Natural Selection: a Sufficient Information Ratchet?
by BradfordDarwin's Unpaid Debt appears at In the News. Magnuson argues that natural selection is not up to the role traditionally assigned it. It's easy enough to dismiss an IDist but there are non-IDists dubious of the capacities afforded natural selection by theorists. As quoted in another blog entry… "there are other scientists and philosophers of science–avowed non-creationists– who say the Extended Synthesis does not go far enough in relegating natural selection to a reduced role." Tom Magnuson has this to say:
Natural selection is widely supposed to be an information ratchet that gradually accumulates the information organisms need to acquire novel adaptations. Yet natural selection is nothing of the sort. The Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation is a low-level trial-and-error method for solving routine problems that is unequipped to handle the innovative problems that biological systems have solved in the course of natural history. Darwinism and evolutionary biology more generally, committed as they are to unguided material mechanisms, do not have the resources to solve biology's information problem. This talk will indicate why biology's information problem is unresolvable apart from intelligent design.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Bradford:
Actually, it appears that this is the abstract of a talk by Dembski, so I suspect that those are Dembski's hollow-sounding assertions you quoted, not Magnuson's.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 7:38 am
October 30th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Raevmo, the blog entry does refer to a lecture by Dembski but does not attribute the comment to him as I read it. Thanks for your opinion.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 8:32 am
October 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Every multi-celled organism starts life as a single cell, a fertilized egg. After fertilization, given a source of energy, usually from glucose, the machinery of the cell commences to produce the proteins and lipids necessary to produce new cells. Fairly soon, the cells begin to be different from their parents, and begin be produced in different areas of the embryo. All of this is influenced by proteins made according to DNA patterns in genes. Mutations in genes and control areas can produce changes in development.
Changes in control can occur at any stage of development; early changes have more effect on the adult than later changes. Developmental biology has a good start on figuring out the relationship of genetic change to evolutionary change. Darwin was on the right track: He noted in the Origin that similar-looking embryos can become very different adults.
Biological activity results from interactions among the shapes of molecules. Biologists and chemists have identified various mechanisms that can cause a DNA molecule to be a modified reproduction of its parent strand; this is what we now call a mutation. A mutation may (or may not) produce a change in development; such a change may (or may not) be an improvement over the parent. Biological information can't be detached from molecules; changes in DNA and consequent changes in the path of development are the "resources to solve biology's information problem".
Actually, it's ID that doesn't have the resources. The foundation of chemistry is the principle that electrons will move in such a way as to minimize potential energy. As electrons move, nuclei follow. This is what we mean by a natural process, which may have a significant random component. If ID is to gain any traction with biologists, it has to identify a mechanism by which an intelligent agent can move electrons in "unnatural" ways. This requires energy.
Where does this energy come from?
Comment by John Wendt — October 30, 2008 @ 9:02 am
October 30th, 2008 at 9:35 am
John Wendt:
Is this another way of arguing that principles of chemistry are sufficient to account for the storage and expression of information found in living organisms? Why is design dependent on miracles?
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 9:35 am
October 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am
It is exactly contending that chemistry is sufficient to describe the information of life. Biological information has no existence apart from the chemicals that make up an organism. If you think there's more than chemistry, you have to demonstrate what the "more" is.
Because you can't show us the chemistry.
Comment by John Wendt — October 30, 2008 @ 10:13 am
October 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am
John Wendt:
Chemistry may be a means of describing gene expression but the question was intended to address whether or not chemistry is sufficient to explain the causal pathways that led to what is described. That's what is needed to substantiate your belief that there is nothing more to this than chemistry. I would point out that the symbols you now see have no existence apart from the underlying electronics which enable them. That does not explain the cause for the symbols you see much less their meaning. It begs a causal question to assert that the letters in a newspaper are nothing more than blotches of ink on paper. Ink is nothing more than chemistry after all.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 10:25 am
October 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
So address it. Gene expression is chemistry. If there's more, tell us what. I can demonstrate that life is chemistry. You haven't been able to demonstrate that any other cause is necessary.
Letters on paper are information only insofar as they are produced by one intelligent agent and interpreted by another. The information can be said to exist independent of the medium: my reaction to a message would be the same if the letters were on a screen or on a stone tablet. A chemical reaction, on the other hand, occurs because of the shapes of the molecules, and is nothing apart from the interaction of the shapes. You can write down symbols to describe the reaction, but the chemical reaction doesn't happen when I read them. Something happens in my brain when I read the symbols; exactly what happens depends on how much chemistry I know. But the happening in by brain is not the same thing as the reaction that's being described. That confusion between the two senses of "information" is the only thing that Dembski's version of ID has going for it.
Comment by John Wendt — October 30, 2008 @ 11:29 am
October 30th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Manufacturing is chemistry too John. If you are not interested in causes so be it. Your belief that undefined chemical pathways suffices to explain is not good enough for me.
Or interpreted by two machines. The messenger and receiver need not be intelligent agents.
The reaction itself can be thusly described. It's causal genesis perhaps not.
This is a philosophical explanation equating information to a mechanical process. Not to be confused with a mindless process. For intellectual functions would ultimately be reduced to mechanics but this likewise would be a philosophical explanation. Dembski does not need a comprehensive theory explaining intelligent functions to implicate an intelligent causal source.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 11:44 am
October 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
May I suggest that you fail to notice that there is a distinct difference between the way something functions and how the same thing came to exist in the first place?
Comment by gmlk — October 30, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It is my knowledge of biochemistry that makes me aware that you're blowing smoke. When you decide to cease being a jerk you can post a response that addresses causality.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The only way we know for a chemical to come into existence is through a chemical reaction. If you know some other way, tell us.
