Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[LeafByNiggle]

rossum:

So far there is no evidence of that. Are Jewish males born ready-circumcised or do they still have foreskins despite thousands of years of circumcisions?

Of course there is evidence for it. You may disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but the evidence exists nonetheless. And the comment on circumcision shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Lamarck proposed. He claimed that organisms evolved changes in response to the environment. Circumcisions do not represent any change to the environment.

It certainly does represent a change to the environment. So what that it’s an artificial environment? It could just as well be a natural environment caused by a new parisite that goes around eating foreskins. The effect on human evolution would be the same.

 

[Ender]

It certainly does represent a change to the environment. So what that it’s an artificial environment? It could just as well be a natural environment caused by a new parisite that goes around eating foreskins. The effect on human evolution would be the same.

This is based on a misunderstanding of Lamarck’s theory, which Darwin in large measure ascribed to. Here again is Denis Noble on this perception of Lamarckism:

August Weismann performed his tail amputation experiments in 1890. They were designed to counter rather wild claims of nineteenth-century neo-Lamarckians who thought that surgical changes could be inherited. Some even claimed that the practice of circumcision could reduce or eliminate the foreskin in the offspring.

But this was not Lamarck’s idea. His idea was that inheritance may occur in a functional interaction between the organisms and their environment, through use and disuse of the organism’s structures. The question is not whether the non-functional results of surgery can be inherited. Darwin must have known already that such inheritance did not occur from the work of animal breeders. Tail amputation in dogs for aesthetic reasons does not result in stunted tails in the offspring, no matter how many generations are bred from the animals.

 

[Ender]

It is a statement of scientific fact, just like this one:

"If you toss a coin enough times, it has to turn up heads 20 times in a row.

This is true as far as it goes, but it assumes something that may not be true: it assumes it can be tossed “enough times”. The odds against a coin turning up heads 20 times in a row is 1 divided by 2**20 power, or just over a million to one. If you tossed a coin every second the odds are even that within a couple of weeks you would get 20 heads in a row.

But the odds regarding the accumulation of good gene mutations may be so large that they couldn’t happen within the lifetime of the universe. This points to the question of whether neo-Darwinian evolution as a question of probability could even occur; it says nothing about whether the theory is right in the first place.

 

[rossum]

God is not a utilitarian. He is Creator of wonders and beauty.

This calls for a dose of Monty Python:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

rossum

 

[vz71]

"If you toss a coin enough times, it has to turn up heads 20 times in a row.

No, it does not.

You are trying to turn a statistical possibility into a certainty.

Just because something can happen does not mean it will.

 

[Rau]

That is, evolution can be caused by circumstances external to it - by its environment. This wouldn’t prove that evolution doesn’t also happen by genetic mutation, but it would prove that genetic mutation is not the only pathway, which would refute one of the tenets on which neo-Darwinism is based.

There is a religious fervor underpinning much of this thread, and many of its contributors. Do you see any religious implication flowing, were this process (Lamarkian Change) confirmed?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

"If you toss a coin enough times, it has to turn up heads 20 times in a row.

No, it does not.

You are trying to turn a statistical possibility into a certainty.

Just because something can happen does not mean it will.

It is a direct consequence if the law of large numbers. Look it up.

 

[vz71]

I did.
The law of large numbers does not state that.
Like I said, that a thing is possible does not mean a thing will happen.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I did.
The law of large numbers does not state that.
Like I said, that a thing is possible does not mean a thing will happen.

Let me show you. The law of large numbers states:

" the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."

In the case of tossing 20 heads in a row, the expected value of the outcome is, as Ender correctly calculated, 1/2^20. This is a very small number, but it is definitely not zero. Therefore the results of actual trails, according to the LLN, will tend toward this value. It certainly cannot tend toward this value if it never comes up with 20 heads in a row. Therefore 20 heads in a row will come up eventually. QED. (And not only will it come up eventually, but it will come up 20 heads in a row an infinite number of times.)

