EVOLUTION: what about this

[Orogeny]

A novel concept in the world of evolutionary theorizing … Apparently, there were some unspecified and undefined “evolutionary potential” which explains the sudden increase in size and complexity of organisms through history.

They didn’t specify what a fossil is either, reggie. Aren’t you concerned with that?

(There are “no flaws” in the theory of evolution, and so we’re told --even when new concepts have to be invented to explain what natural selection could not have produced).

No new concept needed or claimed in the article you linked to.

Latent Evolutionary Potential

Each size step required **a major innovation in organismal **complexity—first the eukaryotic cell and later eukaryotic multicellularity. These size steps coincide with, or slightly postdate, increases in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen, **suggesting ****latent evolutionary potential was realized soon after environmental limitations were removed.The size increases appear to have occurred when ambient oxygen concentrations reached sufficient concentrations for clades to realize preexisting evolutionary **potential, highlighting the long-term dependence of macroevolutionary pattern on both biological potential and environmental opportunity.from a commentary on this article …

Let’s see. The theory of evolution says that genetic changes and the environment drive evolution. As the environment changes, the genetic changes that give an organism advantages in the new environment make them fitter for the new environment and therefore more likely to survive.

Now, the article you linked to notes that the preexisting evolutionary potential kicked in when the environment changed. How exactly is that indicitive of a flaw in the theory of evolution?

What exactly this “evolutionary potential” was is not speculated upon.

Neither is the concept of fossilization. Why doesn’t that somehow indicate that there are no such things as fossils? Perhaps, the authors of the paper assumed that the reader would understand the concept. In other words, reggie, they were not writing this for you.

The presence of latent genetic programs is certainly the most obvious explanation. Darwinists of course are unable to offer this obvious possibility. They would then have to explain where those programs might have come from. They would then be branded ID Creationists and lose their jobs.

Or that the evolutionary potential comes from genetic mutation over time. Just as the evidence shows.

While the article does not directly address the implications for Darwinism of the existence of “latent” or “preexisting” evolutionary potential, the impossibility of fitting this concept into the standard neo-Darwinian paradigm is obvious.

Especially to you.

The standard explanation of life’s development, of course, requires incremental trial-and-error mutations, with nothing “preexistent” about them, selected gradually over generations to build up evolutionary change.

Really? The standard explanation is that genetic code is re-created for each generation?

What these researchers have nicely documented in the fossil record, like so many other discoveries, flatly contradicts what would be expected in a Darwinian world. The findings fit quite nicely, however, with the concept of a preexistent design, with front-loaded genetic programs.

Especially if you are either clueless, ignorant or just have a false agenda to push. Which is it in your case, reggie?

Peace

Tim

 

[PEPCIS]

Your opinion on this will only be significant when you learn some science…

I have always found it fascinating how evolutionists mount personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

 

[Orogeny]

I have always found it fascinating how evolutionists mount personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

It isn’t a matter of disagreeing. It is impossible to have a conversation about science with someone who doesn’t understand science. A lot of people think that they know a lot based on what they read on the internet, but unfortunately science is not that simple to pick up and really understand. Basic concepts, yes, but not the specifics. Some people like to get into the specifics of science without really knowing what they are talking about. That is a problem when they are in discussions with someone like Alec who really does know science.

It’s kinda like having a discussion with a protestant who insists that they know what the Church teaches and Catholics don’t.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Now, the article you linked to notes that the preexisting evolutionary potential kicked in when the environment changed. How exactly is that indicitive of a flaw in the theory of evolution?

I’ll help you understand. The invention of the concept of a “preexisting evolutionary potential” was necessary because evolutionary theory cannot explain the sudden jump in “size and complexity”. If known evolutionary mechanisms could explain the phenomena, then there wouldn’t be a need for the “latent potential for evolution”.

Evolutionary theory obviously cannot explain where “preexisting evolutionary potential” came from because it came before evolution occurred.

The flaw in the theory here is that some “latent preexisting potential” is necessary to explain how these organisms evolved. Evolutionary theory alone cannot explain it, and the fact that the researchers had to invent this undefined, unspecifed “potential” is proof that the ordinary evolutionary explanations are in conflict with what is seen in nature.

 

[reggieM]

I have always found it fascinating how evolutionists mount personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

I find it fascinating also. They get quite emotional and then make personal attacks and insults.

 

[Orogeny]

I’ll help you understand. The invention of the concept of a “preexisting evolutionary potential” was necessary because evolutionary theory cannot explain the sudden jump in “size and complexity”. If known evolutionary mechanisms could explain the phenomena, then there wouldn’t be a need for the “latent potential for evolution”.

Nothing was invented. It is called genetics.

Evolutionary theory obviously cannot explain where “preexisting evolutionary potential” came from because it came before evolution occurred.

Strawman.

The flaw in the theory here is that some “latent preexisting potential” is necessary to explain how these organisms evolved. Evolutionary theory alone cannot explain it, and the fact that the researchers had to invent this undefined, unspecifed “potential” is proof that the ordinary evolutionary explanations are in conflict with what is seen in nature.

