Questions on Evolutionary Theory
Is ID immature and subject to serious criticsm? Yes. Look back 100 years @ Darwinism. There was no molecular biology like there is today, so Darwin could only make broad statements and mathematical assessments. But deductive proof? None. It's all inductive. (It's based on model theory structures.)
So here's a hypothesis. It may be wrong, but I'd like to get an explanation in some greater detail. (After all, it's all about learning.)
I wonder if chance has anything to do with these changes. Well, not if you follow Dawkins -- it's all deterministic. Ok, so you allow chance with a compatibilist alternative. So what?
Let's make this really, really simple. Are there 10 million random genetic changes needed to take place from, say, an ancient little rodent to today's human? Just a round figure for the sake of argument. And let's accept, again for the sake of argument, the common hypothesis that there were no large mammals on the earth after the Yucatan impact of 65M years ago?
So do you really think that you can find a major genetic trait shift (on average) every 6 generations? Hardly. There is not enough time!
Let's try another route: Lucy is 3.9 million years old and (again, for the sake of argument) pretty close to human structure. That means very few changes from Lucy to today and a greater number of generational changes from Yucatan to Lucy. Again, not enough time!
Unless you want to revive Hopeful Monster. And nobody does.
Ok, so we leave HM and inquire about the possibility of PE. Is that the answer? Is it addressing the question? Why or Why Not?
Posts
44 comments:
Is ID immature and subject to serious criticsm? Yes. Look back 100 years @ Darwinism. There was no molecular biology like there is today, so Darwin could only make broad statements and mathematical assessments. But deductive proof? None. It's all inductive. (It's based on model theory structures.)
It seems to me that this should not be so surprising. Darwin began with two very simple observations. First is offspring tends to take after their parents. Second is that despite the first observation there is often some variation that appears random. The mechanism behind this was unknown to him at the time but the truth of those observations was common knowledge long before Darwin. The implications of those truths, though, appear to me to be pretty well fleshed out. Discoveries in molecular biology have modified the theory but I don't see how you show it is a weakness to it.
Let's make this really, really simple. Are there 10 million random genetic changes needed to take place from, say, an ancient little rodent to today's human? Just a round figure for the sake of argument. And let's accept, again for the sake of argument, the common hypothesis that there were no large mammals on the earth after the Yucatan impact of 65M years ago?
So do you really think that you can find a major genetic trait shift (on average) every 6 generations? Hardly. There is not enough time!
You seem to be imagining a single pair of rodents who have one or two offspring every year for 65 million years. Roll back the clock to the hypothetical rodent population after the impact. Let's say it's 1 million. No doubt even with the devastation of the impact there probably were more than 1 million rats (or rat like critters) on the whole earth but let's stick with that. The next generation is not a single opportunity for a genetic change but at least a million...probably multiple millions since rats tend to have a lot more than one kid per year. No mammel reproduces by cloning so by definition every offspring is going to be genetically different from its parents. If you need 10 million changes....well you'll almost certainly get them in only a few years after the impact...not millions.
To see it in another way, look at the difference between a wolf and a dog. While their DNA is still quite similiar I'm sure there's at least 10 million differences...probably more. We know, though, that it didn't take 65 million years for man to breed dogs out of wolves.
More problematic, though, is that I don't get your argument. ID is young, evolution was once young. It does not follow that ID is equal to evolution. All theories start out as young, most fail to mature and are tossed into the dustbin. Pointing out that ID is young actually is a mark against it. Just playing the odds tells us that chances are ID is destined for the garbage can rather than blossiming into a new paradign. You then shift to a question of whether 65 million years is enough time for evolution to operate. I would imagine this question is discussed in much more technical areas than I can handle but I have to shrug and say so what? Defences of ID seem to always be so parasitic on evolution. Too often a typical defense falls along the lines of "how can evolution explain X" which results in a rather annoying scanvenger hunt where evolution's defenders have to see if X has in fact been addressed and if it has what the answers are. A little of this can be thought provoking and motivation to sharpen one's knowledge but a lot of it just becomes annoying...especially if the answer to "how can ID explain X" is more often evasion.
The issue is this: Even though a small mammal may have a generational cycle of 3 months, humans have a cycle of roughly 25 years. The result is certainly not an average. Probably more something of a logarithmic measurement. But even so, the rapidity required for meaningful genetic change is significant.
The "so what?" seems to be a significant So What? -- enough to cause a reformulation of the time tables and subsequent evolutionary hypothesis.
Some in the creationist camp are "parasitic" because they offer mere negative arguments, merely criticizing the weaknesses of Darwinism. But ID does not do that. As I mentioned on Evangelical Outpost, ID would have been better able to handle the supposed "junk dna" question that naturalism's built-in incoherence was unable to handle. It is, and will become, a better *theory model* for future study. And no mention of a creator is necessary. In that respect it is better built as an Information model rather than as a Design model. In that sense it fixes a major failing of Naturalism. (Read Plantinga for more on incoherence.)
Collin
The issue is this: Even though a small mammal may have a generational cycle of 3 months, humans have a cycle of roughly 25 years. The result is certainly not an average. Probably more something of a logarithmic measurement. But even so, the rapidity required for meaningful genetic change is significant.
Nonetheless 65 million years is quite a few generations and quite a few opportunities for genetic change. Likewise you're only looking at opportunities in one dimension, time. Each cycle, though, itself is millions of opportunities for change. Every child is geneticallly different than its parents. Likewise it isn't just a single change but many changes.
