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.
But you think that came about by accident?
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that organisms actively modify the genetic sequence of their genomes? If so: mostly untrue.
The cells within an organism have by-and-large the same genotype. That is an important aspect in which your analogy of evolution as development fails: there is no incentive for individual somatic cells to increase the representation of their genomes in the next generation, at the cost of that of other cells within the same organism.
You think the phase variation switches are all planned? You really give those Salmonella a lot of credit.
We know (we don’t just “think”) it evolved by mutation (the “accidents”) and natural selection(the effect the mutations had not reproductive success).
Are you asking me or Jock?
I guess he thinks they are not random and not planned. The magic third way which can’t be verbalized.
It’s just that if I were a Designer intervening in the evolution of life, I would have other priorities than optimizing the antiviral defense and immune evasion mechanisms of bacteria.
No that would be you. Nobody said graduations. I used the word gradations. As in small increments.
Some are guided yes, by a deterministic chemical process. Specifically in response to certain environmental queues. Others are unguided and unpredictable. For example some mutations are essentially caused by brownian motion in the molecules inside the cells. Those are unguided. The molecules are all vibrating around stochastically because heat is flowing through the system, and occasionally this will cause one molecule to bump into the molecular system responsible for copying DNA, hard enough to cause that system to copy one or more bases incorrectly. An analogy is if your dog bumps in your arm as you are writing and you hit the wrong key and type “gimme a sex” instead of “gimme a sec” to your coworker, and you end up getting fired. Did “doG” ordain that, or was it an unintended accident? If you’d ended up shagging, would you think otherwise?
So some mutations are caused by an environmental stimulus, and “guided” by a deterministic process(a certain signal is detected, which causes a cascade of reactions that finally results in some protein that targets a specific piece of DNA and chemically induce a specific mutation). Those would be a sort of “guided” mutation. Caused by specific signals, and guided by the mutual and specific physical affinity of the proteins that catalyze the chemical transformation of specific DNA bases. They physically have a shape and distribution of surface charges that make them fit a particular place on the DNA.
And others are caused by “accidents”(such as brownian motion). They are unguided.
Yes, those deterministic processes of mutation can evolve entirely from the “accidents” type of mutations.
Nobody gives shit about your propensity to suffer aneurysms because the world is more complicated than you first imagined. When something is more nuanced than you first imagined, that isn’t “pulling a ruse”. That’s just you being ignorant.
No, it makes perfect logical sense. You just declaring it gibberish doesn’t make it gibberish. And there’s nothing gibberish about it.
That’s not a difficult concept. Suppose I tell you a die has 10 sides, and the odds of landing on each side is 1 in 10. That’s about as random as a 10-sided die can get, right? We can gradually decrease it’s randomness. It is possible that the sides 6-10 have an 8 in 10 chance of coming up because the die is weighted as such. So now we’ll get sequences of rolls with way more 6-10’s in them, than 1-5’s.
Such a die is technically still random, but it is heavily biased towards a subset of outcomes. It is possible to weight the die such that it only ever lands on 9 or 10. Or only 10. Or such that it lands 9 or 10 almost always, but 1 in maybe 100 throws it lands on 1-8.
So it is entirely possible to see how it can go from completely random (all outcomes are possible, and equally likely), to more biased (some outcomes become more likely than others), to completely deterministic (it can only ever produce one outcome).
Reality, it’s more complicated than phoodoo imagined. And he hates reality for it. Meanwhile, we laugh and laugh and laugh. Some times we facepalm, though mostly we laugh. It’s random, but biased towards laughter.
So where did you predict this? That’s right, you didn’t.
I’m not convinced that is a true dichotomy actually. Maybe there is a plan for some life, and not for other life? I can certainly conceive of that being the case. There’s no evidence for it, but I’m pretty sure you presented a false dichotomy.
Maybe there is even a plan for only some parts of your life, and then whatever else you do is irrelevant to the planners? Who knows? Not you, that’s for sure.
As that first sentence reads I’d go even further and call it incoherent as it doesn’t parse meaningfully into english. I’m guessing you meant to write that you think there’s no in between fully planned and completely undetermined. As anyone with an IQ over 65 can figure out, that’s just not correct however.
