evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none, page 3

Originally posted by StarBreather
I was pointing out the difference between "a little improbable" and "astronomically improbable".

Again, there is nothing 'astronomically improbably' about evolution and natural selection.

1. Most mutations look neutral because what we observe are mostly viable results. The non-viables died in the womb, or the seeds didn't grow.
2. Neutral mutations are neutral as long as they vary around an attractor, which is the designed being.
3. If all mutations in general were neutral, then the most DNA would be "junk", but this is not the case. Functions are being discovered now for the so-called "junk".

You apparently don't understand. Most mutations are infact neutral, in particular point mutations have no effect on the proteins that are ultimately derived from them. A mutation doesn't have to have any relationship with any 'designer' to be neutral, it merely needs to not make a difference for the organisms fitness.

He certianly did contradict your point that the vast majority of mutations are harmful.

The vast majority of mutations, occurring randomly (and spanning the ones we see and the ones we don't see because of non-viability), ARE harmful, especially if they accumulate into a deviation from the pattern.
Absolutely and completely wrong. The vast majority of mutations are neutral, they're also the most 'probable' type of mutations to occur. What suggests that most are harmful? And, again, what difference does it make? It the majority are harmful or neutral, there are still small amounts of beneficial mutation, which is all that is needed to generate variation.

So the series of "small steps" is very elusive. What look like little steps in the built organism has to come from huge rearrangements in the compressed information.

i fail to see how this is at all relevant if true. Evolution does not require 'huge rearrangments of compressed information'.

Variation happens within a certain range.

And natural selection can change the median point of that range, and mutation will lead to new variation, with the same quantity of 'range', but over a different 'shifted' span. Thats the entire idea of darwinina evolution.

Evolution has never been observed in higher forms of life.

This is patently untrue. Speciation has been observed in fish, fish are 'higher forms of life'. indeed, why should 'higher forms of life' be acting differently anyway?

Since when? Please demonstrate that the sort of 'informatio' in DNA proteins, crystals and minerals can only come from intelligence.

Crystals: their growth is a mechanical process.
irrelevant. They contain 'information'.

Minerals: their properties are causal results of the properties of matter.

Demonstrate that they are not the result of supernatural design.

Proteins: they are the mechanical result of DNA programs.

They, literally, contain the same information that is in the DNA. You can't maintain that they aren't teh result of design but DNA is, merely because of 'information content'.

DNA: it is a set of interlocked programs, much more complex than any human creation.

What? Humans create complex things all the time.

The thing to understand, is that between crystals, minerals and proteins on one side, and DNA on another side, there is an increase in the level of complexity.

And between less complex materials and crystals and minerals there is an increas in complexity. 'Increase in complexity' is not a valid way to measure 'supernatural design'.

Whereas matter moves mechanically and entirely subject to causal laws, it does not spontaneously configure itself into higher forms (higher, on a totally different level).
Like what, like lumps of carbon becomming complex and highly specific crystals? Even tho they are under great pressure and temperature? What do you think the 'probability' of all those carbon atoms 'falling into plcae spontaneously' is? ANd that it happens under narrow and specific pressure/temperature ranges for specific amounts of time?

Spontaneously means "irrespective of it taking seconds or ages".

Spontaneous means that it happens without having to force it. It has nothin to do with time.

Therefore, there had to be an influx of organizing information coming from somewhere.

Yes, organizing information, ie adaptation thru natural selection.

To simulate the workings of creatures and all their ecological interactions takes the computing power of planets and stars.

What does that matter? To simulate the movement of individual atoms in a large enough volume of gas would also take 'the computing power of planets and stars', whatever that is supposed to mean.

By this route we can prove that there is no time, not even in a billion years, for life to adapt to its environment on earth by the random steps of evolution.

