Why this creationist flocking likes this 2019 evolution video!

on another blog called pandas Thumb Joe Felsenstein directed readers to the 2019 evolution videos. i canned them, watch numerous summeries, and a few whole programs.

Added by moderator: This appears to be the Panda’s Thumb post that is being referenced. The videos appear to be HERE.

The only one i gave thumbs up to was by a dude called Bowen. It was called adaptative radiations. What the flock is going on?

I really like this as a creationist. He talks about flocks of specification that turns up everywhere now in the sees. they find, like in the cichlid fishes of africa, clusters/flocking of dozens of species from a parent one.

This is not what evolutionists should expect and Bowen suggests there must be some NEW evolutionary rule guiding this. He finds it everywhere.

The reason a creationist loves this is because it does show a sudden speciation of something that fills every niche it possibly can. including changing bodyp[lan as needed.I would add this happemns on the dry land and in the fossil record. This is very predicted by creationist models to show speciation fast and furious and done and no time needed. that it hardly changes bodyplans after the initial explosion of flocking. And its very likely the morm for speciation and not the exception. Flocking is the normal common way how diversity in biology happened. iThis is unwelcome in evolutionist circles. They want very chance happening that coupled withy mutations and selection make trees/nests of relationships.They want PE concepts with start and stop events creating lineages.indeed randomness. Yet investigation shows speciation is a explosion every time. It doesn’t need to wait for mutations. i think from this flocking can be why theropod dinosaurs had so much variety because they were just a flocking of flightless ground birrs. lIkewise marsupials and placentals and others are just a flocking episode fast and furious. So the evolution talks of 2019 really do have something to offer progress.

0

299 thoughts on “Why this creationist flocking likes this 2019 evolution video!

  1. phoodoo: There is nothing that can destroy the faith of the evolutionist.

    Only one thing. Evidence.

    phoodoo: Evolution can explain anything!!

    And Intelligent Design explains anything also.

    Front wired eyes? Intelligent Design
    Backwards wired eyes? Also Intelligent Design.

    Why don’t you find something that evolution cannot explain but ID can?

    That would certainly destroy the faith of the evolutionist. You can, at that point, accuse them of not following the evidence where it leads as they are demonstrably not doing that.

    We’ll wait…

    0
  2. phoodoo: Unroll the tape can happen dozens of times.

    But you seem to be implying that your designer designed eyes dozens of times, independently. That seems less likely then evolution doing it, as it’s not how designers we are familiar with act.

    0
  3. Entropy: The “game” of evolution is divergence. That’s it. Some lineages die off, some continue going on, but there’s no “plans” for everything to reproduce like crazy. If something works, the lineage continues.

    But that’s not how the evolution of life got started according to general agreement. The consensus is that it began by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division.

    And you can add convergence to the divergence of life.

    Surely some lineages have survived very long because they produce loads and loads and loads of offspring, but other lineages have survived due to other characteristics, like being good at feeding off those loads and loads of offspring of those other species, in which case if they reproduced just as much, they die off because they would not have enough of that food to feed everybody.

    So the original multiplication of life provided the ideal base which allowed life to diversify, which in turn allowed sexual reproduction to develop. Sounds familiar. Think about the development of individual vertebrates. Multiplication followed by diversification followed by sexual reproduction. There is no plan that says individuals are obliged to reproduce, but everything is arranged to allow for it to happen.

    0
  4. CharlieM: There is no plan that says individuals are obliged to reproduce, but everything is arranged to allow for it to happen.

    Out of interest, what happens to the ones that don’t reproduce? Does their DNA propagate?

    0
  5. CharlieM: But that’s not how the evolution of life got started according to general agreement. The consensus is that it began by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division.

    And if that process of prokaryotic cell division were error-free, leading to no divergence, then
    .
    .
    .
    we would not be having this conversation.

    0
  6. phoodoo:
    I find it amusing that you feel the answer to the question of why only one species ever evolved conscious higher intelligence is because, well, there are lots of ways to survive, is is a satisfying enough answer for your limited powers of wonder.

    It’s very satisfying because it makes straightforward sense hoodoo. Nothing to do with my limited powers of wonder, a lot to do with my limited powers of reasoning. I marvel at what we can do. Starting with an immense, but, as far as we know, unconscious universe. That’s some pretty achievement. That doesn’t;t mean that I have to be unreasonable about evolutionary limitations. It’s written all over the place phoodoo, there’s obviously, many ways to survive. Our intelligence is but one. There’s limitations to evolutionary trajectories, as shown by the enormous amount of extinctions prior to our arrival to the scene.

