Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
64 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,321 Year: 5,967/14,102 Month: 115/438 Week: 47/112 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 82 of 294 (847254)
01-20-2019 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taq
12-04-2018 11:08 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
How does this....

demonstrate macroevolution?

Related, homologous? Sure. But how do they demonstrate the method of change?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 12-04-2018 11:08 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-20-2019 11:56 AM WookieeB has responded
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 01-20-2019 1:32 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 01-20-2019 1:37 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 86 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2019 3:32 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:38 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 87 of 294 (847375)
01-21-2019 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tanypteryx
01-20-2019 11:56 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
There is only one process. Evolution is change from generation to generation. Macroevolution is just the result of many generations of change that lead to one or more daughter species.

That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it, including Porkncheese. With that definition, design would apply as equally as M+NS or any other proposed material process.

The problem is that definition is NOT usually how evolution is meant.

Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same process.
That image doesn't demonstrate anything without more explanation, except that there are some clear similarities. The images do not demonstrate what the exact hereditary relationships are between the species that are illustrated.

From what I was asking, 'method of change' = 'same process'. So what do the skulls say as to the process, if anything?
I agree there is a similarities, and that supports some sort of relationship. But it DOESN'T speak to a hereditary relationship, it is silent on that.

Demonstrating that something happens and explaining how it happens are two different things. The sequence of skulls from chimp (A) to human (L) demonstrates macroevolution having happened, as advertised, but doesn't explain how macroevolution happens.

I agree with the first statement. But the second statement is not necessarily true. For one thing, the 'chimp' skull should not even be in that sequence, as I understand that with Common Descent it should be some older common ancestor of the chimp and human (Homo x) that led to humans. A chimp would be on a totally separate branch and would not lead to humans.

They don't. What made you think they did?

I don't. But apparently some commenters do, as is evidenced by some of the initial responses to my question.

Again, a relationship is clearly evident. The cause of that relationship is not. As for a cause, ID is just as valid a proposal as M+NS is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-20-2019 11:56 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 8:01 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2019 11:21 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 11:13 AM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 89 of 294 (847378)
01-21-2019 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tanypteryx
01-21-2019 8:01 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
I did not write that.

Of course you didnt. The next poster(s) did.
No it is not.

And why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 8:01 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 9:12 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 92 of 294 (847382)
01-22-2019 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tanypteryx
01-21-2019 9:12 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Tanypteryx writes:

There is no published research and no evidence for ID, whereas there has been 150+ years of research and evidence compiled for the processes of evolution. There is so much research and evidence that it fills libraries.

First, your response is irrelevant to the question at hand. The issue is what the supposed progression of skulls tells us as to the process for how they got that way. And the answer is "Nothing". Any plausible process could be the reason, whether that is mutation+natural selection, some other natural process, or ID (despite how you may feel about it).

Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc. One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released - http://bio-complexity.org/.../main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4

Thirdly, you now seem to be using a more restricted definition of "evolution". I guess it is more than just "Evolution is change from generation to generation".

Generally, evolution will have one of the following definitions. Of course, this list is not exhaustive and context does matter:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms
have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited
descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random
variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended
from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

ID has no issue with definitions 1-4, is somewhat agnostic on 5, and rejects the validity of 6. I suspect you are meaning 5 or 6.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 9:12 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 1:01 AM WookieeB has responded
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 1:10 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:44 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 95 of 294 (847411)
01-22-2019 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by PaulK
01-22-2019 1:01 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
PaulK writes:

There really isn’t that much compared to the output of evolutionary science. Their vanity journal only publishes a few papers a year.


The amount is kinda irrelevant. All that really matters is whether it is true or not.
Aside from that, there are papers being released just about every week that by implication are more supportive of the ID perspective than the Darwinian one, without directly mentioning either.
ID itself is an idea, and thus doesnt have a "journal' of its own, any more than "evolution" has its own journal. If though you are referring to the Discovery Institute having its own journal, it does but that is irrelevant. ID topics are not only published there, as the Axe paper referenced in the first comment are.

