What, according to you, would be evidence of evolution? What, specifically, would you need to see in order to reconsider your current belief set? I can answer this question if you'd like.
yeah.. better to keep the brain fuzzy so you don't have to process reasoning as much.. or better yet, so you don't have to deal with OTHER's absurd reasoning! ..hmm.. good idea! I'm outta here for a beer, too!
Gotta admit, it beats facts, right? So far, if you ever present "reasoning" it will be a first for you. But I won't hold my breath. You would first have to READ A BOOK.
But you can "cut" the DNA of an organism and insert DNA from another organism and come up with an organism with different traits like GM corn and soy beans. Because it is all in the spelling of the code. The complexity is there it is just not expressed. What genetic barrier??? All genetic prediction is based on probabilities...the Punnit square is a good example.
First and foremost your entire argument is meaningless if you don't define what you mean by "complexity." Complexity usually deals with systems of many elements such that over the system's time-evolution there are unpredictable emerging phenomena. The Theory of Evolution does not describe any underlying mechanisms that describe how such emerging phenomena occur, however this does not invalidate the theory whatsoever. There is more to the story and that is precisely what science is all about, unveiling the story. So how is it possible that the in-animate became animated? What is the underlying mechanism that drives life? Before we ask too deep of a question lets ask a more precise and reasonable one: how can complexity arise from randomness? Well before we attempt to answer we must first understand what is it we mean by randomness. The best way to understand randomness is by a simple mathematical exercise. Suppose we have two fair coins and we toss this coin 3 times, what are all the possible outcomes? We denote this as the outcome space which is {hhh,hth,htt,tht,tth,ttt,thh,hht}. Because we assumed the coin is fair the probability of any particular event is 1/8 or 1/(2^3) which is a truly random process. Now we will introduce the concept of a Microstate and a Macrostate of our outcome space or state space. We consider each particular event to be a microstate and a macrostate can for instance be the sequence of two heads, denoted hh. Thus we say for the macrostate of a sequence of two heads we have hhh,thh, and hht of which the probability of this macrostate is 3/8. This is the very essence of entropy. Instead of coins we are interested in an Einstein Solid which is an idealization of a solid consisting of Avogadro's number atoms (~10^23) characterized as harmonic oscillators. The question we propose is how many ways can we re-arrange q units of energy in 10^23 atoms? The answer is Multichoose(10^23 , q) = (q+10^23 - 1)!/(q!(10^23 - 1)! where n! = n(n-1)(n-2)....(n-n) regardless of the size of q this number is HUGE. In fact it is so large modern calculators can't even calculate it; because of this we use Stirling's Approximation for handling large numbers. So what does this all mean? Well we have arrived at what entropy is. Entropy describes how many ways we can re-arrange a systems observables, in this case energy. We define entropy to be S := kln(Multichoose(N,q)) where N is the number of particles in the system and k is Boltzmann's Constant. Defining entropy in this manner does not alter its functionality it only brings the value for systems with ~10^23 atoms to unity or 1. Part 2 coming soon.
It seems you're of the belief that genome predictability in some way implies or <proves?> your hard wired fallacy and this particular study somehow supports it. Your google skills have failed you on this one, given that you have cited research methods which are among the basic tools we use in interspecific transformations. Also, you've been tossing about the term "genetic barrier" as some undefined mechanism which disallows genetic re-wiring. Can you concisely define for us what you mean by genetic barrier? Is it a quantifiable observation with mechanisms that you can observe and report? "Make your hypothesis, support with data, & form your conclusions. The rest of us can examine both your science & your reasoning."
