Intelligent design

[Southtown]

Just a reminder here about these terms "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution": They have never been used in any clinical or scientific sense in evloutionary theory. They are colloquial terms that have been latched onto first by Creation theory and later by Intelligent Design, and typically are tautologically defined on the fly as, if it can be observed, then its "micro-evolution" with the anything larger being macro-evolution which would require an outside influence.

I find it curious that no serious evolutionists care to indentify the distinction of species.

[Southtown]

The inability to see all the transitions--especially if you accept punctuated equilibrium, which most of us do these days--does not invalidate the views.

As far as I know, PE is ad-hoc. It is accepted just as subjectively as my view. Only it is designed to convert non-transitional evidence against speciation into evidence for it. But where's the empirical support for PE?

 

The fact that genes get "turned-on" now and then still doesn't support the notion that "subroutines" formed by accident. It's actually harder to excuse the spontaneous creation of "subroutines" when they occur before they are even needed.

 

All that has to happen here is copying: something that DNA and disk drives do quite well. Once the original base code is written, it does not have to be "reinvented."

Right, I meant the analogy to expose the difficulty of information being present before the first time it is copied.

 

Just trying to help you see the light here South! Not being critical!

Aw... thanks :hihi:

[Buffy]

I find it curious that no serious evolutionists care to indentify the distinction of species.

Uh, its called "shades of gray": is it black or is it white? Well, its sorta both. The macro/micro distinction is seen in ID as black or white. Scientists who study it will tell you its always gray... To insist that any particular instance must be seen as macro or micro is not scientific, indeed its intellectually dishonest!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Edge]

So, does the Evolution Theory violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

 

Or it is undertermined? I mean, in order to get order we need something to convert the energy from the sun...

[Buffy]

As far as I know, PE is ad-hoc. It is accepted just as subjectively as my view. Only it is designed to convert non-transitional evidence against speciation into evidence for it. But where's the empirical support for PE?

Even with the relatively sparse data points that we have, there's clearly periods of stability and periods of rapid change in the fossil record. Interestingly, they seem to coincide with evidence of severe environmental stresses, which is the kind of event that forces selection of traits as being advantageous.

The fact that genes get "turned-on" now and then still doesn't support the notion that "subroutines" formed by accident.

So what? The point thats being made in this analogy is that not all mutations are small changes that are always detrimental, they can produce large changes that can be either detrimental or useful, and all prior "subroutines" have to be recreated from scratch each time, which is what Dembski assumes in order to make everything "improbable".

It's actually harder to excuse the spontaneous creation of "subroutines" when they occur before they are even needed.

Again disproven by neural networks. Subroutines are layered and evolve into more complex structures over time. They are not "created spontaneously" (a Dembski argument) and they are not created all at once, they are built over time, often if not always use "useless" or "repurposed" elements (counter to the Behe argument).

Right, I meant the analogy to expose the difficulty of information being present before the first time it is copied.

But you're completely overstating the amount of "information" that needs to be present! The Game of Life produces complexity and even reproduction based simply on 3 environmentally based "rules" (facts actually)!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Uh, its called "shades of gray": is it black or is it white? Well, its sorta both. The macro/micro distinction is seen in ID as black or white. Scientists who study it will tell you its always gray... To insist that any particular instance must be seen as macro or micro is not scientific, indeed its intellectually dishonest!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

No, muddying the definition of species is intellectually dishonest. Shades of grey, huh? Like wolf, giraffe, elephant? Science is simply confusing itself by calling something a new species everytime a new trait is seen. They simply don't know what constitutes a breech in specie.

[Southtown]

Even with the relatively sparse data points that we have, there's clearly periods of stability and periods of rapid change in the fossil record. Interestingly, they seem to coincide with evidence of severe environmental stresses, which is the kind of event that forces selection of traits as being advantageous.

That depends on how you look at the record. Again science uses its own assumptions to verify other assumptions. Depth of strata ≠ geological time.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction2.html

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction4.html

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction7.html

 

A global flood sorted and cemented sediments by weight, size, and granularity through tidal liquefaction with fossils and fossil fuels being sandwiched between layers.

 

So what? The point thats being made in this analogy is that not all mutations are small changes that are always detrimental, they can produce large changes that can be either detrimental or useful,

What analogy? We were talking about PE.