In their vanity journal. And what I can see of it doesn’t look promising. Axe’s paper is pretty useless for supporting ID, too.

The Axe paper is not in the "vanity" journal.
And how can you say the Axe paper is useless?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 1:01 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 12:35 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 96 of 294 (847412)
01-22-2019 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
01-22-2019 11:13 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Creationists don't disagree with evolution because of definitions or facts or logic. They disagree because they're anti-science. You may be too young to remember but creationists used to deny microevolution.

I normally would not consider myself a "Creationist", but I guess that depends on your definition. I've found that the use of the term is usually an epitaph, and persons throwing it around have no consistency in the meaning.
Many pro-ID people would not consider themselves "Creationinsts", but assuming that is whom you are referring to, please provide an example of how they are anti-science, deny microevolution (I've never heard that), or even that dinosaurs existed (never heard that either).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 11:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 12:30 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 100 of 294 (847420)
01-22-2019 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
01-22-2019 12:30 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
ringo writes:

Google "cdesign proponentsists"


LOL! Why wouldn't i just Google "Creationist"? cdesign proponentsists ≠creationist, unless you are now saying the term is limited to some old books change of terms between versions. Epitaph indeed!

If ID rejects what science concludes, that is anti-science.

LOL again. Some SCIENTISTS might conclude this. But SCIENCE doesn't necessarily conclude that an unguided, unintelligent process is 'sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms'
Disagreement with somebodies conclusion does not amount to anti-science. Science invites discourse and debate, it doesn't support dogmatic conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 12:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 01-23-2019 11:20 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 101 of 294 (847422)
01-22-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
01-22-2019 12:35 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
PaulK writes:

If ID is scientifically sterile then it will be shunned for a paradigm that makes more sense of observations. Not that ID publications are exactly known for being true.


Or it may be shunned because it is not philosophically preferred and it has nothing to do with the science.
Whether it is "scientifically sterile" is yet to be demonstrated. What example can you provide that something said with regards to ID is not true?
In my experience the ID people say that, but it is rarely - if ever - true.

So you claim. But how about a recent article Parenteau, J. et al. (2019), “Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation,” Nature. that is more supportive of an ID view of things and puts another nail in the coffin for the 'Junk DNA' view that is common to Darwinian evolution.
I say that it is useless for supporting ID because it doesn’t contain any results that really support ID.

Then I guess you do not understand at all what Axe's paper is about. His paper provided a challenge to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to act. It estimates how rare amino acid sequences are that generate functional protein folds, and as a measure of the content of specified complexity within enzymes that is very relevant to questions of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 12:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 2:35 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 3:03 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 114 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 5:06 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 102 of 294 (847425)
01-22-2019 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx
01-22-2019 1:10 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Tanypteryx writes:

My understanding is that the skulls in the image are arranged in chronological order but that there is no further data, in the image, as far as evolutionary ancestors and descendants relationships.


Even if we accept that the pictures are in chronological order, you cannot make any inference that there is any ancestor/descendant relationship. You can infer a relationship based on homology, but you cannot state that is is due to any parent/child link. It might be parent/child, or it might be a distant cousin linkage, or it might be an experiment by aliens, or it might be some other form of ID. My point is you are assuming some evolutionary linkage, but you do not have enough data to do so.

Oh, I am aware that ID proponents publish crap in their vanity journal that could never make it through peer review in an actual scientific journal.

No True Scotsman fallacy
Besides and again, the Axe paper from the first post wasn't in an "ID" vanity journal.

6 is is nothing but a bullshit creationist description.

Funny. That's the first time I've heard of Richard Dawkins being described as a "creationist". You must know that it is basically the description from his book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 1:10 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:41 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 113 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 4:43 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 108 of 294 (847439)
01-22-2019 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Taq
01-22-2019 2:41 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Taq writes:

The theory of evolution predicts that there were species in the past who had a mixture of human and ape features, and these fossils fit those predictions. When a theory makes a prediction and the facts bear out those predictions then those facts are evidence for the theory.