Now as for how many you need to go from rat to human & all other mammels descended from one population at the end of the impact, I don't know and I don't think you do either. Of course we do not have DNA samples from every generation of rats that survived since the impact and even if we did all the computers in the world probably are not powerful enough to analyze such a massive amount of data. We also don't have computers or computer simulations powerful enough to try to simulate genetic changes down to the DNA level on a population of 1 million going for 65 million years.
Also what "seems" reasonable is of little use. We do not have real world experience observing genetic changes over 65m years. Trying to come up with a 'gut feeling' for what would be a reasonable amount of change and what would be the limits to change in that time frame is just guessing. Do you have anything more solid than a feeling about how much and how little change one could really expect over 65m years?
The "so what?" seems to be a significant So What? -- enough to cause a reformulation of the time tables and subsequent evolutionary hypothesis.
Enough to cause the reformulation of the time tables to what? How many years would you need? 200 million? 2 billion? Unless you have a way to at least begin to make the estimate of such a calculation you haven't meet the 'so what' criteria yet. For all we know such a change could happen in less than 2 million years.
It sound like we're in agreement, at least to a degree. Yes, there are opportunities for many changes with each generation and, according to Darwin, et. al., each struggle. But the quantity of changes and the amount of time to accomplish them do not fit. It is not I who need a new timetable but the naturalist. For those things to happen in such an extremely short timetable as 2M would require a complete reinterpretation of the fossil record and genetics. And it seems unlikely that the evolutionist will go to that point, let alone accept the premise. But the problem seems to remain.
But the quantity of changes and the amount of time to accomplish them do not fit. It is not I who need a new timetable but the naturalist. For those things to happen in such an extremely short timetable as 2M would require a complete reinterpretation of the fossil record and genetics.
I'm not sure how we are in agreement. You've asserted that 65 million years doesn't seem like enough time for genetic code A to become genetic code B. I ask how many years would you need?
Given that it is impossible to compute a direct calculation (manually computing the limit of changes that can happen to each bit of DNA for each generation down to 65m years) is impossible I don't see any easy way to support your assertion. You haven't supported your assertion either. You've simply said 65m years doesn't seem like enough. Why? How do you know? What would be enough?
Also I still see this as playing the role of the parasite on evolution. You're trying to say rat->human would take more than 65m years by evolutionary theory.
What would ID theory say? I'm sure it could say 65m years. After all, a designer can choose to take it slow. But it can also say 6.5 years or 600m years. It literally points everywhere and anywhere. Instead of pointing where things should be the entire theory, to me, seems like it has to be retconned after the fact after someone else does the actual work of figuring out what really happened.
We're only incidentally in agreement because their time table is not easy to put to effective & fruitful work.
The computation of probabilities is all anyone can do. Hence evolutionary "historians" depend upon some quite involved formulas and look back for a history that could have happened. Not that it was probable but that was possible and at least not improbable.
ID theory is not making the simple assertion that "Darwinism can't, therefore it is false" but is saying "Darwinism can't, but this is the solution". It's not a mere accusation of error but the proposition of an alternative model theory.
But why should this 'alternative model' be considered better?
I see we agree that even trying to make a probabalistic calculation for the max. amount of genetic change over 65m years is a very difficult calculation. It would be nice if it was easy and we could say the odds of rat -> human in 65m or less years is 95% or 5% or 0.0000001%. That would either lend support to evolution or counter it. But since such a calculation is not easy we cannot enter it as evidence against evolution unless you have evidence that someone has actually done it and produced results.
(And, of course, peer review still holds. If someone did such a complicated estimate their work would have to be scrutinized for mistakes and errors. Perhaps you're more keen on the technical literature than I am but I suspect such a calculation has NOT been attempted or if it has there is not general agreement on its results or methods).
And again because ID seems to point everywhere and anywhere odds are that it is not a good model. It's better to point somewhere and be off a bit than to point everywhere at once. Show me in real life how ID could make a more useful contribution to these questions as a model.
It is better because it can provide the same answers as the current system provides, and it can provide more.
Probability arguments are not deductive conclusions but historical predictions. They are not proof of failure but evidences of a lack.
There are multiple probabilistic theories out there, including Dembski's work. Some are deterministic "lawlike" approaches such as provided by Jason Rosenhouse. Others depend upon randomness. There is no Orthodox probability equation.
Finally, you'll need to read more about information-based solutions to see how ID can provide a specificity that randomness- and incoherence-based theory cannot.
Are there 10 million random genetic changes needed to take place from, say, an ancient little rodent to today's human? Just a round figure for the sake of argument.
Why not use a rational number instead of one that you pulled form thin air, most likely as a means of 'proving' what you already "believe"? You say you present the 10 million figure just for the sake of argument, but do you really think that there are 10 million substantive trait differences bwetween a mouse-like rodent and a human? What are they?
Can you make a list of, say, 1,000?
My bet is that you cannot do even half that before you start repeating yourself.
So do you really think that you can find a major genetic trait shift (on average) every 6 generations? Hardly. There is not enough time!
When you establish unrealistic ground rules, of course your results will look silly. That was your intent, was it not?
Let's try another route: Lucy is 3.9 million years old and (again, for the sake of argument) pretty close to human structure. That means very few changes from Lucy to today and a greater number of generational changes from Yucatan to Lucy. Again, not enough time!
A baseless assertion devoid of logic or rationale, and premsied on a totally fabricated foundation. Wonderful argumentation!
It is a hypothetical.