Strawman. It fits perfectly well within the theory. No flaws at all.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I find it fascinating also. They get quite emotional and then make personal attacks and insults.

You mean like calling their opponents con men?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

It fits perfectly well within the theory.

It clearly does not. It’s a new concept. The term “latent evolutionary potential” does not appear in scientific literature describing the theory of evolution. This new concept was necessary because current evolutionary theory is unable to explain the abrupt increase in size and complexity of organisms.

 

[Orogeny]

It clearly does not. It’s a new concept. The term “latent evolutionary potential” does not appear in scientific literature describing the theory of evolution. This new concept was necessary because current evolutionary theory is unable to explain the abrupt increase in size and complexity of organisms.

weizmann.ac.il/Biological_Chemistry/scientist/Tawfik/papers/(58)AmitaiHFSPMay07.pdf (2007)
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=281704 (1988)
books.google.com/books?id=9Xn_mcszx-kC&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=latent+evolutionary+potential&source=web&ots=MvgWWWzynx&sig=GVbG3beMwELbb8pKF_gEjTs1g1o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA275,M1 (see page 275) (1950!!)
citeulike.org/user/ljharmon/article/3343348 (1988)

From just a quick Google search. It is not a new concept.

Peace

Tim

 

[PEPCIS]

It isn’t a matter of disagreeing.

No, I didn’t say “disagree”. I said “personal attack.”

It is impossible to have a conversation about science with someone who doesn’t understand science.

The problem with that statement is that if you aren’t an evolutionist, then you must not “understand science.”

A lot of people think that they know a lot based on what they read on the internet, but unfortunately science is not that simple to pick up and really understand. Basic concepts, yes, but not the specifics. Some people like to get into the specifics of science without really knowing what they are talking about. That is a problem when they are in discussions with someone like Alec who really does know science.

Well, here’s the problem, as I see it. Evolutionists don’t understand what constitutes an ad hominem attack. When responding in a debate, any personal information of your opponent is not open for discussion. This would include whether your opponent is ugly, has a bald head, is a female, is short, or whether they “know science.”

If they don’t know science, then it will be born out in the debate, and any allusion to it is simply unnecessary, and ad hominem.

It’s kinda like having a discussion with a protestant who insists that they know what the Church teaches and Catholics don’t.

Interesting analogy, but I don’t see that it has any weight. Why is it that a protestant can’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches? Are Protestants incapable of comprehension skills?

 

[Orogeny]

No, I didn’t say “disagree”. I said “personal attack.”

I understand what you wrote and I responded to what I intended to respond to.

The problem with that statement is that if you aren’t an evolutionist, then you must not “understand science.”

No, the problem is if you don’t understand science, you don’t understand science.

Well, here’s the problem, as I see it. Evolutionists don’t understand what constitutes an ad hominem attack. When responding in a debate, any personal information of your opponent is not open for discussion. This would include whether your opponent is ugly, has a bald head, is a female, is short, or whether they “know science.”

I’m sorry, but that is silly. A statement of a fact is not an ad hominem attack. If I tried to argue brain function with a neurologist, he/she would be absolutely correct to point out that I don’t know neurology. That is a fact and it directly impacts my argument. Same as someone who insists on arguing science when they clearly don’t understand what they are arguing.

If they don’t know science, then it will be born out in the debate, and any allusion to it is simply unnecessary, and ad hominem.

If you say so. It doesn’t change the point of making the statement.

Interesting analogy, but I don’t see that it has any weight. Why is it that a protestant can’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches? Are Protestants incapable of comprehension skills?

OK, let me refine that. It is like a protestant insisting that we worship statues and that any Catholic that doesn’t agree is wrong.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Of course there is no such thing as a perfect theory because we will never have all the data.

No, we will never know what the name of Cain’s wife was so obviously Christianity is flawed.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Ok, I stand corrected and thanks for finding those links. I would not say that there was a substantial amount of information on this topic (two of your links were the exact statements from the same sources merely “proposing” latent potential).

Can you still claim that there are “no flaws” in the theory after reading a paper published in 2007 that was working precisely to deal with one of the flaws (as identified by a famous ID spokesman?).

Quoting the paper: HFSP Journal – why was a study of “latent potential” necessary?

The rarity of adaptive events of this type has been
recently highlighted (Behe and Snoke, 2004;
Lynch, 2005).The term can be found but it remains an ambigous concept.

We can see Michael Behe’s work referenced here. (Thus, numerous arguments refuted from that one line). The importance of this research was to deal with the “rarity” of adaptive events from neutral mutations (since current evolutionary theory is flawed in its explanation of the rise of complexity).

The hypothesis is that there may be “a potential for change”.

The last decade has seen many attempts to validate the
above hypothesis.

Many failed attempts to correct a flaw in the theory. Accordingly …

Despite the above-described findings there is no direct
evidence, nor a biophysical model, that indicate whether and
how latent promiscuous functions and conformations develop
under neutral drift while preserving the protein’s primary
function. This paper aims at an experimental examination
of latent activity changes within a large set of apparently
neutral enzyme variants.

Clearly, this paper is looking to explain something observed in nature that conflicted with current evolutionary theory (to that date, May 2007).

