The "I" in ID
Yes ID stands for Intelligent Design and therefore the "I" in ID stands for intelligent. But why include it? Doesn't "design" also imply intelligence? Perhaps.
As Wm Dembski writes in Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design:
People also ask "What is intelligence?" which is a fair question. My answer is that intelligence is that which can create counterflow. "Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely."
As Wm Dembski writes in Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design:
But why then place the adjective "intelligent" in front of the noun "design"? Doesn't design already include the idea of intelligent agency, so that juxtaposing the two becomes an exercise in redundancy? Not at all. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Apparent design looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven"). Apparent and optimal design empty design of all practical significance.
People also ask "What is intelligence?" which is a fair question. My answer is that intelligence is that which can create counterflow. "Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely."
posted by Joe G @ 9:46 AM
46 Comments:
At 12:35 PM,
Zachriel said…
Tautology.
At 1:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, one would think that it is self-evident, ie a tautology, but that would "assume" that one understands counterflow.
Let's look at a good example of a tautology, ie useless and superfluous drivel:
"Survival of the fittest"
Q: Who are the fittest?
A: The members of a population who survive and leave the most offspring.
Q: Who survives and leaves the most offspring?
A: Why the fittest of course!
And of course let's not forget this from David Berlinski:
"SWIMMING IN the soundless sea, the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull. The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. Pause. And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years.
This exchange should be deeply embarrassing to evolutionary biologists. And yet, time and again, biologists do explain the survival of an organism by reference to its fitness and the fitness of an organism by reference to its survival, the friction between concepts kindling nothing more illuminating than the observation that some creatures have been around for a very long time. "Those individuals that have the most offspring," writes Ernst Mayr, the distinguished zoologist, "are by definition . . . the fittest ones." And in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra states that "[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitness-leaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature."
This is not a parody of evolutionary thinking; it is evolutionary thinking. Que sera, sera.
At 3:29 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: ="Survival of the fittest"
And, indeed, depending on how "fittest" is defined, it can lead to a tautology. However, natural selection is defined as the observation of "differential reproduction due to heritable variations".
I know this has been covered before.
At 4:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
However, natural selection is defined as the observation of "differential reproduction due to heritable variations".
From tautology to something so vague as to rendered useless. Cool.
At 5:24 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "From tautology to something so vague as to rendered useless. Cool."
Sorry. Typo. "differential reproductive success due to heritable variations". This is not vague, but an observational phenomena, and one that can be quantified in a variety of ways. Modern genetics is often a centered on measurements of environmental, sexual, and neutral evolution, studies you have cited yourself.
At 9:54 AM,
Joe G said…
ZAchriel:
"differential reproductive success due to heritable variations". This is not vague, but an observational phenomena, and one that can be quantified in a variety of ways.
Differential reproduction is the idea that those organisms best adapted to a given environment will be most likely to survive to reproductive age and have offspring of their own.
IOW those who survive to reproduce will eventually outnumber those who do not. However "most likely" shows that the best adapted organisms may not reproduce. IOW reproduction is random and reproductive success even more so.
Zachriel:
Modern genetics is often a centered on measurements of environmental, sexual, and neutral evolution, studies you have cited yourself.
Sexual selection reduces the chances of any beneficial trait from being passed on. We know that via scientific research. Environmental selection is reduced to almost nothing in populations over 1000. Neutral evolution isn't the type of "evolution" required to bring about the changes required by your pet "theory".
And lets not forget:
And yet, time and again, biologists do explain the survival of an organism by reference to its fitness and the fitness of an organism by reference to its survival, the friction between concepts kindling nothing more illuminating than the observation that some creatures have been around for a very long time. "Those individuals that have the most offspring," writes Ernst Mayr, the distinguished zoologist, "are by definition . . . the fittest ones." And in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra states that "[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitness-leaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature."
Is Zachriel telling Ernst Mayr and Tim Berra they are wrong?
At 10:39 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Differential reproduction is the idea that those organisms best adapted to a given environment will be most likely to survive to reproductive age and have offspring of their own."
It's not merely an "idea", but a direct observation that some varieties have more reproductive success and may eventually supplant other varieties.
joe g: ". IOW reproduction is random and reproductive success even more so."
It can be shown that this blanket statement is false, that reproductive success can be often traced to heritable differences. To claim that reproductive success is solely due to chance indicates you have not observed human reproductive strategies, or that of other sexually reproducing organisms.
joe g: "Sexual selection reduces the chances of any beneficial trait from being passed on."
This is false, as your own cite indicated. In fact, it can be shown that sexual selection often amplifies environmental selection. This can be observed in humans, as well as other sexually reproducing organisms.
"Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology as long as you define "fitness" in a non-circular manner. This is how most working biologists would view the statement as they collect data on what defines fitness in a given environment. However, "differential reproduction success due to heritable variations" is more easily defined and measured as a general statment.
As to your own tautology, you have merely defined "counterflow" as the effects of intelligence. Hence, like all definitions, it is a tautology. It doesn't really answer the question "What is intelligence", but merely defines it as "What intelligence does". It does suggest that we look for signs of intelligence, but doesn't provide a methodology for doing so, nor provide evidence that e.g. genomes are intelligently designed.
Your argument would be that you reject any possible non-intelligent explanation, therefore genomes are intelligently designed. However, this is a circular reasoning from the definition. A reasonable application of the definition would be to look for "chisel-marks" in the genomes. However, the evidence, i.e. the chisel-marks, strongly indicates that genomes are the historical result of ad hoc evolutionary processes.
At 12:21 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Differential reproduction is the idea that those organisms best adapted to a given environment will be most likely to survive to reproductive age and have offspring of their own."
Zachriel:
It's not merely an "idea", but a direct observation that some varieties have more reproductive success and may eventually supplant other varieties.
Better tell these guys.
joe g: ". IOW reproduction is random and reproductive success even more so."
Zachriel:
It can be shown that this blanket statement is false, that reproductive success can be often traced to heritable differences.
Then show it instead of running your mouth.
Zachriel:
To claim that reproductive success is solely due to chance indicates you have not observed human reproductive strategies, or that of other sexually reproducing organisms.
First just survival is random. Next finding a suitable mate is also random. And finally we have this:
CHANCE ALONE," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."
joe g: "Sexual selection reduces the chances of any beneficial trait from being passed on."
Zachriel:
This is false, as your own cite indicated.
Your ignorance of genetics is interesting but can't be used as a refutation.
Ya see it is a FACT of genetics that in sexually reproducing populations that there is about a 1 in 5 chance of passing on either parents traits.
Zachriel:
In fact, it can be shown that sexual selection often amplifies environmental selection. This can be observed in humans, as well as other sexually reproducing organisms.
Humans remaining human, bacteria remaining bacteria, and finches remaining finches actually supports the Creation version of "variation within the Kind" and in no way can be used as evidence for common descent, never mind "CD via "sheer-dumb-luck".
Zachriel:
"Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology as long as you define "fitness" in a non-circular manner.
It can't be done as evidenced by Ernst Mayr and Tim Berra.
Zachriel:
This is how most working biologists would view the statement as they collect data on what defines fitness in a given environment. However, "differential reproduction success due to heritable variations" is more easily defined and measured as a general statment.
It is the same thing just with different words.
Zachriel:
As to your own tautology, you have merely defined "counterflow" as the effects of intelligence.
It's a tautology because it is self-evident.
Zachriel:
It doesn't really answer the question "What is intelligence", but merely defines it as "What intelligence does".
It shows that it takes intelligence can create counterflow. However intelligence doesn't have to.
Zachriel:
It does suggest that we look for signs of intelligence, but doesn't provide a methodology for doing so, nor provide evidence that e.g. genomes are intelligently designed.
The evidence that genomes are designed is also self-evident as pointed out in Of Replicators and Living Organisms. Which science substantiates by telling us only life begets life.
Zachriel:
Your argument would be that you reject any possible non-intelligent explanation, therefore genomes are intelligently designed.
No that wouldn't be my argument. My argument is what it always has been- that science demonstrates that only life begets life. That only living organisms contain nucleotides- meaning there are NOT found anywhere elkse in nature and there isn't any data that would suggest they can form outside of living organisms.
Also every time we observe IC and CSI AND know the cause it has always been due to an intelligent agency:
“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"
At 1:19 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Better tell these guys."
Reading your cite:
"In a very real sense, natural selection is the driving force behind the evolutionary process..."
"Natural selection is the process by which the organisms with the best or most favorable genetic adaptations out-compete other organisms in a population, tending to displace the less-adapted organisms."
Glad that's settled then.
At 1:22 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Then show it instead of running your mouth."
Strange as it may be, the cite you just provided fur-color in mammals as an example.
joe g: "Your ignorance of genetics is interesting but can't be used as a refutation."
Refutation of what? Your claim doesn't even make sense. Every time an organism chooses a mate, it is helping decide what traits will appear in the next generation. The Journal Genetics has hundreds of references to sexual selection.
joe g: "Humans remaining human, bacteria remaining bacteria, and finches remaining finches..."
That wasn't the claim at issue. You claimed that "Sexual selection reduces the chances of any beneficial trait from being passed on." You are more than welcome to provide a cite from the primary literature. Maybe then I can understand where you got that idea.
joe g: "It can't be done as evidenced by Ernst Mayr and Tim Berra."
