Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[BilliardsBall]

How is it "storytelling"? You never seem to explain that.

The entire article is theorizing without evidence!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let's forget the ignorant nonsense that you ended your post with. Simply because you do not understand a mechanism does not mean that it does not exist.

Then you should understand that insurance companies do not profit "by accident". Right? In any population the number of incidents are easily calculable. That is not luck, that is not "accident" for the company.

Correct. Now explain how mutations and random occurrences, which tend to degrade information rather than add to it, create DNA that works in four dimensions: as long chains of base pairs running 3,000,000 digits or so of linear information like a computer, to fold in upon itself accurately in three dimensions at touch points like a computer with loop and subroutine references, with helper catalysts that move the DNA and reform it during the life of a cell, and over the fourth dimension of time.

All so that an actuary may labor long over mortality or morbidity tables to calculate the number of incidents as you wrote, while one celled animals have encoding within that far exceeds anything a supercomputer can create, not track or observe, but create, via random chance.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, this is not true and if it was true it would be used to refute the theory of evolution. There are multiple independent ways that phylogenetic trees can be made. The fact that they agree with each other is extremely strong evidence for the theory of evolution. Not only is your claim wrong, it is wrong in such a way that you refute yourself.

Phylogenetic trees are not only just-so storytelling--stories that "evolve" as we see species that have evolved and species that have remained constant for millions of years--but also contain gaps and anomalies on a consistent basis.

Boats have wheels, cars have wheels, airplanes have wheels, but this does not show random descent.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Correct. Now explain how mutations and random occurrences, which tend to degrade information rather than add to it, create DNA that works in four dimensions: as long chains of base pairs running 3,000,000 digits or so of linear information like a computer, to fold in upon itself accurately in three dimensions at touch points like a computer with loop and subroutine references, with helper catalysts that move the DNA and reform it during the life of a cell, and over the fourth dimension of time.

All so that an actuary may labor long over mortality or morbidity tables to calculate the number of incidents as you wrote, while one celled animals have encoding within that far exceeds anything a supercomputer can create, not track or observe, but create, via random chance.

Like everything else, this all boils down to information and information systems, we only have one proven source capable of originating such things, albeit with far less sophisticated hardware and software

Not to say that chance achieving this is technically impossible, but it's hardly a reasonable 'default assumption'

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The entire article is theorizing without evidence!

"When the team compared how well the four models fitted the groups' evolutionary histories, the Red Queen idea that species form through a catalogue of incremental changes fitted no more than 8% of the family trees.

Conversely, almost 80% of the trees fitted a model in which new species emerge from single rare evolutionary events. The Red Queen, it seems, is not running to keep up, but jumping a longer distance and then pausing for a while1."
New species evolve in bursts : Nature News

Looks like evidence to me. When your model fits the data then that is evidence for the model. That's how the scientific method works.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Correct. Now explain how mutations and random occurrences, which tend to degrade information rather than add to it, create DNA that works in four dimensions: as long chains of base pairs running 3,000,000 digits or so of linear information like a computer, to fold in upon itself accurately in three dimensions at touch points like a computer with loop and subroutine references, with helper catalysts that move the DNA and reform it during the life of a cell, and over the fourth dimension of time.

It's simple chemistry. Let's use a stem-loop as an example:


These shapes occur because complementary bases bind to one another through hydrogen bonds, A's to T's and G's to C's. If a stretch of DNA is one base away from having the required complementary bases and a mutation supplies that complementary base then it will result in a stem-loop.

All so that an actuary may labor long over mortality or morbidity tables to calculate the number of incidents as you wrote, while one celled animals have encoding within that far exceeds anything a supercomputer can create, not track or observe, but create, via random chance.

Do you have something other than personal incredulity as an argument?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Like everything else, this all boils down to information and information systems, we only have one proven source capable of originating such things, albeit with far less sophisticated hardware and software

We also have evolutionary processes that produce information.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Phylogenetic trees are not only just-so storytelling--stories that "evolve" as we see species that have evolved and species that have remained constant for millions of years--but also contain gaps and anomalies on a consistent basis.

How are phylogenetic trees "just-so storytelling"? They are based on very real evidence, the evidence of shared derived characteristics. They are also based on very real DNA sequences.

Boats have wheels, cars have wheels, airplanes have wheels, but this does not show random descent.

Once again, it is the PATTERN of shared features that points to evolution, not simply shared features.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We also have evolutionary processes that produce information.

And we also use random values to create variation within specific functional parameters, just like life

But extrapolating adaptation to macro evolution is like trying to explain gravity with classical physics. Adaptation and gravity are design features, of an underlying information system, not design mechanisms of the very system that supports it. That's an insurmountable paradox

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And we also use random values to create variation within specific functional parameters, just like life

We also freeze water. That doesn't mean that every piece of ice we see was frozen by an intelligent being.

But extrapolating adaptation to macro evolution is like trying to explain gravity with classical physics. Adaptation and gravity are design features, of an underlying information system, not design mechanisms of the very system that supports it. That's an insurmountable paradox

I have no idea what you mean by "adaptation". You will need to spell that out before it will make any sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct. Now explain how mutations and random occurrences, which tend to degrade information rather than add to it, create DNA that works in four dimensions: as long chains of base pairs running 3,000,000 digits or so of linear information like a computer, to fold in upon itself accurately in three dimensions at touch points like a computer with loop and subroutine references, with helper catalysts that move the DNA and reform it during the life of a cell, and over the fourth dimension of time.