Tim’s claim remains that “there are no flaws” in the theory of evolution. Apparently, the last flaw was corrected in 2007 and this paper was all that was needed to make the theory “flawless”.

 

[reggieM]

No, we will never know what the name of Cain’s wife was so obviously Christianity is flawed.

rossum

I can definitely appreciate the comparison of evolutionism with religion. But Christianity is not a scientific theory.

 

[buffalo]

No, we will never know what the name of Cain’s wife was so obviously Christianity is flawed.

rossum

It was his twin sister named Avan.

 

[reggieM]

Evolutionary potential of hidden genetic variation

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 23, Issue 1, 33-37, 1 January 2008

The ability of a population to respond to natural or artificial selection pressures is determined by the genetic architecture of the selected trait. It is now widely acknowledged that a substantial part of genetic variability can be buffered or released as the result of complex genetic interactions. However, the impact of **hidden genetic diversity **on phenotypic evolution is still not clear. Here, we argue that a common term to describe the impact of hidden genetic variation on phenotypic change is needed and will help to provide new insights into the contribution of different components of genetic architectures to the evolvability of a character. We introduce the genetic charge concept, to describe how the architecture of a trait can be charged with potential for evolutionary change that can later be discharged in response to selection.

To the “no flaws” argument again. This recent paper argues to try to coin a new term, “the genetic charge”, in order to attempt to describe the impact of hidden genetic variation on whether an organism has “evolvability”.

Supposedly, an organism has to have this “genetic charge” in order to be able to evolve. But this concept does not reveal even the slightest flaw or conflict in the theory with perceived reality?

It’s clearly a debated issue. As such, it cannot be said to be answered certainly, or even that any one of the arguing parties have the correct answer. The theory is inadequate to explain what is observed in nature.

 

[Orogeny]

Can you still claim that there are “no flaws” in the theory after reading a paper published in 2007 that was working precisely to deal with one of the flaws (as identified by a famous ID spokesman?).

I still know of no flaws in the theory. Lack of understanding is not a flaw.

Quoting the paper: HFSP Journal – why was a study of “latent potential” necessary?

Where in the paper is that question posed? I can’t seem to find it.

We can see Michael Behe’s work referenced here. (Thus, numerous arguments refuted from that one line). The importance of this research was to deal with the “rarity” of adaptive events from neutral mutations (since current evolutionary theory is flawed in its explanation of the rise of complexity).

And this paper shows that Behe is wrong.

The hypothesis is that there may be “a potential for change”.

Did you read the entire paper?

Many failed attempts to correct a flaw in the theory. Accordingly …

Despite the above-described findings there is no direct
evidence, nor a biophysical model, that indicate whether and
how latent promiscuous functions and conformations develop
under neutral drift while preserving the protein’s primary
function. This paper aims at an experimental examination
of latent activity changes within a large set of apparently
neutral enzyme variants.

You stopped too soon. From later in the same paragraph from the paper:

The accompanying article provides a biophysical model indicating how alternative protein conformations, and hence functions, emerge under neutrality for the dominant or native function (Wroe et al, 2007)

Clearly, this paper is looking to explain something observed in nature that conflicted with current evolutionary theory (to that date, May 2007).

No, it expains something that was not known at that time, not something in conflict. No flaw.

Tim’s claim remains that “there are no flaws” in the theory of evolution. Apparently, the last flaw was corrected in 2007 and this paper was all that was needed to make the theory “flawless”.

I know of no flaws in the theory. And neither do you as is clearly apparent from the article regarding the increase of body size over 3.5 billion years that you posted. You need to stay away from sites like uncommondescent.com.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I can definitely appreciate the comparison of evolutionism with religion. But Christianity is not a scientific theory.

Nor is evolution a religion.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

To the “no flaws” argument again. This recent paper argues to try to coin a new term, “the genetic charge”, in order to attempt to describe the impact of hidden genetic variation on whether an organism has “evolvability”.

No flaw. Again, if this is truly a new term (and I don’t know if it is or is not), all it does is to serve as a tool to describe something that had not been previously described. That is not a flaw. A flaw would falsify the theory and this clearly doesn’t.

Supposedly, an organism has to have this “genetic charge” in order to be able to evolve. But this concept does not reveal even the slightest flaw or conflict in the theory with perceived reality?

No, it does not.

It’s clearly a debated issue. As such, it cannot be said to be answered certainly, or even that any one of the arguing parties have the correct answer. The theory is inadequate to explain what is observed in nature.

Nope. No flaw. Only continued research into how evolution works. The results of which continue to strengthen the theory.

Peace

Tim

 

[Volodymyr_988]

A story that we *know *cannot be literally true based on the fact that multiple lines of genomic data preclude the possibility of humans having descended from two sole parents and on the fact that talking snakes do not exist.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Have you personally examined and interviewed every single snake that has EVER existed?

You should know that it is pretty darn hard to prove a universal negative.

Just like it is pretty darn hard to prove that there is no God anywhere in the entire universe or in those multiverses that they talk about on the History Channel on Tuesday nights.

You’re caught in a logical trap there.