The quotes don't support your assertion. In any case, if "fittest" is carefully defined by reference to phenotype and environment, then it is not circular. Nevertheless, I provided you a more precise terminology.
joe b: "It is the same thing just with different words."
I understand that such subtleties are of little interest to you, but the terms are quite different. "Survival of the fittest" is an appropriate construction when dealing in phenotypes. This is an empirical claim that can be tested for specifics.
"Differential reproductive success due to heritable traits" is more appropriate when dealing in population studies, especially when examined on the genetic level. This is a direct observation.
joe g: "It's a tautology because it is self-evident."
A tautology, in any case.
joe g: "The evidence that genomes are designed is also self-evident"
I'm glad it's self-evident to you. That avoids you having to do all those messy experiments and traveling to distant lands to collect evidence.
At 2:03 PM,
Joe G said…
In the blog piece in which I asked for common descent to explain the differences. Zachriel commented by linking to a recent article in Time magazine that he thought was relevant. I take it he missed this part:
As scientists keep reminding us, evolution is a random process in which haphazard genetic changes interact with random environmental conditions to produce an organism somehow fitter than its fellows. After 3.5 billion years of such randomness, a creature emerged that could ponder its own origins--and revel in a Mozart adagio.
At 2:17 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "The evidence that genomes are designed is also self-evident"
Zachriel:
I'm glad it's self-evident to you.
It should be self-evident to anyone who accepts real scientific data.
Zachriel:
That avoids you having to do all those messy experiments and traveling to distant lands to collect evidence.
Well there aren't any experiments that support evolutionism and the "evidence" collected in distance lands can mean any one of many things.
"In a very real sense, natural selection is the driving force behind the evolutionary process..."
True. Natural selection has all the apearances of doing exactly what Blythe told us- it conserves.
"Natural selection is the process by which the organisms with the best or most favorable genetic adaptations out-compete other organisms in a population, tending to displace the less-adapted organisms."
That just begs the question- How is it determined which adaptations are the best or most favorable?
And when we look it is exactly like the nonsense Mayr and Berra. Go figure.
Now genetics 101:
Why don't children EXACTLY resemble their parents?
Why don't siblings, other than identical twins, exactly resemble each other?
The answer to both is the genetic recombinations involved with sexual reproduction.
And THAT is why with sexually reproducing populations any beneficial genetic variation is more likely to get lost than become fixed. And the larger population the more difficult it becomes.
Therefore sexual reproduction and the sexual selection that accompanies it are the reasons why genetic homeostasis, being a populations' resistance to change, is what is observed.
And a change in fur-color is EXACTLY what one would observe if the Creationists are right. IOW it is a prime example of variation within a Kind.
At 3:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Well there aren't any experiments that support evolutionism ..."
The Journal Genetics has over 12000 articles on evolution.
joe g: "How is it determined which adaptations are the best or most favorable?"
The usual method. Observation.
joe g: "Why don't children EXACTLY resemble their parents? ... The answer to both is the genetic recombinations involved with sexual reproduction."
As you point out, sexual recombination is very important. However, each new generation has novel mutations. And each new generation is subjected to various selection pressures. The sum total of allele frequencies changes over time in response to environmental and sexual selection.
joe g: "And THAT is why with sexually reproducing populations any beneficial genetic variation is more likely to get lost than become fixed."
That is incorrect. Neutral mutations may or may not become lost, but some are always being fixated even though they are neutral. Beneficial mutations are more likely to become fixed, and sexual selection is an important component of this process as your own cite indicated.
joe g: "It should be self-evident to anyone who accepts real scientific data."
That perfectly encapsulates your misunderstanding of the scientific method. If it is "self-evident", then there is no need to collect or analyze acdtual evidence. Relying upon what is "self-evident" results in concluding that the Earth is fixed and flat and that the Sun rises in the morning.
Rather, the scientific method allows us to make empirical determinations about the natural world that are *not* self-evident, that are contrary to normal human experience and intuition. That the Earth is round and in motion, that disease is caused by unseen animacules, that ordinary matter is mostly empty space, and that life has evolved over eons of time from ancestral populations.
At 9:23 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Well there aren't any experiments that support evolutionism ..."
Zachriel:
The Journal Genetics has over 12000 articles on evolution.
Honest people understand there is a HUGE difference between "evolutionism" and "evolution". That you continue to blur the distinction says quite a bit about you.
joe g: "How is it determined which adaptations are the best or most favorable?"
Zachriel:
The usual method. Observation.
More BS as usual. And as usual a total lack of substantiation, just assertion.
joe g: "Why don't children EXACTLY resemble their parents? ... The answer to both is the genetic recombinations involved with sexual reproduction."
