You probably don’t have to explain too much to Steve
2 Likes
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.full.pdf
Also, keep in mind that the direct templating hypothesis itself (if correct) shows that there is a starting point that might need to be reused. Moroever, every time you claim that the code is optimized, this is evidence (to the extent you are correct) that it is not arbitrary. If a process was optimizing the genetic code, that means it is more likely it could have converged to the same optimum in different lineages.
We do not know exactly what happened in our past. If the genetic code is not a true arbitrary codes (and it appears it isn’t) than convergent evolution is an increasing possibility.
We just do not know enough, though, to say things with much confidence one way or the other about it.
1 Like
Haa, very funny. You had me intrigued for a moment when I saw the link to a paper. That 1983 Raup paper is not relevant for our purposes. Indeed it acknowledges the DNA code as evidence against their speculative proposal. What Raup shows is how flexible evolutionary theory is, and that even common ancestry is forfeitable and not in the core theoretic, but rather an auxiliary hypothesis. The same is true for a host of other seemingly important ideas (gradualism, selection, etc.) Everything can go, the core theoretic is naturalism.
Well you just folded and I don’t think you want to go there. IOW, if you resolve the search problem and find the canonical code via a chemically determined pathway, such that a search is not required, or not significant, and therefore the canonical DNA would arise easily, and perhaps even independently multiple times if you like, then you have joined in with those design rascals. You would be saying that the incredible, extant, DNA code we observe, is built into the biochemistry. Welcome to teleology–long live Aristotle. I think this is not supported by today’s science, but the point here is that if you go there, you’ve left evolution. This is an example of an on-going problem: evolutionists expropriating design concepts in the guise of evolution. I can’t tell you what the consensus theory of origins will be in 2050, but I can tell you its name: Evolution.
But that’s not the point. I discussed above the enormous problems with evolving the code. The existence of a fitness spike does not solve the problem.
And no evidence for it–none of that evolutionary history is observed. This would be a truly remarkable convergence.
Hi Joshua, thanks for all of your contributions here!
This statement intrigues me. Would you limit that statement to the first prokaryotic cell? If not, what do you think about the findings that seem to indicate an evolutionary origin of the first eukaryotic cell? For example, some organelles of eukaryotic cells such as mitochondria and chloroplasts show impressive similarities with bacteria in that they have their own genome et cetera (the genome of mitochondria has been shown to have a common ancestor with bacteria!). The characteristics of these organelles would be explained by a scenario of evolution of the eukaryotic cell starting from endosymbiosis with prokaryotic cells.
Even then, I don’t really understand why anyone would feel the need to assume “special” or “instantaneous” creation of the first prokaryotic cell. We didn’t hash out the whole story yet, but there seem to be a lot of plausible and fruitful scenarios out there. A natural origin for the first cell wouldn’t diminish God’s creative power in any way. On the contrary, it would amplify the “wow-effect” when we ponder all the potentialities God has woven into the fabric of the natural world.
Well, sure, that certainly is what Darwin argued but, actually, and sticking with the metaphor, it would be more accurate to say there is a tsunami of evidence against common descent.
Cornelius,
If you’re going to make claims about the evidence, is it too much to ask to have you cite the evidence itself, rather than your interpretations of what people say about the evidence?
Thanks in advance!
I can see it either way. Just depends on when you think God planted the seed. From a metaphorical standpoint, it seems that God as Gardener is an attractive image. In Eden, it is stated that He “planted a garden” which seems compatable with the image of starting something that later develops into more that began in the first chapter of Genesis. The bible has many other illusions to planting seeds and waiting for their fruits.
As a gardener of sorts myself, I take joy in the planting and awaiting with hope what will spring from it. Sometimes good comes of it, sometimes not.
Sure Ben, good question. Before I refer to some of the evidence, I’d like to make a preliminary remark. The evidence that does not fit common descent (CD) runs all through biology. It isn’t a particular piece of evidence, or particular area of biology. In that sense, learning the evidence against CD is just learning biology. So an interesting question is: Why is this evidence not acknowledged? Why is CD (and evolution) said to be a fact? I’ve read the literature and talked with evolutionists and the answer, though it takes many different forms, is that there are non empirical reasons for preferring CD and evolution. For example, above Casper wrote: “A natural origin for the first cell wouldn’t diminish God’s creative power in any way. On the contrary, it would amplify the “wow-effect” when we ponder all the potentialities God has woven into the fabric of the natural world.” That idea goes back centuries. Anglicans, Lutherans, etc., have been making pretty much that exact argument for a long time, long before Darwin. There is a non scientific imperative for naturalism.
So the theory is defended against the evidence. IOW, the theory is said to be a fact, not because of the evidence, but in spite of the evidence. And just about every evidential problem with CD can be patched up with some creative, ad hoc, explanation. You can always look at the evidence and say, “Well, evolution just happened to do it that way, and create these structures that don’t fit the CD model.”
I’m making this preliminary remark because in my experience this is how the discourse goes. One can always explain Observation A with Theory B, regardless of what A and B actually are. So the question is not: Can CD explain the evidence? The answer can always be “Yes.” A more meaningful question is: How heroic is the explanation? Does the evidence fit the basic idea of the theory, or are extra measures required?
As for examples of the evidence, one of them is similar species, which are considered to be neighboring species in evolutionary theory and CD, which nonetheless have significant differences when you look at the details. OTH, another type of example is distant species which nonetheless have significant similarities when you look at the details. Both of these types of evidences run all through biology, with variations and combinations on them. So these evidences, which contradict CD, show up in all sorts of different ways. I’ll give you links to nine short examples I have created, with references to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles providing more details.