I agree with everything you said here. But you are missing the point.
The presentation of skulls is evidence of relation. And yes, if assuming the progression in time is true (realistically there are some problems with the picture, notably the starting skull), evolution predicts the progression and could be the process behind it. But ID can equally predict the progression (each could be designed that way) and it could be the process behind it. So could a combination of the two. So could the other one I threw out there, aliens could be experimenting and placed their creations in time on the earth and wanted to see what happened. The point is beyond there being a relation, the cause behind the relation is is not spoken of by the skulls.

The underlying problem I'm trying to point out is that evolution is the assumed process, and nothing else is considered based on the evidence. If the progression of skulls is only explained by evolution (which again I acknowledge could be one of many explanations), then evolution must explain the following as well -

Would you say that Corvettes evolved through an unguided, natural process?

Now of course, you can start to bring in other properties of life that the skulls might entail, but those would have to be discussed on their own. And though evolution has something to say about all those other properties as well, that is also where its case gets harder to make.

Though for the skulls alone, they do have a strong visual impact, especially if you have a preset process in mind behind it all. But all I am saying is that you cannot have a preset method in mind and what they speak to as to the process is neutral.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 3:38 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 109 of 294 (847440)
01-22-2019 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by PaulK
01-22-2019 2:35 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Paulk writes:

As evolution was, until Darwin and Wallace made their case


So your saying that in 150 years ID will be the reigning paradigm?
I also find it interesting that Wallace, co-discoverer of evolution by natural selection, ended up effectively siding with ID. He is considered by some to be a founding father for the modern ID movement.

How about Axe’s estimate of the proportion of protein sequences exhibiting enzymatic activity, since you listed that paper. And that’s one of the better pieces of ID work. See the critique here (though it is linked on the first page of this thread so you have had the chance to see it already.)

It hasnt been demonstrated that Axe is wrong. In the critique you cite, Hunt is not really arguing with Axe over the science, but just his conclusions based on the science. He really is just quibbling over a possible difference between rarity and isolation of protein sequences that lead to a functional protein fold. Axe showed that Hunt's conclusions were unwarranted in his response.

The idea that irreducible complexity cannot evolve is another common error

Shown how?

The idea of Junk DNA is alive and well (and hated by some supporters of Darwinian evolution - hence the ENCODE fiasco). A small function for some introns doesn’t really do much to change that.

I think you need to go look at again what "Junk DNA" is supposed to be. Introns having any function (I note how you added the adjective "small") means they are not Junk DNA.

Since the estimate is orders of magnitude too low and since it isn’t actually useful for probability calculations in many evolutionary scenarios it isn’t as useful as you think.

The orders of magnitude is debatable, but I don't think you can just assert they are too low. Sure, they do not apply to "many evolutionary scenarios", but it isn't claimed that they do. Just the formation of protein enzymes, which just happen to be in EVERY cell of EVERY living thing and are necessary for life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 2:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 3:41 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 4:12 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 115 of 294 (847447)
01-22-2019 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Taq
01-22-2019 3:38 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Taq writes:

What ID doesn't predict is a nested hierarchy.


What???
Of course ID can account for a nested hierarchy. Makes me think you do not understand what ID is? Ever hear of common design?
And I note you are now off of the skulls picture and had to go somewhere else. This new picture goes a bit farther and indicates an ancestral link. So you're progressing on what you are inferring. But as I said before, design can account for a nested hierarchy just as easily. The lines might be drawn differently and be inferring a different process behind it. In that case a dependency graph would be a better visual.

Evolution can explain a nested hierarchy. But not everything in life fits into the same tree-like structure. How do you account for two (or more) similar traits in organisms that are not found in the ancestor - like echolocation in bats and dolphins? Usually ad-hoc explanations (like convergent evolution) are used to explain it away, but that makes it much worse for any appeal to a nested hierarchy the farther you have to go back for a presumed common ancestor.

