I don't get how biological evolution works. [Archive]

Serotonin

8 Jun 2005, 08:31 AM

I'm not asking about whether or not it is "correct," but rather what are the details that I'm missing very badly.

Take an organism, say the great white shark. Say it used to have very dull teeth. As those individuals with sharper teeth, due to whatever genetic factors, tend to breed, then sharks tend to evolve sharper teeth. OK, this is fine.

Take another organism, say it has 30 chromosomes. Somewhere, because not all animals have the same #, a direct descendant must have, say, 32 chromosomes. If it happens to one individual, that one dies out because it can't reproduce, right? So it must somehow occur for a group of individuals within the sub-population. "Billions of years" aside, is this what actually happens?, because I imagine this to occur very infrequently.

Basically I understand the "continuous" changes, but how exactly do these kind of "discrete" changes happen?

Chromosome duplication.
For starters: http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article67

Also check out Taylor and Raes (2004) (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831)

Basically chromosomes/genes duplicate, and then genes with separate functions gradually evolve from these paralogues.

crofbe

9 Jun 2005, 06:59 AM

Cool, thanks for the links.

Promethean

16 Jul 2005, 08:46 PM

There really isn't one part of macro evolutionary theory that works. Mathmatically it's invalid. A study of the laws of probablility as applies to micro-biology is very enlightening. The theory also has serious problems with General Relativity, and Thermodynamics. There are a lot of scientists that know this, but the bias now days is so strong that it really isn't worth contesting. People who question the theory often loose their jobs because it means they aren't scientists anymore. Evolution really doesn't contribute anything to science anyway so it can simply be ignored by anyone wanting to do real objective work.

These are some pretty big assertions I'm making, without much support so I'll give a couple of book references. I don't really care if evolution or creation or something else is true, it's just that evolution is more religion than science by far and I can't stand religion in any form.

"Darwin's Leap of Faith"
"Darwin's Black Box"

Don't blaim me for any religious undertones in these works, but people on both sides of the fence seem to think it's ok to mix unscientific hoopla with good science. No one should be tying to prove or disprove either predominant theory, rather we should be letting gathered evidence speak for itself. That said there is a stunning and nearly complete lack of any supporting evidence for macro evolution. However, there is a whole lot of hard science indicating the theory should have been residing in the bottom of the shit can about 30 years ago.

Will be happy to discuss this further or be told I don't know what I'm talking about, happens a lot.

Apostasius

17 Jul 2005, 12:45 AM

There really isn't one part of macro evolutionary theory that works. Mathmatically it's invalid. A study of the Law of Odds as applies to micro-biology is very enlightening. The theory also has serious problems with General Relativity, and Thermodynamics. There are a lot of scientists that know this, but the bias now days is so strong that it really isn't worth contesting. People who question the theory often loose their jobs because it means they aren't scientists anymore. Evolution really doesn't contribute anything to science anyway so it can simply be ignored by anyone wanting to do real objective work.

These are some pretty big assertions I'm making, without much support so I'll give a couple of book references. I don't really care if evolution or creation or something else is true, it's just that evolution is more religion than science by far and I can't stand religion in any form.

"Darwin's Leap of Faith"
"Darwin's Black Box"

Don't blaim me for any religious undertones in these works, but people on both sides of the fence seem to think it's ok to mix unscientific hoopla with good science. No one should be tying to prove or disprove either predominant theory, rather we should be letting gathered evidence speak for itself. That said there is a stunning and nearly complete lack of any supporting evidence for macro evolution. However, there is a whole lot of hard science indicating the theory should have been residing in the bottom of the shit can about 30 years ago.

Will be happy to discuss this further or be told I don't know what I'm talking about, happens a lot.
As counterpoints...

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html

http://www.talkreason.org/

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/behe2.cfm

See also:

Pennock, Robert. The Tower of Babel
(http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/)
Pigliucci, Massimo. Tales of the Rational
(http://www.rationallyspeaking.org/)
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

etc etc etc

Architectonic

17 Jul 2005, 03:11 AM

These are some pretty big assertions I'm making, without much support so I'll give a couple of book references. I don't really care if evolution or creation or something else is true, it's just that evolution is more religion than science by far and I can't stand religion in any form.

Sure there is always going to be a bit of faulty science and religion mixed with the real science.

But do you care to actually make some specific points of why the theory as a whole is not consistent with measurable reality, for the benefit of those who aren't as enlightened as you are.

Evolution really doesn't contribute anything to science anyway so it can simply be ignored by anyone wanting to do real objective work.

I disagree with this on principle - every part of science is important. If real scientific research is conducted in this area, it is definitely important - if the theory is seriously flawed (ie has no predictive validity in the real world), then this work will naturally help to correct the theory.

If the established views are not totally consistent with reality, then contesting and revising (with new scientific research) the theory is definitely worthwhile.

Serotonin

17 Jul 2005, 03:37 AM

There really isn't one part of macro evolutionary theory that works.
See the 29+ points supporting macroevolution that Apostasius linked.

Mathmatically it's invalid. A study of the Law of Odds as applies to micro-biology is very enlightening. The theory also has serious problems with General Relativity, and Thermodynamics.
I don't know about General Relativity, but the creationist argument is that evolution can't happen because the law of Thermodynamics states that everything is heading towards a lukewarm soup, or something. For closed systems, yes. The earth isn't a closed system.

