What is Evolution?

[Guy Threepwood]

Have I spilled somebodies marbles? I'm sorry.

Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that seeks to explain
1)The origin of the diversity of life on the planet Evolution

The diversity of life on the planet got that way by evolving, which is called?

I believe it. I was actually thinking about trying to make it clear that some people who seem to be against the fact of evolution are really against the belief that it is the reason for life on the planet.

Evolution simply means to change. Change is not the reason life exists. Change is the reason life is so diverse.

By that definition Genesis describes evolution also. But why it changed as it did is teh question right?, why it created sentient beings able to ponder and appreciate their world, deduce a creator for it, give thanks.. coincidence?

 

[sayak83]

Have I spilled somebodies marbles? I'm sorry.

Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that seeks to explain
1)The origin of the diversity of life on the planet Evolution

The diversity of life on the planet got that way by evolving, which is called?

I believe it. I was actually thinking about trying to make it clear that some people who seem to be against the fact of evolution are really against the belief that it is the reason for life on the planet.

Evolution simply means to change. Change is not the reason life exists. Change is the reason life is so diverse.

So, you are on board with what I was saying, correct.
Theory of evolution provides the mechanism by which life diversified into many forms. Hence it explains the origin of the diversity of life.

 

[sayak83]

I've used it myself in programming, many applications, one in our analogy- randomly adjusting suspension elements of a car and selecting for the most stable cornering, another example used here is in designing the most efficient antenna.

Again this proves that the trial and error algorithm works, where an intelligent designer is specifying various desirable fitness functions to be selected for.

The process finds, at best, the simplest most efficient way to achieve that fitness function. The antenna will never spontaneously develop sentience and ponder it's own existence! Even if that arguably made it a better antenna!




not at all, natural selection still works without ID as I said, it still selects the best design, which just becomes the least worst design

I agree, the propensity for critically deleterious mutations, would mean that most randomly modified cars, wouldn't make it to the showroom at all- would never get the chance to reproduce. But of those that do, they will overwhelmingly still have defects of some kind- or perhaps relatively neutral inconsequential changes. You tell me, what are the odds, that a completely random corruption of an individual formula one racing car, creates a significantly superior race car, that wins significantly more races? practically nil.

So left to chance alone, natural selection has an inferior line up of new generation designs to select from, not a superior one




But as you said yourself- its the most efficient way to design anything. That's inconsistent with God's work? you'd expect him to use a less efficient method??

So, we are disagreeing about whether there are enough beneficial mutations that appear so that the evolutionary process of natural selection has sufficient good material to work with to lead to progressive improvement in fitness?

This question can be resolved by looking at evolution in the lab. I will get to it this thread, hopefully.

Its the best method if you are unsure what the most optimized design should be like. You should know this if you have implemented such algorithms.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, we are disagreeing about whether there are enough beneficial mutations that appear so that the evolutionary process of natural selection has sufficient good material to work with to lead to progressive improvement in fitness?

This question can be resolved by looking at evolution in the lab. I will get to it this thread, hopefully.

Its the best method if you are unsure what the most optimized design should be like. You should know this if you have implemented such algorithms.

Thanks I will watch for that

The proportion of negative to positive random mutations is one of the problems yes, and it gets to the size of gene pools etc,

there is no easy answer either way- which at the very least is my point. We all grasp this superficially simple, intuitive algorithm- certainly I did in school. random mutation, natural selection, varying environment- what more do you need?, but it gets a little more interesting when you delve in, it at least doesn't work the simple way I thought it did and I think many others do

On being the best method IF...

it gets interesting, and I don't usually get this far with the argument but ..

after using the trial, error, selection method to identify, for instance, the fastest possible combination of accelerating, braking and steering, to get a car around a specific track, . you produce a set of data that represents the best design for this result yes? so with this 'omniscience' on the best design, this trial and error step should not need repeated

But... to reproduce this data, the most efficient way, I found.. rather than re-running the whole trial, error, select process again, or creating a list of resulting control instructions which would be very long and cumbersome,
is to run the trial, error 'evolution' part again, but now using a list of just those particular random changes that were selected - producing a leaner, faster information system, with a form of cryptic compression in effect.

