Darwin's Illusion

[TagliatelliMonster]

Concerns with the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record were already identified by Ernst Walter Mayr (Mayr was one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists who was called “the Darwin of the 20th century”). Then the prominent paleontologists Eldredge and Gould confirmed the stasis in the fossil record (The state of no morphological change for most of the geological history) followed by sudden jumps, which gave rise to their punctuated equilibrium theory that proposes rapid events of cladogenesis. Eldredge and Gould confirmed that the gradualism attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. Mayr later complimented Eldredge and Gould's work and stated that stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists"

This was unexpected back then. It is very well understood today.
Also, PE is still gradual. The type of gradualism that PE disproved was the idea of a constant trend of gradualism instead of more "burst like". Before PE, they assumed a constant rate of change through time.

PE has shown us that this rate isn't constant through the ages. It slows down, speeds up, slows down, speeds up, etc. But in both cases (slowed or speed up), change still occurs gradually.

Today PE is very well understood and explained. And it is also very easily demonstrated using a genetic algoritm. Even with a very simplistic one like this right here:

HTML5 Genetic Algorithm 2D Car Thingy - Chrome recommended (rednuht.org)


The original one in flash was a lot better though, but flash is no longer supported. Hopefully the devs will expand on this new one to make it better cause it was loads of fun.

Anyhow..... let's just summarize what PE is about.

It is the simple idea that in periods of environmental stability, species close in on their "local optimum". Meaning that they become so specialized in the niche they live in, that evolutionary processes can no longer offer "easy" pathways towards further improvement. The closer to the local optimum, the more Natural Selection will favor the status quo. The amount of potential beneficial changes will become smaller and smaller.

When a significant change then occurs in the environment, the local optimums shift.
This change can be anything. A meteor impact. Climate change. A desease going rampant. A geological event. Anything that stirs up the balance of an eco system really.

Now, natural selection no longer favors the status quo. The amount of potential beneficial mutations (= mutations that get you closer to a local optimum) goes up. So the rate of change in the population (evolution) speeds up.

But how those changes spread in the population and achieves fixation, doesn't change. It's still gradual. Natural selection selects changes, they are inherited by off spring and so spread throughout the population over generations. Gradualism.

We can easily see this in action in that genetic algoritm I linked.

Leave it open for say 30 minutes (and click "surprise" so that it fast forwards without playing the animation).
You'll see that the top performers will have reached some local optimum. The properties of the top performers will exhibit very little change for the generations to come.
Now introduce an impactful change. In that example, all one can really do unfortunately, is change the gravity. The default setting is earth's gravity. Now put it on Jupiter. Wait another 5 minutes. You'll see noticeable change in the design of the top performer now. Then it will again reach its local optimum for the "new" environment, with little change for the generations that follow.

Now put it on the gravity of the moon. Wait 5 minutes. Now you'll notice BIG change in a short time. And once again it will settle in a new local optimum.


PE in action. It's not rocket science.

In the original version in flash, we would be able to take the population and put it on an entirely different track. For example one that had movable obstacles and alike. That was great. You could first have race cars evolving on relatively flat tracks and then put them on the obstacle one and pretty soon, those race cars would change in snowplow-like trucks allowing them to "scoop" the obstacles away. lol

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, there are jumps. 12345 789. Now there i a jump. But we can easily surmise that it must have been 6. When the fossil at 6 will be discovered, the sequence will be complete.

Please.

When you find "6", creationists will say "right, but where is 6.5???????"
And when you then find "6.5", they'll complain about the gap created by the "missing links" 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, etc

 

[Subduction Zone]

In # 2723 you claimed, “There could be several possible sources of first life". I asked you to identify it and you responded in # 2741 that you identified them multiple times. Again, you didn’t.

If you can enter an honest discussion, then, prove me wrong and provide the post number or provide your proposed "several possible sources of first life". what are you afraid of? provide it and let's discuss it?