Is the outcome of a dice-roll an accident, or is there an invisible spook hiding behind the curtain dialing knobs and preordaining what the die lands on?
Yeah. Here’s how to do that: Take a die, then say on 1-3 you decide to make a plan, and on 4-6 you don’t. Then roll the die. If 1-3, use dice-rolls to determine which actions to take with your plan.
So an accident determined whether the plan should happen or not, and a series of accidents determined how to carry it out.
You could then make lots of plans that way, and select among successful and unsuccessful plans. Keep plans that succeed, add more randomly determined actions to them, repeat.
Hey would you look at all this phoodrool?
Deterministic.
Well I have to give you that one, I believe you if you say you can’t verbalize it.
There would be no you without bacteria.
Yup, more of that binary thinking. Random or guided! Equiprobable outcomes! No thought that outcomes can be unpredictable and yet biased such that one outcome is more likely than another.
I don’t think that includes Salmonella: it’s a pathogen.
You have to wonder if they ever played Craps. After seeing 7 hit more than any other number, would they claim the results are guided?
Alan Fox,
Alan, Jocks definition of unguided evolution was that it meant mutations would be random with respect to fitness.
Why would someone use this as a definition if “not random” with respect to fitness also was considered unguided evolution?
Is the skeptic playbook intended to make sense?
Corneel,
We know speciatiopn happens as people groups are evidenced. the mechanism must be innate and triggered by some threshold being crossed. however we know its not selection on mutations plus time. In fact my whole flocking thread was making the point how simplistic speciation is and has happened. If it was by the magical mutationism concept then flocking, at this point in natural history, should not be seen.
We know speciation happens as human people groups alone prove to us if we see humans from a original group. So the mechanism must be innate, with it being triggered after a threshold has been crossed. In fact this thread was about how flocking shows this has happened, and only in a simple way as opposed to the magical concept of mutations being selectede on. if the latter was true there should not, at this stage in natiural history, be flocking evidence.
Do things always work out the way you planned? For most of us, sometimes they do, sometimes they come close, sometimes not close at all. There are too many variables in life for all plans to work out, too many other people making incompatible plans. You might regard unanticipated factors that interfere with your plans as random, and STILL be able to recognize that some unanticipated factors are more likely than others.
When I was designing and building PC boards, I once had a boss who asked me when some project would be complete. I told him that it would be done in a month IF there were no unexpected problems that came up. However, I couldn’t recall ANY project that encountered no problems. So he asked me to list all the unexpected problems and estimate the time to solve them!
I suppose I could say those problems were random with respect to any particular project, even though I ran up against some problems more often than others.
Why can’t there be multiple mechanisms, all acting simultaneously? I think that models that include properly weighted multiple mechanisms most accurately describe (and predict) evolutionary patterns.
Flint,
Thank you for your project completion theory. I am sure Gregory, with his interest in design theory will find this interesting. N
Now, if we call the definition of unguided evolution to be mutations that are random with respect to fitness, then the way to differentiate that from evidence for guided evolution must be examples of non random with respect to fitness mutations. Otherwise, your first definition is pointless.
What you have demonstrated in this thread is that your view of speciation is simplistic. You cling to a strawman view of evolutionary biology in order to justify the lack of support for your own version. Nothing in evolutionary theory is incompatible with the existence of species flocks, whereas it completely undermines the concept of independently created kinds. Your attempt to assimilate rapid speciation and adaptation (both evolutionary concepts) within the framework of independently created kinds puts the onus on you to show us where the boundaries are. And yet, even in very clearcut examples such as cichlid species flocks, you fail miserably to demonstrate such boundaries exist.
That is utter nonsense; there are no different species within humans, Robert. Please try to steer clear of racist remarks this time.
I am saying that survival of the fittest is far too simplistic a concept to account for the diversity of life on earth and for the appearance of intricate novel features of higher life forms.