    I find it extraordinary that creationists complain that t’s impossible for us to have evolved, yet think that if we did, then everything, every lineage, should evolve into humans. As if there’s no limitations. As if there was only one way to survive.

    0
  7. CharlieM:
    But that’s not how the evolution of life got started according to general agreement. The consensus is that it began by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division.

    1. You’re missing the point. Again, evolution is not about reproducing the most. Clear now?
    2. That’s not how life started, since there was no prokaryote in the sense of our current taxonomical denominations.

    CharlieM:
    And you can add convergence to the divergence of life.

    Even “convergence” happens by divergence from prior ancestors.

    CharlieM:
    So the original multiplication of life provided the ideal base which allowed life to diversify, which in turn allowed sexual reproduction to develop. Sounds familiar. Think about the development of individual vertebrates. Multiplication followed by diversification followed by sexual reproduction. There is no plan that says individuals are obliged to reproduce, but everything is arranged to allow for it to happen.

    I didn’t say that life forms don’t reproduce, without reproduction there’s no lineages to evolve. i said that reproducing like crazy is not what evolution is about. There’s a difference between reproduction and reproduction ad nauseam.

    Please read carefully and for understanding.

    0
  8. CharlieM:
    But that’s not how the evolution of life got started according to general agreement. The consensus is that it began by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division.

    1. You’re missing the point. Again, evolution is not about reproducing the most. Clear now?
    2. That’s not how life started, since there was no prokaryote in the sense of our current taxonomical denominations.

    CharlieM:
    And you can add convergence to the divergence of life.

    Even “convergence” happens by divergence from prior ancestors.

    CharlieM:
    So the original multiplication of life provided the ideal base which allowed life to diversify, which in turn allowed sexual reproduction to develop. Sounds familiar. Think about the development of individual vertebrates. Multiplication followed by diversification followed by sexual reproduction. There is no plan that says individuals are obliged to reproduce, but everything is arranged to allow for it to happen.

    I didn’t say that life forms don’t reproduce, without reproduction there’s no lineages to evolve. i said that reproducing like crazy is not what evolution is about. There’s a difference between reproduction and reproduction ad nauseam.

    Please read carefully and for understanding.

    0
  9. Corneel: So the species in a flock have descended from a common ancestor, but this doesn’t imply common descent?

    And the changes that were introduced to give the variation of species we see today do not imply evolution?

    Can I ask what you mean by “common descent” and “evolution”? You appear to be using the words in a different way from everybody else.

    A creationist does not agree with evolutionism by selection on mutations plus time. Yet we agree there was bodyplan changes. so its not evolution but another term, Adaption by some mechanism.
    YES common descent for species from a parent population like all people species come from a original parent population off the ark.
    Not common descent from a bug for everyone. nor the concept that likeness some traits proves common descent.

    0
  10. Robert Byers: A creationist does not agree with evolutionism by selection on mutations plus time. Yet we agree there was bodyplan changes. so its not evolution but another term, Adaption by some mechanism.

    I think it is safe to use the word evolution here, as opposed to the immutability of species. It is also a bonus that you recognize that species adapt to their environment. The problem is the phrase “some mechanism”, which lacks a certain precision.

    How would we study this enigmatic process of adaptation? I propose that we study traits that are variable within species (polymorphisms). Then, we can compare groups of individuals that differ in the absence/presence of a potentially adaptive trait (e.g. cryptic coloration yes/no). Does that sound reasonable?

    Robert Byers: YES common descent for species from a parent population like all people species come from a original parent population off the ark.
    Not common descent from a bug for everyone. nor the concept that likeness some traits proves common descent.

    And look, you have accepted common descent as well. So we agree that species can split up into multiple lineages and diverge. See what watching even one evolution video can do for you?

    So, given that the members of a given species flock all derive from one specially created parental population, how do we determine the members of a single flock? As a concrete example, consider the cichlids of lake Malawi, how do we determine that it is really one flock and not several flocks or that it is merely part of a larger flock? Remember: you dislike using “likeness of some traits”.

    0
  11. OMagain: Out of interest, what happens to the ones that don’t reproduce? Does their DNA propagate?