Zachriel:
As you point out, sexual recombination is very important. However, each new generation has novel mutations. And each new generation is subjected to various selection pressures. The sum total of allele frequencies changes over time in response to environmental and sexual selection.
Blah, blah, blah. More meaningless nonsense.
joe g: "And THAT is why with sexually reproducing populations any beneficial genetic variation is more likely to get lost than become fixed."
Zachriel:
That is incorrect. Neutral mutations may or may not become lost, but some are always being fixated even though they are neutral. Beneficial mutations are more likely to become fixed, and sexual selection is an important component of this process as your own cite indicated.
In the first place "beneficial" is a relative word. Next genetic hmeostasis is what we observe. The beak of the finch is a perfect example. Variations OSCILLATE but the finch ALWAYS remains a finch.
And again science demonstrates that with sexual reproduction even the most beneficial mutation has a far greater chance of becoming lost than it has of becoming fixed. The study I cited in another thread shows a threshold of 1000 and then the luck runs out.
joe g: "It should be self-evident to anyone who accepts real scientific data."
Zachriel:
That perfectly encapsulates your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Coming from you I take that to mean I understand the scientific method as well as anyone.
Zachriel:
If it is "self-evident", then there is no need to collect or analyze acdtual evidence.
Actually it is self-evident because of the data we have collected.
Zachriel:
Relying upon what is "self-evident" results in concluding that the Earth is fixed and flat and that the Sun rises in the morning.
That would only be self evident to someone of your ilk. It is perfectly self-evident to me that the Earth is not flat. I can say that because of the "observation" part that you speak so highly of.
And in the end there isn't any scientific evidence "life has evolved over eons of time from ancestral populations", unless of course you count wishful thinking and speculation as "evidence".
One more thing- read Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is"- page 281 is of particular interest- see #22 (HINT- "evolution" is all about chance- from the mutations, to the selection and "particularly" is the haphazard extinction events.) And I will take Mayr's word for it over yours any and every day.
At 10:24 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Honest people understand there is a HUGE difference between 'evolutionism' and 'evolution'."
evolutionism: PHYLOGENY, theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
joe g: "More meaningless nonsense."
Observational reality. Each generation contains new mutations and new combinations of existing genes. Through a process of selection, environmental and sexual, and neutral drift, each new generation represents a population of evolving alleles.
joe g: "Variations OSCILLATE but the finch ALWAYS remains a finch."
Experts, such as Peter and Rosemary Grant, with the most intimate knowledge of finches strongly disagree with you. Their scientific studies appear complete, detailed and comprehesive, covering observations of populations over generations. Why would we trust your opinion over those who have studied the subject in detail? Doesn't the fact that the vast majority of working scientists do not reach your "self-evident" conclusion indicate, at the very least, that the problem is more complex than your argument implies?
joe g: "The study I cited in another thread shows a threshold of 1000 and then the luck runs out."
Better cite it again. Better yet, you might want to read it more critically.
joe g: "Actually it is self-evident because of the data we have collected."
Gee whiz, joe g. By definition, something is not "self-evident" if it requires additional evidence to support the claim.
joe g: "And I will take Mayr's word for it over yours any and every day"
Mayr: The major novelty of my theory was its claim that the most rapid evolutionary change does not occur in widespread, populous species, as claimed by Most geneticists, but in small founder populations... Furthermore, it has been shown that 'speciational evolution' (perhaps a better term than 'punctuationism') is fully consistent with Darwinism; and finally, that seeming evolutionary saltations, as indicated by the fossil record, can be explained without invoking systemic mutations or other mechanisms in conflict with molecular genetics."
"New gene pools are generated in every generation, and evolution takes place because the successful individuals produced by these gene pools give rise to the next generation... Owing to continuing (mostly peripatric) speciation, there is a steady, highly opportunistic production of new species. Evolution thus is merely contingent on certain processes articulated by Darwin: variation and selection."
At 8:08 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And in the end there isn't any scientific evidence "life has evolved over eons of time from ancestral populations", unless of course you count wishful thinking and speculation as "evidence"."
Though genetics is considered the most conclusive evidence, the easiest to understand is the succession of fossils.
I have no belief that I can convince the inconvincible. However, any child can visit a natural history museum and look at dinosaurs, or take a walk and examine the local geology, maybe even find a few common fossils.
At 8:27 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And in the end there isn't any scientific evidence "life has evolved over eons of time from ancestral populations", unless of course you count wishful thinking and speculation as "evidence"."
Zachriel:
Though genetics is considered the most conclusive evidence, the easiest to understand is the succession of fossils.
