Why do people equate ID with Creationism?

[rossum]

The Theory of Evolution “requires” that order be increased - it’s not MY requirement.

Evolution requires no such thing. You, or your creationist source, are misunderstanding what the theory says. A blind cave fish can evolve from a fish with eyes. A blind fish does not have to expend energy building useless eyes and so has a reproductive advantage. This is nothing to do with “order”, which if anything is reduced in the blind eyeless fish as oppposed to its sighted ancestor. How much “order” is there is an ostrich’s wing compared to the wing of its flighted ancestor? Dolphins have completely lost their sense of smell - they have remnants of the same genes other mammals have but none of them are active. An increase in “order” or a decrease?

You are not arguing against evolution here, but against some sort of strawman.

And after the “better and more ordered” life form is “available” then natural selection can give it preference (in a matter of speaking).

Incorrect. As I have shown, in some circumstances “less ordered” is selected in preference to “more ordered”. Evolution can both increase and decrease complexity. Our tails are far less complex than our ancestors’ tails. Yet another example of evolution resulting in a decrease in complexity.

I agree that in many circumstances an increase in complexity is an advantage, but natural selection is working on the “advantage” part not on the complexity part. Complexity is only selected insofar as it is advantageous, in circumstances where simplicity has the advantage then simplicity will be selected.

You need to find a better source about evolution.

Abiogenesis is a different story, I agree. The probability of simple life arising from dirt in 9 billion years is even more improbable than simple life becoming complex life in 4 billion years.

You will need to show your model and your calculations if you want to convince me. We know that life has arisen. Scientists are working towards an explanation of the origin of life, though they have a long way to go yet. Creationists do not yet have any explanation at all. (Be careful, that last point is not as simple as it may appear at first.)

Salt crystals forming is pretty much built into the basic geometry of the chemical bonds. It is very probable that salt will form crystals.

Which is precisely why I asked for your model of abiogenesis. I need to know what chemicals you are using and how you have modelled the basic geometry of their chemical bonds. The results depends greatly on the exact details of your model and how you have modelled those details mathematically. Unfortunately a lot of the mathematical models that creationists present are far too simple and fail to account for basic chemistry. A “tornado in a junkyard” is not the correct model for abiogenesis, as the salt crystal example shows.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

Evolution requires no such thing. You, or your creationist source, are misunderstanding what the theory says.

In my message to Zian, which you actually responded to, I said that I am not a creationist. I also said that my only issue with the theory of evolution at this point was that there was not enough time… You guys like to throw the “creationist” term around a lot as a sort of insult against anybody who disagrees with you for any reason. Please stop. If you can.

A blind cave fish can evolve from a fish with eyes. A blind fish does not have to expend energy building useless eyes and so has a reproductive advantage. This is nothing to do with “order”, which if anything is reduced in the blind eyeless fish as oppposed to its sighted ancestor.

snip…

You are not arguing against evolution here, but against some sort of strawman.

Yes, it would be expected to go from a more ordered state to a less ordered state over time. That particular direction is not the issue here. Unfortunately, evolution by random mutations and natural selection says it can account not just for that direction, but for the less ordered to more ordered direction as well. That direction IS a problem

Your argument above is a straw man.

I agree that in many circumstances an increase in complexity is an advantage, but natural selection is working on the “advantage” part not on the complexity part. Complexity is only selected insofar as it is advantageous, in circumstances where simplicity has the advantage then simplicity will be selected.

I agree with you that complexity is selected only insofar as it is an advantage. The theory of evolution says that complex life evolved from more simple life. So it must have been advantageous to do so. But just because it is advantageous doesn’t mean that it HAS to happen. For cases of complex life, random mutations for these “advantageous because they are complex” mutations still have to occur before natural selection can occur.

I’ve asked several times in this forum for a “rollup” of the times required for evolution to happen. For example, if the particular case of evolution being discussed involves species mutating from A to B to C to D, then just tell me which mutations occurred for each step, and how long each took. It seems that nobody can give me the time estimate, much less even tell me exactly what mutations occurred (at the DNA level.) But it seems that everybody KNOWS as fact that it takes 4 billion years to go from the simplest form of life to man, and that evolution did it “somehow.” This sounds an awful lot like “God did it, somehow” which is what causes you guys to go ballistic.

I don’t have a personal theory of evolution, but since the standard theory of evolution is so well developed, it seems like it should be possible to give the details of A to B to C to D, and add up the times for them and see if it comes to 4 billion years (of course there are more steps involved there, this is for illustration only).

