In the process of doing the dishes I am in control.
lets take a simple example such as a heating system. the purpose of the system is to stop you getting cold in winter. the control of the system is achieved by a feedback of the temperature to the fuel supply control, so that when the temperature is achieved the fuel supply gets reduced. That is your process control.
If you look at evolution, the purpose of the process is to ensure the propagation of life. The control of the system is achieved by detecting the usefulness of lifeforms to the fitness of the system. Survival fitness is the ability to love thy neighbour like your own, its a feedback loop with a long time constant
The fuel gets what?
supply gets reduced.
in terms of evolution survival is reduced, thus it will reduce the population.
Evolution has no purpose of course. And I can’t parse
Especially ‘the fitness of the system’. What is that?
any evidence for that? It looks like is generates life forms of increasing complexity. Do you think that is an accident?
No I think that’s a false dichotomy. And therefore yes. Evolution certainly generates life forms of increasing complexity. It isn’t ‘for’ that.
so you look at yourself as an accident of nature?
Why the superfluity (take your pick)?
Apparently it is a property of helium below 2K.
Why time?
And Happy New Year to you marvin.
That would be superfluidity, a property of yours.
Why space?
There are indeed different kinds of gaps. One kind is where we do not have a complete scientific explanation, but there is some progress, or potential progress (if efforts to explain them have not yet happened). These are the types of gaps that we characteristically see within science. Science is a human process; we are finite and do not know everything there is to explain, much less the explanation for everything. But within the scope of giving physical explanations for physical phenomena, science is extremely successful and tends over time to shrink those gaps. This makes sense theologically. As the extensive use of merismus in Genesis 1 highlights, everything is made by God. In contrast to the fears of polytheism, there are no rival gods, chaos monsters, or self-motivated powers to disrupt things; everything functions in its proper way. Likewise, the task assigned to humans of ruling well over creation requires us to be able to figure out the likely effects of our actions. So scientific investigation of the physical creation should find plenty of regular patterns and good explanatory power. At the same time, this highlights the limits of science. By studying a physical pattern, such as evolution, we can see how it works. But it does not have inherent goals; the purpose of evolution is as a component of God’s overall plan. No amount of study of the electrons used in transmitting this post will help you to assess whether there is intelligent purpose in it; you must instead read the post to determine if there is intelligence behind it. So there are many significant aspects of existence that science simply cannot address effectively - aesthetics, theology, ethics, etc. Science can provide some relevant data for certain topics in those fields, but does not provide a full explanation. Thus, there are large gaps there that reflect the basic nature of science, rather than a gap within science.
Miracles might be considered a third category of gaps. Several of them involve happenings that are, as far as we know, violations of general scientific patterns. But that is the point - they are notable exactly because they are rare exceptions to the rule, and can only be recognized as significant if the laws of nature actually do hold in general.
If we can claim that natural laws changed arbitrarily in the past, then we cannot assert anything about the past. One young-earth advocate (who has a remarkable knack for claiming that a particular approach is invalid and then using that approach himself) claimed that atheists must use uniformitarian assumptions to reconstruct the past, therefore uniformitarian assumptions are inherently atheistic, therefore he can simply dismiss any argument using uniformitarian assumptions. The second “therefore” is not very smart apologetics; an atheist is unlikely to accept the premise that atheistic assumptions are inherently wrong and can just be dismissed; in practice that “therefore” is just an excuse for ad hominem fallacies. But the previous “therefore” is the big problem. Atheists must use uniformitarian assumptions to recreate the past because all reconstruction of the past depends on uniformitarian assumptions. Theists must use uniformitarian assumptions. The “no one was there and there’s no written record” excuse to ignore the physical evidence overlooks the fact that written evidence is only useful if there have been no major changes in how the world works. How do we know that the written words haven’t changed meaning to the point of mistaking their meaning? How do we understand the assumptions and intent of the written word, such as detecting metaphor, hyperbole, symbolism, etc. or filling in the background not told by the writer? In reality, we must carefully check and see what patterns are more constant and what are more variable to determine what we should or should not assume is uniform.
