As an ID proponent and creationist, the irony is that at the time in my life where I have the greatest level of faith in ID and creation, it is also the time in my life at some level I wish it were not true. I have concluded if the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer then he also makes the world a miserable place by design, that He has cursed this world because of Adam’s sin. See Malicious Intelligent Design.
Jesus prophesied of the intelligently designed outcome of humanity: “wars and rumors of wars..famines…pestilence…earthquakes.” If there is nuclear and biological weapons proliferation, overpopulation, destruction of natural resources in the next 500 years or less, things could get ugly. If such awful things are Intelligently Designed for the trajectory of planet Earth, on some level, I think it would almost be merciful if the atheists are right….
The reason I feel so much kinship with the atheists and agnostics at TSZ and elsewhere is that I share and value the skeptical mindset. Gullibility is not a virtue, skepticism is. A personal friend of Richard Dawkins was my professor and mentor who lifted me out of despair when I was about to flunk out of school. Another professor, James Trefil, who has spent some time fighting ID has been a mentor and friend. All to say, atheists and people of little religious affiliation (like Trefil) have been kind and highly positive influences on my life, and I thank God for them! Thus, though I disagree with atheists and agnostics, I find the wholesale demonization of their character highly repugnant — it’s like trash talking of my mentors, friends and family.
I have often found more wonder and solace in my science classes than I have on many Sunday mornings being screamed at by not-so-nice preachers. So despite my many disagreements with the regulars here, because I’ve enjoyed the academic climate in the sciences, I feel somewhat at home at TSZ….
Now, on to the main point of this essay! Like IDist Mike Gene, I find the atheist/agnostic viewpoint reasonable for the simple reason that most people don’t see miracles or God appearing in their every day lives if not their entire lives. It is as simple as that.
Naturalism would seem to me, given most everyone’s personal sample of events in the universe, to be a most reasonable position. The line of reasoning would be, “I don’t see miracles, I don’t see God, by way of extrapolation, I don’t think miracles and God exists. People who claim God exists must be mistaken or deluded or something else.”
The logic of such a viewpoint seems almost unassailable, and I nearly left the Christian faith 15 years ago when such simple logic was not really dealt with by my pastors and fellow parishioners. I had to re-examine such issues on my own, and the one way I found to frame the ID/Creation/Evolution issue is by arguing for the reasonableness of Black Swan events.
I will use the notion of Black Swans very loosely. The notion is stated here, and is identified with a financeer and academic by the name of Nasim Taleb. I have Taleb’s books on investing entitled Dynamic Hedging which is considered a classic monograph in mathematical finance. His math is almost impenetrable! He is something of a Super Quant. Any way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:
1.The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.
2.The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
3.The psychological biases that blind people, both individually and collectively, to uncertainty and to a rare event’s massive role in historical affairs.Unlike the earlier and broader “black swan problem” in philosophy (i.e. the problem of induction), Taleb’s “black swan theory” refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.[1] More technically, in the scientific monograph Silent Risk , Taleb mathematically defines the black swan problem as “stemming from the use of degenerate metaprobability”.[2]
….
The phrase “black swan” derives from a Latin expression; its oldest known occurrence is the poet Juvenal’s characterization of something being “rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno” (“a rare bird in the lands and very much like a black swan”; 6.165).[3] When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproved. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the logic of any system of thought, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.Juvenal’s phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility. The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.[4] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent. After Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans in Western Australia in 1697,[5] the term metamorphosed to connote that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century John Stuart Mill used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.[6]
The very first question I looked at when I was having bouts of agnosticism was the question of origin of life. Now looking back, the real question being asked is “was OOL a long sequence of typical events or a black swan sequence of events.” Beyond OOL, one could go on to the question of biological evolution. If we assume Common Descent or Universal Common Ancestry (UCA), would evolution, as a matter of principle, proceed by typical or black swan events or a mix of such events (the stock market follows patterns of typical events punctuated by black swan events).
If natural selection is the mechanism of much of evolution, does the evolution of the major forms (like prokaryote vs. eukaryote, unicellular vs. multicellular, etc.) proceed by typical or black swan events?
[As a side note, when there is a Black Swan stock market crash, it isn’t a POOF, but a sequence of small steps adding up to an atypical set of events. Black Swan doesn’t necessarily imply POOF, but it can still be viewed as a highly exceptional phenomenon.]