 

[benjamin1973]

My view is this:

1. There’s a LOT more evidence for evolution than some posters here aren’t acknowledging. You can’t stick your head in the sand and then say a theory is wrong because there’s nothing to find. A little more actual research (and by this I mean a few minutes with google and a couple of Youtube videos) will demonstrate EXACTLY what physical traits are seen at different times, why scientists infer that species are related, how evolution from a micro-organism was thought to happen, and why.
2. If you believe in God, then IF evolution is true, it is a mechanism put into place by God. If honest observation shows that it is probably true, then which is a better revelation of the material truth of our Universe: a) the ancient writings of desert-dwelling hebrews; or b) reality as writ by God across the Universe (or in this case, in the fossil records).

I have my qualms about evolution. First of all, I don’t think it’s an actual thing-- I think it’s just a word describing what happens when you have enough cohesion in a physical system for new patterns to emerge, and enough time for them to emerge. No animal every “changed” into another animal like magic-- but over time, some animals disappeared and others appeared, and that’s quite clearly because of statistical interactions with a changing environment.

The Catholic position seems to be that not taking the story of Adam and Eve as a literal truth is blasphemy and shows a lack of faith. My position would be that Biblical accounts of creation were not dictated by God, and we have to learn our lessons from the idea of them, not treat them as historical revelations. Very simply, we have access to information now that Biblical writers didn’t have.

I’d much rather say “Look at these amazing things and how they work. What a great system God has put into place, and what an interesting way they have arrived at the existence of Earth and the human species.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is a statement of scientific fact, just like this one:

"If you toss a coin enough times, it has to turn up heads 20 times in a row.

This is true as far as it goes, but it assumes something that may not be true: it assumes it can be tossed “enough times”. The odds against a coin turning up heads 20 times in a row is 1 divided by 2**20 power, or just over a million to one. If you tossed a coin every second the odds are even that within a couple of weeks you would get 20 heads in a row.

But the odds regarding the accumulation of good gene mutations may be so large that they couldn’t happen within the lifetime of the universe. This points to the question of whether neo-Darwinian evolution as a question of probability could even occur; it says nothing about whether the theory is right in the first place.

My argument was not intended to prove evolution right. It was intended to refute a specific argument that said evolution was impossible. As for arguments that directly support evolution, I defer to the arguments that various scientists have made.

As for the probability of a mutation being beneficial, remember that all a mutation needs to do is be beneficial or not too damaging on its own. It does not need to occur simultaneously with other mutations to produce some huge morphological change. Sometimes just a single letter in the CTAG sequence can be beneficial. The probability of a single letter changing is not so far-fetched.

 

[Ender]

There is a religious fervor underpinning much of this thread, and many of its contributors. Do you see any religious implication flowing, were this process (Lamarkian Change) confirmed?

Yes, I do. One of the clear attractions of Darwinism is that, if evolution (an idea first proposed by the ancient Greeks) is truly driven by chance alone then it is a strong argument that God had no hand in creation.

Lamarkism doesn’t seem to directly challenge that belief - except as a threat to Darwinism’s central dogma - but what is being learned about how cells actually behave seems to be quite a threat, because if change is not random it opens the door to it being directed, and thus to there being a director.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Regarding the Waddington experiment, if the article does not actually say that it confirms Lamarckism, or that it contradicts modern evolution. (I would like to use the term “modern evolution” instead of “neo-Darwinism” or “Darwinism” to avoid the inevitable straw man attacks based on misunderstandings of what is being claimed. Same issue with Lamarckism, although I don’t know quite what else I can call it, so I will continue to call it Lamarckism.)

With enough variations in the description of what Lamarckism is, we can get to a description that is provably true, but does not challenge modern evolution. Or we can describe Lamarckism so that it definitely does challenge modern evolution, but is no longer easy to prove. I don’t think you can do both at once.

For example, when Lamarckism was described as characteristics acquired as the result of exposure to an environment, you said that was not correct because it had to also involve “a functional interaction between the organisms and their environment, through use and disuse of the organism’s structures.” That does not appear to be what was happening in the Waddington experiment. The argument that shows the limitations of that experiment is right there in the article you cited, so I won’t repeat it here. So we are still left with not a single experiment that challenges modern evolution. Despite what Darwin thought, modern evolution recognizes that mutations of the genetic code is not the only source of inheritable variability. Horizontal gene transfer is such a source, and it does not cause any worry to modern evolutionists. Those genes came from somewhere. That somewhere was, at some point, random variation, according to evolution.

