This table is very well done and sums up most of the usual argumentative angles used by creationists. martin.finnegen, I thought you'd like this - better than having an odds card in front of you at the blackjack table.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Creationist arguments packaged for perfection
This table is very well done and sums up most of the usual argumentative angles used by creationists. martin.finnegen, I thought you'd like this - better than having an odds card in front of you at the blackjack table.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
106 comments:
To Tam. just a question Tam can you honestly say that there is no validity in any one of the arguements on this board, and that you can debunk them all.If you feel you can and want to enter into a discussion on them by all means lets do that.
Sure martin,, please take your pick. Your favorite theme of late has been evolution is "just a theory" but I remain at a loss to where that gets you. We rely on scientific theories to explain observeable phenomenon and make reliable predictions. The theory of evolution (i.e. genetic changes in populations over successive generations) does this beautifully.
In response to this, you quote mine and send me the following quote by University of Chicago Professor Jerry Coyne:
"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the
bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology
is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We
evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly
what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually
cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to
tube B and noting the color of the mixture."
I fail to understand how this quote (apparently favored by other evolution deniers) assists your argument. In fact, even if you could find the Precambrian rabbit and disprove the theory of evolution as it is presently conceived, that would not get you any closer to proving your God hypothesis. Yours is a never ending argument from ignorance to arrive at a false dichotomy: X is wrong so therefore God. martin, that my friend is a fail.
To Tam . ok Tam lets start at the begining we have a vast and amazing universe, we have an incredible planet called earth with its astounding array of beautiful and complex lifeforms I say this is best explained by a creator God you probably would say that evolution best explains all we see and know.
I would be very interested to know of a third explaination if you have one.
To make this challenging, I will only list what I can come up with in 60 seconds. Here goes:
1. Universe created by aliens from another dimension. I don't know where the aliens came from but that doesn't seem to be a problem for your conception of lordy.
2. Infinite and eternal multiverses.
3. Spatial (i.e. post-Big Bang) reality somehow formed from a non-spatial dimension.
4. One of an infinite number of explanations that are simply beyond our human comprehension. This is my favorite explanation (i.e. the ant trying to understand the theory of special relativity analogy); or
5. A million creator Fairies.
I am most interested to hear what you rely on to support your creator God in preference to option #5.
TO Tam - just to get serious for a second if you believe in evolution and it seems you do,and if you agree with the fundamentals of science and the laws of science and the work and writings of dawkins, coyne , and other scientists , have a look again and see how many
of these you would really believe was the cause of our universe
Now you are asking what I believe to be the cause of the universe. To be frank, I'm not certain that the concepts of cause and effect would have any meaning before the Big Bang. Physicists will tell you that all of our (known) rules break down at this point. Time and space as we presently conceive them, at least in this universe, did not exist.
martin, I have said this before and I'll say it again: if you want to stare at the sky and say there must be a first cause and call that first cause God - I have no problem with that. It's how you move from that position to belief in the Judeo-Christian god described in the Bible that astounds me.
martin, if you want to know what I rely on to hedge my bets about pre-singularity cause and effect, I suggest that you educate yourself on the "theory" of quantum mechanics. It will freak you out.
TAM - its nice to know that we can agree to disagree on what was the cause of the universe but a creator is a reasonable explaination
based on first cause, design,intelligence,etc
and yes you are right it does not mean that the creator or , God is the God of the bible,
I would have to present more evidence to show that this might be so, which I will do at a later date
martin, "might be so" are not the words of the religious faithful.
Evolution is NOT a theory. You are mistaken about the meaning of that term. It is not a theorem either. It is as much a scientific fact as gravity.
That some deny evolution does not mean it is not a fact. Some deny gravity. Some deny that the world is round.
A proposition moves from theory to fact once it is supported by enough empirical evidence that the vast majority of those who study it accept it. That is why, for example, alien existence is not a fact.
Stop misusing the terminology, please.
To CKDC a collection of people calling somthing a fact does not make it a fact I can demonstrate gravity both in the real world and in the lab I can show you how the earth is round by flying around it can you now show me how evolution is a fact, and please give specifics not just statements like the fossil record you have to show how exactly the fossil record supports evolution etc.
To Tam . Gods existance and the bible being his word are matters of faith but not blind faith,the are reasonable positions based on the evidence. did the egyptians build the pyrmids or are they just unusual rock formations , as no one alive today saw them being built we use certain criteria to determine which is the most reasonable position of belief in the matter ie built by egyptians or unusual rock formation its the same with God and evolution creation of life etc now one saw it happening so which is the most reasonable explaination, which explaination does the evidence best support.
its all amater of faith.
martin, you are arguing from ignorance. Please list all the authorities you rely on to deny the fact of evolution. Once you have done that, I would be happy to list what I rely on to support my "belief".
To Tam- honestly Tam I am not arguing from ignorance if you take gravity or the earth being round these things are almost self evident and take very little evidence to show that they are facts eg if you drop a piano off a building or drop a stone from your hand there is some force pulling them toward the earth we call this force gravity, hence gravity exists , all i am asking for is not a bunch of people who say evolution is a fact but the evidence that evolution is a fact. and by the way science is not by consensus or authority its by evidence , testing,falsifing,repeating results etc
if science were by consensus would never move forward as its those who break free from the accepted norm who
realy invent, discover,and push forward the boundries of science.
Martin - with great respect, you took the bait and replied exactly how I thought you would. I wanted you to accept gravity as a fact, which you have.
Did you know that gravity depends on the general THEORY of relativity, a theory which cannot explain certain anomalies and which, because of that uncertainty, could just as easily cause one to dispute the existence of gravity like the existence of evolution. For example, astronomers have confirmed for certain that there are extra fast stars in the universe which cannot be accounted for by the theory of relativity. Within the distribution of velocities that govern stars, there are ones on the outskirts that have been verified to be moving faster than they should if the general theory of relativity, which gravity is dependent on, is true. To be blunt, those stars do not fit the puzzle. Could that mean that the theory of relativity is false? Yes it could. If so, then gravity as we know it may be a complete fiction. There could be another explanation for why objects fall to the ground, for example. Perhaps not force but magnetism.
You see, virtually NOTHING in your world can be proven exclusively. That is why "fact" does not depend on exclusive proof. If it did, we would have no facts.
So, I cannot possibly prove evolution to you to the exclusive degree that you appear to be asking for. Nobody can. That is why we look to the vast preponderence of opinion among those with the expertise. We accept gravity as a fact, notwithstanding the unexplained, because of that opinion. You included, it would appear. But you are not prepared to accept evolution as a fact based on the same standard of proof. You are entitled to that stance. I do not make fun of it; I do not criticize you personally for it. It is because you simply cannot accept evolution as fact because to do so would destroy everything you hold dearest in terms of the Bible and God. I understand that. Let it be so.
CKDC, Amen.
martin, you would be much better off admitting that you: cannot accept evolution as fact because to do so would destroy everything you hold dearest in terms of the Bible and God.
Okay, evolution is all fine and dandy, but where did life come from? The first single-cell life form was not dropped off by a stork, and did not appear from non-living cells. Richard Dawkins said that he believes an evolved race a aliens deposited life on the earth. Great, but he does not explain how the evolutionary beginnings of these evolved aliens came from nothing. I would like your ideas.
To Tam and CKDC you need to review you science, there is a force either pushing, pulling, or in some way holding us on the earth we dont know exactly how this force works but we call it gravity. so there are many theories of how this force orignates but the fact there is a force is self evident because we dont float around the earth do we.
we humans are held in place by a real not imaginary force. I can demonstrate this force without knowing how it works by as I said drop a stone from my hand an voila it falls to earth
all I am asking is that you show me evolution is that to much to ask
To TAM AND CKDC - as you guys put it to me you accept what the experts say about evolution
because to reject it, it as the only real opposing view to creation would mean you have to accept God , and if there is a God we had better do what he asks because if he can create a universe he is worth taking seriously
Paul, there are many theories about how the origin of life arose. Please read the article on Abiogenesis on Wikipedia for a useful summary.