I have done so multiple times. I did not do say that I did so tonight.

If you did not pay attention that is not my problem.

Humbly apologize and I will post them again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Identify it



The context is consciousness.

It was a response to Cladking’s comment in # 2669 about ignoring consciousness as a component of life.



Demonstrate it.



false, can you identify a single organ of a living organism that doesn’t have a purpose? Just remember unknown function ≠ no function. Also, the context is the rule not a perceived exception.

"purpose" is a fact that cannot be disputed; the issue is the explanation of how purposeful beings/entities came to existence.

When you show that you can debate properly.

Part of that is acknowledging when you have been shown to be wrong. If you can't do that there is no point in my doing so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

false, can you identify a single organ of a living organism that doesn’t have a purpose?

You are confusing "purpose" with "function".

 

[Subduction Zone]

wishful thinking. I'm not concerned whether you think it's the strongest or weakest evidence. I'm only stating the fact about the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record. your denial wouldn't change it.

No, it is true.

Remember, you have almost no understanding of any of the sciences. And go look at the dates of when Gould wrote the quotes you have been using. I can wait.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

wishful thinking. I'm not concerned whether you think it's the strongest or weakest evidence. I'm only stating the fact about the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record. your denial wouldn't change it.

What exactly do you expect of the fossil record?
That every single generation of every species that ever lived left fossils behind?

Do you think that is reasonable?

Do you have a picture of your face of every second that you were alive?
Or do you only have pictures with gaps of days, weeks, months, perhaps even years?

Fossilization is pretty rare. We are lucky to have as many as we do.
Many species also live in places where fossilization is almost impossible.

Gaps are not a problem. They are expected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly do you expect of the fossil record?
That every single generation of every species that ever lived left fossils behind?

Do you think that is reasonable?

Do you have a picture of your face of every second that you were alive?
Or do you only have pictures with gaps of days, weeks, months, perhaps even years?

Fossilization is pretty rare. We are lucky to have as many as we do.
Many species also live in places where fossilization is almost impossible.

Gaps are not a problem. They are expected.

Unfortunately most creationists are beyond reasoning rationally. Scientists in the field just laugh at them. Perhaps that is the best course to take.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately most creationists are beyond reasoning rationally. Scientists in the field just laugh at them. Perhaps that is the best course to take.

Well, yes, for YEC that applies. The moment the claim is a metaphysical creator that is outside science and inside philosophy as such.

 

[LIIA]

Actually it's estimated between 3 and 3.8 billion.
But that's not relevant. I was just making the point that LUCA isn't necessarily FIRST life - and most likely isn't.

Yes, it’s irrelevant and your 2 billion claim was wrong.

It's not.
LUCA needs not be first life. And again, likely isn't.

Say first life is population A.
That speciates in A1, A2 and A3.
Say that A1 and A2 go extinct and A3 goes on to outcompete 1 and 2 and then all life comes from that one.

Population A was first life. A1 would be a subspecies of that original first A.
Remember what the L in LUCA stands for.
It's the LAST common ancestor.
So the YOUNGEST. Not the OLDEST.

That's the only point I was making.

You didn’t get it. You just demonstrated my point. Everything you said is an unevidenced speculation. Even your irrelevant speculation is logically flawed.

If LUCA came from first life A, then all life came from A. if this is the case, then what is the reason why A cannot be called the last common ancestor?

Again, I’m not interested in arguments about irrelevant details of a fairytale.

Obviously.
Hence why the process of evolution applies to living things only. Hence the scope of the theory.

Duh.

You don’t get it. The point is that life was never explained, neither by the ToE nor by Abiogenesis.

Why "complex"?
There's no requirement for it to be complex.
Off course, how "complex" something is, is rather subjective off course.
Amino acids can be said to be "complex" molecules. It can also be said to be rather simple molecules when contrasted against more complex ones.