Can you provide this information? Or did evolution just do it “somehow”?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your statements are demonstrably false. To compare Robert Goddard’s primitive liquid fuel rocket to the V-2 is nonsense.

**

By the late 1930s, however, Goddard grew troubled. He had noticed long before that of all the countries that showed an interest in rocketry, Germany showed the most. Now and then, German engineers would contact Goddard with a technical question or two, and he would casually respond. But in 1939 the Germans suddenly fell silent. With a growing concern over what might be afoot in the Reich, Goddard paid a call on Army officials in Washington and brought along some films of his various Nells. He let the generals watch a few of the launches in silence, then turned to them. “We could slant it a little,” he said simply, “and do some damage.” The officers smiled benignly at the missile man, thanked him for his time and sent him on his way. The missile man, however, apparently knew what he was talking about. Five years later, the first of Germany’s murderous V-2 rockets blasted off for London. By 1945, more than 1,100 of them had rained down on the ruined city.

Rebuffed by the Army, Goddard spent World War II on sabbatical from rocketry, designing experimental airplane engines for the Navy. When the war ended, he quickly returned to his preferred work. As his first order of business, he hoped to get his hands on a captured V-2. From what he had heard, the missiles sounded disturbingly like his more peaceable Nells. Goddard’s trusting exchanges with German scientists had given Berlin at least a glimpse into what he was designing. What’s more, by 1945 he had filed more than 200 patents, all of which were available for inspection. When a captured German scientist was asked about the origin of the V-2, he was said to have responded, “Why don’t you ask your own Dr. Goddard? He knows better than any of us.” When some V-2s finally made their way to the U.S. and Goddard had a chance to autopsy one, he instantly recognized his own handiwork. “Isn’t this your rocket?” an assistant asked as they poked around its innards. “It seems to be,” Goddard replied flatly. **

Surprised?

Nazi biologists entered the employ of the CIA.

The CIA also paid “paranormal” specialists to study ESP warfare. Idiots.

 

[edwest2]

Robert Goddard died on August 10, 1945.

God bless,
Ed

 

[zian]

ricmat:

You understand, of course, that a failure of the model to duplicate what the theory says should happen could be a failure of the theory itself (and not just a failure of the model). Don’t you?

Yep.

ricmat:

BTW - the links to the articles you posted in response were rabidly anti-creationist.

I do not find them so, but I think it is certainly possible to find such at talkreason. I try to just concentrate on the science portion of the discussion and ignore the anti-religious windbaggery. Personally, I consider it just part of the diversity challenge that we have as Catholics.

ricmat:

I’m not a creationist (and I’m not sure about Sewell). …

You do believe that God had something to do with all this, right?

Yep.

ricmat:

The Theory of Evolution “requires” that order be increased - it’s not MY requirement. A complex life form is more ordered than a simple one. And after the “better and more ordered” life form is “available” then natural selection can give it preference (in a matter of speaking).

That is not my understanding (as rossum has already pointed out as well). It is more like this >>
“The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).”
from here >> talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
If you could provide some references or linkage to online sources then their merits could be considered.

Originally Posted by rossum
Evolution requires no such thing. You, or your creationist source, are misunderstanding what the theory says.

to which ricmat replied -
In my message to Zian, which you actually responded to, I said that I am not a creationist. I also said that my only issue with the theory of evolution at this point was that there was not enough time… You guys like to throw the “creationist” term around a lot as a sort of insult against anybody who disagrees with you for any reason. Please stop. If you can.

It seems rossum was suggesting that your source was creationist, not you.

I guess I’m just less pessimistic about the probabilities that you are -

“Complexity should be expected from evolution. In computer simulations, complex organisms were more robust than simple ones (Lenski et al. 1999), and natural selection forced complexity to increase (Adami et al. 2000).”
From talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html
And links therein.

More detail for the interested reader at Information Theory and Creationism

 

[zian]

Robert Goddard died on August 10, 1945.