I may not be explaining it very well, but the interesting thing is, that now if anybody were to examine the code, they would see no sign whatsoever of any specific instructions detailing any specific result, they would see only apparently purely 'random' changes, yet producing an inexplicably rapid progression towards success

i.e. they can be truly random mutations, yet pre-selected for a desired pre-determined result at the same time.

Just something to ponder, I don't pretend to be able to solve this mystery, but I do think it's still a mystery, and the information processes, in physics and life, may be key to unraveling it.

 

[viole]

cobblers!


Survival of the fittest, shared design traits, a general progression towards bigger/better but with some dead ends, regressions, mass extinctions, sudden jumps in the historic record.. large gaps with no intermediates.

Are we talking about the evolution of life?

or these?

I don't know either.

Because the whole theory works equally well for both- arguably even better for cars-
like this- I pulled this paragraph out randomly.



Certain important features of the surviving autos and the junk yard record that the theory of evolution explains:-


Observed pattern of Progression in the junk yard record:-
Progression is defined as the pattern in the junk yard record in which

i) cars from the earliest strata will look very very different from modern running cars

ii) The cars depicted in the most ancient strata of the junk yard record will be continually replaced by new cars in subsequent strata which, while sharing many features of the earlier cars, will also show modifications in some of the features and emergence of some new features. They in turn will be replaced by new cars in a subsequent strata again showing a similar trend of gradual modifications of features, elimination of some older features and emergence of some new features.

iii) Due to this trend, cars in closely spaces strata will look similar to each other and in more distant strata will look more different. This trend cannot be explained by functional needs due to change in habitat alone as often modified models occupy nearly same kinds of habitats as older replaced species (like Lincolns vs Studebakers, Cadillacs v Desotos etc.)

I still observe trillions of bacteria around. And despite me driving a lot, I have problems to see one Ford model T around. Especially on German highways.

Looks like your designer still likes to preserve old timers, after all.

That seems to kill your analogy with cars from the start.

Ciao

- viole

 

[savagewind]

So, you are on board with what I was saying, correct.
Theory of evolution provides the mechanism by which life diversified into many forms. Hence it explains the origin of the diversity of life.

Maybe we do not agree on the meaning of origin. The rest I can't deny. I am on board.

 

[Kemosloby]

Never saw so many people want to believe they came from monkeys. But hey hey were the monkeys, we like monkeying around.

 

[Deeje]

Done.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n1/full/ng.2835.html

Sorry, I couldn't get this to open.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

This is classic....

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

Skeletons of two early whales. "

This illustration is presented as a fact, yet it is only a suggestion.

Look at these two skeletons and tell me if you see anything even romotely resembling a whale in the lower illustration (Pakicetus). Pictured like this....

I see a clearly delineated land animal. I do not even see even a remote connection to the Ambuloceteus,

which is pictured like this....

Your link goes on to say.....

"Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too."

Do you not see the suggestions masquerading as facts here?

and

How are these creatures even in the same ball park as a whale, let alone related?

There is no consensus about this among evolutionary scientists however.....

"A December 2007 article in Nature by Thewissen et al. used an exceptionally complete skeleton of Indohyus from Kashmir to indicate that raoellids may be the "missing link" sister group to whales (Cetacea).[6][7] All other Artiodactyla are "cousins" of these two groups. δ18O values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the raccoon-like or chevrotain-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δ13C values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans.

However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for. O'Leary & Gatesy 2008[8] postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans. Additionally, ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."[9]" (WIKI)

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

"A well-preserved cranium shows that Pakicetus was definitely a cetacean with a narrow braincase, a high, narrow sagittal crest, and prominent lambdoidal crests. Gingerich and others (1983) reconstructed a composite skull that was about 35 centimeters long. Pakicetus did not hear well underwater. Its skull had neither dense tympanic bullae nor sinuses isolating the left auditory area from the right one - an adaptation of later whales that allows directional hearing under water and prevents transmission of sounds through the skull (Gingerich and others 1983). All living whales have foam-filled sinuses along with dense tympanic bullae that create an impedance contrast so they can separate sounds arriving from different directions. There is also no evidence in Pakicetus of vascularization of the middle ear, which is necessary to regulate the pressure within the middle ear during diving (Gingerich and others 1983). Therefore, Pakicetus was probably incapable of achieving dives of any significant depth. This paleontological assessment of the ecological niche of Pakicetus is entirely consistent with the geochemical and paleoenvironmental evidence. When it came to hearing, Pakicetus was more terrestrial than aquatic, but the shape of its skull was definitely cetacean, and its teeth were between the ancestral and modern states."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113012367/genes-show-how-whales-evolved-for-ocean-life-112513/