The problem with many ID or young earth arguments is that they claim that a gap of the “Science has not yet explained X physical phenomenon” type is proof that it never will be explained scientifically. Sure, there are a vast number of possible amino acid sequences. But there are also a vast number of them that do something useful. And neither abiogenesis nor evolution proceeds by just randomly sticking amino acids together. The laws of chemistry make certain combinations more likely than others. Once a functional sequence exists, copying errors will lead to producing many similar sequences, which are likely to also have some sort of functionality. We also don’t know how many completely different suites of proteins would work to make alternate versions of life. Experiments in abiogenesis are slowly increasing the complexity of things produced from scratch; studies on simple organisms gradually reduce the minimum complexity known to be functional and be alive. It’s not impossible that some sort of gap between those will prove recalcitrant, but so far it’s plodding progress in closing the gap, rather than any sign of a brick wall, and there are too many unknowns to make meaningful calculations of probabilities.
Fine-tuning arguments, on the other hand, fall under the category of claiming that explaining the origin of natural laws falls outside of science. Ultimately, that is true; no amount of multiverses actually can answer the question of the anthropic principle. “Why do the laws of nature in our universe match what is needed for intelligent life to exist?” and “Why do the laws of nature governing the multiverse match what is needed to produce at least one that is suited for intelligent life?” are not really very different questions. But exactly because it is a gap in science, one cannot accurately claim to scientifically prove that it is a problem. Lots of seemingly independent laws need to very precisely match their actual values. But what we make of that is going to reflect our personal judgment; it cannot be tested scientifically. “I think that this is better explained by the existence of a designer” is a perfectly reasonable assertion, but someone else may think differently - it is an argument of plausibility rather than of technical logical proof.
3 Likes
@T_aquaticus
The point is that you have to know how many specific orders will work before you can claim how probable it is for those specific orders to be found.
I’m not claiming to know how (im)probable the sequences are; I’m just pointing out that your card trick doesn’t work.
@T_aquaticus
All you have done is replace specified complexity with specific order
Dead right! And given that nucleotide sequences are the basis for any complexity we might perceive at a larger scale, it seems entirely appropriate. And – you should like this – sequences are more amenable to quantification.
@T_aquaticus
The theory of evolution states that lineages change over time. Why do you finding those changes is somehow evidence against the theory?
Because there has to be a plausible / credible mechanism to effect that change. One that doesn’t just rely on good luck.
@T_aquaticus
The how is mutations and selection.
This is getting repetitive. The specificity of nucleotide sequences is a prima facie argument against them arising through opportunistic mutations and selection, even if we are not yet in a position to quantify it. Your defence relies on what we don’t know – an evolution of the gaps argument.
@T_aquaticus
The difference between micro and macroevolution is analogous to the difference between micro and macroeconomics
That’s 1970s argument. It’s what the early neoDarwinists such as Ernst Mayr thought. But as we’ve learned more about the molecular complexities of biology, including embryonic development, it has cast doubt on this. Which is why TalkOrigins go out of their way to say that they are not sure that macroevolution can be accounted for by microevolutionary processes – such as in the quote I gave last time.
@T_aquaticus
It’s the pattern of both the similarities and differences that matter.The overarching piece of evidence is the nested hierarchy.
You really don’t get what falsification means do you.
@T_aquaticus
And I will say this again. It’s a bit silly to point at how life changes over time and use this as evidence against a theory that describes how life changes over time.
What you don’t get is that there has to be a coherent plausible mechanism. Even Darwin recognised it:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Darwin of course was only thinking in terms of morphological modifications, which is why he thought even complex organs such as eyes could have arisen in a progressive way. But now we know about the genetic and molecular basis of biological structures, it’s clear that genes set a lower limit, and these cannot arise progressively.
@T_aquaticus
If the earlier stages of development change that doesn’t mean the end product is no longer homologous.
If they can no longer be regarded as derived from the same tissues then it does mean they are no longer homologous in an evolutionary sense. See the ubiquitous example of non-homology which compares vertebrate and cuttlefish eyes which look quite similar morphologically.