God bless,
Ed

From Wikipedia, FWIW en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goddard_(scientist

“… Though he brought his work in rocketry to the attention of the United States Army, he was rebuffed, since the Army largely failed to grasp the military application of rockets.
In Nazi Germany, however, Wernher von Braun took Goddard’s plans from various journals and incorporated them into building the early 1930s A-1 and A2 prototypes of the Aggregate series that later, designated A4 or V-2, constantly struck at Europe in the last two years of World War Two. In 1963, von Braun, reflecting on the history of rocketry, said of Goddard: “His rockets … may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles”.
Goddard was the center of a famous espionage operation involving the German Intelligence Agency, Abwehr and an operative called Nikolaus Ritter. Being the head of the agency’s U.S. operations, Ritter recruited a source who infiltrated the circle around
…
After his offer to develop rockets for the Army was declined, Goddard temporarily gave up his preferred field to work on experimental aircraft for the U.S. Navy. After the war ended, Goddard was able to inspect captured German V-2s, many components of which he recognized. However, Goddard would not design any more rockets of his own.
He learned he had throat cancer in 1945, and died that year in Baltimore, Maryland. He was buried in Hope Cemetery in his hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts. “

 

[ricmat]

				Originally Posted by **ricmat** 					 				
			*The Theory of Evolution "requires" that order be increased - it's not MY requirement. A complex life form is more ordered than a simple one. And after the "better and more ordered" life form is "available" then natural selection can give it preference (in a matter of speaking).

Zian:
*
That is not my understanding (as rossum has already pointed out as well). It is more like this >>
“The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them.%between%

To clarify what I meant in my original post above – complex life is by definition more ordered than simple life. The theory of evolution answers this by saying that randomness (as in mutations) brings about increasing order.

Just as no physical laws prevent a totally random coin flip from coming up heads a billion times in a row, you can not conclude that since you saw 3 heads in a row (micro evolution) that a billion in a row is reasonable to base a theory on. If you doubt this, just go to Las Vegas for a while and stay long enough to place a few dozen bets. At this point, the theory of evolution cannot even say exactly what happened over time. But you know that “it works, somehow” to explain complex life.

Why are you so certain that you are right? It seems that many supporters of Darwinian evolution (defined as random mutations plus natural selection) defend the theory as being absolutely positively without any doubts true. And any questions are attacked as heresy.

BTW - if you say that evolution can do what it does because it’s built into the laws of nature, then all I can say is “That’s one heck of an intelligent design. We should look into it further.” But as I said earlier, I believe that God continues to interact with his creation, and is not the watchmaker who walked away from his work after winding it up. So instead of complexity resulting from random mutations, I believe that they are guided by the hand of God. And no, I can’t prove that.

 

[rossum]

In my message to Zian, which you actually responded to, I said that I am not a creationist. I also said that my only issue with the theory of evolution at this point was that there was not enough time… You guys like to throw the “creationist” term around a lot as a sort of insult against anybody who disagrees with you for any reason. Please stop. If you can.

I use both creationist and evolutionist as convenient shorthand. In this case I was using creationist to describe your source, not you. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

Yes, it would be expected to go from a more ordered state to a less ordered state over time. That particular direction is not the issue here. Unfortunately, evolution by random mutations and natural selection says it can account not just for that direction, but for the less ordered to more ordered direction as well. That direction IS a problem

Why? Mutations are random - think of them as an ink-blot spreading in all directions. Natural selection picks the ones that spread in advantageous directions. There are plenty of examples of increasing complex organs evolving gradually over time. Look at the size of brains in tetrapods from Tiktaalik to ourselves. An extremely complex organ developing gradually over time from simpler beginnings. There is no problem for evolution in developing complexity.

I agree with you that complexity is selected only insofar as it is an advantage. The theory of evolution says that complex life evolved from more simple life. So it must have been advantageous to do so. But just because it is advantageous doesn’t mean that it HAS to happen.

Agreed, if the initial mutation does not happen then natural selection has nothing to work on.

For cases of complex life, random mutations for these “advantageous because they are complex” mutations still have to occur before natural selection can occur.

Agreed. Remember that we are talking about populations here. There are about six billion humans on earth, with each of us carrying about 100 mutations. That is a total of 600,000,000 mutations per generation. Over the generations that is a lot of mutations for evolution to work on.

I’ve asked several times in this forum for a “rollup” of the times required for evolution to happen. For example, if the particular case of evolution being discussed involves species mutating from A to B to C to D, then just tell me which mutations occurred for each step, and how long each took. It seems that nobody can give me the time estimate, much less even tell me exactly what mutations occurred (at the DNA level.) But it seems that everybody KNOWS as fact that it takes 4 billion years to go from the simplest form of life to man, and that evolution did it “somehow.” This sounds an awful lot like “God did it, somehow” which is what causes you guys to go ballistic.