"In 2007, Hans Thewissen from Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy (NEOUCOM) announced evidence of the missing-link between whales and land mammals: the fossil of Indohyus, a 48-million-year-old even-toed ungulate, found in the Kashmir region of India.

The animal resembled a small deer and had a thick outside layer on its bones, much thicker than in other mammals of the same size. This adaptation is often seen in modern semi-aquatic mammals like the hippopotamus. A chemical analysis of the animals’ fossilized teeth showed oxygen isotope ratios that resemble those of aquatic animals.

“This remarkable research demonstrates that the study of the structure and composition of fossil bones can tell us about how the skeleton of whales and, by extension, other mammals like humans, interacts with the environment and changes over time,” said Walt Horton, a vice president of research at NEOUCOM at the time."

And again we see the power of suggestion rather than any real facts presented as evidence here.
What is "remarkable" about this research is that is requires nothing more than educated guesswork to confirm it.

This is not evidence...it is nothing more than propaganda, thinly disguised as science.

 

[Deeje]

Ah hit and run is it? Try something else when whale fossils don't work?

No, you debunk the whale fossils before moving on to the next question. There is no real "evidence" for whale evolution from land animals except from the suggestions made by scientists for the bits of bone they have to make suggestions about.

Typical. Ask about salamander in your own thread. I will not play your whack-a-mole game of asking for something, claiming that you reject all evidence that is provided just because you can't believe it and then asking for something else.

No answers eh? Is that a hit and run statement? Will asking about salamander evolution be answered better on my thread than yours? And I thought you were the expert scientist?

This thread will discuss and clarify the basic concepts of the theory of evolution and how it works. If you have any questions that pertain to the concepts I have explained here, ask. Otherwise you have your own thread where the evidence for and against is being discussed.

You don't think there have been enough threads promoting evolution and its so-called progression over the millions of years it has taken to produce humans along with all the present species of life we see today?

Why do you suppose that threads that debunk evolution are more popular with readers than threads that promote it?
There is a lot of uncertainty out there. People want to know whether they have put their trust in the right people.
If creation is true, then we are accountable to the Creator, but if evolution is true, there is no one to account to. Its a gamble really.....but the stakes are very high.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks I will watch for that

The proportion of negative to positive random mutations is one of the problems yes, and it gets to the size of gene pools etc,

there is no easy answer either way- which at the very least is my point. We all grasp this superficially simple, intuitive algorithm- certainly I did in school. random mutation, natural selection, varying environment- what more do you need?, but it gets a little more interesting when you delve in, it at least doesn't work the simple way I thought it did and I think many others do

Thanks for being reasonable.

On being the best method IF...

it gets interesting, and I don't usually get this far with the argument but ..

after using the trial, error, selection method to identify, for instance, the fastest possible combination of accelerating, braking and steering, to get a car around a specific track, . you produce a set of data that represents the best design for this result yes? so with this 'omniscience' on the best design, this trial and error step should not need repeated

But... to reproduce this data, the most efficient way, I found.. rather than re-running the whole trial, error, select process again, or creating a list of resulting control instructions which would be very long and cumbersome,
is to run the trial, error 'evolution' part again, but now using a list of just those particular random changes that were selected - producing a leaner, faster information system, with a form of cryptic compression in effect.

I may not be explaining it very well, but the interesting thing is, that now if anybody were to examine the code, they would see no sign whatsoever of any specific instructions detailing any specific result, they would see only apparently purely 'random' changes, yet producing an inexplicably rapid progression towards success

i.e. they can be truly random mutations, yet pre-selected for a desired pre-determined result at the same time.

