: True, but you gotta admit…that girl’s face really does capture Joe’s apparent emotional state.

    Nice projection-

  34. So Robin is clueless as to the claims of evolutionism and apparently full of shit when it comes to discussing science. Oh and Robin chooses to be willfully ignorant of what the opponents to evolutionism claim.

    And I’m the cry-baby?

    BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Talk about an all-time desperation move

  35. Frankie: It isn’t enough to say “this looks like it could have been…”

    Wrong again Frankie. If Robin can imagine it, it must be so.

  36. Look at the Tiktaalik site:

    http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

    It discusses how they determined where to look. However if they had known about the tetrapod tracks in Poland dated to 395 million years ago, they wouldn’t have been looking in strata dated 375 million years ago for evidence of the transition. You don’t look for evidence for the transition some 20 million years after the transition occurred

  38. Mung: Wrong again Frankie. If Robin can imagine it, it must be so.

    Robin is the ultimate failure at arguing from authority and is the typical failure at making a case.

  39. Mung:
    Oh, and falling leaves is a code. You know, the climate’s changing.

    I thought they were currency (Hitchhiker’s Guide) 😎

  40. Robin: Actual science performed by actual professional scientists is all that is needed to refute your claims Joe. Like the actual research I linked to refutes your claims…

    What claims are those, Robin? Or are you all mouth as usual?

    There isn’t anything at any of those links that refutes anything I have claimed, so go ahead and try to make your case. Or retract your spewage

  41. newton: Tree rings are symbolic representation of of that data( the data is encoded ( conveyed symbolically) in the tree rings.

    Is there a finite number of symbols in this tree ring circus alphabet of yours?

  42. newton: “Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative This organization has 38 Nobel laureates, who wrote a letter calling upon the Kansas Board of Education to reject intelligent design. “Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.”

    That’s gonna leave a mark! 😉

    It shows that you always, always have to check the context of any creationist quote.

  43. newton: In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory …

    I can imagine it therefore it must be so doesn’t sound much like a scientific theory either.

  44. newton:

    Tree rings are symbolic representation of of that data( the data is encoded ( conveyed symbolically) in the tree rings.

    Then you must be a symbolic representation of a village idiot.

  45. Patrick: That’s gonna leave a mark!

    It shows that you always, always have to check the context of any creationist quote.

    LoL! How did that change the context? Do tel. And how are PRATTs going to leave a mark? ID makes testable claims and doesn’t require supernatural intervention. And they never said what the evidence is that supports “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection”. So theirs was almost a total wipe-out except the admitted the nature of the proposed mechanisms

  46. Frankie: LoL! Make your case or stuff it, already.

    Translation: “I don’t know or care about how science works. I just want to whine.” That seems to be your MO there Joe. ‘Fraid that science isn’t going to play on your terms Joe. Your opinions are not scientifically valid.

    Evolutionism isn’t science. That’s the whole point.

    Well, your complaining and whining here are not demonstrating that.

    Your opinion is meaningless, Robin.

    Neither is your opinion Joe. I at least have the advantage of actually being a scientist Joe.

    Your posts prove that you don’t have a clue nor do you want one. And you sure as hell can’t form a coherent argument.

    Thankfully actual scientists disagree…

  47. Mung: Wrong again Frankie. If Robin can imagine it, it must be so.

    …as opposed to the supposed “Intelligent Design”…

    You’re funny Mung!

  48. Frankie:
    Look at the Tiktaalik site:

    http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

    It discusses how they determined where to look. However if they had known about the tetrapod tracks in Poland dated to 395 million years ago, they wouldn’t have been looking in strata dated 375 million years ago for evidence of the transition. You don’t look for evidence for the transition some 20 million years after the transition occurred

    Joe, I don’t think you could have made a more silly comment. Shubin did know about the tracks in Poland, but he was looking for…wait for it…a distinct and different tetrapod! Did you bother to read the article?

    Seriously Joe…I’m just going to let you post on evolution’s behalf; no one could intentionally make ID look any less valid.

  49. Robin: Shubin did know about the tracks in Poland,

    Reference please

    but he was looking for…wait for it…a distinct and different tetrapod!

    Umm, Tiktaalik isn’t a tetrapod. In his book Shubin said he was looking for evidence of the transition. See Robin, unlike you I actually take the time to read what my opponents have to say.

    “In a nutshell, the ‘fish–tetrapod transition’ usually refers to the origin, from their fishy ancestors, of creatures with four legs bearing digits (fingers and toes), and with joints that permit the animals to walk on land. This event took place between about 385 and 360 million years ago toward the end of the period of time known as the Devonian. The Devonian is often referred to as the ‘Age of Fishes,’ as fish form the bulk of the vertebrate fossil record for this time.”- Jennifer Clack, The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations; “Evolution: Education and Outreach”, 2009, Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 213-223

    Let’s return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the “Everythings” and the “Everythings with limbs”. Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clark at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins. conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.- Neil Shubin Your Inner Fish pages 9-10

  50. Frankie: What claims are those, Robin? Or are you all mouth as usual?

    Joe, if you don’t know your own claims, I’m not the one who’s “all mouth”. LOL!

    There isn’t anything at any of those links that refutes anything I have claimed, so go ahead and try to make your case. Or retract your spewage

    …except for the tests I pointed out. D’oh!

    And what do they all support? That blind, mindless process concepts within evolution are valid and do indeed lead to the diversity of life on this planet.

    I know Joe…you don’t like how actual science actually operates. Taking pot-shots at evolution isn’t going to change that aspect of science however.

Leave a Reply