What? Because modern ecosystems are very complex, life couldn'thave originated naturally? And because of that, evolution does not occur? This is a string of non sequitors, not a line of evidence or even a moderately convining arguement.

slicky
yo holmes, I never said it was impossibleI said it was "scientifically impossible"[/quiote]
Listen g-money, alls i is sayin is dat, when youse take in effect like that nutthin cans be 'theologically immpossible' then it don't not much make sense to say yous is meaning like 'scientifically immpossible' stuff is somes how 'otherswise possible' and such.

laws of science, something that that the odds of a 1 with 40 zero's following it is declared scientifically impossible

This taint truly shum tin dats fo' real. Like, dere tain't no biggly book o'scientific like laws and k-wantitative like meaures of 'possible'like and 'yo dis totally ain't possible son, so's don't even trys to start it'

you ever actually did do the chances of evolution happening, they would be HUGE

but like the chances of anyone hactually getting their knob slobbed by's a fine little biddy like's j-lo is hastronomically small, but some's one does gets it done. So by anal-ogys like even ifen its not likely that hevoltion should 'appen, its got, like, what, a million planets or sum such big numba to act on. And yo, dats like ways more blokes dan is trying to to get their bellend in j-los end, numsayin'!?

DNA re construction to create a whole new species is scientifically impossible, and I doubt it could ever happen anyway

Awww well I's is thinkin' youse is pretty smart like then, cos even 'dem totally brainy scientists like don't even tink a new species and what pops up from nuttin

And how do we no the Era of when dino's lived, huh? how do we date these creatures that lived bak in da day

because of all 'dem geostratiagraphic correlations dat all dem biblical 'natural theologists' came up wit all dem many years ago, likes it was practically 50 years ago or somthin that theys came up wit all dat.

look at some of King Nebakanezers documents

Yo, I don't know what sum geezer wrotes in his dokys, but me's don't recall much hearing bout tings like tyranosaurus in effex or no licalotapus runnins around. And lets I think fo a minute, no, i's don't recalls hearing about entire herds and gaggles of tricery topses walking around picadilly and wot.

evolution states that if you kill another person, that is ok because they are weaker than you

Me's don't recalls seeing any ting resemblin' dat in Origin of Species or any of 'dem udda evolutionary-like books. And you, wasn't it some geez named darwin who's said dat nones of whats in nature can like be used to makes up a morality nors an ethics like? Hmmm, me's tinks its mighta been.

evolution states that if you kill another person, that is ok because they are weaker than you

Eww. yo's man, I don'ts think youse need to know dat to not smack it up wits yo' moms and sistas and whatnot, unless we's is talking 'bout 'nother kind of 'sista'. Numsayin numsayin?

evolutuon states people get smarter thru the generations

No, hevolution don't say dat neither, its is only saying dat given 'eredibility and variation, dens natural 'election is gonna aks on it and produces hadaptations, nots dat like everyone's like getsin brainier by da generation.

as stupid as my door bell and didnt have any tools for farms or anything

Yo, i don'ts know 'boutcyor door bell and whatnot, but me's knows that just because someones likes not a farmer don't mean dat dey ain't smartlike.Infactually, i's is noticed dat dems farmers like ain't not toos smart to begingsand with like.

Adam had sewn fig leaves together when he relized he was naked for gramets.

Yo, alls I's knows is dat if me and me eve wuz walking around naked like, me's wouldn't be making up stuff tos cover her ups wit.

but im simply stating some things on how evolution and christian God doesnt mix to well.

Seems mo' like you's is saying dat a literal inter-per-tation of dem bible like books is what don't mix wit evolutions.

I disagree, in evolution, it IS acceptable to kill the weaker

Me's id like to see hows you's can dery-ive dat ethical position from an obersvation o nature.

nuthin wrong with a lion in Africa killing a gazelle

Yeahs but dems is hanimals, nots peepoles. Is don't think dat, 'cos darwins like saying men was aminals dats deys is still honly jes has good has haminals now.

Darwin's own words, of how he was weak, therefore he must die

Nah geez, darwins' didn't say dat

so does anyone have any real proof, or shall I say evidence to suggest the earth is billions of years old?