    Their DNA along with rest of their bodies become food for other organisms. Nothing in nature is wasted. Think of all the farms on the planet growing countless crops and seeds being harvested, each of which has the potential to grow to become like their parent plant. But instead they provide the sustenance which provides for us humans and our livestock. If life as a whole was not dynamically balanced as higher forms evolved it would soon either become extinct or the organisms at the base of the food chain would persist by feeding on each other and maintaining a balance at a more basic level.

    And regarding the ones that do reproduce whole cells get propagated, not just the DNA. Systems complete with the processes of cellular metabolism and all that this entails get propagated.

    0
  12. CharlieM: And regarding the ones that do reproduce whole cells get propagated, not just the DNA. Systems complete with the processes of cellular metabolism and all that this entails get propagated.

    And is there a difference between what does and what does not get propagated? I.E is there a reason for the difference? If so, what?

    0
  13. DNA_Jock:

    CharlieM: But that’s not how the evolution of life got started according to general agreement. The consensus is that it began by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division.

    And if that process of prokaryotic cell division were error-free, leading to no divergence, then
    .
    .
    .
    we would not be having this conversation.

    Why do changes in DNA have to be seen as errors? Because that is what is required of the theory of evolution comprising natural selection acting on genetic mutations (mistakes). Any hint that changes are not accidental creates a problem for a theory that posits evolution as blind and without direction. Belief in the theory is driving how variation in DNA sequences is viewed.

    0
  14. Entropy:

    CharlieM:
    But that’s not how the evolution of life got started according to general agreement. The consensus is that it began by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division.

    1. You’re missing the point. Again, evolution is not about reproducing the most. Clear now?

    I never said it was. Evolution has a lot to do with the diversification of forms just as an individual vertebrate’s development has a lot to do with the diversification of forms.

    2. That’s not how life started, since there was no prokaryote in the sense of our current taxonomical denominations.

    I wasn’t very clear there in what I meant. I should have said that it began to colonise the earth by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division. But you may have a point. How do we know that the first life forms were as simple as prokaryotes?

    0
  15. Entropy:

    CharlieM:
    And you can add convergence to the divergence of life.

    Even “convergence” happens by divergence from prior ancestors.

    Well yes, living systems diverge before they converge.

    CharlieM: So the original multiplication of life provided the ideal base which allowed life to diversify, which in turn allowed sexual reproduction to develop. Sounds familiar. Think about the development of individual vertebrates. Multiplication followed by diversification followed by sexual reproduction. There is no plan that says individuals are obliged to reproduce, but everything is arranged to allow for it to happen.

    I didn’t say that life forms don’t reproduce, without reproduction there’s no lineages to evolve. i said that reproducing like crazy is not what evolution is about. There’s a difference between reproduction and reproduction ad nauseam.

    Please read carefully and for understanding.

    Did I say anything to that effect? We get reproduction and diversity. And sexual reproduction entails diversity for the simple fact that offspring are not clones of their parents.

    0
  16. OMagain: And is there a difference between what does and what does not get propagated? I.E is there a reason for the difference? If so, what?

    There are usually a host of reasons. The seed of a plant may not propagate if it gets eaten by a mouse, or happens to settle somewhere that prevents germination, or gets damaged by some external cause, or the weather conditions become too severe. It may germinate and begin to grow but, before reaching maturity, suffer similar fate to those mentioned above. The quantity of offspring usually ensures that a proportion will survive to continue the line.

    But when it comes to human propagation these chance happenings do not play such a big part. We have much more control over the process of propagation. We can consciously abstain, take precautions, kill off an unwanted child before it is born. But many babies are born and as with other higher animals the quality of care usually ensures that at least some will mature and continue propagating.

    0
  17. Corneel:

    CharlieM: And sexual reproduction entails diversity for the simple fact that offspring are not clones of their parents.

    inbred strains

    Not sure what you are trying to tell me here. When I said offspring are not clones I was stating a general rule, not claiming an rigid law which is never broken.

    The general rule is that sexual reproduction creates diversity within the type. And the wisdom inherent in this is that certain individuals can survive to carry on propagation in a dynamic, changing environment thus ensuring the continuation of the type.

    0
  18. CharlieM: Why do changes in DNA have to be seen as errors? Because that is what is required of the theory of evolution comprising natural selection acting on genetic mutations (mistakes). Any hint that changes are not accidental creates a problem for a theory that posits evolution as blind and without direction. Belief in the theory is driving how variation in DNA sequences is viewed.

