Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Hugh_Farey]

Of course they do, they have to. (evolution always has to be involved or no more funding – a point I have made right along).

Sour grapes. You have yet to suggest any possible research that Creartioniasts might apply for funding for.

No universal common descent. This is another pointer to the abrupt appearance of complexity without any continuous evolutionary pathways. Woese also showed this years ago.

No. Universal common descent is in no way impugned by this paper.

We get closer to the “kinds”.

No, of course we don’t.

“could randomly emerge” Oh my…

The usual Creationist misunderstanding of randomness.

I am glad you are now taking the time to read and discuss.

I always take the time to read and discuss. It is you who simply grab headlines off a quote mine shelf and cut’n’paste them into the thread hoping another Creationist will show how they support your argument. They never do, of course, because they never read the research involved, and probably wouldn’t understand it if they did. Only Evolutionists actually do any research into origins (and it has nothing to do with discriminatory funding); only evolutionists actually read the research published, and only evolutionists understand it.

None of it supports Creationism in any form.

 

[HarryStotle]

Glark:

Claiming a designer is necessary for the existence of complex, interdependent systems (as is evident in a living cell) is merely an “hypothesis”?

Is your proposed designer a “complex, interdependent system”? The ID hypothesis of an intelligent designer cannot explain the origin of intelligence, obviously, and – assuming the designer is alive – cannot explain the origin of life either.

One of my issues with ID theory is that ID proponents use a complex intelligent (and usually living) designer to ‘explain’ the origin of complex living and sometimes intelligent organisms. That smacks too much of the logical error of Petitio principii, assuming what you should be proving.

rossum

Perhaps, but the retort to your “issue” is the law of proportionate causality, which puts forth the proposition that you cannot get more in the effect than the cause is capable of bringing about. At its most basic it could be expressed as ex nihilo nihil fit or from nothing nothing comes.

I assume by your post that any argument that begins with “in order to get something you have to have something capable of bringing it about” also “smacks too much of the logical error of Petitio principii, assuming what you should be proving.”

So your objection would be that any argument beginning with a premise or several “assumes what you should be proving.” In which case, where do you begin?

I wouldn’t suppose that from nothing nothing comes assumes too much. It sounds like a basic starting point for any realistic metaphysic, no?

 

[HarryStotle]

Glark:

But it’s madness to think that something as functionaly complex as a living cell can arise by chance.

Nobody thinks that. Living cells arose initially from chemistry, which is not chance, and then changed by a combination of random mutations and natural selection. Natural selection is not a chance process, so the overall process is not a chance process either. Natural selection actively removes deleterious mutations from a population and actively spreads copies of beneficial mutations. Neither of those processes is chance.

rossum

Natural selection may not be a chance process, but it isn’t a creative process, either.

The question is whether random mutations can power successful and successive innovative changes to genetic code such that over hundreds of millions of years there is not merely a net rate of success but a remarkable series of beneficial changes to be “selected” by the natural environment.

The only reason this is assumed is because life exists in a plethora of successful forms, but that doesn’t prove random mutations have been the mechanism for powering evolution of life. Speaking of assuming what needs to be proven.

How can it be proved that mere random mutations could have resulted in innovative and successful life forms on the whole.

 

[Bradskii]

How can it be proved that mere random mutations could have resulted in innovative and successful life forms on the whole.

It can’t be. Because on the whole they haven’t.

I really wish you guys would study the subject more.

 

[Techno2000]

The question is whether random mutations can power successful and successive innovative changes to genetic code such that over hundreds of millions of years there is not merely a net rate of success but a remarkable series of beneficial changes to be “selected” by the natural environment.

Right,the environment always kept changing in just the right way, to mutate 10 million varieties of plants and animal species.

 

[Bradskii]

Techno, you have already indicated that you have no idea what you are talking about many, many times. What’s the purpose in continuing to do so?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno, you have already indicated that you have no idea what you are talking about many, many times. What’s the purpose in continuing to do so?

Bradskii, maybe because I keep getting overly simplify and vague answers to my questions.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

How can it be proved that mere random mutations could have resulted in innovative and successful life forms on the whole.

It can’t be. Because on the whole they haven’t.

I really wish you guys would study the subject more.

Sounds like deflection. Take any information that is coded towards a function, then randomly alter the code in small ways. You don’t end up with improved functionality, you end up with degradation, almost always. Degradation of function would result in rapid extinction rather than successful adaptation.

So you can’t merely assert the code was improved because the beneficial random changes were naturally selected, proven by the fact that the organisms have survived the selection process. That merely assumes what you claim to have proven. We know, apologists argue, that the selection process was successful by the fact that life has survived.

For all we know, however, without the properly designed genetic code absent the robust capacity to undergo and adapt to the process of natural selection, the selection process imposed too prematurely could have merely wiped out any biological information from the beginning.

This is where the claim of natural selection acting on random mutation doesn’t actually prove what it sets outs to, but merely assumes it. Defenders will sidestep the problem of origin completely by claiming that natural selection only came into play later and so they don’t even attempt to address the question of biogenesis, claiming it isn’t in the purview of biological evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

HarryStotle:

How can it be proved that mere random mutations could have resulted in innovative and successful life forms on the whole.

It can’t be. Because on the whole they haven’t.

I really wish you guys would study the subject more.

Sounds like deflection. Take any information that is coded towards a function, then randomly alter the code in small ways. You don’t end up with improved functionality, you end up with degradation, almost always.

