Just Accidental?

[Polymath257]

Doesn't say much for the other conclusions reached by the same scientific method then, does it?

Yes, it says quite a bit. It shows just how much it is possible to know.

"Spontaneously"....."without apparent external cause or stimulus." IOW it all popped up out of nowhere by Mr Nobody....with the aid of his wife "Mother Nature". Yep, no fantasy involved here.

Once again, if there is reproduction, mutation, and some sort of selection, complexity happens spontaneously. This has been demonstrated many times and is NOT a fantasy. It is a mathematical reality.

But the method of reproduction, and the method of selection are just flukes of nature...nothing designed or planned....right?
How much do you guys take for granted? How often are mutations ever beneficial and how many of them had to happen to produce all that we see?

It matters not for this conclusion how life got started. The mutations are done randomly in the simulations. Whether they are 'beneficial' or not depends on the particulars of the environment they happen in. No assumptions prior to the simulation are made about beneficial or harmful mutations. In fact, ALL that is done is have a 'genome' that can be mutated. THose mutations happen randomly.

And yes, the vast majority of mutations are either harmful or neutral. Especially when the 'organism' is already well adapted.

"Mutations are random changes in genetic systems"

....correct?
"Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away"....is that right?

Good so far.

"Since random changes in ordered systems will almost always decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them."

Is this not true?

Two different things here. Most mutations are harmful or neutral. That is different than changing the amount of order. A population *always* has variations. Those variations are caused by mutations. So, someone having a slightly larger nose is a mutation: it is produced genetically by a change in the genome. But it is a neutral mutation.

So the amount of 'disorder' in a population is a measure of that variation in that population. Mutation tends to *increase* that disorder and selection tends to *decrease* the mount of disorder. So you have it exactly backwards here.

"Nevertheless, evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection"

.....as you have stated.

This is correct.

But the fact is that "no one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process." Can you deny this?

Yes. This *has* been observed many times.

Here are a few examples:
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

For some reason, science's scenario seems completely reasonable to many people—until it is examined using science's own methods.

For example....

"The successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare."

Every new child has around 100 mutations. That is plenty to give the variation requires for evolution.

"Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

This is false. It is a calculation that misuses the probabilities. First, it assumes that only one set of 200 mutations will work to do the job, This is usually the case, again because of neutral mutations. Then, it assumes that those mutations have to happen in a specific order. Typically, there is no specific order in which those mutations have to happen to be 'successful'. And finally, it neglects to take into account selection.

And this is the importance of the simulations. It shows that this exact calculation is deeply flawed.

I can give a specific, simple simulation that I did many years ago.

Suppose you have a 'sentence' that is 60 characters long and where each character can be one of 90 possibilities (upper case letters, lower case letters, space, punctuation).

The total number of such sequences possible is 90^60 which is about 1.8*10^117. This is much, much, much larger than the 10^60 of your calculation.

So, if you want to find a *particular* sequences out of all of them, the chance of a random selection is one part in that 1.8*10^117. Thats imply won't happen in the age of the universe.

However, suppose instead we do the following:

1. Take a random sequence.
2. From that sequences, randomly pick places in the sequence and randomly change them.
3. Do #2 50 times to get 50 'children' of that original random sequences.
4. From those 50 children, selection the one that is closest to your target sequence (this is selection, by the way).
5. From that 'best' child, do steps 2-4 gain to get a second generation 'best' child.
6. Continue this for several generations.

I *did* this simulation. It was *typical* to find the target sequence in less than 2000 generations. That means *at most* 100,000 individual sequences were tested before the 'right' one was found. This shows that 1 part in 1.8*10^117 calculation is badly flawed. Yours is flawed in exactly the same way.

It is easy to modify this in many ways. It is admittedly very crude. But it shows the power of mutation and selection.

Do any of you ever read what the opposition has to say? How much of the information presented above is false?

Yes, specifically the calculation of that probability is false. Because it ignores the effects of selection, it gets the calculation badly wrong. Even very simple simulations show this is wrong.

Info taken from: The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/
It figures. First, the mathematical notation was wrong in a way that is typical of creationist resources. And the final result is badly wrong because of basic errors in the understanding. In this case misunderstanding of the math.

Or they *can* make many assumptions that sound convincing but cannot be verified.

Precisely. The assumptions of your argument have been shown to be wrong.

I find evolutionary science to be way more 'unreasonable' about the data it actually has, as opposed to the data it manufactures out of a vivid imagination.

And if your calculation was correct, you would have a point. But it isn't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doesn't say much for the other conclusions reached by the same scientific method then, does it?

What do you think of this observation?

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.

How much do you guys take for granted?

Not a god if that's what you mean.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. Living cells has already been artificially created from non-living matter from scratch in the lab.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150622154541.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160718160923.htm

Artificial cells: from basic science to applications

It now simply a matter of finding the right environment in early earth where the processes that create living cells from non living chemicals can occur spontaneously. The most likely place is already known, the porous rocks of undersea volcanic ridges.

This environment for the beginning life was most likely be the Mid Ocean sea vents.