    They don’t “have to been seen as” errors. They have to occur, is all. And they always will occur, thanks to simple thermodynamics. Extant lifeforms go to great lengths to minimize them.
    If mutations were NOT accidental (as is sometimes true) this poses no problem WHATSOEVER for evolution. Your strawman is showing, too.
    Unguided evolution posits that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
    You are welcome to try to disprove this proposition; but your first step should probably be understanding it.
    My original point, which you appear to have missed, was that IF prokaryotic DNA replication had perfect fidelity, THEN there wouldn’t be any humans around to discuss it.
    Also

    CharlieM:

    That’s not how life started, since there was no prokaryote in the sense of our current taxonomical denominations.

    I wasn’t very clear there in what I meant. I should have said that it began to colonise the earth by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division. But you may have a point. How do we know that the first life forms were as simple as prokaryotes?

    Still wrong.
    Safe bet that the first life forms were simpler, and a lot less efficient, than modern prokaryotes.

    0
  19. DNA_Jock: They have to occur, is all.

    What has to occur? You mean copying errors right?

    You want to call it something else? Like to disguise the meaning?

    0
  20. DNA_Jock: Unguided evolution posits that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

    But this is one fundamental problem. When evolutionist find out about possible mutations which are NOT random with respect to fitness, they just say, well, I guess they evolved the ability to have adaptive mutations.

    So I think this is simply a ruse on your part. Unguided evolution can’t even be disproven by guided evolution.

    0
  21. CharlieM: Not sure what you are trying to tell me here. When I said offspring are not clones I was stating a general rule, not claiming an rigid law which is never broken.

    The general rule is that sexual reproduction creates diversity within the type. And the wisdom inherent in this is that certain individuals can survive to carry on propagation in a dynamic, changing environment thus ensuring the continuation of the type.

    English is not my first language, but I am pretty sure that “entail” does imply an inevitable consequence. Anyway, the salient feature of sexual reproduction is the recombination of pre-existing genetic variation. Without genetic variation, no heritable diversity. You seem determined to ignore this point. For example in your latest response to OMagain, you have completely failed to discuss the impact of heritable variation in the “ability to propagate”. Such variation does exist, also in humans, most clearly in the form of inheritable diseases. Do you really want to downplay the importance of reproductive success in the evolution of life?

    0
  22. phoodoo: What has to occur? You mean copying errors right?

    Yes, I do.

    You want to call it something else? Like to disguise the meaning?

    Heavens, no. I called them errors, and Charlie complained.
    Do try to keep up.

    phoodoo: When evolutionist find out about possible mutations which are NOT random with respect to fitness, they just say, well, I guess they evolved the ability to have adaptive mutations.

    Citation, please.

    So I think this is simply a ruse on your part. Unguided evolution can’t even be disproven by guided evolution.

    Well, the two could both be occurring side by side. “Guided” evolution could be a subset of evolution, rather like “Artificial” selection is a subset of selection. In each case, the existence of the former does not eliminate the latter.
    You do not appear to have thought this through.
    At. All.

    0
  23. phoodoo: When evolutionist find out about possible mutations which are NOT random with respect to fitness, they just say, well, I guess they evolved the ability to have adaptive mutations.

    What do you mean “possible” mutations?

    How does your designer work, does it create mutations to push organisms in the “correct” direction or something else?

    0
  24. phoodoo: What has to occur? You mean copying errors right?

    Are they really errors or is it in fact part of the “plan”?

    0
  25. phoodoo: But this is one fundamental problem.When evolutionist find out about possible mutations which are NOT random with respect to fitness, they just say, well, I guess they evolved the ability to have adaptive mutations.

    So I think this is simply a ruse on your part.Unguided evolution can’t even be disproven by guided evolution.

    All of the instances of adaptive mutations I have seen are random mutations with respect to fitness. The first classic case of adaptive mutations was seen in E. coli where there was a higher rate of lac+ revertants than would be expected from the usual mutation rate. As it turned out, when the bacteria were starved it turned on the SOS response which upregulates a lower fidelity DNA polymerase and proteins involved in increased random recombination. What the E. coli did was increase their random mutation rates in response to starvation.

    Do you have a specific example in mind?

    0
  26. phoodoo: Unguided evolution can’t even be disproven by guided evolution.

    Perhaps you should demonstrate that your designer is in fact guiding evolution first?