I can point you to three examples. The first is the Line of Descent from the Lenski paper (background information linked here). That shows the mutation by mutation line of descent from a simple organism to a more complex one.

The second example is a calculation I made to show the uselessness of those creationist “tornado in a junkyard” calculations which completely ignore the effects of natural selection. Any model of evolution which ignores natural selection is not worth the electrons used to display it on screen. My piece is The Evolution of Boojumase, which shows that a 100 base pair enzyme can evolve in just over two million generations.

The third is a calculation on the evolution of the camera eye by Nilsson and Pelger: A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve, which comes up with less that 400,000 generations for an eye to evolve.

All three of these show that the 4 billion years is plenty long enough for evolution to happen. With bacteria a generation can be as short as twenty minutes, and for most of life on earth bacteria were all there were. Multi celled organisms such as ourselves only appeared about 550 million years ago.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

Why? Mutations are random - think of them as an ink-blot spreading in all directions. Natural selection picks the ones that spread in advantageous directions. There are plenty of examples of increasing complex organs evolving gradually over time. Look at the size of brains in tetrapods from Tiktaalik to ourselves. An extremely complex organ developing gradually over time from simpler beginnings. There is no problem for evolution in developing complexity.

You are assuming that evolution by random mutations and natural selection caused the brain changes from tetrapods to ourselves. You didn’t prove it, you assumed it. “Evolution did it, somehow.”

Remember that we are talking about populations here. There are about six billion humans on earth, with each of us carrying about 100 mutations. That is a total of 600,000,000 mutations per generation. Over the generations that is a lot of mutations for evolution to work on.

I disagree that that is a lot of mutations. How many are beneficial? How many need to happen simultaneously in the same generation for things to work out? How about those beneficial mutations that don’t survive (for various reasons) and then need happen by random chance a second or third of fourth time?

How many mutations does it take to go from our non-cellular life ancestor to us? Do you know?

4 billion years seems like a long time, but it isn’t really.

I can point you to three examples. The first is the Line of Descent from the Lenski paper (background information linked here). That shows the mutation by mutation line of descent from a simple organism to a more complex one.

It wasn’t clear in the example - what kind of simple life and what kind of complex life are we talking about here? If this is just a single step along the simple to complex highway, then it is meaningless if the highway from non-cellular life to humans is trillions of mutations long.

snip…

All three of these show that the 4 billion years is plenty long enough for evolution to happen. With bacteria a generation can be as short as twenty minutes, and for most of life on earth bacteria were all there were. Multi celled organisms such as ourselves only appeared about 550 million years ago.

rossum

So add up how long each mutation would take (on average is OK), and multiply by the number of total mutations needed to take you from non-cellular life to humans, and see what you get. You can’t do it because you don’t even know HOW it happened (in what sequence). But you know evolution did it, somehow. Your faith in evolution by random mutations is quite strong.

The second example is a calculation I made to show the uselessness of those creationist “tornado in a junkyard” calculations which completely ignore the effects of natural selection. Any model of evolution which ignores natural selection is not worth the electrons used to display it on screen.

Natural selection can only eliminate things that are already there. It can’t create something that isn’t already there. Certainly, to simulate a complete model of evolution it must be considered. But if it is left out totally in a simulation, and you assume no limitation of natural resources, then it becomes a moot point. In this case, ALL mutations will survive and proliferate. And the probability of all the right things happening to create man is actually tilted in your favor since nothing is ever weeded out. Natural selection does not make things more complex. It can’t make things more advantageous or more favorable. Leaving it out of the equation actually improves your odds (in the simulation) quite a bit.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You are assuming that evolution by random mutations and natural selection caused the brain changes from tetrapods to ourselves.

That is what the evidence shows, yes. We can observe the changes in brains over time in the fossil record, and we know that these changes are indeed the result of mutation.

Rossum writes:
Remember that we are talking about populations here. There are about six billion humans on earth, with each of us carrying about 100 mutations. That is a total of 600,000,000 mutations per generation. Over the generations that is a lot of mutations for evolution to work on.

I disagree that that is a lot of mutations. How many are beneficial?

Perhaps one in ten thousand. That would be about 60,000 favorable ones per generation. Not too bad.

How many need to happen simultaneously in the same generation for things to work out?

Almost none. Evolution doesn’t seem to work that way.

How about those beneficial mutations that don’t survive (for various reasons) and then need happen by random chance a second or third of fourth time?

Or maybe never again. That can happen, too. And keep in mind, “beneficial” only applies in terms of the organism and the environment. That can change.