Comment by John Wendt — October 30, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Reactions can be directed.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Tell me how! How does the Intelligent Designer make electrons go places against the electric fields of the molecules involved? Is there any fire behind ID's smoke?
Biochemistry is all about causality. Even the origin of life has a lot of chemical research behing it.
Lurkers will note that it was the creationist who descended to ad hominem insults.
Comment by John Wendt — October 30, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
If you know a way to direct a chemical reaction other than by introducing another chemical, tell me.
Comment by John Wendt — October 30, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Let us know when you can explain how.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Hi John Wendt,
You linked to an interesting article as it shows the parallels between evolution and development.
From what I understand so far in development, primordial germ cells (PGC) are prevented from entering the somatic program and are demethylated (genome-wide erasure of existing epigenetic modifications). Then the gametes are imprinted (targeted DNA methylation) during gametogenesis, only to be demethylated again after fertilization. Then during development, DNA is methylated again, causing totipotential cells to become pluripotent. X-inactivation and reactivation (of the paternal gamete I think) also occurs. The whole process is governed by the genetic (and epigenetic?) program. During the unfolding of this somatic program, random variation and selection occur, ultimately leading to just a few endpoints, every time it is successful. The process is constrained (few end points) as a result of pre-existing information that is set up during the inititiation of the process. All this is controlled by information in the genome, and I am sure one day we will be able to explain it quark for quark.
Compare this to evolution. Evolution also seem to be constrained (biased). For example:
An End to Endless Forms: Epistasis, Phenotype Distribution Bias, and Nonuniform Evolution
There seems to be only a few end points (small subset, limited variation) out all the possible endpoints. This is argued (in the article) to be as a result of genetic instructions dating earlier in evolutionary time.
For example, for the evolution of eye, the Pax6 gene is employed over and over during the development of eyes. Octopus eyes, vertebrate eyes, insect eyes etc., all employ a version of this gene. Sox2, Six3 and Fox transcription factors also play a role in eye development in many instances.
There are versions of these genes in organisms at the base of the eumetazoan tree (function unknown at present). However, as soon as these sets of genes were formed (through whatever mechanism), evolution seemed to have been biased to a few end points (eye at least). What other "biased" end points can there be? And why would evolution be biased, as in development, to only reach a few end points?
Also, I would argue organisms to be agents (in a limited sense) as well.
For example plants:
Signaling systems inside plants seem to rival the nervous system in vertebrates. (article)
And in one example a"Female Plant 'Communicates' Rejection Or Acceptance Of Male"
It is plant communication through interaction, interpretation, acceptance, rejection and control. What is being rejected (after interpretation)? Male gametes that might lead to inbreeding.
Thus, interpretation, control and foresight (prevention of future inbreeding) implies a purposeful mechanism, an avoidance mechanism (avoidance implies a purposeful action and something that is avoidable). What is to avoid? Future inbreeding. But first there needs to be an explanation (an understanding) of why inbreeding is bad. Inbreeding affects future populations negatively, not the present. Why would a mechanism arise that has no benefit to the present generation. Natural selection is myopic and only selects for what works for the present, not the future (unless a biochemical mechanism exists to store information for the future).
The mechanism above prevents fertilization (through interpretation) of unfit pollen, even though the pollen is able to fertilize the female gamete. Thus, the pistil prevents fertilization of unfit (after determining it through communication) pollen, and in doing so prevents itself from reproducing in order to prevent future inbreeding.
An act of foresight. The biochemistry is beautiful in its explanation of the mechanism, however an explanation is owed how agency can arise from blind interactions. Is Eliminative Materialism a feasible project?
Comment by Techne — October 30, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Techne:
Inbreeding can have direct negative fitness effects by creating seed homozygous for recessive deleterious alleles. No foresight required at all.
Why do you think the European royal families are such retards?
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Raevmo:
For future generations or the breeding generation? Homozygous recessive alleles can still be viable can't they? Or do all of them become deleterious?
Comment by Techne — October 30, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
You seem to be confused and asking for something magical. ID proposes nothing more then the intelligent application of the laws of chemistry and physics.
Is nylon, which is a chemical, not both the result of a chemical reaction as well the result of an intelligent actors influence? Can a computer come in to existence without an intelligent actors influence?
Answer me this: Can, given the laws of nature, anything more complex then a computer come in to existence without an intelligence causing it to happen? If you answer yes, then please give a demonstration. If you can't give a demonstration: On what empirical evidence did you say yes?
With regard to biology, ID proposes that an intelligence arranged and directed the necessary, in itself very unlikely, chemical reactions to build and arrange the chemical building block of life and so started the process of life. Please note: There is no need to break any law of nature. Nonetheless, it would not have happened without an intelligence causing it to happen.
Comment by gmlk — October 30, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Techne:
Negative effects (e.g. inviable seed) for the breeding generation itself.
Being recessive doesn't imply by itself any negative effects of an allele. If an allele A is recessive to an allele B, then an AB plant will have the phenotype dictated by B. In other words, B is dominant. This means that recessive alleles A that *do* have a negative fitness effect when homozygous (AA) can reach relatively high frequency because as long as A is rare, AA individuals will very rarely be produced, *unless* there is inbreeding. In that case, 25% of AB x AB crosses will produce AA seeds, where the A allele does have "penetrance".
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
This is a common misunderstanding. Evolution is defined as the change (in heritable variations) in populations over time. A suicide breeder (e.g. Pacific salmon) that successfully leaves many offspring can be evolutionarily successful.
Same misunderstanding. In evolution, time is measured (roughly) in generations. The "present" then is all the actions that lead up to a new generation. Depending on the organism, that might include growing up, finding food, attracting a mate, protecting offspring, etc.