I believe the actual final hurdle will be Creating cellular life with DNA and self-replicating. Actually, once we can manipulate DNA the creation of the fly is no problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since the creator is more than all of his creation combined, he is certainly nothing you could ever describe.....nor can you rule out his existence because you don't have a clue what is "out there". Its the terminology you stumble over. The Creator and his attendants have been placed in the realm of myth and legend...something a scientific mind must reject at all costs. But what if the Creator and his assistants are living beings that share existence along with us, but on a much higher plane? What if we are ants in comparison to them? Are the smartest ants on Earth in a position to doubt that they are the product of a higher power? Can't mere humans alter the genetics of lower creatures? Can't selective breeding produce an animals that are more beneficial or aesthetically pleasing to humans? e.g. horse/donkey....dog and cat breeds? Not accidental, but intelligently planned.

First, you have to stop misrepresenting science. Nothing in the course of natural events is accidental.

Accident - an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

The cause of all events in the course of the history our physical existence is natural laws by the objective evidence and not accidents nor chance, which are fallible human events. Humans have accidents and try to gamble and beat the deck of chance.

Facts are certainties, not suggestions. Facts don't change on a whim.

That is the nature of natural laws and the course of natural events. Things that change on a whim are fairy tales and human decisions, not nature.

God is a Creator by natural methods, and not an engineer or designer.

 

[sayak83]

This environment for the beginning life was most likely be the Mid Ocean sea vents.

I believe the actual final hurdle will be Creating cellular life with DNA and self-replicating. Actually, once we can manipulate DNA the creation of the fly is no problem.

That is possible. Though shallow hot springs in volcanic Islands of early Earth is also a probable location.

I created a thread earlier summarizing the advances in abiogenesis research. Peruse and comment.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

 

[shunyadragon]

That is possible. Though shallow hot springs in volcanic Islands of early Earth is also a probable location.

I created a thread earlier summarizing the advances in abiogenesis research. Peruse and comment.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

I support the origin of life to be in the mid ocean ridge in part, because the earliest life found is more recent than the 3.8 million year old first evidence of continent. See my new thread on the earliest fossils.

 

[Deeje]

It shows just how much it is possible to know.

It also shows how little is known compared to what is yet to be revealed.

Once again, if there is reproduction, mutation, and some sort of selection, complexity happens spontaneously. This has been demonstrated many times and is NOT a fantasy. It is a mathematical reality.

Biology is not simply mathematical. Reproduction is a miracle, plain and simple.....especially when you consider the multitude of ways that living things reproduce.....how they raise their young....and the variety of habitats that they call home. I am not a mathematical equation and neither are you....but even mathematics, like science, is a product of an Intelligent Creator. He is the master mathematician.

It matters not for this conclusion how life got started.

O, but it matters quite a bit. If life originated from the direct actions of an Intelligent Creator, then your whole theory goes up in smoke.
Everything that has been built on that false premise will collapse. And I believe it will in due time.

And yes, the vast majority of mutations are either harmful or neutral. Especially when the 'organism' is already well adapted.

These are the results of genetic mutations......none these are desirable traits to be passed on, are they?

Can you tell me what "beneficial" genetic mutations cause any real change in any organism? What changes cause one kind of creature to morph into another? I am thinking of the kinds of things I have read on whale evolution.....a four-legged land animals eventually morphs into a whale......really?

A population *always* has variations. Those variations are caused by mutations. So, someone having a slightly larger nose is a mutation: it is produced genetically by a change in the genome. But it is a neutral mutation.

So the amount of 'disorder' in a population is a measure of that variation in that population. Mutation tends to *increase* that disorder and selection tends to *decrease* the mount of disorder. So you have it exactly backwards here.

Beneficial mutations may cause small cosmetic changes in any creature....but they do not cause one creature to change into another.....no matter how much time you throw at it......there is no proof that it ever happened.

Yes. This *has* been observed many times.

Here are a few examples:
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

"Molecular phylogeny studies indicated that the traditional genus Chlamydomonas defined using morphological data was polyphyletic within Volvocales, and many species were reclassified (e.g., in Oogamochlamys, Lobochlamys), and many other "Chlamydomonas" lineages are to be reclassificated."

Since Chlamydomonas are algae and not human beings, why is there such great store placed in the models that have been the used in lab experiments? Algae are not related to humans or any other land animal. And it seems like science is not quite sure of its classifications anyway.

Every new child has around 100 mutations. That is plenty to give the variation requires for evolution.

Who "requires" it? Don't tell me, let me guess.....

It is easy to modify this in many ways. It is admittedly very crude. But it shows the power of mutation and selection.

The evidence for "the power of mutation and selection" is looking very thin on the ground, if you ask me.

Give us some examples that don't involve algae. Clear demonstrable examples....not made up diagrams and illustrations that rely only on imagination and assumptions based on nothing but wishful thinking.

I was researching trilobites the other day.....here is what I found.

According to Wiki....
"By the time trilobites first appeared in the fossil record, they were already highly diversified and geographically dispersed. Because trilobites had wide diversity and an easily fossilized exoskeleton, an extensive fossil record was left behind, with some 17,000 known species spanning Paleozoic time."