Firstly you are reproducing the design the way you are because you did not know beforehand what the ideal design would have been and even when the genetic algorithm did it for you, you would still have had to learn how to design it in one fell swoop from scratch , trying to reproduce something the computer had done which may be very unintuitive to the human mind. So you selected the compressed code with "greatest hits" mutations to do your work. Of course God, being omniscient will know directly what the ideal design would be and he has no rationale for going through an entire trial-error mutation/selection process at all, even a compressed version to get to what he wants. God would not have to create a 1920 automobile and let it slowly slowly mutate and select away till we get to electric powered self-driving ideal smart cars of the future. Being a perfect designer he would always create perfect designs at first go.
Furthermore there are tests for randomness that would "catch" the fact that your compressed code is preferentially sampling only a select subset of all possible variations.

Just something to ponder, I don't pretend to be able to solve this mystery, but I do think it's still a mystery, and the information processes, in physics and life, may be key to unraveling it.

While there is no evidence of it yet, it is entirely possible that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology has features that create conditions such that the mutations that pass through the "DNA-checker" system is biased towards beneficial mutations. What I don't get is a theology where God continually "poofs" new species into existence out of thin air continuously in thousands of localities on earth over billions of years as old species he has made continue to go extinct. And these newly "poofed" species merely happen to have a few more advanced features while looking very similar to old ones as if God just got a brainwave about a why the old one "failed" and added some tweaks. Species are not gifts from Santa Clause that drops on the earth from the sky over and over again every 25th December.

 

[sayak83]

No, you debunk the whale fossils before moving on to the next question. There is no real "evidence" for whale evolution from land animals except from the suggestions made by scientists for the bits of bone they have to make suggestions about.

My reply has already debunked all your objections regarding whale fossils. The links go into great detail about the deep similarities between the bone structures of these transitional fossils linking then to each other by common descent.

No answers eh? Is that a hit and run statement? Will asking about salamander evolution be answered better on my thread than yours? And I thought you were the expert scientist?

Yes it would be. You will reject the evidence, but that is immaterial.

Why do you suppose that threads that debunk evolution are more popular with readers than threads that promote it?

Because it boring to write "I agree" and people who do not believe often don't have enough understanding to make objections to the detailed analysis of the evidence. There are a few exceptions.

There is a lot of uncertainty out there. People want to know whether they have put their trust in the right people.
If creation is true, then we are accountable to the Creator, but if evolution is true, there is no one to account to. Its a gamble really.....but the stakes are very high.

Here is an example of deliberately misleading statement. You may disagree, but many forms of Christianity and certainly many other major religions have robust conceptions of God and the transcendent while being fully in conformity with evolution and science in general. It far more likely that your groups theology is completely wrong rather than God and evolution having any mismatch. Your beliefs about high stakes is an illusion of your religious group. Nothing more.

 

[Deeje]

My reply has already debunked all your objections regarding whale fossils. The links go into great detail about the deep similarities between the bone structures of these transitional fossils linking then to each other by common descent.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. You have not debunked a thing I have said. How can you when my posts have quoted scientists debunking themselves by their own admissions? "Similarities" do not equate with "descent" . There is nothing linking your specimens to one another but suggestion and a lot of wishful thinking. You have no evidence....all you have is speculation made by scientists who have credibility with other scientists. Examples of adaptation do not translate into what science is suggesting at all. It is very limited.

Yes it would be. You will reject the evidence, but that is immaterial.

I do not reject "evidence"....I reject speculation masquerading as science. There is a big difference.
"I think" is a whole other ball game to "I know". Science "thinks" a lot about evolution, but it "knows" nothing it can prove.

Because it boring to write "I agree" and people who do not believe often don't have enough understanding to make objections to the detailed analysis of the evidence. There are a few exceptions.

So are you posting threads to preach to the converted, or to reinforce what you believe in case people are having second thoughts about the veracity of the actual "evidence"?

Here is an example of deliberately misleading statement. You may disagree, but many forms of Christianity and certainly many other major religions have robust conceptions of God and the transcendent while being fully in conformity with evolution and science in general.