Evolution doesn't look into deep time, but definitely rewards organisms that have the capability of leaving the most viable offspring.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
gmlk:
How do you know those chemical reactions were very unlikely? You must know something about the chemical composition of the prebiotic earth that we don't.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Computers come into existence in accord with the laws of physics. Humans consume food that powers brains and muscles, and manipulate materials in their environment. Please state the comparable ID mechanism with regards to biology.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Raevmo:
Inbreeding can still produce viable offspring. Isn't this mechanism completely preventing (or at least attempting) AA occurrence, even though AA might be viable? Perhaps I misunderstood the study?
Comment by Techne — October 30, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Techne:
Sure, not all inbreeding leads to inviable offspring, but reduced viability on average can be enough to give obligatorily outcrossing plants a selective advantage over partially selfing plants. That might explain why some plants are sequential hermaphrodites.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Is the proposed emergence of obligatorily outcrossing plants to be as a result of a lucky event? And through this lucky event a mechanism arose that negatively affected a plant to reproduce inbred offspring. This can lead to a selective disadvantage not? If only inbred strains can be produced (say because viable partners are not available) then selection would not favour obligatorily outcrossing plants, however the inbred strains might speciate and become dominant.
How would an obligatorily outcrossing plant become completely dominant, when plants without that mechanisms can be more resilient? Did selection completely favour it? Why?
Comment by Techne — October 30, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Of cause they do.
I already have:
Comment by gmlk — October 30, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Techne:
I'm not sure I catch your drift here. Inbreeding by itself can have negative effects for the inbreeding plant (or animal) because inbred individuals are more likely to be homozygous for recessive deleterious alleles. This may give plants that limit inbreeding (and there are many mechanisms that limit inbreeding) an advantage. But you're right (if I understand you correctly) that total elimination of selfing can be a disadvantage if a plant is isolated from other members of its species. It is perhaps noteworthy that hermaphroditism is much more prevalent in plants than in animals, and in animals it occurs primarily in species with low population densities or species that are slow-moving (such as slugs), in other words in species where individuals are at a greater risk of not finding a mate. As one would expect from an adaptationist point of view.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
That's not a mechanism. Intelligence can't arrange. That requires energy. What is the mechanism. Where does the energy come from? How is it applied?
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Raevmo, my question is why would such a mechanism become completely dominant when it can have a detrimental effect on isolated populations, and it leaves a population less resilient, and it has a negative affect on reproduction (even if it is on viable inbreds). Luck? Selection? Why was selection so strong then?
Comment by Techne — October 30, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
We do know a lot already about the properties and probabilities of chemistry. Given our current understanding those and related chemical reactions are very unlikely to happen in the right order and combination without intelligent design, arrangement and control.
Is it impossible for all the air in your room to be located inside your computer?
One can for example imagine a scenario where by all the air molecules just happen to move towards and meet inside your computer, while at the same time all the air outside your room stays outside.
One can also imagine that someone could isolate your room, collect all the air inside into a small container, which he then places inside your computer.
The first scenario is extremely unlikely and in all practical terms very much impossible. Not because the result is impossible, the second scenario seems plausible enough, but because the proposed mechanism of the first scenario is practically impossible.
Comment by gmlk — October 30, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Techne:
Depends on the details I suppose. If being isolated is a sufficiently rare event compared to the negative genetic effects of inbreeding, then such a mechanism might become dominant because the net selective effect (adding the negative effect of isolation and the positive effect of preventing homozygous deleterious recessives) is positive. Otherwise, a plant might "play a mixed strategy" and allow for some partial selfing just in case it's isolated. I don't see what luck has to do with it, unless perhaps you mean what caused the mutations that prevented inbreeding to some extent.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
gmlk:
Forgive me for not taking your word for it. Please show me some (approximate) calculations which quantify just how unlikely those reactions are. Or you could admit that we don't know.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
If you immediately know the candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago
Please explain. Do I not arrange the letters in this sentence? Intelligence can this and much more.
Naturally. Did the sun not shine when life began?
Ah, you ask for a blueprint and building descriptions? Well, that would require a lot more ID orientated research. At the moment we do not know how it was done; Just that some intelligence has.
You're like the hungry monk which went looking for fire with his candlelight lantern.
Life is so obviously not natural, but artificial; You're just so used to thinking that it's natural, that you cling to unreasonable theories and unlikely stories, while the obvious truth goes unnoticed: Life was created.
Comment by gmlk — October 30, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
As you have pointed out in the past on more than one occasion Zach, we are unaware of the details related to life's origin. Is the "requires energy" a new talking point? Would it be possible for an intelligent agent to manipulate a flow of energy? Are these reverse gap arguments?
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Consider one reaction which is essential for the building blocks of DNA and RNA: The conversion of orotidine monophosphate to uridine monophosphate. Left to only natural forces one can expect one reaction every 78 million years to occur.
Living cells have a tool for this a very specific 26,500 monomer enzyme which does it in 18ms. The accidental formation of this enzyme is not something one can consider a reasonable possibility.
Well, if you don't even know that these processes could ocure spontanious, what empirical basis does your hypothesis have? That's not science, that's wishful thinking.
Comment by gmlk — October 30, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
An inference drawn from ignorance is the inability to render definitive empirical resolutions to questions. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that x is beyond the pale of a scientific determination.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
gmlk:
Hmmm, that's a very precise claim. 78 million years. What's the standard error on that estimate? Can you show some actual calculations and assumptions that underly this estimate?