We know that all living things are composed of elements of the periodic table. I believe that the advances you will see in the coming decades into understanding how the first replicating organic molecules arose will be mind boggling.
martin, if you want me to show you evolution, please read the following (in order):
The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins
The Ancestors' Tale, Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne
The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins
After you have read (and are satisfied that you understand all of this) and still have any questions that remain unanswered, I am sure that Professor Coyne would be happy to respond to any lingering doubts that you might have. Or, if not, you can go to any university biology department and try to find someone with a Ph.D. who is willing to help you.
I can't help you if you are not willing to educate yourself. This situation is no different than you telling me you refuse to accept the existence of Fiji because you've never seen it with your own eyes.
To Tam - But you miss the point you can actually show me fiji you cant show me evolution. By the way i have read some but not all of orign of species, some but not all of ancestors tale , all of the god delusion, have you read
darwins enigma . luther sunderland
darwins black box. michael behe
evolution a theory in crisis . michael denton
bones of contention. marvin lubeow
and many many other books by very credible scientists . so be fair you read some opposing views and then we can talk some more
To TAM - just a last point if all life is a result of evolution why is it not as easy to see as Fiji, gravity , the roundness of the earth , I mean if its so all encompassing why is it so mysterious.
TAM,
I enjoyed how instead of giving me your ideas you just send me to a wikipedia article(of all things). Everything in the article is purely theory. There has not been one documented case of a living cell coming from non-living cells. Yes, future scientific advancements may prove that to be true, but future scientific advancements may also prove that unicorns existed.
(This site is really hard to comment to, in FF anyway)
I think CKDC's point that acceptance of the theory of evolution destroys something for theists should be avowed up front by theists. This is missing from the bingo chart because it underpins every reason for saying one of the things on the chart (I will defend the motivation, though not all the tiles on the ID chart).
I am still thinking about this issue and don’t claim the smug certainty of the others in the thread. If a chart were made of the atheists’ defenses of the theory of evolution it would include tiles like “fairies are as compelling as deity” and “We’ve got lots of scientists” and “Everyone who disagrees with the current consensus of scientists must be a fool.” (Those last two are close, but ID Bingo chart reused some, too, so I don’t feel bad.)
I find the polarity of the debate on the Theory of Evolution to be unhelpful. Like global climate change, there are junk theories on both sides at the fringes. But even when accepts the consensus of change there can be honest debate about the what-to-do-about-it such as the issue of CO2 emissions. Both sides can somehow respect the difficulty of making policy decisions.
Or death penalty issues. There are fanatics that refuse to see another view, but there are many who respect the difficulty of reaching a conclusion all while holding firmly to the view they have chosen for themselves.
I for example was disappointed by “Ancestor’s Tale” and find no one willing to explain a mechanism or evidence for macro-evolution. I usually get one of the three bingo tiles I identified above (i.e. anti-explanations the place of an explanation).
In the end I conclude that just as theists who have personal evidence of God’s power in their lives are unsatisfied by the Theory of Evolution, atheists who deny the power of God in their lives use bingo tiles as secondary manifestations or products of their more fundamental conviction. Evolution is not a reason for atheism. Atheism becomes the reason one would stridently advocate evolution.
@martin.finnegan, I’ve got to chime in on this show-me-the-falling-stone, show-me-Mount-Fiji line of reasoning. It is out of context, isn’t it? A falling stone doesn’t prove gravity. It has to be several stones dropped under different conditions with measurements to show some connectedness. If TAM were petulantly repeating: show me god, show me god, you could not. You would have to show the evidences of god one layer at a time. The proof of god is not a Mt. Fiji kind of fact and I think that if you try to reduce everything to that type of fact you do your own position a great disservice!
BYW: In an age of special effects isn’t it cool that god doesn’t use public miracles and signs to convince us? “But God was not in the great wind.”
quandmeme, the phrase "personal evidence of God’s power in their lives" is utterly meaningless unless that evidence can be presented tangibly to a third party. It's no different than me saying that I have personal evidence of the power of Zeus in my life. Similarly, when you state: "isn’t it cool that god doesn’t use public miracles and signs to convince us?", I could replace the word god with Zeus or any number of supposed deities. However, if your god refuses to provide tangible evidence of his existence, who really cares if he exists anyways?
I must say that I find it amusing to have the papist Paul and creationist martin on the same thread. The RC Church recognizes that they can't deny the fact of evolution. In fact, if life is eventually produced from inanimate materials in a clinical setting, the Catholics won't miss a beat - they'll just say that now we discovered how god did it. However, proof of abiogenesis would be a death blow to cretards.
martin, thank-you for providing your list of "authorities". Luther Sutherland is an aerospace engineer. Marvin Lubenow is a theologian with an MSc in anthropology. Michael Denton is a biochemist whose views have "evolved" considerably since he wrote the book you refer to in 1985. Denton is not currently what i would call an evolution denier but rather one who believes there is an underlying purpose (or laws) underlying evolution. Michael Behe is a nut, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and his own academic department has a disclaimer on their website which reads as follows: While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific. If you are content to rely on these learned gentlemen to support your denial of the fact of evolution (a fact which the vast majority of your Christian brethren accept) there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.
I must say that I find Paul and quandmeme rather refreshing. They each make some points worth considering.
Martin: I repeat; I cannot "show you" evolution. Stick a fork in me. If you "show me" gravity, I will declare you the blue-ribbon winner. If you try to do so by dropping a fuckin apple, try again.
A final comment to Martin. "[I}f there is a God we had better do what he asks because if he can create a universe he is worth taking seriously". With respect, you have insulted all theists with this comment. Do you really want me to follow God because I feel threatened by Him; out of fear; out of duress? Something tells me that the leader of the Church down the street from my home would shudder at that (that lady is a lovely person, by the way, whom I enjoy talking with. She is quite bright too).
To TAM I was not refering you to authorities but just to the books and the information therein . You seem like a smart enough guy who could read the books think about the information in them and make your own decision as to its validity surley you dont need Dawkins , Coyne, et al to tell you what to think,
By the way Sunderland`s book was mostly just a series of interviews with the heads of 5 major meusem`s and there comments on transitions and the fossil record, and when asked for one fossil which they would say was a definite transitional fossil just one, they said there is not one you could make a watertight case for.
To Quandmeme . The point i was making re gravity and the earth being round is in relation to the fact the evolutionist always say evolution is as much a fact as gravity , or the earth being round, so i said i can demonstrate or show you very easily the roundness of the earth or the fact of gravity can you please do the same for evolution which they can not. So both God and evolution are matters of faith based on circumstancial evidence, so we can look at the world around us and see does evolution or creation best suit the evidence we find . its as simple as that
To CKDC - Thats the point evolution is not a fact you cannot show it, it has to be inferred from the evidence now if you want to present the evidence that convinces you evolution is a fact please do so.
Now you may not feel very comfortable with the fact that God is almighty. But if so we don`t have to obey or respect him but if you are dealing with a supreme being wheather good or evil does your or my opinion , or opposition really amount to anything more than a insignificant rant, just try rant against death, go on say death do your worst i dont respect you trust me you will be just as dead if you respect death or not.
TAM re: “personal evidence of the power of Zeus in my life.” You are talking about two different kinds of evidence. In U.S. jurisprudence, anyway, there is a category of proof where you have to show a legally relevant state of mind or understanding. The finder of fact is not judging whether they agree with the individual’s conclusion, just that it was subjectively reasonable.
It is not in the plan for me to be able to transfer my knowledge of God to you, a third-party, such that I could convince you to believe and follow. I can, however, try to put on evidence so that you understand that my belief is, in fact worthy toleration and that it is, in fact, subjectively reasonably and not worthy of smug critique.
Some facts, like whether you love your son, or why you prefer one baseball team over another, you can present to me as clearly as you like and you will never prove them to me so that I will love your son or like the Bears. BUT, you can convince me that it is reasonable or acceptable or rational for you to love your son.
James 2: 19
quandmeme, your words are perfectly interchangeable with any deity and the meaning is unchanged:
It is not in the plan for me to be able to transfer my knowledge of [Flying Spaghetti Monster] to you, a third-party, such that I could convince you to believe and follow. I can, however, try to put on evidence so that you understand that my belief is, in fact worthy toleration and that it is, in fact, subjectively reasonably and not worthy of smug critique. What evidence do you have of god that makes his existence more likely than the FSM?