How many mutations does it take to go from our non-cellular life ancestor to us? Do you know?

How many steps did Jesus take on His way to the crucifixion? If you don’t know, does that mean it didn’t happen? Do you realize what that kind of questions suggests?

Natural selection does not make things more complex.

That’s demonstrably untrue. E. coli were observed to evolve by natural selection, an irreducibly complex enzyme system.

It can’t make things more advantageous or more favorable.

It was directly observed to do so.

Leaving it out of the equation actually improves your odds (in the simulation) quite a bit.

Nope. But leaving it out is the only hope creationists have. If they accept the fact of natural selection, there is no hope of denying evolution.

 

[ricmat]

That is what the evidence shows, yes. We can observe the changes in brains over time in the fossil record, and we know that these changes are indeed the result of mutation.

Well, Barbarian, I took you off my ignore list to see what you were saying these days, and lo…you were responding to my post.

No, no, no. You don’t know that these changes are the result of mutation. I agree that they probably are, but no, you don’t know for sure. How can you possibly know that they were the result of mutation? If you are sure, then tell me, what mutations actually occurred?

You are looking at the gross results and assuming that evolution did it somehow.

Ricmat said previously: Natural selection does not make things more complex.

to which Barbarian responded:

That’s demonstrably untrue. E. coli were observed to evolve by natural selection, an irreducibly complex enzyme system.

Barbarian - mutations, not natural selection are responsible for ALL changes. Natural selection merely filters out the changes. Let’s say that a gazelle gets a packet of new improved mutations - and now it can run faster, and smell better, and out think the tigers that chase gazelles for food. So they live long enough to pass those mutations on to the the next generation. The tiger catching and eating the old unimproved gazelles (and thus preventing them from passing along their genes) is the natural selector.

The tigers do not make the gazelles new and improved, they merely eliminate the ones that are not new and improved.

Natural selection does not create complexity. And mutations can make things more complex only over the short term. 3 heads in a row by random chance is pretty easy but billions in a row are not.

Ricmat further said of natural selection in the context of a computer simulation of evolution:

 Quote:
                                             Leaving it out of the equation actually improves your odds (in the simulation) quite a bit.

to which Barbarian replied:

Nope. But leaving it out is the only hope creationists have. If they accept the fact of natural selection, there is no hope of denying evolution.

You don’t understand. The gazelles would be thrilled to not have the tigers (natural selection) in the equation. Because sometimes even the tigers get lucky and…you know that very first new improved gazelle? He ran so quickly away from a pursuing tiger that he ran very very quickly (much more quickly than before) into the jaws of a tiger coming from the other direction. Bad luck that. If only those pesky natural selectors hadn’t been there, those good genes would have been passed along immediately. Now those gazelles need to wait another few million years for that random mutation to occur again. Without the tigers, all the good mutations would survive to create an uber-gazelle species much more quickly.

Leaving natural selection out of the equation actually favors more complex things developing in a faster fashion. But it still isn’t fast enough.

Note: I use tigers and gazelles only for illustration purposes. Obviously there are other natural selectors as well…

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, Barbarian, I took you off my ignore list to see what you were saying these days,…

In fact, almost everyone who uses the “ignore list” actually continues to read posts of the ignored. You’re not unique.

No, no, no. You don’t know that these changes are the result of mutation. I agree that they probably are, but no, you don’t know for sure.

I don’t know for sure that the sun will come up tomorrow. But the evidence is overwhelming for both of these.

How can you possibly know that they were the result of mutation?

All genetic changes we know about were the result of mutation of some kind, and there is no known mechanism for anything else.

If you are sure, then tell me, what mutations actually occurred?

For example, a chromosome fusion that gave us one less chromosome than other apes. Myostatin gene that made us much less strong, but perhaps able to grow larger brains.

Stuff like that.

You are looking at the gross results and assuming that evolution did it somehow.

The evidence remains in our genes, and the genes of our relatives.

Natural selection does not make things more complex.

Barbarian observes:
That’s demonstrably untrue. E. coli were observed to evolve by natural selection, an irreducibly complex enzyme system.

Barbarian - mutations, not natural selection are responsible for ALL changes.

No. By determining which alleles survive, natural selection determines what the possible outcomes are for the next generation, and then selects among them. This is the changes that count; those that occur over generations.

The tigers do not make the gazelles new and improved,

Demonstrably wrong. Animals found in areas without predators are much less fit than those in areas with many predators.