But I don't see any reasonable way to get the number of trait changes in a mere 1000. 10M is not an unreasonable hypothetical figure when you talk about the complexity of genetics. But it's also not simple changes -- there is not a simple path from rodent to human. There are gene combinations and all sorts of other hypotheses related to these processes. Throw in natural selection and you add more possibility for loss.
That's a field in which you are apparently strong. But for the sake of *your* position let's say it's a mere 1M. That's still a real change every 60 generations, which is also outside the scope of common Darwinian and neo-Darwinian calculations.
Again, the numbers, even your more modest numbers, don't seem to add up. Now, if you enlighten me (the post was clear about my wish to hear a real alternative (see paragraph 2), I'm all ears. But make it realistic, please.
But it's also not simple changes -- there is not a simple path from rodent to human. There are gene combinations and all sorts of other hypotheses related to these processes. Throw in natural selection and you add more possibility for loss.
Suppose you came upon a chessboard in a park with pieces already on it. You look at the pieces and wonder if someone was playing a game and stopped half-way through. Can you tell if they were playing a game using valid chess moves or if the pieces were placed on the board with some other thing in mind?
Well you could construct a database of all possible chess games and see if that configuration appears in any one game or multiple games. The problem is that the number of possible chess games is said to be so huge that even a computer the size of the universe working since the Big Bang couldn't calculate all of them.
Since you are unable to consult a comprehensive list of all possible chess games, you are left with only a few choices:
1. See if you can prove that no valid game of chess could result in the configuration you see.
2. See if you can prove a valid game could so result. (Perhaps such a confirguation could be found in a database of chess games recorded to date)
3. Conclude you cannot tell unless you uncover more information or stumble upon an insight that so far eludes you.
Choices #1 and #2 require you to 'show your work'. Choice 3 allows you to claim humility but leaves the question unanswered.
Now the genetic code of a rat contains a many more pieces than any chessboard and 65m years is a huge number of 'moves'. Saying that it is easy to imagine many possible cases where you don't see rat -> human is as trivial as saying you can imagine lots of chess games that result in different configurations than you see in the park. It's a true statement but you're not answering the question at hand.
Hopefully this makes the objection a bit more clear.
I think you've got the criticism backward. I'm wanting to see "the work" where the number of necessary changes are clarified and the changes are identified. That is why I raised a hypotheticall and asked for a clarification as to the reliability of such an estimation. My assertion is for the purpose of gaining clarification. I'm *wanting* someone to show any real or apparent error and not just say that it's wrong.
Chess pieces don't normally appear on a board randomly. But if they were placed there by an agent then one would pursue the agent (who placed them) to see if the pieces were placed there with intent so as to initiate, from the mid-point, an existing game. It would be difficult to determine if pieces were placed randomly but it would not be impossible to determine if placement might represent the results of real moves. There are some strategies that mature & seasoned players could identify. It is the assumption of randomness and chance which might remove that assessment from acceptable options as a suitable conclusion.
If chess pieces are placed on a board with randomness and it happens to match a real game ("information/intelligence") that would be less likely. The probability is low, but not impossible given the small scale of a chess board. Even so, it would emulate what we could (via mature, seasoned players) know as Chess Intelligence and it would not be identifiable as being really random.
The chess hypothetical has nothing to do with intelligent agents. A chess player might set pieces up to study a problem. While there's intelligence to their placement the actual configuration might be one that could not be produced by a valid chess game.
I agree with you that if I insisted the configuration was the result of a valid chess game it would be excellent proof if I could produce at least one example of a valid chess game that produces that placement. (That, mind you, doesn't prove the chess board was a result of that game...it could have been the result of another game that also produces that configuration or it could have been set up as a study problem).
My claim, though, would be not as strong. I would say the board might have been the results of a chess game that didn't get finished. If you turned around to me and said "Impossible! No game could have resulted in that configuration ever!" Well it's quite fair of me to ask how you could know such thing.
To return to whether or not 65m years is enough to go from rat to human. Again how do you know? Yes I agree it would be nice to have the entire genome of every generation of rat sitting in a computer database so you can see the evolution on such a scale. But we don't have that and cannot have it anymore than you can fit a database of all possible chess games on a zip drive.
Now you're right there are some things we can figure out even if we don't have such knowledge. For example, if there are 10 black queens on the board we know that could not result from a valid game. Likewise if the configuration happens to match up with the game the NY Times wrote about on Sunday...well there we have a proof.
But proof is the key word there. I can go through every move in the NYT game and confirm it conforms to standard chess rules. I can note that since there are only 8 pawns and 1 queen it would be impossible to have 10 black queens on the board even if black was able to get every pawn promoted.
So how do we prove a statement like 65m years is not enough time? How do you know it isn't? Perhaps it could have been done in 5m years but nature went very slow about its business.
(BTW, even if you did prove 65m is not enough time it wouldn't be fatal to the theory. Your attempt to narrow the clock is based on an assumption that the Yuctan impact killed all mammels larger than a rat. That assumption in itself has yet to be proven. All we know is that we observe a huge drop off in the fossil record after the impact. That implies there were mass extinctions but doesn't prove it. Small populations of larger creatures might have lingered on for quite a while leaving behind few or no fossils)
To return to whether or not 65m years is enough to go from rat to human. Again how do you know?
If the changes are occurring as fast as needed for that time frame then we would be seeing changes in recent human history. Even in our lifetime. And if we're not seeing it, it's probably not happening.
I set the clock at 65M years based on material from naturalists. That seems a reasonable and honest approach.