James 2:19 is a source of contradiction. James is ridiculing those who suggest that salvation is had by faith alone by pointing to devils who believe in God. So this raises the question: are those who believe that Jesus is the Christ "of God"? The Bible says "yes" (see 1 John 4:15 and 1 John 5:1) and "no" (see Mark 1:23-24 and Mark 3:11). Which is it?
Some more thoughts concerning creation...
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/2953/
To TAM James 2:19 says faith alone and is true
faith alone wont save you it has to be faith with obedience. The other verses that mention belief saving you are also true in the context of those verses but like any instruction book not every sentence contains every instruction.
I dont like to use analagies but if you went in for a heart bypass opperation and lived through it you may say thans doc for saving my life , later you may say thanks doctor, nurses
and others for performing that operation that saved my life, both are true statements, the doctor did save you but not the doctor alone.
James was not a new arguments, it was just saying that just as devils know Christ and don't obey, I can hear about your love for your son but never be convinved to love him. I don't think something ceases to be fundamentally true just because it can't be packaged up and handed to another.
RE: proving FSM: Can I suggest a new thread on the topic of testability:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation.html
Start at minute 7 unless you're a TED fan.
-yawn- Good morning TAM.com!
Here's my couple bits on this:
Here are a few scientific facts.
1) If you drop an apple from a building, it will fall to the ground, unless there is some obstruction along the way.
2) Populations of animals change over time.
Here are a couple of scientific theories.
1) Theory of General Relativity, which isn't flawless.
2) Theory of Evolution, which isn't flawless.
I'm not 100% up to par on General Relativity, but whatever, who cares.
Anyway, saying that the theory of evolution is wrong is foolish. Also saying that the theory of evolution is right is foolish. It needs to be constantly studied, and always always stand underneath the constant barrage of whatever it is. I could say by shear force of will, that my mind is keeping me on the ground. That's "James' Theory of stuff staying on the floor." However, it falls through, because first off: It can be interpreted two different ways...
1) I, personally, am keeping every object on the ground through sheer force of will.
or
2) I keep myself on the ground.
Now what happened before I was alive? Was it all real? It was. If I weren't there, I couldn't have kept myself on the ground. What about all these cans of Dr. Pepper? They can't have force of will, because they don't have a mind, and therefore don't have a will.
Learn the differences between scientific facts and scientific theories.
I would however like to hear your arguments against "irreducible complexity" and the whole "chaos" argument.
@Martin-
Actually, the force that is pushing, pulling, and holding everything in place is the Higgs Boson field.
Gravity is just bends in the fabric of space. It is theorized the gravitational fields generated by this space warping may generate gravitational waves, which have been proved indirectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
None have been directly detected as of yet, but NASA is currently building a new highly sensitive satellite detector which will get the job done.
If we find the frequency of gravitational waves, this will prove how the universe came to be. If we don't, this will prove another possible way of how the universe came to be.
The answer is just a few years off yet, but I'm guessing we'll find out what is already observably detectable, that the universe came from nothing. If the frequency of gravitational radiation can be recorded this will be confirmation of how the universe began.
And that will be the biggest blow to the theistic argument. Since if, like quantum theory, the standard model can show beyond a reason of a doubt that the universe sprang from nothing, then what need for a Creator? The answer is none, and so a Creator being wouldn't only be implausible, akin to superfluous fancy, it is my opinion that very soon the idea of a Creator being will be shewn to be impossible.
Creators that don't create can be given credit for creation. And if the universe creates itself, then this rules out God exclusively. End of debate.
One more thing worth mentioning: If physics and cosmology can prove the universe came from creatio ex nihilo, everything from nothing, then God is not.
If God is not, evolution came about without divine providence. Which means nature is it's own creating agency, by necessity. This would mean arguments from the God of the gaps in biology are basically futile. It's why I don't argue them. I don't need to defend evolution, it can do it on it's own by doing what it does everyday right under our noses!
So when I hear of irreducible complexity, or I.D. (short for infinite digression, I think), or a million anecdotal excuses as to why theist's feel evolution might be wrong, then I just shake my head, and then take an Advil, and get on to reading real science.
To Tristan D Vick . I assume you have heard of Stanley Miller he was on the verge of not only theoriticaly proving life could come from non life but empirically doing so in a lab and the scientific world mocked us poor thiests as ignorant and just so blind in our beliefs. Now
here we are 50 years on and we are further away than ever in showing any possible way life can come about from non life, so please excuse my skeptisism when some scientist points to his computer screen and shows some equations and claims eureka a universe from nothing.
Oh good. I've come back to this blog, and it looks like there's a nice discussion still active.
One thing that has been argued in this thread is that you cannot "show" evolution.
You can; I have.
Don't conflate evolution with the Theory of Evolution in this, however. Evolution is a simple process which applies to anything and everything that has these criteria:
Imperfect replication.
A selective environment.
During a discussion with a creationist a few years ago, as computer programming is my specialisation (and job), I took it upon myself to write a program that would take a set of letters, replicate and mutate them into a population of words and sentences, and then prune it down to a population comprising only the closest that matched my target.
Eventually, after a few hundred thousand generations, there was one that was exactly my target (it was 100% "fit"). It was driven entirely by randomness, but the force of selection made the algorithm perform in a certain direction (I played with this a bit, by choosing difference sentences to describe being "100% fit", as well as mutating the fitness function itself, which modeled life more closely. All fun stuff.)
In computing, we call these genetic algorithms, but the point is they work. Evolution is just mathematics here.
(Incidentally, I did this before I heard of the Weasel program, which is essentially the same as what I wrote independantly)
The Theory of Evolution describes the observations that evolution (the mathematical process described above) applied to biology accounts for the variety of life on this planet.
A better idea that explains more without inventing external unobservable sources would win you prizes.
But anyway, the bottom line is that *even if* everything were made only 6,000 years ago, DNA-based life has imperfect replication and a selective environment. It's impossible for evolution *not* to be happening to it.
To Kaz Dragon- I get a little fed up explaining this to people but you are the creative force in the little experiment you did on your computer, what if I who knows nothing about computer programing randomly bashed away on the keys in an effort to program this experiment into the computer how long would it take, and what if I was blind , just like the blind watchmaker how long would it take.Do me a favour try this experiment in the real world and let me know how you get on,for in computer world you can programme a computer to turn a ham sandwich into a space shuttle through random changes if you want.
To Kaz Dragon - sorry one more thing in your programe you assume change over time and programe accordingly but what if you start with me thinks its like a weasel allow for change but programe it to always try to go back to its orignal position me thinks its like a weasel, what would happen . well what would happen is what would happen in nature from cells to complete creatures they always try to replicate after their own type.
@Martin. You say I am the creative force. Sure, I wrote the program. However, I have no say on what direction it takes while it runs. The mutations are generated randomly, and the selection algorithm is applied.
However, any creative force is *irrelevant* to the process. It didn't matter what my starting conditions were. It doesn't It didn't matter what language I chose, it didn't matter which of the infinite number of programs to do this I wrote, it didn't matter whether the subject matter was words, sentences, colours, days of the week or cupcakes.
It didn't even matter how I designed the function to choose fitness (I tried hamming distance, along with a couple of other sorting criteria)
The fact was that the pressure applied by whatever selection method I used tempered the imperfect replication of the random starting conditions into the desired shape.
The point of the program is not about the person writing it. It's to show that the mathematical process that is evolution is necessarily applied to any and every system that has imperfect replication and a selective environment. And that by definition includes DNA-based life.
@Martin on his second post. Paraphrased, "what would happen if you started with 100% fitness and applied the algorithm then"
Depending on the algorithm for mutation, you would get populations of fitness around 99-100%.
You then go on to say that, "well what would happen is what would happen in nature from cells to complete creatures they always try to replicate after their own type."
Pretty much, yes.
It's been a few billion years since life started, so anything that's around today has a reasonably high fitness for its ecological niche.
Those life forms replicate imperfectly into something very, very, very much like their predecessors. Not entirely the same, but very, very similar.
Measurably different, though. Primates (including humans), for example, each have on average about 150 genes that are different from *both* of their parents.
However, it's important to realise that, in biological life, everything -- including each individual life form -- is part of the environment that applies the fitness function back on to the individual life form.
Life is a *huge* feedback mechanism whose fitness function changes from moment to moment.