Without getting into the naturalism vs. supernaturalism debate, one could at least make statements whether OOL, eukaryotic evolution (eukaryogenesis), multicellular evolution, evolution of Taxonomically Restricted Features (TRFs), Taxonomically Restricted Genes (TRGs), proceeded via many many typical events happening in sequence or a few (if not one) Black Swan event.
I personally believe, outside of the naturalism supernaturalism debate, that as a matter of principle, OOL, eukaryogenesis, emergence of multicellularity (especially animal multicellularity), must have transpired via Black Swan events. Why? The proverbial Chicken and Egg paradox which has been reframed in various incarnations and supplemented with notions such as Irreducible Complexity or Integrated Complexity or whatever. Behe is not alone in his notions of this sort of complexity, Andreas Wagner and Joe Thornton use similar language even though they thing such complexity is bridgeable by typical rather than Black Swan events.
When I do a sequence lookup at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center of Biotechnology Information (NCBI), it is very easy to see the hierarchical patterns that would, at first glance, confirm UCA! For example look at this diagram of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMP) to see the hierarchical patterns:
From such studies, one could even construct Molecular Clock Hypotheses and state hypothesized rates of molecular evolution.
The problem however is that even if some organisms share so many genes, and even if these genes can be hierarchically laid out, there are genes that are restricted only to certain groups. We might refer to them as Taxonomically Restricted Genes (TRG). I much prefer the term TRG over “orphan gene” especially since some orphan genes seem to emerge without the necessity of Black Swan events and orphan genes are not well defined and orphan genes are only a subset of TRGs. I also coin the notion of Taxonomically Restricted Feature (TRF) since I believe many heritable features of biology are not solely genetic but have heritable cytoplasmic bases (like Post Translation modifications of proteins).
TRGs and TRFs sort of just poof onto the biological scene. How would we calibrate the molecular clock for such features? It goes “from zero to sixty” in a poof.
Finally, on the question of directly observed evolution, it seems to me, that evolution in the present is mostly of the reductive and exterminating variety. Rather than Dawkins Blind Watchmaker, I see a Blind Watch Destroyer. Rather than natural selection acting in cumulative modes, I natural selection acting in reductive and exterminating modes in the present day, in the lab and field.
For those reasons, even outside the naturalism vs. supernaturalism debate, I would think a reasonable inference is that many of the most important features of biology did not emerge via large collections of small typical events but rather via some Black Swan process in the past, not by any mechanisms we see in the present. It is not an argument from incredulity so much as a proof by contradiction.
If one accepts the reasonableness of Black Swan events as the cause of the major features of biology, it becomes possible to accept that these were miracles, and if Miracles there must be a Miracle Maker (aka God). But questions of God are outside science. However, I think the inference to Black Swan events for biology may well be science.
In sum, I think atheism is a reasonable position. I also think the viewpoint that biological emergence via Black Swan events is also a highly reasonable hypothesis even though we don’t see such Black Swans in every day life. The absence of such Black Swans is not necessarily evidence against Black Swans, especially if the Black Swan will bring coherence to the trajectory of biological evolution in the present day. That is to say, it seems to me things are evolving toward simplicity and death in the present day, ergo some other mechanism than what we see with our very own eyes was the cause of OOL and bridging of major gaps in the taxonomic groupings.
Of course such a Black Swan interpretation of biology may have theological implications, but formally speaking, I think inferring Black Swan hypotheses for biology is fair game in the realm of science to the extent it brings coherence to real-time observations in the present day.
What does the current situation have to do with your argument? Growth in the numbers of species is a characteristic of periods following mass extinction. Not a characteristic of periods when mass extinction is occurring.
You continue to avoid the question of why invasive species do not undergo genetic deterioration. Would it help to provide a list?