No, it's not wishful thinking. There's a lot of uncertainty about the chemical conditions on a prebiotic earth. As far as I know there is no evidence to rule out "undirected" abiogenesis on the basis of knowledge of prebiotic earth. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Assuming you are craniate, you consume food for the energy required for brain and muscle.
So, you're claiming it was solar powered. We know how solar energy can induce complex chemical reactions. We know how plants use the sun's energy to rearrange matter. We know how humans harness solar energy to grow crops for food. How did this solar energy rearrange matter in the ID scenario?
No. Just some sort of testable hypothesis.
So far, your ID concept seems to be scientifically vacuous.
Enzymatic activity *is* a natural force. Orotidine 5'-phosphate decarboxylase is a member of a suprafamily forming a discernable phylogenetic tree and studies indicate it is well-suited for continued evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The difference, of course, is that scientists propose and test hypotheses. Though there is no complete theory of how life arose, we are not completely ignorant of life's early history.
Happens every time someone flips a light switch. For ID to have any scientific credibility, it needs to propose testable hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
You're fond of saying that Zach but history deals in recorded events. The events referenced by OOL scenarios are either vague or speculative and not reproducible much less recorded.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Some fascinating work has been done in the field. The discovery of autocatalyzing molecules is a major confirmation of abiogenetic theories. In vitro RNA evolution is another. Of course, these theories are all very tentative, but such hypotheses are fecund. ID is sterile and yields no insights.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
You do not seem to realise that any non-speculative research results in these areas will be equally useful for ID? To explain the "how" it was done.
I think you are very mistaken.
Comment by gmlk — October 30, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Entailed in the RNA World Hypothesis is that molecules can self-replicate. We know that random nucleotide sequences can have autocatalytic function, and in vitro evolution supports this hypothesis. Other experiments show the plausible origin of primitive membranes.
You are welcome to your opinion, but to *show* that, to avoid being scientifically vacuous, you have to state a specific ID hypothesis and the entailed predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — October 30, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Since the theme of this blog entry is natural selection explain what nucleotide sequences would be naturally selected in a precellular world and what data supports your answer. Why would an environment giving rise to an autocatalytic function be favored by natural selection and what mechanism would generate autocatalytic RNA?
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 8:03 am
Naturally occurring clays (e.g. montmorillonite) catalyze both the production of nucleotide oligomers and the formation of semipermeable vesicles. Random sequences can be autocatalytic. Vesicles containing autocatalytic sequences grow at the expense of those without.
Comment by Zachriel — October 31, 2008 @ 8:03 am
October 31st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I would classify saying your intellectual opponent "knows nothing" about the subject of debate is as fundamental as it gets regarding ad hominem attacks in any type of intellectual discourse….And you were the one that "descended" into this attack
All he did was correctly define your actions as those acting like a jerk.
Merriam-Webster defintion of a jerk: "one who is cruel, rude, or small-minded"
I would say your actions fulfill all of those qualifications. And on top of that, he didn't say you were a jerk, he said you were being a jerk
Comment by uoflcard — October 31, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
November 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
This all still misses the point, the source of my doubt in the limits of Darwinian evolution. It's obvious, in most cases, that plants that "limit inbreeding" or are "obligatory outcrossing" have a selective advantage over those that don't. But this is just another example of the assumptive nature of Darwinian theory….that those "mechanisms" or "obligations" arose through Darwinian mechanisms. It's obvious why inbreeding would, in most cases, be less likely to be selected than cross-breeding. But how could the complex proteins, such as those observed in the plant study referenced in this thread, develop via variation/mutation and selection? What good is part of one of these proteins?
Observing the selective advantage of having these proteins is obvious; assuming their existence came about by slight changes does not seem very obvious to me…it rather seems like a pre-determined stance, decades before this type of complexity was known.
also, neo-Darwinian evolution is a complete worldview…it does not have the luxury of only being tested in the laboratory…it must be correct in every area that it claims to be in order for the entire worldview to be truthful. But it also breaks down when you extrapolate it to human experience…everything that I know and feel tells me that I am concious right now, that I have free will. neo-Darinism says that that is somehow just an illusion, and that everything that I "choose" to do is really just a collection of mindless fluxes of atoms inside my skull. How anyone can argue that this fits the "data" more accurately than any other worldview is beyond me. This does not appear to be "following the data where ever it leads", it seems more like "skew and interpret the data in anyway possible that fits our world view".
The same problems arise when considering universal morals. If you see someone trying to rape a little girl in an alley, try to convince yourself that the deep disgust and anger you have inside of you is just a "social construct", and that it's not truly wrong.
Sorry, I was getting out of the context of the ID/neoD debate
Comment by uoflcard — November 1, 2008 @ 12:01 am
November 1st, 2008 at 4:28 am
So? Every part of a computer is also based on the application of natural forces and properties. That's not the real question, is it? The real question is if a system in which this enzyme is applied could have developed without an intelligent cause?
Notice that even if you could prove, which you can't, that all the molecular parts of the system could have popped in to existence without an intelligent cause then you still haven't proven that the system as a whole could have. A cell which just died has all the molecules needed for life available to it, but the process of life does not restart.
Stones make up a building, but they do not create or cause a building. By focussing on the parts one can easily miss the importance of the whole. To prove that rocks can be the result of natural influences and don't require intelligent design doesn't prove anything about how buildings are created.
Again this is the wrong question to ask.
Most of the similarities can be explained by design and redesign. If we where to apply the same methods to software we would get very similar results. Which is logical because software does evolve over time. However software evolves by intelligent design, not by random change and selection (natural variation and selection).
The question is therefor is not Do we see evolution?, because clearly we do. The real question is Could the evolution we see be explained by anything else then intelligent design? The only know cause of systemic evolution is intelligent design.