I am not one bit interested in "many forms of Christianity"....I am interested only in the one Christ started. He made no room for evolution to be the source of the diversity of life.
He is quoted as saying....
“Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Creating male and female leaves no room for evolution. As for other religious persuasions....they are free to believe whatever they like. But if we all have one Creator to whom we will give an account, then we had better choose our religious path wisely, rather than have it chosen for us by our culture or nationality.

It far more likely that your groups theology is completely wrong rather than God and evolution having any mismatch. Your beliefs about high stakes is an illusion of your religious group. Nothing more.

You hope. Running with popular opinion has its pitfalls.....My God has a habit of being out of sync with the majority. (Matthew 7:13-14)

 

[Olinda]

Why do you suppose that threads that debunk evolution are more popular with readers than threads that promote it?
There is a lot of uncertainty out there. People want to know whether they have put their trust in the right people.
If creation is true, then we are accountable to the Creator, but if evolution is true, there is no one to account to. Its a gamble really.....but the stakes are very high.

If anyone struggles with 'uncertainty' the only reasonable course of action is to learn and keep learning, rather than picking 'teachers' and trusting their utterances. Where does the Bible tell us to put our trust in the words of men?

If it's actually a 'gamble really. . . .' then it seems to me that the God of your understanding is a very careless father figure.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm lost. Did God evolve life as we evolve cars or what?

 

[Deeje]

Never saw so many people want to believe they came from monkeys. But hey hey were the monkeys, we like monkeying around.

I remember them!

 

[Deeje]

If anyone struggles with 'uncertainty' the only reasonable course of action is to learn and keep learning, rather than picking 'teachers' and trusting their utterances. Where does the Bible tell us to put our trust in the words of men?

God actually put his trust in many men who were found to be trustworthy. He used them to write his scripture.
God doesn't leave anyone to struggle with uncertainty...he guides all right-hearted ones to the truth. Not one of them will be missing on judgment day. They hear the voice of the shepherd and follow him.

If it's actually a 'gamble really. . . .' then it seems to me that the God of your understanding is a very careless father figure.

God tells us the way to life, but he doesn't force us to choose it.....we do that of our own free will. The 'gamble' is doing things our own way and hoping it will all end well....I can tell you now, it won't. The Bible says that if we don't choose to serve God on his terms, he will not choose us as citizens of his kingdom. He will not force us to live a life that we do not want....how is that not fair?

 

[sayak83]

Basic features of the theory of evolution:-
a) Evolution is the change between generations within a population lineage defined by ancestor-descendant relationships. A population is defined by a group of living organisms that inter-breed (or exchange genetic material) often enough over the generations to be considered to have a common pool of genes between them.

b) Genes are specific segments of DNA that determines what proteins get built, how much and when. Proteins build all physical features of the body and controls and constitutes all processes occurring within the organism that determines how it lives and how it behaves.

c) Change within a population of interbreeding individuals is seen when genes are modified or the relative frequencies of various genes are altered.

d) The engine for such change are the countless ways strands of the DNA can undergo mutation during the replication process. Typical human mutation rate is 100/generation.

e)The mutations cause changes in the genes that in turn cause (in some instances) changes in what proteins are being formed, when and where.

f)This in turn modifies the structure and behavior of the individuals from one generation to the next and act as a source of variation of characteristics between members of the population and over time.

g) Variation of characters impact (positively or negatively) the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce with others of its population. The organisms that gain an advantage in survival and reproduction leave behind more offsprings that have its genes in the population. Thus genes that improve the survival and reproductive "fitness" of the individual becomes more widespread and eventually dominate over others...until a newer and more "fit" type of gene emerge to outcompete it in turn.

h) This process of enhancement of traits and associated genes that make the organisms better able to thrive in the environment it is in is called natural selection. This is how mutations that confer a survival and reproductive benefit in the organism becomes widespread in the population over time.

i)Over time, a population may change in physical features and behavior so much that it can no longer be called the same species as the earlier ancestral population.

j) If a population gets isolated into two or more groups due to new geographic barriers, the process of mutation and the enhancement of beneficial mutations through natural selection operates independently in both subgroups, making them slowly distinct from each other. Over time, the two populations become so different that they no longer look or behave the same and do not interbreed in the wild. Thus one species splits into two. This process is called speciation and results in the branching tree of life and the present diversity from past forms.