Africanized Honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellata)
Asian Citrus Psyllid (Diaphorina citri)
Asian Long-Horned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis)
Asian Tiger Mosquito (Aedes albopictus)
Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (Halyomorpha halys)
Cactus Moth (Cactoblastis cactorum)
Chilli Thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis)
Citrus Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora chinensis)
Common Pine Shoot Beetle (Tomicus piniperda)
Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis)
European Grapevine Moth (Lobesia botrana)
European Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar)
European Spruce Bark Beetle (Ips typographus)
Formosan Subterranean Termite (Coptotermes formosanus)
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter (Homalodisca vitripennis)
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae)
Khapra Beetle (Trogoderma granarium)
Kudzu Bug (Megacopta cribraria)
Light Brown Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana)
Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Ceratitis capitata)
Mexican Fruit Fly (Anastrepha ludens)
Oriental Fruit Fly (Bactrocera dorsalis)
Pink Bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella)
Pink Hibiscus Mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus)
Red Imported Fire Ant (Solenopsis invicta)
Russian Wheat Aphid (Diuraphis noxia)
Silverleaf Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci)
Sirex Woodwasp (Sirex noctilio)
Burmese Python (Python molurus bivittatus)
Brown Tree Snake (Boiga irregularis)
European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
Wild Boar (Sus scrofa)
Aquatic Invasive Plants
Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides)
Brazilian Waterweed (Egeria densa)
Caulerpa, Mediterranean Clone (Caulerpa taxifolia)
Common Reed (Phragmites australis)
Curly Pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)
Didymo (Didymosphenia geminata)
Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
Giant Reed (Arundo donax)
Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta)
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)
Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia)
Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Water Chestnut (Trapa natans)
Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
Water Lettuce (Pistia stratiotes)
Water Spinach (Ipomoea aquatica)
Aquatic Invasive Animals
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
Asian Carps
Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)
Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)
Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)
Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea)
Asian Shore Crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus)
Asian Swamp Eel (Monopterus albus)
Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
Channeled Apple Snail (Pomacea canaliculata)
Cane Toad (Rhinella marina)
Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis)
Clubbed Tunicate (Styela clava)
Eurasian Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus)
European Green Crab (Carcinus maenas)
Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis olivaris)
Lionfish (Pterois volitans)
New Zealand Mud Snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)
Northern Snakehead (Channa argus)
Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
Quagga Mussel (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis)
Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus)
Rusty Crayfish (Orconectes rusticus)
Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)
Sea Squirt (Didemnum vexillum)
Spiny Water Flea (Bythotrephes longimanus)
Veined Rapa Whelk (Rapana venosa)
White Spotted Jellyfish (Phyllorhiza punctata)
Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)
Air Potato (Dioscorea bulbifera)
Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata)
Beach Vitex (Vitex rotundifolia)
Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius)
Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense)
Chinese Tallow (Triadica sebifera)
Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica)
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
Common Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum)
Dalmatian Toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)
Diffuse Knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)
Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum)
Fig Buttercup (Ficaria verna)
Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata)
Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum)
Golden Bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea)
Hairy Whitetop (Lepidium appelianum)
Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale)
Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii)
Japanese Climbing Fern (Lygodium japonicum)
Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica)
Japanese Spiraea (Spiraea japonica)
Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium vimineum)
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)
Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata)
Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula)
Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)
Mile-A-Minute Weed (Persicaria perfoliata)
Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora)
Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans)
Old World Climbing Fern (Lygodium microphyllum)
Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus)
Princess Tree (Paulownia tomentosa)
Purple Star Thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa)
Quackgrass (Elymus repens)
Russian Knapweed (Rhaponticum repens)
Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)
Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)
St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum)
Sacred Bamboo (Nandina domestica)
Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius)
Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium)
Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)
Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum)
Whitetop (Lepidium draba)
Witchweed (Striga asiatica)
Yellow Star Thistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
Yellow Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)
Pick one and demonstrate genetic deterioration.
1 is certainly open to debate given the time-frame, but based on my casual investigation there’s a good indication that net species are currently declining overall at a staggering rate. That said, by pretty much all indications, it’s due to man’s behavior. So I don’t see it supporting your overall point.
2 and 3, however, are debatable at best. So far, you’ve not actually provided any really compelling evidence to support such assertions. I mean…as others have noted…you’ve cherry picked some statements that appear to give some indication that such may be true, but digging deeper shows those statements don’t actually indicate such at all. And nearly everyone here has provided some notable contradictions/issues with such assertions. So what are you left with, Sal?
For me, I don’t see how you can cling to the notion of reductive evolution when all models show otherwise and I can’t imagine the notion of “genetic erosion” when there’s nothing to indicate such a concept at all.
For the sake of argument, let’s say Petrushka’s right and net species are either remaining constant or increasing. In what kind of time-frame would you expect data to support Petrushka’s position? Do you honestly think that 5000 years is sufficient for such evidence? Why or why not?
I’ve noted your cherry-picking for your concept of “reductive evolution”. That’s just plainly nonsense given a further reading of your very own sources (hence the note of cherry-picking). I’d suggest you were cherry-picking with regard to “net genetic erosion”, but that’s a plainly silly concept to me on the face of it.