How can that be? They appear in the fossil record seemingly out of nowhere.....these very complex and developed creatures, although widely dispersed, don't have any ancestors.

According to another source.....
"No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found all around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features."

You would think with such an easily fossilized creature, science would have discovered lots of transitional forms of this marine creature......but they don't exist.

Still another source stated: “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Says it all IMO.

Yes, specifically the calculation of that probability is false. Because it ignores the effects of selection, it gets the calculation badly wrong. Even very simple simulations show this is wrong.

LOL......who made up your calculations then? Let me guess again......

First, the mathematical notation was wrong in a way that is typical of creationist resources. And the final result is badly wrong because of basic errors in the understanding. In this case misunderstanding of the math.

And can you provide your data from anything other than your own biased source? I won't hold my breath.

Science has become a 'religion' to some people. You have your own prophets and holy scripture too.

Precisely. The assumptions of your argument have been shown to be wrong.

Not by a long shot. You are fully convinced of your beliefs....but so am I and we both can't be right. So I guess we will just have to wait and see.....

And if your calculation was correct, you would have a point. But it isn't.

It wasn't my calculation......but I still believe it is correct.

 

[shunyadragon]

It also shows how little is known compared to what is yet to be revealed.



Biology is not simply mathematical. Reproduction is a miracle, plain and simple.....especially when you consider the multitude of ways that living things reproduce.....how they raise their young....and the variety of habitats that they call home. I am not a mathematical equation and neither are you....but even mathematics, like science, is a product of an Intelligent Creator. He is the master mathematician.


O, but it matters quite a bit. If life originated from the direct actions of an Intelligent Creator, then your whole theory goes up in smoke.
Everything that has been built on that false premise will collapse. And I believe it will in due time.



These are the results of genetic mutations......none these are desirable traits to be passed on, are they?

Can you tell me what "beneficial" genetic mutations cause any real change in any organism? What changes cause one kind of creature to morph into another? I am thinking of the kinds of things I have read on whale evolution.....a four-legged land animals eventually morphs into a whale......really?



Beneficial mutations may cause small cosmetic changes in any creature....but they do not cause one creature to change into another.....no matter how much time you throw at it......there is no proof that it ever happened.



"Molecular phylogeny studies indicated that the traditional genus Chlamydomonas defined using morphological data was polyphyletic within Volvocales, and many species were reclassified (e.g., in Oogamochlamys, Lobochlamys), and many other "Chlamydomonas" lineages are to be reclassificated."

Since Chlamydomonas are algae and not human beings, why is there such great store placed in the models that have been the used in lab experiments? Algae are not related to humans or any other land animal. And it seems like science is not quite sure of its classifications anyway.



Who "requires" it? Don't tell me, let me guess.....



The evidence for "the power of mutation and selection" is looking very thin on the ground, if you ask me.

Give us some examples that don't involve algae. Clear demonstrable examples....not made up diagrams and illustrations that rely only on imagination and assumptions based on nothing but wishful thinking.

I was researching trilobites the other day.....here is what I found.

According to Wiki....
"By the time trilobites first appeared in the fossil record, they were already highly diversified and geographically dispersed. Because trilobites had wide diversity and an easily fossilized exoskeleton, an extensive fossil record was left behind, with some 17,000 known species spanning Paleozoic time."

How can that be? They appear in the fossil record seemingly out of nowhere.....these very complex and developed creatures, although widely dispersed, don't have any ancestors.

According to another source.....
"No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found all around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features."

You would think with such an easily fossilized creature, science would have discovered lots of transitional forms of this marine creature......but they don't exist.

Still another source stated: “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Says it all IMO.



LOL......who made up your calculations then? Let me guess again......



And can you provide your data from anything other than your own biased source? I won't hold my breath.

Science has become a 'religion' to some people. You have your own prophets and holy scripture too.

Not by a long shot. You are fully convinced of your beliefs....but so am I and we both can't be right. So I guess we will just have to wait and see.....



It wasn't my calculation......but I still believe it is correct.

The most bizzaro display of superstitious nonsense I have seen since the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus side shows.

 

[Deeje]

The most bizzaro display of superstitious nonsense I have seen since the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus side shows.

...and if your avatar is an actual photo of your good self perhaps you can be the Ringmaster? J/K

Would you care to address the questions about the trilobites at all.......?

 

[Polymath257]

It also shows how little is known compared to what is yet to be revealed.

You mean, discovered.

Biology is not simply mathematical. Reproduction is a miracle, plain and simple.....especially when you consider the multitude of ways that living things reproduce.....how they raise their young....and the variety of habitats that they call home. I am not a mathematical equation and neither are you....but even mathematics, like science, is a product of an Intelligent Creator. He is the master mathematician.

But even reproduction happens via the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no 'outside' intervention changing the way that the molecules interact.


O, but it matters quite a bit. If life originated from the direct actions of an Intelligent Creator, then your whole theory goes up in smoke.
Everything that has been built on that false premise will collapse. And I believe it will in due time.[/QUOTE]
No, it really doesn't matter for the evidence for evolution whether life got started by an Intelligent designer or via natural processes. The *evidence* that species change over biological time is still there and still shows that evolution happened.