Just to remind you; It is a fundamental conclusion of evolutionary biology that all living things have a shared heritage. Nothing in this paragraph is empirically true. It is simply boilerplate creationist assertion of the sort going back to the days when creationists did not even pretend to be scientific. It has been pointed out repeatedly that point mutations by definition increase (rather then reduce) genetic variability. And the discussion of tricolor vision demonstrates that gene duplications do create "major new genetic traits." At this point you have stopped arguing and simply put your fingers in your earsd, closed your eyes and started humming loudly. I provided exactly that discussion. You have differed a competent response behind a smug excuse. I'm content with where we stand relative to each other in terms of holding up our respective ends. Your claims here are empirically false. Point mutations (that express) alter a single amino acid in a single protein, incrementally altering its efficiency for its selected role. By definition there is a 50/50 chance in any unstable environment (which means most environments) for that increment to be in the direction of greater rather than lesser efficiency. As a result, just about half of all point mutations we witness are positive rather than negative or neutral. We also do witness genetic replication errors of the sort that create gene duplications regularly. So your claims that we do not observe these things is merely a reflection of personal ignorance, not of the actual scientific reality. Nonsense. This little tale is not from " a fascinating study about bacteria on tv." It is from the by now yawn inducing claims of ID proponent Michale Behe. He was dismembered on the stand during the Dover, Pennsylvania trial and his claims regarding the "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum are so comprehensively debunked that it is droll you would repeat theme here. That you would attempt the additional deception of portraying this old creationist saw as coming from "an evolutionist" officially moves you from the status of honest proponent of a fringe view to willful prevaricator. It did not take you long. Prior to this post I did not call you dishonest, merely obtuse. That is no longer sustainable. You have seen to that. We're done.
I hope this doesn't mean you're leaving the thread. Your contributions here have been both interesting and educational.
current belief set? I am an origins agnostic. I do not see any valid evidence to make an informed, educated, scientific conclusion about origins. Evidence FOR evolution would be experimentation that shows & defines the mechanism that allows the alleged jumps in genetic complexity.. ADDING information, not merely variation within the form. The word analogy has been used for dna.. you can rearrange a 5 letter word in many ways, but you cannot 'rearrange' it to be a 10 letter word. That is the central problem, & assertions that it 'just happened' don't do it for me. Sorry. I try to be good natured about this stuff.. it's not anything to get insulting about. I try to focus on the facts & the logic, & not cast aspersions on the person. I won't just take it, though, if you get insulting. Most of the time, people like you who can dish it out, can't really take it. I also wonder about someone who feels compelled to personally insult someone they don't know on a forum, over opinions & the validity of what they perceive to be scientific 'evidence'. It is very bizarre. I am more fascinated by the human element of these interactions than the content of the arguments, most of the time.
Hmm.. perhaps you've been watching jurassic park too much. Most of this is science fiction, not experimental science. Perhaps someday, we will get to it, but for now, we can't do the frankenstein cuts & splices you think we can.. it can be done with very simple genes & sequences, & has been done even with mice & zebrafish, but the main point to remember is this is not a jump to more complexity, but only cut & pastes variability. The mice are still mice, & the soybeans are still soybeans. IF... and this is the big IF... IF you can demonstrate HOW you can make the jumps over the genetic barrier, THEN you'd have some real evidence that this COULD happen. But all of our advanced experimentation has NOT been able to do it. We can clone dna, cut & paste some features, but we CANNOT add increased complexity in the genetic code.. we can only rearrange the letters.
But i have, constantly, & repetitively explained exactly what is meant by 'complexity'. It is the 'adding' of letters in the genetic word. It is not about variation, which is merely rearranging the letters within the genetic code, but refuting the imagined process that forces or even allows these jumps in complexity. It does not seem that complex, to me. Interesting.. as a mathematical process. But i do not see how this addresses the issue, or how randomness can create complexity. We cannot even force this complexity in laboratory settings. Yet we are to assume it happened randomly? That is fine, for a belief system, but it does not meet the criteria for science. We need proof or evidence that this can happen, not merely assertions that it did.