There are a lot of scientists that know this, but the bias now days is so strong that it really isn't worth contesting. People who question the theory often loose their jobs because it means they aren't scientists anymore.[/i] Usually not because that they are "questioning the rigid and infallible doctrine of evolution I'm a fascist", but more because their science is bad.

[quote=Promethean]Evolution really doesn't contribute anything to science anyway so it can simply be ignored by anyone wanting to do real objective work.
Meaningless statement. How?

However, there is a whole lot of hard science indicating the theory should have been residing in the bottom of the shit can about 30 years ago.
Funny how statements like these come with a distinct lack of links, except snarky Hovind and Behe polemics. I'd post some countering them, but Apostasius has essentially got it covered.

Promethean

17 Jul 2005, 05:10 AM

I knew there would be lots of fireworks on this, there always are. I read the talk origins and some of the other posted sights all the time and their arguments are tired and quite frankly don't hold water. There is way too much to answer from your posts for now, but I'll try making this thread a priority and share what I know and give some good links if I can find them. Mostly I read books on the subject though and that is where I get most of my information. I need only my own mind however to take my position that the theory is goundless with present data.

I'll address the Thermodynamics problem briefly. First of all just because there is an argument against evolution, and this is a good one, it doesn't make it a creationist argument. It's a scientific argument based on one of the most misunderstood areas of physics. The classic open system, closed system argument doesn't even pertain to the debate at all. Adding energy to any given system does not create organized systems. Note that order and organization are not the same thing. The same sunlight that is said to have provided the necessary energy to create emino acids (bulding blocks of life) destroys them with far, far greater proficiency. An influx of large amounts of energy is never condusive to existing life, much less creating it in the first place.

Here, found a good link on this subject. This will show why it's so hard to discuss this debate. It takes a whole lot of writing to talk about even one small point. Most people don't have the attention span to learn enough about science to make an informed decision, including a great many scientists and churchgoers.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Oh, by the way I can't stand Hovind either. I've met him personaly and he's completely unqualified for what he's doing.

Wait I'll take a crack at my "doesn't contribute to science" statement too while I'm at it. Many people may have entered into the science areana because of the elitist sense of superiority that being an evolution party member gave them and perhaps others have been drawn in by the debate and perhaps others perform experiments trying to prove or disprove it. In an indirect way you could say the theory contributes. But directly it adds nothing to either our understanding of, or the progress of science. The theory is unprovable by any means currently available. It is only assumed to have happened because the current alternative is despised. Even if we made it happen in a lab it would only mean intelligent life can create life. Even if the theory were true, it wouldn't matter. We don't need the theory to understand or research or eventually manipulate DNA. We don't need it to measure and search the stars and gather data. We don't need it to study animal behavior and figure out why they do what they do. There is no area in fact where the theory is needed. Many scientists just make hypotheses, and theories using macro evolution to try and explain why the things we see are the way they are. We should be letting the data (and we are a long way from having that kind of data on most counts) tell us what happened. Scientifically speaking the theory is no more useful than creation. Both can be a starting point, but aren't much use in helping us figure anything out. Neither are able to be currently proven or disproven. Consequently that relegates them to mere hypothesis rather than theories.

Apostasius

17 Jul 2005, 03:33 PM

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/2nd-law.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/wallace.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/wallace2.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/timwallace.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/

Promethean

17 Jul 2005, 03:58 PM

last_caress

17 Jul 2005, 04:23 PM

Apostasius

Did you read the article about Steiger's work? If so what did you think. Personally I think he's an idiot. I'm not just saying that because of the singular article I've posted either. Reading most any of his articles on my own makes me laugh. His arguments are wildly illogical and never really touch on the point. I've personally known two evolutionists with PHD's in chemistry that know they've got a serious problem here. I even got one of my friends to acknowledge his belief in evolution was nothing more than faith.

Ok then what's a more plausible explanation? A man in the sky?

I think a fundamental problem with this debate is that many people take evolution as an attack on the literal biblical interpretations their reality is structured around. Their personal investment in their religion renders them less able to view the situation objectively.
Evolution may not have all the answers, but what it does have is certainly more sensible than the current alternatives.

Promethean

17 Jul 2005, 04:43 PM

This is exactly why discussing this stuff can be so tedious. I'm going to deal with the first Link you gave here. I'm not trying to be offensive, but this stuff is childs play. These weren't good arguments when they were uttered years ago and they still have no place in rational discussion.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

The first rebutal is a Straw Man about how evolution has never been observed. I've never even heard of any scientist regardless of what he thinks on this debate that says evolution does not occur. This argument patently ignores the monolithic diffference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution (a difference I did point out). Micro-evolution (small variations but still same kind of animal) does occur but can never, ever be infered to be proof of macro-evolution (fish become dogs etc.). Micro-evolution uses the existing organized information to achieve variance. Macro-evolution must produce from thin air vast new stores of organized information. Such does not occur anywhere in observable nature. The reasons why are quite clear if you read the link I gave.

The second argument was more than answered in my link. That dog won't hunt.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

The third argument just makes my head hurt it's so stupid. Once again they misrepresent everything the other scientists are saying. You ever wonder why those thousands of transitional fossils aren't in display in museums. That's because without being a rabidly trained evolutionist no one would see a transitional fossil. They call "Lucy" one of their transitional fossils and "Archeopterix" another. Each one deserves their own arguments and I'm not going to take the time. Suffice it to say these have been hotly debated for years even with the evolutinary community, even more so by those who's filtered goggles aren't so strong. Also the whole thing about why other scientists say punctuated equilibrium theory came about is obserd. The reason it came about is exactly the reason given in any argument I've ever read. Here is the problem. If evolution were a slow gradual process we should find almost nothing but transitional forms in the fossil record. The real hunt would be to find any of the completed forms. They'd be hard a hell go pick out. Thus you have the punctuated equlibrium (the X-Men senario) to save the day. Exept it doesn't save the day. It creates an even bigger problem by declaring that the already impossible organization of vast information occured quickly rather than over time which is a good distractor for most people.