Comment by gmlk — November 1, 2008 @ 4:28 am
November 1st, 2008 at 8:45 am
Because it renders your statement false. Left only to natural forces, it only takes a moment.
That's fine, but you are assuming your conclusion. The evidence indicates that orotidine phosphate decarboxylases form a discernible phylogenetic tree consistent with descent with modification from more primitive precursors, and that it is well-suited for continued evolution.
A phylogenetic tree is strong evidence of descent with modification, not design, and is consistent with the overall pattern of evolution. I suggest we start with the Theory of Common Descent. Do you accept the evidence that land vertebrates share a common ancestor?
Software does not form a singular nested hierarchy.
Again, you are assuming your conclusion, while ignoring the evidence cited by the vast majority of researchers in the field.
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 8:45 am
November 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
I have yet to see an answer to this question.
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 9:09 am
November 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
You have yet to see an answer to a strawman? You won't get an answer to a stupid question.
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2008 @ 9:24 am
November 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
You have got to be kidding me. Does science have an answer to that question, Zachriel?
Comment by Jean — November 1, 2008 @ 9:48 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
It's hardly a strawman. Your answer is sufficient for the purpose.
The scientific evidence suggests that life arose through spontaneous mechanisms soon after the oceans formed, then evolved into the myriad of extant forms. Several scientific hypotheses have been proposed and tested that have provided insight into these processes, but there is still a lot unknown. There is no evidence of teleological mechanisms, which was the question, after all.
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 10:09 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Perhaps it does have an answer. Consider a unicellular organism whose genome is deliberately altered to suit the purpose of an intelligent meddler. That organism subsequently reproduces and passes its altered genetic properties to trillions of offspring. Descendents of the altered organism become mixed with descendents of unaltered organisms.
Generations after the induced change a mixed batch of unicellular organisms are examined by investigators having no knowledge of the previous induced change. They incorrectly assume that the genomic variation they see is the result of naturally occurring modification with descent. They fail to detect design because they are ignorant as to an actual cause for a genetic property.
When one of the investigators, an anti-telic zealot, is informed that the genomes of some examined organisms were deliberately tampered with he immediately searches for evidence that electrons in the organisms examined violate laws of chemistry. After finding no such violations he confidently asserts that those informing him of genomic tampering were mistaken.
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2008 @ 10:11 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Then show us why explaining how "electrons go places against the electric fields of the molecules involved" is a prerequisite to imputing design.
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2008 @ 10:15 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
The question remains. It requires energy to alter a genome. How is that energy applied? What is the mechanism?
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 10:23 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Why not answer more relevant questions? What mechanism generated an initial genome and why is an explanation as to how "electrons go places against the electric fields of the molecules involved" a prerequisite to imputing design?
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2008 @ 10:43 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
We have robust scientific explanations concerning the mechanisms of organic life. Élan vital is an unnecessary assumption—an extraneous entity. We have strong scientific evidence of the mechanisms of evolution and their effect on populations as far back into history as we can reliably collect evidence.
Telic interference is certainly conceivable. But the onus is on those making the claim as it doesn't appear to be necessary to explain the evidence.
It's quite apparent you have no answer.
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 10:51 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
However, we certainly can consider it. The first question asked was how was this accomplished? But we have other questions. Who did it? When? How often have they intervened? Are they still interfering? Can we observe the mechanism? Why did they do this? For what purpose?
And most importantly, is there any evidence, or is this just idle conjecture?
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 10:54 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Go ask the investigators performing the genomic alterations. I assume you have a point to this which is…?
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2008 @ 10:54 am
November 1st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Is there any evidence that scientists can tamper with genomes? How would you go about answering your own questions? BTW, who is we? I thought Zachriel spoke for himself.
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2008 @ 10:57 am
November 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
We know how humans alter genomes. They consume other organisms to power their brains and muscles, use fossil fuels to transport themselves and their machines, and use complex technological devices powered by electricity. The energy budget is balanced. Are you saying the original genomes were altered by humans? Or at least human-like technology?
We can "consider a unicellular organism whose genome is deliberately altered to suit the purpose of an intelligent meddler" with regards to the origin or evolution of primordial life. But you have made absolutely no attempt to answer the standard questions in any such consideration. Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? And most importantly, is there any evidence, or is this just idle conjecture?
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 11:06 am
November 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Is this simply the tired old rehashing of the designer's identity objection? Zach, if you ask me another question like were original genomes altered by humans you're banned from this thread. If condescension is your MO take it to a place like AtBC where it is appreciated.
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2008 @ 11:14 am
November 1st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Is your 'consider this' anything other than idle speculation? Can you tell us anything at all entailed in your conjecture?
Comment by Zachriel — November 1, 2008 @ 11:22 am
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 am
@Zachriel: Would you consider technology which humans might use over a million, a billion, or even a trillion years from now to be "human-like technology", even though it most likely would seem like magic to us right now?
Are you at all able to at least consider the idea that life is a kind of technology, that for example humans might be artificial created machines not the result of some unintelligent, unintended, accidental series of "natural" events?
Comment by gmlk — November 2, 2008 @ 6:56 am
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
It's extremely doubtful the descendents of humans, if any, will be very human-like in a billion years (depending on how you define "like"). Much less their technology. In any case, the onus is on those making a claim to clearly define the claim.
As I said, we can so consider. And if you are specific, we might be able to construct a valid scientific hypothesis. Now, can you tell us anything at all entailed in your conjecture?
Comment by Zachriel — November 2, 2008 @ 9:02 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
If we do not know how living organisms arose on this planet then we can't say how the diversity arose as the two are directly connected.
And for all of John Wendt's babble there isn;t any evidence that genetic accidents (mutations) can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to novel body plans.
