Biological Evolution- What is being debated

Posted on by

In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.fr/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/

So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

  1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
  2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
  3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
  4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
  5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
  6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/

The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.

With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)

2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).

3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)

4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:

 

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene

However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…

1,113 thoughts on “Biological Evolution- What is being debated”

  2. Yes, adapa, the title of the article is “Code” but the article is about “code” in the sense of communication and information processing. Anyone who can read and comprehend what they are reading can understand that.

    But then again…

  3. Frankie:
    Yes, adapa, the title of the article is “Code” but the article is about “code” in the sense of communication and information processing.

    It doesn’t say that about ALL codes Chubs, and it also doesn’t say all codes need intelligence to create.

    Desperation thy name is Chubs. 😀

  5. Hey Chubs, since Wiki is now your ultimate authority, why don’t you start citing the article on Genetic Code?

    “The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.”

    Oops! Nothing about intelligence required, or needing a sender and receiver there!

  6. LoL! So information being SENT from the DNA TO the ribosome doesn’t have a sender or a receiver?

    The point, which you seem unable to grasp- no surprise there, is that all known codes of that type come from an intelligent source. No one has ever observed nature producing such a code. No one knows how nature would produce such a code. So when you put those two together we get the genetic code was intelligently designed- knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    That said, science is tentative. If someone were to come along and demonstrate blind and mindless processes can produce such codes then we would have to reconsider the design inference.

    Science 101- don’t add an intelligent designer when nature will do

  7. Frankie:
    all known codes of that type come from an intelligent source.

    LOL! No Chubs, they don’t. Even your Wiki says they are the result of laws which includes the natural laws of chemistry and physics.

    You IDiots have been trying and failing with the same dumb argument for over a decade but like always you’re too stupid to realize how badly you’ve lost. You’d have a better chance with your YEC baraminology nonsense.

  8. Frankie:
    No one but the clueless would say:

    and think that refers to a code. Read the wikipedia entry and tell us how tree rings fit that- the same goes for spectral line and chemical reactions.

    Wiki says “…communication through a channel or storage in a medium.”

    And “code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form or representation,…”

    Tree rings certainly match these definitions. A tree ring denotes a year. The width of the inter-ring zone denotes the environment the tree was exposed to during that year.

  9. Frankie:

    No one thinks tree rings or starlight qualify as communication codes- well maybe adapa and acartia.

    Starlight communicates what a star is made of. Tree rings communicate the age of a tree and the environment it was exposed to. Ice cores communicate to us ancient atmospheric conditions and snowfall amounts. All of these non-intelligent events meet the wiki definition.

  10. Frankie:
    LoL!

    The entire article is about communication andinformation processing codes:

    And the genetic code is a code in that sense.

    As are starlight, tree rings and ice cores. I could also add stable isotope ratios. They communicate things like trophic level, historic temperatures, etc.

  11. Frankie: Anyone who can read and comprehend what they are reading can understand that.

    You have already demonstrated that you have a reading comprehension problem. Repeat after me:

    A question mark at the end of a sentence is not a factual claim.

    With practice, I have confidence that you can grasp this concept.

  12. Frankie: So when you put those two together we get the genetic code was intelligently designed- knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    Great, now what? Well, nothing, because nothing else is science according to you. So even if you “win” and get everyone to accept via your oh so erudite arguments that the genetic code is designed by an intelligence there is literally nothing else that would then happen relating to that “discovery”. Literally nothing.

    Frankie: Science 101- don’t add an intelligent designer when nature will do

    It can be easy to confuse nature and intelligent design. People have been doing it since records began. And are still doing it today!

  13. Code:

    In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form or representation, sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a channel or storage in a medium.

    Genetic Code:

    The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.

    The sequence similarity and contextual meaning can only be denied by die-hard evoTARDs.

    Here is another source that supports my claims- The Genetic Code

    That site says it all- the code is a real code, there is a message, a sender and receiver.

    The fact that it is a real code is incontrovertible. The remaining issue is how did it come to be the way it is?

    Unfortunately for evolutionists they don’t have a mechanism capable of producing it or they would have written about it by now. The fact remains is there are plenty of new components required when going from a no-code to a coded biological world. It takes planning and foresight to bring that about. Or do the evolutionists have a testable alternative?

    Do you have anything beyond personal attacks and arguments from ignorance?

  14. Acartia: With practice, I have confidence that you can grasp this concept.

    Shouldn’t that be:

    With practice, I have confidence that you can grasp this concept?

  15. It has been demonstrated, experimentally, that the genetic code is a real code. And it’s not the only code observed operating inside of cells.
    :

    Code Biology:

    This gives us an objective criterion for discovering organic codes and their existence is no longer a matter of speculation. It is, first and foremost, an experimental problem. More precisely, we can prove that an organic code exists, if we find three things: (1) two independents worlds of molecules, (2) a set of adaptors that create a mapping between them, and (3) the demonstration that the mapping is arbitrary because its rules can be changed, at least in principle, in countless different ways.