Argument number four I'm stabbing myself in the eye with a screwdriver. You know I'm just going to deal with this one later, my fingers are tired.

Not to offend but all of your link contain tired and badly defeated arguments. I will acknowledge however that if you can really find me a good one I'll change my stance on a dime. I'm trully not biased on this issue other than on the basis of logic and fact. If I were to see good evidence of this theory tomorrow, I'd be an evolutionist "Scouts Honor". (Disclaimer: I was never really a scout, this statement is not legally binding.)

This is a late edit to the post to close this subject for me. Its a link specifically addressing the article and I think it's pretty good.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

Promethean

17 Jul 2005, 04:48 PM

Last Caress,

I don't care about the alternative. Not liking an alternative is never a logical reason to accept another point of view. Your almost proving my position that evolution is trully nothing more than another religion. I agree with what you say however, it's exactly why we have a fence on this issue and exactly why neither side maintains much objectivity. You probably think I'm a religious nut, but I'm not. I like good science and evolution isn't.

Architectonic

17 Jul 2005, 05:23 PM

There are many areas of science which are at very early stages of development and thus many of the common theories are potentially suspect. Two sciences that I commonly have issues with are economics and psychology. 'Biological evolution' or whatever you want to call it is not alone in that regard.

I knew there would be lots of fireworks on this, there always are.

On the contrary, there hasn't been any fireworks yet - because you haven't actually posted any points of your own. (nor has anyone else really)

As a start, I would suggest that you firstly post your definiton of the second law of thermodynamics. Secondly, prove that the processes of life (including so-called 'evolutionary biology') on earth are a negative entropy process after accounting for all additional energy added to the system from external sources. (obviously this will require references of empirical observations)

I had a glance at that last link you posted. (The steiger rebuttal.) I really can't be bothered reading these 'religious' (both 'evolutionist' and 'creationist') opinions because they are more concerned with the typical arguements than attempting to find a more valid scientific explaination. The 'creationist' explanation tends to have more holes (at the very best, no less holes...) than the current 'evolutionist' theories - but its certainly possible that both are severely flawed.

This is exactly why discussing this stuff can be so tedious.

If its so tedious, then why bother posting in this thread at all?
I'm here because I'm trying to learn something.

Wait I'll take a crack at my "doesn't contribute to science" statement too while I'm at it. Many people may have entered into the science areana because of the elitist sense of superiority that being an evolution party member gave them and perhaps others have been drawn in by the debate and perhaps others perform experiments trying to prove or disprove it. In an indirect way you could say the theory contributes. But directly it adds nothing to either our understanding of, or the progress of science. The theory is unprovable by any means currently available. It is only assumed to have happened because the current alternative is despised. Even if we made it happen in a lab it would only mean intelligent life can create life. Even if the theory were true, it wouldn't matter. We don't need the theory to understand or research or eventually manipulate DNA. We don't need it to measure and search the stars and gather data. We don't need it to study animal behavior and figure out why they do what they do. There is no area in fact where the theory is needed. Many scientists just make hypotheses, and theories using macro evolution to try and explain why the things we see are the way they are. We should be letting the data (and we are a long way from having that kind of data on most counts) tell us what happened. Scientifically speaking the theory is no more useful than creation. Both can be a starting point, but aren't much use in helping us figure anything out. Neither are able to be currently proven or disproven. Consequently that relegates them to mere hypothesis rather than theories.

I have no idea what the "evolution party" is. Anyway, it is illogical to assume that just because you personally have not yet thought of a practical application of evolution theory does not mean that one does not exist. It definitely has potential to be important in the future - for example, for terraforming of extraterrestrial planets to be sucessful over a long term, a strong understanding of biological life, including 'evolution' will be required.

Promethean

17 Jul 2005, 05:40 PM

Promethean

17 Jul 2005, 06:27 PM

I'm going book shopping. Can anyone give me any book titles which seemed to give a good showing for evolution in them. Something current would be nice. Also something other than that last rag I think it was Gould who published before he died.

last_caress

17 Jul 2005, 07:10 PM

I don't think accepting an explanation solely because one doesn't like the alternatives is grounds for belief either, but evolution has firm roots in observable reality for me in addition to that.
What I have a hard time understanding is what is so difficult for people in making the intellectual leap between our selectively breeding traits in plants and animals and this happening naturally on a macroscopic scale and calling it evolution.
I just don't get it.

Lee

17 Jul 2005, 07:25 PM

So reality seems to not correlate with your limited understanding of the rules on which the universe is based... clearly REALITY MUST BE WRONG!

Evolution, the change, extinction and appearence of species over a period of time certainly is true. The process which occurs appears to be natural selection, if this is not the case then it is likely to be something extremely similar, simply because the theory of natural selection can explain so much of nature so well.

It is an interesting prospect to consider that natural selection and the theory of evolution are indeed false, but can you provide an alternative that even begins to explain nature nearly half as good as natural selection? if we refused to use a theory simply because it was not perfect, and could not explain some anomalies we would have discarded countless theories that would later be amended and accepted as scientific fact.