To Kaz Dragon- Who wrote evolutions programme,
the selection algorithm , if you were not a creative force in the process then if I was
the programmer we should get the same result,
but be honest would we. OH and I just spotted the words designed the programe in your reply-
argument over. WHO DESIGNED THE EVOLUTIONARY
PROCESS.
Martin, the point I'm making (and I made this point in my first post as well) is that the mathematical process that is evolutiona is independent of whether it is "created" or not. And, as you just observed yourself, it is independent of *who* created it.
*Even if* the big bang happened 15 billion years ago or so and chemical abiogenesis occurred, or *even if* we were put here by aliens, or *even if* the earth were poofeed into existence 6,000 years ago and seeded by an intelligent agent of some sort, all life on this planet replicates imperfectly and is subject to selection by its environment. It therefore necessarily evolves, just like anything and everything else with those two simple properties.
Important! Please answer: do you dispute this?
As for who designed the evolutionary process? That's a very good question. How about this: instead of making something up off the top of our heads and saying that that did it, we instead observe and design experiments to discover the answer, if there even is an answer to the question?
To Kaz Dragon - yes I do dispute this because
you are making to many asumptions ,
1 - that mutations accumlate
2 - mutations provide new information
3- that things evolve rather than try stay the same.
you must know mutations are 99.99% either neutral or detrimental so as animals reproduce they try to reproduce or replicate perfectly
mistake only hinder their cause not help it.
in your opinion if you programe to get from simple to complex by a planed, designed and defined path or through copying mistakes which would be most sucessful, and likley to suceed
Lots to talk about here. Apologies for the long reply.
Martin:
You say that I assume that mutations accumulate.
No, I don't. The mutations in the program I wrote are generated by a random number generator. In biology, they're driven by imperfect replication of DNA.
Selection causes those mutations favoured by the selection algorithm to become fixed in a population.
Next, you say that I assume that mutations provide new information. I could guess at what you mean, but I'm not entirely sure. Could you explain your meaning here, and why it is relevant?
Finally, you say that I assume that things evolve rather than try to stay the same.
No. I *observe* that things evolve, and that it follows that, in any system which exhibits imperfect replication and environmental selection, evolution occurs.
Please answer: do you agree or disagree that any and every system wherein a population that undergoes imperfect replication and environmental selection must necessarily evolve? Note: the population need not be biological.
---
Your point about mutations being (largely) neutral or detrimental is valid. But there are a very small amount of beneficial mutations as well. Additionally, "beneficial" and "detrimental" varies from environment to environment.
Consider what we call sickle-cell anaemia. This has two effects: first, a person with this condition who has an iron-poor diet has a higher than normal mortality rate. Second: a person with this condition has a high resistance to malaria.
In places where diet is iron-poor, it is most certainly detrimental.
In places where diet is iron-rich, it is neutral.
In places where the prevalence of malaria is such that having sickle-cell anaemia will cause you, on average, to live longer than not (taking the iron richness of a diet into consideration), then it is beneficial.
So this single mutation can be all three of the categories depending on the environment in which it occurs.
I would hope that you can see that it follows that the mutation would be rejected by a population in an area with an iron-poor diet, it would be chosen apathetically in an area with an iron-rich diet, and it would become fixed as a beneficial trait in a population with a reasonable amount of iron in their diet along with a high incidence of malaria.
Please: if you disagree with the above analysis, please state where, with specificity if possible.
---
Finally, you ask what my opinion is regarding making a program to find a solution based on planned paths or copying mistakes (I read that as "imperfect replication").
The answer is: as much as I'd love to think that my design skills are great enough to think my way through any problem, a dose of humility and experience robs me of that. In several cases, randomness is indeed a driving force behind workable solutions.
For example, in Natural Language Processing, there is a technique called "Simulated Annealing" (real annealing is a process in metalworking where a length of metal is cooled slowly from one end to the other in order to work for the metal to cool evenly and with fewer flaws.)
Simulated Annealing involves applying a fitness function to a group of words and assigning random choices of "meanings" to the words. After generations, the random sequence of meanings that fit the best is chosen. The scope for randomness is then reduced (for example, the meaning of the first word is "fixed"), and the randomness begins again.
Even though it is driven by randomness, and the process does not occur in a way that the designer could predict, it remains a very useful technique.
Such examples abound in software engineering. A very good example of this can be found by googling for "genetic algorithm aerial"
(A follow-up note. After a brushing up of my knowledge of sickle-cell anaemia, I have found it has very little to do with iron at all. Therefore, please read the references to SSA in my post above as a different, hypothetical condition.)
To Kaz Dragon- maybe our view of evolution is different if you are saying humans getting taller, living longer , then yes this is happening mainly due to better nutrition, but this can be reversed if our nutrition suffers, but if you say evolution is one creature becoming a completly new creature over time
then I say no this does not and cannot happen
for many reasons which I will reply later on.
Martin: You are addressing something which I did not say. Please re-read my message and try again.
To Kaz Dragon - You observed evolution please be more specific what exactly did you observe.
I will answer you longer reply later
Ok...
I observe that, in any system which has a population with the properties of imperfect replication and environmental selection, that the population as a whole changes over many generations to become a closer fit to the selection criteria of the environment.
I await your answers with bated breath. I'm genuinely interested in what you find so inaccurate about that particular observation.
once again can you be specific as i can point to my ancestors as far back as I can go
and always they are fully human in my lineage
i dont see change over time can you please point to a specific animal or group of animals
that change over time
Again, you have responded to something I didn't write. Please try and stay with me. I have answered your questions and addressed your comments with specificity. It would be gracious if you would give me the same honour.
To Kaz - You say you observe in systems with imperfect replication that they change over time, I am saying I dont observe that , so can you please point me to a specific group or system in nature that you have observed to change over time.You saying you observe it does not make it so , because if we just took peoples word for what they observed , then UFOS, LOCH NESS MONSTERS, BIGFOOT,LEPRECHAUNS,
have all been observed .
"You say you observe in systems with imperfect replication that they change over time"
NO.
I say I observe in system with imperfect replication **and a selective environment**. That's very important. I'm trying to cover the basics here.
And I already demonstrated this in my programs, and it has been demonstrated with the Weasel program.
But, for you, let's do a thought experiment with cupcakes.
1) Get 50 people to make cupcakes. *Cupcakes are your population.*
2) Choose 25 of these with the least icing on them and throw them away. *this is selection*
3) Get 25 people and give them each one of the remaining cupcakes. Tell them to make as close a copy as they can of that cupcake. *this is imperfect replication*
4) repeat from step 2.
Please: Do you agree or disagree that, because those elements in the population with the least icing are constantly being thrown away and thus not replicated, the population of cupcakes would change over generations to have more and more icing?
To Kaz - with cup cakes I agree with you kind of, because even with cup cakes the imperfect ones are thrown away and the orignal basic model which is to be replicated is the model the selectors are aiming for and constant mutations or mistakes are thrown away so no change takes place.But forgetting cup cakes
the neo darwinian model which says that random mutation coupled with natural selection accounts for all the bio diversity of nature is just not true for so many reasons.
why do humans not have wings well there is nothing in human dna which allows for wings
so the limits of dna determine the limits of change. I wrote earlier about mutations not providing new information what this means is , when they irradiated fruit flys they mutated them in all sort of shapes and sizes with extra wings and legs growing out of their heads etc , but no fly were produced with non fruit fly parts feathers etc dna limits change
Whoa whoa whoa! Hold thy horses! I'm glad you've answered, but you've gone on way too far here and skipped over a bunch of stuff to come to nonsense. We'll get on to these things when we've covered the basics. It's important to understand the fundamentals in order to tackle the complexity that is life.
What I'm trying to do is explain the basic mathematical concepts of evolutionary processes to you and answer the question of how I observe such a thing. I'll be open with you: I'm using the socratic method to take you through the steps to my conclusion as well.
So far, we've shown that evolution works with cupcakes. The next step is to see if it works in the general case.
Do you agree or disagree that,
Given a population P,
and A fitness function F,
and A replication process R,
As long as R does not yield duplicates,
The population P will generationally move to closer satisfy F.
Remember: we've already done this where P = cupcakes, F = "have the most icing", and R = "get some people to copy some cupcakes".