Genetics is no friend of evolutionism and as I have already shown the alleged "succesion" really doesn't exist:
Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
As I have told you before marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record. And the best evos can find in that bulk is p;ankton "evolving" into plankton. IOW the type of common descent required by evolutionism is absent in the overwhelming majority of the FR.
Zachriel:
I have no belief that I can convince the inconvincible.
YOU can't because YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Zachriel:
However, any child can visit a natural history museum and look at dinosaurs, or take a walk and examine the local geology, maybe even find a few common fossils.
And then when that child grows up he/ she will realize that it was really all an illusion.
At 8:37 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "More meaningless nonsense."
Zachriel:
Observational reality. Each generation contains new mutations and new combinations of existing genes. Through a process of selection, environmental and sexual, and neutral drift, each new generation represents a population of evolving alleles.
I don't know if you are just being dishonest or you are stupid. That variation exists in populations in no way translates to evolutionism.
joe g: "Variations OSCILLATE but the finch ALWAYS remains a finch."
Zachriel:
Experts, such as Peter and Rosemary Grant, with the most intimate knowledge of finches strongly disagree with you.
Funny because it was their work that demonstrates the oscillation.
joe g: "And I will take Mayr's word for it over yours any and every day"
I know Mayr's stance on evolutionism and it is irrelevant to my point. Try reading and responding to the reference I cited. Or are you too much of an intellectual coward?
Chance, according to Mayr, IS the over-riding factor for evolutionism, which directly contradicts your position.
As for this:
joe g: "Actually it is self-evident because of the data we have collected."
Zachriel:
Gee whiz, joe g. By definition, something is not "self-evident" if it requires additional evidence to support the claim.
We don't need additional "evidence". What we have is fine. What you need is some stochastic process that assembles nucleotides outside of living organisms. And guess what? No one has found such a process.
At 9:33 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "As I have told you before marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record."
That's funny. Yes, the White Cliffs of Dover, composed primarily of coccolith microfossils, do outweigh hominid fossils by quite a bit. I didn't know we measured scientific evidence in pounds, er, tons. Let's start with the succession of vertebrate life, then.
Zachriel: I have no belief that I can convince the inconvincible.
joe g: "YOU can't because YOU don't know what you are talking about."
Tellingly ironic.
joe g: "That variation exists in populations in no way translates to evolutionism."
Novel variation under selection, as already noted.
joe g: "Funny because it was their work that demonstrates the oscillation."
Funny, then, that you have yet to convince the recognized experts on Darwin's finches.
joe g: "We don't need additional 'evidence'. What we have is fine."
Very telling.
joe g: "What we have is fine. What you need is some stochastic process that assembles nucleotides outside of living organisms. And guess what? No one has found such a process."
You are correct. There is no complete theory of abiogenesis.
At 8:04 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "As I have told you before marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record."
Zachriel:
That's funny.
That happens to be reality.
Zachriel:
Yes, the White Cliffs of Dover, composed primarily of coccolith microfossils, do outweigh hominid fossils by quite a bit. I didn't know we measured scientific evidence in pounds, er, tons.
Leave it to you to misrepresent the point. Oh well. I will leave to any other readers to follow up on the data presented in the article I linked to.
Zachriel:
Let's start with the succession of vertebrate life, then.
How about starting with ANY genetic/ biological data that would demonstrate an invert could "evolve" into a vertebrate? THAT is where the rubber meets the road yet that is the area in which we find ourselves completely void of substantiating data. Go figure.
joe g: "Funny because it was their work that demonstrates the oscillation."
Zachriels:
Funny, then, that you have yet to convince the recognized experts on Darwin's finches.
I don't have to. The evidence supports what I stated as the new thread demonstrates. The finches always remained finches and the beak sizes varied according to the environment.
joe g: "What we have is fine. What you need is some stochastic process that assembles nucleotides outside of living organisms. And guess what? No one has found such a process."
Zachriel:
You are correct. There is no complete theory of abiogenesis.
Reality says there is NOTHING but wishful thinking and wild speculations based on an anti-ID and anti-Creation world-view.
At 9:30 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "That happens to be reality."
Of course, it is. The vast majority of the biomass on Earth is not contained in vertebrates (not to mention the vagaries of vertebrate fossilization).
joe g: "Leave it to you to misrepresent the point."
That was the point. "As I have told you before marine inverts make up the bulk of the fossil record."
This has nothing to do with the succession of vertebrate fossils. Try just tetrapods. Or even just hominids. There is a large number of species of non-human hominids found in fossils over the last couple of million years, but no earlier. Why is that?
joe g: "How about starting with ANY genetic/ biological data that would demonstrate an invert could "evolve" into a vertebrate?"
It's considered scientifically and pedagogically prudent to start with what is more easily demonstrated. In the case of the origin of vertebrates, the best evidence is molecular. You could try the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Evidence for Precambrian Origin of Amelogenin, the Major Protein of Vertebrate Enamel.
joe g: "The finches always remained finches and the beak sizes varied according to the environment."
Bingo!!
At 10:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
This has nothing to do with the succession of vertebrate fossils.
It does show that the alleged "succesion" may be illusory. IOW a figment of one's imagination. That is given what we do know about fossilization.
joe g: "The finches always remained finches and the beak sizes varied according to the environment."
Zachriel:
Bingo!!
Are you twisted? That is what I have been saying all along and you have been arguing against!
joe g: "How about starting with ANY genetic/ biological data that would demonstrate an invert could "evolve" into a vertebrate?"
Zachriel:
It's considered scientifically and pedagogically prudent to start with what is more easily demonstrated.
Zachriel I have been at this since before you were born.
Zachriel:
In the case of the origin of vertebrates, the best evidence is molecular.
In reality it is speculation based on molecular data.
Zachriel:
You could try the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Evidence for Precambrian Origin of Amelogenin, the Major Protein of Vertebrate Enamel.
I have been all over this topic for years and I know it is all speculation based on an assumption. Neither of which can be objectively tested and are far beyond repeatability and experimentation.
At 10:24 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Zachriel I have been at this since before you were born."
That's very sad.
joe g: "In reality it is speculation based on molecular data."
You might take note of the supporting fossil evidence cited in the article. In any case, submit your of rebuttal to the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution. I look forward to its publication.
At 8:35 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Zachriel I have been at this since before you were born."
Zachriel:
That's very sad.
Just how is it "very sad" that I want to know the reality behind our existence?
joe g: "In reality it is speculation based on molecular data."
Zachriel:
You might take note of the supporting fossil evidence cited in the article.
You might want to note what reality demonstrates as stated in "Wobbling Stability".
Ya see in reality a biological theory, in the end, must be determined, tested and potentially falsified by BIOLOGICAL data.
As I have said many times it is easier for me to accept that any alleged "fossil succesion" is illusory and the biological data real than the other way around as evos want to have it.
Zachriel:
In any case, submit your of rebuttal to the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution. I look forward to its publication.
I will wait until they have something experimenatlly verifiable. There is no need to rebut speculation, especially in light of what we do know.
At 8:54 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I will wait until they have something experimenatlly verifiable. There is no need to rebut speculation, especially in light of what we do know."
You asked for specific evidence concerning the origin of vertebrates. I provided genetic data, and the study cited new fossil evidence. This data was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and like all scientific findings, is subject to scientific verification. You can verify it yourself, if you want. In reply, you wave your hands.
Let me know when your article is ready for publication in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution.
At 12:48 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "I will wait until they have something experimenatlly verifiable. There is no need to rebut speculation, especially in light of what we do know."
Zachriel:
You asked for specific evidence concerning the origin of vertebrates.
And you provided speculation based on the assumption.
Zacgriel:
I provided genetic data, and the study cited new fossil evidence.
Then those scientists should have no problem taking their hypothesis into the lab. IOW take an invert, make the changes and see if bones develop.
At 1:31 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And you provided speculation based on the assumption."
You clearly didn't read or understand the study.
joe g: "Then those scientists should have no problem taking their hypothesis into the lab. IOW take an invert, make the changes and see if bones develop."
Your use of this strawman argument has been pointed out before. The technical ability to splice such genes into other organisms to see if they create Amelogenin is not relevant to the validity of the study. However, it turns out that scientists not only have such a technical ability, but have actually done so. Not only that, but this study has been done in a number of fashions, by a number of different experimenters.
This information is available to you. You claim to have spent time immemorial on the subject. Yet you seem unaware.
At 9:31 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And you provided speculation based on the assumption."
Zachriel:
You clearly didn't read or understand the study.
I did and I did. Clearly you did not. The study had NOTHING to do with the evolution of verts from inverts. It had to do with mineralized tissue.
You really seem unaware of anything you post nor why you post it. You seem to just post shit as if it supports something and hope I don't read it.
Well buckwheat I stay pretty current on this stuff. And one thing is for sure if what you believed had one iota of reality then there wouldn't be any geneticists who are Creationists or IDists. And we definitely wouldn't have an evolutionist who is a geneticist switching to Creation because of the data. yet we see that and we NEVER see a Creationist who is a geneticist switch to evolutionism- never. Go figure...
At 11:03 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The study had NOTHING to do with the evolution of verts from inverts. It had to do with mineralized tissue."
It's not that you don't know, it's that you don't want to know. At least read the title.