Combat

17 Jul 2005, 07:39 PM

I read half-way through that entropy article, but failed to see any real arguments how "evolutionists" ignore the second law. I found it intriguing though how the author seemed to regard any biological macromolecule as a closed system on its own.
Although for example protein synthesis may appear as a process that reduces entropy, it isn't really. Sure, it reduces the entropy for the specific amino acids that are incorporated into the protein. However, since this process is basically driven by the conversion of relatively ordered food, say a potato, into carbon dioxide gas and heat, there is a large net increase in entropy.
Similarly, when you clean up your room, the reduction in entropy from putting things in order is easily offset by the increase in entropy from the sweat evaporating from your skin.

All in all, although biological life forms may appear ordered, the biochemical processes that created this order also generated far more disorder (to the surroundings), which is in agreement with the second law of thermodynamics.

I don't really see what the problem is?

Promethean

18 Jul 2005, 02:00 AM

Last_Caress,

What I have a hard time understanding is what is so difficult for people in making the intellectual leap between our selectively breeding traits in plants and animals and this happening naturally on a macroscopic scale and calling it evolution.
I just don't get it.

You're right, it is an intellectual leap. You are still describing Micro-Evolution which can never be used as an example of Macro-Evolution. Micro uses variations of existing information. Macro must make an increase in organized energy. Order can happen randomly but not so much organization and certainly not on the enormous and vast scale of genetic coding. And remember the first genetic code was supposed to arrise out of nothing with no guiding force but innate molecular properties. This is not consistent with anything we know of Thermodynamics or Chemistry in general. So I do agree with you Micro-Evolution has roots in observable reality, no one that I know of questions that.

Lee,

Oh I get it, I don't accept the current paradigm so I MUST have a limited understanding. That's a great argument.

Combat,

I read half-way through that entropy article, but failed to see any real arguments how "evolutionists" ignore the second law.

You read half an article but don't get it? I can't imagine why.

Guys do you think I just woke up one morning and decided I didn't really feal like believing in the evolution. I'll continue on this thread a while, but I'm not sure of the value of it. I've read the evolutionary arguments, every single one that all of you have brought up so far and in all the links posted. None of them are new arguments and none of them stand up to the type of scrutiny I've seen them subjected too. I will be posting good information, but I can't possibly delve deeply into subjects about which countless books are written. I emplore you to just have a little faith that I'm not stupid and explore some of it yourself. Read a couple "reputable" evolutionary books and then read a couple of "reputable" counters. You might really be suprised at which are more scientifically sound and instructive. I was.

Combat

18 Jul 2005, 02:26 AM

Combat,

You read half an article but don't get it? I can't imagine why.

Ok, I read through the second half of the article and found nothing of substance there either, besides the author reiterating how "evolutionists" ignore the second law. As English is not my first language, I may have missed the in-depth analysis of how evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are incompatible. Could you please provide a short summary?

Lee

18 Jul 2005, 03:29 AM

Lee,

Oh I get it, I don't accept the current paradigm so I MUST have a limited understanding. That's a great argument. hmm

(my understanding being far from complete, sue me) I am just pointing out that there is loads of evidence that suggests natural selection is the cause of evolution, or at least if it is not, then it is something that creates startingly similar results as natural selection.

By appealing to your self admitted incomplete knowledge of physics to disprove evidence seems odd e.g. With limited understanding of reality you may be forgiven for getting confused with Zeno's paradox of the two racers. One in front of the other, moving along with the one behind moving faster and catching up, but never actually catching up because in the time it takes to close the gap, the other one has to have moved himself a little further, then in the time it takes to close that gap, the one in front has moved a little further still... and so on and so on, never quite catching up.

Of course this is not the experience of the real world, clearly it was based off an incomplete understanding of nature, because people really do catch up and take over one another. But upon first being confused by this nobody will start claiming that people cannot take over one another in a race, and they certainly will not call for the complete abandonment of the very idea that one object can move faster than and take over another.

Because the theory needs to be made to fit reality, not the other way around, which seems to be what you are trying.

Standard disclaimer: Of course I could be wrong etc. etc. my physics is not great so I can't argue you on those terms anyway.

last_caress

18 Jul 2005, 03:46 AM

Last_Caress,
You're right, it is an intellectual leap. You are still describing Micro-Evolution which can never be used as an example of Macro-Evolution. Micro uses variations of existing information. Macro must make an increase in organized energy.

Micro and macro evolution are not two different things, rather they are simply
differences in observational scope.
If you can accept micro-evolution as a series of small changes, why can't you accept it on a larger scale as an accumulation of changes via said process?

Of course I state the obvious but it bears repeating: Earth ain't a closed system. Order arises in the midst of chaos. (see below references, especially Strogatz)

By the way haven't you heard of emergent behavior?
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Emergence

"Emergent structures in Nature

Emergent structures are patterns not created by a single event or rule. There is nothing that commands the system to form a pattern, but instead the interactions of each part to its immediate surroundings causes a complex process which leads to order. One might conclude that emergent structures are more than the sum of their parts because the emergent order will not arise if the various parts are simply coexisting; the interaction of these parts is central."

Order can happen randomly but not so much organization and certainly not on the enormous and vast scale of genetic coding.

Taken from the wikipedia entry on chaos:
"Chaos theory has been used (and misused) in popular science fiction books and movies, according to which its importance can be illustrated by the following observations:

* In popular terms, a linear system is exactly equal to the sum of its parts, whereas a non-linear system can be more than the sum of its parts. This means that in order to study and understand the behavior of a non-linear system one needs in principle to study the system as a whole and not just its parts in isolation.