The pentadactyl pattern and common descent
Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships
Biology is not lineage specific
Similar species share similar genes
MicroRNA
Genomic features are not sporadically distributed
Gene and host phylogenies are congruent
Gene phylogenies are congruent
The species should form an evolutionary tree
These examples are by no means exhaustive (nor perfect). They simply give you an idea of the biology, and how it does not support CD. If one merely looks at the evidence objectively and from a theory-neutral, scientific, perspective, the evidence clearly does not align with CD. That’s not to say there aren’t other reasons to prefer CD, and nor that those other reasons are not legitimate. They simply are not from the empirical science.
I posted a summary of the DNA code problem here:
Hi Dennis and Steve,
I just thought I’d let you know that Ola Hossjer has replied to your comments over at “Evolution News and Views.”
I don’t see anything empirical about your pages, sorry. The fact that you merely cite papers doesn’t make it empirical.
How about engaging with some evidence here?
2 Likes
Hello VJ Torley,
That reply is evasive. Let’s just look at the framing:
“Remember, these papers are not intended to be the last word on human ancestry. Instead, they offer models being developed in order to be tested.”
Usually, one tests one’s model and THEN writes the paper.
“What Venema pejoratively labels a “predetermined conclusion” is simply a hypothesis to be tested.”
Then it should be tested. What are they waiting for?
“His dismissive tone is unworthy. All scientific models test “predetermined conclusions.” That’s what a hypothesis is.”
His tone is perfectly appropriate, since there’s no science there.
“Moreover, initial “created diversity” is a legitimate, testable mechanism.”
Then why not test it BEFORE publishing?
“We know how genetics works and we can decide whether (within the bounds of genetics) initial high diversity could account for present-day observations.”
Dennis and Steve have pointed out that it doesn’t, and the Bio-Complexity authors don’t seem to understand how genetics works.
“As for the Middle East origin hypothesis, if you read the papers you will see that they have a justification for it – namely that African populations look artificially old due to different recombination rates.”
But there’s no evidence for different recombination rates! Why not test that hypothesis?
Moreover, the authors are demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of polymorphism. They need to have a hypothesis for the origin of all those alleles, and instead they just wave their hands.
“And given that their model allows for all kinds of normal mutations to occur, it’s hard to see how it’s fair for Dr. Schaffner to say they that they ignore mutations. Their model incorporates mutations!”
I don’t see that it does. Perhaps someone could come over here and walk us through the math.
“Unfortunately, these critics seem to want to kill off the proposed model before it’s even been fully implemented.”
If the authors don’t want to be slammed by critics, they should test (not “implement”) their model before publishing. They are just frantically handwaving.
Doolittle, W., E. Bapteste. 2007. “Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:2043-2049.
Cornelius
Thanks for citing this paper. I think there are several troubling transitions that make the universal common descent hypothesis troubling from a scientific standpoint.
-origin of the eukaryotic cell
-origin of multicellular life
-origin of vertebrates
-origin of mammals
-origin of man
I have never seen a reasonable explanation of any of these transitions and the paper you cited admits the extreme challenges of explaining the origin of the first eukaryotic cell.
Hello Bill,
Just because you haven’t seen explanations doesn’t mean that there isn’t an abundance of data supporting those transitions in addition to the explanations.[quote=“Billcole, post:53, topic:5974”]
…and the paper you cited admits the extreme challenges of explaining the origin of the first eukaryotic cell.
[/quote]
The tree of life holds together very well for the eukaryotes. Nearly all of the theological objections to evolutionary biology are limited to eukaryotes.
2 Likes
Hi Ben
Just because you haven't seen explanations doesn't mean that there isn't an abundance of data supporting those transitions in addition to the explanations.
If you have a supported argument here I am interested.
The challenge of the origin of the eukaryotic includes the origin of introns and there genetic codes. The origin of the spliceosome. The origin of the nuclear pore complex and the codes that allow genetic material to pass in and out. The amount of DNA coding to pull this off is millions of nucleotides that need to code for compatible proteins that fit together in shape and charge.
Do you have a paper you can cite that explains this?
[quote=“Billcole, post:55, topic:5974”]
If you have a supported argument here I am interested. [/quote]
Hi Bill,
Are you interested in rhetoric or in evidence?
I have no idea what you mean here. The “genetic code” refers to the correspondence between codons and amino acids. It has nothing to do with introns.
[quote]The origin of the spliceosome. The origin of the nuclear pore complex and the codes that allow genetic material to pass in and out. The amount of DNA coding to pull this off is millions of nucleotides that need to code for compatible proteins that fit together in shape and charge.
Do you have a paper you can cite that explains this?[/quote]
Why would all of that be addressed in a single paper, Bill?
I am sorry for mis using the term. I mean the relevant sequences that are part of the intron make up such as 5’ and 3’ termination.
Citing multiple papers is certainly ok. Eugene Koonin has discussed most of these topics in the last paper he published on the origin of eukaryotes.
The origin and early evolution of eukaryotes in the light of phylogenomics Eugene V KooninEmail author Genome Biology201011:209 DOI: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-5-209© BioMed Central Ltd 2010 Published
So why were you asking me to supply one?
Hi Ben
I wanted to see if you had information that contradicted or agreed to the arguments that I had read.
So far there is no real empirical explanation for the first major transition (eukaryotic cell) for UCD to be validated.
This is just the beginning of the problem of validating evolutionary theory and is the point Cornelius has been trying to make.
You stated that he (Cornelius) did not back up his claims and when I looked at the papers that he referenced I thought he had provided adequate evidence.
So…I notice that you are equivocating between evidence/information and arguments. How come?
We have vastly different definitions of evidence, I guess. Cornelius referenced papers, yes, but he did nothing at all to address the evidence in them. If you disagree, why don’t you offer an example?