    0
  27. DNA_Jock: Well, the two could both be occurring side by side. “Guided” evolution could be a subset of evolution, rather like “Artificial” selection is a subset of selection. In each case, the existence of the former does not eliminate the latter.
    You do not appear to have thought this through.
    At. All.

    It frequently comes back to dichotomous thinking for creationists. They can’t imagine a sort of middle-ground, or gradations. No wonder they have trouble with the concept of gradualism in the first place. Things have to be black or white.

    Either everything that happens, including every single mutation that ever occurred, is pre-ordained by a future-foreseeing designer, or they are completely random, chaotic, uncaused, and unpredictable. There couldn’t possibly be some mix of predictable and unpredictable going on. It just couldn’t be the case that some mutations are caused by a deterministic and predictable mechanism, and that many other mutations are not. It has to be 100% one or 100% the other.

    Also, if some mutations are deterministically caused, it has to be by design. Someone has to be hiding behind the curtain(an untestable, unnecessary claim), deliberately dialing the knobs to cause those mutations to happen, with perfect foreknowledge of their phenotypic effects. It couldn’t just be some chemical or physical determinsm at play. Someone has to intend it to happen.

    0
  28. Rumraket,

    It is interesting. There’s also a failure to think things through. Consider the realm of “needs-based” or “non-random” mutation. If we reject antibody affinity maturation and class switching as not occurring in the germline and thus not a counter-example, we are left with the highly directed and non-random genetic rearrangements that produce antigenic variation in sleeping sickness, malaria and salmonella.
    WTF? Does the designer not like us? She certainly thinks we’re getting a mite too uppity, what with our adaptive immune systems and all…
    But I do agree with you that it is the dichotomous thinking of the “either it works or it doesn’t” crowd that is most impressive. Epitomized by gpuccio’s mangling of Hazen & Szostak’s FI, EricB’s TRS, and Sal’s delightful “either it binds, or it doesn’t”.
    Perhaps (oh, be still my beating heart) it binds some of the time.
    Maroons.
    ETA: Of course, there’s mating type switching in yeast, which is a Good Thing
    Apologies to Sellar and Yeatman.

    0
  29. DNA_Jock: But I do agree with you that it is the dichotomous thinking of the “either it works or it doesn’t” crowd that is most impressive. Epitomized by gpuccio’s mangling of Hazen & Szostak’s FI, EricB’s TRS, and Sal’s delightful “either it binds, or it doesn’t”.

    At high enough concentrations you can make almost any two proteins bind to one another. This is why specificity of binding is in molar units. Perhaps they have been living in a binary world too long and forgot about our analog reality.

    1+
  30. T_aquaticus: Perhaps they have been living in a binary world too long and forgot about our analog reality.

    I think you have a point, here! 😉

    0
  31. Rumraket: It frequently comes back to dichotomous thinking for creationists. They can’t imagine a sort of middle-ground, or gradations.

    Indeed!

    0
  32. Corneel,
    Why say creationists need to learn about speciation. we accept that always. just as long as it stays in a kind and as long as its not the TOE mechanism.
    Yes Cichlids are a flocking thing. yes they came, probably, from a single originle species that entered those waters. Any traits connecting them would indicate heritage but also the mechanism would not have to just follow a single lineage trail. i don’t think one can be sure in these cases about how it happens. its just grouping traits.
    i do see the cichlid fishes as showing the real origins of speciation and despite diversity are not a special case. AGAIN at this point i think they should not be so closely related with traits if evolutionism was true. too much time and chance would/should of made them look very unlike.

    0
  33. DNA_Jock,

    You and rummy seem to have totally lost the plot on this one. Graduations? Some guided, some not guided? A random process that over time became less random? This was precisely why I was saying you were pulling a ruse.

    If evolutionists believe the process of life is just random occurrences that happen to multiply causing diversity, when you switch to claiming it doesn’t have to be random processes you just start talking gibberish . Graduations of randomness, that is the tenuous lifeline you are now going to swing on? Come on. You are so predictable.

    There is either a plan to life or there isn’t. There is no inbetween post of a plan post of determined. That’s infantile. It’s a cop out. A plan that came about by accident? It’s just what physical does? It makes some mutation intentional with respect to fitness?

    If you are going to try to sell that kind, just admit defeat. It’s so pathetic to try so hard to rationalize your No-God desires that you will just make up anything.

    Plan or no plan jock? Random or not random? You are trying to obfuscate through a subterfuge of nonsense.

    Really thinkers won’t be fooled by this. The question in life everyone wants to know, is is life planned or unplanned. Calling it something in between is more horseshit.

