It’s just so easy!

If I follow you correctly, I quite agree with you here… however, I think you are describing what is essentially the form of evolution that no one disagrees with. The idea behind peppered moths with enough variety in their genetics for their whole population to shift to black then back to White then back to black, depending on environmental factors, is something neither I nor any other evolution skeptic takes issue with. I believe the same phenomenon was displayed in the question of the size and shape of Darwins finches. As environmental factors shifted, beaks would grow larger or narrower and vice versa, within certain parameters, as environmental factors influenced.

But we skeptics of Darwinian evolution take no issue with this kind of evolution. It is demonstrable and repeatable in laboratory or controlled settings. And to the point of my post here, it does not create (nor explain) some novel, marvelous feat of engineering previously not encoded within the organism’s genetics.

Appreciate the thought, and for introducing me to a new concept (and new word!). However, I would maintain that the particular kind of Darwinian evolution which I am disputing is most unquestionably Markovian, if I understand your description adequately.

The process posits that my DNA is the final outcome of a process that began with the information contained within the DNA in primitive bacteria, which had no information for making brains, hands, eyes, ears, blood vessels, etc. yet here I am.

So we moved from state “A” (bacteria) to state “B” (me), and the process moving forward was only allowed to use the information present in A.

Granted, people think it had random additions and mutations that essentially created new information from scratch, so perhaps I don’t follow exactly how that affects the question of whether it is strictly Markovian?

I’m afraid the model there is quite accurate. There is no dispute that mutations that show up in organisms’ genetics are completely, totally, entirely, and undeniably random. Someone can correct me if I am mistaken, but I don’t believe there is any dispute about that point in any way whatsoever.

What natural selection does with a mutation once it has appeared is not random, of course. But the appearance of a mutation is entirely random. Even if an organism could especially benefit from a particular mutation, that mutation will not magically show up, it will only appear by complete random chance as basic principles of probability dictate.

Hopefully this does not come across remotely sounding antagonistic, but this is exactly the kind of minimization or glossing-over I was referring to.

I am stunned by the development of a new organ which specifically amplifies and hones the high frequency sonar pings being emitted into a directionally targeted and focused beam, the rewiring necessary to utilize the jawbone and teeth as a sonar array, producing an outcome that far surpasses our own best engineering technology. our HF transmitters can do nothing of the sort, and our various arrays cannot do anything close to that level of directional determination.

Speaking of the engineering and necessary designwork involved, these are huge changes and not simple at all.

So again, my basic issue is that I know just enough about what is necessary to develop this kind of active sonar with an underwater receiving array to determine direction underwater, and it isn’t simple. And it isn’t minor tweaking or honing of something pre-existent: an entirely novel focused directional transmission system and a whole new receiving system (and presumably entirely new programming in the processing/integration system). We cannot mimic either the transmission, or the reception, or the high-speed processing power, of such a ridiculously sophisticated sonar system.

Thus, this is exactly why my skepticism grows when I hear people in essence wave all these marvels aside, saying something like, “the changes aren’t so large!”

In other words, “it’s just so easy?”

So you’re argument is not quite an argument from incredulity, but close? You still need to try to establish what kinds of changes must occur at the genetic level for any of this.

Hi Daniel again,

I am glad that you agree with me that biological evolution is not a Markovian process.
You are probably not going to like this, but I was thinking about biological evolution in general. I understand the notion of two levels of evolution, one within species and one from one species to another. But the distinction between the two is not as obvious and clear-cut as it might appear, but I really don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion on that. Believe what you will, and I will believe what I will. I am a Christian and I suspect you are as well. In which case, we are brothers in Christ.

You also disagree with my statement about mutations not being random. This is a semantics problem. We are both right. It is true that mutations happen by chance, and in that sense are “random.” But there is a specific variety of chance commonly used by evolutionary biologists that is also called “random.” This says that the sequence of times between mutations are jointly independent and exponentially distributed with a common (real valued) parameter (equal to the expected value of the time between mutations). Sorry for being technical, but that is what is required to explain this special kind of randomness. While this kind of modelling is extremely convenient for evolutionary biologists, I believe it is too simplistic, and leads to faulty (at least inaccurate) dating of biological transition times. I hope that helps clarify matters.