A year or two age I watched a nature documentary which featured monkeys. One individual, I think it was a macaque, was missing its hind legs and was walking on its forelimbs. When the camera zoomed in a youngster could be seen clinging to its chest. It may have had only half the normal compliment of limbs but it was obviously fit enough to produce offspring.
And in a herd of ruminants, the juveniles, who given the chance to reach adulthood may become among the fittest in the herd, are for a certain time grouped among the least fit.
It’s not that fitness is irrelevant, it’s just that its meaning can be so broad that it tells us so little about life as it is actually observed.
My betting days are over.
If you haven’t watched the video I linked to I would urge you to watch just 6 or 7 minutes of it from here. The current paradigm in biology is to see it in economic terms and as a machine. This channels our way of thinking demonstrated by the use of terms such as “efficiency” and “cause and effect”. We need to overcome this way of thinking and consider the new paradigm that is beginning to germinate in modern minds. A new paradigm as happened with physics at the beginning of the twentieth century. Moving from an onlooker consciousness to a participatory consciousness.
I didn’t know who Andreas Weber was prior to watching this video, and as far as I know he does not have a religious agenda and he is not against a naturalist viewpoint. But he can see the narrowness of the present paradigm and its limitations.
“All the shit that messed stuff” laid the foundations to allow all extant life to make it this far.
Hands cannot form unless there is the correct balance between cells dying and cells dividing. Both are necessary. The same applies to life at higher levels.
Is baldness something that needs to be cured? Maybe in some cases. But cancer and hair loss are not single conditions that can will be remedied by just one single cure.
I’ll add smoking to betting as something that I no longer do. I still have a very long way to go, but I have taken some responsibility for my health and the health of those around me; even though I have very limited powers. I pity people like Trump who abuse the powers they do have without giving it much thought whatsoever.
I won’t, in turn, ask you to “do some damn thing”, because my knowledge of you is so limited as to be virtually non existent. You probably do lots of things.
(Your frustration with me is showing and I’m sorry if I’m compounding it but I can’t help myself 🙂 )
I am talking about crossing over during meiosis, selective expression of genes, alternative splicing, things like that.
Right. Even guided evolution isn’t incompatible with aimless evolution we are now told.
Laughable.
What makes you say so?
Does this mean that you think gametes do have incentives to increase their representation?
Individual somatic cells do generally pass on representation of their genomes to the next generation of somatic cells that they produce. Red blood cells are obvious exceptions.
Yes. And there’s some really cool examples of the scuzzy tactics they may use…check out “meiotic drive”…
not relevant to what Corneel wrote. Try again.
When did “not entirely random in some respects” become “guided”? I note it was pointed out to you that a pair of honest dice will produce 7 more often than any other number, yet the rolls are not guided. How do you explain this pattern? Far as I can tell, you have to pick between ENTIRELY guided, and ENTIRELY random, because you can’t grasp complex concepts like dice.
Well, then if mutations are “random” with respect to fitness, why call that “unguided”? Why assume that? Let’s just call it less guided. Not ENTIRELY guided. Only somewhat guided.
I believe the problem here is your use of the term “guided”, which you insist on applying even when it’s not appropriate. I suspect that, in your mind, all life is being intentionally, deliberately guided by a higher power, and what you’re dismissing is any mechanism that seems to exclude DIVINE guidance, as opposed to “not entirely random.” And so I notice that, once again, you had to ignore the problem of the dice rolls being random, but the results not being random. Because if you considered that example, you might have to consider that perhaps “nonrandom” and “guided” are not synonymous.
In reality, very little is entirely random. There are nonrandom aspects to nearly everything, including the set of all phenomena that are not “guided” in the sense of some external agent loading the dice.
Here’s a challenge for you. Try to critique what is being said to you WITHOUT resorting to the idea of guidance. Use the dice rolls as your example.
Flint,
There must be one. Reductionist concepts would lead one to only suspect one. yet there could be more then one except the evolutionary one of coarse.
Corneel,
Well there are species of humans and its not racist even if it was wrong. pleaese don’t accuse these things if they are important accusations as you see it. The truth is not racist and this is a dumb disappointing statement of yours. i thoiught we were doing a honest smart conversation. Hmm I might try to make thread on that. Hmmm.
however human species is not the point here, though its true, but the different people groups based on bodyplans is the evidence for mechanism to change bodyplan and creationists embrace at least some mechanism to do this. its not from creation week.