* It has been said that if the universe is an elephant, then linear theory can only be used to describe the last molecule in the tail of the elephant and chaos theory must be used to understand the rest. Or, in other words, linear systems in nature are relatively rare, and almost all interesting real-world systems are described by non-linear systems."

"Nonlinear equations and functions are of interest to physicists and mathematicians because they are hard to solve and give rise to interesting phenomena such as chaos."

An interview with Stephen Strogatz, author of the books Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, and Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/strogatz03/strogatz_print.html

"We are used to thinking about entropy, the tendency of complex systems to get more and more disordered, as the dominant force. People always ask me, "Doesn't synchrony violate that? Isn't it against the laws of nature that systems can become spontaneously more ordered?" Of course you can't violate the law of entropy, but there is no contradiction. The point is that the law of entropy applies to a certain class of so-called isolated, or closed systems, where there's no influx of energy from the environment. But that's not what we're talking about when we discuss living things or the earth. Where systems are far from thermodynamic equilibrium all bets are off, and we see astonishing feats of self-organization, synchrony just being the simplest such example."

And remember the first genetic code was supposed to arrise out of nothing with no guiding force but innate molecular properties. This is not consistent with anything we know of Thermodynamics or Chemistry in general.

In science I don't think it's ever a good idea to RIGIDLY adhere to any principles. Nothing is sacred. Nothing should be.
What we "know" is in an eternal state of revision.
Thus I remain open to abiogenesis.

So I do agree with you Micro-Evolution has roots in observable reality, no one that I know of questions that.

Evolution, on paper is not flawless and there are certainly gaps in our knowledge (like any other science), but based upon personal real world observation, deep reflection, and emerging success of chaos theory it is plausible enough to warrant acceptance in my book.

Promethean

18 Jul 2005, 05:59 AM

I'll try and answer you guys one at a time, but it may take a while.

Combat,

I'll do my best at a short summary.

Under the second law, all things tend to go from higher states to lower states with regard to energy, order and organization. Cellular structure and DNA require such a massive organization of information that a serious explanation and exposure of natural mechanisms must be given to make it plausible. The evolutionists in their article site a bunch of examples that are supposed to show how life could arise by natural process. All the examples are flawed as the article shows because they either only show that simple ORDER is achieved or they use a system which already contained intent and design, or ORGANIZATION. Organization and order are NOT the same things as I've stated already. Order can be described as simple paterns that actually have a net increase in entropy. Organization contains information and has a net decrease in entropy. The earth being an "open system" doesn't change anything and is simply a distractor.

Basically the argument is about apples and oranges. The aren't the same thing and neither are order and organization.

I hope that helps a bit.

Promethean

18 Jul 2005, 06:58 AM

Lee,

Your argument is one that I've always found interesting because of the symantics involved.

First, you still made no distinction between micro and macro evolution, the distinction must clearly be recognized for us to even discuss this topic. This may make more sense in a minute.

Now, just look at the phrase "Natural Selection" and how you use the phrase and how it is treated in most evolutionary work. It sounds like a guiding force, an inherent design or something supernatural which bends reality. I know it isn't meant to be used that way, but it often is.

About the only thing that the principle of natural selection is good for is saying that the creature that lived, lived. If the biggest baddest strongest sucker out there got crushed by a falling rock, or frozen in a storm, or suffered in a drought did nature select the best one? In fact nature doesn't select anything, some creatures live, some creatures die and a great deal of the time it has nothing to do how superior it was to its peers. Micro evolution by natural (or accidental maybe) selection can't even be interpreted to mean there has been a gain in information.

When something micro (not macro) evolves information is lost, not gained. Another term for this is specialization. If a group of healthy animals with stong genetic coding (allowing for more varience in offspring) get seperated into vastly different environments. Certain traits among offspring will become more important in the new environment and will tend to give a slightly higher survivability rate and will become common is succesive generations. Note, the traits were already there, they just became more important due to environment, the environment did not create them. Other genes that are now not so important may become corrupted, through natural radiation, chemical processes, inbreeding or other natural deteriorating factors. The animals never notice however because those traits aren't really needed so the occasional corruption of those genes is tolerated and eventually permanent. The creature has now evolved, adapted, become more specialized to it's environment. Another group in another location experience the same thing with different sets of genes and over time you have two new species which may or may not be able to breed. They aren't better than their parents though, and they are still the same type of animal. As a side note it's not even necessary for certain taits to be beneficial to become dominant, chance can accomplish that many times. This is where the rock, storm, drought thing comes in. But still, the genes were already present, chance did not create them.

That is why it can look like "natual selection" can create information because there is a change. The change over time however constitutes loss of information and the animals in question will become less able to adapt to new environmental changes. This is also a far better explanation for the increasingly dangerous slide to extinction for many animals. Minor changes in environment are wiping out animals all over the world. Some cloud forest tree frogs are thought to have been wiped out by just a small change in yearly temperature according to a PBS special I watched. It was probably too far out on the micro evolutionary tree and had lost the necessary genetic information to deal with the minor change.

You'll probably want to know how the first animals got there in the first place. I don't know. But I'm not trying to uphold how something did occur, I'm just tyring to show that it doesn't seem to have happened or even be possible to have happened the way evolutionists claim it did. Perhaps they will be able to someday, or maybe someday we'll decide we really can't figure it out and go on studying what is here without worrying so much about how it got here. Most fields of science do this already. I don't think metalurgists give even half a damn as to how the metal evolved from star dust. Doesn't help make a 10,000 pnd girder for that new bridge.