To Kaz - you are talking about what is commonly called micro evolution probably best demonstrated by the peppered moth experiment
you start with light and dark coloured moths
in certain conditions light coloured moths thrive so breed more so thrive more, in certain cased the dark coloured moths thrive so breed more so thrive, more but you start with light and dark coloured moths either can thrive
depending on conditions and you end with light and dark coloured moths but changs is still limited to light and dark coloured moths just like change is limited to big and small beak finches both which still exist on the galapagos
islands. just like the cup cake analagy you will not end up with ham sandwiches because all you have is the ingredients for cup cakes
To KAZ - how dow you define fitness in nature?
So Martin. I *think* you just agreed with the assessment, but could you state it explicitly?
As to how I define fitness in nature, that comes next. I'd like to get over this bit first.
To Kaz- simple answer no I dont believe that in nature creatures, species,families, or whatever you wish to call them change over time by the method you propose. I do belive they can change within limits by variation within their genetic code eg just by the recombination of their various traits, blue eyes, brown eyes, long legs, hair colour, big beak, small beak etc all which are already a part of the animal to begin with.
Martin, I would very much appreciate if you'd answer the question I asked, rather than a similar but algother different one.
Do you agree or disagree with the following:
Given a population P,
and A fitness function F,
and A replication process R,
As long as R does not yield duplicates,
The population P will generationally move to closer satisfy F.
("algother" = "altogether" above.
Please don't feel I'm being harsh. This is science and mathematics, and it's very important to be clear on the fundamentals. Only once these are resolved to the satifaction of both of us can we proceed onward to such things as how this works in nature.)
To KAZ as a mathemical formula ok but in nature not necessarily if you start with 4 animals and they breed and duplicate at a rate of x given y amount of years you will have
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,.00
this is true but in nature there may be other factors , so in its limited form the maths are sound but it does not take into account all the factors involved.
but to move the discussion along ok I agree with you now lets talk about the real world not computer programmes
Yay!
Incidentally, we were just talking about both computer programs *and* the real world. DNA-based life reproduces imperfectly and is subject to selection. This is trivially demonstrable.
But now that we've established the basic mathematics of it, from your comments, your beef seems to be that it's somehow limited and you don't get crocoducks and stuff. All true, and I'll explain why.
And I'll do that by moving on to your next question, which was: "how dow you define fitness in nature?"
Let me just introduce a concept or two first by revisiting the cupcakes. Imagine that each cupcake was a dot plotted on a graph. The x-axis is the cupcake "number" (with the left hand side being oldest and the right hand side being youngest), and the y-axis is the amount of icing on the individual cupcake.
Looking on the internet for a suitable graph, this seems appropriate:
http://logicalgenetics.com/assorted/upload/titanic-training.png
(What the graph actually measures isn't important. I'm just demonstrating the sort of shape I'd expect it to have.)
When applying this sort of thinking to nature, however, it is nowhere near so simple. The fitness function in nature is *very* complicated. It isn't about just whether you're big or small or brainy or dumb, or whether you have more icing than the guy next to you. There are many different criteria that are evaluated and additionally the rest of the population is included in it.
The easiest way to visualise how this appears instead is by expressing the fitness function using a "fitness landscape". http://www.biology-direct.com/content/figures/1745-6150-2-24-9-l.jpg is a good example of one, and I'd advise you to open it up in another window, because I'll be referring to it.
Peaks are areas that represents collections of traits that better fit their environment. Individuals whose traits are in those peaks are more likely to be selected. Similarly, the troughs represents collections of traits that are not a good fit for the environment. Looking at the picture, imagine you have a population that has a selection of traits slightly down the slope of the hill under R2. Generationally accumulating mutations that move up the hill is easy, because the newer generations will be better adapted to their environment. This could be more icing, longer beaks, bigger tails, whatever. The "micro"-evolution you've agreed with.
However, you can see from the graph that R2 is the best local solution for the population, but it is not the best global solution for the environment. O2 is. Its peak is HUGE. But in order for your population to generationally mutate from R2 to O2, it would have to go *downhill*. And this is where evolution does have a problem: it's in a class of processes called "hill climbing algorithms". Hill climbing algorithms are good at climbing hills. They're not very good at coming back down them. That is, it is generally not possible for populations to become less fit in order to become more fit.
The only way for your population to get from R2 to O2 is by changing the fitness landscape itself. Now the fitness landscape changes slightly from moment to moment. Every lion born is a chance for an elk not to live long enough to reproduce. But in nature, the big changes happen by environmental change (including catastrophes), geographical relocation, and that sort of stuff. In other words, the environment has to work to produce an uphill path for evolution to climb, otherwise you get stasis in species as they stay at their local maximum.
And that's pretty much all there is to it. The big secret is that all evolution is microevolution. If you take a population at a local peak and take a snapshot, then change the landscape to make a new hill for the population to follow, wait for the micro-evolution to climb the new hill and take a snapshot when the population finally reaches the new peak, that's macro-evolution.
To Kaz -Two things fitness is define by most if not all evolutionary biologist`s not as some trait or strenght , people may say a lion is more fit than a slug but its not as they are both alive now so both are equally as fit, really fitness comes down to reproduction only, survival of the fittest is defined as follow`s that the fittest survive and those that survive they are the fittest is a tautology no one can define fitness, its only those that survive to produce offspring which are deemed the fitest.second thing do you know of a mechanism which can break the animal free of the constraints of its genetic code as mutations as I said do not produce new information see fruit fly explaination earlier.
To Kaz - can you show one actual confirmed case of mutation`s acumulating to give a new trait, I dont see it as mutations but just natural already existing variation.
Martin - please open the picture of the fitness landscape again.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/figures/1745-6150-2-24-9-l.jpg
You are right in a way that the only questions that nature asks is "do you reproduce, and do your progency reproduce?"
However, there are an incredible number of solutions to that particular question. You could see every life form that has ever lived as a partial solution to the questions. In the fitness landscape of nature, each answer is denoted by a peak.
However, there are also an incredible number of answers to the question that result in failure. These are dips in the landscape. As I said, evolution is a hill climbing algorithm. It doesn't fall into holes unless the fitness landscape changes to place them there (and then they either evolve and adapt or go extinct, usually the latter).
As to your second question. Could you please clarify what you mean by "to break (an animal) free of the constraints of its genetic code" and also clarify what you mean by "new information".
I looked at your fruit fly response earlier, but I thought that was due to a misunderstanding of how evolution works on a fitness landscape. If a fly were to give birth to a turnip, that would be leaping from one peak to another peak, which is completely contrary to everything I've just explained. I'm really hoping that you grok how the algorithm works regarding nature by now.
To Kaz- ok I will go through one thing at a time when any animal reproduce`s ie cat, dog , horse they reproduce cat, dog, horse why is that? why do horses not reproduce cats?
Didn't I just explain these questions? I'm pretty sure I just answer that with the fly and turnip.
The answer is because the traits for horses and the traits for cats lie on different peaks in the fitness landscape. Evolution doesn't go downhill, so it can't move from one peak to another.
Why is it you expect horses to reproduce cats? Have there been observations of horses reproducing cats? Have I suggested anywhere that a horse would reproduce a cat? Has any evolutionary biologist *ever* suggested that any horse would *ever* reproduce a cat?
I'm really not sure where you're going with that line of thinking.
To Kaz -ok if cats reproduce cats and dogs, dogs what is the mechanism to change that into the future or back into the past, you seem to be saying that external forces cause the changes but external forces can only select from a change that might take place, so what cause`s the change what mechanism would cause a fish to develop lungs over time what mechanism would allow a creature that has no genes to develop lungs get these genes and then past these genes onto their ofspring
To Kaz - maybe this explains it better . You have a bakery producing cup cakes , they started small but because they make amazing icing covered cup cakes they have almost cornered the market because their cup cakes are the fittest, but wait a competitor comes along and puts M&Ms on top of their cupcakes oh
no icing cover cup cakes are no longer the fittest the market (nature) wants M&M covered cupcakes oh no icing cupcakes will close down die out unless the get M&Ms but where does a bakery with no ingredients or equipment to make M&Ms get these ingrediends or equipment to do so .
To Martin - You ask, "ok if cats reproduce cats and dogs, dogs what is the mechanism to change that into the future or back into the past"
What I think you're essentially asking how populations of animal X evolve into populations of animal Y.
You use the example of "how did fish get lungs". I'll go with this. Now, there are many possible answers here. I'm going to present two of them.