    Enter the genetic code:

    In protein synthesis, in conclusion, we find all the three essential components of a code: (1) two independents worlds of molecules (nucleotides and amino acids), (2) a set of adaptors that create a mapping between them, and (3) the proof that the mapping is arbitrary because its rules can be changed.

    I like the pre-emptive intro:

    The argument that the genetic code is not a real code because its rules are the result of chemical affinities between codons and amino acids and are therefore determined by chemistry. This is the ‘Stereochemical theory’, an idea first proposed by George Gamow in 1954, and re-proposed ever since in many different forms (Pelc and Welton 1966; Dunnil 1966; Melcher 1974; Shimizu 1982; Yarus 1988, 1998; Yarus, Caporaso and Knight 2005). More than fifty years of research have not produced any evidence in favour of this theory and yet the idea is still circulating, apparently because of the possibility that stereochemical interactions might have been important at some early stages of evolution (Koonin and Novozhilov 2009). The deep reason is probably the persistent belief that the genetic code must have been a product of chemistry and cannot possibly be a real code.

    The only reason to believe the genetic code is not a real code is the adherence to materialism and the inability to think beyond its limitations. Oh, and the fact that materialism doesn’t handle information and information processing very well- well it doesn’t handle it at all.

  16. Frankie, all your links and quotes about codes and the genetic code cry out for an
    OP!

    One in which evo objections will undoubtedly surpass the ones you faced in this thread. lol. Gutless evos. Who could imagine it.

  17. Mung,

    I want the record for the longest off-topic thread. It is the best evidence that this site’s intentions are bogus.

  19. Frankie:
    It has been demonstrated, experimentally, that the genetic code is a real code.

    Of course it ‘s a “real code”. It’s just not an intelligently designed one. It’s a code where the natural laws of chemistry and physics convert information in one form to information in another form, just as the Wiki definition states.

  21. Mung:
    Frankie, when Adapa speaks, God listens. You should listen too.

    When adapa speaks the world cringes. I can just imagine the spittle on adapa’s screen and keyboard.

    Don’t worry adapa, you can’t insult me. You can try. And you can think you are effective. However I won’t even read your shit until next week, if then. So have at it, just break out the bounty and windex

  22. Frankie:
    Mung,

    I want the record for the longest off-topic thread. It is the best evidence that this site’s intentions are bogus.

    Please ,stay on topic

  23. Adapa: LOL!No Chubs, they don’t.Even your Wiki says they are the result of laws which includes the natural laws of chemistry and physics.

    You IDiots have been trying and failing with the same dumb argument for over a decade but like always you’re too stupid to realize how badly you’ve lost.You’d have a better chance with your YEC baraminology nonsense.

    OozingClapSore,

    Where do the laws of chemistry come from?

  24. Even your Wiki says they are the result of laws which includes the natural laws of chemistry and physics.

    Bullshit- I challenge you to quote the part that says such a thing.

  25. Frankie: Bullshit- I challenge you to quote the part that says such a thing.

    And what a strawman challenge that is.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Origin
    The phrase “chemical properties” is used. Those properties flow from the natural laws of chemistry and physics. And that answers your challenge.

    It could also reflect steric and chemical properties that had another effect on the codon during its evolution.

    It evolved. And yet, because there is no explicit phrasing in the way that you demand, you think you’ve won.

    But that victory must taste like ashes in your mouth eh Joe? How many times have you have this very same “victory”?

  26. newton: Please ,stay on topic

    We have established that for you it is a fact that the genetic code is an intelligently designed code.

    Now what?

  27. OMagain: We have established that for you it is a fact that the genetic code is an intelligently designed code.

    Now what?

    Actually for me it is not

  28. LoL! @ OMagain- just cuz the words chemical properties are used doesn’t mean they are used meaning the genetic code is determined by chemical properties. It’s as if you have no reading comprehension skills at all

  29. What part of the following is too difficult to understand:

    The argument that the genetic code is not a real code because its rules are the result of chemical affinities between codons and amino acids and are therefore determined by chemistry. This is the ‘Stereochemical theory’, an idea first proposed by George Gamow in 1954, and re-proposed ever since in many different forms (Pelc and Welton 1966; Dunnil 1966; Melcher 1974; Shimizu 1982; Yarus 1988, 1998; Yarus, Caporaso and Knight 2005). More than fifty years of research have not produced any evidence in favour of this theory and yet the idea is still circulating, apparently because of the possibility that stereochemical interactions might have been important at some early stages of evolution (Koonin and Novozhilov 2009). The deep reason is probably the persistent belief that the genetic code must have been a product of chemistry and cannot possibly be a real code.

  30. Unfortunately for adapa there aren’t any known natural laws of chemistry and physics that can convert information in one form to information in another form. Not one. You lose

  31. Solve the problem, find/ discover a naturally occurring code- ie one that doesn’t require an intelligent source, and you could be awarded up to 10 million dollars.