Come to think of it, I'm going to try and stop dwelling on it so much. I hope to be working on ITER someday and it will never matter how the materials got here or why I exist when that reactor lights off for the first time.

Promethean

18 Jul 2005, 07:25 AM

Last_Caress

It doesn't even look like you read the article I posted. Several of your questions are argued there and in some of my other posts. If you don't agree, ok, but I think the article is dead on.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Late Edit: I almost quoted from this next article in a couple of my posts, so when I found it I added it in as it's probably better than my writing. At least someone else out there thinks along the same lines.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

And I hate to repeat it again, but micro and macro evolution are not the same thing. You can keep thinking they are and that one leads to another but it just isn't so. Most of the evolutionists in university studies that I know don't have a problem with defining this difference. Neither do most scientists in general that I've read about. There are huge studies done and scads of papers written on how certain macro evolutionary changes could ever have occured from micro evolutionary changes. Admitedly the evolutionists sometimes think they do find solutions and I do still disagree, but it shows this is not usually a subject of argument.

Once again on another point ORDER is not ORGANIZATION. Organization requires information. Order does not necessarily imply any information. The emergence arguments are the same kind of arguments already addressed in the article.

The earth being an open or closed system is also addressed, and it doesn't change the problematic issues one bit. It's a distracting argument that has nothing to do with the base point.

In science I don't think it's ever a good idea to RIGIDLY adhere to any principles. Nothing is sacred. Nothing should be.
What we "know" is in an eternal state of revision.
Thus I remain open to abiogenesis.

You are absolutely right. But think about this. When a theory comes into major conflict with a well established law, even though that law may be overturned someday, it's not really prudent to use the theory as the foundation for the interpretation of data. Far worse of an intellectual crime is the treatment of either hypothesis as a scientific fact of life as so many laymen and sceintist alike seem want to do. We probably agree on this though.

If you did read the articles, I apoligize. We are free to disagree in the end.

Promethean

18 Jul 2005, 07:32 AM

Well guys,

I've given you each my best shot. This will be my last post on the thread. I just can't keep up with such lengthy discusions with three people. You all have made me dig into some good material again and I've certainly got some good writing experience on this subject.

Hopefully I've been at least entertaining to you guys and will be to some others who might read what we wrote. This is just too big an issue to properly treat in such a forum. I for one am going back to my physics books, probability mathematics, evolution and counter evolutinary works for a while to see if I might resurface with a different point of view. If I do I'll repost. If not, tks for an engaging weekend.

Combat

18 Jul 2005, 08:30 AM

Organization contains information and has a net decrease in entropy.

Even if there is a net decrease in entropy within the system, as I already pointed out the biochemical reactions that create and maintain this state give a larger net increase in entropy to the surroundings.

Serotonin

18 Jul 2005, 12:18 PM

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

I read the article, and it contained a troubling degree of petty pointscoring. Titles like "The Spin of Evolutionists" really make it a polemic rather than a scientific article. The open/closed system is kinda morphed into an order vs. organisation issue, which I'll try to address here.
Now my physics ain't the best, but I do know a bit about self-organisation, having studied honeybee foraging. If you can, get your hands on Tom Seeley's "The Wisdom of the Hive" (1995) and read the first chapter. Here he sets out the concept of self-organisation, and more importantly how there is no synoptic view of the workings of the hive that is cognizant to any one bee. The manifestation of "intelligent" colony-level behaviour is the result of the sum of interactions between the bees, with each bee responding to a set of inherent rules.
If you will, try to apply this concept to the molecular level (which he also mentions, and justifies the concept of evolution by it). A molecule (say, a free-floating amino-acid like tyrosine) also has inherent properties. It has a polarity (charge), a weight, and a shape with certain functional groups that interact well with some molecules, and not so well with others. Thus these molecules interact and bond to create macromolecules, most of which the structure will not be preserved, unless they have the ability to self-replicate. DNA is a macromolecule that can do this, with the help of other macromolecule proteins.
The construction of DNA and proteins, and the ability of DNA to replicate, may seem astounding and befuddling at the synoptic level, but when you study a little molecular biology, and understand how the little parts, doing their tiny thing, fit together to make a whole, it becomes much more plausible.
The Biochemist's bible: Biochemistry (2nd edition), Garrett & Grisham 1999 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0030223180/ref=pd_sxp_f/104-1558064-2603133?v=glance&s=books)
The Geneticists's bible: An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (7th edition), Griffiths et al. 2000 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/071673771X/ref=pd_sxp_f/104-1558064-2603133?v=glance&s=books)

If you want an interactive G&G:
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C11/C11Links/www.harcourtcollege.com/chem/biochem/GarrettGrisham/GGByChapter.html

Better still, read all of "Self-organisation in Biological Systems" by Camazine et. al (2001). Happy reading.
I'm far from convinced that there is a more plausible explanation for the diversity of life on earth than evolution.

Architectonic

18 Jul 2005, 12:29 PM

Ok, yes I overstated the "fireworks" a bit. I did however give some points of view and a damn good article. But since you've stated you won't read it, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you want me to do. A thourough explanation of thermodynamics and the argument at hand is given in that article. There isn't a shred of religioius or "creationist" conotation. It's a purely scientific article. Please read it, and the article it rubutts they are both very germane to the topic.

Actually I had read that particular article completely (before my last post) and it wasn't exactly very convincing.

