Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 136 of 279 (793470)
10-30-2016 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


Gregory writes:
My first question relates to the extent and depth of which mutations are capable, that is, of genetic ‘elasticity’, as it were. Namely: Is there any known process or element in the genetic make-up of animal organisms, or else anything within biology, that would actively stop or act as a barrier to so-called 'macroevolution’. In other words, anything known to genetics that would prevent transformation or mutation from one animal category to another, i.e., any process that would preclude, for example, an ape-like form evolving into a human being, a dinosaur evolving into a bird, and so forth.
I've always thought of this question as being the wrong way around. We must go from knowledge and facts firstly. Known facts. It is a known fact that specified complexity, contingency planning, information, etc..comes from intelligent design. That isn't an argument I am arguing, it is a fact, so when we confront the usual elements of design in life, it is special-pleading fallacy to treat life differently.
So factually speaking, only intelligent designers have the ability to design designed things, according to 100% knowledge.
With that in mind, your question puts the burden-of-proof on the wrong people. Instead of saying, "is there a limit to evolution", the correct logical question is this; "is there any reason to believe a non-intelligent process can come up with the most marvellous designs on the planet? Is there any reason to believe that evolution is an omnipotent, omniscient, UNLIMITED, creative force?"
I would accept evolution could do such things if there was a shred of evidence in the lab that actually shown that evolution can create a new anatomy/organ. So in a way, it's all down to opinion and choice. Those with faith in evolution believe it could have happened.
For example, if you were to ask me about my claim of being the greatest fist-fighter on earth, at the very least you might expect me to show some evidence of this that is equivalent to what such a claim entails.
If I am the best chef on earth, it would be reasonable to expect me to cook a world class meal that experts could judge.
Logically, this is a small portion, a sample, of the whole. For example, if a cake has x,y, and z ingredients, then I would expect the same ingredients within a portion of the cake.
In the same way, because evolution is supposed to have invented hearts, lungs full bodies with complete moving chassis' (skeletons) and everything else, including all of the correct materials, such as enamel for teeth instead of wood, and bones for hands instead of blubber, then I expect to see a portion of macro-evolution's abilities, by seeing in the lab, it invent an organ or a new anatomy in a fruit fly or a bacteria.
The "little adds up to a lot" argument of micro evolution, is a false argument, and even if you argue it isn't, I remain of the opinion it is false and nobody can convince me otherwise, so I don't care if people disagree because I always know what I am talking about. The fact is adding up a general stasis in the fossil record, doesn't add up to macro.
For example, if we take a jellyfish that is 500 million years old, and compare it to a modern one which is identical, obviously if we add up such micro-evolution, we don't get macro. Nor is there ever any indication of change within the fossil counterpart, beyond superficial change, IMHO. For example we might find a giant platypus or nautiloid or croc, but they are giant, but anatomically not really any different beyond superficiality.
By majority of the evidence, we don't see bats or turtles or bunnies or starfish or apes, evolving, we see them stay the same. (I don't refer to human evolution with apes, but the things which would have had to evolve into apes, quadruped progenitors that are completely absent/fictional).
So where do we see the slow gradation of micro-accumulation? Only in evo-textbooks, and coming out of the mouths of evolutionists.
So in my opinion, the question isn't, "have we any reason to believe there is a barrier to evolution?" as though it has proven itself to invent lungs, brains and eyes. The true question is; "is there a reason to believe evolution is an unlimited, creative designer with more brains than things with brains despite it having no intelligence, because we borrow it's designs when our brains can't come up with the answer? (biomimetics)"
THAT is the correct logical question, whether all the evolutionists here protest it or not, Watson. My answer is, that it is an insult to God's intelligence to pretend evolution would have such abilities of intelligence. It breaks the law of non-contradiction for a non-intelligence being more intelligent than intelligence.
No silly person can convince me that the designs I see in nature, created themselves because a fool came up with the idea, and all of the atheists jumped on that idea because it was the intellectual fodderizer of their atheism.
It's obvious, that God created the universe. Obvious. I mean it's the answer that sits under your nose. Just go and look at a butterfly or a tree, if you can convince yourself it is not miraculous, you have some fundamental and sinful defect of the heart and need to seek the healing of that stone thing that could light a match.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-18-2016 8:10 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2016 9:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 141 by Pressie, posted 10-31-2016 5:29 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 142 by Pressie, posted 10-31-2016 6:31 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 143 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2016 1:13 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 10-31-2016 9:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 137 of 279 (793477)
10-30-2016 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by RAZD
10-30-2016 12:29 AM


Re: A couple of quick points
RAZD writes:
This illustrates why a computer program is not a good analogy for DNA (it is actually more like a cooking recipe, where results vary).
Computer programs do not reproduce so there is no natural selection.
While many of the genetic evolution programs evolve design parameters, some evolve running programs that compete directly against one another.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2016 12:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2016 8:15 AM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 138 of 279 (793478)
10-30-2016 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Percy
10-30-2016 7:59 AM