Whereas common design can just as easily explain a nested hierarchy as well as the odd exception.

Another thing about your nested hierarchy is that you are cannot use it to prove evolution since you are assuming evolution is the method. To do so would be circular reasoning.

Your cars will not fit into the same nested hierarchy. Instead, different parts will be mixed and matched in different models with no discernible nested hierarchy.

I'm not sure how you can say this. Depending on the similarities you want to highlight, you can draw up a nested hierarchy just fine for Corvettes. And yes, there might be some parts that dont fit the pattern for a car, but we see the same thing happening with life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 3:38 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by JonF, posted 01-22-2019 6:58 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 01-23-2019 12:48 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 116 of 294 (847448)
01-22-2019 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
01-22-2019 3:03 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Taq writes:

Axe didn't demonstrate any of those claims.

1. Axe didn't model evolution because he used a derived sequence instead of an ancestral sequence. He tried to mutate one modern gene sequence into another modern gene sequence. That isn't how evolution works. He should have derived the ancestral sequence from consensus sequence, but he didn't.


What are you talking about? There was no "derived sequence" and there was no reference to any "ancestral sequence". Are you on the right paper?

And Axe wasn't trying to "model" evolution directly. He was merely trying to get an estimate on the rarity of amino acid sequences that produce functional protein folds.

Axe didn't determine if the protein had function. Axe only determined if it had beta-lactamase activity. Using Axe's criteria, none of the proteins in the human genome have function because they all lack beta-lactamase activity.

Again I do not think you understand what he did. Beta-lactamase activity IS function. So he was determining function, duh!
No, Axe's criteria does not have a direct link to the human genome, but neither was he (or anyone) claiming that. He was using a fairly simple enzyme form found in what (I think) is a prokaryotic cell, and through experiments trying to come up with an estimate for rarity. His numbers are a guideline, not a hard and fast rule that has to apply to every cell everywhere. But because it was a simpler model, there is no reason to think the numbers would get any better when it came to the human genome. A later experiment by Axe (with Gauger, and perhaps is the paper referring to an ancestral sequence) using a slightly different method also came to roughly the same rarity number (a few factors different, but nothing that changes the implications much).

The only semi-plausible objection that Hunt had (in the response paper) was that rarity might not necessarily correspond to isolation in the search space. But Axe responded to that to really indicate any difference probably doesn't matter much. It is basically a discussion on whether two islands in a sea have a stepping stone route between them. Sure it might be possible, but if you are talking about small islands in a huge ocean, the likelihood of isolation (whether they are close to each other or not) vs the rarity (how often you find an island in the big ocean) becomes rather a silly question.

Axe didn't measure specified complexity

Not directly, no. But it does relate pretty directly on the idea of specified complexity.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 3:03 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 01-22-2019 7:05 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 01-23-2019 1:04 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 117 of 294 (847449)
01-22-2019 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
01-22-2019 4:12 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But the rarity was the precise point I made. And when I read Axe’s response his attempt to deal with that is laughable. Written language is not the same as proteins.

Again, I don't think you are understanding the paper. The response to Axe written by Arthur Hunt was not really questioning the rarity either. So rarity is NOT the point. Isolation is! To make it as simple as possible for you to understand, what hunt is trying to say is that there is no necessary relation between isolation and rarity, whereas Axe is demonstrating that saying there is no relation is silly.
Of course the written language is not the same as proteins, and Axe wasn't saying so. If you read his response more clearly, Axe is using an analogy with words to describe how the level of function he was looking for (to get positives in his search) was low, which actually helps the case for evolutionary processes because he was not setting the bar high to exclude it. Nevertheless, the rarity number was still astronomically high despite a low threshold for evolution to overcome. Understand now?

Paulk writes:

The idea that irreducible complexity cannot evolve is another common error (and one that Dembski has made). Behe didn’t make that mistake in Darwin’s Black Box, but he came very close to it.
...
For a start, Behe said as much in Darwin’s Black Box. Are you saying that Behe was wrong in that ?