Were I making an argument, it would essentially be an argument from incredulity, yes, :wink: guilty as charged.

I’m simply observing one reason that I remain incredulous, unconvinced by the arguments for Darwinism, and why. Not so much trying to argue a point per se. Remember, the burden of proof is on the one(s) making the claim. I’m simply explaining why I find the larger argument unconvincing.

But since you mentioned it… I would observe that, when I see the “it’s just so easy” approach that I find so common, it comes across to me as an argument from credulity.

“just put fat cells at the front of the forehead, that isn’t interesting at all.” “The changes aren’t so large.” “Simply hone an existing ability.” Necessary changes are “easily obtainable.” It’s all just so easy. These kinds of claims or descriptions strike me as glossing over major complex engineering and remarkable design challenges, and come across to me to be assuming (rather than demonstrating) that the changes needed must not be particularly difficult to achieve.

Now, if I may borrow your words…

I wholeheartedly agree. But if we remember that the burden of proof is generally on the one making the claim…

Then it is the Darwinism defender who needs to establish or demonstrate to us skeptics what kinds of changes must occur at the genetic level for these engineering marvels to originate, and demonstrate that the process is consistent with the abilities and limitations of Darwinian mechanism - rather than simply claiming or asserting that these changes must not be very difficult.

Otherwise all I am presented with is an assertion… or what is essentially an argument from “credulity.”

I can’t speak for cetacean genomes (since I don’t think we have good quality cetacean genomes yet), but this issue is easily addressed for hominins by looking at present-day human and chimpanzee genomes. This was the point I was making (so very long ago) when I said the changes are small.

Compare the human and chimpanzee genomes. There are no differences between them that are not easily in reach of standard evolutionary processes within the time allotted.

If you dispute this point, please point out any genetic differences that you think are not accessible to standard processes. The human and chimpanzee genomes are freely available online.

1 Like

Sir, thanks as always for the gracious reply. I certainly don’t discount the observation that the number of mutations are theoretically of such a number that, given mutation rates, arriving at a human genome is a theoretical mathematical possibility in the time allotted, should every necessary mutation that leads down a pathway to human intellect and abilities fortuitously show up just when needed. I wouldn’t doubt the same is theoretically possible within cetaceans. But these are not my sources of skepticism.

Nor do I dispute that any particular difference could be consistent with and explicable by the evolutionary process.

Please consider an illustration: I could claim that this response I’m writing to you was actually generated in approximately one hour by a random character generator: I started with a completely random string of 2600 characters, and then had the computer randomly change one character at a time, cross checked against a dictionary that would keep any such changes that got closer to English words.

I could equally observe that the changes are very small (only 2,600 characters) compared to the differences between chimps and humans (60,000,000), and if you compare the original random characters and this response, there are no differences between them that are not easily in reach of my random character mutation /dictionary process within the time allotted, given processing speed.

And if someone expressed skepticism, I could also just as easily answer, “If you dispute this point, please point out any digital differences that you think are not accessible to my random letter generator processes.” And admittedly, there would not be a single difference between my original set of completely random characters and this reply that, in isolation, could not be explained by random character substitution.

Thus I could equally claim that this response I’m posting to you was “easily obtainable” by my random character generation within the timeframe allotted. But if I were making that claim seriously, you would be quite in your rights to say that I was not accounting for all the intentional thought and purpose that goes into writing a few coherent and purposeful paragraphs.

I don’t in the least mean to suggest any direct analogy between my illustration and evolutionary process. I only mean to show why the very true and accurate observations you noted (that the raw numbers are theoretically within reach of the process, and that no one particular mutation is inconsistent with the process), do not in themselves address or assuage my skepticism.

Hi Daniel,

First, I think a better analogy is moving from state “A” (prokaryotes) to state “Q2hyaXN0b3BoZXIgSm9obiBGYWx0ZXIgLSBmb2xsb3dlciBvZiBDaHJpc3QsIGh1c2JhbmQsIGZhdGhlciwgZGF0YSBzY2llbnRpc3Q=” (me). That’s encoded in base-64, BTW, in case you want to decode it. Bottom line: There are at least a bazillion and one states between prokaryotes and me.

Second: the state machine is extremely stochastic. It generates billions of new states every second – every time a cell replicates. (Hence the bazillion and one steps in the previous paragraph.) Some of those steps result in a loss of information, and some result in a gain of information. If natural selection on balance gives preference to new states that result in a gain of information, then new information can indeed appear.

Third: One of the basic insights of Shannon information theory is that information and energy are proportionate. You cannot create information out of thin air; it requires an investment of energy. In the presence of a continuous net energy inputs, however, information gain can occur.

So…is there some source of continuous energy input to the Earth’s biosphere that could have facilitated an information increase over the course of billions of years? Give it some thought and tell me what you think.

Yours,
Chris

P.S. - Have you ever seen video of Ben Underwood, who uses echolocation to ride his bike, navigate obstacle-strewn sidewalks, stairs, etc.?

1 Like

Hi Daniel -

I learned long ago that it’s not my job to convince people that evolution is true - my job is to make the evidence as accessible as possible so people can make up their own minds.

Consider Behe, who has said things like unless he is given evidence for every single mutation, and the frequencies and fitnesses within the population for each, for each generation, and so on… that he will doubt evolutionary processes. Science has no way to deal with that level of skepticism.

Of course, with that kind of skepticism, we’d never convict anyone of murder either.

So, that said, I don’t expect you to become convinced either. That’s ok. Most of the time I write for those that are looking on in any case.

Your analogy breaks down on a few levels. The first one that comes to mind is that you’re postulating a situation going from complete randomness to non-randomness. That’s not realistic. The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would have been a very complex organism, with lots of biological information present. We’re talking about evolution shaping that starting point in two distinct ways, with the results remaining over 95% identical.

It’s also worth pointing out (as I think I have before, or perhaps @glipsnort did?) that meaningful differences are a small fraction of the raw differences. The actual changes that make a difference are far fewer than the raw differences.

More could be said, but there’s work to be done. Maybe others will chime in.

Perhaps you could ask yourself why you are so skeptical about evolution - do you think that you’re coming to this with a clean slate? Could it be possible that your prior commitments are hindering your ability to look at the evidence dispassionately? Are you familiar (and forgive me, I can’t remember) with the myriad evidences for the reality of common ancestry for humans and chimps? If so, are you trying to find something that “can’t be explained” within that reality? Or do you doubt common ancestry altogether?

Best,

Dennis

2 Likes

Sir, again, appreciate the thoughts.

I could make the analogy more similar by comparing two very similar computer programs… take those text adventures I used to play back in the 80s, as I’m familiar with their code, I played “Ghost Town” and “Pyramid of Doom”, for instance. Their code is probably around 95% similar, the core structure, input, output sequences, are all identical. The only significant differences is their internal mapping, description of objects, and description of locations. I could try a similar thought experiment wherein I claimed to change one to the other by random word changes, only in the vocabulary section, tested by a Grammer corrector… and again the number of changes could conceivably fit into certain time constraints, and no particular change would be inherently inconsistent with my “random word substitution” theory. But still the idea of getting such a coherent plot from such a method would be rightly unbelievable. But no analogy is perfect, of course.

I don’t know the specific fraction to consider, but If we’re talking about even 1/1000 changes being meaningful or necessary to rewiring our brains and bodies for the unique and staggering nags functions we can do, that is still 150,000 changes that must be right. But this isn’t really the core of my doubt.

I don’t particularly go one way or the other in regard to common ancestry. There seem to be significant overlaps and evidence of vestigial or inherited or damaged genes. As such I’m open to considering the hypothesis that there were 5million years and that modern humans are so descended (as Bebe embraces, if I understand correctly.)

I also am open to hypotheses about if humans and chimps (and/or HCLCA) have common design ancestry…, in the sense that windows 7 and windows 10 have common conceptual ancestry. And in that speculation, I’m open to consider it going either way… either that HCLCA was the template and mods were made to produce humans, or vice versa.

(While I don’t give it credence for numerous reasons, I would also be open to the idea that HCLCA or chimps were descended from homo sapiens… but there obviously lots of other reasons this is very dubious.)

I’d be open, likewise, to considering similar options between echolocating and baleen whales.

Point is, I have no strong reason to be skeptical about any of those hypotheses as regards common descent.

My skepticism strictly surrounds the ability of blind mutations to stumble upon that exponentially (1 in a googol?) rare combination that would be needed to get everything “just right” to produce such marvels of engineering or programming.

And my background, if interesting… I was a biochemistry major in undergrad until I fell in love with philosophy & theology. When I was younger I completely embraced all I had read or studied about evolution. I was exposed to some creationist thinking at some point, but was always skeptical of it (especially how neat and tidy, and how there was always an answer for everything. I remember laughing out loud at an AIG commercial I heard once that said the reference to “ice” in Job proved something about a recent ice age).

I was a Christian and took Scripture authoritatively, but was never convinced that I had to take genesis 1-2 as strictly literal… I was open to the hypothetical situation C. S. Lewis described about the origin of man.

In my biochemistry study, three things stood out… one, the incontrovertible evidence for microevolution. I did the experiments with fruit flies, on Petri dishes, etc., and watched the various generations demonstrate the slight differences and population genetic shifts.

Secondly, I began to be stunned by how intricate the design of life was, how “fine tuned”, how exact everything had to be, how delicate (salt content, ph, o2 transport, etc.), yet how robust (all the mechanisms to adjust and survive and repair). Not to mention the intracellular machinery. The design of the actin and myosin filaments put me over the edge, but especially was the fact that these designs were programmed into the genetics, the machinery and database of the DNA, ribosomes, etc.

Add all that together, and I couldn’t imagine any longer these feats of engineering happening from the same mechanism I was observing in the lab… I started thinking about it, and I began to doubt that, however long I could conceivably do experiments on those fruit flies, even if I lived for 50 billion years, I began to suspect those flies would just remain flies, and just letting them reproduce and selecting the most fit would never allow them to grow brains sufficient for intelligence as humans have. I did a study on what mutations could accomplish in fruit flies… and they’re all pretty ugly. “Deleterious” was an understatement.

Thirdly, I began to notice what I can only describe as all my professors having a blind faith in the theory. I asked some of my professors… one in particular, a devout believer in Darwinism, was nonetheless absolutely skeptical that mutations were a significant contributing cause of evolution. Something about them generally being deleterious if they weren’t neutral. He attributed evolution to natural selection interacting rather with genetic drift. We discussed it at length, and I recall recognizing that, if he were correct, then the first life would have had to contain within it all the DNA for humans and every other creature already “frontloaded.” Waiting for genetic drift and natural selection to eventually create humans. I raised this problem to him, and he simply acknowledged it, not seeing a problem. He was not a Christian but a devout Darwin disciple.

It was then I started especially noticing the cracks in the theory. And when I started to raise my various doubts to my professors, I began to notice the pattern of what seemed to me endless hand waves. “But if we give it enough time…” was the most common. “human intelligence isn’t that remarkable”, I recall. I started realizing that they had faith in a theory but even these learned men seemed to have blind faith in a process, believing it capable of near magic feats.

Somewhere in this process, I also began to recognize the philosophical problem. If a person is an atheist, they are bound to embrace a view of life that is naturalistic in nature. They have no choice. I began to realize that my professors could not, would not, would never, consider any alternative. This is long before ID was a thing (or before I’d heard of it, at least… 1991-1994 timeframe). They were philosophically committed to a naturalistic idea, they had to make blind mutations (or genetic drift) capable of these feats… they had no alternative. I was (as I still am) dubious of the creationist alternative (the only alternative that I knew of back then), But began to embrace my own personal version of ID, the kind that could conceivably be consistent with “theistic evolution” broadly defined. (I.e., consistent with common descent, but dependent on God’s intervention for major leaps). When ID came along later in Behe’s book and later that of Meyer, I found something resonated with me that I’d been myself contemplating for a long time.

(And then, after working with our nations sub force, and understanding how sonar systems need to work in aquatic environments, dolphin echolocation just put everything over the top.)

I could say more, but I fear I’ve already written a tome in answer to your inquiry. Hope it is at least remotely interesting.

1 Like

Daniel - thanks for your thoughts.

If you did a biochem undergrad back in 91-94 you’re roughly contemporaneous with me (cell biology/genetics, 92-96), but you likely had less exposure to genetics than I.

I had a similar response to evolution then as you seem to have had then (and do now). Very similar, in fact.

Later, I would go on to do a PhD in biology and do some more genetics as part of that.

I guess the short response is that it seems to me that I am particularly well suited to understanding why you have the views you do, but also, in my opinion, why your training isn’t up to the task of dealing with (a) better evidence (biochemistry profs are usually lousy on the evidence for evolution and even worse on mechanisms) (b) more recent evidence (1994 is a long time ago), and (c) modern genomics and population genetics (which is really just a combination of (a) and (b)).

I guess what I’m saying is this - don’t be too confident in your training. It seems to be misleading you. I’m also basing that on your repeated misunderstandings of evolution as you have discussed them here - case in point, this: you continue to think evolution requires “one in a googol” - type events in order to work. Not so, my friend.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation. Did you notice that humans can learn to echolocate? Great video posted by @Chris_Falter. If humans can do that with their existing structures (!), how much more could natural selection shape a lineage over a few million years?

2 Likes

“natural selection” can accomplish only what random mutations give it, no? If the right mutations don’t show up, natural selection will produce nothing extraordinary.

I certainly don’t demand that kind of detail. However, when I consider the evolutionary pathways, I need to have some sense of numbers so that I’m not asked to accept it on blind faith.

So I consider the multitudinous possible mutations and evolutionary pathways that a HCLCA could undergo and find its descendants 500,000 generations later just as fit, or fitter. Could get stronger, quicker, more fertile, all sorts of possibilities and combinations. Could also remain essentially the same. Natural selection would be fine with that, and if no particularly beneficial mutations show up, we might be unsurprised. At least one pathway led from HCLCA to chimps, so there are certainly pathways that don’t lead to human level intelligence

So of the total possible evolutionary pathways that natural selection would permit if those mutations showed up (those that don’t cause a significant decrease in fitness) what percentage of those possible paths would lead to the kind of astounding, multifaceted intelligence and skill (art, engineering, science, philosophy, music performance, music appreciation, memory, mathematics, spoken language, reading, writing, literature, etc.) we humans have? The reprogramming of our brains to do these things is astounding.

But do we really have a ballpark number?

If I could be shown, say, that for every 1 path that led to our astounding human intelligence there were only, say, 4 paths that led to creatures of significantly lesser intelligence, then my skepticism would significantly abate. That would be completely plausible.

If, however, it were demonstrated that for every 1 path that led to our astounding human intelligence there were in fact a googol that led to alternatives, then you should be as skeptical as I am.

Do we have any way of even getting a ballpark guess at those numbers, though? If we in fact really don’t know if it is closer to 1/4 or 1/10100, then do we have any business having confidence one way or the other?

I’m afraid I will continue to maintain this, unless I can be shown otherwise. The possible combinations and recombination of mutations across populations of the size of our presumed ancestors across the 500,000 generations across 3 billion base pair is astoundingly high. We are talking possible combinations that are many, many exponential orders above a googol.