@Leyton
What you’re hoping for is that a gradual accumulation of neutral mutations will suddenly cause a beneficial effect.
Why can’t it?
That’s what I’ve said – possible, but unlikely - you’re relying on good luck, repeated good luck.
@rsewell
What is wrong with simply adaptation?
Nothing at all. Provided you have available the means to generate favourable variations then natural selection will favour these. Existing genetic variation means a wide range of morphological variation is possible, generally providing a range of fitness, and natural selection favours advantage ones – adaptation.
However, at the molecular level, there isn’t the same range of fitness. For a protein, the vast majority of its sequence needs to be right before it has any function /fitness at all.
Unfortunately, the success of variation/selection/adaption at the morphological level which became evident by mid 20th century, led biologists to think that this evolutionary mechanism must be right generally, and must also succeed at the molecular level to generate constructive genetic variation. But as we’ve discovered more of the complexities of genetic/molecular processes it’s clear that it can’t.
@rsewell
“Specified complexity” strikes me as a discreet and intentional ID begging of the question, subtly inferring specification, therefore stamped engineering blueprint, therefore designer.
But there is no doubt that the nucleotide sequences for eg protein-coding genes must have a high level of specificity. The specificity is real, and required for the system to work. It’s not just imagined or a label for our way of perceiving it.
@Leyton
The point is that specific orders (even if some variation is possible) are required, so your card shuffling is not a valid analogy.
Incorrect. The only specific orders required are the ones on how to make the different cards.
Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘making the different cards’.
@mitchellmckain
350,000 different species of beetles demonstrates that the number of allowed variations are enormous – like the number of different games which can be played with the cards, all following the rules which make the game work.
The available genetic variation does enable enormous morphological variation. Here’s Ronald Fisher (a key founder of population genetics):
It has often been remarked, and truly, that without mutation evolutionary progress, whatever direction it may take, will ultimately come to a standstill for lack of further possible improvements. It has not so often been realised how very far most existing species must be from such a state of stagnation, or how easily with no more than one hundred factors a species may be modified to a condition considerably outside the range of its previous variation, and this in a large number of different characteristics.
However, this level of variation pales into insignificance compared with possible nucleotide sequences. For example, for a protein with 100 amino acids (which is short, such as cytochrome c), the number of possible amino acid sequences is 100^20 which is approx. 10^130 which is much less that the number of atoms in the visible universe (estimated at 10^80) multiplied by the age of the universe in seconds (less than 10^18). And the specificity of eg protein sequences needs to be seen in the context of possible sequence space.
@mitchellmckain
If the theory were not falsifiable, it could not be a scientific theory. When it has already been shown that 29,000 potential falsifications have instead confirmed the theory, then your 29 is quite insignificant – it is as meaningless as saying the sun might not rise tomorrow. Our expectation that it will rise tomorrow is on solid ground, while your hope that evolution will fail is a fantasy.
I have agreed that evolution is falsifiable. I also think that the available evidence, especially on embryonic development, does falsify it. It’s not just a theoretical issue. I’m not hoping evolution will fail; but I think that the weight of current scientific knowledge is not only against it, but against there being evolutionary explanations for the gaps and counter-evidence.
You were discussing the analogy with a game of cards. Some things in the card game are fixed, and yet considerable variation both in playing the game and in the different kinds of games is considerable. Likewise some things in the biological organism are fixed to a great degree, and this allows for considerable variation within the limits allowed. You can study mutagenesis to understand how. But I will explain some of it here.
You are right that purely random variation is unlikely to produce beneficial mutations. Even for viruses with its much simpler genetic code and high reproduction rate, its purely random variations are right on the edge of population lethality and increasing the variation is one of the medical means used to wipe the viruses out. For more complex organisms, however, the organisms have learned to limit variations to those which are less likely to be harmful.
Even in bacteria the mechanisms for repairing random damage to DNA is very efficient. So much so that bacteria have devised a means to selectively protect some of the damage (from its own repair mechanism) in order to keep some of the variation it gets from UV radiation damage. But this allows the organism control over which areas of the DNA to protect from alteration and which not to protect.