    Prediction- whining about the challenge along with unfounded claims the challenge is bogus- anything but actually doing the work to support the claim the genetic code is a naturally occurring- not designed- code

  32. Frankie: LoL! So information being SENT from the DNA TO the ribosome doesn’t have a sender or a receiver?

    And, information about a tree’s age and environmental condition sent by the tree to the human interpreting doesn’t have a sender or a receiver?

    Nice own goal.

  33. Frankie: That said, science is tentative. If someone were to come along and demonstrate blind and mindless processes can produce such codes then we would have to reconsider the design inference.

    The stars send light to earth using blind and mindless processes. This light contains information that humans can decode to determine the composition, temperature and how fast it is moving. The star is producing this information rich code through blind an mindless processes. It is the sender. Humans are the receiver and can translate this code into useful information.

    So, will you be true to your own words and second guess the design inference, or will you do what you always do (btw, rhetorical question).

  34. Mung: Shouldn’t that be:

    With practice, I have confidence that you can grasp this concept?

    I was giving him the benefit of the doubt? 🙂

  35. Thank you acartia for continuing to prove that you don’t have any idea what a code is. I dare you to submit your findings to the challenge and see if you can collect your award. Of course you may have to wait until the judges stop laughing at you, but good luck with that.

  36. Frankie:
    Thank you acartia for continuing to prove that you don’t have any idea what a code is.

    Sorry Joe. But I am just using the definitions that you provided. If you can dispute them, please go right ahead.

    By the way, nice sophomoric (sophomorinic?) avatar.

  37. Yes, acartia you are sorry as you are not using the definitions provided. Not even close. And it is very telling that not one academic reference supports your claim.

  38. Frankie: And it is very telling that not one academic reference supports your claim.

    How many academic references support the claim that the genetic code is an intelligently designed code?

  39. OMagain: How many academic references support the claim that the genetic code is an intelligently designed code?

    Oohh! Oohs! I know the answer!

    I think the answer is zero. But I could be off by a factor of ten or a thousand.

  41. How many academic references support the claim that the genetic code is a product of blind and mindless processes? I bet that you can’t find one.

  43. Mung:
    Frankie, when Adapa speaks, God listens. You should listen too.

    LOL! Mung is so funny when he gets on his high horse and tries to defend clowns like FrankenJoe and Sal. Although it is pretty sad when he defends abusing children by teaching them lies.

  44. Frankie:
    Unfortunately for adapa there aren’t any known natural laws of chemistry and physics that can convert information in one form to information in another form. Not one. You lose

    Tree ring widths encode information about the climate at the time the rings grew. starlight encodes information about the chemical composition of the star.

    FrankenJoe’s ignorance loses to reality yet again. 🙂

  45. Frankie:
    Solve the problem, find/ discover a naturally occurring code- ie one that doesn’t require an intelligent source, and you could be awarded up to 10 million dollars.

    LOL! Of course FrankenJoe comes back pushing his same bogus Creationist 10 million dollar “challenge”. The Creationists have upped the ante since Kent Hovind’s equally bogus 250,000 dollar challenge. Must be adjusted for inflation. 🙂

  46. Frankie: How many academic references support the claim that the genetic code is a product of blind and mindless processes? I bet that you can’t find one.

    But if I were you that’s what I’d expect, right? So it’s logically more relevant, now that you’ve ruled out what you know to be false, that you get academic support for what you know to be true.

    So, is there such support showing that the genetic code is a product of intelligent design? If there is such a reference I’m sure the next Dover style court case would love to hear about it. Perhaps you could even get on the stand, give the case for the prosecution?

  47. An uncharitable person would say your deflection of the question of academic support for the intelligent design of the genetic code shows that you are trying to avoid answering the question. But the lack of an answer for another position unrelated to yours does nothing to answer the question for your position.

    If there is such support, I’d be interested to see it.

  48. Prediction- whining about the challenge along with unfounded claims the challenge is bogus- anything but actually doing the work to support the claim the genetic code is a naturally occurring- not designed- code

    Thank you, adapa- your whining about the challenge and your cowardly response says it all.

    Only a moron would think that a data recorder, ie tree rings, is a communication code, and here you guys are. Do you know how much research and study it takes to understand the data in tree rings? Probably not. With codes you don’t have to do that. You just need a chart with the code rules and you are all set.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you don’t know jack about codes.

  49. And earth to OM- if you and yours had the evidence to support your position then ID would be a non-starter. It is due to the FAILure of you and yours that ID persists.

    That said if you had any evidence that the genetic code arose via blind and mindless processes you would post it. However after looking for 50+ years no one has found such a thing.

    Everything written and researched about the genetic code says it was intelligently designed. There isn’t anything to support your claims. That is how the design inference works- using the peer-reviewed literature to come to a scientific inference based on the evidence.

    Not that you will understand any of that…

Leave a Reply