You’ve mentioned in the past that there’s not just a single combination that could lead to human intelligence, and I completely grant that… You could tell me, for instance, that there are 10999,999,999,999,900 possible combinations of mutations in the HCLCA genome that could lead to human level intelligence. That is uninteresting by itself… For if there are even 10999,999,999,999,999 total possible combinations of mutations, then we are still at a one in a googol chance of the right mutations appearing for natural selection to select in order to arrive at human intelligence.

I grant that we could be talking about odds far, far better than one in a googol… but given the sheer possible combinations, we could also be talking about odds many orders of exponential magnitude worse than 1 in a googol… All the more reason I think it vital that we have at least some ballpark estimation of the odds of these feats before we conclude one way or the other.

In another thread, I admired your astute identification of the fallacy of the converse: thinking that “a implies b” must lead to “b implies a”. Keep that awareness around for these observations too. Just because atheism does commit one to naturalistic explanations, doesn’t mean that naturalistic explanations commit one to atheism.

3 Likes

Heartily concur!

I think there’s a better approach than trying to ballpark estimate how likely mutations are to produce some trait like human intelligence (if only because we simply cannot do that calculation). That is to look at how malleable traits are to selective pressure, given the genetic variation that’s already been created by mutation or that occurs by mutation during an experiment. For a great range of traits, including things like intelligence, traits prove to be highly malleable. Selection can make organisms taller or shorter, faster or slower, lighter or darker. It can change the shape of limbs, mouths, genitals, heads, behavior patterns. Fully functioning states with altered traits must be easily achieved by mutations, since we see it happening all the time.

3 Likes

Another point would be to look at examples of convergent evolution - we see evolution, time and time again, finding similar solutions through different routes: the phenotypic parallelisms between placental and marsupial mammals would be a classic example; another would be the parallel increases in fitness in the early generations of the Lenski LTEE experiment. In both cases these observations would not be possible if mutations were limiting.

Edited to add: we even see convergence for echolocation at the protein level (prestin) as we have discussed here previously. This would not be possible if mutations were too improbable.

Closer to home, the Neanderthals and Denisovans also show us that there were multiple possible routes to a highly intelligent hominin like ourselves.

There are many roads to Rome…

3 Likes

There may not be an ample number of sequences, but it looks like there are projects underway:

And at least a little cetacean genomic information available:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/4/eaap9873

3 Likes

Sir, with deep respect, but I must point out you’re begging the question. The numerous arrivals at convergent evolution can only demonstrate the ease of arriving at these genetic destinations only if we first assume that these destinations were in fact achieved through the Darwinian evolutionary process, rather than by alternate means. But that is the very question I’m asking. Hence, we can’t assume that Darwinian evolution is the explanatory cause of convergent evolution, and then use that as evidence to argue for the truth of Darwinian evolution.

Daniel - for the LTEE, we have a complete, living fossil record of the entire process, sampled every 500 generations and frozen down. We thus can track every single mutation to within at most 500 generations of when it occurred. When we look at the mutations, they are all exactly the sort one would expect from regular processes.

Is that not good enough for you?

Even for the other examples, like the prestin one, we can see that the changes are convergent at the amino acid level, but not at the nucleotide level. Again, this is what we can predict in advance we should see for convergence.

Again, not good enough for you?

4 Likes

When, in your mind, do they need to “show up” relative to the time at which selection operates on them?

The version of evolution you’re arguing against doesn’t exist. Did Darwin mention anything about the right mutations showing up? Did he mention mutations at all? Did the word “random” appear in any of his writings?

Indeed. The problem is that you’re not considering any evolutionary pathways that resemble reality.

Given your obsession with mutation, the first number you need to have some sense of is the ratio of existing variations to new mutations in a typical population of diploid organisms. You’re clearly assuming that the ratio is zero, are you not?

Diploidy is important. Neutral evolution is important. Do you understand why? If so, why does your straw man version of evolution assume that neither exists?

2 Likes