As for us being chemistry, well that is part of it. But it is directed chemistry- directed by the program that is in all of us.
Yes there is- it is called the genetic code. The best you can do is say "it just happened" yet that goes against all of our knowledge and experience.
Right, by design. You don't have any explanation as to how an accumulation of genetic accidents brought that into existence.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 9:59 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
It's called DESIGN John. And the designer does it through the designed genetic algorithms that run us.
And if those biologists want to throttle ID all they (you?) have to do is to demonstrate that accumulating genetic accidents can do what you think they can.
However I doubt that you can even come up with a valid hypothesis to test that premise- the premise of the power of genetic accidents.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 10:02 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
So what? The theory of evolution doesn't predict a nested hierarchy.
DESIGN is a mechanism.
Zachriel, you keep asking for a design hypothesis, eyt you have never delivered one that demonstrates the power of genetic acidents.
What's up with that?
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 10:10 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
There isn't any such evidence.
The scientific evidence we do have demonstrates that life only comes from life- cells from cells- and nothing you can say will change that.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 10:12 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
LoL!! Where to start- First the "gene" has to be recognized as such, which requires a promoter. Also needed is an activator, that tells the system whether or not that gene will be used. Then we have the "how many" question- as in how many of this gene's products are needed.
Once all of that is settled the DNA is unzipped- it doesn't unzip itself but has the help of a specialized protein. Next the system has to know it is going to make an RNA product as opposed to DNA replication. This is required because RNA has one different nucleotide- uracil- than DNA.
All of this takes coordination- the coordination we observe with computer programming languages.
Then we have editing and error correction- neither of which is just chemistry. Rather both demonstrate directed processes aree at hand.
Along with the help of intelligent designers.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2008 @ 10:47 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
That's a blanket overstatement, e.g. experiments have shown how novel variation occurs through mutation random with respect to the environment.
Just saying so doesn't constitute scientific evidence. You have to propose a testable hypothesis.
There is significant evidence that the genetic code evolved from more primitive ancestors. But even if not true, there is significant evidence of evolution back as far as we can reliably discern—and no evidence of teleology.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 11:16 am
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
We have observed novel structures evolve, and have substantial evidence of historical evolution. In addition, genetic algorithms can be shown to produce complex structures.
The Theory of Common Descent is an important component of the Theory of Evolution (Darwin, 1859), and the nested hierarchy is observable across most taxa and traits.
The question is how did the Designer harness matter and matter to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
ID guy: The best you can do is say "it just happened" yet that goes against all of our knowledge and experience.
Zachriel: There is significant evidence that the genetic code evolved from more primitive ancestors. But even if
not truethere were no such evidence, there is significant evidence of evolution back as far as we can reliably discern—and no evidence of teleology.Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Genetic algorithms can't automatically scale like intelligent designers can. All a genetic algorithms can do is find an acceptable solution out of a finite set of solutions. Following the change in demands going from acceptable solution to the next acceptable solution. Unless it cannot find an acceptable solution and then it goes extinct.
Designing a working, effective genetic algorithm is in no way easy. It's difficult work and requires in itself a lot of intelligence.
Simple mathematical expressions can generate complex structures. There are many examples of self-ordering of matter in to complex structures. Random noise can be seen as a complex structure or pattern.
Life is however much more then just a complex structure: Life is an algorithmically controlled, highly organised system. This implies an organiser. There is not one example of self-organisation, algorithmically controlled highly organised systems don't just happen by accident.
Comment by gmlk — November 3, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Genetic algorithms are not intended to represent all the details of biology. A typical human gut contains trillions of bacteria (10^14) each with a megabyte (10^6) genome. Not many computers have that much memory (10^20), much less computational capability.
A population of replicators under selection naturally forms a genetic algorithm. And once you have replication, you have evolution—imperfect replicators replicating imperfectly.
Again, you're just repeating your claim. To have scientific validity, you have to state a hypothesis and its entailed empirical predictions, and these predictions have to distinguish your claim from competing claims. The Theory of Evolution makes a number of important testable predictions, in many fields of study, from geology to genetics. That's why it has been such a successful scientific theory.
You asked if I could consider that life is a kind of technology. I answered in the affirmative. Yet, you don't seem to be able to do the same. What are the empirical implications of your conjecture?
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 3:24 am
How many wrong statements can one pack into two lines?
A population of replicators does not in general pop into existence. Sustainable populations of replicators even less so.
Replication is not sufficient to imply evolution. One can have replication without evolution. One has to proof evolution separately from replication.
None of your arguments explains the observation of life being organised and under algorithmic control. These controls cannot be derived from this environment. Evolutionary processes are very good at pattern matching and not much else. For as far as we know one needs general intelligence to scale up the problem space when the available solution space is exhausted.
At the moment I cannot answer your question, I think no one can. Not until we have done a whole lot more scientific research into the limitations of evolutionary processes and the nature of intelligence.
Comment by gmlk — November 4, 2008 @ 3:24 am
November 4th, 2008 at 8:55 am
In fact, autocatalysis, including function associated with replication, occurs in random nucleotide sequences. As well as the spontaneous formation of complex macromolecules in a wide variety of natural environments.
It's easily demonstrable that imperfect replicators evolve under selection, such as competition for resources. More importantly, we can directly *observe* biological evolution and its mechanisms.
Genetic algorithms can often find novel solutions to complex and even intractable problems. However, we agree that evolution generally works by incremental steps (first-order approximation). That means each step needs to be selectable in the given environment.
These are testable hypotheses. And your statement "cannot" is contrary to the evidence that plausible evolutionary pathways to "algorithmic control" are available. Within the limitations of our observational methods, the evidence supports evolutionary theory, and some sort of abiogenetic origin.