Hope the basic theory is clear. I will add more stuff. Let me if you have questions.

@ArtieE @Kirran @Mestemia @gnostic

@Guy Threepwood

@Kirran


Quantifying the absence of Natural Selection.

A common criticism from some creationists here is that evolution through natural selection is a just-so story without there being any way to detect whether it is happening or not. This is not the case. There are many objective and mathematical ways to detect whether a specific gene or a group of genes is under natural selection or not.

I will present a simple example to show this. Consider a gene that has two variants (alleles) a and b. Then a population of creatures can have the variants aa, ab or bb. If N be the total number of creatures in the entire population and N(aa), N(bb) and N(ab) are numbers possessing the various variants then :-

Fraction of the population with gene-type aa is f(aa) = N(aa)/N
Fraction of the population with gene-type ab is f(ab) = N(ab)/N
Fraction of the population with gene-type bb is f(bb) = N(bb)/N

One can evaluate this by statistical sampling in an animal population for example.

Since all creatures have a pair of chromosomes, there are two positions for every gene, one from the father and one from the mother. So, gene a occupies both positions in individual of type aa; occupies one position in individuals of type ab; and is absent in individuals of type bb.

Thus frequency of occurrence of gene variant a of the gene in the population is
g(a) = [2N(aa)+N(ab)] /2N = f(aa) + 0.5f(ab)

Similarly frequency of occurrence of gene variant b of the gene
g(b) = [2N(bb)+N(ab)]/2N = f(bb) + 0.5f(ab)

So far so good. But now of we assume that selection is absent. Thus:-
i) Mating preference is unrelated to the gene variants . That means no sexual selection effect exists on the genes and mate choice is random with respect to this gene variants a and b
ii) All variants (aa, ab, bb) have the same fertility potential and produce on average the same number of babies.
iii) These gene variants have no effect on the rate of survival of the babies into adulthood. Thus Natural Selection is not operating on these gene variants.

Then it can be mathematically proved that:-
1) Gene frequencies and populations fractions are constant from generation to generation.
2) They obey the equilibrium relation:-
f(aa) = g(a)*g(a)
f(ab) = 2g(a)*g(b)
f(bb) = g(b)*g(b)

These will be the population fractions and gene frequency relations if natural selection is not operating on a gene. While most genes show selection effects, there are some whose variants are neutral and they (like the blood group type MN variants) do show this equilibrium relation in the populace.

These relations can be extended to genes that have three or more variants as well.

Conclusion:-
1) It is not the case that we have no clue as to determine when natural selection is operating and when it is not. The distribution of gene variants in case of general absence of selection (no sexual selection and equal fertility, equal survivability to adulthood) can be determined mathematically and genes have been identified that satisfy these neutral under evolution criteria.

2) But many genes do not follow the equilibrium relations and how much and the manner of the deviation tells the scientists which process of evolution is acting on the gene.

 

[ArtieE]

He will not force us to live a life that we do not want....how is that not fair?

I don't think drowning the whole planet was fair. If you're going to follow Him bring your own submarine and plenty of supplies. Just in case you and your fellow sheep should do something that pisses him off.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Firstly you are reproducing the design the way you are because you did not know beforehand what the ideal design would have been and even when the genetic algorithm did it for you, you would still have had to learn how to design it in one fell swoop from scratch , trying to reproduce something the computer had done which may be very unintuitive to the human mind. So you selected the compressed code with "greatest hits" mutations to do your work. Of course God, being omniscient will know directly what the ideal design would be and he has no rationale for going through an entire trial-error mutation/selection process at all, even a compressed version to get to what he wants. God would not have to create a 1920 automobile and let it slowly slowly mutate and select away till we get to electric powered self-driving ideal smart cars of the future. Being a perfect designer he would always create perfect designs at first go.
Furthermore there are tests for randomness that would "catch" the fact that your compressed code is preferentially sampling only a select subset of all possible variations.

