Yes, Design is a Mechanism- by Definition
-
Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary can see that design is a mechanism. For example:
A mechanism is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-
Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.
Therefor design is a mechanism.
It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.
As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.
Anyone who knows how to use a dictionary can see that design is a mechanism. For example:
A mechanism is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-
Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.
Therefor design is a mechanism.
It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.
As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechanism are uneducated people.
posted by Joe G @ 11:53 AM
63 Comments:
At 4:51 PM,
Unknown said…
In order for design to be realised and implemented a designer would also need resources, tools, a work space, energy, food, living space, possibly support staff and lots and lots of other things. Based on our experience of intelligent designing agents.
So, design may be a mechanism but without a lot of other things it would never make an appearance or be brought into existence.
At 5:34 PM,
Joe G said…
In order for design to be realised and implemented a designer would also need resources, tools, a work space, energy, food, living space, possibly support staff and lots and lots of other things.
And?
So, design may be a mechanism but without a lot of other things it would never make an appearance or be brought into existence.
OK. We exist. The diversity of living organisms, past and present, on Earth exists. So clearly everything that was needed to design the solar system, earth/ moon system and living organisms was available.
At 5:39 PM,
Unknown said…
OK. We exist. The diversity of living organisms, past and present, on Earth exists. So clearly everything that was needed to design the solar system, earth/ moon system and living organisms was available.
Well, I haven't seen where the designer(s) worked or what tools they used or where they slept or what type of fuel/energy they used. We don't even know how many there were or when they did their work. And if they were/are part of a bigger civilisation then where are the rest of them?
At 7:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, I haven't seen where the designer(s) worked or what tools they used or where they slept or what type of fuel/energy they used.
So what?
We don't even know how many there were or when they did their work.
So what?
You act as if we don't have any answers because we don't have all of the answers.
At 1:33 AM,
Unknown said…
You act as if we don't have any answers because we don't have all of the answers.
My point is that there is no supporting evidence for the claim that there were designers. In our experience designers require a lot of support structures and resources in order to implement their designs but none of that is apparent for the proposed designers who did something at some unspecified time.
At 10:13 AM,
Joe G said…
My point is that there is no supporting evidence for the claim that there were designers.
That is your uneducated opinion, anyway. We have evidence for ID ion biology, cosmology, physics, geology and chemistry- at a minimum. And no one else has an alternative and viable explanation for what we observe.
At 11:19 AM,
Unknown said…
That is your uneducated opinion, anyway. We have evidence for ID ion biology, cosmology, physics, geology and chemistry- at a minimum. And no one else has an alternative and viable explanation for what we observe.
Since you haven't convinced a vast majority of the working scientists in the world that design has been detected and you've got no further evidence I don't expect ID to be gaining a lot of followers anytime soon.
It makes no difference to me. You handle things the way you want.
At 11:44 AM,
Joe G said…
What? Your alleged vast majority of scientists don't have a viable alternative to ID. So clearly you are just a hypocrite.
At 12:13 PM,
Unknown said…
What? Your alleged vast majority of scientists don't have a viable alternative to ID. So clearly you are just a hypocrite.
I'm quite happy with the mainstream alternative explanation. You're not, that's fine with me. As long as you don't expect the rest of us to come around to your point of view without more supporting evidence.
At 2:08 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm quite happy with the mainstream alternative explanation.
Shit happens is not an alternative.
And look, you don't have any evidence, no supporting evidence and no methodology to test your position's claims. You have nothing but to whine about ID because you are ignorant of science.
At 4:26 PM,
Unknown said…
Shit happens is not an alternative.
Good thing that's not what anyone is saying then.
And look, you don't have any evidence, no supporting evidence and no methodology to test your position's claims. You have nothing but to whine about ID because you are ignorant of science.
Hmmmm, aside from the fact that literally millions of working scientists disagree with you . . . what research or publications can you provide to show that you have a greater understanding of science? What work have you done which has been published which has contributed to the advancement of science?
At 7:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Really? Then tell us how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes by means of blind and mindless processes. Tell us how to test such a claim.
The same goes for every biological system, subsystem and structure.
And again go fuck yourself with your childish bluffing. There isn't one scientist who can support the claims of evolutionism.
It's like you are proud to be a cowardly cunt, Jerad
At 2:13 AM,
Unknown said…
Really? Then tell us how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes by means of blind and mindless processes. Tell us how to test such a claim.
No one knows for sure but there is research into the transition.
The same goes for every biological system, subsystem and structure.
I'd say we know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago.
And again go fuck yourself with your childish bluffing. There isn't one scientist who can support the claims of evolutionism.
Not in your opinion anyway.