Natural selection does not create complexity. And mutations can make things more complex only over the short term. 3 heads in a row by random chance is pretty easy but billions in a row are not.

Take a million coins. Flip them. Save only the ones that were heads. Flip them again, save only the ones that were heads. You end up with a lot of coins that had an unbelievably small chance of many heads in a row.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. But leaving it out is the only hope creationists have. If they accept the fact of natural selection, there is no hope of denying evolution.

You don’t understand.

No, you don’t get it, because you don’t understand biology in general, and selection in particular. And because you can’t get the idea that evolution happens to populations, you keep missing the point that selection is the creative force in a population.

Leaving natural selection out of the equation actually favors more complex things developing in a faster fashion.

Nope. You still don’t realize how it works. Without natural selection, there is no direction to evolution. Would you be offended if I suggested you get a decent text on the subject and learn about it?

 

[rossum]

The theory of evolution answers this by saying that randomness (as in mutations) brings about increasing order.

Not quite. Mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, founder effect and so forth may bring about either increasing complexity or decreasing complexity.

Just as no physical laws prevent a totally random coin flip from coming up heads a billion times in a row, you can not conclude that since you saw 3 heads in a row (micro evolution) that a billion in a row is reasonable to base a theory on.

Quite right, and the ToE does not do that. Start with a population of six million. They all flip a coin, half the population get tails and die while the other half get heads and reproduce passing on the heads coin to their descendants. The next generation flips another coin; tails die, heads reproduce the next generation who now all have two heads in the bank. Carry on for a million generations and you have a population each with a million heads. After a billion generations you will have a population each with a billion heads. I would emphasise that the passing on of the coins collected so far to descendants is important in this model. Evolution deals with heritable variations; non-heritable variations are not part of the theory.

As I said in my previous posts, mathematical models that do not take account of natural selection are worthless. Your “billion coin flip” model does not include natural selection so the figures it produces are of no real relevance to the ToE. In terms of Richard Dawkins’ analogy of Mount Improbable, you are trying to jump up the cliff face in one huge step while evolution is taking the gradual path round the back of the mountain to get to the top by the accumulation of many small steps.

Why are you so certain that you are right? It seems that many supporters of Darwinian evolution (defined as random mutations plus natural selection) defend the theory as being absolutely positively without any doubts true. And any questions are attacked as heresy.

I am not certain. However I have seen enough evidence that the methods of evolution work to accept it until something better comes along. Every form of creationism (as opposed to theistic evolution) that I have looked at has failed to show as much evidence as the ToE has. The preponderance of the evidence is in favour of the Toe. It has been shown correct beyond reasonable doubt.

BTW - if you say that evolution can do what it does because it’s built into the laws of nature, then all I can say is “That’s one heck of an intelligent design. We should look into it further.”

Indeed, it has been called “stacking the deck” - God created the universe in such a way that evolution would result in ourselves (or possibly cats ). This is just a form of theistic evolution which is easily compatible with science.

But as I said earlier, I believe that God continues to interact with his creation, and is not the watchmaker who walked away from his work after winding it up. So instead of complexity resulting from random mutations, I believe that they are guided by the hand of God. And no, I can’t prove that.

Take two pool players. Each attempts a complex shot. The first player makes her shot and it works perfectly without any further intervention - she got it exactly right at the start. The second player gets the initial shot slightly wrong and has to nudge the cue ball slightly partway through its travel. Which player is the better player? Which player is closer to a perfect omnimax deity who has infinite power? You might wish to consider the theology of your position more carefully. Does God intervene in the world because He wants to or because He has to?

rossum

 

[rossum]

You are assuming that evolution by random mutations and natural selection caused the brain changes from tetrapods to ourselves. You didn’t prove it, you assumed it. “Evolution did it, somehow.”

I made no such assumption, I made a reasonable deduction from the available data:

• the development of the brain is under the control of genes
• genes mutate
• changes to the genes can result in changes to the brain
• changes to the brain can result in changes to reproductive effectiveness
• differential reproductive effectiveness drives natural selection

If the data changes then it is possible that my conclusion will change, but it is not an arbitrary assumption.

I disagree that that is a lot of mutations. How many are beneficial? How many need to happen simultaneously in the same generation for things to work out? How about those beneficial mutations that don’t survive (for various reasons) and then need happen by random chance a second or third of fourth time?