I do take your point, but other than it coming down to the subjective task of questioning God's methods (many thing were once considered bad design before we appreciated their role)-

We have to specify the fitness functions to get exactly what we want. Again the trial and error antenna is the most efficient antenna, nothing more. The vast array of living thing, resulting ultimately in sentience, a consciousness that can actually experience creation from within- if we knew how to specify for that, perhaps we could create consciousness ourselves, but it's clearly not an easy task.

Also there is a good argument to make, that a world built in stages, layers is simply a better design. Genesis does not claim a world built in one day! life, human life especially depends and benefits from this. e.g. were it not for millions of years of trapped solar energy waiting for us under our feet, we'd never have developed advanced technological civilization, traveled to space, learned about the greater universe...

And again one can always say- why not create all this in one go? and again from God's perspective, that's exactly what he did do. The timespan, trial and errors are for life, us to grow and learn from, not him.

While there is no evidence of it yet, it is entirely possible that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology has features that create conditions such that the mutations that pass through the "DNA-checker" system is biased towards beneficial mutations. What I don't get is a theology where God continually "poofs" new species into existence out of thin air continuously in thousands of localities on earth over billions of years as old species he has made continue to go extinct. And these newly "poofed" species merely happen to have a few more advanced features while looking very similar to old ones as if God just got a brainwave about a why the old one "failed" and added some tweaks. Species are not gifts from Santa Clause that drops on the earth from the sky over and over again every 25th December.

Thanks for being reasonable!

Yes, were biology to follow blueprints, instructions specific to certain end results, this would merely compliment what we already have learned about physical reality, instead of representing a contradiction of it.

Evolution made beautiful sense at it's conception 150 years ago, it was a perfectly logical extension of how we looked at the physical world at the time. A handful of simple immutable laws, given a bunch of space and time, would eventually create all the physical wonders of the universe by a sort of natural evolution of matter.

The concept of deeper underlying, mysterious, unpredictable forces, guiding and shaping matter, instructing it exactly how to build great fusion reactors, specifying in turn elements specific to life... these things were religious pseudoscience. Planck despaired of how difficult it was to get the new reality accepted. The fact that the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called, rather than the 'ultraviolet enlightenment' shows how traumatic it was to be forced to look beyond such intuitive, elegant 'immutable' laws.

Other than the added complication, there was undeniably a certain atheist appeal of classical/Newtonian physics for some, for it's apparent ability to make God redundant in the physical world, but this holds vastly more true for evolution, the atheist implications are far stronger and I think that is what has helped maintain it's 'immutable' status in academia for so long.

continually "poofs" new species into existence out of thin air continuously in thousands of localities on earth

well quite! and this problem for evolution in the the fossil record, parallels what we saw with the development of the physical universe, similarly one of the clues that lead people to question classical physics. Very distinct stages of development, 'poof' happening concurrently throughout the universe, with very distinct and necessary time delays between them, without which the end result of a self aware universe could never have come to be.

All coincidence? perhaps, but which between that and ID is more far fetched? It's debatable certainly, hence this interesting forum!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Sorry, I couldn't get this to open.

It's just a direct link to an article in Nature about the genetic differences and similarities between land animals and their aquatic brethren. The link works, so I'm not sure why you can't open it. I made sure to link to a full and free article.

This is classic....

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

You should try reading what's written, and not what you highlight in your mind. These paragraphs answer the questions that you're asking in this response, and they will also answer questions that you'll have in the future. But you're reading them for what you want and not for what they are.

In your following quotes, I'll show you what I mean.

This illustration is presented as a fact, yet it is only a suggestion.

The physical and genetic connection between these ancestral species of whale are factual. The sentences that you fail to highlight because they don't make your point for you tell you as much.

Of course these artist renditions are just best guesses - Everyone should know this, if they don't already. The skeletal frames of these creatures have been discovered in their entirety. So the shape is right. The structure of the animal is known. There are only so many ways that mammals can make themselves move. Things like coloration and hair density are little more than educated guesses - but those things don't matter at all. If you stripped all humans of skin color, hair coverage, fat placement, etc, you'd still have a very good idea of how the human body moved and operated, don't you think? Paleontologists do that with ancient bones. There's really no difference.