These are the results of genetic mutations......none these are desirable traits to be passed on, are they?

Can you tell me what "beneficial" genetic mutations cause any real change in any organism? What changes cause one kind of creature to morph into another? I am thinking of the kinds of things I have read on whale evolution.....a four-legged land animals eventually morphs into a whale......really?

First, from looking at those pictures, I would bet that most of them are not the result of mutation, but instead of problems in development. For example, the animals with two heads or way too many legs are almost certainly the result of the fusion of two embryos and NOT because of mutation.

But more importantly, these are *extreme* examples and are clearly NOT beneficial. But the *vast* majority of mutations are not of this sort. Most involve point mutations in a protein that may or may not change a single amino acid in the protein sequence. Most of these are neutral mutations.

Beneficial mutations may cause small cosmetic changes in any creature....but they do not cause one creature to change into another.....no matter how much time you throw at it......there is no proof that it ever happened.

You seem to have difficulty with the idea that small changes can add up over many generations and that can lead to large changes. No change from one generation to the next is large. The population shifts very gradually. But those shifts accumulate over the generations to produce large scale changes. You have given no reason to think that they wouldn't. And the evidence is that large scale changes have, in fact, happened.

The evidence for "the power of mutation and selection" is looking very thin on the ground, if you ask me.

Given your level of knowledge, it would be foolish for anyone to ask you.

It wasn't my calculation......but I still believe it is correct.

And you would be wrong. It is a deeply flawed calculation. I pointed out several of its issues and showed how to determine simply if the basis of the calculation is correct. It isn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Would you care to address the questions about the trilobites at all.......?

I was researching trilobites the other day.....here is what I found.

Your selective hostile search of sound bites to meet your agenda is not 'research.'

According to Wiki....
"By the time trilobites first appeared in the fossil record, they were already highly diversified and geographically dispersed. Because trilobites had wide diversity and an easily fossilized exoskeleton, an extensive fossil record was left behind, with some 17,000 known species spanning Paleozoic time."

How can that be? They appear in the fossil record seemingly out of nowhere.....these very complex and developed creatures, although widely dispersed, don't have any ancestors.

According to another source.....
"No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found all around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features."

The first problem is your hostile and fundamentally opposed to the science and the geologic and cosmologic science involving the nature of our physical existence billions of years. This incoherent irrational opposition cannot address in any reasonable dialogue.

Second, as with your other objections, your questions concerning trilobites represents a hostile selective sound bite references from layman sources without any significant basic knowledge of geology, paleontology or even basic geology, biology and chemistry.

Third, like other fundamentalist Creationist arguments, you try to argue the fallacy of an 'appeal to ignorance' classically you assert that because science does know the intermediates, or an explanation of relationships, therefore evolution is false. Neglecting the fact in the recent history that the scientific knowledge concerning the science of evolution increases over time, and previous challenges like yours concerning trilobites have been resolved by scientific discoveries and research. In other words, unknowns do not weaken nor demonstrate a failure of the science of evolution, but are challenges and inspirations to scientist over the years to seek discoveries, and do more research.

Fourth, the evolution of Trilobites occurs in the oldest Pre-Cambrian and early Cambrian rocks which are only found today in a few locations in the world, which makes it difficult over time to discover the the specific origins and relationships of arthropods in in Pre-Cambrian rocks. Despite your unfounded sound bite selective negative assertions science has discovered primitive arthropod, and pre-arthopod animals in Pre-Cambrian rocks in China and Canada. The reality is we know more about Trilobites and their evolution from primitive Pre Cambrian arthropods than your selective hostile use of biased sound bites would indicate.

Fifth, fundamental Creationist continually misuse layman terminology such as 'accidental' and 'chance' in awkward ways that have rational relationship with the science of evolution.

The following is a more 'accurate complete' representation of what is known at present concerning the origin and evolution of Trilobites. Note that they have found primitive simple smaller arthropods in Pre Cambrian rocks that ar morphologicaly like Trilobites.

This is long, and I usually do not do this, but I want the response to be complete from a legitimate scientific source. This site goes into even more detail on what is known about Trilobites and their evolution.

From: Origins of Trilobites
Origins of Trilobites
The question "Where did trilobites come from?" is not so simple to answer
last revised 22 January 2009 by S.M. Gon III

Fallotaspis is an early Cambrian trilobite.
The earliest trilobites appear in the lower Cambrian record. These oldest trilobites include members of Order Redlichiida, Suborder Olenellina, Superfamily Fallotaspidoidea and Order Ptychopariida, Suborder Ptychopariina, Superfamily Ellipsocephaloidea. Even these early representatives bear all of the defining characters of trilobites. Probably the key distinguishing character, one that also allowed trilobites to be preserved so well (and which accounts for their sudden prominence in the Cambrian), is calcification of the exoskeleton. It is interesting that some of the most primitive of trilobites lack a few characters that more advanced trilobites bear. Fallotaspidoids lack facial sutures, for example, and their protaspides are apparently uncalcified. If the ancestors of trilobites in the Precambrian were uncalcified, then their preservation would be restricted to konservat-lagerstätten, which are very rare indeed. Cambrian konservat-lagerstätten such as the Burgess Shale (Canada) and Chengjiang(China) demonstrate the huge diversity of non-calcified arthropods that would have escaped detection if those sites did not exist. Many of these are arachnomorphs closely related to trilobites and relevant in a search for trilobite ancestors. But where did these arachnomorphs come from?