Yeah! You got it. ‘Almost always’ you sez. That’s good enuff.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

HarryStotle:

How can it be proved that mere random mutations could have resulted in innovative and successful life forms on the whole.

It can’t be. Because on the whole they haven’t.

I really wish you guys would study the subject more.

Sounds like deflection. Take any information that is coded towards a function, then randomly alter the code in small ways. You don’t end up with improved functionality, you end up with degradation, almost always.

Yeah! You got it. ‘Almost always’ you sez. That’s good enuff.

Yeah, but the degradation occurring “almost always” doesn’t imply the small chance of success guarantees successive future success. The degradation is like compound interest. The same few successes in one generation must also be successful next generation and the next and the next, ad infinitum. Ergo, the degradation is compounded generation after generation, thereby exponentially lessening the chance every go around until the success rate is zero, or at least indistinguishable from zero within a few generations.

Let’s generously assume random alterations to functional code have a success rate of .01 each generation. What is .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 X .01 (20 generations)?

 

[poche]

So you see there does not have to be any conflict between the biblical narrative and the scientific discourse.

 

[rossum]

Natural selection may not be a chance process, but it isn’t a creative process, either.

Correct. Natural selection removes deleterious variants from the gene pool, leaving neutral and beneficial variants. The beneficial variants are preferentially amplified, hence spreading through the population over the generations.

The question is whether random mutations can power successful and successive innovative changes to genetic code such that over hundreds of millions of years there is not merely a net rate of success but a remarkable series of beneficial changes to be “selected” by the natural environment.

All the experimental data indicates that this is so. The average human has about 75 new mutations at birth. With a population of 7e9 humans, that is a total of 7e9 x 75 = 5.25e11 mutations in the whole population. There are 3e9 base pairs in the human genome, so over the whole population each base pair is mutated in an average of 5.25e11 / 3e9 = 175 times.

Whatever point mutation you choose, anywhere in the genome, there are about 175 / 3 = 58 individuals with that exact point mutation.

Bacterial populations are in the trillions and they generally have smaller genomes than us. For them, there will be even more copies of each mutation somewhere in the population.

There is no problem with there not being a sufficiently varied (name removed by moderator)ut into the process for natural selection to have a reasonable range of variants to select from.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Take any information that is coded towards a function, then randomly alter the code in small ways. You don’t end up with improved functionality, you end up with degradation, almost always. (emphasis added)

Two points, first, you are ignoring neutral mutations, those which do not affect the result. If I change a line in a computer program from “x = 1 + x” to “x= 1 + x” (omitting a space) then the result of the program is not changed.

Second, a great deal of potential lives in your “almost always”. That “almost” is why genetic algorithms work and why evolution works. Most non-neutral mutations are indeed deleterious, but a minority are beneficial. Genetic algorithms can run through a great many mutations quickly and select the few beneficial mutations that appear. Evolution does the same by using a massively parallel process; every individual member of the population is in effect a single processor in a massively parallel multi-processor computer.

rossum

 

[Glark]

It really quite sad to see someone blessed with outstanding intelligence, such as Mr. Borel, making a fool of himself by arguing that the existence of crystals somehow represents evidence for the hypothesis that life arose naturally from inanimate matter.
In the absence of any empirical evidence for said hypothesis, I guess the proffering of such desperate nonsense is inevitable. To some folks, resorting to junk science is a far better than having no science at all.

 

[Glark]

The words ‘theory’ and ‘law’ have slightly different connotations in science, but often come to much the same thing. The point is that, having dreamt them up, scientists can investigate whether they mean anything by referring to observations, and to general scientific consensus. I

A scientific law is deduced from and confirmed by empirical evidence. There is no chemical or scientific law that says inanimate matter can arrange itself into a life-from … because there is zero empirical evidence to support it. Natural abiogenesis is a unscientific fantasy that only space-cadets believe in.

 

[Glark]

Is your proposed designer a “complex, interdependent system”?

I don’t know.

 

[Bradskii]

Why are you multiplying the figures?

If an organism has a random change to its code then ‘almost always’ it will be neutral or deleterious. But, as you have now realised, ‘almost always’ doesn’t equate to always. So some of the time the random change is advantageous. And by advantageous we mean that it helps the organism to live long enough to pass on its genes.

If it is advantageous, the organism passes on that genetic advantage to its offspring. And the offspring passes it on further down the line. And all things being equal, that tiny genetic advantage will gradually become the norm in any given population.

And you are right. Any change that disadvantages an organism will be passed on as well. But they won’t survive as well as the organisms that had the advantageous change. If there are enough disadvantageous changes (almost always) and not enough advantageous ones (not very often), then the organism will die out. Which is the norm. As many more species have died out than are currently in existence.

 

[PickyPicky]

It is really quite sad to see someone blessed with outstanding intelligence, such as Mr. Borel, making a fool of himself by arguing that the existence of crystals somehow represents evidence for the hypothesis that life arose naturally from inanimate matter

I hesitate to say that you are making a fool of yourself, Glark mate, but M Borel does not use crystal formation as evidence for abiogenesis. He uses it as an example of how carefully one must assess probability. I rather hope that is just a slip on your part rather than a deliberate misrepresentation.

 

[Glark]

Coulda fooled me. I have encountered the “crystals” argument for abiogenesis innumerable times on atheist sites - the idea is that “self-replicating” inanimate matter can be likened to “self-replicating” living organisms. What infantile nonsense.

 

[Bradskii]

Coulda fooled me.

Apparently it did.