    0
  34. Evidence of unintentional life is unintentional outcomes.

    Evidence of intentional life is intentional outcomes. You can’t claim both are possible for unintended life. That’s a worldview for idiots who are afraid.

    0
  35. phoodoo: If evolutionists believe the process of life is just random occurrences that happen to multiply causing diversity, when you switch to claiming it doesn’t have to be random processes you just start talking gibberish .

    Once the initial configuration exists, i.e. self replication, further random changes will either fall outside of the range where further replication can continue or not.

    phoodoo: There is either a plan to life or there isn’t.

    If there is you’ve been unable to say what it is for many years.

    Apart from that “suffering is good and necessary”.

    phoodoo: It’s so pathetic to try so hard to rationalize your No-God desires that you will just make up anything.

    There are theistic scientists who disagree with you. What is their motivation?

    phoodoo: The question in life everyone wants to know, is is life planned or unplanned.

    You seem to already know, so what’s the plan?

    0
  36. phoodoo: That’s a worldview for idiots who are afraid.

    It seems to me you are the one that is afraid. You seem to be afraid that a lifetime of praising suffering, for arguing that suffering is a good thing may all be based on naught.

    You keep saying “if” life is designed, “if” there is a plan like you are not quite sure yourself. Add to that your inability to explain what you see that plan as being, well, it seems to me you are the one that is scared. Scared that you are really just matter and energy, that there is no mysterious “phoodoo decision world” where your soul resides.

    You are just a scared little man who is realising that their entire worldview is based on fear, and you want to project that fear onto everybody else as if that somehow will help you.

    0
  37. Robert Byers: Why say creationists need to learn about speciation. we accept that always. just as long as it stays in a kind and as long as its not the TOE mechanism.

    But to be able to stay within a kind, one has to know where the boundaries between kinds are. I see none. Do you?

    Robert Byers: Yes Cichlids are a flocking thing. yes they came, probably, from a single originle species that entered those waters.

    There is this tiny problem that cichlids live outside lake Malawi as well. They occur in the African big lakes, in both Americas and in Asia. Perhaps we should include those species into the kind as well? What do you think?

    Robert Byers: Any traits connecting them would indicate heritage but also the mechanism would not have to just follow a single lineage trail. i don’t think one can be sure in these cases about how it happens. its just grouping traits.

    So “likeness of some traits” DOES constitute evidence for common descent? What a surprising turn of events. Don’t despair: I am pretty confident I understand “how it happens”: whenever a species splits, both daughter species inherit any newly acquired characters, which allows us to infer they are related by common descent. Nifty, huh?

    Robert Byers: AGAIN at this point i think they should not be so closely related with traits if evolutionism was true. too much time and chance would/should of made them look very unlike.

    No, special creation would have made them very unlike. A recent rapid succession of speciation events isn’t a problem for “evolutionism” whatsoever.

    0
  38. Robert Byers,

    BTW, you seemed to have missed my question about some-mechanism-of-adaptation (but-please-please-please-dont-let-it-be-selection). Can it be studied? How?

    0
  39. phoodoo,
    Reality is under no obligation to conform to your weird all-or-nothing preconceptions. Your everything-must-be-planned or nothing-is-planned dichotomy is particularly baseless.
    Myself, I reckon that phase variation in Salmonella is an example of a mutation (it is a heritable change in DNA sequence) that is NOT random with respect to fitness. What are the consequences for the MES? Not a lot. The rest of life, everything that is not {phase variation in Salmonella}, carries on just as before, with the curious exception that phoodoo becomes even more confused.

    0
  40. Nobody is frighted of the truth, phoodoo.

    phoodoo: It’s so pathetic to try so hard to rationalize your No-God desires that you will just make up anything.

    Actually, that best describes you. For example:

    phoodoo: If evolutionists believe the process of life is just random occurrences that happen to multiply causing diversity, when you switch to claiming it doesn’t have to be random processes you just start talking gibberish .

    Firstly you have to understand the position you are thrashing against.

    0
  41. CharlieM: There are usually a host of reasons. The seed of a plant may not propagate if it gets eaten by a mouse, or happens to settle somewhere that prevents germination, or gets damaged by some external cause, or the weather conditions become too severe. It may germinate and begin to grow but, before reaching maturity, suffer similar fate to those mentioned above. The quantity of offspring usually ensures that a proportion will survive to continue the line.

