This offers the simplest “neutral” colloquial mixture of “design” and “evolution” that I’ve seen in a long time. The site is no longer maintained, but the language persists.
“As a designer it is important to understand where design came from, how it developed, and who shaped its evolution. The more exposure you have to past, current and future design trends, styles and designers, the larger your problem-solving toolkit. The larger your toolkit, the more effective of a designer you can be.” http://www.designishistory.com/this-site/
Here, the term “evolution” as used just meant “history”. The author was not indicating “design theory evolution”, but rather instead the “history of designs” themselves, which have been already instantiated.
The topic “design is history” nevertheless enables an obvious point of contact between “evolution” and “design”. They both have histories that can be studied. Present in the above meaning of “design” are the origin, processes and agent(s) involved in the “designing”. This differs significantly from the Discovery Institute’s version of “design theory”, when it comes to history, aim, structure and agency, since the DI’s version flat out avoids discussion of design processes and agent(s). The primary purpose of the DI’s “design theory”, meanwhile, is USAmerican religious apologetics and “theistic science”.
The quotation above likely didn’t come from an IDist, and it isn’t referencing “Intelligent Design” theory as a supposed “scientific theory”. The “designer” in the quotation above is a (more or less intelligent) human designer, not a Divine Designer. This fact distinguishes it “in principle” from the Discovery Institute’s ID theory, which is supposed to be (depends on who you’re speaking with in the IDM) about first biology, then informatics, and statistics. The DI’s ID theory is not actually focused on “designing by real designers”, but rather on apologetics using “design” and informational probabilism.
The Discovery Institute’s failure to distinguish or even highlight the differences and similarities between human design and Divine Design, and instead their engagement in active distortion, equivocation, double-talking, and obfuscation between them, are marks of its eventual downward trend to collapse.
Adapa,
I saw Jeanson being picked apart at Talkrational. Must be open season.
Adapa,
Destroyed? Cherry picked? Did you read his papers?
Alan Fox,
The guys at PS use of logical fallacies got me interested. Did you read the paper I cited?
Yep. Read all of Evograd’s multi-part beatdown of Jeanson’s ignorance and stupidity too. You of course kept your head shoved up the usual orifice with your usual “logical fallacy!” lame excuse. 😀
The funniest part of course was Jeanson was following the PS discussion and making snide remarks on his own blog but was too chickenshit to post at PS and try to defend his brutal scientific idiocy. Maybe he’s not as dumb as he seems.
Adapa,
Evograd beat down :-).
He beat him down to the age of extant animal life may be as old as 60 thousand years from 6 thousand based on the Mt clock possibly being slower due to the type of measurements in Ding et al being 10x off.
There is more troubling evidence (for evolutionary time scales) that was not reviewed in the book and does not have the potential issues Evo identified.
Are there really such “Darwinian extremists” or are you just making them up?
Donald Trump might qualify though I doubt he knows who Darwin is .
The emperor’s new new clothes bear an uncanny semblance to the old new ones.
The RATE nonsence has already been beaten down over and over. What makes you think this is any difference?
Also you say “possibly”. What work is going on right now to turn that into “probably” or better?
A particular clock is “possibly” slower, and therefore YEC is true?
So we can agree that the nucleus is the seat of a strong regenerative life principle. But cells can retain living activity even after the nucleus along with the genome is ejected.
In this article they have researched the living activity of enucleated cells (cytoplasts).
Also red blood cells are not just passive sacks being swept along through the circulatory system.
Red blood cells change their shape in order to pass freely through capillaries. And when transiting these narrow tubes they do so without touching the sides
All of these cells are living beings capable of self movement. This short video from the first link shows the activities of a nucleated cell and an enucleated cell side by side.
What gets passed on through the generations are complete living systems. Not just highly structured substances but more importantly highly active, living substances.
When we observe living substance over time what we are looking at are etheric forces.
As their niche narrowed and they, as it were, condensed into a less plastic form, this was not reversible. They had burnt their bridges so to speak. The same can be seen with birds in general. As their forelimbs distorted into forms capable of producing wings, they lost the plasticity of form that, as in the case of humans, allowed the forelimb to be able to be used manipulatively in a creative way.
Look at the creativity of New Calenonian crows. They make creative use of their beaks, not their forelimbs. Imagine how creative they could have been if they had retained digits that were as manipulative as those of humans.
And that is a problem of Darwinian evolution. It forces organisms into ever more restricted niches so that they remain as creatures and forego their potential to become creators in their own right.