The point was that to predict outcomes, you have to have consistency in the data, which 'hard wired' genetics provides. IF new genetic material was constantly being added, first, you need to isolate the process & define it. Then, you have to demonstrate it is able to do the things you predict. It would also conflict with our predictions, as NEW material would constantly be interjected, ruining the target breed. We don't observe that, but consistency, & strict limits within the genetic code. By genetic barrier, i mean the observable, repeatable, historical, proven science of breeding. We sometimes see significant variation WITHIN a particular species, & sometimes very little variation. You cannot ADD complexity, but only variation, either mutated or residual. You cannot go from 20 to 23 chromosomes, or 24 to 23, except by assertion. Experimentally, it is impossible. That is what is observed in science. The 'jumps' over the genetic barrier are imagined, & cannot be proven by any experimentation. You cannot take some dinosaur dna, & inject it in a lizard egg, & 'create' a dinosaur. That is science fiction. My critique is for the unsubstantiated claims. I am not making any scientific claims for processes that cannot be observed, repeated, or reviewed. The whole of genetic science has NOT been able to substantiate this claim. In times past, there was not as much knowledge about the limits of genetics, & it was speculated that these processes were possible. But over a century of experimentation & desperation has not brought ANY evidence to support this theory. It is all speculation & assumption, with NO valid evidence behind it.
I would say, 'assumption', rather than 'conclusion', as there is no evidence for this, only speculation & assertion, as has been done in this thread. Seriously? All my statements are false? Please demonstrate with logic & evidence, where my statements are false. Otherwise, you are merely deflecting & smearing. Here they are again: Mutations account for some of this, as they do for fur color, or other minor variations WITHIN the life form in question, but it does not compel me to believe there was something that made the horse 'evolve' into a cat, or vice versa. The problem that genetics brings up is reduced variability as life forms become isolated. They do NOT 'evolve' major new genetic traits, grow feet, feathers, add or subtract chromosomes. These reduced variability creatures become extinct, & their traits are lost. Well, your continued calling me a liar is not conducive to a rational discussion. IF there are some errors in my reasoning or evidence, you can point them out or provide evidence for an alternate conclusion. But your pissy little attitude makes conversing with you very tiring. I have responded to you with logic & civility, & you have returned insults. I can play that game, too, but prefer not to. But for now, seems like the most appropriate response to an a$$hole. Good. Pissy little whiners like you can dish it out, but when you get it back, you run away blubbering. You're just another irrational bleater, with NO concept of the scientific method, & who thinks insults substitute for reason. Fine. Play your little game of demeaning & ridicule. But be clear, you have made no scientific arguments to refute my points. You have had to stoop to ad hominems, as your arguments were impotent. That is nothing new to me or the forums. You may bring cheers to the religious followers of your cult, but rational people can see through your bluff.
It seems like i am repeating myself a lot, the points are not being refuted with any scientific evidence, nor is the original hypothesis being supported. It also seems like the thread is beginning to degenerate into reality show hysteria, rather than a scientific based discussion. Perhaps we should let it die, & not keep beating the dead horse. The emotionalists can make some final parting shots, if they wish, & go on to other more lively threads. I don't see that there is much more for me to say, as i've made my critique, & provided the reasoning the best i could. Thanks to all for the discussion.. many good points..
It's not uncommon for whole genomes to be duplicated, or large sections of them. Then the duplicate copy is free to mutate, and sometimes stumbles onto something useful and functional. Read about polyploidy. Seriously, the evidence you claim you can't see is everywhere around you. When I started looking at this stuff, I didn't understand enough biology for it to make any sense to me. I was unaware of the research, so I didn't know what the theory rested on. When I tried to find out, I discovered I didn't know any of the terminology. It's a long steep learning curve. And one of the things I learned is that evolution is NOT a matter of big jumps in complexity. A good analogy would be two people starting at the same point and walking in different directions. Each individual step each person makes is very small, and doesn't get him very far. But after a few months of walking, we notice that these people are now quite a long way apart. So where was the "big jump" that must have occurred? You'll never find it, because it never existed. Does that mean these people are still in the same place? No, they're a long way apart. How did they GET a long way apart without a big jump? You can never understand this so long as you assume big jumps.