1) God did it. Before, when explaining evolution, I gave you the idea that evolution would be happening even if the Earth was created 6,000 years ago simply because DNA-based life has imperfect replication and a selective environment. As such, evolution isn't the enemy of faith. I put option 1 here as an choice for you to take because I feel that getting into a debate about radiometric dating and the fossil record and all that stuff would detract from what we're talking about. We can do that later, sure, but it'll just be a distraction here. Anyway, if you want to say "God did it", and explore no further, then this is here for you. Evolution's still happening, though, and will continue to do so.
2) I assume you're taking the "(proto-)fish to man" route, so option 2 is if the world just happens to be a few billion years old.
I'll get back to the fish in question in a moment, but I just want to talk about how DNA works.
DNA gives us many possible mutations. Really, we've catalogued a bunch of them. One of these is duplication. One particularly rare mutation in humans is a duplication that gives you four kidneys instead of two. In many people, this is quite painful and can give regular stomach upsets and all sorts. In a pair of Latvian brothers, though (and you can google this), all it does is give them the ability to drink their friends under the table. They are very efficient at processing alcohol.
Now imagine that these brothers are part of a hunter-gatherer stone-age population, where they are at odds of being eaten by lions on a regular basis. Furthermore, their only water source is dirty, and the method they came up with for cleaning it involves making the water into alcoholic drinks. Being able to process alcohol more efficiently, they have a clearer head at all times. As such, they are less likely to be eaten by lions. They have a fitness advantage, and their four-kidney genes propagate through the population.
Still with me? It's all just micro-evolution, right? Good.
(I had to split this up. Continued in the next post...)
(... and we're back)
Another thing that a mutation of DNA can do is cause parts to grow differently. In our four-kidneyed population, it may be that the second pair of kidneys change to become better processors of alcohol. Similarly, the initial pair of kidneys change to become lesser processors of alcohol.
Generations later, mankind comes upon these humans who don't have kidneys. They have four organs where kidneys usually are, one pair of which can process only alcohol, the other pair cannot process alcohol. Medical oddities all! But it's just micro-evolution.
Duplication followed by independent modification is one of the key processes of imperfect DNA replication that can give rise to new traits. Most of the different chemicals ("factors") in our blood arose this way, for example. It's the source of all traits that seem "irreducable", such as our hunter-gatherer's kidneys. They couldn't live without either set -- without one, they'd die of blood poisioning, without the other, they'd die of alcohol poisoning, but the evolutionary pathway is there to lead to that point.
In the case of our proto-fish, small pouches on the digestive tract that were used for the processing of oxygen from "swallowed" water mutated over generations to be larger and further up into the body. In some populations of fish that lived in deeper or salty water, they evolved into swim bladders to regulate the saltiness of their environment. We're not interested in them. In the others that lived in shallow freshwater closer to land, they evolved into lungs.
I'm sure you can see the selective pressure here. It's biologically *really* expensive to process oxygen from water, and the path over the fitness landscape is clear. Having mutations that lead to larger pouches for this processing makes it easier to process the oxygen. Having a mutation that gives a population direct access to air (instead of via water) puts that population at a huge advantage. And all it would do is take a duplication of the proto-oesophagus that leads directly to the sac rather than to the digestive tract. We could call it a windpipe instead.
It goes further. Having such a simple mutation as this also enables the population to survive in a different environment, water-breathing proto-fish are now water-and-air-breathing proto-fish that are capable of living outside of water long enough to feed from the vast nutritional resources of an untouched coastline. A huge advantage, and definitely a step upward on the fitness landscape!
But we're not talking about proto-fish any more. They're proto-amphibians.
But it was just micro-evolution!
To Kaz - nice story now how about some proof that this ever happened.
To Kaz - the men with extra kidneys is exactly the point with the fruit flys, mutations will replicate what already exists but will never produce new body parts no matter what fitness
pressure is brought to bear.Its just wishful thinking by evolutionists.
Martin, you say:
"nice story now how about some proof that this ever happened."
I thought you agreed that micro-evolution happened? Why the trouble all of a sudden?
In any case, I have gone out of my way to find both theoretical examples (for the maths) and real examples (for the biology) for you. You did fine (eventually) with the mathematics of evolution, and even seemed to grasp it, but you have a tendency to bury your head in the sand at new ideas. You can't learn by doing that. Use the brain which you've been given a little. Google it. Research. Don't limit yourself! I've given you the jigsaw pieces: the maths of "why". You just need to assemble them to make the picture.
Then you say, "the men with extra kidneys is exactly the point with the fruit flys, mutations will replicate what already exists but will never produce new body parts no matter what fitness pressure is brought to bear."
The new kidneys *are* new body parts. They are part of their genome, and are subject to evolutionary pressures independently of the original pair.
Mutations can and do replicate parts. Mutations can and do change parts. Put the two together: mutations can and do change previously replicated parts in independent evoluationary directions.
Is the thumb not a duplicated finger with independent modifications?
Is the windpipe not just a duplicated oesophagus with independant modifications?
It's really a 1+1=2 deal here. Imperfect replication with a selective environment. That's all it takes.
DNA happens to be the machinery for replication and mutation that occurs here on Earth, but it didn't need to be. It just happens to be the one we have, and it's *very* well documented.
To Kaz - sorry I am just shaking the sand from my hair before I reply.So 1+1=2 its that simple
random mutation and natural selection is all you need, if that is the case there must be billions of mutations taking place to make this happen I asked you to name one you could not apart from sickle cell anemia which kills people, also the next time someone you know is having a baby you should tell them and their doctor you hope the child is born with some mutations and just see what response you get , mutations are bad.Cells , dna, genes are supposed to replicate themselves perfectly they are designed that way when a copying mistake happens its a bad thing, detrimental
even fatal and thats how natural selection works it weeds out the copying mistakes and keeps the orignal.Name any other system you know, making computers, cars, buildings, software, translating books, copying any complex system you can think of and apply the idea of random mistakes rather than a designed
planed system which do you see, only a crazy man
would hope to have any success by constantly making mistakes and picking the best ones if any.You spoke of extra kidneys but where did the orignal kidneys come from , what existing
body part on a reptile would turn into a avain wing,when a creature develops lungs the lungs alone are no use without all the associated other parts which allows the blood to get the oxygen from the lungs.If evolution is constantly going on all around us why cant we see it why is every animal not in mid evolution why is there no animal in mid evolution.Extra kidneys are not new body parts just extra existing ones.Name one human in history that you know of born with non human parts considering the bilions of humans born you would expect at least one if evolution is true.I agreed micro evolution can happen but with limitations darwinian evolution was changed to neo darwinaian for this very reason
but if you want to believe a system of copying mistakes which has never been shown to produce new information can account for all the diversity of life well thats your choice.
To Kaz- you have take the evidence for limited
change (micro) and applied to unlimited change
(macro) evolution without the evidence to do so.
you cannot conclude that if any system works on a micro level extra icing on cup cakes that the same applies giving an unlimited system
ham sanwiches, sunday lunch, and every other food you can think of , all from the same limited factory and ingredients which makes cup cakes.
Martin, you say: "if that is the case there must be billions of mutations taking place to make this happen I asked you to name one you could not apart from sickle cell anemia which kills people"
Martin, if you're not going to read what I write, it is pointless talking to you.
In certain environments, namely those with a high prevalence of malaria, it is a *beneficial* mutation. It helps people survive long enough to be able to reproduce.
There are plenty of others. Try googling for the origins of lactose tolerance, and why it affects western people more than eastern.
I realise that you're a skeptic and, as such, are very unlikely to take what I say at face value. And also it means that any evidence I present will have less weight with you. I don't criticise you for it. A healthy dose of skepticism is good. But it does mean that, in order to confirm or reject the things that I am saying, you will have to do your own independent research instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LA LA LA to hold your own ground despite any evidence.
You then say, "Name any other system you know, making computers, cars, buildings, software, translating books,copying any complex system you can think of and apply the idea of random mistakes rather than a designed
planed system which do you see, only a crazy manwould hope to have any success by constantly making mistakes and picking the best ones if any."
On the contrary, and if you'd read anything I said in this exchange, you'd bonk yourself on the head.