Re: A couple of quick points
While many of the genetic evolution programs evolve design parameters, some evolve running programs that compete directly against one another.
I thought about this, but figured it would be an opportunity for a teaching moment when it is brought up, as it involves how the program is designed to operate like evolution and the role of selection.
Question: is it the base program or subroutines that are evolved?
Thanks.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 10-30-2016 7:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 10-30-2016 9:33 AM RAZD has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 139 of 279 (793485)
10-30-2016 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by RAZD
10-30-2016 8:15 AM


Re: A couple of quick points
RAZD writes:
Question: is it the base program or subroutines that are evolved?
God, it's been years since I researched this. Take a look at my opening post in the thread Percy's Alife Project and then at Message 53. This thread reflects ideas I picked up from studying other genetic simulation programs. I think my plan was to invent a programming language that would control how objects behaved in an environment. An object's programming would evolve randomly by inserting, deleting or modifying a line of programming. An object could become food either by dying or by being "attacked" by another object. Its energy requirements and its value as food would be a function of its size (number of lines of code).
When I posted at the end of the thread that I was entering a busy period, it was just because it was the Thanksgiving to Christmas period. I fully expected to return to the effort in the new year, but my mother became ill just before the new year and I became her care giver for a few months into May. I never did return to this, but looking at this ancient thread now it looks it would be a lot of fun.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2016 8:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2016 11:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 140 of 279 (793486)
10-30-2016 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by mike the wiz
10-30-2016 7:03 AM


I've always thought of this question as being the wrong way around. We must go from knowledge and facts firstly. Known facts. It is a known fact that specified complexity, contingency planning, information, etc..comes from intelligent design.
Please present evidence for this claim, and define "specified complexity".
Note that mere assertion is not evidence.
Instead of saying, "is there a limit to evolution", the correct logical question is this; "is there any reason to believe a non-intelligent process can come up with the most marvellous designs on the planet?
To which the answer is, of course, yes. (See this thread, passim.)
Is there any reason to believe that evolution is an omnipotent, omniscient, UNLIMITED, creative force?"
None whatsoever; it is certain that evolution is no such thing, as any scientist would tell you if you ever listened to scientists.
Which is why when we look at living things which were clearly not created by an omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited, creative force, it makes sense to ascribe them to evolution, and it makes no sense to ascribe them to God, who is (by definition) an omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited, creative force.
In the same way, because evolution is supposed to have invented hearts, lungs full bodies with complete moving chassis' (skeletons) and everything else, including all of the correct materials, such as enamel for teeth instead of wood, and bones for hands instead of blubber, then I expect to see a portion of macro-evolution's abilities, by seeing in the lab, it invent an organ or a new anatomy in a fruit fly or a bacteria.
You mean like fruit flies getting an extra pair of wings?
Or the evolution of multicellularity in Chlorella? That sort of thing?
The "little adds up to a lot" argument of micro evolution, is a false argument, and even if you argue it isn't, I remain of the opinion it is false and nobody can convince me otherwise, so I don't care if people disagree because I always know what I am talking about. The fact is adding up a general stasis in the fossil record, doesn't add up to macro.
For example, if we take a jellyfish that is 500 million years old, and compare it to a modern one which is identical, obviously if we add up such micro-evolution, we don't get macro. Nor is there ever any indication of change within the fossil counterpart, beyond superficial change, IMHO. For example we might find a giant platypus or nautiloid or croc, but they are giant, but anatomically not really any different beyond superficiality.
By majority of the evidence, we don't see bats or turtles or bunnies or starfish or apes, evolving, we see them stay the same. (I don't refer to human evolution with apes, but the things which would have had to evolve into apes, quadruped progenitors that are completely absent/fictional).
Are you really claiming that there is no evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record?
Are you feeling quite well?
The true question is; "is there a reason to believe evolution is an unlimited, creative designer with more brains than things with brains despite it having no intelligence
And the answer again is: none whatsoever, as any scientist would tell you if you listened to scientists instead of the crazy crap in your head.
No silly person can convince me that the designs I see in nature, created themselves ...
Has any silly person ever tried? Or have people told you something else which you are deliberately misrepresenting because you find yourself impotent to argue against the stuff that people actually say?
It's obvious, that God created the universe. Obvious.
Yeah, you've just got to look at the Loa loa worm burrowing through the eyeball of an African child to immediately, obviously see the magnificent sublime nature of its creator. Though I would challenge any creationist to go further and infer that the creator must at some point in his career have been outwitted by a talking snake.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2016 7:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 141 of 279 (793490)
10-31-2016 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by mike the wiz
10-30-2016 7:03 AM


mike the whizz writes:
I've always thought of this question as being the wrong way around. We must go from knowledge and facts firstly. Known facts ...comes from intelligent design.
Actually, the known facts are that all forms of design came from naturally occurring phenomena. Humans designed bridges and buildings. And computers. Beavers designed beaver dams. Bees designed bee hives, etc.
All designs so far came from natural phenomena.
None came from Spooks.
Those are the known facts.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2016 7:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 142 of 279 (793491)
10-31-2016 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by mike the wiz
10-30-2016 7:03 AM