How fast are these changes that you expect us to see? The change from wolves to the huge diversity of dogs happened within our collective history. Many of our common food staples are likewise radically different than their original form before we started our own selection on them.
Note that while wolves became dogs there are still wolves around today. I think you're getting caught up in thinking the entire population of animals changes from generation to generation. It's not like that. A small group can experience change while the larger group remains more or less unchanged.
Dogs are still one species.
In numerous debates with IDers I've never been able to get a straight answer on what a species is. That always struck me as really strange considering that IDers like to claim there is some finite limit on how much evolution can do. One would think, then, that a species is simply the limit to what can be done by selective breeding....
But whether or not dogs are the same species as wolves isn't the point. The point is that dramatic changes can happen almost overnight in the big scheme of things. Most breeds of dogs are not even 500 years old. If 500 years can do that what would 65 million be capable of?
Species is difficult because the lines are not clear. Everyone has trouble with this, at least in some sense. Even within evolution there are multiple considerations.
How do we know when a new species exists? Let's say humans develop a new trait X and that trait is spread through all of humanity. Does that make humans a new species at that next position?
Let's take it a step further and say that two fixed traits develop independently and that they are mutually exclusive (if you have A you cannot have B; likewise if B then not A) Does that mean there are two human species? At what point is divergence decided -- whether from the prior point or from the trait unqiueness. There are more questions, but these are the ones that came to mind on short notice. Determining a species by observation is not the best way and certainly not the only way.
Ahhh but under ID the lines should be clear. If evolution has limits then the most natural way to define species would be the set of animals that could exist. As you correctly point out, in real life the lines between species are blurry but that is entirely consistent with evolution.
To use another example, look at human language. It has many of the same feature as evolution. We have common descent (the Romance languages, for example, all descend from Latin). We have inheritance with more or less random modification (you probably speak the same language as your parents but your use words in ways that are slightly different, in less common cases radically different). There's also a selection process at work (new modifications are ditched if they conflict too much with established rules, they are embraced quickly if they 'feel right')
You may object here that humans are intelligent and language therefore cannot be considered an example of non-intelligent design. But the reality is the few times humans have purposefully set out to 'design' a language it has failed to catch fire. Esperanto is a prime example of this. While people do intelligent things with language they are rarely thinking much about language itself when they coin new words, stop using old ones, and experiment with modifications to grammer.
Like animal species, language species are likewise blury. It is easy to see the difference today between Spanish and Italian but over the last 2,000 years you would find it a lot harder. Yet if the claims of many critics of evolution applied to language then starting with one particular "Adam & Eve" language should lock you into a limit of modification. Latin might be able to morph into Spanish and Italian but never English, for example. But while we know Latin only contributed to English there doesn't seem to be any inherent limit on how radically a language can change over time.
How do we know when a new species exists? Let's say humans develop a new trait X and that trait is spread through all of humanity. Does that make humans a new species at that next position?
I agree with you that species is a pretty much arbitrary definition. But you're the one that brought it up! You said that wolves and dogs are the same species so the radical changes created by selective breeding in a few hundred years can be ignored while the changes over 65 million years can be declared false because there's supposedly not enough time. You make very specific assertions but when I probe you to support them it feels like everything turns into smoke.
Let's not confuse ID with creationism. ID takes steps in recognizing how genes work and that's not consistent with the idea of static creationism. This is an area where the two views diverge significantly and why ID is scientific and creationism is not.
It is a non sequitur to always use the term "evolution" with the term "change". They are not the same, and it begs the qestion if all change is evolution then nothing can be other than evolution. That is one of the shortcomings of neo-Darwinism.
Don't make the (Darwinian) mistake of induction. The present does not necessarily infer the past. To argue that the changes that produce differences must also produce species is not a deductive proof. Were that the case we would be seeing more speciation in some creatures today; we are not. Again, change is recognized. But my question of adequate time to support the Darwinain framework remains as yet unanswered.
Collin
It is a non sequitur to always use the term "evolution" with the term "change". They are not the same, and it begs the qestion if all change is evolution then nothing can be other than evolution. That is one of the shortcomings of neo-Darwinism.
Granted but I think I was pretty clear about this. I emphasized how language changes are similiar to biological changes in evolution. While no analogy is perfect I think these are close enough for useful discussion. To contrast this, I would say the change in the Star Wars franchise since the original movie in the late 70's would not make a very good analogy.
Don't make the (Darwinian) mistake of induction. The present does not necessarily infer the past. To argue that the changes that produce differences must also produce species is not a deductive proof. Were that the case we would be seeing more speciation in some creatures today; we are not.
But you've ran away from the species point. I pointed out how radical new breeds of dogs have been developed in only a very short period of time. You first came back with wolves and dogs are the same species and then admitted that species is a very fuzzy standard. So we see radical changes in dogs today and claiming it is all happening inside a single species doesn't resolve your problem.
If you said yes radical changes can be made in a short period BUT not outside some boundary we can call a species. Well that would be an argument for why 65 million years is not enough time. But that would lead you down a thorny road of what that boundary is and how you know it can't be crossed (or only crossed with more time than 65million years or with non-Darwinian mechanisms). Since you more or less said species is not such a boundary you've forgone that argument.
As for induction, well all historical theories assume the past can be inferred by looking at the present. Aside from time machines I'm perplexed at how you would propose any historical theory be formulated.
Also considering that species is a fuzzy term I'm likewise not sure how you can say we are not seing enough of it per Darwinian theory. How much are we supposed to be seeing and how would things look different if we were indeed seeing enough of it.