 

and all prior "subroutines" have to be recreated from scratch each time, which is what Dembski assumes in order to make everything "improbable".

You loose me here. I don't know if your being sarcastic or what.

 

Again disproven by neural networks. Subroutines are layered and evolve into more complex structures over time. They are not "created spontaneously" (a Dembski argument) and they are not created all at once, they are built over time, often if not always use "useless" or "repurposed" elements (counter to the Behe argument).

I have to confess, I don't know what you mean by subroutine exactly.

 

But you're completely overstating the amount of "information" that needs to be present! The Game of Life produces complexity and even reproduction based simply on 3 environmentally based "rules" (facts actually)!

How much information was needed? And what 3 rules are those?

[Boerseun]

You're not serious, are you, Southtown?

 

I checked them links. www.CREATIONSCIENCE.com kinda gives it away as far as objectiveness goes...

[Southtown]

You're not serious, are you, Southtown?

 

I checked them links. www.CREATIONSCIENCE.com kinda gives it away as far as objectiveness goes...

How about evaluating the ideas and not the source, B? If you're so interested in objectivity.

[Edge]

How about evaluating the ideas and not the source, B? If you're so interested in objectivity.

He said that the objectiveness is kinda doubtful. Which I agree with... still the arguments as arguments are valid as far I'm concerned.

 

There are also these sites:

 

Now, which are some objective sites regarding evolution?

 

And finally, is it true that evolution may violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics?

[GAHD]

No edge, evolution does not violate energy requirements as long as there is energy to feed it. Weather this energy is thermal or chemical doesn't matter...and what site? invisible ones? :hihi:

[Edge]

No edge, evolution does not violate energy requirements as long as there is energy to feed it. Weather this energy is thermal or chemical doesn't matter...and what site? invisible ones? :hihi:

My bad, I forgot to post them. I was distracted:

 

sites:

 

against:

 

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com

 

and in favor:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org

 

Of course there are more in there.

[Buffy]

No, muddying the definition of species is intellectually dishonest. Shades of grey, huh? Like wolf, giraffe, elephant? Science is simply confusing itself by calling something a new species everytime a new trait is seen. They simply don't know what constitutes a breech in specie.

There's no *need* for science to say that distinctions is species is black and white. It *is* needed if you are trying to claim that macro-evolution requires a designer. There are certainly degrees of difference, and of course giraffes are different from elephants. So what? The word species is something that refers to classification and "enough" difference in traits causes a cladistic argument for separation of species, but this is a subjective opinion! That's not dishonest, that's accepting that the data does not support a definitive definition of speciation that works in all cases. Sorry!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

Just a reminder here about these terms "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution": They have never been used in any clinical or scientific sense in evloutionary theory. They are colloquial terms that have been latched onto first by Creation theory and later by Intelligent Design…

 

Never been used in any clinical or scientific sense in evloutionary theory, huh? See definitions of Micro and Macro-evolution below from biology textbooks, hardly bastions of creationist or Intelligent Design dogma:

 

Microevolution:

“light, short-term evolutionary changes within species.” (Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology)

 

Macroevolution:

The “origin and diversification of higher taxa.” (Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology)

 

“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell Biology, 4th ed.)

 

The distinction between "micro" and "macro" or the distinction between "species" and "breeds" is entirely subjective, but for the non-scientific observer provides a possibly compelling--although completely fallacious--argument that "macro" requires a designer. The scientific evidence is extensive that there are changes that occur over time and that there are clear linages shown in DNA that do link together radically different *existing* species. Why these relatively minor changes in the DNA would require a supernatural designer to step in to effect them is not at all obvious nor is the mechanism whereby that change would be effected.

 

Now, if the distinction between "species" and "breeds" is entirely subjective(and I agree, it appears that they are) and the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is as well, then for the purpose of our discussion here, we need to reach some agreement amongst ourselves on how the terms should be used. Regardless of the terms themselves, (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet) there is, nonetheless, a conceptual distinction expressed with the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", and this is reinforced by the textbook definitions above. Regardless of what terms you use, there is a conceptual difference between the two ideas. You may not want to legitimize the terms which describe these different concepts, but that's merely because you need for there to be no distinction.