It's like you are proud to be a cowardly cunt, Jerad
Too funny. You always get abusive when someone points out there is no evidence for designers except for contested design detection. No workshops, no living quarters, no equipment, no documents or recording, no left-over waste products. ID proponents always want to claim that design is the 'best' explanation because most of the 'complex specified information' we observe comes from intelligence. But they never want to admit that all the other supporting structures and resources that go along with human design are absent when talking about some undefined designers that did something at some unspecified time.
At 8:40 AM,
Joe G said…
No one knows for sure but there is research into the transition.
There isn't any transition to research
I'd say we know a lot more now than we did 50 years ago.
Not when it comes to the proposed mechanisms
Not in your opinion anyway
It isn't an opinion. I say that because peer-review is totally devoid of support for evolutionism. Even Futuyma's text book doesn't offer anything.
You always get abusive when someone points out there is no evidence for designers except for contested design detection.
That is a lie. For one the people who "contest it" don't have anything. For another you don't know jack about science.
But they never want to admit that all the other supporting structures and resources that go along with human design are absent when talking about some undefined designers that did something at some unspecified time.
And you are fucked in the head. Only a total moron would think that stuff is required. It is definitely not there for every artifact. It is not required.
At 9:29 AM,
Unknown said…
There isn't any transition to research
In your opinion.
Not when it comes to the proposed mechanisms
In your opinion.
It isn't an opinion. I say that because peer-review is totally devoid of support for evolutionism. Even Futuyma's text book doesn't offer anything.
In your opinion.
That is a lie. For one the people who "contest it" don't have anything. For another you don't know jack about science.
In your opinion.
And you are fucked in the head. Only a total moron would think that stuff is required. It is definitely not there for every artifact. It is not required.
Maybe it's not required but aren't you even a little bit curious as to how design was implemented? Where it was implemented? When it was implemented? It astonished me that ID proponents have a complete dearth of curiosity about such things. How many years are you going to say: first comes design detection then studying the design then drawing conclusions about the designers? I don't believe you or any other ID proponents gives a fig about those things. In my opinion obviously.
At 9:43 AM,
Joe G said…
Fuck you, Jerad. You clearly are just a gullible hypocrite. Everything you say is my opinion is, in reality, fact. I know it's a fact because I have read peer-review and Futuyma's book. There isn't anything tat supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
And Jerad, we are not on your asinine agenda. Your position is supposedly all and yet has nothing. Perhaps you should focus on that and stop being such an anti-science hypocrite.
At 11:24 AM,
Unknown said…
Fuck you, Jerad. You clearly are just a gullible hypocrite. Everything you say is my opinion is, in reality, fact. I know it's a fact because I have read peer-review and Futuyma's book. There isn't anything tat supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
In your abusive opinion. Millions and millions of people disagree with you.
And Jerad, we are not on your asinine agenda. Your position is supposedly all and yet has nothing. Perhaps you should focus on that and stop being such an anti-science hypocrite.
Hey, if you aren't going to do any work and still expect people to take your contested inference seriously it's okay with me.
At 10:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Millions and millions of people disagree with you
I don't care. I know that they cannot refute what I said.
Hey, if you aren't going to do any work and still expect people to take your contested inference seriously it's okay with me.
We did the work. ID has the methodology whereas evolutionism only has liars like you.
At 10:17 AM,
Joe G said…
And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up
At 2:55 PM,
Unknown said…
I don't care. I know that they cannot refute what I said.
Welcome to the extreme minority.
We did the work. ID has the methodology whereas evolutionism only has liars like you.
When you get a decent volume of published papers then we can have another chat.
And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up
I don't see the point since you're clearly in complete denial of the data. And, let's remember, you can't actually specify which mutations are guided and which are random. Except to say that some are beneficial in your view. But it's all kind of . . . eh, isn't it? But you've got not clear and solid criteria for deciding. Let us know when you've got something solid.
At 8:32 AM,
Unknown said…
Can't remember if I already replied. Sorry for any duplication.
I don't care. I know that they cannot refute what I said.
In your opinion. Almost all working scientists disagree with you.
We did the work. ID has the methodology whereas evolutionism only has liars like you.
If you're happy I'm happy.
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
Welcome to the extreme minority.
Whatever, Jerad. More people accept some form of ID than accept evolutionism.
When you get a decent volume of published papers then we can have another chat.
Evoluti0onism doesn't have any support in published papers. You are a hypocrite
I don't see the point since you're clearly in complete denial of the data
Liar. I am not denying anything as I cannot deny what doesn't exist.
And, let's remember, you can't actually specify which mutations are guided and which are random.
Neither can you- and scientists have shown which are guided.
Not one working scientist can refute what I said. Jerad is clearly a cowardly bluffer.
At 9:51 AM,
Joe G said…
And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up
At 3:16 PM,
Unknown said…
Whatever, Jerad. More people accept some form of ID than accept evolutionism.