Yo, me's is pretsy sure dat deys is got what like potasium argon dating and nots to mentium uranium isotopic like datsing to figures dat out. And all dem red shifty thingys wot says the irf is billions o years old.

if God did make the sun it would seem logical to place its light here instead of waiting 8 minutes for it.

Wots it matta wot wouldsa been logical like to no god's and whatnot? Wasn't youse saying dat yous wasn't a christian neitherways? Anyting couldsa been logical and wot to a god, wots dat got to do widit?

what if the universe is only 6 or 7K years old as the Bible claims,

Wot if dat bible was alls made up by some udda god? Wots if the whole world and all dis stuff wuz like, yo, only like made the days before me was born and like? Me's had a mate named eddie and he'd toke on the maui wowi and be all like 'yo, wots if the whole world and all dis stuff wuz like, yo, only like made the days before me was born' and all like dat and me is just like 'yo, you'd best not be tinking you'se can hold on to dat the whole time you's is philospohzingering and wot'.

What is so improbably about natural slection acting on variable populations with heritable traits and resulting in adaptation and speciation?

Here we go again: it is a question of number, of mathematical sensibility. 10^1 is different from 10^100.

Irregardless of however you feel about the ultimate truth of Darwin's theory one can't simply pretend that its not scientific. Waving ones hands and saying something about 'probabilities' like the IDists is not scientific.

The evolutionists say that life began as RNA spontaneously in the primeval oceans. Somehow the atoms combined into molecules that could reproduce themselves. But:
1. 2 billion years and lots of water doesn't improve the probabillities.
2. RNA itself doesn't make more RNA out of nonexistent aminoacids: you need enzymes, proteins, the whole works.

That hardly means that most of the mutations aren't neutral. If you expose an organism to radiation then you're probably going to induce so many mutations that of course you're going to get some that are deleterious. Besides, being exposed to mutagens is not the only way that mutations arise.

The radiation example is an extreme meant to show that mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, IF they are random. What you call "neutral mutations" is part random and part nonrandom. Nearly all genetic codes have variable parts, that are meant to change to confer resistance to slightly different environments.

Drastic change becomes difficult. Small changes do not.

In a complex system, small changes are potentially more harmful because of the interconnectedness of the systems they affect.
Again, what you call "small changes" is just an appearance, because what looks like small changes in the phenotype can come from large changes in the DNA.

From species to species? No it doesn't. Selection on very primitive light sensing cells can adequately explain the overall evolution of the eye. No one claims that it all happens at once.

I was establishing the point that even in related species, when you consider exactly how is an organ described, you discover that there is not a neat package saying how it's made. Rather, the information is spread all over the genome.

If its 'designed' then its designed by natural selection. One does not see design anyway, one sees a succession and array of primitive and variable forms, especially wrt the evolution of the eye.

"Succession" is in the eye of the beholder. If evolution was active, it would need to act faster than we can observe (glacially slow, if anything at all). An example is the human kind. As far as we know in recorded history, humans have not changed at all. Yet during this time span there should have been many evolutionary pressures lying around and pressuring us into evolutionary improvement.
All we see is just a greater intermixing of genes, some diseases and resistances becoming more widespread, but not one single instance of evolution.

No, it works in unguided natural wild populations.

It doesn't work in unguided populations, because:
1. There is information input.
2. It is too slow.
Perhaps evolution could have more explanatory power if, instead of slow mutation and selection, it invoked fast mutation and selection. This (suitably developed) would contradict point 2, but still not point 1.

This is patently untrue. Speciation has been observed in fish, fish are 'higher forms of life'. indeed, why should 'higher forms of life' be acting differently anyway?

Translation: "speciation has been proposed as a nice word to describe the fact that slightly different families of fish have appeared in previously dry lake beds". But here we note that the fish are simply different forms of the same kind, so where is the "speciation"? This is just adaptation, nothing more.
I reaffirm: true speciation (like, a fish turning into a dog), has never been observed.

All speciation in higher life form involved loss of information

I don't think that anyone has ever done an 'information content' analysis on the genomes of speciating populations.

My affirmation was not well formed: I meant that, if ever there is such a thing as speciation, then, in general, it proceeds by loss of information. How could it be otherwise? How could we explain the constructive addition of features? A possible explanation (compatible with evolution) could be: generally there is loss, but sometimes a chromosome gets duplicated, which provides a "whiteboard" for future upgrades. Or part of a chromosome, gets longer, which provides more writing space. But then we would see a large variability in gene lengths and gene group makeups among individuals of the same species. As far as we know, this is not the case. So, constructive mutations (indicating a speciation upwards) remain unexplained by the theory of evolution.

So youi are saying that the people studying these cases just don't have a clue what they are talking about, and since, in your opinion, there is not speciation, then, no matter what, there is no speciation?

I approach the subject of evolution with skepticism. A few rudimentary observations here and there of "something probably connected with speciation" are not enough to prove that speciation ever exists. The goal to prove speciation should not interfere with the interpretation of the observations.

Sicne when were plants designed to hybridize? And how would that make a differfence? Are you claiming that there are only, like, what, three or four species of plants out there?

Maize is designed to hybridize with other variants of maize. Bacteria are designed to enable hybridization between maize and other plants (non-maize) by direct transfer of genetic material. In this way, whole plant populations can be upgraded in-place with no need to re-seed, by spreading them with specially contructed bacteria, should it be needed for some reason.

quote: The grain of rice is a veritable genetic library. It could grow on Mars.

I have never heard this claim before, nor do I see how its relevant

I was referring to rice. Rice contains 60000 genes, and apparently "Something like three-quarters of all rice genes are repeated in the code." (source: news.bbc.co.uk...).
Why should a plant accumulate so much junk? What long-term selection pressures could there be that give the plant a benefit obtained only after millions of years, and over all kinds of environments?

Its dependant on multiple things, atomic properties are one of them. By this reasoning, biological organismare only predicated on atomic properties.

Wait. Now you are saying that biological organisms dependent on something more than atomic properties?

quote: There is no increase of information because you can predict one from the other.

That simply is not how information works. Merely because one can predict it, and of course one can't here anyways, hardly means that there is no information in it.

That is how algorithmic complexity works. You can have many descriptions of the same object. None can be more complex than the object itself.
Just as the description of a house plus the building materials is at most as complex as the house, also the material laws plus the particles are at most as complex as the larger results (molecules, crystals, etc).

Proteins: they are the mechanical result of DNA programs.

They, literally, contain the same information that is in the DNA. You can't maintain that they aren't teh result of design but DNA is, merely because of 'information content'.

According to the previous definition, they would contain the same information if they arose naturally. As they don't arise naturally, then there is an added ingredient. The added ingredient is the information content, the expressed intention of the designer.

It's the concept of a language. Genes use aminoacids as a platform to express information. It is like like a painter that takes pigments of ink (matter) and creates a painting (message). By seeing lots of paintings and comparing their styles, you could say that they "evolved" from each other, which would be true only in a metaphorical sense.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what it was typed in response to. Genes have information, proteinshave information, they don't need for it to be expressed by one another, and, indeed, what relvance does that have anyway?

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.
My point is more on an epistemological sense: if you see many slightly different instances of the same object, there is no reason why you should force them into a time-series.
The idea of evolution is just an interpretation that is super-imposed on the facts. I have the notion that sometimes the idea of evolution limits the possible explanations beforehand, and acts like a prejudice.

Pardon, I meant that its not more complex that 'anything humans create'. And, again, complexity is simply not an indicater of Design.

Even a fly or a bird is more complex than the latest supercomputer. This could change in the near future, but we're just not there yet.
As for complexity being an indicator of design, the general rule derived from experience is: if you can recognise complexity, then you can recognise design. Just because you establish an artificial difference between man-made design and non-man-made design, it doesn't change anything.
The only way "complexity is not an indicator of design" is if you wishfully corrupt the definition of complexity.