As for 1, I think the jury is still out at this date, but there is from my perspective some compelling reasons to accept it as an hypothesis.
See above. I’m not pretending.
Oh the irony of the Asian Tiger Mosquito. Most populated areas in the US, particular those in more arid areas, could quite easily manage that pest if only they’d get rid of their English ivy…
Both can have survival advantages depending on the situation. Believing what you are told can work if the information comes from someone interested in your survival like your mother. Being skeptical can save you from being tricked and eaten.
There’s no question we need to be concerned about the loss of biodiversity that’s happening now, with climate change and human activity major contributors. Is there a net loss currently? Seems that question is not so easily answered.
What’s the problem? Parasites find themselves in a niche that rewards simplification?
Well, it’s a problem for monoculture and a disaster for banana growers.
Seems I’m in that group 🙂
Like divorced folks seeking new partners, we all come with a history.
What bothers me is that you seem to have built your faith on a false reality. This really baffles me.
Yes, I too get the impression you cherry pick to support your beliefs. This is the problem when you link faith to verifiable facts about te real world. I don’t understand the need for this – and of cours you are not unique here.
We’re all posting in good faith here!
I’m curious. Ivy is everywhere in the UK but mosquitoes not so much – let alone tiger mosquitoes. A quick glance at Wikipedia didn’t help. What’s the connection?
My time frame is 500 million years. I made that clear. Sal asked for within recorded history, and we have a fossil record covering 500 million years.
We are in a downstroke for speciation in cute furry animals. Maybe for trees; don’t know. All due to human activity. None due to genetic deterioration.
Sal has provided zero evidence that established species in a stable environment fail to over-reproduce and pay whatever cost is required to maintain their genomes.
He ignores overwhelming evidence that when niches open up, species creation occurs.
In the UK, ivy has natural predators and soil conditions that cause its cellular structure to break down; in the U.S. there’s very little that does any kind of cellular damage to the plant. Consequently in the U.S., English Ivy holds moisture on its leaves and under its leaves for a significantly longer period – long enough for Asian mosquitoes to breed. It’s one of the number one vectors for increasing populations of the little buggers. Interestingly, our native mosquitoes are not as able to take advantage of ivy as a breeding site because in general they need more water, but since most folks have some sort of ornament or waste structure or…whatever…in their yards that retain some water, our native mosquitoes don’t have much of a problem either.
Alan,
Thank you for reading and responding. I’ve certainly appreciated the conversation here for the constructive criticism, correction, and skepticism.
It has furthered my understanding of the issues, and it has been very much worth my while personally to participate.
I’ve tried to articulate what I do consider reality (apart from my faith beliefs) in this discussion. They are for the present day (and the 5000 years of recorded history):
1. net species decreasing
2. reductive evolution
3. net genetic erosion
You may not see how they tie to my personal creationist beliefs, and I accept that. I cannot make they connection for you since fundamentally it is my own belief not yours.
What can be discussed is 3 items. I felt they were relevant to the viewpoint of Dawkins cumulative selection. Some here don’t accept the relevance, and I respect that, even though I think the 3 issue are relevant to cumulative selection.
What you may be referring to is the what happened in the past that is beyond our direct observation. What you call “reality” for 1 million years BC and beyond, I view as an educated guess. I’ve stated why I think present day observations give me a different educated guess than yours.
I stated in the OP, and even provided a diagram, why common descent is superficially believable. I also provided why I think that is a hasty conclusion in light of TRFs and TRGs.
I stated why I think atheism is a reasonable belief (the reasonableness of atheism), but also why I think the evolutionary claims are more conflicted than coherent. That is to say, I think one can be and atheist and agnostic and acknowledge serious difficulties in the coherency of evolutionary narratives.
Having studied a little physics, I don’t find such incoherencies in well-accepted physical laws within their accepted domain (like Newton’s laws for non-relativistic velocities). I do find many incoherencies and incongruities and conflicts in evolutionary theory.
So I’m baffled that you are baffled.
I just found out I scored 100% on the Evolution Pop Quiz! Whoohoo!
http://www.sciencealert.com/take-the-evolution-quiz-given-to-first-year-biology-students
Sal, you can only find “incoherencies and incongruities and conflicts in evolutionary theory” if you START from the position that evolution simply did not and does not happen. Since this starting position is taken for granted, you cast about for just anything at all, however inconsistent or demonstrably false, that you convince yourself somehow supports your a priori doctrine.