So? Lots of people believe lots of stupid things. Like astrology.
Evoluti0onism doesn't have any support in published papers. You are a hypocrite
No, you just think mutations are guided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are guided and the ones that aren't.
Liar. I am not denying anything as I cannot deny what doesn't exist.
Welcome to the extreme fringe. Have a good time.
Neither can you- and scientists have shown which are guided.
When I've asked you to specify which are guided you generally fumbled.
Not one working scientist can refute what I said. Jerad is clearly a cowardly bluffer.
Whatever.
And seeing that I have Futuyma's book just tell me what pages to look in to find evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Or shut the fuck up
The whole book talks about unguided processes. And presents the evidence for that conclusion. You're welcome to disagree but you're clearly in a extreme fringe. Which is fine with me.
At 8:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Lots of people believe lots of stupid things
Like evolutionism.
No, you just think mutations are guided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are guided and the ones that aren't.
No, you just think mutations are unguided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are unguided and the ones that aren't.
However research has uncovered mutations that happen just when they are needed and just where they are needed.
The whole book talks about unguided processes.
Not really. And there isn't anything in that book that supports what the author claims about natural selection.
Look, it's clear that you don't know anything and all you can do is follow who you think best supports your personal beliefs.
I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.
At 1:55 AM,
Unknown said…
No, you just think mutations are unguided even though there is no real evidence that any of them are AND you can't tell the difference between the ones that are unguided and the ones that aren't.
Every single book on evolution you read makes and supports the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
However research has uncovered mutations that happen just when they are needed and just where they are needed.
Random events will sometimes seem well timed but that doesn't mean they are.
And there isn't anything in that book that supports what the author claims about natural selection.
In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.
Look, it's clear that you don't know anything and all you can do is follow who you think best supports your personal beliefs.
In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.
I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.
In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.
In the last few millennia, when selective breeding created all the dog breeds we now have, are you saying all the mutations that occurred were programmed and would have occurred without the breeding activity? It not then were the mutations random or guided?
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Every single book on evolution you read makes and supports the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Except that isn't the claim. The claim is that mutations are random as in happenstance. Mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes.
Yet no one has ever said how that was determined.
And there isn't anything in that book that supports what the author claims about natural selection.
In your opinion
It isn't my opinion. If you can find something then post it or shut up.
I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.
In your opinion
Then it should be easy for you to refute and yet you can't. You are a bluffing loser.
In the last few millennia, when selective breeding created all the dog breeds we now have, are you saying all the mutations that occurred were programmed and would have occurred without the breeding activity?
I never made that claim.
Natural selection could never produce the dog breeds we now observe. That is how impotent NS is.
Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.
At 11:28 AM,
Unknown said…
Except that isn't the claim. The claim is that mutations are random as in happenstance. Mutations are accidents, errors or mistakes.
I think you'll find that the actual statement is that mutations are random with respect to fitness. Look in your textbook.
Yet no one has ever said how that was determined.
Via mathematical analysis. It's not that complicated. There's a certain background mutation rate which can be used to roughly date when some lineages diverged.
It isn't my opinion. If you can find something then post it or shut up.
You've got a pretty good book; if you choose to disagree with the research that's your choice.
I might be the extreme fringe but it is a fact that your position doesn't have any science.
In your opinion. Millions of people disagree with you.
Then it should be easy for you to refute and yet you can't. You are a bluffing loser.
I can't help how you choose to interpret the data that is accepted by millions of other people.
I never made that claim.
I didn't say you did. I asked you a question.
Natural selection could never produce the dog breeds we now observe. That is how impotent NS is.
Clearly no one is saying that natural selection was responsible. But, since you think some mutations arise to benefit a life form at just the right time then how did that 'programming' interact with the action of breeders?
Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.
Too bad for your view that people are researching that topic and finding out more and more all the time.
Anyway, it doesn't matter to me. You're welcome to inhabit a severe fringe. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
At 12:39 PM,
Joe G said…
I think you'll find that the actual statement is that mutations are random with respect to fitness
Ernst Mayr disagrees, as does peer-review.
Via mathematical analysis
That cannot do that job.
You've got a pretty good book;
Yes, and it doesn't help you at all.
In your opinion
Nope, it's a fact- your position doesn't have any science. No one can test its grand claims.
I can't help how you choose to interpret the data that is accepted by millions of other people.
All you can do is bluff.
Clearly no one is saying that natural selection was responsible.
It can't even do that simple thing.
Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.
Too bad for your view that people are researching that topic and finding out more and more all the time.
Actually that is too bad for your view as the more we find out the better ID looks.
Anyway, it is clear that all you can do is lie and bluff. That is all you have ever done. Your ignorance is bliss.