Your arguement is a bit strange - you believe the current knowledge is severely lacking, yet you don't believe that further research should be done in the area!?! (Further research would ultimately result in the theory being corrected.)

Under the second law, all things tend to go from higher states to lower states with regard to energy, order and organization. Cellular structure and DNA require such a massive organization of information that a serious explanation and exposure of natural mechanisms must be given to make it plausible. The evolutionists in their article site a bunch of examples that are supposed to show how life could arise by natural process. All the examples are flawed as the article shows because they either only show that simple ORDER is achieved or they use a system which already contained intent and design, or ORGANIZATION. Organization and order are NOT the same things as I've stated already. Order can be described as simple paterns that actually have a net increase in entropy. Organization contains information and has a net decrease in entropy. The earth being an "open system" doesn't change anything and is simply a distractor.

Maybe you are being fooled by randomness?

In the big picture, is anything really being 'organized' at all? If you believe it is, then prove it.

Now, just look at the phrase "Natural Selection" and how you use the phrase and how it is treated in most evolutionary work. It sounds like a guiding force, an inherent design or something supernatural which bends reality. I know it isn't meant to be used that way, but it often is.

Yes, a number of people seem to misunderstand this - it is not some magic guiding force that has the long term survival of a species at heart. I've had to point that out on this forum before.

When something micro (not macro) evolves information is lost, not gained. Another term for this is specialization. If a group of healthy animals with stong genetic coding (allowing for more varience in offspring) get seperated into vastly different environments. Certain traits among offspring will become more important in the new environment and will tend to give a slightly higher survivability rate and will become common is succesive generations. Note, the traits were already there, they just became more important due to environment, the environment did not create them. Other genes that are now not so important may become corrupted, through natural radiation, chemical processes, inbreeding or other natural deteriorating factors. The animals never notice however because those traits aren't really needed so the occasional corruption of those genes is tolerated and eventually permanent. The creature has now evolved, adapted, become more specialized to it's environment. Another group in another location experience the same thing with different sets of genes and over time you have two new species which may or may not be able to breed. They aren't better than their parents though, and they are still the same type of animal. As a side note it's not even necessary for certain taits to be beneficial to become dominant, chance can accomplish that many times. This is where the rock, storm, drought thing comes in. But still, the genes were already present, chance did not create them.

I agree except the fifth and last sentence - you are going to have to prove that 'chance did not create them'. Those processes that can alter genes often cause damage that makes them useless. But on occasionally it may result in something (different) that works. This gene may or may not be useful at the time. It may (or not) get passed on to future offspring. It may be possible that it will be useful to the species in the future, or not - it depends on the context of the situation.

I just can't keep up with such lengthy discusions with three people.

Maybe you'd like to write up a single complete arguement instead? One that has no evident loop-holes and is based on a significant amount of empirical research. (use references if you have to) This would of course be useful for any future discussions.

In addition to what I suggested in post #14, I would also include an in-depth explaination of your understanding of the differences between macro and micro evolution. (in addition to whatever else you think is necessary)

I'm as skeptical as you are - but that doesn't mean that I'm going to jump to any conclusions that the theory is automatically false and accuse the scientists involved of faith based research unless I had substantial evidence and a deep understanding.

jimbowley

19 Jul 2005, 01:14 AM

About the only thing that the principle of natural selection is good for is saying that the creature that lived, lived. If the biggest baddest strongest sucker out there got crushed by a falling rock, or frozen in a storm, or suffered in a drought did nature select the best one? In fact nature doesn't select anything, some creatures live, some creatures die and a great deal of the time it has nothing to do how superior it was to its peers. Micro evolution by natural (or accidental maybe) selection can't even be interpreted to mean there has been a gain in information.

When something micro (not macro) evolves information is lost, not gained. Another term for this is specialization. If a group of healthy animals with stong genetic coding (allowing for more varience in offspring) get seperated into vastly different environments. Certain traits among offspring will become more important in the new environment and will tend to give a slightly higher survivability rate and will become common is succesive generations. Note, the traits were already there, they just became more important due to environment, the environment did not create them. Other genes that are now not so important may become corrupted, through natural radiation, chemical processes, inbreeding or other natural deteriorating factors. The animals never notice however because those traits aren't really needed so the occasional corruption of those genes is tolerated and eventually permanent. The creature has now evolved, adapted, become more specialized to it's environment. Another group in another location experience the same thing with different sets of genes and over time you have two new species which may or may not be able to breed. They aren't better than their parents though, and they are still the same type of animal. As a side note it's not even necessary for certain taits to be beneficial to become dominant, chance can accomplish that many times. This is where the rock, storm, drought thing comes in. But still, the genes were already present, chance did not create them.

That is why it can look like "natual selection" can create information because there is a change. The change over time however constitutes loss of information and the animals in question will become less able to adapt to new environmental changes. This is also a far better explanation for the increasingly dangerous slide to extinction for many animals. Minor changes in environment are wiping out animals all over the world. Some cloud forest tree frogs are thought to have been wiped out by just a small change in yearly temperature according to a PBS special I watched. It was probably too far out on the micro evolutionary tree and had lost the necessary genetic information to deal with the minor change.

I'll make some comments based around where my understanding seems different to yours.

Yes, chance plays a part but on average being fitter will lead to better survival. I'm not sure if it was just a slip when you wrote 'biggest baddest', a lot of people do confuse fittest with strongest because a lot of the time they are the same thing, but when the ice-age is drawing in the fittest is the animal that can stand the cold, and when drought is occuring more and more the fittest is the one that doesn't need so much water.