Again, change is recognized. But my question of adequate time to support the Darwinain framework remains as yet unanswered
Have you really asked the question, though? I see no particular reason to assert that 65 million years is not sufficient time for small mammels to evolve into the diverse array we have today including man. I understand what you're saying about adequate time but the problem is you're not able to provide much aid here. If you have a way to estimate how much time is and is not adequate you need to present it. Otherwise you're just making an assertion out of the blue. While I see no reason for 65 million to not be enough time I also see no easy way to calculate a bare minimum amount of time needed. Here the young earth creationists would have an edge. I'd agree 10,000 years is not enough time for humans to evolve. Too bad for them, though, that no honest reading of the evidence suggests we are so young.
The problem is the insistence that all progress in change is "evolution". It still begs the question.
I did not run away from speciation. Your example of dogs fails because there is no new dog species. Even Dogs and Wolves can still cross-breed.
The reason for questioning induction goes to the demand for a "proof" from ID. By the standards raised, evolution is also incapable of "proof" becuase they are also employing induction to arrive at their conclusions and thus fail their own demands. It's not that induction should not be used. It is that induction is not necessarily adequate to answer all of the questions.
As to what we should expect in observing speciation, that's a question for the naturalist evolutionist. They *should* have something to show.
I asked the question in the original post.
I did not run away from speciation. Your example of dogs fails because there is no new dog species. Even Dogs and Wolves can still cross-breed.
So the radical difference between a wolf and poodle can happen in less than 500 years but inability to cross-breed needs more than 65 million? Why? Are tigers and lions different species? They are able to breed with each other. There has been speculation that humans and chimps can breed. Are they the same species?
The problem is the insistence that all progress in change is "evolution". It still begs the question.
Yawn, now now cut it out. I did not say all progress is evolution nor did I say all change is evolution. I even gave you two examples of change; one of which I did not consider evolution and one I did.
You'll note in the example of languages I did not argue that their evolution was progress. French in 1600 was not worse than French today and I don't think French in 2300 will be 'more progressive'. While the language evolved and will continue to evolve that's not the same thing as progressing. Progressing requires us putting our own value judgments on nature. While we may think the wolf is more noble and cuter than the rat nature has no such bias.
The reason for questioning induction goes to the demand for a "proof" from ID. By the standards raised, evolution is also incapable of "proof" because they are also employing induction to arrive at their conclusions and thus fail their own demands. It's not that induction should not be used. It is that induction is not necessarily adequate to answer all of the questions.
There's at least two different theories at play here, the first is evolution which is a theory of how living things change over time. The second is historical, what were the changes that brought life form A to life form B? Over on EO, I used the example of gravity.
Why did a particular plane crash? Because of gravity. OK, be more specific! Here you begin to make a historical theory. Your theory will probably support and include the overall theory of gravity but you may or may not get the theory correct. Your theory may be that the plane was not properly de-iced thereby causing the plane to be unable to maintain life thereby the theory of gravity brings the plane crashing down. It may turn out your theory is wrong; the plane's engines failed thereby causing lift to fail thereby causing gravity to send it down.
As you can see gravity is pretty well established but there will be numerous historical theories and while gravity is pretty much settled the historical theories may never be settled. Information may be incomplete and forever lost making some questions unanswerable. That, in itself, does not give any ammunition to the gravity skeptic. If the gravity skeptic wants to claim the plane came down because something is very wrong about our understanding of gravity....he has to do a lot more than simply tell us there's reason to question the de-icing theory.
As to what we should expect in observing speciation, that's a question for the naturalist evolutionist. They *should* have something to show.
It's a question for you. Again and again you tell us something is wrong but won't tell us what it is or how you know it's wrong. You told us that ID would have done better on 'junk DNA' yet you can't tell us what ID has to say about junk DNA nor do you even seem to know what Darwinian evolution has to say about it. You tell us 65 million years is not enough time for the mammals that survived the impact to have evolved into man but you won't tell us how you know that or how much time would be enough. Now you tell us that we should see more real time speciation but you won't tell us how much we should be seeing and even tell us that species is an arbitrary definition anyway!
Things like this make honest people suspect that you're not engaging in an honest discussion but are endlessly sending us around in circles. You demand examples. When you're given examples you play the extreme relativist with definitions. When definitions are given you then demand examples. You assert there's not enough of something, when asked how much there should be you answer that your opponent should know because it's his theory and not yours. Even when you have the opportunity to assert something real, something concrete that can either be refuted or supported you decline. It feels like you want to play all sides of the question so as the evidence is brought out you'll never be caught on a losing side. If we were playing musical chairs I feel you'd be the guy who keeps his hands on at least one chair at every moment so he never risks losing a seat.
Again, dogs are one species.
But that's the neo-Darwinian framing. You used the term "evolution" in that broad sense. That use of the term goes beyond good sense.
Gravity was never proven historically. We use it in courtrooms every day but not in the laboratory.
And my argument fails because they have no current example evidence? Please.
Collin writes:
It is a hypothetical.
But I don't see any reasonable way to get the number of trait changes in a mere 1000.
I had asked you to name 1000 of the millions of changes you believe exist. You did not even try. You see no 'reasonable' way to get a human from a rodent in 1000 trait changes, but yo uhave not even explained what you mean by trait. You are just tossing nig numbers around as if they mean something.
And what ARE the trait changes you speak of, and how many mutations would it take to produce them? You seem to know. You think that there are 'millions' of trait changes between humans and rodents, yet you cannot even list a few of them. I was not saying that there ARE 1000, I was asking if you could actually list 1000 of the millions you say exist.