At 4:18 PM,
Unknown said…
Ernst Mayr disagrees, as does peer-review.
They are random but the situation is normally qualified as being 'random with respect to fitness' because of claims like yours.
That cannot do that job.
Sounds like you don't understand the mathematics.
Nope, it's a fact- your position doesn't have any science. No one can test its grand claims.
Again, the only part you actually disagree with is the 'unguided' part. And yet, you can't provide a method for determining which mutations are 'guided' and which are 'unguided'.
Look, I know how to test the claim that ATP synthase was intelligently designed. No one on this planet knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase evolved by means of blind and mindless processes.
It is possible to construct a plausible pathway though. And there is ongoing research attempting to address that.
Actually that is too bad for your view as the more we find out the better ID looks.
Strange that very little to no ID research is being published then. Oh I know you'll say: first we have to study the design. And: we haven't got the resources. And: there's a giant anti-ID conspiracy. But the longer and longer nothing new comes out of the ID camp the more and more tenuous those statements sounds. If you had something that was really workable then you should be attracting more and more people around to your way of thinking. And producing more and more research. But that's not what's happening. Even Dr Dembski has given up on ID work.
Anyway, it is clear that all you can do is lie and bluff. That is all you have ever done. Your ignorance is bliss.
I am happy because all I see is more and more data supporting unguided evolution. Nice.
At 9:11 AM,
Joe G said…
They are random but the situation is normally qualified as being 'random with respect to fitness' because of claims like yours.
That is wrong. They are not claimed to be random with respect to fitness because they can directly affect fitness.
Sounds like you don't understand the mathematics.
Why because math cannot make the determination you say?
Again, the only part you actually disagree with is the 'unguided' part.
So what? You don't have a methodology to test that unguided part.
It is possible to construct a plausible pathway though.
How do you know that it is plausible?
And there is ongoing research attempting to address that.
Bullshit
Strange that very little to no ID research is being published then
And there isn't any unguided evolutionary research being published.
I am happy because all I see is more and more data supporting unguided evolution.
Then you are a deluded imbecile as there isn't any such data.
At 10:12 AM,
Unknown said…
That is wrong. They are not claimed to be random with respect to fitness because they can directly affect fitness.
That's not what 'random with respect to fitness' means. As is clearly explain in any good evolutionary textbook.
Why because math cannot make the determination you say?
No, because you say things that show a lack of understanding.
So what? You don't have a methodology to test that unguided part.
YOU haven't found a mechanism that influences mutations. No one has. And mathematical analysis and experience shows that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
How do you know that it is plausible?
How do you know it isn't?
Then you are a deluded imbecile as there isn't any such data.
Then find the mechanism(s) that guide mutations. Which no one has been able to do. And, in fact, no one in the ID camp is even looking.
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
That's not what 'random with respect to fitness' means.
Random with respect to fitness is not what is claimed.
No, because you say things that show a lack of understanding.
Nice projection.
YOU haven't found a mechanism that influences mutations.
Yes, we have.
How do you know it isn't?
Only a scientifically illiterate ass asks for someone to prove a negative.
Then find the mechanism(s) that guide mutations.
Already done. Your ignorance is meaningless.
No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolution produced ATP synthase. The same goes for ALL multi-protein machines. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.
At 9:44 AM,
Unknown said…
Random with respect to fitness is not what is claimed.
What do you think it means different from the way it's clearly explained.
Yes, we have.
And where has this result been published or at least stated clearly.
Already done. Your ignorance is meaningless.
Let's see an explanation of this.
No one knows how to test the claim that unguided evolution produced ATP synthase. The same goes for ALL multi-protein machines. You don't even have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.
Universal common descent via inherited variation generated by random with respect to fitness mutations. You disagree but that doesn't mean a mechanism/process hasn't been specified.
At 11:31 AM,
Joe G said…
What do you think it means different from the way it's clearly explained.
The claim is that mutations are random as in happenstance occurrences. They are accidents, errors and mistakes. Mathematics cannot confirm such a thing.
And where has this result been published or at least stated clearly.
In peer-review. Shapiro's book is well referenced.
Let's see an explanation of this.
"Evolution: A View from the 21st Century"
Universal common descent via inherited variation generated by random with respect to fitness mutations. You disagree but that doesn't mean a mechanism/process hasn't been specified.
Too vague and useless. And no way to test if it can produce eukaryotes, ATP synthase nor any other multi-protein structure.
Clearly you are scientifically ignorant.
At 4:18 PM,
Unknown said…
The claim is that mutations are random as in happenstance occurrences. They are accidents, errors and mistakes. Mathematics cannot confirm such a thing.
I guess you don't understand the mathematics then. Fair enough.
In peer-review. Shapiro's book is well referenced.