Yes its first KINDS. then yes from that speciation is creationist doctrine.
I was making the case flocking is not what evolutionism should desire or expect.
If evolutionism was true there would not be flocking or very very unlikely.
Thats why Bowen introduced the subject and said that a answer was needed within evolutionary theory.
If mutations are having a great time then by this point species should of greatly changed in bodyplans and not have a simple variation.
Corneel,
Well there are species of humans and its not racist even if it was wrong. please don’t accuse these things if they are important accusations as you see it. The truth is not racist and this is a dumb disappointing statement of yours. i thought we were doing a honest smart conversation. Hmm I might try to make thread on that subject in the future.
however human species is not the point here, though its true, but the different people groups based on bodyplans is the evidence for mechanism to change bodyplan and creationists embrace at least some mechanism to do this. its not from creation week.
Yes its first KINDS. then yes from that speciation is creationist doctrine.
I was making the case flocking is not what evolutionism should desire or expect.
If evolutionism was true there would not be flocking or very very unlikely.
Thats why Bowen introduced the subject and said that a answer was needed within evolutionary theory.
If mutations are having a great time then by this point species should of greatly changed in bodyplans and not have a simple variation.
??? One what?
Flint,
What in your silly dice role analogy do you think applies to a not random in respect to fitness that Jock referenced? Do you even know what is being discussed here? Jock said random equals unguided, so then what does non random imply, also not guided? Then there is no distinction so no point in positing the first definition.
Your dice analogy has zero application to the not random to fitness that Jock mentioned. Is there some removal of possibilities until we are only left with one, like a dice with only sixes on all sides? What is the suggested mechanism for this bias? What in your head makes you think bacteria are like a dice roll? Was it a biased mutation in your brain which makes you unable to see the flaw in your thinking?
phoodoo,
Try a different analogy. A roulette wheel where outcomes are the pill ending up in a particular slot. Now imagine the wheel having unequal-sized slots.
Or how about only one slot. The odds are pretty good it will only fall in that slot. But what the hell does that have to do with mutations not being random with respect to fitness in salmonella, do they have less slots? Is someone manipulating the game?
You’ve not forgotten the niche, have you? The niche provides manipulation.
Is niche another word for God?
Because otherwise there is no known definition of niche which manipulates the mutations of organisms.
When you go to skeptic lodge meetings do you have to say the word niche, then flap your arms and lock your pinkie together with other skeptic lodge members whenever you meet them?
Mutations that increase fur length contribute to survival in colder climates.
Continents move over time.
Is that writ large enough for you?
You mock something that is taught in universities. Evolution as an explanation for the origin of species.
Do they teach what you espouse in universities? Does that not give you pause? Generation after generation not being exposed to, well, whatever it is you think?
Actually, what is the origin of species according to phoodoo? I don’t think you’ve ever actually said…..
Schluter, D. 2000. The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
And these mutations are not random with respect to fitness? The niche caused that?
Do you even know what is being discussed? (you don’t have to answer that)
Well, it could be. I find it undecidable. What do you think?
Amazing that nobody here can get the point across that nonrandom does NOT mean the same thing as guided. The whole point of the dice analogy was to show that the dice are not guided, but the results are not random. In nature we can find a wealth of correlations, but unlike you we do not INSIST that correlation = causation. Whereas you assume the cause, and then you use correlations to support this assumption.
If we presume for discussion that there are no gods, we would still see plenty of correlations, plenty of pattern, plenty of directional changes. In fact, we would see exactly what we do see. One of the stronger arguments against gods is that either they do nothing, or they do precisely what would happen without them.
They occur in warm climates too. So yes, they are.
Nobody is really discussing anything with you. You are merely being educated bit by bit and perhaps one day you’ll be able to have a legitimate discussion.
Currently you have nothing to contribute beyond carefully curated misunderstandings.
Yeah, “discussion”.