Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 3:05 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Stile, xongsmith (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,303 Year: 9,339/19,786 Month: 1,761/2,119 Week: 521/576 Day: 116/80 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trueorigins critique of Macroevolution
John
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (14301)
07-28-2002 12:40 PM


I've been reading A Critique of Douglas Theobaldís "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" so I thought I'd take the first critique and see if I can get some interest.

quote:
Unless one inserts an additional premise imposing a limit on the degree to which descendants can vary (which would require specification of a mechanism of descent), the claim of common ancestry does not require that all of the descendants share one or more traits. There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages. Absent specification of a mechanism of descent, which Dr. Theobald purposefully avoids, there is no way to tether the traits of the descendants to those of the common ancestor.

The part I put in bold is what caught my attention. What the author seems to be claiming is that there is no reason why the processes of evolution cannot produce offspring completely unlike the parents. While this is supposed to be a refutation of evolution it really betrays a severe misunderstanding of the theory. Can anybody here defend the authors claim?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-28-2002 11:28 PM John has responded
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 07-30-2002 4:19 AM John has responded
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 08-16-2002 1:46 PM John has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 11 (14349)
07-28-2002 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John
07-28-2002 12:40 PM


Without delving into it I can already agree with this. I have no porblem with extra legs, eyes in the worng place, grossly defomed faces occurring. This is how wwe got our dog breeds and cats without fur etc. They are 'genuinely novel' by the usual definition. Would their genome be differnet. Sure - perhaps by only one SNP (a mutaion in one place). Would there be new genes? NO!!! New cellular systems? NO!!!

This whole issue is the crux of the matter. The genomes show us the sort of novelty we need to talk about. Any other sort does not distinguish between the two models!

The list of DNA in your body is not a list of blobs or fairy floss. It is a list of finely tuned nano-machines that group into factories and structures. So it is dead easy to see how a mutation can grossly change appearences without adding a new part or system.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John, posted 07-28-2002 12:40 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John, posted 07-28-2002 11:51 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 11 (14352)
07-28-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
07-28-2002 11:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Without delving into it I can already agree with this. I have no porblem with extra legs, eyes in the worng place, grossly defomed faces occurring. This is how wwe got our dog breeds and cats without fur etc. They are 'genuinely novel' by the usual definition. Would their genome be differnet. Sure - perhaps by only one SNP (a mutaion in one place). Would there be new genes? NO!!! New cellular systems? NO!!!

This whole issue is the crux of the matter. The genomes show us the sort of novelty we need to talk about. Any other sort does not distinguish between the two models!

The list of DNA in your body is not a list of blobs or fairy floss. It is a list of finely tuned nano-machines that group into factories and structures. So it is dead easy to see how a mutation can grossly change appearences without adding a new part or system.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-28-2002]


Are you agreeing with me or with the author? The author seems to be saying that the processes of evolution ought to be able to produce offspring that ARE radically different from the parents. Since we do not see this, then evolution isn't supported. At least, that is how the argument reads to me. I expected you to disagree with that statement based on the debates we've had in the recent past.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-28-2002 11:28 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 10:44 PM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 11 (14442)
07-29-2002 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
07-28-2002 11:51 PM


The arguement in that critique is a bit too obscure for my quick reading of it. But we do get mutated animlas with extra legs and deformed faces - sometimes nicely defomed (in some people's opinions) - so nice that people make a dog breed out of it. That is utterly expected from moelcular biology whether creaitonist or evoltuionist.

Now let's discuss the origin of the immune system and see if we can get it in the same way as an extra leg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 07-28-2002 11:51 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 07-29-2002 10:50 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 11 (14446)
07-29-2002 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 10:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The arguement in that critique is a bit too obscure for my quick reading of it. But we do get mutated animlas with extra legs and deformed faces - sometimes nicely defomed (in some people's opinions) - so nice that people make a dog breed out of it. That is utterly expected from moelcular biology whether creaitonist or evoltuionist.