But not peer-reviewed before publication. But let's look at a couple of reviews of Dr Shapiro's book: Evolution: a view from the 21st century.
I'll start with one from a personal friend of Dr Shapiro's who says the book should be read and discussed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342868/
From the review:
My final disagreement with Jim's general argument concerns a truly fundamental point, however: the dismissal of natural selection as a shaping force in evolution. Thus, it is stated, at the very start of the book (top of p. 1): “Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation and novelty, selection has nothing to act upon.” Although all evolutionists would agree wholeheartedly with the second sentence, most would reject the first. The matter of selection is then virtually ignored until the final section of the book. There we read, as one of nine bullet points that summarize the core message: “The role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection operates as a purifying but not creative force [emphasis added].”
I cannot imagine many evolutionary biologists subscribing to that position. The objections to it come from both genetic arguments and paleontological data. Take the genetic considerations first. In microbes, the number of steps between a genetic change and its phenotypic consequences is usually small, often being simply the function of an altered encoded protein. One might say that, in general, within prokaryotes, the “genotype–phenotype distance” is short. The consequence is a fairly direct and predictable biological consequence, whose selective consequences (favorable or unfavorable) are often easy to predict. In contrast, in complex multicellular organisms, the genotype–phenotype distance is large, the effects of most genetic changes being transmitted through complex genetic networks and cellular changes. These, which can be diagrammed as a linear sequence (though often embedded within larger branching networks), constitute a large sequence of steps, one that eventuates in morphological change. Furthermore, the genetic change often has pleiotropic consequences. The net result of all these complexities is that the biological consequences of a genetic (or stable epigenetic) change are often both indirect and mixed. In such situations, there will be trade-offs between biological fitness gains and losses for each resultant change. Natural selection must comprise an important part of the process that either filters out or amplifies the effect of most such changes.
I think you'll find the whole review respectful and cogent but still in basic disagreement.
At 4:18 PM,
Unknown said…
Then there is this review:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273335226_Evolution_a_view_from_the_21st_century
From which comes this:
Shapiro makes the broader claim that, trulyrandom mutation would be the exception. But,this is somewhat disingenuous, given that verylittle in biology is truly random, and the muta-tional processes described may still be largelystochastic, even if sites at which these muta-tions occur are not randomly distributedthrough the genome. The question of whetherregulated and directed/non-random mutationis the exception or rule is key to the centralthesis of the book, that evolution requires anew conceptual framework for the 21st century.
and . . .
Shapiro points to a set of observationsthat require a changed mindset in evolutionarytheory: that evolution is not predominantlygradual, but includes a major contributionfrom abrupt, disruptive events; that mutationis regulated by cells, frequently in response totheir environment; and that genome changescan be a directional, targeted result of aprocess of natural genetic engineering, ratherthan stochastic mistakes. The last of these isthe strongest and is probably restricted to few,very specific examples. The first is the weakestand would not be too much of a stretch for anearly 20th century evolutionary biologist toaccommodate. The incidence of the secondobservation is difficult to quantify and theextent to which evolutionary theory requires aradical overhaul may depend on this. It isclearly the case that evolution colours outsidethe lines of evolutionary theory, but in manyand perhaps most settings it seems unlikelythat thinking of evolution as a process ofdirected natural genetic engineering would behelpful.
(I apologise because the copy-and-paste function mucked up the quotes but I have not altered them at all.)
At 4:26 PM,
Unknown said…
And finally I found this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262083706_Evolution_A_View_from_the_21st_Century_by_James_A_Shapiro
Why then does the book fail? Let’s take the exampleof genome duplication—is it really ‘natural geneticengineering’? Polyploidy, for plants in particular, hasbeen known since the 1920s, and during the 1950sno plant species was “respectable” until it had itschromosome number counted (nowadays a speciesis apparently not respectable until it is bar-coded).World-wide, we might have 1 million chromosomedoublings per year in different plants, and this hasgone on for millions of years. So we have had literallybillions of genome doublings, two of which appear tohave persisted and became important for all floweringplants—one duplication in early land plant evolution,and a later one before the rise of flowering plants.Okay, there are many other significant chromosomedoublings in plants; but I am not going to lie on myback on the floor, frothing at the mouth, muttering“wonderful, wonderful”, and generally behaving in anuntidy manner. We also know that genome doublingoccurred twice in early vertebrate evolution, and that itoccurred during yeast (Saccharomyces) evolution as well.But I fail to see any great change in principle: occasionallygenome duplication has long-term beneficial effects, butusually it doesn’t—no problem. There is no great newnon-Darwinian genetic engineering principle here; but,yes, there is a new and now well-known mechanismfrom genomics that is available for evolution
and . . .