I never said 'big jumps'. I completely grasp the theory. The whole concept depends on incremental changes, & increases in complexity. But the whole of genetics forbids those kinds of changes. Yes, there are variations WITHIN the parents, which are transferred to the progeny. But the progeny does not ADD material. The basic assumption is that since there can be small, horizontal changes in variability, then there can be small VERTICAL changes as well. This is only assumed & asserted. The horizontal, variability changes are proven scientific facts. The fossil record does not support the incremental vertical change theory, either. Like karen carpenter said, 'birds suddenly appear'. There is no appearance of any transitional forms between warm & cold blooded, or reptiles & birds. Those are artist's renditions, dependent on a fertile imagination, not anything that is supported by scientific research. Genetic research is making the idea seem preposterous.. the more we work with genes, the less flexibility we find in them. We can't force it in the lab, yet it was supposed to happen naturally in the wild? Multiple mutations, involving thousands or millions of bits of genetic code, at the same time, with several identical species so they can interbreed & carry on the new species? That is a big stretch, & a big claim that needs evidence to back it up. I have no problem using time & incremental steps, if there is solid evidence showing this as a possibility. But all we can reproduce in years of laboratory settings is incremental horizontal steps in variation, not anything resembling a 'new' life form, or spontaneously generated genetic material. You claim the evidence is all around us, but it is not. The real evidence is that these vertical changes in the genetic code are impossible. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim. Without compelling evidence, all that is left are assertions & assumptions.
You misunderstand, I am explaining what randomness and entropy is because the vast majority do not understand these concepts. Complexity arises in a system where there are local decreases in entropy, the question is what drives these local decreases? We know complexity can arise from simple systems governed by simple rules otherwise known as Cellular Automata. However these digital systems have no physical constraints such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. My undergraduate thesis is in developing numerical simulations that mimic how high-entropic systems evolve from low complexity to high complexity by underlying diffusion processes. Formally me and a few colleagues are developing Totalistic Cellular Automata driven by Underlying Stochastic Temporal Networks (STNTCA). The goal is to perform numerical simulations on STNTCA and to observe whether or not an increase in complexity is correlated with rapid increases in entropy. Our findings will shed light on how a low-complex system may evolve into high-complex systems.
This entire comment is fractally wrong; i.e. false at every level of resolution. For just one example, the bald assertion that "The fossil record does not support the incremental vertical change theory, either," is at such an objective variance from the truth that anyone proposing it has forfeit any expectation of being taken seriously. It takes only one transitional sequence to prove the claim false, and we have countless transitions to choose from. Reptile > mammal. Reptile > bird. Fish > amphibian. Land mammal > whale. Ape > human. Each of these has been demonstrated at a level of detail and comprehensiveness that permits denial only in the most deluded. One further observation on the issue of "experimentation" and "prediction." The weird impression usfan gives that experiments must per force take place in a laboratory is preternaturally dumb. Paleontological field work is also experimentation. Better yet, it is also repeatable experimentation that can be tested again and again by anyone willing to go into the field. The decision (for example) of paleontologists to search for transitional forms between fish and amphibians in particular 375-million-year old strata in the Canadian arctic was not some random shot in the dark. It was the deliberate investigation of specific rocks of an age and type that, according to evolutionary theory, would be most likely to contain fossils of the transition. The subsequent discovery of Tiktaalik roseae was as powerful an experimental confirmation of the theory as any in-laboratory protocol or experiment should ever be anticipated to return.