Whether or not a mutation is beneficial depends on the envorinment, as with the eyeless cave fish. Eyelessness is only beneficial in a lightless environment. Hence if I am to answer your question about the number of beneficial mutations you are going to have to tell me in exact detail about the precise environment for every one of our ancestors. Only then will I be able to answer that part of your question.

How many mutations does it take to go from our non-cellular life ancestor to us? Do you know?

I can try. Firstly you will need to give me a complete listing of the genome of that “non-cellular life” ancestor. Without knowing where I am starting from I will not be able to even begin the calculation. “How far is it to New York” is not answerable unless you know where to start measuring from.

It wasn’t clear in the example - what kind of simple life and what kind of complex life are we talking about here? If this is just a single step along the simple to complex highway, then it is meaningless if the highway from non-cellular life to humans is trillions of mutations long.

You need to read [Lenski et al (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/Nature03_Complex.pdf)(pdf) to get the background.

Your faith in evolution by random mutations is quite strong.

Not faith, acceptance. Any imperfect replicator with limited resources will evolve. Life is an imperfect replicator with limited resources hence it must evolve. We can see evolution in action here and now. We can see the effects of evolution in our past in our genomes here and now. Evolution has been shown correct beyond reasonable doubt. It can never be shown beyond unreasonable doubt.

Natural selection can only eliminate things that are already there. It can’t create something that isn’t already there. Certainly, to simulate a complete model of evolution it must be considered. But if it is left out totally in a simulation, and you assume no limitation of natural resources, then it becomes a moot point. In this case, ALL mutations will survive and proliferate. And the probability of all the right things happening to create man is actually tilted in your favor since nothing is ever weeded out.

You are misreading my calculation. The resource limit is implemented by means of the fixed population of ten million Mome Raths. In the absence of resource limits the population could grow as large as it liked and all mutations would indeed survive. Given the population limit then deleterious mutations disappear within 100 years. Because the population size is fixed it is possible for a mutation to disappear from the population. If the population could grow without limit then deleterious mutations would persist, albeit as a smaller proportion of the increasing population.

Natural selection does not make things more complex. It can’t make things more advantageous or more favorable.

Agreed, but evolution is a lot more than just natural selection. At the very least there must be variation for selection to act on and pressure on resources to introduce an element of competition. In my simulation the competition was for one of the limited number of slots in the next generation.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

All genetic changes we know about were the result of mutation of some kind, and there is no known mechanism for anything else.

Agreed, that’s exactly what I said. But mutation is not the same as natural selection. Are you sure you’re a biologist?

For example, a chromosome fusion that gave us one less chromosome than other apes. Myostatin gene that made us much less strong, but perhaps able to grow larger brains.

Stuff like that.

So, evolution did it, somehow. Right.

Barbarian observes:
That’s demonstrably untrue. E. coli were observed to evolve by natural selection, an irreducibly complex enzyme system.

Wrong. You can claim that evolution- as defined by mutations PLUS natural selection creates complexity. But natural selection is not the part that does it. The mutations do.

No. By determining which alleles survive, natural selection determines what the possible outcomes are for the next generation, and then selects among them. This is the changes that count; those that occur over generations.

Right. That’s what I said.

Barbarian observes:
No, you don’t get it, because you don’t understand biology in general, and selection in particular. And because you can’t get the idea that evolution happens to populations, you keep missing the point that selection is the creative force in a population.

I understand it better than you do apparently. I understand populations. Selection only kills, it does not create. I can’t believe that you don’t understand this.

Nope. You still don’t realize how it works. Without natural selection, there is no direction to evolution. Would you be offended if I suggested you get a decent text on the subject and learn about it?

I agree that direction is provided by natural selection. But mutations are what changes are about, changes from simple to complex. These can occur without natural selection even being involved. With no natural selection involved, ALL the mutations survive, including the good ones. It makes the model simpler and actually helps your case. But even then it doesn’t work.

Despite your claimed credentials, you have no idea which part mutations play versus natural selection in the theory you favor so much.

 

[ricmat]

I made no such assumption, I made a reasonable deduction from the available data:

• the development of the brain is under the control of genes
• genes mutate
• changes to the genes can result in changes to the brain
• changes to the brain can result in changes to reproductive effectiveness
• differential reproductive effectiveness drives natural selection
  If the data changes then it is possible that my conclusion will change, but it is not an arbitrary assumption.

Your original post merely stated that brains were smaller then, bigger now, so evolution must have done it (paraphrasing). You have no real evidence of terapod brains going even one step by evolution. You can “infer” it from data, but you can’t take a terapod and mutate it, and show anybody how it works.