Maybe the concept of “random” is a problem here.A mathematician may define random as showing noinformation—none whatsoever. In this strict sense,mutations in animal mitochondria would not berandom because transitions are more common thantransversions, so that there is some information in thetype of mutation. But an evolutionist would definerandom mutations so that “mutations occur regardlessof whether they would be useful to the organism”(Coyne 2009, p. 128). We know that sometimes sucha random mec hanism can lead to, say, transposableelements having a particular sequence that might endup being transposed to some places in the genome withmuch higher likelihood than others, and therefore, thesequence might persist; but there is no problem withthat. Similarly, some elements (or viruses) might activatethemselves under, say, adverse conditions in the cell;but that does not invalidate the concept of evolutionaryrandomness.
and . . .
We always need to look for new mechanisms, in caseour cur rent ones are insufficient, but we do not needmore beliefs or slogans about t hem: “Belief is the curseof the thinking class.” Instead, we need clear and well-defined mechanisms/hypotheses that can be tested,whether in the field, in the laboratory, by simulation,or by mat hematical analysis. Ambiguous phrases donot help anybody define good experiments, no matterhow well meaning those phrases might be. So, Shapiro’sbook can perhaps be considered a “noble failure.” Noble,because it has so much information from molecularbiology that is relevant to evolution. A failure becauseit does not specify any new grand mechanisms forevolution that could be tested. Scientists must never giveup testing their ideas and theories, but this requiresclearly defined hypotheses to test—well meaning butvague ideas just won’t help
In other words, Dr Shapiro DOES NOT provide a mechanism that can be tested. AND, most importantly, he does NOT support your view that there is some undiscovered 'coding' in the cell. He does talk about environmental influences and pressure but there is no talk of hidden coding in the cell.
In short, your best attempt at supporting your view does not support your view and, even with sympathetic and thoughtful reviewers, is still considered a bit fringe.
At 9:48 AM,
Joe G said…
I guess you don't understand the mathematics then.
Clearly you don't understand that math cannot do what you are saying.
My final disagreement with Jim's general argument concerns a truly fundamental point, however: the dismissal of natural selection as a shaping force in evolution.
There isn't any evidence for that.
I think you'll find the whole review respectful and cogent but still in basic disagreement.
And still nothing that supports unguided evolution.
At 9:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Let’s take the exampleof genome duplication—is it really ‘natural geneticengineering’?
The reviewer has no clue how unguided evolution didit.
In other words, Dr Shapiro DOES NOT provide a mechanism that can be tested.
Unguided evolution doesn't have one either.
AND, most importantly, he does NOT support your view that there is some undiscovered 'coding' in the cell.
Given the evidence it is clear it exists. But then again you are ignorant and cannot assess the evidence.
Mechanisms for guided mutations include- designed to evolve; built-in responses to environmental cues
At 1:49 AM,
Unknown said…
Clearly you don't understand that math cannot do what you are saying.
Like I said, clearly you don't understand the mathematics.
There isn't any evidence for that.
You know more than a PhD working scientists in the field?
And still nothing that supports unguided evolution.
It's a review not a defence of evolutionary theory.
The reviewer has no clue how unguided evolution didit.
It's a review of Shapiro's book not a defence of evolutionary theory.
Unguided evolution doesn't have one either.
So, you admit that Dr Shapiro did not find a mechanism for influencing mutations. Which was my point. You haven't got a mechanism.
Given the evidence it is clear it exists. But then again you are ignorant and cannot assess the evidence.
But you can't find it. And Dr Shapiro didn't find it either.
Mechanisms for guided mutations include- designed to evolve; built-in responses to environmental cues
How are they designed to evolve? Where is that programming? 'Where' are the built-in responses? How are they triggered?
If you're right then these questions should be investigated . . . who is investigating these questions?
At 10:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Like I said, clearly you don't understand the mathematics.
Clearly you do not.
You know more than a PhD working scientists in the field?
They should publish if they have something
How are they designed to evolve? Where is that programming? 'Where' are the built-in responses? How are they triggered?
Wow, do you think that flailing like a little baby helps you? The built-in responses are in the cells, just as I have told you.
Look, Jerad, your position has nothing. It doesn't have a methodology to test its claims. It can't even muster testable hypotheses for its claims. Peer-review is devoid of support for unguided evolution.
At 11:24 AM,
Joe G said…
How can anyone test the claim that ATP synthase arose via unguided evolution? Evolutionary biologists don't know. Does anyone?
At 4:49 PM,
Unknown said…
Clearly you do not.
Uh huh. You do realise there are mathematical tests for randomness? Have you looked at those tests?
They should publish if they have something
They have. Quite a lot.
Wow, do you think that flailing like a little baby helps you? The built-in responses are in the cells, just as I have told you.
Where are those built-in responses? How are they encoded? How do they influence mutations? You can't answer any of those questions. You're living on a prayer.