Humans are not at the top of the Darwinian ‘tree’ because we could not have attained the level of individual creativity that we show if we had followed a path purely of reproductive success. If prokaryotes are the bulk of the tree then we are its fruits.
My gut flora and fauna are much more successful than I am in a Darwinian sense. But they are the basis on which my existence depends.
They’re trying to make the data fit into their fantasies because they’re convinced that their fantasies are real. So, no wonder they’d say “they are wrong, therefore any error difference that can move it in my direction proves it.” I’d expect that from them. The real issue is them thinking that their biased conclusion makes geology and evolution wrong in everybody’s eyes, not just theirs. They should remember that their bias belongs to them, not to the world. That we’re not trying to prove or disprove their fantasies, that scientists are doing the best they can to get and improve our understanding of the world. If that fits fantasies or not is inconsequential.
They don’t. And it is the artist who determines which paints to use.
No I am beginning to see the living, regenerative power in genomic activity. We differentiate body cells, not by their genetic content, but by the activity that takes place within and around the genome. There is more life in a stem cell than a bone cell. As cells develop and specialise their life forces diminish. And the same can be said for evolution in general. As taxonomic forms evolve and specialise their survival prospects diminish. The whole reflected in the parts.
colewd,
Yes, it’s not very long.
If we let our passions dictate our lives then we cannot be free.
Of course we are restricted by our bodies. But we are also restricted by our passions, especially so if we follow our passions without first filtering them through our rational thinking activity. Freedom comes with control of passions, not with being dictated by them.
The chain of woolly mammoth reproduction has been broken but they have still managed to sequence its genome. Is this not preserved information?
Yes. But it is far from enough to resurrect the species.
Now, had you said the Svalbard Global Seed Vault…
So a gene is information waiting to be used.
And my point is that genes don’t do anything either directly or indirectly. What in you opinion is their initial level of action?
We know you were too ignorant to understand the evidence presented Bill. But go ahead and keep telling everyone how there’s new evidence which proves evolution is wrong and the Earth is only 6000 years old. There’s probably someone out there who doesn’t know how much of a scientifically illiterate boob you are. 🙂
Sure thing Bill. Evolution is on its last legs and will collapse and die any day now…any day now…any day…. 😀
What, even the birds with their passion for flying?
Alan Fox,
Great. Here is his 2013 paper that builds a testable model where the null is that all organisms share Mt DNA from the same starting point. This takes a little more time.
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v6/mitochondrial-genes.pdf
In the case of Down Syndrome, the extra copy of a chromosome is a coincidence?
Just a question, what does the creation model entail beyond some knowledge of how the Creator choose to create.?
I see this “ Creationists explain shared sequences among diverse species either by God’s initial creation or by convergence since Creation week”
If dealing with an omnipotent Creator, why assume shared sequences ?
In other words ,sequences that are not shared could be also evidence for Creation. As mung says” that sounds like a just so story”
newton,
.
The young earth model starts from an interpretation of Genesis 1 as a starting point. The preexistence of populations is part of the model. Jeanson is ultimately creating a detailed historical account from the genetic data. Ironically population genetic models start from the same point that Jeanson does with the exception of the age of extant life. He was receiving a lot of ad hominem attacks at peaceful science and I saw no reason for this unless his data was problematic for orthodox evolutionary theory. I then decided to read his papers and discovered he was doing real science.
Prior to a month ago I had discounted the young earth or young life models due to carbon and Ar dating. Based on his work I thing it is worth taking a fresh look at the young earth/young life hypothesis.
What sudden scientific discoveries were made which invalidate all radiometric dating? That includes the over a dozen independent and consilient non-radiometric yearly dating proxies used to calibrate C14 dates back to over 50,000 years ago. I don’t recall seeing any major news announcements Bill. Are you into the magic mushrooms again?
Generally speaking, how young? 10,000 trips around the Sun?
Right, as well as the existence of the God of Genesis.
Based certain assumptions of how a Creator chooses to create and the time frame
So other than the difference of a few billion years and a different mechanism , ironically Jeanson came up with the same answer based of his interpretation of Genesis.
I can think of other reasons it might be met with criticism, strange you can only think of one.
So his scientific theory of how the creator chose the create is testable? Since his whole hypothesis requires it.
newton,
A scientific theory based on genesis as a starting point. Same as population genetics except for the age of extant life.
I know this is off-topic so I shall be brief: conceiving of the passions as threats to the freedom of the self requires conceiving of the passions as external to the self, and doing requires demarcating the boundaries of the self such that the passions are external to it. Doing that consistently generates a conception of the self that entails a logically incoherent conception of agency, responsibility, and freedom.
