Epigenetic Inheritance in Humans

[Subduction Zone]

The most difficult improvements to account for by chance are mental capacities, doubling brain size in an apparently short space of time, acquiring innate capacities for language, awareness, abstract thought-- all through blind luck of random copying errors?

losing attributes- like hair, strength, or eyes in cave fish, wings on flightless birds, that's the sort of change that is more easily explained by unguided random corruption of information- but identifying verifiable cases of morphological improvements being introduced, is very difficult as we have established here.

I think that I insulted Guy somehow, some creationists just hate to lose. Can someone ask him what he means by "an apparently short space of time"? For my understanding the change from Australopithecus to us was rather gradual over the roughly 4 million years that took and one can see an ever increasing brain size in the various species in between. I would not call that a "an apparently short space of time".

 

[blü 2]

Yes, we have at least established that 'random mutation' of the gene sequence is not the exclusive omnipotent driver of change as once believed in some circles, that's progress. The simplest explanation is ever the most tempting, but nature has shown little regard for Occam's razor.

Science is always a work in progress. All conclusions of science are tentative. Science deals with reality, where there are no absolutes.

 

[Jumi]

losing attributes- like hair, strength, or eyes in cave fish, wings on flightless birds, that's the sort of change that is more easily explained by unguided random corruption of information- but identifying verifiable cases of morphological improvements being introduced, is very difficult as we have established here.

Was losing our tails an improvement or not? Who is the judge?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The most difficult improvements to account for by chance are mental capacities, doubling brain size in an apparently short space of time, acquiring innate capacities for language, awareness, abstract thought-- all through blind luck of random copying errors?

So what are the DNA differences responsible for these physical differences, and why do you think random mutations could not produce them?

losing

attributes- like hair, strength, or eyes in cave fish, wings on flightless birds, that's the sort of change that is more easily explained by unguided random corruption of information- but identifying verifiable cases of morphological improvements being introduced, is very difficult as we have established here.

Would you agree that the mental differences between humans and chimps is due to differences in DNA sequence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science is always a work in progress. All conclusions of science are tentative. Science deals with reality, where there are no absolutes.

Agreed entirely- and very refreshing to hear it. Unfortunately not everyone has the same grasp of basic scientific principles

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.: Dawkins

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Was losing our tails an improvement or not? Who is the judge?

if it's redundant yes, if I live where I never use 4x4, and my front drive shaft accidentally falls off- that simply saves me weight, friction and fuel.

The far more difficult part to explain, is how the drive shaft accidentally installed itself there in the first place.

And this is the sort of change we see in the record, birds losing wings, fish losing eyes, but it's likewise very difficult to see anything gaining such emergent/ macro properties.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So what are the DNA differences responsible for these physical differences, and why do you think random mutations could not produce them?



Would you agree that the mental differences between humans and chimps is due to differences in DNA sequence?

Random alteration of data lacks creative capacity in itself- it can, and is made use of in information systems- e.g. selection of ads in the margin of this forum. But the same process cannot create the ads themselves

What it CAN also do, is what we DO see in the real world, destroy pre-exisitng functional elements that are better done without- e.g. wings on flightless birds, eyes on cave fish,

and as my example in another post- , a front dive shaft accidentally falling off, arguably improves the design of a city dwelling 4x4- but the opposite cannot happen, this feature can never accidentally install itself.

DNA sequencing alone is probably not enough- epigenetics, but wherever the information is stored is a lesser point- pre-existing information is required one way or another to introduce new macro-evolution emergent properties. Just as it was required to shape the physical universe

As I've asked you a few times, what's the best example of a new significant morphological feature being acquired, that was even actually observable? far less being proven to have occurred through purely random errors

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed entirely- and very refreshing to hear it. Unfortunately not everyone has the same grasp of basic scientific principles

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.: Dawkins

You do realize that he meant that evolution was a fact in the same sense that gravity is a fact, don't you?

If you accept gravity as a fact then by the same standards you should accept evolution as a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, quote mining is attempting to mislead people by quoting out of context. It is most of the time a form of lying and should be avoided. A more in context quote of Dawkins follows:

"
“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...That didn't have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn't. It didn't have to be true, but it is....Evolution is the only game in town, the greatest show on earth.”"

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Random alteration of data lacks creative capacity in itself- it can, and is made use of in information systems- e.g. selection of ads in the margin of this forum. But the same process cannot create the ads themselves

What it CAN also do, is what we DO see in the real world, destroy pre-exisitng functional elements that are better done without- e.g. wings on flightless birds, eyes on cave fish,

and as my example in another post- , a front dive shaft accidentally falling off, arguably improves the design of a city dwelling 4x4- but the opposite cannot happen, this feature can never accidentally install itself.