From the article, Molecular Evidence for Precambrian Origin of Amelogenin, the Major Protein of Vertebrate Enamel
"In developing a dating method using a gene (amelogenin) involved in enamel mineralization and without any known pleiotropic effects, we have demonstrated that exon 2 of the amelogenin gene was recruited from the duplication of the exon 2 of a SPARC gene. This duplication most likely occurred in the Precambrian, 630 MYA, nearly 100 Myr before the Cambrian explosion, a period characterized by the sudden appearance of mineralization in the fossil record."
"This probably means that vertebrate enamel (or its precursor) appeared no later than 630 MYA."
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It's not that you don't know, it's that you don't want to know. At least read the title.
I read the whole article. And the article does NOT even deal with the evolution of verts from inverts.
As the part youn posted suggests it deals with the alleged origin of ONE protein that is used in enamel. THAT'S IT!
I take it that you are just too stupid to realize that the article in no way demonstrates that verts can "evolve" from inverts.
At 11:58 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I take it that you are just too stupid to realize that the article in no way demonstrates that verts can 'evolve' from inverts."
Molecular biologists consider this strong evidence that vertebrates originated well before the Cambrian. "The transition from protochordates to vertebrates was associated with a shift from a passive to an active mode of predation." This conclusion is supported by independent lines of evidence in paleontology and biology, as cited in the article. They also discuss how these genes diverged in various vertebrate lineages consistent with common descent.
If you disagree with the authors, or have your own evidence to proffer, I strongly suggest you contact the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution for details on submitting your opus. I look forward to reading your results.
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Molecular biologists consider this strong evidence that vertebrates originated well before the Cambrian.
Maybe some or most but definitely not all. And as I have already stated those that do what you say already ASSUME common descent is indicative of reality. They, nor anyone else, have ever demonstrated that such a transformation is even possible.
Zachriel:
They also discuss how these genes diverged in various vertebrate lineages consistent with common descent.
It's consistent with what they think common descent would look like. However they reach that inference bt rejecting, a priori, any possible convergent evolution or a common design.
In the end no one knows if inverts can "evolve" into verts. All anyone has is speculation based on the assumption which is exactly what the article demonstrates.
If ANY scientists disagrees with that I challenge them to publish their demonstration that shows such a transformtion is even possible.
At 1:13 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "If ANY scientists disagrees with that I challenge them to publish their demonstration that shows such a transformtion is even possible."
The authors of that (and many other studies) assert the evidence they presented is strongly supportive of common descent. If you believe they are incorrect, you should marshall your own empirical evidence based upon appropriate scientific methodology and submit it for publication. I look forward to its publication.
At 6:01 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "If ANY scientists disagrees with that I challenge them to publish their demonstration that shows such a transformtion is even possible."
Zachriel:
The authors of that (and many other studies) assert the evidence they presented is strongly supportive of common descent.
And it would be if common decsent is first assumed to be true, any other possible alternatives are rejected a priori, and one is looking for one thinks would be confirming data.
Zachriel:
If you believe they are incorrect, you should marshall your own empirical evidence based upon appropriate scientific methodology and submit it for publication.
I will wait for the empirical evo-dance that demonstrates such a transformation is even possible. Until then anything else is mere speculation based on the assumption. That may have you fooled as actual data but I know better.
At 8:14 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And it would be if common decsent is first assumed to be true, any other possible alternatives are rejected a priori, and one is looking for one thinks would be confirming data."
Then you should submit a rebuttal along with whatever evidence you might be able to marshall.
At 12:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Then you should submit a rebuttal along with whatever evidence you might be able to marshall.
What is to rebut? Has does one "rebut" speculation based on dogma?
I will wait until someone, ANYONE, presents data that demonstrates that such a trandformtion is possible. To date no one on this planet has come close to doing so.
At 1:03 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Has does one 'rebut' speculation based on dogma?"
In other words, you have no rebuttal to the conclusions of the authors as published in Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution.
At 9:36 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Has does one 'rebut' speculation based on dogma?"
Zachriel:
In other words, you have no rebuttal to the conclusions of the authors as published in Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution.
How does one "rebut" speculation based on a dogmatic assumption? The only way I am aware of is to point out that fact.
At 9:48 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "How does one 'rebut' speculation based on a dogmatic assumption? The only way I am aware of is to point out that fact."
Then submit that argument to the Oxford Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, or other peer journal. I'm sure they will be interested to find out about the dogmatic views of the authors who had painstakingly collected and analyzed the data.
At 11:01 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
I'm sure they will be interested to find out about the dogmatic views of the authors who had painstakingly collected and analyzed the data.
Again what's to submit? Has anyone ever demonstrated that inverts can "evolve" into verts? No.