The messy details behind this claim can be found in the section on Stoicism in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit.
newton,
Sorry I missed this. The mechanism and the starting points are the same of both mutation and genetic recombination. The timeline is different. Thousands vs millions of years in the case of multicellular life.
Right, Genesis is not very explicit in how the stuff was created, Jeanson must assume a certain configuration, and the question is, if real science requires test ability can he ,even theoretically ,test whether his assumption ,about of the particulars of creation , is supported? How you test something capable of anything? Every possibility Is possible. Maybe equally likely.
Nature is limited in scope. Some things can be eliminated.The more detailed the explanation the more things can be eliminated
newton,
He has tested it. Start with the two papers I have posted. All science contains assumptions. It has difficulty answering how things were originally created but does well understanding the behavior of what has been created.
These are the models science builds and what was very interesting to me was how closely the population genetics models and Jeanson’s creation models compared with each other. The debate is over the rate of mutation for paternal and maternal sequences of Mt DNA and the Y chromosome. Pedigree mutation rates are showing faster rates then the evolutionary model would predict.
That’s a pretty stupid starting point since a literal Genesis was scientifically disproven oven 2 centuries ago.
Hey Bill, what’s the name for the logical fallacy where the conclusion is wrong because the premise is false? 🙂
Bodies are just matter. You told us that it’s passion and archetypes that drives the evolution of morphology. How can mere matter resist that and impose limits on the non-material?
But you are not in competition with them, so they do not displace you. In fact, since you are its habitat your gut flora depends on you for its existence, not the other way around. My guess is that you are confusing yourself by mentally grouping all bacteria again.
Then why are random mutations a problem?
Then you’d better stop wanting to be free.
Birds would only have been free if they had first filtered their passion for flying through their rational thinking activity. Now they are slaves to their passion for flying, the wretched creatures.
You have shifted position from talking about genes acting to talking about genomes acting. I would say that this is a step in the right direction.
The way we talk about cause and effect is perfectly reasonable and appropriate when applied to mechanics. But life and consciousness have their own laws which cannot be explained in terms of the laws of mechanics. Mechanics deals with external relationships in which bodies act on each other.
But genomes and proteomes are not separate in this way, they belong together and are a unity. And thus we get into paradoxes and contradictions when we try to think of one being the cause and the other the effect or them being related as in a means to an end.
Mechanics concerns external forces acting on bodies. The laws of living beings which sets them apart from the purely mechanical is that they have an inner self-motivated activity. The idea of a machine is imposed from without, the idea of a living being is intrinsic to that being.
The processes of gene expression and replication requires genomes, cytoplasm, lipid membranes and all the other organelles and substances within the cell. I would not deny that the genome is physically more or less central and that it plays a vital part in these processes. I would say it’s a vital organ of the cell were it not for red blood cells. But the genome serves the body just as any other major components serve the body.
Yes, I understand that you are not saying that genes act independently. But do you agree that there is no such thing in reality as an independent gene?
Genetic processes enable all the various body tissues to be produced. Physical form requires the substances with which to work and they are produced by way of the genome. You are looking for a simple causal relationship which is simply not in evidence in these living processes. Living beings are not machines nor are they factories.
Genes may be passive when considered on their own, but they are always part of a more inclusive dynamic system. It is the system working together and not the separate parts that maintains the whole.
And having alternative alleles allows for plasticity within the kind. This allows for individual variety within the kind and so there is an intrinsic dynamism to deal with changing environments.
Thus Darwin’s finches and peppered moths.
What gets passed on are living processes. There are many external influences which can disrupt these processes.
Fundamental to all known earthly life.
I don’t have a problem with commonality through descent. Like produces like. Like DNA, like morphology and like processes.
No. Allan said that a gene is a nucleic acid sequence . You can’t wish the physical stuff away!
What gets passed on is DNA.
Hershey-Chase experiment
Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment
Charlie. Why don’t you just deal with it? The vast majority of heritable information is carried by the DNA.
And he’s correct.😁
Bolides. Droughts. Floods. Forest fires. Sure. What’s the point you are making?
Corneel,
Where is the rest of the inheritable information stored that is not in DNA?
Good question. Sources of non-genetic inheritance include, off the top of my head: epigenetic modifications of DNA and histones, self-sustaining feedback loops, niche inheritance and behavioral and cultural transmission. There are probably several more.
There are multiple issues with all of them, but the main challenge here is that, as far as we know, none of the mechanisms mentioned above can stably sustain heritable information in evolutionary time. Non-genetic heritable variants tend to revert or decay in a few generations.