Specifically with translating books: you remember when I was talking about using simulated annealing in natural language processing way back? You did understand the point that it was a genetic algorithm, right?
Also, with respect to engineering, you seem to have conveniently forgotten the example I provided earlier, of the evolutionarily-designed antenna that has better radio characteristics than those designed by expert humans?
It's not crazy people using this. Evolution *happens*, evolution *works* and it is used in design, engineering, and other such tasks every day.
"You spoke of extra kidneys but where did the orignal kidneys come from"
I'm not going to play whack-a-mole with you, where you ask "where did X come from?" and I say, "it came from Y." Then you say, "AH-HAH! But where did Y come from?"
You want to know? Go look it up.
"If evolution is constantly going on all around us why cant we see it why is every animal not in mid evolution why is there no animal in mid evolution."
a) Because the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Despite that, you can measure it. See http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full which discusses human mutation rates and the effects of parental age upon them.
b) You have it backwards. It is not that no animal is in mid-evolution. *every* animal, *every* plant, *everything ever* that has imperfect replication and a selective environment is in mid-evolution.
Finally, you say, "but if you want to believe a system of copying mistakes which has never been shown to produce new information ..."
For the third and last time. DEFINE INFORMATION. If you do not, then I will be forced to believe that you are parroting and have no clue at all what you are talking about.
Martin, you add: "you cannot conclude that if any system works on a micro level extra icing on cup cakes that the same applies giving an unlimited system"
I conclude exactly that. Macro-evolution is the result of taking snapshots of populations undergoing micro-evolution at different points with different environments.
If it is something else, define it.
To Kaz - ok at the very start of this discussion you claimed you wrote a computer programe did you make any mistakes when doing so, did you deliberatly try to avoid mistakes
if so why ? please answer question honestly
Yes I did make mistakes. And yes, of course I deliberately tried to avoid mistakes, in order that the program would function as I intended it to.
So if i read you right you deliberately avoided mistakes ,then are you saying that a system or programe is in the biological world that
is either designed or by chance that allows
animals to move forward in an evolutionary sense by copying mistakes and selection thereafter.
Martin, you say: "So if i read you right you deliberately avoided mistakes"
Explicitly: yes.
Then I'm not sure quite what you ask. Perhaps you could rephrase that?
evolution according to evolutionist`s is driven by copying mistakes acted on by natural selection choosing the best of these mistakes
but this is totally non programed, non designed
non planned, its all just a constant series of mistakes is this your view.
I think debating the notion of a "designer" would have us drift off topic here. So as to the question of whether there was a programmer, designer or planner I will leave for another day.
If you want to consider that the evolutionary process was designed by an intelligent agent in order to produce (eventually) the life forms he/she/other wished, then I would be happy to call this discussion a win for both of us and end there. Perhaps the cause could be debated another time.
But to answer you, I will state my position clearly.
Evolution is an emergent property of any system which contains imperfect replication and a selective environment.
Biological organisms have both of these properties, thus it follows that they necessarily evolve.
We have many observations about the expressed traits of many life forms, both existing today and remaining from the past.
The evolutionary process, when applied to biology and extrapolated backwards, explains an overwhelming abundance of these observations, including the variety of different life forms (by which I mean species).
The evolutionary process, extrapolated forwards, makes testable predictions that are used today not only in medicine and biology, but also in engineering disciplines.
To Kaz You rebutt this point and then we will have to agree to disagree but as i said organic
life tries to copy itself exactly and reject any copying mistake , scientist speak of strands of dna as strands of information and locked up in that dna is say the information for a reptile to make an arm so where does the new information come from no matter how slowly to make a wing.
last point you need to read the qote by Gerry Coyne who wrote the book why evolution is true
he says evolution has not yielded many practial or commercial benefits, evolution cannot help us to predict what new vaccines to make, evolution has not helped us guide animal or plant breeding, most improvement in animal and plant occoured long before we knew anything before evolution. Now Gerry Coyne is a evolutionist to the bone but here in nature magizine he tells it like it is.
I will take this in reverse order.
You write, "... quote by Gerry Coyne who wrote the book why evolution is true
he says evolution has not yielded many practial or commercial benefits, ..."
I take exception to this one. I have tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to maintain a distinction from evolution as a process -- the mathematics -- and evolution as applied to biology. His entire book is about biology, so I find it unlikely that that quote was about evolution as a raw process.
As a raw process, we do obtain practical and commercial results from evolution. I have named quite a few of them.
For the rest of those assertions, I do not challenge them.
Finally, you write: "scientist speak of strands of dna as strands of information and locked up in that dna is say the information for a reptile to make an arm so where does the new information come from no matter how slowly to make a wing."
First, for the fourth time, you have used the word "information" without defining it. Please do so.
Now, as I said, I tire of whack-a-mole. So, once you have defined what information actually is in this context, will you do the following: should I be able to answer your question about the origins of reptilian wings, you will agree that the the diversity of species is caused by evolution, as indicated by overwhelming evidence?
your a computer programer I am not but if you want me to write a computer programe you would have to show me how , you might write the instructions down for me to follow this is infomation, so when I follow this information to the letter I end up with a computer programe
when an animal forms from conception to birth its cells follows the infomation/instructions in its dna so it becomes the animal as per the information/instructions thats why cats , cats ,dogs ,dogs and so on that is information as I see it , so the instructions you give me to write the computer programe what would you call them.Also what overwhelming evidence for evolution?
That does not explain what information is. I cannot answer the question of "where the information comes from" if you don't explain what you mean by the "information" in this context.
As to the overwhelming evidence, that was my question to you. I am a computer programmer. I know algorithms. I know how evolutionary algorithms work, and I know why they work. I know how applying it to the observations we have of the natural world is a very well tested explanation for the diversity of species.
I will rephrase:
If, once you have successfully defined "information", I answer your question of where the "information" for reptilian wings came from, will you accept that evolution has overwhelming evidence?
information is the term use by most biologists and even watson and crick the co discoverers of the helical structure of dna use this term to describe the plan, bluprint,programme in dna which allows it to tell so to speak cells what to do so what ever name you wish to call it by ,just like opening up and instruction book , or an encylopeida what would you call the words therin they are not just scribles on a page the impart knowledge , information .
If i can show you that no system proceeds in real life by constantly making mistakes and hoping to improve, will you stop beliveing in biological evolution , next time you go for a job interview tell them you hope to keep making mistakes more and more mistake but dont wory it will come good in the end and see do you get the job.
Ok, first, that's acceptible, I guess, but I'd like a further clarification: earlier, you said that a genome for the creation of four kidneys did not have more information than the genome for the creation of two kidneys. That does not gel with what you just said. There are clearly more instructions being processed in order to create more organs. How do you reconcile this?
Second: you haven't answered my challenge. There are very good reasons I'm asking the question.
Third: your words of "mistakes" and "hope" are loaded and ill-fitting. Of all the things I'd hoped to communicate to you, it was that "mistake" and "hope" aren't in the evolutionary process.
Imperfect replication and a selective environment. It works. I've written it myself and had it work, I've seen where others have written it and had it work. I've seen that it is a very well-fitting explanation for the diversity of species.
I'm sorry, Martin. You're just plain wrong.
you have done so on a computer could you write a programe to change a frog into a truck,
an apple into a desk , a building into a cake
anD all this by the same type of programme you spoke of the first time we entered this discussion i bet you could, does this make it possible in real life of course not.
you say the imperfect replections are not mistakes if not what are they then, if they are not on purpose then they are mistakes, unless they are somehow directed by some unseen force, If you think so you better have a chat with 99% of evolutionists who would vehemently disagree with you.More kidneys are a mistake which copies the same information twice There is no new infomation no different
organs , real science is done by testing, repeating, verifcation , name one occasion in any lab any where in the world where in expermintation anyone has produced different, organs, bodyparts etc if not why not why is it so difficult if it abounds in nature , why when breeding racehourses they are trying to breed out imperfections, mutations not keep them in.
on a computer i could perhaps command and conquer the world, the real world is a little different
I am afraid you are plain wrong.
You say: "you have done so on a computer could you write a programe to change a frog into a truck, an apple into a desk , a building into a cake anD all this by the same type of programme you spoke of the first time we entered this discussion i bet you could, does this make it possible in real life of course not."