    So you are in the JoeG camp then? That differential reproduction only depends on chance events, like being hit by a meteor, rather then something about the individual and it’s makeup?

    So an individual born with one less leg their it’s litter mates will survive just as well, as long as it does not get hit by a meteor? Is that really what you are saying?

    CharlieM: And the wisdom inherent in this is that certain individuals can survive to carry on propagation in a dynamic, changing environment thus ensuring the continuation of the type.

    Those “certain individuals” are they the ones why just happened to avoid the meteors? Or is there another reason, on average, for their survival?

    JoeG, phoodoo and now you seem to be saying that fitness is irrelevant as the fittest individual could be killed by a random event, therefore they were not really the fittest.

    It’s a very twisted attempt to “disprove” the obvious.

    0
  42. DNA_Jock:

    CharlieM: Why do changes in DNA have to be seen as errors? Because that is what is required of the theory of evolution comprising natural selection acting on genetic mutations (mistakes). Any hint that changes are not accidental creates a problem for a theory that posits evolution as blind and without direction. Belief in the theory is driving how variation in DNA sequences is viewed.

    They don’t “have to been seen as” errors. They have to occur, is all. And they always will occur, thanks to simple thermodynamics. Extant lifeforms go to great lengths to minimize them.
    If mutations were NOT accidental (as is sometimes true) this poses no problem WHATSOEVER for evolution. Your strawman is showing, too.
    Unguided evolution posits that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
    You are welcome to try to disprove this proposition; but your first step should probably be understanding it.
    My original point, which you appear to have missed, was that IF prokaryotic DNA replication had perfect fidelity, THEN there wouldn’t be any humans around to discuss it.
    Also

    I’m not arguing against mutations (changes in DNA due to an external influence) being real occurances or that they are random with respect to fitness or that there are differences in the DNA between closely related individuals. I agree with all of that.

    But these things are just one aspect of life’s processes. Living beings deal with DNA changes in different ways depending on circumstances. Mutations can be either repaired or left in the genome depending on their usefulness or detrimental effect. They are not dealt with in an equal manner. Organisms are more tolerant of certain mutations, for example, in their immune system, than those affecting proteins which combine to form bodily structures. Mutations cannot be understood in isolation from the various bodily processes. Some mutations can be used to assist the organism while others have to be guarded against.

    It is not just in dealing with mutations that the wisdom of life is in evidence. Throughout nature there is wisdom in the way randomness and directed activity are combined.

    0
  43. DNA_Jock:

    I wasn’t very clear there in what I meant. I should have said that it began to colonise the earth by the clonal process of prokaryote cell division. But you may have a point. How do we know that the first life forms were as simple as prokaryotes?

    Still wrong.
    Safe bet that the first life forms were simpler, and a lot less efficient, than modern prokaryotes.

    I’m not sure why you think it wrong to ask questions.

    Anyone who bets on the horses knows that there’s no such thing as a safe bet. How often do the odds on favourites get beaten?

    0
  44. CharlieM: Anyone who bets on the horses knows that there’s no such thing as a safe bet. How often do the odds on favourites get beaten?

    What are the odds that the first life forms were more complex and more efficient than modern prokaryotes?

    Is that a bet you would take?

    0
  45. CharlieM: It is not just in dealing with mutations that the wisdom of life is in evidence. Throughout nature there is wisdom in the way randomness and directed activity are combined.

    And don’t you think that might just be because all the shit that messed stuff up never made it?

    0
  46. I’ve just watched a very interesting video, “Life, Meaning and Spirituality in the Commons: Towards a Cultural Paradigm Shift” by Andreas Weber:

    In his opinion the theory of evolution which we are taught is actually a pre-Victorian economic theory transferred to the natural world. And whereas other sciences such as physics have moved on from older theories, biology has not freed itself from its past.

    From around 24 minutes in the video he says:

    We have the idea that all matter is a kind of resource or a machine, something which we can endlessly twist with. And an interesting point is we have the idea of neutral value. In science we’re creating neutral knowledge, this kind of idea that science is not about value science is all about objective neutral knowledge and money is claimed to be this kind of neutral exchange value which it is not actually…I think one can show that economy is vastly behind some other sciences and some possibilities. If you like I would try, I would even argue that post modernism is not a real transgression, a real change of enlightenment, but it is only a stressing of its one extreme which is pure subjectivity. So in a way we didn’t really put things together again. And I think this is just the huge task waiting for us. To show it a little bit clearer still is if we look at economy and biology together we can actually see them in the same frame. And I call them bio-economics. And I think this comes to the prevailing paradigm actually. And biology has somehow not been touched by all the scientific revolutions. It’s somehow also still Newtonian in that there are laws, external laws like selection acting on particles like the genome. And there’s not a mutual relationship. There’s still this nice external force and neutral agent thinking in action.