 

Since we know that artificial selection (selective breeding) within the dog family can create many breeds of dogs with an impressive range of coloring, behavior, proportion and size, and since we see that all of these breeds are indeed dogs and all share a set of common features despite their differences, then it seems to me that this is a good expression of the limitations of the term "micro-evolution." Although the means of "selection" (natural vs. artificial) are different, the mechanism is the same. One is directed intelligently, the other is not. Agreed?

 

That brings us to the "macro" side. The term "macro-evolution" might be expressed by the idea that among a group of otherwise "like" individuals, (a group of individuals characterized by the commonality of basic features and structure the way dogs of different breeds are) natural selection might instead produce an individual with a new feature; a new structure. And this, I'm afraid, is where the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

 

Why? Because once again, a new function and the structures needed to carry out those functions need to be described within the genome for that 'kind' in exactly the same way a new function in a piece of software must be described in the source code for the software. New information is required. There's a reason why all dog breeds are still dogs. The reason is that the canine genome only contains enough information to yield a limited range of diversity. A broad range, I'll grant you, but limited nonetheless. Limited by information available. Again, back to the software illustration.

 

Macro-evolution claims, in essence, that a software program designed to perform function 'A' might evolve the additional capability of function 'B'. A few of you offered "Tierra" as your support for the idea that software could do this. But instead we found out that the "evolved" version of Tierra was still only able to perform function 'A'. Thus, there is no support for the idea that this type of information, producing new and functional features and structures, can arise through anything other than intelligent direction.

 

The only evidentiary support out there for macro-evolution is not for macro-evolution at all. It's for micro-evolution. And the mechanism (natural selection) which "drives" micro-evolution ensures that nothing beyond micro-evolution can occur (and survive).

[TRoutMac]

You're not serious, are you, Southtown?

 

I checked them links. www.CREATIONSCIENCE.com kinda gives it away as far as objectiveness goes...

 

Yes, you're right. The fact that you reject the content of this site based entirely on its domain name reveals where you stand with respect to "objectivity": You have none.

[Buffy]

That depends on how you look at the record. Again science uses its own assumptions to verify other assumptions. Depth of strata ≠ geological time.

By grossly oversimplifying and misstating what the actual scientific argument is, the Creation Science "proof" is utterly and completely meaningless. Strata compress differently, they are folded, some are washed away and reformed, but *it doesn't matter*. We can measure all sorts of data from different strata--such as concentrations of CO2 or rare elements, or changes in minerals that can be directly tied to variations in the 11 year sunspot cycle, and on and on and on--that allow us to *correllate and verify* the conclusions drawn. They also make it virtually impossible for these correllations to have occurred in different locations on opposite sides of the planet by a flood churning the waters for a few months (the hydrodynamical systems for relayering through liquifaction would be great for Dembski to sink his teeth into! Now *that's* improbable!) Because these issues are ignored by the arguments presented by the Creation Science folks, they are completely false and irrelevant.

 

I have to confess, I don't know what you mean by subroutine exactly.

So its not surprising you're not following my logic. A subroutine is a group of commands that can be executed on request simply by refering to that subroutine by *name*. You don't have to repeat that same sequence of commands over and over every time you want to perform them. This is obviously how DNA works because we can see single base pair changes that result in radical changes in traits: when the small random mutation occurs, all that's changing is the reference to a huge sequence of commands elsewhere, and one sequence is replaced by a completely different sequence by that *one* change. This has a large number of implications, including:

• Major changes *can* come from small random mutations.
  
• Previously evolved systems can be replicated: they don't have to be recreated from scratch at each "macro-evolutionary point".
  
• Systems (subroutines/complex traits) that evolved for one purpose may be through random mutation be now called from a *completely different* system: this might be compatible or not, or the subroutine might have to mutate further before it becomes compatible, but it the point is that innovations can be repurposed, in fact its *impossible to avoid it*! This is how you easily explain flagella.
  
• Previously evolved systems are both robust and adaptable, because they tend to be copied multiple times with variations: we see this both in DNA and neural networks.
  

The bottom line is that these subroutines/modular defnitions 1) occur naturally (we see them in DNA and they form in neural nets) and 2) they make mutation effective in evolving large changes over short time spans. Dembski relies on the assumption that there is no such thing as a subroutine or module in DNA: he insists that its a ordered stream of binary bits with no organization, such that you must in essence "try every combination" before you can hit on one that works. With subroutines however, you've got a mechanism whereby a previously well-defined sequence is substituted by a completely different well-defined sequence, meaning that the probability that the change will work is *astronomically higher* than what he argues. His refusal to even discuss this issue shows that he knows he's wrong, but usually at this point he will say "well, I'm not a mathematician"...