So it's kind of a matter of perspective.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Obviously. Yes. Life needs to exist before process that apply to living things can manifest.
You have succesfully stated the obvious.

Agreed, it’s obvious that neither evolution nor Abiogenesis explain or create life.

This is completely false.
Life exists and we can study it.
It matters not how it originated.

Whether it is true a process like proposed in abiogenesis theories, by alien engineering, by gods created it, by panspermia, by magical unicorns farting.... it matters not.

It exists. It is there. It is evolving.

Evolution is only not possible if:
- life does not exist (but it does)
- existing life does not exhibit the necessary properties for evolution to occur (but it does)

Again, the ultimate goal is to explain life not merely the diversity of life. Life was never explained.

With respect to evolution, it’s a false speculation/misinterpretation of the observed directed adaptation. Adaptation is never a random process; it’s always a function of directed mutations. See # 2330 and #1245.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 117 | Religious Forums

The only people that seem to be under that impression, are creationists.
People who understand evolution, understand that it explains the diversity of life, not life itself.

Not true, many blind followers of evolution don’t understand the fact that evolution doesn’t explain life and that life was never explained. Many are not even aware of the specific details of the ToE or Abiogenesis

Yes, if life doesn't exist then it won't be evolving.

But life DOES exist.

Life does exist but neither Abiogenesis explain it, nor it randomly evolves, life adapts because of directed mutations.

No shifting is taking place. Evolution addresses the origins of species. Not the origins of life itself.
Why is this so hard to understand for you?

Probably because you are one of those people who is under that false impression you just mentioned.
Which is weird, because earlier in your post you acknowledged that the origins of life are out of scope of evolution theory.

Yes, origins of life are out of scope of evolution theory. My point again is the false notion that life was explained through the ToE or Abiogenesis. The problem of life was never resolved.

Which is why abiogenesis research is ongoing.
Everything that is explained today was unexplained in the past. So what?

If we don't know then we don't know. We can then only work to try and find out.
What is it that you are actually complaining about?

I’m complaining about the false notion that we have the answer. We simply don’t.

Talking about future hopes is meaningless, I’m talking about the facts today.

Yes true.
Finding out how life originated isn't going to change anything about how life reproduces and adapts to its environment through the processes detailed in evolution theory.

The central assumptions of the modern synthesis are false. See #781.

Life doesn’t evolve, life adapts.

Mutation is random with respect to fitness.

Absolutely false. mutations are never random.

There is no evidence that advantageous mutations emerge accidentally among endless other non-advantageous mutations that gets eliminated by selection. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

See # 1245 and #1864

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it’s irrelevant and your 2 billion claim was wrong.



You didn’t get it. You just demonstrated my point. Everything you said is an unevidenced speculation. Even your irrelevant speculation is logically flawed.

If LUCA came from first life A, then all life came from A. if this is the case, then what is the reason why A cannot be called the last common ancestor?

Again, I’m not interested in arguments about irrelevant details of a fairytale.



You don’t get it. The point is that life was never explained, neither by the ToE nor by Abiogenesis.



Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

View attachment 68550




Agreed, it’s obvious that neither evolution nor Abiogenesis explain or create life.



Again, the ultimate goal is to explain life not merely the diversity of life. Life was never explained.

With respect to evolution, it’s a false speculation/misinterpretation of the observed directed adaptation. Adaptation is never a random process; it’s always a function of directed mutations. See # 2330 and #1245.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 117 | Religious Forums



Not true, many blind followers of evolution don’t understand the fact that evolution doesn’t explain life and that life was never explained. Many are not even aware of the specific details of the ToE or Abiogenesis



Life does exist but neither Abiogenesis explain it, nor it randomly evolves, life adapts because of directed mutations.



Yes, origins of life are out of scope of evolution theory. My point again is the false notion that life was explained through the ToE or Abiogenesis. The problem of life was never resolved.



I’m complaining about the false notion that we have the answer. We simply don’t.