 

[Ender]

I’m not sure who suggested evolution was impossible, but your argument makes no distinction between mathematical impossibility and practical impossibility. I don’t think the position that evolution is reasonable because there is a non-zero possibility that it occurs is particularly strong.

As a practical matter if the likelihood of an event happening is vanishingly small it is more reasonable to consider it impossible than possible, despite what mathematics suggests. If it takes an infinite amount of time for an event to occur I’m willing to call it impossible.

Nor is it merely the probably of an error in gene copying that drives the equation. There is that probability, times the probability that the cells own defense measures will catch it, times the probability that the change is physiologically significant, times the probability that it is not just significant but beneficial, times the probability that the individual with this characteristic lives long enough to pass it on to its offspring. Throw in the probabilities of other limiting factors and that number gets very large in a hurry. It is not at all clear that the probability supporting this theory is not quite small. That has always been one objection to this mechanism.

 

[edwest211]

A few assumptions are made here. One is “the ancient writings of desert-dwelling hebrews…” What does that mean? Another is “… not taking the story of Adam and Eve as a literal truth is blasphemy and shows a lack of faith.” The entire Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Who do you think wrote the Biblical accounts of creation?

1. Adam and Eve were two literal individuals who were given certain gifts by God, including immortality.
2. God gave them one command and they chose to disobey. At that point, all of us to be born would inherit a spiritual and physical Original Sin.
3. Then God sent His Son to be born of a sinless virgin, and to die as a sacrifice. Then He rose bodily.

As far as evolution, I ask that all reading consider a few things.

1. Does it have any practical use? If not, what is or can it be used for?
2. When a living thing acquires a novel organ, that organ needs to be integrated into its body. It needs a blood supply, a nervous system that connects to the brain of the animal to regulate its function, and it can’t interfere with anything else.

Sure, some animals lived and died and we have their bones but they were complete and fully functional. I saw a close-up photo of an insect trapped in amber. It had wings, legs and compound eyes. It was perfect. Why don’'t humans have compound eyes? Or eyes like eagles?

Divine revelation is true. Science is limited. And science is not the only way of knowing things.

Romans 1:20

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

New Living Translation
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

English Standard Version
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

[Aloysium]

You said that before.
It’s better to meditate
Than waste your time here.

 

[rossum]

Divine revelation is true. Science is limited.

Science is indeed limited, but it is also a fact that there are both incorrect and correct interpretations of divine revelation: witness the number of different Christian and Jewish denominations that disagree about a great many things.

When someone says “Divine revelation says…” it is usually more correct to say, “My denomination’s interpretation of divine revelation says…”

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Flip a coin often enough and it will end up on its edge is the correct analogy to the random formation of living organisms. Flip it for a billion, billion years and it won’t happen. Adaptations might, but even then it seems change happens primarily through gene deletion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not sure who suggested evolution was impossible, but your argument makes no distinction between mathematical impossibility and practical impossibility. I don’t think the position that evolution is reasonable because there is a non-zero possibility that it occurs is particularly strong.

As a practical matter if the likelihood of an event happening is vanishingly small it is more reasonable to consider it impossible than possible, despite what mathematics suggests.

As I said before, when very large or very small numbers are involved, human intuition is particularly inept. So we can’t process terms like “vanishingly small” by intuition alone. In this case the very small probability of a beneficial mutation must be multiplied by the very large number of organisms and multiplied by the very long time span over which the mutations may arise. There are 100 trillion bacterial cells in a human body, and there are over 7 billion people on earth right now. And the number of bacteria in the world in general (all the swamps, dirt, etc.) is much much more than that. And life has had millions of years to develop. Is that enough big numbers to multiply up the very small probability of a beneficial mutation? I don’t know. I can’t calculate it. But it is certainly not a slam-dunk that it is “vanishingly small.”

 

[rossum]

Adaptations might, but even then it seems change happens primarily through gene deletion.

So why is influenza still infectious? Each year or two there is a new variety, so according to this it is losing a gene with each new variety. When it loses an essential gene it will go extinct.

This sort of ludicrously bad attempt at pseudo-science is what gets creationist websites such a bad name. As I have said many times before, creationist websites lie to you. This is just one of the more egregious examples of their lies. Do not believe people who lie to you.

rossum