Precambrian trace fossils

Elsewhere on this website, the relationships between trilobites and other Cambrian arthropods were discussed, and it is clear that trilobites were one of several families of arthropods in the early Cambrian oceans. It is reasonable that in the late Precambrian, early arachnomorphs were present, and we can infer their presence through such evidence as ichnofossils (preserved tracks and traces of animals, such as the walking traces to the right) as well as rare fossils of metameric, arthropod-like organisms. The search for the Precambrian ancestors of trilobites rather easily blends into the search for the first unambiguous arthropods in the Precambrian fossil record. There are only a handful of sites on Earth that bear Precambrian metazoan fossils at all, and there are no Precambrian konservat-lagerstätten that quite match the remarkable level of preservation found at Burgess and Chengjiang. The few that exist provide some candidates for arthropod ancestors. Fossils from Australia and Russia are particularly compelling.

An un-named "soft-bodied trilobite" from the Flinders site in Australia (middle left) also might seem a reasonable Precambrian candidate antecedent to true trilobites (Gehling 1991). At first glance, it resembles the many-segmented Redlichiida, but it also resembles small specimens of Archaeaspinus (bottom left), Dickinsonia, or Vendia, which most workers do not consider to be of arthropod affinity. Nonetheless, this taxon, as well as Parvancorina minchami (Glaessner 1980) both suggest that arthropods did not miraculously appear in the Lower Cambrian, but took form during the Precambrian. The specimen of Parvancorina to the right even bears fine lines that some workers have interpreted as evidence of paired limbs. But how could such a simple body plan be thought of as arthropodan?


Parvancorina michami (left), Primicaris larvaformis (center), trilobite protaspis (right) Parvancorina: a Precambrian trilobite ancestor?
.The similarity of the Precambrian Parvancorina to the Cambrian Chengjiang arthropod Primicaris larvaformis, and a protaspid of a Cambrian trilobite is seen to the left. All three have an ovoid form, and an anchor-like structure made up of an axial lobe and lateral lobes running along the anterior and lateral edges of the body. Primicaris was first thought to be a larval naraoid (e.g., Hou & Bergstrom 1997), but it was recognized more recently as taxon in its own right (Zhang et al 2003). Recapitulating phylogeny, the trilobite protaspid resembles Primicaris. If the similarity of Parvancorina to Primicaris is more than superficial, it is perhaps the best candidate for an early arthropod in the Precambrian.

So where did trilobites come from?

The likely scenario is that trilobites arose from Precambrian bilaterians, arguably arthropods, that gave rise to Cambrian arachnomorphs, among them trilobites. The evidence is neither clear nor unambiguous. The fossil record is spotty, but suggestive, and only some remarkable sites such as Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale reveal the rich diversity of non-calcified arachnomorph arthropods. The fossils of the Precambrian reveal some bilaterian diversity, among them a few species that might be candidates for trilobite ancestors. Perhaps it is the simple, dorsally unsegmented Precambrian fossil, Parvancorina, that offers the most reasonable link to arachnomorphs. Lin et al, 2006 strongly linked Parvancorina to an unambiguously arthropodan Cambrian creature, Skania sundbergi, closely related to Primicaris larvaformis. Similar taxa have been documented in Australia, Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale (see image of Skania fragilis, left). If neither Skania nor the protaspid stage of trilobites were preserved, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to make the link between Parvancorina and trilobites. As it is, both Parvancorina and Skania/Primicaris can be placed in a relationship that might look something like the sequence below.
From Parvancorina to Trilobite in Four Easy Steps:

The figure above is a series of ontogeny diagrams to demonstrate the sequential steps between Parvancorina and trilobites:
and trilobites seem easier to visualize in the sequence below:

 

[Jose Fly]

Have you heard of Morton's demon? You might be interested.

Oh yeah, I remember that from years ago. It's pretty apt, but it still begs the question.....how does anyone utilize this demon but also be totally blind to its existence?

 

[Jose Fly]

But the fact is that "no one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process." Can you deny this?

You are truly fascinating. I posted an example of exactly that before, but all you could do was complain that you didn't understand it and accuse the authors of using technical jargon to hide their deceit.

Unbelievable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh yeah, I remember that from years ago. It's pretty apt, but it still begs the question.....how does anyone utilize this demon but also be totally blind to its existence?

Unless Morton isn't being honest, the implication is that the demon is not as good a goalkeeper in some heads as in others.

I wonder to what extent I was afflicted by that when I was a Christian. I think that I never gave up my critical thinking skill - just agreed to put them to rest while trying Christianity on like a pair of shoes to see if its claims were valid. I came into it from atheism at about age 20, and left it most of a decade later when it failed to make sense in the light of suspension of disbelief.