You left several questions and misstatements unanswered.
I'm asking for the hypothetical mechanism that the Designer used to rearrange matter and energy.
You are welcome to your opinion, but to *show* that, to avoid being scientifically vacuous, you have to state a specific ID hypothesis and the entailed predictions.
The Theory of Common Descent is an important component of the Theory of Evolution (Darwin, 1859), and the nested hierarchy is *observable* across most taxa and traits.
A phylogenetic tree is strong evidence of descent with modification, not design, and is consistent with the overall pattern of evolution. I suggest we start with the Theory of Common Descent. Do you accept the evidence that land vertebrates share a common ancestor?
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 8:55 am
November 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I do accept a limited theory of common descent: Many species share a common ancestors at genus level (and sometimes above but I consider this due to misclassification, e.g.: Bison bison and Bos taurus) and due to natural variation and selection resulting in adaptation and specialisation of a population new species can develop.
I do not accept the hypotheses of universal common descent because this would require self-(re)organisation which is as far as I can tell impossible.
Note that this does not imply that the designer of life would have to start from scratch to create every genus. Taking an existing system and adding, subtracting and reorganising the parts to create a new genus is properly a lot more efficient.
I don't really understand the importance of a "nested hierarchy", maybe you could explain that point. The remark you quote is from IDguy, not me. If I look at the molecular level I don't see much evidence for a singular nested hierarchy and if we allow for horizontal gene transfer we would not even expect to find it.
Comment by gmlk — November 4, 2008 @ 9:43 am
November 4th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Well, then let's examine how far we can trace that common ancestry. How about Artiodactyla? Mammals? Land vertebrates? Chordates? Eukaryotes? Where are you drawing the line, and why?
Design does not explain the observed nested hierarchy.
The nested hierarchy was the most important evidence that Darwin pointed to explain the pattern of biological traits, extant and extinct. It's the only diagram in Origin of Species. Since then, an entire field within bioinformatics, systematics, is devoted to analyzing this pattern. It is clearly considered critical and predictive by virtually all biologists from geneticists to paleontologists.
While, modern ID tends to handwave the nested hierarchy, the fact that humans and dinosaurs share a common ancestor is one of the most profound and important findings of biology. It predicts data from the molecular to the geological. All discussions of the Theory of Evolution properly start with the Theory of Common Descent.
The nested hierarchy is strongly supported by genomics, and is considered the best evidence of Common Descent. Even the exceptions (e.g. endogenous retroviruses) tend to prove the rule. There may be some uncertainty at the root of the tree, but they represent anomalies to the overall pattern, nor do they make the rest of the data disappear.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 11:25 am
November 4th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Nor would any discussion of the mechanisms that propel evolution be productive if you reject the clear evidence of Common Descent. Natural selection (and similar mechanisms) largely explains this pattern of adaptation and divergence. This pushes the Gap ID argues in to the earliest epochs where the evidence is still unclear.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 11:32 am
November 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Mike Gene supports common descent too but he also supports intelligent design. How would nested hierarchies contradict design?
Comment by Eva — November 4, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
One would have to propose a specific model or hypothesis of Design to give a valid answer.
Popular conceptions of Design suggest that a Designer put together organisms as some point in history (by some unspecified mechanism safely out of view of scientists). An intelligent Designer will mix and match traits, methods, features from different lineages. So we would not expect a nested hierarchy such as is found in most biological taxa.
So let's consider again, starting with the acceptance of Common Descent. And let's also assume that profound changes are impossible for standard evolutionary processes and posit that the Designer intervenes periodically to induce these profound changes (again by some unspecific mechanism safely out of view of scientists). We can't possibly see every possible intermediate form due to observational limitations, but where we can determine the fine gradations of evolution, it appears continuous down to the species level. At the finest level, there do appear to be some discontinuities, but this doesn't support the hypothesis, and there are other, much simpler explanations to explain these discontinuities.
So let's assume that the steps are gradual, but the Designer is applying a force of some sort for some unknown purpose, analogous to selective breeding by humans (yet again with the mechanism safely out of view of scientists). But this doesn't explain the vast branching pattern that we do observe, the great diversity of forms that radiate with most then going extinct. This pattern resembles a stochastic search, exactly the sort of pattern we expect to see from an evolutionary search.
Or we could just make a scientifically vacuous claim that the Designer made it look just like evolution. So there!
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy was the most important evidence that Darwin pointed to explain the pattern of biological traits, extant and extinct.
That is a lie! Darwin never said anything about nested hierarchy.
The only thing he said waqs about the tree of life and anyone with any education knows that alone does not = nested hierarchy.
I urge people to read what Darwin said- he referred to the diagram as "groups under groups", whic does NOT make a nested hierarchy.
The ONLY place that states UCD would give a nested hierarchy is the talk origins website. You will NOT find any textbooks that say UCD predicts or provides a nested hierarchy.
And why is that? Because a nested hierarchy is not to be expected from UCD. A lineage perahps, but a lineage is not a nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 9:51 am
November 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
It is a fact, not an overstatment. How something originates plays directly upon its subsequent history.
Yet you have failed to do so. IOW you cannot provide a valid hypothesis for your position.
ID guy: The best you can do is say "it just happened" yet that goes against all of our knowledge and experience.
Zachriel: There is significant evidence that the genetic code evolved from more primitive ancestors. But even if not true, there is significant evidence of evolution back as far as we can reliably discern—and no evidence of teleology.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 9:56 am
November 5th, 2008 at 10:01 am
You FAILED to provide a valid hypothesis. THTAT is what was asked of you.
That does not mean is was a prediction of the theory of evolution.