They cannot be derived from one another. If I give you a peice of pure coal you are going to be able to make a diamond? If I give you a melt of a mix of minerals you are going to be able to tell me which ones its derived from? Thats interesting because geolgists often can't do this. To say that a lump of coal has more information that a highly structured diamond is silly.

Out of arguments, you invent totally new ones. Different states of the same matter arise under exactly known conditions. If you combine 1+3 or 2+2, you obtain 4. Given the same conditions, you obtain the same results. If the results are totally inherent in the initial conditions, then there is no increase of information overall.

quote: But DNA encodes information at a higher level than these physical processes.

it encodes at the chemical level, which is the same level that minerals are formed at.

The presence or absence of information is determined by the knowledge of the interpreter. If you look at a compressed stream, the pattern of the bits
will display a certain distribution. This distribution will look somewhat random, but with regular features from time to time. A code could be devised so that the observed distribution would appear uniformly random. To an unsuspecting observer, its distribution would be indistinguishable from that of a known random source.
So, basically, the message is an immaterial entity which the interpreter is able to decode.
On a totally different level, we can say that messages are written in substrates. The same message could be encoded in different substrates.
The chemical building blocks of the DNA are the substrate.
But the message is the shape of the organism.

There is no 'jump in levels'

Of course there is: one level is the support, the substrate. Another level is the message, the interesting information. Those levels are so different, that one is material (aminoacids) and the other is immaterial (the shape of the organism).

You are apparently not understanding whats 'random' in evolution. Natural Selection acts on variation. Variation is already inherent in populations of organisms, and new variation can arise thru mutations. Mutations occur Randomly. Thats where the random comes in. Scientists do not suggest that new species arise out of unselected randomness. Natural Selection does the selecting.

It's a nice theory. The source of information for selection comes from the environment (meaning the physical conditions, other creatures, etc). The wide environment therefore represents a fitness function that is applied to the successive generations. After a while, the creature develops an eye because the eye confers a relative advantage. So the environment kind of manipulates and shapes the creature. I have no issue with this theory, except for 2 points:
1. There is no time in the age of the universe for this to happen naturally. The theory abuses the sense of proportion.
2. There is no reason, regardless of time, for the spontaneous apparition of information. The theory involves a belief in apparitions.

Natural Selection, even before one looks to see if it exists, can obviously 'reverse' chaos. Besides, intelligence is not required to 'reverse chaos', unless you would content that little angels fly around in clouds making dirty unorderd chaotic water into clean structed snowflakes. Local chaos can be undone.

Before making such wide-ranging statements, lets look at an example to clarify the language: You have some fields of sterile land in some place. You plant some seeds in there. After the plants have grown, you have obtained a more organized state. But who put initiated the process? You.
What would happen if you did not plant the seeds? Nothing.

Then that merely demonstrates that your imagination is limited. One does not need design to have an ecosystem. If a niche in an ecosystem is available, then there will be selective pressure on some populations to occupy that niche. Even in very primitive and simple ecosystems this will be true. And the addition of niches and their becomming occupied will result in more complexity with time, and require no direction, supernatural or otherwise.

Perhaps I have not been clear enough. Ecosystems can and do arise naturally. But the kinds that live in them must preexist. The selection of the living conditions of the ecosystem doesn't create new kinds, it merely weeds out the unfit, and brings out some adaptative traits already inherent or not inherent but structurally possible (an example would be the immune system, where there is inbuilt variability).

I think that perhaps you do not understand what an ecosystem is. The inter-relationships between the organisms are something that has been selected for in each of the individual cases by natural selection. Creating the animals ad hoc to interact and then plopping them down somewhere would mean that the ecosystem has not arisen naturally.

An ecosystem is a balanced system that is self-sustainable in the long run. Once there is sufficient variety of creatures, many combinations can be made to suit almost all the environments of the earth.