Had the demon captured me, wouldn't I be arguing beside Deeje rather than with her? I never lost the resources to tunnel back out.

But I understand the flaw in claiming that I wasn't under the sway of this demon - that is, hadn't already begun developing a faith based confirmation bias - since its nature is, as you state, to be blind to it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are truly fascinating. I posted an example of exactly that before, but all you could do was complain that you didn't understand it and accuse the authors of using technical jargon to hide their deceit.

Unbelievable.

One of the values of this activity is to have the chance to make extended observations and hold extended conversations with all types of believers - something that never happens in meat space.

I have at times referred to activities like this as atheist school, which features both a lecture and lab section. In lecture, the unbelievers have conversations like these sharing information - teaching and learning from one another.

The lab section is observing the believers and tapping on the glass so to speak. We learn something very different there.

My present position came to me in three phases:

[1] In the late seventies, I returned to atheism, but with no bad feelings about Christianity - just that it was wrong and had nothing to offer me. I left with no bad feelings, and have always considered the experience helpful.

[2] In the nineties (Gingrich) and aughts (Bush and Palin), I came to see the church as a destructive force, but only at a national level. We just saw that again. That's when I started to see this religion as a problem.

[3] It was in this decade, when I started frequenting religious discussion groups, that I saw the carnage that faith wreaks on individuals. That's been the principal value of the lab section for me, and with [2], why I am an antitheist and not just an atheist.

 

[Deeje]

You mean, discovered.

"Revealed"...."discovered"....bit pedantic there aren't we?

All that creation tells us has been 'revealed' progressively, just as the Creator intended. There is nothing new.....only yet to be revealed or discovered. This life was meant to be a journey of endless discovery....but not just for a privileged few who, through their genetics might possess a greater brain capacity or interest in science than others. All humans were created in the image of their Maker, with the promise of perfect intellect and reasoning ability, and a thirst for knowledge....but imperfection sidetracked all that temporarily at the beginning......I believe we will get back to what the Creator intended soon enough. That is the Bible's message.

But even reproduction happens via the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no 'outside' intervention changing the way that the molecules interact.

The laws you mention did not come out of nowhere. All laws have to have a law maker who had a purpose in creating those laws in the first place. Purpose requires intelligence. "Nothing comes from nothing"....except in evolutionary science. There never was "outside intervention changing the way that the molecules interact" because all the laws were already in place long before man arrived. He simply discovered what had already existed for eons....he didn't invent them, or the principles by which they operate....and I don't think to this day, that science is even close to fully understanding any of them.

No, it really doesn't matter for the evidence for evolution whether life got started by an Intelligent designer or via natural processes. The *evidence* that species change over biological time is still there and still shows that evolution happened.

The evidence for adaptation is there for all to see....what is missing is the evidence that takes us out of the realms of adaptation and into the make-believe world of macro-evolution....that is where fact turns to fantasy. Science blurs that line so well, that people don't seem to notice that evidence for one, in no way produces evidence for the other. That is an assumption...NOT to be confused with a fact.

First, from looking at those pictures, I would bet that most of them are not the result of mutation, but instead of problems in development. For example, the animals with two heads or way too many legs are almost certainly the result of the fusion of two embryos and NOT because of mutation.

Actually, only the first three are problems of development.....the others are clearly problems of genetic mutation. But even the propensity to have twins can be genetically inherited. When those kinds of mutations happen, reproduction is most unlikely. Mutations are almost always detrimental...NOT beneficial.

Can you name me some "beneficial mutations" that changed the human race to the point of enhancing their lives significantly?
Then can you PROVE that they were in fact "accidental" and not "designed" as adaptive to a changing environment?

When you do a search on human genetic mutations it is very interesting to see what comes up as the most common genetically inherited conditions.

The Most Common Human Genetic Mutations And Disorders – Taboo News

I have three of those conditions in my immediate family, two of them are very serious, hence my interest in genetically inherited conditions.

But more importantly, these are *extreme* examples and are clearly NOT beneficial. But the *vast* majority of mutations are not of this sort. Most involve point mutations in a protein that may or may not change a single amino acid in the protein sequence. Most of these are neutral mutations.

Neutral means what?
According to one definition.....
"Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. In population genetics, mutations in which natural selection does not affect the spread of the mutation in a species are termed neutral mutations."

So all these "neutral mutations" basically did nothing to benefit or harm those who received that genetic information? I assume that they were mostly cosmetic.....much the same as we see in examples of adaptation.

"The most important characteristic of a neutral mutation is that it does not alter the survival of the organism but simply alters its appearance or structure in some way. Neutral mutations are the most frequently observed type of genetic mutation. However, because they have neither a positive or negative effect on the survival of the species, they tend to disappear over time."

What is an example of a neutral mutation?

You seem to have difficulty with the idea that small changes can add up over many generations and that can lead to large changes. No change from one generation to the next is large. The population shifts very gradually. But those shifts accumulate over the generations to produce large scale changes. You have given no reason to think that they wouldn't. And the evidence is that large scale changes have, in fact, happened.