Let me repeat:

So what are the DNA differences responsible for these physical differences, and why do you think random mutations could not produce them?

DNA sequencing alone is probably not enough- epigenetics, but wherever the information is stored is a lesser point- pre-existing information is required one way or another to introduce new macro-evolution emergent properties. Just as it was required to shape the physical universe

Epigenetic patterns don't appear to be inherited. I would fully agree that epigenetics plays an important role in development and phenotype plasticity, but it doesn't appear to play a role in inheritance.

As I've asked you a few times, what's the best example of a new significant morphological feature being acquired, that was even actually observable? far less being proven to have occurred through purely random errors

Those would be the DNA differences between chimps and humans, which are observed.

 

[Jumi]

if it's redundant yes, if I live where I never use 4x4, and my front drive shaft accidentally falls off- that simply saves me weight, friction and fuel.

The far more difficult part to explain, is how the drive shaft accidentally installed itself there in the first place.

So you believe we lost tails and have part of that left by accident?

And this is the sort of change we see in the record, birds losing wings, fish losing eyes, but it's likewise very difficult to see anything gaining such emergent/ macro properties.

I guess that depends if you reject humanity being an improvement.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you believe we lost tails and have part of that left by accident?


I guess that depends if you reject humanity being an improvement.

No, Just that it's at least hypothetically possible to improve a design for a different environment by accidentally losing a feature .

accidentally gained them is the more problematic assertion

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Just that it's at least hypothetically possible to improve a design for a different environment by accidentally losing a feature .

accidentally gained them is the more problematic assertion

Why do you keep saying "accidentally"? This is so wrong it indicates that you have no knowledge about what you are arguing against. Natural selection is the opposite of "accidentally". The evolution of flight was far form accidental. Each change was a small change brought on by variation, something that almost all creationists own up to. From there is was simply a matter of improving traits that eventually led to flight.

 

[Jumi]

No, Just that it's at least hypothetically possible to improve a design for a different environment by accidentally losing a feature .

So you don't believe we had tails, but that it's just a hypothesis? You can google humans who've gained a feature back, the tail.

Improving on a design is of course if we assume a design in the first place, otherwise we will see the improvements, such as larger brain capacity in humans.

accidentally gained them is the more problematic assertion

Are the genetic insertions in humans from virii and bacteria accidental? Or do you see DNA as not important in the designs you are thinking of?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you don't believe we had tails, but that it's just a hypothesis? You can google humans who've gained a feature back, the tail.

Improving on a design is of course if we assume a design in the first place, otherwise we will see the improvements, such as larger brain capacity in humans.


Are the genetic insertions in humans from virii and bacteria accidental? Or do you see DNA as not important in the designs you are thinking of?

Again, I don't think you acquire significant morphological advantages by accident, certainly not all the way from a single cell to a human being through 'random copying errors'
that's mathematically problematic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, I don't think you acquire significant morphological advantages by accident, certainly not all the way from a single cell to a human being through 'random copying errors'
that's mathematically problematic.

So an argument from incredulity is all that you have.

Perhaps if you learned the basics of science you could move on.

 

[Jumi]

Again, I don't think you acquire significant morphological advantages by accident, certainly not all the way from a single cell to a human being through 'random copying errors'

Errors may be random, but the results aren't. Sizes have very little to do with being problematic. If adult humans have a range in size of 2 feet to 8 feet, do you think how long it would take if only the smallest ones survived for a few generations that humans would reach even smaller sizes?

that's mathematically problematic.

I think us having DNA so similar to chimps being an accident is more problematic. How can such things be a coincidence? Clearly we must have shared ancestors with them.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Again, I don't think you acquire significant morphological advantages by accident, certainly not all the way from a single cell to a human being through 'random copying errors'
that's mathematically problematic.

It would be appreciated if you could show us the math.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, I don't think you acquire significant morphological advantages by accident, certainly not all the way from a single cell to a human being through 'random copying errors'
that's mathematically problematic.

Please show the relevant math for this conclusion. Since I have a PhD in math, I can guarantee I am qualified to evaluate whatever you give.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It would be appreciated if you could show us the math.

Please show the relevant math for this conclusion. Since I have a PhD in math, I can guarantee I am qualified to evaluate whatever you give.

the math which proves the negative? prove it can't be done or it's true by default?!

I would appreciate it if you showed me the mathematical algorithm which actually successfully solves the problems & models the theory, we can do this for things like photosynthesis, nuclear fission, gravitational redshift, but not for things like astrology, global warming or Darwinian evolution, why not?

Nobody has exact figures on the rates of beneficial v deleterious random mutations, we just know that deleterious ones would (if entirely random) vastly exceed beneficial ones.

As Dawkins noted, evolution/genetics has largely become a branch of information technology "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal"