Is there hard evidence for macro-evolution?

[WilliamDJ (William DeJong)]

@glipsnort

I’ve published extensively in two different branches of science that study change, and I can report with confidence that your statement here is wrong.

Anyone who has followed an elementary course in mathematics can see the difference between:

1. change of a system in its parameters: (a1, b1) → (a2, b2) , called ‘variation’ or ‘fist order change’; and
2. change of a system in its dimensions: (a1, b1) → (a2, b2, c2); this type of change is called ‘innovation’ or ‘second order change’.

Billions of variations of the parameters of a (biological) system during billions of years, cannot produce expansion of the dimensions of a (biological) system.

Variations (for instance the change in the form of the beaks of Darwin finches) are produced by the mechanism of recombination of gene variants and selection, and by gene regulation. This mechanism (= the variation motor) does not expand the length of the DNA, and therefore cannot produce innovation (for instance the transformation of a land animal into a whale). The presumed mechanism for the creation of innovations (= the innovation motor) consists of the accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations. Irreparable mutations of the DNA, however, cause cancer, genetic diseases and severe selective disadvantage, instead of continual improvement. The innovation motor therefore can only exist in a fantasy world, not in the real world. See further: Key and secondary problems in the theory of evolution

@glipsnort

That’s a rule you made up, and it’s one that nature does not follow.

The rule that ‘natural processes cannot form an ever growing amount of more complex molecules’ is not made up by me, but is a fundamental characteristic of our physical reality. If natural processes could form an ever growing amount of more complex molecules, energy could be harvested for free, and chemical industry would close down. This is absurd. Therefore it is proven that natural processes cannot form an ever growing amount of more complex molecules.

@pevaquark

Not to mention he actively debates people who reject evolution today.

Evolution exists! Living nature continuously adapts to changing circumstance by recombination of gene variants and selection and by gene regulation. But billions of variations of the DNA cannot produce innovation of the DNA. As a doctor in science I ask for distinguishing first order change from second order change in evolutionary biology, because first order change cannot produce second order change, as anyone who has followed an elementary course in mathematics can see. I am absolutely sure that Cees Dekker sees the difference between first order and second order change, and agrees that the fundamental concepts of scientific theories must be defined as accurately as possible, including the concept of evolution in evolutionary biology.

@pevaquark

Do you know how such trees are made? Because your words seem to indicate that you just think scientists arbitrarily arrange things on a page to make common descent look true

I do know how these trees are made: see my contributions to (1) Do 100 or 1000 years old fossils exist
and (2) Can the age of the earth be a litmus test for what counts as science

@gbrooks9

Cosmology and Physics has already proved what happens when a giant intergalactic cloud of hydrogen gas does when it starts to cool.

Indeed a cloud of hydrogen can condense and start to burn, whereby more complex molecules are formed. But the radiation from the burning stars will make these complex molecules to fall apart again, the bigger they are the sooner. In our physical reality, factories must be built to transport the complex molecules that are formed from simple molecules by the supply of energy, toward a safe environment, for the production of an ever growing amount of complex molecules, as Miller has demonstrated in 1953.

@Randy

When does a stack of bricks become a Brick Wall? Humans have all sorts of answers to this … but at no point do we ever suggest that the bricks know their limits and would never allow something to be created that was “too different” from what the bricks used to make.

Oh, I like that analogy!

In our physical reality, brick walls turn into stacks of bricks by natural processes. Only in the fantasy world of naturalists, natural processes can transform stacks of bricks into walls.

=======================================================================

Conclusions

1. ‘Evolution’ (= slow change) is not a robust scientific concept. After more than one hundred and fifty years, the concept of evolution urgently needs to be defined more accurately by distinguishing ‘first order change/variation’ (= the change of a system in its parameters) + the motor of first order change + the empirical evidence for it, from ‘second order change/innovation’ (= the change of a system in its dimensions) + the motor of second order change + the empirical evidence for it. The consequence of this distinction will be that the empirical evidence for variation of the DNA (for instance, the change in the form of the beaks of Darwin finches, produced by the mechanism of recombination of gene variants and selection and by gene regulation), can no longer be used as evidence for innovation of the DNA (for instance the transformation of a land animal into a whale, by the supposed mechanism of accumulation of non-repairable, heritable, instantly advantageous, code-expanding mutations).

2. The claim that natural processes can transform simple molecules into an ever growing amount of complex molecules and structures of molecules, is pre-Victorian Alchemist faith.

3. ‘Macro evolution’ (= the transformation of a bacterium into a human, by natural processes) can only happen in a fantasy world, not in our physical reality.

=============================================================================