All so that an actuary may labor long over mortality or morbidity tables to calculate the number of incidents as you wrote, while one celled animals have encoding within that far exceeds anything a supercomputer can create, not track or observe, but create, via random chance.

That is a bad assumption on your part. You forgot that there are three general categories that mutations fall into. Negative, and those are eliminated from the gene pool, the worse that the mutation is the faster they are eliminated. Benign, since most mutations occur in non-coding DNA they tend to have no effect positive or negative, and beneficial. Beneficial mutations are selected for. They build up in a genome.

By the way, you lose when you make the gross error of claiming "random chance" and you demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the insurance industry works. Did you just sell insurance? No good insurance expert would say that the number of incidents that occur in a population each year are "random". You are making the common creationist error of concentrating on the individual rather than looking at the population. A population will have a predictable number of accidents a year. A population of organisms will have a predictable number of positive mutations every year. It is not "random". It is only random in which individuals that accidents or positive mutations occur to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Phylogenetic trees are not only just-so storytelling--stories that "evolve" as we see species that have evolved and species that have remained constant for millions of years--but also contain gaps and anomalies on a consistent basis.

Boats have wheels, cars have wheels, airplanes have wheels, but this does not show random descent.

No this is an incredibly ignorant error at best and possibly even a lie on your part since this has been explained to you many times. There are no "gaps". Not in any meaningful way. I doubt if you could find one. And you don't know if a species has remained the same for millions of years. In fact creationists often shoot themselves in the foot when they make that claim. One will see similarities that are caused by environment. For example the rough outline of a dolphin is rather similar to a shark and that is rather similar to a mosasaur, but all of those are quite different creatures. You can't go on looks alone when making such a claim.

Please do not repeat the false claim of "just so-storytelling" that is what creationists do. But I see that you still do not understand phylogenetic trees either. Perhaps someone else has the patience to teach you, but I do not right now. The problem with all of the man made objects that you mentioned is that they do not form phylogenetic trees.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Got it! Like a butterfly wing, that is only half unfolded.

So now we just need to see from a creationist if we got it right.

Though I suspect that the notion of "half formed" is considerably less
than a half formed idea in their minds.

Still, I do ask from time to time, including BB, if they can say. So far nada.

Yes! That's what I've been picturing!

Of course, what I've been picturing isn't necessarily what BB has been imagining. But maybe .... ?

 

[Audie]

Yes! That's what I've been picturing!

Of course, what I've been picturing isn't necessarily what BB has been imagining. But maybe .... ?

We are never going to find out. i've asked several times as have others, and asked others the same question.

It is not even a half-formed idea, and the more one tries to think what it could mean, the harder it gets.

 

[Yerda]

No, multiple mutations are observed. But most of them do not do anything. The claim was that multiple new traits can be observed in an individual and that is something that I have never heard of. Surely if the case you claim is true you should be able to find examples of this.

Ah, right.

I thought that it was saying that the mutation that causes a new phenotype will arise in a single organism. That's how I read it anyway.

I can't vouch for the page but I do know that it's supporters include former biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigluicci and Kevin Laland who runs a research programme at St Andrews uni and his lab webpage links to the site in question.

The Laland Lab | Research in the School of Biology

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, right.

I thought that it was saying that the mutation that causes a new phenotype will arise in a single organism. That's how I read it anyway.

I can't vouch for the page but I do know that it's supporters include former biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigluicci and Kevin Laland who runs a research programme at St Andrews uni and his lab webpage links to the site in question.

The Laland Lab | Research in the School of Biology

I am sure that there are some valid supporters of it but one has to be careful in the sources that one uses to support an idea. That particular source did not appear to be very reliable. That of course does not refute the science.

 

[Yerda]

I am sure that there are some valid supporters of it but one has to be careful in the sources that one uses to support an idea. That particular source did not appear to be very reliable. That of course does not refute the science.

Fair enough. I agree with this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"When the team compared how well the four models fitted the groups' evolutionary histories, the Red Queen idea that species form through a catalogue of incremental changes fitted no more than 8% of the family trees.

Conversely, almost 80% of the trees fitted a model in which new species emerge from single rare evolutionary events. The Red Queen, it seems, is not running to keep up, but jumping a longer distance and then pausing for a while1."
New species evolve in bursts : Nature News

Looks like evidence to me. When your model fits the data then that is evidence for the model. That's how the scientific method works.

"Conversely, almost 80% of the trees fitted a model in which new species emerge from single rare evolutionary events."

Please describe these events using scientific data and not just-so stories, you may use any species you like:

 

[Audie]

"Conversely, almost 80% of the trees fitted a model in which new species emerge from single rare evolutionary events."

Please describe these events using scientific data and not just-so stories, you may use any species you like:

Who could resist such a charming invitation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is a bad assumption on your part. You forgot that there are three general categories that mutations fall into. Negative, and those are eliminated from the gene pool, the worse that the mutation is the faster they are eliminated. Benign, since most mutations occur in non-coding DNA they tend to have no effect positive or negative, and beneficial. Beneficial mutations are selected for. They build up in a genome.

By the way, you lose when you make the gross error of claiming "random chance" and you demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the insurance industry works. Did you just sell insurance? No good insurance expert would say that the number of incidents that occur in a population each year are "random". You are making the common creationist error of concentrating on the individual rather than looking at the population. A population will have a predictable number of accidents a year. A population of organisms will have a predictable number of positive mutations every year. It is not "random". It is only random in which individuals that accidents or positive mutations occur to.

Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

sex, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory. Just to be clear.

The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book "The Way of the Cell" published by Oxford University Press, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Evolutionists often say "it evolved", but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.