So I chalk this critique of macroevolution down as a failure then.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 10:44 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 11 (14474)
07-30-2002 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John
07-28-2002 12:40 PM


Since this is a reply by Ashby Camp to Dr Theobald's 29 evidences for macroevolution, he is replying to Dr Theobald's

"If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions. Most importantly, they should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. The genealogical relatedness of all life predicts that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these basic life processes. "

Camp, in his article, is criticizing the belief that evolution predicts biological universals (traits shared by all organisms).
As he quotes biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter: -
"There is yet another reason that the universality of the genetic code is not strong evidence for evolution. Simply put, the theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal (it does not, for that matter, predict the genetic code at all). In fact, leading evolutionists such as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel are surprised that there arenít multiple codes in nature.
Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory. For if the code is arbitrary, why should there be just one? The blind process of evolution would explain why there are multiple codes. In fact, in 1979 certain minor variations in the code were found, and evolutionists believe, not surprisingly, that the variations were caused by the continuing evolution of the universal genetic code. Of course, it would not be a problem for such an explanation to be extended if it were the case that there were multiple codes. There is nothing wrong with a theory that is comfortable with different outcomes, but there is something wrong when one of those outcomes is then claimed as supporting evidence. If a theory can predict both A and not-A, then neither A nor not-A can be used as evidence for the theory. When it comes to the genetic code, evolution can accommodate a range of findings, but it cannot then use one of those findings as supporting evidence. (Hunter, 38.)"

He is arguing that evolution would instead of predicting biological universals (such as a universal genetic code and similar genomes of organisms), it would predict that they would be different.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-30-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John, posted 07-28-2002 12:40 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 9:02 AM blitz77 has not yet responded
 Message 8 by John, posted 07-30-2002 11:11 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 7 of 11 (14490)
07-30-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by blitz77
07-30-2002 4:19 AM


My reading of the refutation is that Camp is suggesting that
ToE can accomodate the situation where there are universal traits
and the situation where there is complete difference.

He is then saying, not that the evidence is wrong, but that the
evidence cannot be used to support ToE because contrary evidence
would also support ToE.

The same argument can be levelled against creationism of course
(a designer could re-use designs or make brand new ones equally
well).

I think, from the quote from Theobald, that what he us actually
saying is that if evolution happened we should expect to see
fundamental functionalities that are the same across different
species. Not lots of minor traits, or even universal traits,
but fundamental traits.

Such as all plants photosynthesising, all animals and plants
able to respirate (if that's a word).

We do see this commonality, and lack of it would tend to be
more against evolution than for it.

It's also compatible with common design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 07-30-2002 4:19 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 11 (14494)
07-30-2002 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by blitz77
07-30-2002 4:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
He is arguing that evolution would instead of predicting biological universals (such as a universal genetic code and similar genomes of organisms), it would predict that they would be different.

Right. This is exactly what I find so weird about the article. Why, or how, does evolution predict multiple genetic codes?

Its really an issue about starting points, not evolutionary process. I would expect only one genetic code if all animals evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago. Now if animals evolved from multiple origin-lifeforms, then I would expect multiple genetic codes. It looks like this didn't happen. But either way points to evolution-- different starting points, same evolution.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by blitz77, posted 07-30-2002 4:19 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 11 (15527)
08-16-2002 11:19 AM


quote:
Without delving into it I can already agree with this. I have no porblem with extra legs, eyes in the worng place, grossly defomed faces occurring. This is how wwe got our dog breeds and cats without fur etc. They are 'genuinely novel' by the usual definition. Would their genome be differnet. Sure - perhaps by only one SNP (a mutaion in one place). Would there be new genes? NO!!! New cellular systems?

Of course there are the non grossly deformed faces.. variations on eye position, nose length, leg length, etc. All of these are due to mutation, or variant alelles in a population recombining. You just don't notice it because it doesn't seem like a mutation. We are all mutants really, we all pass on two or three novel mutations to our children on average. That also means our parents passed 2-3 on to us as well.

However, your claim that these mutations don't produce novel genes is false. If you change a codon in a gene to produce a different protein, that is a new gene my friend. If you do it several times over the course of a few millenia, that is evolution.

quote:
The list of DNA in your body is not a list of blobs or fairy floss.

Yes, tuned through the processes of selection.

quote:
It is a list of finely tuned nano-machines that group into factories and structures. So it is dead easy to see how a mutation can grossly change appearences without adding a new part or system.