10M is not an unreasonable hypothetical figure when you talk about the complexity of genetics.
10 M what? Trait changes? Please explain what you mean by a trait.
But sure, let us talk about the complexity of genetics. I just taught the genetics unit in my anatomy class this past week. Again I ask - How many mutations are requred to produce specific trait changes, as you call them?
Do all trait changes require the same number of mutational changes?
I fail to see why 10 M mutations is a 'reasonable amount' devoid of any rationale or explanation.
Oh - and are we talking about fixed beneficial mutations, or phenotype-altering mutations in general?
But it's also not simple changes -- there is not a simple path from rodent to human. There are gene combinations and all sorts of other hypotheses related to these processes. Throw in natural selection and you add more possibility for loss.
Of course it is not simple. There is nearly no limit to what direction an evolutionary process could take. But human from rodent was not a goal. In fact, there is NO goal at all. What we see is simply what happened.
That's a field in which you are apparently strong. But for the sake of *your* position let's say it's a mere 1M. That's still a real change every 60 generations, which is also outside the scope of common Darwinian and neo-Darwinian calculations.
Please show some of these 'neo-Darwinian' caluclations you speak of. Where did you get your generation numbers from?
You will need to establish, in order for your positon to have any merit, at the very least:
1. How many trait differences in 'kind' and not degree there actually are (e.g., changes in the density of hair on the skin is a difference in degree, hair from no hair is a difference in 'kind'; differences in degree can be caused by neutral variation and other non-beneficial changes).
2. How many mutations would have been required for each such change.
It would also be helpful to know the population sizes involved and the generation times of the ancestral groups, but 1 and 2 above are the bare minumum that your position must have in order to be taken seriously at all. Simply 'not believing' it is insufficient.
Again, the numbers, even your more modest numbers, don't seem to add up.
I'm sorry - I provided no numbers. YOU did.
Now, if you enlighten me (the post was clear about my wish to hear a real alternative (see paragraph 2), I'm all ears. But make it realistic, please.
An alternative to what?
I a unsure why a greater requisite for realism is placed on me when your numbers appear to have been pulled from thin air and to be premised not on any knowledge of genetics, but on an awe of large numbers.
Rodents diverged from the rest of the placental mammals some 80 million years ago (depending on the source and the specific branching pattern employed, between 55-125 MYA). In terms of real anatomy and physiology, there is relatively little in terms of 'new' traits that primates possess that rodents do not.
If there really are 10 M 'trait changes', what are they?
And why is 80-odd million years not enough time?
You cannot just toss out numbers and call it an argument.
Collin writes:
I'm wanting to see "the work" where the number of necessary changes are clarified and the changes are identified.
That does not appear to be what you wrote in your blog post. YOU presented numbers of changes, YOU should identify them and then explain how many mutations would be required to produce them. It is YOUR argument.
That is why I raised a hypotheticall and asked for a clarification as to the reliability of such an estimation.
I'd say that the 'estimation' is orders of magnitude off. It is folly to claim that there are some certain number of traits to account for when no real definition of 'trait' is provided or suggested.
My assertion is for the purpose of gaining clarification. I'm *wanting* someone to show any real or apparent error and not just say that it's wrong.
Why is pointing out the wrongness wrong? I do not pretend to know exactly how many trait differences there are between humans and a rodent ancestor in part because I do not know what traits the rodent ancestor possessed. Do you? But I do not feel that unless someopne proves me wrong, I can make any assertion I want to on the subject.
Human and mouse genomes differ by some 60%, 10x the difference between humans and chimps. This number is right about what would be expected had humans and mice diverged for a common ancestral population about 75 MYA ( see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/305/5683/525.pdf).
So what exactly are you looking to get corrected on specifically?
You asked me to name 10M changes? How many gene changes for walking upright? For arms, hands, size, shape, intellect. The minimalist approach of classic Darwinism is inadequate.
Collin writes:
You asked me to name 10M changes?
Do you read the things you reply to? I ask in all sincerity, for I specifically asked - and later reiterated - if you could name 1,000 of the 10 M you proposed.
I odn't think that is too much to ask.
How many gene changes for walking upright?
Good question. Do you know? If not, it seems to me that tossing out numbers like 10 M are just BS.
For arms, hands, size, shape, intellect.
Do mice not have arms? Hands (as such)? This is why I asked about differences in kind and not degree. Mouse forepaws have the same basic skeletal structure as a human hand does, just in different proportions and a slightly different configuration.
How many mutations did it require to get a mouse-like forepaw to a human-like hand? Couldn't tell you, but persoanlly, I wou8ld not feel comfortable tossing out numbers if I did not have a good reason to do so.
The minimalist approach of classic Darwinism is inadequate.
So you say, but do you really think just making things up is adequate?
Allow me to provide an example of why I do not believe some enormous number of benerficial myutational changes are required to alter the basic vertebrate body plan.
I do not present this as an example of evolution, nor as an example of a beneficial mutation. I merely present it as an example of how small genetic changes can produce large phenotypic differences.
There is a gene in humans that encodes one of the receptors for fibroblast growth factor. This particular gene is called FGFR-3. A single point mutation in this gene that alters an amino acid produces a form of achondroplasia (dwarfism). This is not a developmental 'programming' gene like the HOX genes, it is just a gene for a receptor that would be found on certain types of cells. Yet this mutation produces disproportionate limb growth, reduction in the number of interphalangeal joints, and characteristic facial features.