And sure enough, your fabricated objections ARE incoherent, incongruent, and inconsistent. When clearly stated, they are flat refuted by all observation. These imaginary “difficulties” don’t exist in the world of biology, they are purely an artifact of your inability or unwillingness to accept what biology IS.
After a while, this schtick gets old, y’know?
But did you have to lie?
Hi Sal
“Sal, you can only find “incoherencies and incongruities and conflicts in evolutionary theory” if you START from the position that evolution simply did not and does not happen. Since this starting position is taken for granted, you cast about for just anything at all, however inconsistent or demonstrably false, that you convince yourself somehow supports your a priori doctrine.”
Is your position evolution did not happen or the stated cause “the blind watchmaker” or “the blind watchmaker plus neutral mutations and drift” is unlikely the cause or mechanism that drove it?
Hi Sal
1. net species decreasing
2. reductive evolution
3. net genetic erosion
Although I agree with you on 1 given your time frame of 5000 years. If the time frame is 500 million years then I agree with petrushka. I am skeptical of your conclusion on 2 and 3. The main reason is the cells engineering capability to repair its DNA and cause apoptosis if repair is not possible. When this fails then cancer can form and selection can be quick. I realize that the repair mechanism is not perfect but it is not clear that the generational mutations are not repaired eventually. The Nobel prize for chemistry this year was for describing DNA repair.
Hi colewd,
Are you familiar with blockquote tags? They can make your comments much easier to read when you’re quoting someone.
Just in case you haven’t seen them before, here’s how to use them.
If you put “<blockquote>” in front of the quote and “</blockquote>” after it, like so…
<blockquote>Four score and seven years ago…</blockquote>
…it will appear like this after you click ‘Post Comment’:
Rather weird if we assume the YEC position for argument that we get off the Ark with however many species it contained, then get to the modern diversity of 1-10 million species in a regime where net species numbers are on the decrease … and we have population sizes of originally 2 that did not result in genetic decay.
… yeah, I know, God. In which case, why even bother with naturalistic explanations? Any that become too troublesome, just say ‘God’.
Consistency free zone.
But Sal is not talking science. He’s talking Christian apologetics.
Actually you can see the Biblical record implicitly suggests it. Prior to the Ark, the men lived close to 900 years, afterward their life spans went quickly down to 80. That would appear to me to be genetic deterioration. And we have the immortalized cell lines that at least show in principle we could have been immortal provided God gave a little help along the way.
Some other points. The time of the Noah was around 4500 years ago. Note the number of civilizations that emerged around that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization#Timeline
The main focus of creationism is of course the creation of life. Next is the Noah’s flood, and to a much lesser extent the Tower of Babel. The Tower of Babel account makes the claim that language arose before 2100 BC and rather suddenly and forced a dispersal of people from a single geographic region.
I found that this date of 2100 BC isn’t too far from the supposed dates of the beginning of several civilizations, and when I try to trace the origin dates of various ancient languages, lo and behold, they converge on dates that are relatively recent (relative to supposed geological timescales).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts#Before_1000_BC
I find the coincidence quite compelling. Also see the listing of several independent languages and their earliest date of record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts#Before_1000_BC
What really struck me is that it seemed all the languages emerged around the same time and it almost looked like humanity conspired in very diverse geographic locations to start having new written languages at the same time.
Also the mtDNA dispersal patterns are more consistent with Out-of-Mesopotamia rather than Out-of-Africa. Again, consistent with the Biblical account.
PS Notice also, the expansion of human population is recorded at around 8,000 years ago. 🙂 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world#mediaviewer/File:World_population_growth_(lin-log_scale).png
We also have the Abraham modal haplotype which if it was the real Abraham, he was a mere 500 years after Noah. Given that Y-chromosomal Adam is indicated at 100,000 years, on the assumption of constant change, this could alternatively suggest that there was rapid change in the genome from around the time of the cradle of civilization (4500 years ago) to the emergence of Abraham, about 500 years later.
This strikes me as somehow missing the point. Sal isn’t talking about what goes on inside a given individual as it grows and ages. Evolutionary theory does not address the life of single individuals, nor does it address processes within individuals to protect their health and proper function.
What Sal is talking about is that, over the lifespan of a given species, deleterious mutations should pile up, gradually reducing the fitness of the species as a whole. As the species approaches extinction, it should be composed mostly of weak, sick, hobbled critters. Sal is not disturbed that this has never been observed, because he argues that “things were different in those days.”