At 11:31 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Has anyone ever demonstrated that inverts can 'evolve' into verts? No."
The authors clearly made the claim that they had evidence that "clearly demonstrate a common evolutionary origin". The paper is full of terminology such as "common ancestor", "homolog" and "evolutionary rate".
The authors make specific claims and points to empirical evidence for support. Apparently, you can't provide a valid scientific argument or evidence worthy of publication that refutes their assertions.
At 12:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The authors clearly made the claim that they had evidence that "clearly demonstrate a common evolutionary origin".
I know their "claim". And as I pointed out they make the claim by rejecting a priori any possibility of convergence or common design.
And also once again notice how evobabblers use evidence of SIMILARITIES as evidence for common descent. Why is it that they NEVER explain the DIFFERENCES, except for perhaps narratives based on "just-so" stories?
At 1:22 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: Ya see it is a FACT of genetics that in sexually reproducing populations that there is about a 1 in 5 chance of passing on either parents traits.
RS:
Where on earth did you get this twaddle from?
One of the evolutionary biologists who hangs out/ posts at "No Answers in Genesis".
RS:
It's not even clear what it means. Do you mean that if the parents are both bullfrogs there is a 1 in 5 chance that the progeny will be a bullfrog?
It means that if one of your bullfrogs has a beneficial trait, that trait has only a 1 in 5 chance of getting passed on. However I think that is too high.
RS:
Most of your other comments also seem to be lacking in substance.
And you, as well of every evolutionists are not exactly a bastion of substance.
RS:
What would you accept as evidence for evolution and common descent? Anything?
Something that tells us what makes an organism what it is beyond the following:
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.” geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti in "Why is A Fly Not A Horse?"
RS:
What is your alternative?
My "alternative" is I don't know. As a matter of fact no one does! However I am open to what the data affords.
RS:
So far you have just been negative.
Two things- you read selectively and after been force fed common descent nonsense for too many years I have earned the right to be negative. Especially given what we do know- what the real scientific observations of populations tells us- wobbling stability.
At 7:43 AM,
Joe G said…
j: It means that if one of your bullfrogs has a beneficial trait, that trait has only a 1 in 5 chance of getting passed on. However I think that is too high.
RS:
Given that genes come in pairs and one from each pair is passed on to the offspring, the chance of a trait (beneficial or otherwise) being passed on to offspring, assuming no selection, is 1 in 2. I know of no conceivable genetic system that could result in a 1 in 5 probability.
Ever hear of a Punnett square? That is genetics 101.
: And you, as well of every evolutionists are not exactly a bastion of substance.
RS:
I did not include any because I was trying to understand what you were getting at.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
RS:
I do not understand why this has a direct bearing on whether or not one accepts evolution.
It depends on what you mean by "evolution". I accept that allele frequencies change over time- ie "evolution".
RS:
Secondly, presumably you are aware of the progress being made in evo-devo research? Does this address your problem?
I am and it does not for reasons already posted.
j: My "alternative" is I don't know. As a matter of fact no one does! However I am open to what the data affords.
RS:
Ah, I understand now! You refuse to put up anything because then you might have to respond to criticism.
You don't understand at all. I refuse to put up something for the same reason everyone should- we don't know and putting up anything just to put up something is not scientific.
j: . . . force fed common descent nonsense . . .
RS:
Your complaints are just empty blathering unless you actually come up with counter-evidence and a real alternative.
That is just stupid. One does not have to accept something just because one doesn't have an alternative. Only retards think like that.
At 4:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Ever hear of a Punnett square? That is genetics 101."
Trying to make sense of your statement, perhaps you are trying to apply the Punnett square to a dihybrid cross of heterozygous organisms. This neutral cross would result in a 9:3:3:1 distribution of traits in the children with 3/16 ~ 1/5. (Nine would have both dominant traits, six would have one recessive trait or the other, and only one would have both recessive traits.)
However, this does not support your assertion that "Ya see it is a FACT of genetics that in sexually reproducing populations that there is about a 1 in 5 chance of passing on either parents traits."
According to Hardy-Weinberg, there is genetic equilibrium under specified conditions of an idealized population. (Conversely, variation of these conditions leads to disequilibrium, e.g. such as environmental or sexual selection resulting in adaptation, or small finite populations leading to neutral drift and fixation.)
In other words, in a sufficiently large population, and in the absence of selection, there is a ~100% chance of traits being passed from generation to generation.
At 9:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Again I was just stating what an evolutionary biologist told me at "No Answers in Genesis". However you could also wrap your lips on this:
Mutation Rate
Also (again) there is a reason all kids don't resmeble one parent nor all kids of the same parents don't exactly resemble each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home