All from one little single nucleotide change. Now imagine what sorts of changes could occur as the result of minor changes in genes associated with, say, pelvis formation or neocortex growth.
There is a big difference between gross genome structure changes and the acquisition of beneficial mutations.
We know that "arm" is not a simple 1-gene change. You have bone structure, muscle structure, vessel structure, valves, everything including the attributes of strength, size, shape, color, etc., with the various nuances of each such as thickness, cell structure, etc. Set up a chart and you'll see that 1000 is a very small number. These things, it is proposed, came very gradually over millions of years. I'm merely suggesting that the proposed amount of time is inadequate.
Classic Darwinism is based on observation and, as I said, is simplistic. The use of molecular biology is neo-Darwinian.
It seems counter-productive to evolutionary biology to propose radical changes from single genes instead of long, slow changes as the theory supposes.
Collin
And my argument fails because they have no current example evidence? Please.
Your argument fails because YOU refuse to support assertions that you simply make up out of the blue (which I will assume you do until you provide reasoning). YOU asserted that 65m years is 'not enough time'. I ask you how much time is enough and you refuse to answer. I ask how you decided it is not enough time and you refuse to answer. My only conclusion is you simply decided, out of the blue, that 65m years is not enough time.
I'm well aware of the game you're playing. Doppelganger has done a good job of calling it out, he is thankfully blessed with more scientific knowledge than I have. You want to engage in drawn out discussions about evolution, seeking to nitpick everything, but you insist on protecting yourself from any criticism by dodging legitimate questions and arguments. What I'm curious about is if you're aware you are playing this game or if you really believe you've presented a brillant take down of evolution?
Again, dogs are one species.
Again I'll ask why is that relevant and why do you consider them a single species?
Gravity was never proven historically. We use it in courtrooms every day but not in the laboratory.
Again gravity does have two implicit theories. One is gravity as we use it today right now. Second is our theories of how gravity influenced history. In essence, these are two theories because what gravity did a week ago is not the same question as what is gravity doing now.
It happens that there's a great amount of evidence that gravity has remained exactly the same in the past so that framework helps us build historical theories. Our theory of gravity might be perfectly correct but nonetheless our historical theories might be wrong (such as our theories for why a particular plane crashed years ago). The leap to make here is that we may be dead right about evolution but nonetheless be unable to formulate correct historical theories about certain questions like the exact path between small mammels and humans.
The use of molecular biology is neo-Darwinian.
It seems counter-productive to evolutionary biology to propose radical changes from single genes instead of long, slow changes as the theory supposes.
Not what I read him saying. He did not say you can go from a tiny paw to a full arm in a single gene. He said that a single gene can trigger changes that would appear very dramatic. His example was of a single gene that can trigger a dramatic difference in size. To our eyes, things of dramatically different sizes appear quite different.
Appearances, though, can be deceptive. A child finds it hard to understand why a whale is considered in the same family as a bear or even a mouse instead of belonging to fish. Yet some training reveals why whales are mammels and more different from fish than other mammels.
Your arguement is based on appearances. A rat looks very different from a human so there must be a huge gap between them. In reality there isn't. Biologically they are different but nonetheless very close...which is why mice and rats are so often used in medical research, drug testing etc. Therefore while I cannot compute the min. amount of time necessary for all the different mammels to appear I see no reason to accept your assertion that 65 million years is woefully too little time.
Collin writes:
We know that "arm" is not a simple 1-gene change. You have bone structure, muscle structure, vessel structure, valves, everything including the attributes of strength, size, shape, color, etc., with the various nuances of each such as thickness, cell structure, etc.
I guess you muissed the very informative point in my last reply - a single point mutation in one gene altered ALL of those things in the limbs and head of the individual. You do NOT, in fact, need specific mutations ot alter every part of a limb. That is just naive folk science.
Set up a chart and you'll see that 1000 is a very small number.
A chart of what?
These things, it is proposed, came very gradually over millions of years. I'm merely suggesting that the proposed amount of time is inadequate.
I know, and you have offered exactly ZERO rationale, evidence, of explanation for your position. You just toss out a huge number and say that there is not enough time. Sure you obliquely refer to some 'Darwinism calculations' or whatever it was, but you don't say what those are even after I asked for clarification.
Your implied position on the apparent need for mutations for each and every part of an arm, for example, is not premised on any real understanding of genetics or development, rather a 'folk science' belief about how genes and organisms operate. You will continue ot 'disbelieve' in the issue unitl you actually make an attempt to understand what it is really about.
Classic Darwinism is based on observation and, as I said, is simplistic. The use of molecular biology is neo-Darwinian.
I see no relevance to anything for that statement.
It seems counter-productive to evolutionary biology to propose radical changes from single genes instead of long, slow changes as the theory supposes.
Did you even try to understand the points I made?
You might be better off getting your information on genetics, development, and evolution from actual geneticists and evolutionary biologists than from religious philosophers (Plantinga)and the like. Your replies are disjointed and you do not even attempt to address the details. It is almost as if you don't really want the answers you claim to.
But maybe I am wrong, and you will soon provide a list of trait changes between the LCA of rodents and humans, how many mutations would have been required to get those changes, etc.
Dopple,
You refuse to study the material or do the work. Your trolling is tiresome. Enjoy your week.
Pot, Kettle, Black
Collin comically writes:
Dopple,
You refuse to study the material or do the work. Your trolling is tiresome. Enjoy your week.
How quaint, how creationist.