Talking about future hopes is meaningless, I’m talking about the facts today.



The central assumptions of the modern synthesis are false. See #781.

Life doesn’t evolve, life adapts.



Absolutely false. mutations are never random.

There is no evidence that advantageous mutations emerge accidentally among endless other non-advantageous mutations that gets eliminated by selection. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

See # 1245 and #1864

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

Oh my! Your weak sources do not even support you.

Tell me, how many mutations, if any, do you think that you have? To be specific, just in the one generation between you and your parents

 

[LIIA]

What exactly do you expect of the fossil record?
That every single generation of every species that ever lived left fossils behind?

Do you think that is reasonable?

Do you have a picture of your face of every second that you were alive?
Or do you only have pictures with gaps of days, weeks, months, perhaps even years?

Fossilization is pretty rare. We are lucky to have as many as we do.
Many species also live in places where fossilization is almost impossible.

Gaps are not a problem. They are expected.

The predictions of gradualism and random change are contradictory to the real-world evidence.

You fail to understand the magnitude of the prediction, what it entails and the rule of the statistical significance of evidence to establish a valid inference.

You don’t even understand what gradualism or random change means. It’s an absolutely ridiculous mathematical impossibility. there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out all the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the alleged evolutionary process, even for a single species.

See #1864
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

how many mutations, if any, do you think that you have? To be specific, just in the one generation between you and your parents

The real question in this context is not how many mutations but rather how many non-beneficial or harmful mutations and how many beneficial mutations? The claim of endless random non-beneficial mutation that would allow a beneficial mutation to emerge accidentally is false. DNA replication machinery proofreads its own synthesis to minimize replication errors. DNA repair ensures the survival of a species by enabling parental DNA to be inherited as faithfully as possible by offspring.

 

[LIIA]

You are confusing "purpose" with "function".

Really? Function is purpose. It’s not a game of semantics

Function is the purpose for which something is designed or exists

 

[Subduction Zone]

The real question in this context is not how many mutations but rather how many non-beneficial or harmful mutations and how many beneficial mutations? The claim of endless random non-beneficial mutation that would allow a beneficial mutation to emerge accidentally is false. DNA replication machinery proofreads its own synthesis to minimize replication errors. DNA repair ensures the survival of a species by enabling parental DNA to be inherited as faithfully as possible by offspring.

Whoa! Wait a second. Now you are changing your claims.

But I am feeling generous, you have on the order of one hundred mutations. The vast majority are benign.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Function is purpose. It’s not a game of semantics

Function is the purpose for which something is designed or exists

No. Purpose implies an intent. You do not get to assume that. Function is neutral.

 

[LIIA]

No, it is true.

Remember, you have almost no understanding of any of the sciences. And go look at the dates of when Gould wrote the quotes you have been using. I can wait.

"The morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record" is a fact, I stated my reasons numerous times, your mere denial doesn’t cut it. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record" is a fact, I stated my reasons numerous times, your mere denial doesn’t cut it. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

So what? It is not evidence for your beliefs. Do you know why?

 

[LIIA]

Whoa! Wait a second. Now you are changing your claims.

But I am feeling generous, you have on the order of one hundred mutations. The vast majority are benign.

it's actually more, but you didn't address the point. the point is randomness vs. purpose. if the changes are random/nononpurposeful, then the majority would be random damages/errors. why the vast majority are "benign"? mutations are not random errors; mutations are directed beneficial changes/adaptations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's actually more, but you didn't address the point. the point is randomness vs. purpose. if the changes are random/nononpurposeful, then the majority would be random damages/errors. why the vast majority are "benign"? mutations are not random errors; mutations are directed beneficial changes/adaptations.

On the order of has a wide range in values.

And you just demonstrated your ignorance again. The vast majority of one's DNA is nonfunctional. A mutation in noncoding DNA will usually have no effect at all.

And you are conflating purpose and function again.