And science seems to have a problem with what is a provable fact, and what is an assumption based on a biased interpretation of evidence to promote their theory. The science "pots" are so busy pointing fingers at the "kettles" that they fail to see how "black" they are themselves.

Given your level of knowledge, it would be foolish for anyone to ask you.

I am as capable as anyone else with a modicum of common sense to see through the lingo to the real fact that evolutionary science has no facts. They pretend to, and make it all sound very convincing until you read what they actually say...then the whole ball game changes. Bullying tactics are often used to make sure that science students understand that "only unintelligent people believe in creation". They say they have "overwhelming evidence" that their theory is true.....but they don't. They spout assumptions and educated guesses as if they were proven facts...but they are not.

And you would be wrong. It is a deeply flawed calculation. I pointed out several of its issues and showed how to determine simply if the basis of the calculation is correct. It isn't.

Who says it is "wrong"? Who says it is "deeply flawed"? You showed me your version of the situation.....who says you must be right? Science? Sorry for my skepticism. I believe science is blinded by its own prejudices on this subject.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you name me some "beneficial mutations" that changed the human race to the point of enhancing their lives significantly?

Most of the ones that have been selected for and remain with us. Standing on two legs was big. So was the bigger brain and loss of most of the body hair.

I am as capable as anyone else with a modicum of common sense to see through the lingo to the real fact that evolutionary science has no facts.

You lack a scientific education. What you see will be different than what somebody who has studied evolutionary science will see, just as somebody who learns to read will see something different in a book that he who can only see black squiggles on white paper.

 

[Polymath257]

"Revealed"...."discovered"....bit pedantic there aren't we?

All that creation tells us has been 'revealed' progressively, just as the Creator intended. There is nothing new.....only yet to be revealed or discovered. This life was meant to be a journey of endless discovery....but not just for a privileged few who, through their genetics might possess a greater brain capacity or interest in science than others. All humans were created in the image of their Maker, with the promise of perfect intellect and reasoning ability, and a thirst for knowledge....but imperfection sidetracked all that temporarily at the beginning......I believe we will get back to what the Creator intended soon enough. That is the Bible's message.

Yes, we all know that is the message you gleen from the Bible. But why should we give any credit to that book at all? Yes, it has a bit of history, but it is mostly propaganda and not actual facts.

The laws you mention did not come out of nowhere. All laws have to have a law maker who had a purpose in creating those laws in the first place. Purpose requires intelligence. "Nothing comes from nothing"....except in evolutionary science. There never was "outside intervention changing the way that the molecules interact" because all the laws were already in place long before man arrived. He simply discovered what had already existed for eons....he didn't invent them, or the principles by which they operate....and I don't think to this day, that science is even close to fully understanding any of them.

And I am perfectly happy with that. But *you* said that nothing alive comes from something that isn't alive. I showed that to be wrong. What you have done here is changed the subject from the laws themselves to the origin of those laws.

Now, I personally think it is contradictory to think of a cause for natural laws since causality itself is a byproduct of those natural laws. But that is a different issue.

The evidence for adaptation is there for all to see....what is missing is the evidence that takes us out of the realms of adaptation and into the make-believe world of macro-evolution....that is where fact turns to fantasy. Science blurs that line so well, that people don't seem to notice that evidence for one, in no way produces evidence for the other. That is an assumption...NOT to be confused with a fact.

No, the fantasy is that there is a 'species barrier' that would prevent large s

Actually, only the first three are problems of development.....the others are clearly problems of genetic mutation. But even the propensity to have twins can be genetically inherited. When those kinds of mutations happen, reproduction is most unlikely. Mutations are almost always detrimental...NOT beneficial.

That is factually incorrect. You point to the extremes, but those extrees are not representative.

Can you name me some "beneficial mutations" that changed the human race to the point of enhancing their lives significantly?
Then can you PROVE that they were in fact "accidental" and not "designed" as adaptive to a changing environment?

The drop of the hyoid bone to allow for speech.
The enlargement of Broca's area in the brain to encourage speech.
The change in development allowing the bones of the skull to fuse later to allow for a larger brain.
Changes in melanin production are beneficial for those living in tropical areas.

Neutral means what?
According to one definition.....
"Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. In population genetics, mutations in which natural selection does not affect the spread of the mutation in a species are termed neutral mutations."

So all these "neutral mutations" basically did nothing to benefit or harm those who received that genetic information? I assume that they were mostly cosmetic.....much the same as we see in examples of adaptation.

Yes, actually. Most neutral mutations would be considered cosmetic. If they even have that much of an effect. For example, a mutation that changes an amino acid in a protein from, say, a hydrophilic amino acid to another hydrophilic one will usually have no effects on the folding of the protein. That would be a neutral mutation.

A duplication of a gene can be neutral, but then allow separate selection on the two copies. We see this in many families of proteins. The subsequent mutations (say, from myoglobin to the hemoglobins) can be beneficial.

"The most important characteristic of a neutral mutation is that it does not alter the survival of the organism but simply alters its appearance or structure in some way. Neutral mutations are the most frequently observed type of genetic mutation. However, because they have neither a positive or negative effect on the survival of the species, they tend to disappear over time."