Collin, my doctorate is in Anatomy and Cell Biology and my graduate research was on the molecular evolution of primates. My papers are cited by the Tree of Life web project and one of my papers has been cited more than all of Dembski's and Wells' actual peer reviewed publications combined.
That I do not accept your bland, unsupported assertions at face value is not a rational excuse for accusing me of 'trolling' and not understanding the issues.
It is not my fault that your ignorance of development and genetics and evolution has led you to propose absurd scenarios and even more absurd 'challenges'. If you feel that labelling my comments as trolling is a good way to avoid admitting that you are in over your head, well, so be it. Pride and hubris seem to be requisite qualities for internet creationists.
I took the time ot check out your comments on Brayton's and Rosenhouse's blogs, and it would appear that only one of us qualifies as a troll, and it is not me.
If you ever feel able to actually produce valid, meaningful numbers for your scenarios as opposed to things pulled out of thin air and premised on a poor understanding of biology, ior worse, on your understanding of the issues via creationist books and essays,let me know and I will gladly discuss it with you.
Until then, I plan to document this exchange on my blog.
http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/
What is fascinating is that I proposed a scenario and raised a question. But instead of answering the question the two of you persisted in denouncing the scenario. No answer to the question has as yet been provided. I may have to come over to your blog and see how the rhetoric goes.
I explained that the question is bogus, and repeatedly explained why. I asked for some information on where you got your figures from. No answer. You mention 'calculations', I ask about them, no answer.
Rhetoric? You bet...
No. You questioned the hypothetical numbers, but you offered no alternative. All I ask for is a model to show me wrong. Got one that you can summarize?
OK jerk, I calculate that 65m years is plenty of time for the diverse array of mammels to have evolved.
There I have presented a model that shows you to be wrong. Nice short summary. I've supported this model with exactly the same type and quality of facts you've used to support yours.
I apologize for the name calling but it's very arrogant when someone demands 'alternatives' to their hypothetical numbers.
Talk about relativism. Collin's basic position is that he is allowed to make up any number he wants and then expect people to respond to it. But, of course, they aren't allowed to actually reference reality in challenging his hypothetical numbers!
Then he has the gaul to lie by asserting I ever said anywhere that I had no intention of 'educating' myself in this area! This lonely blog appears to be written by a very disturbed fellow.
Boonton,
I find it disingenuous that you would apologize and then call me "disturbed". Sad.
Do you understand the words "hypothetical" and "model"?
Dopple insists on small numbers and simple switch changes but that would appear to contrast with the long, slow process of evolutionary theory. Everything has to change and it has to change slowly. I'm staying with the large numbers because they are more realistic.
An arm does not sprout from a leg. That's a given. But what would it *hypothetically* take for a leg to become an arm? Let's start by noting *some* things that must change:
1. circulatory system
2. bone structure
3. muscles
4. skin
5. foot/hand
Each of these has a variety of qualities that need to change. Let's list a few. There are more, but this is a good start.
1. circulatory system
1.1 Vessel size
1.2 vessel capacity
1.3 valve strength
1.4 elasticity
2. bone structure
2.1 formulation
2.2 thickness
2.3 marrow capacity
2.4 strength
3. muscles
3.1 tendon strength
3.2 size
3.3 strength
3.4 oxygenation
4. skin
4.1 sweat capacity
4.2 elasticity
4.3 hair capacity
4.4 coloration
5. foot/hand
5.1 Shape
5.2 Nails
5.3 Surface
5.4 Thumb
We've ignored blood, sweat, brain, respiratory, kidney, digestive, glands, and a multitude of other human features.
Each of these other characteristics that have not been mentioned, as well as their various properties and characteristics. One thousand (1,000) is an easy number for anyone in anatomy to reach. Multiply that by the thousands of small changes required and the millions and tens of millions of needed changes appears not to be a number which is unreasonable.
Now I'm going to take my disturbed mind and see you later.
Enjoy.
I find it disingenuous that you would apologize and then call me "disturbed". Sad.
Not at all, calling someone a jerk is just name calling. Disturbed is more substantative because I think you've gotten to the point where you've played so many games with the truth you can't even recognize it anymore nor recognize your distortions of it.
Dopple insists on small numbers and simple switch changes but that would appear to contrast with the long, slow process of evolutionary theory.
No he pointed out that a single switch can cause changes that appear very dramatic. He did not say there's a small or single switch that stands between rat and human.
Each of these other characteristics that have not been mentioned, as well as their various properties and characteristics. One thousand (1,000) is an easy number for anyone in anatomy to reach. Multiply that by the thousands of small changes required and the millions and tens of millions of needed changes appears not to be a number which is unreasonable.
Yes and so what? Except for perfect cloning, every offspring has thousands of changes from its parent. If a population of 1 million mammels in year 0 produced 1 million offspring (keeping the population stable) you're going to see how many changes? 1,000 between each offspring and parent? That's 1 billion and you've just made it to year 1, not year 65 million.
You have no calculations at all and no numbers at all. You've simply shown that it takes lots of changes to go from some small population of homogeneous mammels 65m years ago to the diverse array of mammels to day. Well it may take lots of changes but there's been lots of generations and lots of opportunities for change...all huge numbers multiplied by 65 million years which is an even larger number.
To put it briefly:
1. To accomplish A you need a really big number.
2 65m years is a lot of time to pass.
If #2 < #1, then no problem has been encountered for evolutionary theory. If #1 > #2 then a problem is there (not necessarily a fatal one).
Two possible scenarios, unless someone has a serious method to make an honest estimate the real numbers all you've got is a question mark.
Post a Comment