I've not seen anyone mention information so much before, and it isn't even part of my understanding of evolution. Increasing information content isn't required by evolution, if that's the way it has gone then that's just because more complex things are more likely to survive, although a lot of the simple things are still around. Alternatively, when starting with nothing, more complex is the only direction possible.

I don't follow your idea that evolution (specialisation) is a loss of information. It appears that you believe, say, that 150000 years ago african man had 'strong' genetic code encompassing all the variations you see now in humans, and as we wandered of in different directions we made use of different traits. Well, that's not the way it works. As we migrated we mutated (and created new information, if that gets you over a stumbling block).

Here are some short and simple explanations of evolution. Perhaps one of them will help you get it. :)
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/geddit.htm

Apostasius

19 Jul 2005, 02:53 AM

Promethean,

I get the impression that you subscribe to some form of intelligent design. The authors and website you cite either directly or indirectly support some notion of ID. While this by itself does not necessarily discredit the information presented, it should make one pause and contextualize the direction, purpose, and content of the arguments.

I do not have the time, knowledge, or resources required to put forth a carefully crafted treatise that deals with anti-evolutionism. Nevertheless, as I am sure you have seen, negative arguments against evolution have generally been used by proponents of intelligent design to insert a designer into naturalistic scientific debate (of course, Raelians may disagree with most ID proponents on the identity of the designer). The intent by such people seems to be a redefining of what constitutes science. IMO, they sacrifice intellectual honesty by either overtly or tacitly serving an agenda that does not simply present conflicting scientific evidence. As such, I hope that you understand why an anti[macro]evolution presentation brings forth creationism references and occasional knee-jerk reactions.

So what is macroevolution? From my understanding there are two main schools of thought. The first school of thought says that there is no real meaningful distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. The words encompass different meanings, but within this view, macroevolution is an extrapolation of microevolutionary events over time. This view is often referred to as gradualism or the synthetic theory. The second school of thought says that macroevolution occurs through sudden and rapid changes. This view is often called punctuated equilibrium. While the mechanism is in dispute, it should be noted that the notion of macroevolution itself is not really in doubt. I do not think this confidence is due to dogmatic bias but by an examination of the evidence itself.

In my limited experience, I have noticed that many people have difficulty grasping large time scales (young Earth creationists seem hopelessly irredeemable when it comes to any meaningful discussion of the time scale needed for evolution). We as humans have a difficult time envisioning time past a few hundred years. I think that this limitation can hinder comprehension and/or acceptance of things that fall within vast temporal distances. With this in mind, I think that conceptualizing microevolution across a couple billion years proves to be an obstacle.

Besides the conception of large time scales, the other challenge confronting evolutionists is the lack of directly observable lines of evidence for macroevolution. This, however, is not a fatal flaw. While one cannot conduct a controlled experiment, one can use the approach of other historical sciences such as astronomy and geology. Hypotheses can be confirmed or rejected by making valid predictions and by determining whether or not the hypotheses and predictions fit what observational evidence we do have. Therefore, with what we know about microevolution, one can use the fossil record, molecular biology, homologous structures, vestigial structures, embryological development, biogeography and population genetics to make predictions.

Again, I do not have all of the answers, and skepticism is a good thing. I just have not seen or heard any scientifically acceptable evidence that falsifies either microevolution or macroevolution. This is not to say that such evidence does not exist or will not be forthcoming.

Theodoret

30 Jul 2005, 02:06 AM

Richard Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker is a very lucid argument in favour of evolution through natural selection. Accesible to the layman without pulling its punches intellectually (actually any of Richard Dawkin's books are worth a read).

I'd like to pick up on two areas Prometheus mentioned. The discontinuity in the fossil record, and the supposed micro/macro evolution problem.

Fossil record discontinuity is the natural result of the fossilisation process. Fossilisation only occurs under certain specific circumstances, and by its very nature is unable to capture remains of every species to have ever existed. To put it simply, fossilisation is rare. Fossil remains of soft-bodied animals are particularly rare as the processes involved tend to preserve only hard body parts.

Because fossilisation is rare, you tend to get a snapshot effect. Its rather like someone discovering an old film reel, and finding that many of the frames have degraded. If you just rescued the undegraded frames and ran the film it would be very jerky, jumping erratically from one shot to another. The fossil 'film', because it is incomplete makes it appear that species are suddenly springing out of nowhere and disapearing. It is possible that there are fossils still waiting to be discovered linking (for example) bird-like dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period with modern birds. However, there is already compelling evidence in the form of bone structure similiarities (particularly the construction of the skull and hip) to link the two. Fossil record gaps in and of themselves don't present a problem for natural selection.

On the issue of micro/macro evolutionary changes, the gradualists and the punctuated equilibrists (such as Stephen Jay Gould) are not in opposition on the concept of gradual change through natural selection. They are in opposition on whether speciation can occur in a geologically short time (of say hundreds of thousands of years) or a longer time of millions of years. Punctuated equilibrium certainly does not envisage organs and appendages springing out of nowhere. The concept is rather that an ecosystem will stabilise over time so that mutations allowing an organism to exploit a new niche (such as slightly pointier teeth for tearing meat) no longer provide a selective benefit (as the niche is already filled by another organism). However a big event (such as climate change) would free up some niches so that these sort of mutations become beneficial. This would lead to diversification of a particular species across more than one niche, and genetic isolation as different groups adopt different strategies dependant on niche would lead to speciation.