Look, Jerad, your position has nothing. It doesn't have a methodology to test its claims. It can't even muster testable hypotheses for its claims. Peer-review is devoid of support for unguided evolution.
Even if that's all true (which it isn't) it doesn't mean you've proven your case. Find the mechanism which influences mutations.
How can anyone test the claim that ATP synthase arose via unguided evolution? Evolutionary biologists don't know. Does anyone?
You look for plausible step-by-step pathways which match the known mutation behaviour. You will never be able to 'prove' how something happened in the deep and distance past but you can find something which is plausible.
Mutations are random with respect to fitness. And unless you can come up with some mechanism which guides mutations then that's the base-line model.
At 9:52 AM,
Joe G said…
You do realise there are mathematical tests for randomness?
Not when it comes to mutations.
They have.
And yet peer-review is devoid of support for natural selection and it's alleged ability to produce multi-protein machines
Where are those built-in responses? How are they encoded? How do they influence mutations?
In the cells; don't have to know and they produce the mutations
Look, Jerad, your position has nothing. It doesn't have a methodology to test its claims. It can't even muster testable hypotheses for its claims. Peer-review is devoid of support for unguided evolution.
Even if that's all true (which it isn't) it doesn't mean you've proven your case.
It is all true and it proves that you are an ignorant hypocrite.
You look for plausible step-by-step pathways which match the known mutation behaviour.
And yet no one has. Not only that what you posted doesn't have anything to do with unguided evolution. You need more than a plausible pathway. You need to show how sheer dumb luck could have done it
Mutations are random with respect to fitness.
That is meaningless drivel.
And unless you can come up with some mechanism which guides mutations then that's the base-line model.
We have and the base line is we don't know. You are clearly ignorant of science.
At 4:42 PM,
Unknown said…
Not when it comes to mutations.
Clearly you don't understand the mathematics.
And yet peer-review is devoid of support for natural selection and it's alleged ability to produce multi-protein machines
Clearly you don't understand the science.
In the cells; don't have to know and they produce the mutations
You CAN NOT point to the mechanisms that influence mutations. You claim it's 'in the cells' but you haven't found it nor can you say how it works or how it's stored.
Look, Jerad, your position has nothing. It doesn't have a methodology to test its claims. It can't even muster testable hypotheses for its claims. Peer-review is devoid of support for unguided evolution.
All evidence to the contrary. You can not show a mechanism that guides mutations. It doesn't exist.
And yet no one has. Not only that what you posted doesn't have anything to do with unguided evolution. You need more than a plausible pathway. You need to show how sheer dumb luck could have done it
Your misinterpretation of the science is immense.
That is meaningless drivel.
It is NOT meaningless drivel. It's very, very clear and concise. Mutations occur without regard to what the organism might find useful fitness wise. It's very, very simple. But because you've sunk your whole stance into mutations being guided you continually deny all evidence to the contrary. That means instead of actually addressing contrary data and methodologies you just end up denying they exist.
We have and the base line is we don't know. You are clearly ignorant of science.
You haven't found a mechanism which guides mutations. It doesn't exist.
At 5:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Clearly you don't understand the mathematics.
Clearly you are a little imp and a coward who cannot form a coherent argument and can only hurl childish/ playground insults.
Clearly you don't understand the science.
Not an argument
You CAN NOT point to the mechanisms that influence mutations.
Others have
All evidence to the contrary.
What evidence?
Your misinterpretation of the science is immense.
Fuck you, coward
It is NOT meaningless drivel.
It is. It has nothing to do with what is claimed. As Mayr said:
"The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction."
But because you've sunk your whole stance into mutations being guided you continually deny all evidence to the contrary.
What evidence?
What evidence shows that chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase?
At 2:57 AM,
Unknown said…
Fuck you, coward
Always it comes down to abusive.
What evidence shows that chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase?
The fact that no one can point to any kind of physical mechanism in the cells which influences or guides mutations.
At 9:35 AM,
Joe G said…
What evidence shows that chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase?
The fact that no one can point to any kind of physical mechanism in the cells which influences or guides mutations.
That does NOT answer the question. You are either an ignoramus or a coward.
And yes, when losing you always get abusive.
At 5:08 PM,
Unknown said…
What evidence shows that chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase?
The genomic evidence. And the fact that no mechanism has been discovered that guides mutations. A mechanism which would have to be highly inheritable and not subject to degradation. Can you point to such a mechanism?
That does NOT answer the question. You are either an ignoramus or a coward.
You haven't shown there is a viable alternative.
And yes, when losing you always get abusive.
I don't call people names as you do.
At 3:28 AM,
Unknown said…
That does NOT answer the question. You are either an ignoramus or a coward.
If there is no guiding mechanism then genomic (and therefore somatic changes) must be due to unguided processes. You can't find a guiding mechanism.