    If you look at the history of modern economics and the history of evolutionary biology it is so interesting to find that actually they develop in a kind of step by step in a kind of mutual scaffolding where there was a social scientist and economist Malthus who had to have this idea that there’s always too much population and there’s always scarcity to give the biologist, Charles Darwin had the tool he needed. But this tool comes from the social sciences of that time. And social science of that time was not as science claims the eternal free science which is value free and which is always true but it was just an observation of the society of pre Victorian Britain which was quite harsh. Where there was for reasons, for historical reasons there was no idea of sharing and cooperation and so on. And then there was this paradigm of evolutionary biology which changed everything. And surely the economists went there and got inspiration, and took biology as a kind of proof for their theories, And so it went. So we have micro-evolutionary theories in the twentieth century, quite influential by McArthur, which use micro-economic models. So for my eyes it is actually, it is one science and it’s about efficiency, competition and egoistical agents. For me it is one science. And it covers everything you know, it covers your body and it covers your social behaviour. And in any of these readings you don’t have any feelings, you are a machine. We don’t believe this, sure, for some parts of our soul we don’t believe it. But you know it’s very difficult to live in a world where you try not to believe the reality. It’s very difficult, it’s like living as a dissident in the Soviet Union in the sixties. It’s quite difficult and you won’t survive it undamaged. So this comes down to the point where it’s very difficult to step out of this because it’s just colouring the whole way of perceiving ourselves. It starts as a child, parents fill it in, and then in school you learn it and society works like this.

    So it is actually very difficult to deconstruct this…But it’s not true. So this is my essentialist input here, and again I think I can do it, because I’m not an external observer, because I’m just part of the game. And I know when things are going well, and I feel when things are going not well. I am a house holding being as part of a bigger organism. So somehow I’m still struggling and I’m being quite depressive. I cling to this position that it’s possible to be a being and being part of a system to know something about it. To be a subjective empiricist in a way. And I think this clinging to the spark of being alive is very helpful, and as you know the story, “The Emperors New Clothes”, it was a child who said, “Oh look he’s nude!”…There’s a paradigm shift going on in biology which shows…that nature is not efficient…actually you can deconstruct these big ideas which come from a source in Victorian society…What can we substitute for bio-economics? Well I call it poetics…

    You don’t need to see yourself as a machine, as clockwork or a computer or whatever. You can see yourself as someone who wants to be himself by continually changing the stuff he is made from. Which is a very, very magic thing actually, And from this you come to see organisms as sentient, as meaning producers. You come to the reality of subjective experience as a requirement for biological sense making.

    And suddenly nature changes. It’s no longer the causalistic history of machines, but it starts to be an unfolding process of freedom, of autonomy, even of value…You could even say that biology should be re-termed as biosemiotics.

    You know biologists are always about cause and effect and in their core paradigm they have a semiotic nucleus which is the DNA which is read and interpreted. They don’t realise somehow, that it’s not a causal mechanics science. You can’t exclude biological agents from their habitat and you have always this coupling between matter and relationship

    We would do well to get past thinking of biology as “a causal mechanics science”. (I copied this excerpt by listening to what he was saying, so it’s probably not free from copying errors 🙂 )

    0
  47. CharlieM: And whereas other sciences such as physics have moved on from older theories, biology has not freed itself from its past.

    So show everyone how it’s done. Cure cancer, cure baldness.

    Just do some damm thing.

    0
  48. Corneel: Anyway, the salient feature of sexual reproduction is the recombination of pre-existing genetic variation. Without genetic variation, no heritable diversity. You seem determined to ignore this point. For example in your latest response to OMagain, you have completely failed to discuss the impact of heritable variation in the “ability to propagate”. Such variation does exist, also in humans, most clearly in the form of inheritable diseases. Do you really want to downplay the importance of reproductive success in the evolution of life?

    I don’t ignore genetic variation. I also don’t ignore the way that organisms manipulate their genomes.

    Something else we should not forget, the pre-existing genetic variation is also genetic variation between the cells of the individual parent organism.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.