The important part of the discussions are the facts. These were amphibious creatures, that have only ever been found around the rim of an ancient shallow sea, indicating their reliance on a wet environment. The skeletal features that they share with whales, namely the inner ear bones, are shared with no other organism. Why do you think that is? What little genetic information has been gleaned indicates a clear relation to whales, just as it does to hippos, shrews, squirrels, and all other mammals. (See the first link from Nature that I provided.) The reason for this genetic and physical connection is common descent. If that's not the answer the HOW those things got there, I'd like to know what you think the answer is...

Look at these two skeletons and tell me if you see anything even remotely resembling a whale in the lower illustration (Pakicetus). Pictured like this....

I see a clearly delineated land animal. I do not even see even a remote connection to the Ambuloceteus,

Dear, these aren't whales... You don't see whales in these pictures, or in these bones, because they're a different creature entirely. What you're looking at is the first known foray of mammalian life going through a transformational period (meaning it took a very long time and many subsequent generations) from being almost wholly land-based to a wholly water-based population. The connection is in the ancestral lineage, not in the current iteration of that species. They're long gone - extinct - a bygone remnant of a time that no longer is. You have to look under the skin to see why.

A picture of your great grandmother doesn't look like you. She no longer exists. But she's a part of you, isn't she? Part of your hair color, or maybe your eyes, or a silly way you smile sometimes came from your great grandmother, but you're two different human specimens entirely. The same is true of modern whales and their ancestors. They look nothing like Pakicetus - but their inner ear structure, the vestigial leg bones in their rear flippers, the cranial structure which allows breathing through a "snout" on top of the head, all point to the Pakicetus as being the first species to delineate and transition into the water. The ancestral lineage of all animals is found in their genetics, expressed both internally and physically externally. It didn't happen over night - there were many transitions along the way, populations that adapted to different circumstances in their environment and that solved different problems different ways became different things. But Pakicetus, because of it's vast similarities, is considered to be the first of what would become modern cetaceans.

Again I'll ask you, where do you think these organisms came from, if not from common descent? How can there be clear physical traits shared between species that never breathed the same air? Why do whales have inner ear bones that are only shared with an extinct four-legged species that lived near an ancient shallow sea? Why do those same whales share a large portion of their DNA with Hippos? Why do Manatees? Why aren't Ambulocetus fossils discovered chronologically earlier in the fossil record than Pakicetus?

Can you answer those questions? If you can, do you have anything to support your answers?

Ignoring artists renditions, do you truly see no similarities at all in these two skeletons?

"Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too."

Think of the question that this segment is asking - Was Ambulocetus more aquatic than Pakicetus? Look at the above skeletons again and tell me what conclusions you can draw from the features of Ambulocetus, compared to Pakicetus. There's a connection that we already know of, but you're free to ignore that. Using your personal observation alone, what do you see?

Why are its front legs shorter? Why are its hands/feet enlarged? Why does it have a more muscular tail? Why is the rib cage fatter? What conclusions would you personally make about those observations of an Ambulocetus skeleton?

Do you not see the suggestions masquerading as facts here?

What most people fail to recognize in these introductory passages about most things biological is that they're reading an easier-to-digest, condensed version of the facts. These are not suggestions. The physiological connections between the organisms are known. There is no other explanation for them, given the data that has been (and is being) collected. If you would like to read more detailed (and honestly more bland) data sets, I can let you borrow a few of my journal subscriptions. The science in those is above the head of most people, and the writing style is not at all intended for the general public. But it's the data that matters, not the style.

How are these creatures even in the same ball park as a whale, let alone related?

As has been discussed, through genotypical and phenotypical expressions. The geological placement of their remains shows a chronology of their existence. Where those remains have been discovered show their environment. Their physical features and their genetic information show relatedness. General biologic knowledge tells us how offspring are conceived and how sexual organisms reproduce. That same information tells us how gene flow occurs and how environment plays a role in shaping the "preferred" traits in a population. There's all kinds of things, really. And it's all part of a comprehensive understanding of biology indicating common descent, not just of whales but of all currently living things.