I'm confused. Behe did or didn't....do what? I know Behe didn't say an IC "cannot evolve" at all, but he did suggest that the best option would be co-option, but the more parts you add with that route the complexity goes up exponentially, and you soon are at a probability that is realistically prohibitive. Who pro-ID has supposedly said otherwise?

Note also that Behe tried adopting a very different definition of irreducible complexity, and later dropped the idea. Hardly a sign of confidence in his argument.

I'm not buying this, but please do explain.

Some introns having a function in one organism - that happens to have very few introns - is not much of a case against junk DNA, not least for the fact that it doesn’t touch the main arguments for it.

So introns, while they were once thought to be junk, genetic debris left over from millions of years of evolution, are now showing evidence of function. So that is one part of the Junk DNA paradigm that is done with. What other "main arguments" did you have in mind?

It doesn’t apply for many scenarios involving the evolution of enzymes either. It can only be safely applied when a completely random sequence is generated. Which is not typical of evolution at all.

This makes no sense. How can you say it doesn't apply? Do you have other research that disputes it? I think you are getting mixed up with a simulation vs an estimation of the rarity of sequences leading to functional folds. Axe wasn't simulating evolution. But his estimates do have implications on the search space for function that evolution would have to traverse to.... evolve!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2019 4:12 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2019 12:31 AM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 120 of 294 (847452)
01-22-2019 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tanypteryx
01-22-2019 4:43 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
I clearly stated that there is no data in the image about any ancestor/descendant relationship. My point is that I have made no statement or assumption about any ancestor/descendant relationship.

Ok, I think we might be talking around each other. I understand what you are saying. I guess I am just questioning why you stated it with the words "ancestors and descendants relationships". Yes, there is nothing about the skulls that speak to the type of 'ancestors and descendants relationships' they might have. But basically I was indicating that you have no reason to say there is ANY 'ancestors and descendants' involved.

And it does not relate in any way to the process by which proteins actually evolve or how biology actually works.

Assuming you are correct, then what is the process by which proteins actually evolve that Axe's work has absolutely no bearing on whatsoever?

If it had succeeded in showing that proteins cannot evolve that still would not have been support for ID

Every historical process has a negative(the others are not a good candidate) and positive (ours is a good candidate) side to the argument. Axe's work definitely is stronger on the negative side (evolution is a bad candidate) of the ID argument, but I don't think it has nothing to say for the positive side(design is a better explanation).

I do think it's interesting that the few ID articles that I've read are short on convincing evidence and seem to be "preaching to the choir" rather than competing with mainstream science publishing. They don't seem to be able to cut the mustard when it come to critical scientific review. It always comes down to "you have to believe in magic."

Rather than more 'I say:you say' banter, can you provide an example?

Funny, because that's not what I said. That looks like a paraphrased quotemine to me. Kind of an unquoted quotemine.

I haven't read Dawkins' books, but I suspect that he didn't say exactly...


Nobody claimed it was a quote. It's just a short description of what the idea of evolution is in Dawkin's book, which is a pretty common meaning for evolution in discussions like these. If you haven't read it, then I guess you wouldn't know either way.

But your seeming objection to it is interesting. As I said, my list of definitions was not exhaustive. But I think it encompasses a majority of the usual meanings. But that you have another one to submit just shows that even evolution isn't a consistent idea when discussed.

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

As it is, it's a pretty broad definition. In general I would probably believe this to be true, but it depends on to what extent of change it is applied to. I think we might disagree on some of the details though.

No mention of mutations or natural selection here, unless that is what you would include in "an iterative feedback response". This needs to be fleshed out in more detail, as it doesn't provide any information as to what you meant earlier by mentioning "the process by which proteins actually evolve or how biology actually works". But within this description, do you allow for the process to be directed, purposeful, and/or via an intelligence? The definition is rather agnostic there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-22-2019 4:43 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-23-2019 7:07 PM WookieeB has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021