At 11:05 AM,
Joe G said…
The genomic evidence.
There isn't any that says chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase.
You haven't shown there is a viable alternative.
You don't have anything viable, asshole
I don't call people names as you do.
You just lie, bluff, falsely accuse and spew nonsense. You can't even form an argument
If there is no guiding mechanism then genomic (and therefore somatic changes) must be due to unguided processes.
And unguided evolution can only produce deformities and diseases. There isn't any evidence it can do anything else.
At 4:31 PM,
Unknown said…
There isn't any that says chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase.
That's what all the evidence points to since a) mutations are random with respect to fitness and b) you haven't found a mechanism which guides mutations.
You just lie, bluff, falsely accuse and spew nonsense. You can't even form an argument
Back up your claims: what is the mechanism which guides mutations?
And unguided evolution can only produce deformities and diseases. There isn't any evidence it can do anything else.
Provide a mechanism which guides mutations.
At 5:05 PM,
Joe G said…
There isn't any that says chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase.
That's what all the evidence points to
Nope. There isn't even any way to test the claim.
Design is a mechanism that can guide mutations. It is used in genetic algorithms to guide mutations towards the solution
At 2:37 AM,
Unknown said…
There isn't any that says chance events can accumulate in such a way as to produce ATP synthase.
There's quite a lot since you cannot point to a built-in mechanism that affects mutations. You cannot say how such a mechanism is encoded, how it's triggered or how it affects mutations.
Design is a mechanism that can guide mutations. It is used in genetic algorithms to guide mutations towards the solution
When you can point to a specific, built-in mechanism that guides mutations then you'll have something. But you can't do that.
At 8:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, There isn't any evidence that ATP synthase evolved at all. The evidence says it was intelligently designed.
You can't point to anything. You can't point to a scientific theory of evolution. You can't point to testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.
Your entire position lacks specifics.
At 2:52 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, There isn't any evidence that ATP synthase evolved at all. The evidence says it was intelligently designed.
Can you support your claim that there is in-built programming in cells? Can you show where it is? Can you say how it's stored and encoded? Can you explain how it affects mutations and triggered?
You can't point to anything. You can't point to a scientific theory of evolution. You can't point to testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.
You need to support your claim that cell-based in-built programming exists.
Your entire position lacks specifics.
You can't find the claimed in-built programming. Since you can't show how mutations are guided it's all down to unguided processes.
At 10:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Can you support your claim that there is in-built programming in cells?
I have.
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Codes do not write themselves.
All evidence and knowledge demonstrate that codes come from intelligent agencies.
Living cells run on codes.
At 1:05 PM,
Unknown said…
I have.
You haven't found the built-in programming. You can't say how it's stored or encoded. You can't say how it's triggered or how it affects mutations.
It's all just wishful thinking with no physical evidence.
Codes do not write themselves.
All evidence and knowledge demonstrate that codes come from intelligent agencies.
Living cells run on codes.
There is more and more evidence that DNA is NOT an actual code but determined from chemical contingencies. You should really keep up.
And, until you can find some physical evidence in the cell, there's no reason to accept that evolution is guided. So, perhaps you should start looking . . .
At 1:24 PM,
Joe G said…
I have supported my claim of built-in programming. You have never supported anything.
There is more and more evidence that DNA is NOT an actual code but determined from chemical contingencies.
DNA isn't the code, dipshit. The genetic code is an actual code and there isn't any evidence it was determined by chemical contingencies, only a need and hope.
And guess what? The genetic code is only one of a number of codes that are found running cells.
And again- your position doesn't have any evidence. So stuff it, asshole.
At 2:48 PM,
Unknown said…
I have supported my claim of built-in programming. You have never supported anything.
You haven't found the built-in programming. You can't say how it's stored, you can't say how it's encoded, you can't say how it affects mutations, you can't say how it's triggered, you can't say how it avoids degradation. You can't even determine which mutations are guided and which are random.
DNA isn't the code, dipshit. The genetic code is an actual code and there isn't any evidence it was determined by chemical contingencies, only a need and hope.
You clearly are not keeping up with the research.
And guess what? The genetic code is only one of a number of codes that are found running cells.
And the others are . . .?
And again- your position doesn't have any evidence. So stuff it, asshole.
Find the physical mechanism that affects mutations. You claim it exists but you can't show it.
At 5:53 PM,
Joe G said…
I have supported my claim of built-in programming. Your ignorance means nothing to me, Jerad.
You clearly are not keeping up with the research.
You are clearly an asshole loser
And the others are . . .?
You are clearly ignorant of biology
Code Biology
Find the physical mechanism that affects mutations.
Find a way to test your claims. ID has that
Post a Comment
<< Home