None of this evolutionary stuff is directly related to the DNA repair mechanisms in cells, EXCEPT insofar as improved repair mechanisms might confer reproductive advantage, and be selected for.
Now, one objection to this rather harebrained idea is that many species have remained pretty much unchanged and vital for hundreds of millions of years. Sal answers this objection, as I understand him, by denying that any such period of time has passed and that all of the many many incontrovertible evidences of great age are wrong (or ignored)
A second objection is that, by observation, species simply do not die off due to general degeneration. Species do not suffer from “old age”. Instead, species die off through inability to track changing environments. Sal “answers” this objection by simply ignoring it every time it is raised.
A third objection is that selection is always in operation. There are both beneficial and deleterious mutations, and the former are conserved and passed on, while the latter are selected out, leading over time to improved fitness, the exact opposite of Sal’s fantasy. But Sal, like most creationists, simply cannot grasp the nature of selection.
Sal, the Bible is not a “record” in any possible sense. The Bible is mostly FICTION. Tales of 800 year old men and tales of Paul Bunyan fall into the same category of fable. Tales of an ark, same thing.
Seriously, Sal, the hand-me-down, over-embellished fables of ancient cultures are not evidence for anything except that people back then were much like people today, able to both invent and believe anything.
Ad hockey.
Can anyone identify a single sentence in Sal’s YEC tour de farce that isn’t 100% pure unadulterated bullshit?
My personal position is that evolution did not happen, that God specially created life not too long ago (say 6000 years ago). But so much of that belief is not directly confirmable by science, maybe only indirectly. I hinted at one of the lines of investigation that has yet to take place that may lend credence to this, namely the lack of INTRA-species genetic diversity on some genes. If this pattern of non-diversity within species is widespread, then it indicates all life may have emerged recently relative to geological time. Not exactly 6,000 years but enough to show the fossil record is totally misinterpreted.
I have reason to believe the fossil record is misinterpreted because the internal clocks of the fossils (C14, amino racemization states, DNA, erosion rates) indicate the fossils died relatively recently, not over millions of years. Most telling is the Carboniferous era (supposedly 300 million years ago) is full of C14 traces that indicate the coal fossils are not more than 100,000 years old.
I would say if evolution did happen according to mainstream time lines over a couple billion years since the origin of life, it was not mostly due to selection nor drift but rather very improbable mutations changes that are indistinguishable from statistical miracles. A few people at least conceded the Origin of Life could likely be a black swan event as well as the emergence of Eukaryotic forms.
I mention the present day a lot because that’s the one time we can actually do lab experiments.
Regarding the erosion of the human genome, I really don’t know anyone of any reputation who thinks the human genome is getting better over time, at least not now. So at least for humans, I think genetic erosion is quite real, and I can sense that feeling among a lot of people who study human health. People who breed livestock and plants also see it. That’s why I think so many have eugenicist leanings.
Regarding reductive evolution, we at least know things like tape worms and other parasites have lost functionality. Additionally we have blind animals and wingless animals.
I’ve argued that I personally empathize with the atheist and agnostic viewpoint, that I think it is very reasonable given every day experience, but I am a creationist because unless there were naturalistic black swans, the patterns of life to me look to be of miraculous origin. Whether the black swans ware miracles or not is probably a matter of faith, but I tried to point out there is evidence that suggest the black swan processes must have been real whether they were miracles of God or nature.
No. It’s really fun when the Queeg escapes and runs amok.
I should add that some claim Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) between archaea, eukarya and bacteria to resolve the similarities of aaRS genes that can’t be explained by common descent ( the phylogenies don’t resolve)!
The problem with that is that bacteria and archaea and eukarya are spread throughout the globe. Did HGT simultaneously happen world wide for no god reason? Reductio ad absurbdum.
Big time Freudian slip. 😀
Sal,
That about sums it up.
ETA: Ninja’d! Ya gotta be quick around here.
It is amazing, since the oceans aren’t connected.
There weren’t any oceans before The Fountains Of The Deep sprang open. You just need to put on your “rectally extract facts” Biblical glasses.
http://rsloan.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/03/2768580-the-odds-that-youll-breathe-a-single-molecule-of-air-that-once-traveled-through-the-lungs-of-jesus
Maybe there’s been some embellishment (or exaggeration). Maybe they didn’t have good calendars, and their measurement of time is suspect.
And you cannot tell that the “Tower of Babel” is a completely made up fable? Well, the Noah story and the Adam and Eve story are too, but it is so obvious for the Tower of Babel story that one wonders how you missed it.