And this is exactly the sort of tuning that can't be done by design. It must be done one step at a time.. one change, then another, then another. A living creature is like a random nest of Pick-Up-Sticks, or a Chinese puzzle. You can't just 'design' it, you have to move one bit a little here, then shift another a little there, and so on. It is virtually (and probably mathematically) impossible to create such a complex interrelated system from scratch. Evolution is the only way such complex interrelated systems can be created.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The "True Origins" description of evolution uses an extreme version of evolution to argue that evolution could equally predict a genome that is completely different. The problem with this is that it is "possible" that such an outcome could occur, but in that case it would be impossible to infer evolution.

Evolution predicts both outcomes, but the second is not useful in inferring evolution, only the first, because only the first outcome (a nested hierarchy of related genetic patterns), clearly and strongly indicates a progressive process.

The description on the TalkOrigins site put it this way. Evolution predicts A and and NOT A, therefore the inference of A is invalid. But the response at TalkOrigins put it this way.. evolution predicts A and very weakly the possibility of B. A is strongly indicative of evolution (as it is the only reasonable explanation for a pattern such as A), while B does not, as there are many processes which produce B. Therefore the fact that Evolution "might" predict both A and B is irrelevant, as if we were to find B, that would not allow us to infer evolution. So TrueOrigins logic is flawed.. evolution is not indicated by both A and B, only by A.

In any case, I don't think that B (evolution so radical that every alelle of an organism is changed and is unrelated to its ancestors) is really a prediction of evolution. Evolution does not predict that organisms will change every codon of every gene with equal frequency. There is good reason to believe that this is both mechanically and selectively impractical or impossible. Many important and central gene complexes seem to have vary narrow tolerances as to what mutations they will permit, and I think this extends down the hierarchy to a good majority of the genes in an organism to a greater and lesser degree. So I don't think B is really a prediction of evolution at all.


  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3199 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 11 (15537)
08-16-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John
07-28-2002 12:40 PM


I guess it would remand on what "novel" one was reading. I thought a few mobths ago that I was on to the organismis that could reliably, with all the appartus of population genetics work toward a solution of this problem but alas it was not to be because one of the three species taxonomically I was looking at was an import from Europe and thus if the arguement had to make it's way all the way through biogeography, where, i was trying to take the expt it could fail to convince perhaps at a crucial point. A well desgined expt if crucial will ALwyays give some needed result. In this case I could not guarentte this so I have abandoned this taxa for a while.

The material needed were:
1)The very landscape that was in dispute between Wright and 30s evolutionists which could or could not be read back to Scopes trial--acquired the streams around Cornell with BOTH aquatic and terrestrial creatures that if evolution was true had to have made this transition in an earlier age than the collection localites generally I made in New jersey etc.
2) Some work on the biochemisty of the traits involved-- there was a yellow pigment that both terrestrial forms contained and seemed to be a term that interpretation of Wright's physiological genetics got hung down on. There were two metabolic pathways being described in the literature so that a genetic DIFFERENCE could in fact be the casue of any difference in the genetic systems.
3)The morphology of the whole larger group was described as "horizontal" and yet it could have been suggested that the one terrestrial form that got furtherest onto land was an adaptation to the moon's orbit and not the earth's so as to be able to differentiate the variance.
4)The trait geometry variability could be spilt into three and not two classes including a perimieter formation, ornamentation and quantitiatve deviations from the extrudable internal bio-change across the generations.
5)Observations of sexual behavior that was at least prima facie indicative of the catastohpe potentially invovled (as if the sperm whent actually THROUGH the females mouth kinematically)
6)Local differences in form from one part of the stream to antother.

I was going to breed these things but one at least was European so I stopped. But if one could find all these things in another kind then it would be possible to continue to acutally answer this question.

All of this it seems to me needs to occur before the "logic" of the situtation can begin to materialize.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John, posted 07-28-2002 12:40 PM John has not yet responded

    
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 11 (15540)
08-16-2002 2:10 PM


Hi Brad/herp. Your posts are as impenetrable as always.

Always interesting to read, though it does tend to cause a bit of a headache.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019