How much information was needed? And what 3 rules are those?

The Game of Life is simply defined as: spots are either alive or dead. The three rules are:

• Too few neighbors, die from lack of reproductive opportunities.
  
• Too many neighbors, die from lack of starvation
  
• Moderate number of neighbors, stay alive or go from dead to alive (reproduce)
  

The most basic biological elements (not even "creatures") obey these rules naturally. Look it up, download the programs and look at the complexity that results before your very eyes. My favorite is getting a bunch of gliders to collide so that they form a glider factory. While you can set it up so it happens after a dozen "generations" you can see that it wouldn't be too improbable to just let a enough random distributions go to have one occur without prompting. To model what happens with "random" input, its usually most interesting to start with a board filled with a Poisson distribution (i.e. completely random) of live dots, and within just a few generations, a whole zoo appears, often producing "self-replicating" structures that do not result in a "dead-end" (no change) board. The larger the board, the more interesting the result. "Initial" information input required? *ZERO*. You're starting from a completely random distribution!

 

Is this stuff important? Given that "proof" in showing "macro" evolution can be daunting, it certainly helps to build artificial representations of the processes to better understand *how* it happens. While this may not be satisfactory proof that it is what happened, it shows very clearly that it is possible and not in the least bit improbable. This is as opposed to the ID arguments which refuse to discuss what the mechanism is, just that it could be a designer of some kind.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Never been used in any clinical or scientific sense in evloutionary theory, huh? See definitions of Micro and Macro-evolution below from biology textbooks, hardly bastions of creationist or Intelligent Design dogma

I'm not saying they're not used, and in fact they are used by a wide variety of sources in a *colloquial* usage, for general education. This does nothing to counter the issue that for more rigorous examination of the issue of speciation, that *every* scientist will tell you that there *is no absolute and conclusive definition of the distinction. Its like pornography, you know it when you see it, but everyone will define it differently.

Now, if the distinction between "species" and "breeds" is entirely subjective(and I agree, it appears that they are) and the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is as well, then for the purpose of our discussion here, we need to reach some agreement amongst ourselves on how the terms should be used.

Well, you do to support the argument that macro-evolution is impossible. I don't agree we need such a definition, and indeed its pretty obvious that defining the definition is impossible.

You may not want to legitimize the terms which describe these different concepts, but that's merely because you need for there to be no distinction.

Hey, more than happy to hear what your definition is, but the one you provide fails on a number of fronts:

Since we know that artificial selection (selective breeding) within the dog family can create many breeds of dogs with an impressive range of coloring, behavior, proportion and size, and since we see that all of these breeds are indeed dogs and all share a set of common features despite their differences, then it seems to me that this is a good expression of the limitations of the term "micro-evolution."

Actually, there is strong evidence that some breeds of dogs *cannot* mate, which is one of the only outstanding definitions of speciation that is measurable. Your assumption that they are "all dogs" is completely false.

That brings us to the "macro" side. The term "macro-evolution" might be expressed by the idea that among a group of otherwise "like" individuals, ...natural selection might instead produce an individual with a new feature;... a new function and the structures needed to carry out those functions need to be described within the genome for that 'kind' in exactly the same way a new function in a piece of software must be described in the source code for the software. New information is required.

Here you're defining macro as being a large jump that *appears from nowhere*. If that were the case, then yes, it might well be "improbable". The fact is though that all that "junk DNA" we've all got lying around *already has the code in it*. That's the whole point of the "subroutine" discussion with South above is about. You deny that this is a functionality that both has direct, observable evidence in DNA as well as having demonstrable analogs in neural network software. This is again an assumption that flies in the face of the evidence. While we're not very good a producing these changes, we do in fact do it.

The only evidentiary support out there for macro-evolution is not for macro-evolution at all. It's for micro-evolution. And the mechanism (natural selection) which "drives" micro-evolution ensures that nothing beyond micro-evolution can occur (and survive).

This statement is only true if there is a clear and definable distinction between the two, and I'm still waiting for some description that goes beyond "they're obviously all dogs."

 

Cheers,

Buffy