What is an example of a neutral mutation?

https://www.reference.com/science/example-neutral-mutation-bd8e2fd24799a2e7

See above. Changes in eye color can be neutral, for example. Changes in bone length can be neutral. Look around you at all the variety of humans. Much of that variety is genetic and is produced by neutral mutations.

And science seems to have a problem with what is a provable fact, and what is an assumption based on a biased interpretation of evidence to promote their theory. The science "pots" are so busy pointing fingers at the "kettles" that they fail to see how "black" they are themselves.

I am as capable as anyone else with a modicum of common sense to see through the lingo to the real fact that evolutionary science has no facts. They pretend to, and make it all sound very convincing until you read what they actually say...then the whole ball game changes. Bullying tactics are often used to make sure that science students understand that "only unintelligent people believe in creation". They say they have "overwhelming evidence" that their theory is true.....but they don't. They spout assumptions and educated guesses as if they were proven facts...but they are not.

Actually, you have shown yourself completely incapable of making such an assessment. You misunderstand the methods and the deductions of science. You consistently ignore the evidence and claim it simply isn't evidence. You seem to think that using known science to deduce things about the past is forbidden. Sorry, but there *is* a difference between real science and what you peddle.

Who says it is "wrong"? Who says it is "deeply flawed"? You showed me your version of the situation.....who says you must be right? Science? Sorry for my skepticism. I believe science is blinded by its own prejudices on this subject.

"Revealed"...."discovered"....bit pedantic there aren't we?

I told you specifically what is wrong with the calculation. For example, it assumes that only one specific sequences is possible. It miscounts the possibilities of assembly even under that assumption. And it assumes that all 'choices' are independent, which in a mutation and selection regime is wrong. This isn't even science. This is mathematics. And it is completely wrong.

My simulation had the basic ingredients: reproduction, mutation, and selection. The fact that the correct sequence can be found in 2000 generations of 50 each from a possible pool of 90^60 shows that independence of the 'choices' in the sequence is incorrect. It also shows that the calculation you refer to is wrong in its methods in a situation where there is reproduction, mutation, and selection.

These *basic* mistakes negate the calculation.

 

[Jose Fly]

Unless Morton isn't being honest, the implication is that the demon is not as good a goalkeeper in some heads as in others.

I just can't imagine how anyone can engage in the sorts of behaviors we see so consistently from creationists and be completely oblivious to it. I mean, at some point doesn't it occur to them that they're the ones ignoring fairly simple straight-forward questions, making all sorts of claims that they can't back up, waving away huge amounts of information without even looking at it, and posting things that just aren't true?

At some point doesn't a little voice say to them, "If you're supposed to be on the side of truth, why are you acting so dishonestly?"

That's why I keep coming back to these types of forums.....the sheer spectacle that is creationists trying to defend their bizarre positions absolutely fascinates me.

I wonder to what extent I was afflicted by that when I was a Christian. I think that I never gave up my critical thinking skill - just agreed to put them to rest while trying Christianity on like a pair of shoes to see if its claims were valid. I came into it from atheism at about age 20, and left it most of a decade later when it failed to make sense in the light of suspension of disbelief.

Had the demon captured me, wouldn't I be arguing beside Deeje rather than with her? I never lost the resources to tunnel back out.

But I understand the flaw in claiming that I wasn't under the sway of this demon - that is, hadn't already begun developing a faith based confirmation bias - since its nature is, as you state, to be blind to it.

I honestly think there's an innate aspect to critical thinking. I was raised in an environment where not only was it not encouraged, it was actively discouraged as well. Yet I always had it, always asked tough questions, and never settled for "just have faith" type answers. I'm guessing that your detour away from it was destined to be short-lived and eventually you were going to return to your natural state anyway.

 

[Jose Fly]

One of the values of this activity is to have the chance to make extended observations and hold extended conversations with all types of believers - something that never happens in meat space.

I have at times referred to activities like this as atheist school, which features both a lecture and lab section. In lecture, the unbelievers have conversations like these sharing information - teaching and learning from one another.

The lab section is observing the believers and tapping on the glass so to speak. We learn something very different there.

My present position came to me in three phases:

[1] In the late seventies, I returned to atheism, but with no bad feelings about Christianity - just that it was wrong and had nothing to offer me. I left with no bad feelings, and have always considered the experience helpful.

[2] In the nineties (Gingrich) and aughts (Bush and Palin), I came to see the church as a destructive force, but only at a national level. We just saw that again. That's when I started to see this religion as a problem.

[3] It was in this decade, when I started frequenting religious discussion groups, that I saw the carnage that faith wreaks on individuals. That's been the principal value of the lab section for me, and with [2], why I am an antitheist and not just an atheist.

It's funny to see you describe it that way, because I used to describe it as like going to the zoo and poking at the animals just to see how they react. Here, we find some creationists and confront them with information and data that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs, just to see how they react. When a creationist claims no one has ever seen one species evolve into another, a bunch of us science advocates trip all over each other to post documented cases of speciation. Why? There's at least some part of it that's all about wanting to see just what stupid excuse they're going to make up to make it go away.

It's pretty entertaining.