Whether or not a mutation is beneficial depends on the envorinment, as with the eyeless cave fish. Eyelessness is only beneficial in a lightless environment. Hence if I am to answer your question about the number of beneficial mutations you are going to have to tell me in exact detail about the precise environment for every one of our ancestors. Only then will I be able to answer that part of your question.

Hey, it’s your theory. If you don’t know these things, I’m supposed to provide you with answers. Come on!!

I can try. Firstly you will need to give me a complete listing of the genome of that “non-cellular life” ancestor. Without knowing where I am starting from I will not be able to even begin the calculation. “How far is it to New York” is not answerable unless you know where to start measuring from.

ditto my answer above.

You need to read [Lenski et al (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/Nature03_Complex.pdf)(pdf) to get the background.

It looked like I needed to register to be able to read that.

Not faith, acceptance. Any imperfect replicator with limited resources will evolve. Life is an imperfect replicator with limited resources hence it must evolve. We can see evolution in action here and now. We can see the effects of evolution in our past in our genomes here and now. Evolution has been shown correct beyond reasonable doubt. It can never be shown beyond unreasonable doubt.

Well, even reasonable doubt is open to some opinion. That’s why trials typically have more than one juror. But I respect your opinion that you find it shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agreed, but evolution is a lot more than just natural selection. At the very least there must be variation for selection to act on and pressure on resources to introduce an element of competition. In my simulation the competition was for one of the limited number of slots in the next generation.

rossum

Again, I agree that for a completely correct model of evolution, natural selection must be included. However, I still believe that for a simplified model, if you leave it out it actually works in your favor (not the other way).

I need to go now, but I’ll try to log in later today.

 

[rossum]

Selection only kills, it does not create.

You are being too harsh here. Selection may kill, but in most cases it is just different reproductive success. If one member of a population carries a mutation that results in 0.1% more offspring then selection will spread that mutation through the population without the need to kill anything. As each generation dies for whatever reason the next generation will have more of the mutation because of that 0.1% advantage. Do a compound interest calculation for two bank accounts, one at 5.0% and one at 5.1%. See what happens after a hundred years. The difference is equivalent to the reproductive advantage of the mutation over 100 generations.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

And let’s factor in death from disease, lack of food and/or water due to drought and disasters such as volcanic activity, flooding. etc.

I reject the theory of evolution not out of ignorance but out of the idea, available for all to see on any atheist/humanist/free thinker/bright/Marxist/Leftist forum that man is just a bag of chemicals. That our holy genes, our selfish genes, made us who we are today, along with a little help from random mutations, genetic drift and environmental pressure. The church of DNA is our origin, our home. And we only provide food for worms when we die. Evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. So, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow your neural activity permanently ceases and you die.

God guided all processes, infallibly. Those of necessity and those of contingency.

I am saved by Jesus Christ, not Darwin.

God bless,
Ed

P.S.
I strongly recommend that those who are unsure of their faith to not visit any of the sites I referred to.

 

[rossum]

And let’s factor in death from disease, lack of food and/or water due to drought and disasters such as volcanic activity, flooding. etc.

Our genes can help or hinder out surviving many of these, though not all.

I reject the theory of evolution not out of ignorance but out of the idea, available for all to see on any atheist/humanist/free thinker/bright/Marxist/Leftist forum that man is just a bag of chemicals. That our holy genes, our selfish genes, made us who we are today, along with a little help from random mutations, genetic drift and environmental pressure. The church of DNA is our origin, our home. And we only provide food for worms when we die. Evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. So, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow your neural activity permanently ceases and you die.

Your church allows you to believe that. It also allows others to believe in theistic evolution. Both positions are consistent with Christianity; I cannot see the Catholic Church allowing a position that is inconsistent with Christianity.

rossum

 

[Ender]

We can see evolution in action here and now. We can see the effects of evolution in our past in our genomes here and now. Evolution has been shown correct beyond reasonable doubt.

Do you ever make a distinction between evolution and Darwinism? I am prepared to accept evolution; I am less prepared to accept that Darwinism adequately explains it. Proof that evolution occurred is not necessarily proof of the mechanism that caused it. I am assuming that wherever you use the word evolution you exclusively mean Darwinian evolution; so for you the terms would be interchangeable, thus the significant part of your statement above can also be read as “Darwinism has been shown correct beyond reasonable doubt.” Is that correct?

Ender