But except for viruses, the generation of variation in evolution is far from random. AI uses essentially the same algorithm. It is only random in the beginning before it learns what not to do.
This is completely delusional. For this reason the rest of Christianity in the world looks upon this peculiar American cult with considerable incredulity. It is hardly surprising that you see so many other delusions of conspiracies among the same people.
1 Like
It most certainly works. It demonstrates how ID/creationism uses the sharpshooter fallacy.
If this is the definition you are using, then evolution easily produces specified complexity. It does so with every single mutation.
There is a plausible/credible mechanism. It’s mutation plus selection.
We watch mutation and selection producing specified complexity all of the time. You could do something as simple as measuring the mutations that produce antibiotic resistance in a simple experiment with bacteria.
How so? Something in science is not put in doubt because people with a religious agenda refuse to accept it.
Yes, I do.
Mutation and selection.
Why can’t they?
That’s false. You don’t inherit tissues. You inherit DNA. If changes to that DNA result in changes to the intermediate or early development of a feature this in no way makes the resulting morphology non-homologous.
Except for all the features that are not similar, such as the direction of the retina.
That’s an assertion without evidence.
2 Likes
It’s not clear that it can’t. We simply have your assertions that it can’t with nothing to back it up. All you seem to have is incredulity.
For example, let’s look at the differences between chimps and humans. If the split between our lineages was 5 million years ago then there have been about 200,000 generations at 25 years per generation. With a mutation rate of 50 mutations per person per generation and a continuous population of just 100,000 individuals that would give us 1 trillion mutations. That’s enough to hit every base in the human genome over 1,000 times if the mutations are spread out evenly.
Can you show us a human adaptation that you claim could not be achieved during that time period? Can you show us the underlying mutations that you claim could not have happened, and why?
2 Likes
@mitchellmckain
You were discussing the analogy with a game of cards.
It was T_aquaticus who raised the example of cards. He argued that any/every sequence after shuffling cards is improbable, which is correct, but then incorrectly says this is an analogy for nucleotide sequences in genes, and that I am using a sharpshooter fallacy. As I pointed out in response, his analogy fails because the sequence in question has to work – to have a function. On one hand, any card sequence can arise, and ‘work’ from a card-playing point of view; but on the other, only specific nucleotide sequences will work as a functioning gene. T_aquaticus tries to wriggle out of this on the basis that we cannot yet calculate the improbability of the gene nucleotide sequence. But just because we can’t yet calculate the improbability, doesn’t mean the sequence isn’t specific.
@Leyton
I’m not hoping evolution will fail; but I think that the weight of current scientific knowledge is not only against it, but against there being evolutionary explanations for the gaps and counter-evidenceThis is completely delusional. For this reason the rest of Christianity in the world looks upon this peculiar American cult with considerable incredulity. It is hardly surprising that you see so many other delusions of conspiracies among the same people.
In my opening post I outlined why, as we find out more about biological mechanisms at the molecular level, I think it widens rather than closes some explanatory gaps in biology.
But to address the point you raise here: This view is based entirely on the science. I share your concern (and I think of BioLogos) that Christianity should not be brought into disrepute by un/antiscientific comments based eg on particular views of what the Bible is and how we should interpret it. In this sense, and because of the damage I think creationism does, I consider myself ant-creationist (I do think there’s a creator). But one of my concerns is that, in their desire to distance themselves from such antiscientific rhetoric, some Christian scientists are all too readily accepting, not being scientifically critical of, evolution. As I said in reply to @pevaquark (approx. post 12), I think anti-scientific comments by some creationists make it harder for the scientific arguments against evolution to be heard, because all too readily they are tarred as creationist.
1 Like
We are being told that evolution is too improbable, but no one is actually able to calculate the probabilities. That’s not scientific. That’s just an argument based on personal incredulity.
That view is an opinion based on incredulity and ignorance which is all too obviously trying to lead the reader to a God of the Gaps fallacy that forms the foundation of ID/creationism.
2 Likes