But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your dishonesty.
That is a good question but irrelevant to whether or not the object in question was designed or not.
As with Stonehenge many years of investigation may be required to answer the "how". But again design detection does not require the "how".
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 10:01 am
November 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Either Zachriel is really stupid or he is just being obtuse.
"Evolved" from what Zachriel? I am talikng about the code's ORIGIN, which means its current state IS an evolved state. The origin of the genetic code is telic. That we can infer via observation and experience.
Proof-reading and error-correction pretty much cement the design inference- that is if one understands codes.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 10:05 am
November 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Evolution can also mix and match traits. There isn't anything in the thjeory that prevents that from happening.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 10:07 am
November 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Agreed.
Darwin didn't use the term, but the twigs on an archetypical tree form a nested hierarchy.
Sorry, Joe, but that is incorrect. But it doesn't matter what it is called. Let's call it the
tree pattern. Thenested hierarchytree patternis the most important evidence that Darwin pointed to to explain the pattern of biological traits, extant and extinct.The Theory of Common Descent implies that traits are not mixed and matched (though we might observe convergence).
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Darwin didn't use the term and twigs on any tree do not form a nested hierarchy.
The name is Jim and that is quite correct.
However you could prove me wrong by supplying a VALID reference.
One refernce from a biological textbook or peer-reviewed paper that supports your claim.
My prediction is you will not provide one.
And BEFORE him Karl von Linne used the nested hierarchy scheme as evidence for God's design.
Also if the tree pattern could not be discerned that would not refute universal common descent.
You see Zachriel the nested hierarchy of living organisms is NOT predicated on descent.
That is nonsense. The theory says nothing about the introduction of novel traits and the loss of old traits.
Also if Darwin was right and gradualism was the rule then on e would expect the intermediates to contain a mixture of traits.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Grouping leaves by associated branch and limb forms a nested hierarchy.
Or if you prefer an ID source,
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you really saying that Darwin didn't propose that organisms evolve new traits?
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
November 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
That is just a bald assertion. I asked for a reference that shows a tytpical tree forms a nested hierarchy.
Neither helped your claim. Your claim was about twigs on a tree, not organisms on the alleged tree of life.
IOW once again you prove to be deceptive, ie dishonest.
I understand that you are obtuse. However neither Darwin nor any other scientist knows what traits will be gained and which will be lost.
Also as for nested hierarchy we don't see that in single-celled organisms.
The Phylogenetic Tree Topples
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 10:12 am
November 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Reptile:
Kingdom- Animal
Phylum- Chordata
Subphylum- Vertebrata
Class- Reptilia
Mammal:
Kingdom- Animal
Phylum- Chordata
Subphylum- Vertebrata
Class- Mammalia
Mammals and reptiles are on the SAME level. Had the nested hierarchy been built by descent then “reptile” would feed/ lead to the mammals.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 10:55 am
November 6th, 2008 at 11:27 am
LoL!!! How do YOU know what an intelligent designer would do?
However it is obvious that with UCD there should be a mixture of traits- they are called transitional forms/ intermediates.
And that is why Darwin referred to extinction events to give us the distinct classes we see today.
IOW if all the alleged transitionals and intermediates were still alive we would NOT observe a nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2008 @ 11:27 am
November 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Anyone can see that they talk about nested hierarchies and phylogenetic trees. They even provide diagrams that anyone can confirm has the topology of a tree.
Mammals and reptiles are both Amniota. The line leading to mammals diverged as Synapsida. (The original Linnaean classification scheme is a bit dated.)
"Intelligent" is a clue. But if you want to propose a specific, testable hypothesis, I'd be happy to consider it.
Traits are gradual (first-order) modifications of existing traits. Transitionals are not combinations of features from different extant lineages.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
November 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Either you are very obtuse or really dishonest.
The “tree” in phylogenetic tree, is a metaphor. And you were supposed to provide a reference that demonstyrates that twigs on a real tree provide a nested hierarchy. You have failed to do so.
Again with an obtuse response. Both Mammals and Reptiles are on the SAME level in the nested hierarchy of the animal kingdom.
And if you were correct they wouldn’t be. IOW you are wrong.
So you are proud of being obtuse. You said you knew what a designer would do. Now you have failed to back that up. No surprise.
ID guy: How do YOU know what an intelligent designer would do?
Transitionals would definitely have combinations of features with extant lineasges if all the transitional were still alive. And THAT is the point.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2008 @ 9:19 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:20 am
And more information for Zachriel to ignore:
No hierarchy from evolution
Can we have a nested hierarchy when a hierarchy isn't even expected? No.
The network of life
Are these scientists the crackpots you were talking about?
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 10:20 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Yes, it is. But a phylogenetic tree is topologically equivalent to the branching of an archetypical tree, as anyone can verify for themselves.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 10:42 am
November 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
LoL!!! Just because someone can draw it to resemble a tree does not mean it is a tree or topologically resembles a tree.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 10:56 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Zachriel,
Does a family tree also represent a nested hierarchy?
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 11:04 am
November 10th, 2008 at 11:40 am
A phylogenetic tree is topologically equivalent to the branching of an archetypical tree, as anyone can verify for themselves. Verification is available to anyone willing to look.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 11:40 am
November 10th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Again just because someone can DRAW it to look like a tree does NOT make it so.
You seem to be so obtuse that you can't even understand that simple fact.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Zachriel keeps talking about phylogenetic trees yet he refuses to acknowledge that the phylogenetic tree has been toppled.
Ignoring things makes you ignorant…
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
November 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Nevertheless, they are topologically equivalent. You can continue to insist otherwise, but it is easily verified.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2008 @ 1:38 pm