Or, to put it honestly, every bit of that belief has been resoundingly, overwhelmingly refuted by science, including nearly every scientific discipline.
Just one more gentle reminder of why creationism is regarded as child abuse. Sal simply cannot help himself anymore. He’s intelligent, he’s informed, but he has NO CHOICE but to twist, cherry-pick, misinterpret, ignore, deny, fabricate, or whatever it takes to try to force reality to fit his fantasy. On my softer days, I am overcome with pity.
Here is where it’s worth quoting Dawkins, writing about Kurt Wise:
Quantum mechanics: If you’ve seen one electron, you’ve seen them all. Any electron is wholly described by a small number of parameters (i.e. position, momentum, charge, a couple others), and said parameters can be used to predict its behavior in any set of conditions, to something like 15 decimal places of accuracy.
Biology: If you’ve seen one critter, you’ve seen… that one critter. I am unsure of the number of parameters that would be necessary in order to come anywhere near wholly describing even the simplest critter. I do know that it is simply flat-out not bleeding possible to predict any living critter’s behavior to 15 decimal places of accuracy. No, not even 5 decimal places of accuracy.
colewd, I get the impression that you’re blundering around in the general vicinity of a point, but for whatever reason, you haven’t elected to express that point with any degree of clarity. So… what, exactly, is the point you’re driving at?
Thank you for the sentiments. I should point out, I was raised believing in evolution. Like a lot of Roman Catholic households, the topic of creation wasn’t at all that important — the sacraments, etc. were. I’m no longer and Roman Catholic.
I accepted evolution because that was the theory offered in the science books my parents got for the family and it is what I learned in high school biology.
But my mind changed with the origin of life problem which is outside of evolutionary theory.
As I said, I empathize with the atheist and agnostic position because we don’t see God’s miracles and activity in daily life. So I don’t fault people for not believing in miraculous special creation because of the simple fact they don’t see such miracles every day and maybe for all their lives. I was sincere in saying, I respect atheism and agnosticism for those reasons.
On the other hand, in light of the OOL problem, the eukaryogenesis problem, the difficulties evolving an insulin regulated metabolism (TRF) which include simultaneous evolution of insulin, beta cells, tyrosine kinase insulin receptors, etc. — I just find it hard to believe it all evolved naturally.
As I said also in the OP, it doesn’t bother me as much as it did 10 years ago if I’m wrong. That’s probably why I don’t mind the ridicule of my ideas that much, unless it’s rooted in what I view as a personal vendetta. But now that the TSZ staff has provided an ignore button, I just block out comments from parties who have vendettas against me. I listed the names of those I block in Noyau.
But for most of the TSZ regulars, I do regret we disagree. It’s nothing personal. I’m sure we could converse pleasantly on other topics.
So you rejected evolutionary theory on the basis of something that evolutionary theory does not speak to?
Sounds about right.
You should be more worried about your unwillingness to test or defend those ideas. Ignoring counter points just makes your argument look weak. They exist, even if you don’t address them.
stcordova,
Seriously? Not just something the writer made up, then?
Change in the life span of individual organisms would not indicate the genetic decay of the population (even if it weren’t just a story). Evolution is not proposed to generate organisms with progressively longer and longer (or, for that matter, shorter and shorter) lifespans depending on which alleles are currently segregating in the population. You are proposing evolution as a consistent shortener of lifespan? Like stocks, it can go up or down.
You still have a problem explaining the survival, diversification and polymorphism of these descended-from-2 populations, without just saying ‘God can do anything’.
“When our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones, their lower limb strength and overall mobility decreased.”
But correlation does not imply causation. Why lose good traits at all? Strength is certainly good for manual farming!
Another example of genetic deterioration:
Agriculture getting blamed for genetic deterioration? Ok, we can concoct an evolutionary story: natural selection selected for weaker and possibly dumber people in an agricultural setting. Or we can concoct this story: lack of selection allowed people to get weaker and dumber. How does one tell which narrative is the best and most accurate?
But it goes to show, whatever the story, there is evidence of human genetic deterioration. Certainly there are not major signs of on-going improvement. Survival of the fittest is between siblings and cousins, not ancestors and descendants. That’s why, if the descendants are on average more functionally compromised than the parents, “survival of the fittest between siblings and cousins” does not result in ongoing improvement as Darwin believed.