This one was funny.
mike the wizz writes:
So factually speaking, only intelligent designers have the ability to design designed things, according to 100% knowledge.
I guess he is referring to the Wright brothers who designed the Airbus A380...all by themselves. And the Wright brothers were supposed to be Spooks.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2016 7:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by CRR, posted 10-31-2016 9:15 PM Pressie has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 143 of 279 (793504)
10-31-2016 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by mike the wiz
10-30-2016 7:03 AM


The "little adds up to a lot" argument of micro evolution, is a false argument, and even if you argue it isn't, I remain of the opinion it is false and nobody can convince me otherwise, so I don't care if people disagree because I always know what I am talking about.
Thanks for letting us know as clearly as possible that your rambling post was not any kind of discussion. The above statement sums up your position quite nicely.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2016 7:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2016 10:20 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 144 of 279 (793514)
10-31-2016 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
10-26-2016 11:17 AM


Re: Clades
Tangle writes:
I'm not at all convinced. You say 'limited interbreeding', it's not at all clear that that was the case, and in anycase what does it mean?
The genetic divergence between the populations does make it clear, IMHO.
As to what limited interbreeding means, it means that breeding within the populations was much more common than interbreeding between the populations. What matters is the effect it has on the genomes of each population. What doesn't matter is the human need to force things into comfortable categories.
What I (and, presumably, scientists studying the subject) am interested in is HOW did we end up with two populations with divergent DNA. From what I can see, the best explanation is limited interbreeding which led to different mutations accumulating in each population. At this point, you can call it whatever you want. You can call it Marklaration, for all I care. Most would call that speciation, but we can ditch these terms if they don't work.
Were they actually that different and over what timescale? Are they more different than I am from say an Australian aboriginal?
The difference between two Neanderthals appears to be the same as the distance between you and Australian aboriginals (assuming you are of European descent). However, the distance between you and a Neanderthal is much more than that between you and an Ozzie aboriginal.
They were identified from pieces of bone. The DNA tells us more and so does archaeology. Science now classifies them as a subspecies rather than a seperate species. I think the truth is somewhere in between and I find the whole idea fascinating as it's so recent.
Tomayto, tomahto. A rose by any other name . . . take your pick of idioms. Like I said before, it is foolish to think that there is some sharp demarcation between subspecies and species. You might as well be asking for a consensus, down to the mm, of when someone goes from being short to tall. The line is always going to be arbitrary. What matters is the data, and the explanations we can find for it.
Like you, I also find it very interesting. Like many scientists, I would be horridly excited to find out if everything we know is wrong, that sweet moment when horror over being wrong is mixed with the wonder of new information. Such is science . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2016 11:17 AM Tangle has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 145 of 279 (793518)
10-31-2016 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Pressie
10-31-2016 6:31 AM


The Wright brothers intelligently designed the Kitty Hawk. An intelligent design team designed the A380.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Pressie, posted 10-31-2016 6:31 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2016 2:46 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 11-01-2016 10:57 AM CRR has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 146 of 279 (793519)
10-31-2016 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by mike the wiz
10-30-2016 7:03 AM


(I don't refer to human evolution with apes, but the things which would have had to evolve into apes, quadruped progenitors that are completely absent/fictional).
How does your claim stand up against evidence, such as:
Evolution of primates - Wikipedia
Oh, and don't neglect the arboreal primates. There are lots of those.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by mike the wiz, posted 10-30-2016 7:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 147 of 279 (793525)
11-01-2016 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by CRR
10-31-2016 9:15 PM


They were not Spooks. They were naturally occurring phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by CRR, posted 10-31-2016 9:15 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 148 of 279 (793526)
11-01-2016 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by NoNukes
10-29-2016 11:42 PM


But those multiple beneficial mutations need not occur at once. If each of them can occur at different points in time after a previous one has become fixed in the population because it is somewhat beneficial, the probability that a mutation involving a multiple chain path way is increased substantial compared to the probability that all changes happened simultaneously.
Yes. Just what I said. Are you sure you read my post?
Let's see your math.
Seriously? This is basic stuff. It's why Lenski is using bacteria and not elephants for his experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2016 11:42 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Pressie, posted 11-01-2016 5:15 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2016 5:52 AM CRR has replied
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2016 10:02 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2016 10:22 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2016 11:22 AM CRR has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 149 of 279 (793527)
11-01-2016 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by CRR
11-01-2016 3:51 AM


CRR writes:
Seriously? This is basic stuff. It's why Lenski is using bacteria and not elephants for his experiment.
It is serious. It's basic. Show your maths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by CRR, posted 11-01-2016 3:51 AM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 150 of 279 (793529)
11-01-2016 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by CRR
11-01-2016 3:51 AM


Oh look, a Creationist is quote-mining. Let's look at the context:
Let's see your math. Identify the changes that biology says have occurred during the time when humans/apes possessed their long gestation periods and show that millions of years that has passed is not enough time. I'm certainly not going to simply take your word for that.
Answering that will require more than basic math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by CRR, posted 11-01-2016 3:51 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by dwise1, posted 11-01-2016 11:08 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 171 by CRR, posted 11-02-2016 7:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024