Yes, I could do all of those things, by presenting a model capable of describing them all these things, an imperfect replication process, and a selective environment. The point of these programs is to demonstrate the effect of selective pressure on randomness. Do you seriously not get this?
You then say: "you say the imperfect replections are not mistakes if not what are they then"
They happen. "Mistake" and "on purpose" imply some kind of directing influence. It implies a badness or goodness in the process. Evolution is an emergent property of systems with imperfect replication and a selective environment. Change happens generitively, and the whatever the selection algorithm tends the population towards superior fitness over generations. Again, do you not get this? We covered this.
Further, you say: "More kidneys are a mistake which copies the same information twice There is no new infomation "
So you seriously don't consider:
(make two bilaterally similar kidneys)(make two bilaterally similar kidneys) as more information than (make two bilaterally similar kidneys)?
Do you see:
(make two bilaterally similar almost-kidneys)(make two bilaterally similar almost-kidneys-that-aren't-like-the-previous-almost-kidneys) as more or less information?
"name one occasion in any lab any where in the world where in expermintation anyone has produced different, organs, bodyparts etc"
No, simply because if I do, you'll respond "but that's in the lab, not real life," which makes the question pointless to answer.
Again, I challenge you: if I can show where the information comes from in order to provide reptilian wings, will you accede and declare that evolution has overwhelming evidence as the source of the diversity of species?
Yes i get what your computer programme can do not what you keep insisting happens in nature but havent given any evidence to show it.
the odd person with extra kidneys does not convince me the the whole bio diversity of life has come from a single cell and developed into every single plant and animal who all live and interact on a daily basis in the great complexity of life do you seriously not get this. you wont admit that its ludicrous to try make any real complex structure by the process you are proposing I asked you to name one , just one real not some programme , not some computer simulation a real item you cannot name one do you seriously not get this.
evolution is in your head , on you computer screen not a real process of nature,.
rule - exact replication. exception - mutation
rule- mutations harmful, detrimental or fatal
exception- disputed favorable
rule- creatures always replicate after their own type
exception - no known exception but if you still want to believe in the magical powers of evolution dont let common sense stop you. In labs they have tried time and time again to mutate a creature into some change no matter how small once again all they have ever got is a re combination of existing parts no new ones so thy tested evolution in a lab it failed because if the got some new step toward anew bodypart we would hear the cry evolution is vindicated why not hear the cry evolution has failed. seriously do you not get this.
You say: "you wont admit that its ludicrous to try make any real complex structure by the process you are proposing I asked you to name one , just one real not some programme , not some computer simulation a real item you cannot name one do you seriously not get this."
I did, in fact. You asked how fish evolved lungs. I provided you with the answer that they mutated generatively from small pouches in their intestinal lining that processed oxygen. This definitely happened. I even provided a plausible evolutionary curve for this to have occurred that would provide the selective pressure towards this solution.
However, because you are reticent to accept my answer, you dismissed it out of hand. That's fine, that's skepticism. Now, it is certainly possible for me to cite evidence in support, but you will amost certainly dismiss that out of hand as well, because you are also reticent to accept those answers from me. Therefore, the only conclusion is that you must do the research independently of me in order to either confirm or refute my answer.
Handwaving and saying "NO" is not independent research. Do you have a better explanation for how fish evolved lungs? I'm eager to hear it.
Now, to your rules:
1) "rule - exact replication. exception - mutation"
Sure. That fits the definition of imperfect replication (i.e. perfect replication everywhere except where it isn't)
2) "rule- mutations harmful, detrimental or fatal exception- disputed favorable"
No dispute at all. Under laboratory conditions, E. Coli bacteria have been show that they can evolve the ability to consume entirely new nutrients (look up "citrate" in this context). Favourable mutations can therefore occur within laboratory conditions
Outside of lab, a particular population of bacteria have mutated to be able to metabolise nylon, a material that was not even present on the world until about 60 years ago. Favourable mutations can therefore occur outside of laboratory conditions.
It follows that favourable mutations can generally occur. They may not be frequent, but they have been observed both inside and outside of the laboratory.
Therefore, I repackage rule 2 as:
2) rule- mutations occur, being harmful, neutral, or favourable, depending on the environment.
Finally,
3) "rule- creatures always replicate after their own type exception - no known exception"
I require no exception to this rule. Evolution does not require that a child is anything other than a copy of its parent with slight modifications.
So where's the problem?
Also, will you answer my challenge?
sure- you saying this is how fish could develop lungs does not constitute evidence please give me the evidence.You guessing that this how it must have happened because evolution is true is putting the cart before the horse because once again you are assuming
these changes not presenting evidences of these changes. On computers its possible in real life show how complex structures arise,
saying my arms are in the ideal position for me to develop wings and all i need is some favorable mutations and the need to fly and hay presto i will have wings is a very simplistic view which really does not understand much about basic biology.
the fact that e coli can consume new nutrients
is not evidience for evolution either as they once thought bacterial resistance to anti biotics was a product of it becoming resistant to them by evolution , it wasnt it was due to plasmids which were present all along just were never activated, and they found that even bacteria that had never come into contact with anti biotics had these plasmids, so organisms can have traits we just dont know about .
nylon agrument applys here also
who made fish lungs no one but clasification is mostly man made bats and whales are mamals go figure if you are asking who made these complex strutcures in all animals , god the designer did, if you wandered in south america and came across matcu pichu (forgive the spelling)pyrmid complex would you assume random action of wind on stone over time or designed and built by intellegence.why would it be different for anything else.
I will be missing in action for a few days its paddys day tomorrow so at least getting a bank holiday for it is one good thing about being irish
"sure- you saying this is how fish could develop lungs does not constitute evidence please give me the evidence."
No. You will not accept it from me.
Look it up yourself.
"saying my arms are in the ideal position for me to develop wings and all i need is some favorable mutations and the need to fly and hay presto i will have wings is a very simplistic view which really does not understand much about basic biology."
I agree. Which is why it doesn't happen like that. You are not going to evolve anything.
I think we may have skipped an important step here. You do understand that evolution happens to populations and not individuals, right?
"the fact that e coli can consume new nutrients is not evidience for evolution"
I didn't present it as evidence for evolution. I presented it as evidence for favourable mutations, which is clearly is. As is the nylon-eating bacteria, as are the Latvian brothers with quadra-kidneys.
Anyway, enjoy your holiday, and have a think about how much more Guinness you could consume if random chance had thrown you, too, an extra pair of kidneys.
I wonder... would such a mutation allowing one to be able to walk straight after 12 pints of Guinness confer a greater chance of being selected for mating by the opposite sex in Ireland? Would that be a favourable mutation? ;)
I look forward to your answer to my challenge on your return.
maybe the evidence for evolution is a secret
thats why you wont give it to me or why when I try to look it up i cant find it apart from the standard random mutation and natural selection, which only explains how it might happen but when examined it really is hopeless.
To think that all the incredible complex arrangementS of life forms and systems from blood clotting, to reproduction could come about by this method it really is a nonsense.
By the way have you ever tasted guinness its awful, my father worked for and kept guiness in business and i am one of 12 children so wheather it improves your mating chances I dont know but it certainly stops you considering when enough is enough.
"why when I try to look it up i cant find it apart from the standard random mutation and natural selection..."
Yep. That's what you're looking for.
"...which only explains how it might happen..."
I think this is as good as we're going to get for now. "How it might have happened." When looking at events in the past, be they car crashes, murders, wars, or the diversity of species, we have to look at the evidence and piece a picture together.
The algorithm of evolution works, and has such explanatory power that it is a very good candidate for the mechanism of the diversity of species. Importantly, it also *doesn't* explain things that *didn't* happen (i.e. there are things that could have happened but didn't that would falsify it as a mechanism - your cat-from-horse example, for one).
I obviously need a little more work convincing you of this. But that's ok.
"but when examined it really is hopeless."
Not really. There's nothing even close to competing with it for an explanation. You would win prizes if you had one.
"By the way have you ever tasted guinness its awful"
It's actually one of the few drinks (along with schnapps) I avoid for that very reason ;)
Anyway, I think we've abused TAM's comment section for long enough. I have a long weekend ahead of me (off on my travels to see a very lovely Christian girl who, by the way, has degrees in biology and genetics). I propose that upon my return, we continue this discussion over on my blog instead, which could use a little activity anyway.
Post a Comment