Using Graur’s analysis and the reasonable assumption that more than 2% of the genome is functional, then deterioration is inevitable. This articles are observational evidence in support of my thesis of genetic deterioration.
stcordova,
The phylogenies are still phylogenies. There are just two modes of gene inheritance: vertical and horizontal. Horizontal confounds the assumption of strictly vertical, precisely because the assumption of strictly vertical is incorrect where there is a significant drip of horizontal. Which is rather to be expected in the case of core functions shared by every descendant of LUCA.
Why have any differences in AARS at all? How many different ways does a Designer need to charge a particular tRNA, in a manner that does not accord precisely with vertical taxonomy, but still maps coarsely? Yeah, mysterious ways. That.
An absurd reduction. Why would it have to happen simultaneously? Seriously Sal, you are just evolution-blind. You are so sure it didn’t happen you are incapable of assuming it to consider what would be expected if it did.
Think what might be observed in modern gene trees if there were very occasional HGT events between distant branches of the tree in various places at times when the organisms lived close enough to do so, and they left descendants which spread – they went forth and multiplied.
stcordova,
We would probably lose a fight with a gorilla too. Imaginary contests between organisms and their ancestors or distant relatives are not a useful proxy for genetic decay. Some alleles would be better, some worse, if you tried them all out in the respective environments of the contestants.
and
An elaboration of these article is found here:
http://bmi205.stanford.edu/_media/crabtree-2.pdf
Genetic deterioration is indicated for humans. There is no study showing we are improving significantly. I’ve thus countered claims of me cherry picking data for human deterioration.
If anything, it seems opposite view (that is humans improving) doesn’t even have cherries to pick!
I know there is no equivalence here and this is tongue-in-cheek.
Suggesting Sal rejects an evolutionary strawman rather than taking the trouble to understand the broad scope of the actual theory and its mass of supporting evidence is a little reminiscent of theologians complaining when atheists reject “god” without taking the trouble to acquaint themselves with the actual dogma and its mass of supporting evidence.
Oh wait…
stcordova,
Now, that‘s cherry-picking! 😉 There are dozens of ways to date coal and the limestone it is typically sandwiched between. Yet the only dating method that actually works is C14, and then only in YEC-friendly ways? From a set of consilient points and one anomaly, you choose the latter as the valid data point and all the rest are anomalous!
Anyone publishing a C14 date older than 50,000 years is misinformed or dishonest.
Sal, your definition of human improvement is an artificial selection viewpoint.
Breeding for traits.
A biological definition would primarily be reproductive fitness and population growth.
I’m afraid you are totally missing the point.
How can all archaea and all eukarya share traits that bacteria don’t have and all bacteria and all archaea have traits that eukarya don’t have?
Scenario 1:
The 3 domains proceed from only 1 founding ancestor each where the HGT took place. So the ancestors were all in the same warm pond before spreading out globally? The 3 ancestors HGT each other simultaneously before even multiplying?
Scenario 2:
After eukarya diversified, then HGT gets to all the divers eukaryotic lines so that all eukaryotic lines have those same HGT features. Reductio ad absurbum.
There are probably some others not quite as absurd.
Yeah with “index fossils” that also have clocks that show the fossils young. But I point out:
Specialists in the field tacitly admit there is C14 in the geological record that can’t be attributed to laboratory procedure alone and that it is actually in the buried fossils.
Here is one peer-reviewed article that was among the first to make this admission. Notice the article assumes contamination, but argues it cannot be due to laboratory contamination:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1127
He then points out the contamination cannot be due to radioactive decay of other products:
Google on “radiocarbon barrier” and you’ll sense the embarrassing problem of finding C14-free fossils. 🙂
Lowe hints at capitulation:
The issue isn’t creationist deliberately or sloppily contaminating old fossils and then getting the fossils C14 dated. The evolutionists have known this for a long time. The creationists are merely rubbing the facts in the faces of evolutionists now.
Any carbon dating beyond 50,000 years is bogus.
I don’t think anyone is accusing creationists of sloppy handling, just sloppy thinking.
stcordova,
No, you are. You are actually being very vague about ‘features’. Some genes will move one way, others another, other lineages will lose a gene. It’s a scrambled pattern, if you are talking this deep in the phylogenetic past.
Scenario 3 – occasional gene losses and gene transfers, occurring both before and after the generation of eukaryotes from ancestral archaeon and alpha-proteobacterium.
Pick a gene, or genes, rather than just gesticulating towards some generality. You can’t think every single HGT is thought to have occurred at the same time, surely?