There really are no 'decreases' in entropy.. there are either more or less factors working on it, or there is something overcoming it. For example, sunshine, air & water on the earth is a deteriorating force.. it breaks things down to simpler compounds, oxidizing & dissolving anything & everything. If you put a pot of primordial ooze out in the sun, it will break down to simpler compounds until it reaches the simplest, equilibrium state. Matter does not order itself, there has to be a force doing it. Sometimes it 'LOOKS' like there is order, such as when ice crystals form, or when flood waters recede & leave a 'pretty' scene. But these are subjective opinions, & not scientifically valid. An ice crystal is still h2o, just in it's frozen form. It is not 'ordered', any more that molecules of steam are ordered, or flowing water. IOW, there is no increase in complexity going on, just changes in state. Entropy is always in play. You cannot get a waiver from it, & it is a steady force, like gravity or light. It 'uses' energy in the universe, as things are winding down. That energy is not lost, but merely changes to a simpler, more stable state. Life is a force that counteracts the effects of entropy. It takes the light of the sun, water, air, & using photosynthesis, creates compounds that cannot occur any other way. But once the life is gone, the breakdown begins, & everything reverts to a simpler state, as other natural forces are applied. Mathematics & numerical calculations are not affected by entropy, nor are any other abstract concepts. But matter is. Any compound or block of matter will ALWAYS revert to a simpler, more stable state, unless acted upon by another force, such as life. Think it through. There is no scenario you can imagine where entropy is not in play. Even matter in a vacuum of darkness is not perfectly isolated. There is some light or gamma rays, or other deteriorating force breaking it down. Some compounds are more resistant, & don't seem to be affected, but they are, & the 2nd law is still in play. There is no proof that there are some places where the 2nd law does not apply. It is ALWAYS working, it is just that sometimes there are other factors 'organizing' things. Good luck on your thesis! I hope you make some groundbreaking discoveries!
Okay. How, exactly, is the experiment I linked to not an example of that? It's in a laboratory. It shows the development of an increasingly complex bacteria over time. What are you wanting scientists to do? Breed rats selectively for extra limbs until one grows two extra pairs? Also, additive mutations have been specifically shown to exist. Gene coding is not perfect, and it is a messy process. An easy example of a common mutation is Down Syndrome, which is a duplicated Chromosome 21. That's additional information, an increase in complexity. There is also evidence of smaller mutations which may or may not affect the organism - Down Syndrome is simply the most obvious example. I'll put a third point by you. It is not necessary to show how something happens to understand that it happens. For instance, one does not need to prove the existence of gravitons to prove the existence of gravity. I can throw a ball up into the air and watch it hit the ground, observing the experimental evidence for gravity, without understanding exactly why one molecule is attracted to another over distance. Similarly, even if there were no real evidence for the basis of mutations, it can be shown that new traits have developed over time. I can list off fossils showing this, if you would like.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. It has inputs - primarily sunlight. In any system with an input of energy, an increase in enthalpy or a decrease in entropy is by no means against any scientific principle.
If you have no problem with well over a century of specialists dedicating their lives to collecting and evaluating the evidence you claim doesn't exist, then I admire your determination. If you think thousands of highly intelligent students reading thousands of detailed texts about actual experiments, and then doing their own original research to create more evidence, are all being tricked by some vast conspiracy that just happens to conflict with your ideology, that's great. If you think sunlight in the morning is an assertion and assumption, nobody can stop you. Not many will be very interested, of course.
You have a complete misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is in no way a "force", it is inherently a statistical argument. The 2nd Law is derived from a thought experiment of taking two Einstein Solids and putting them in thermal contact and surveying the system to see the most probable distribution of energy. Mathematically this is done by taking the above formula, one for each Einstein Solid, and multiplying them. From here you use Stirling's Approximation and you can express the result as a Gaussian Distribution. The probability of approximately 50% of the energy is in one solid and the other 50% in the other solid is so extraordinary close to 100% we call this the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Formally it is stated as: Any large system in equilibrium will be found in the macrostate with the greatest multiplicity. Life in no way counteracts entropy. In fact it can be argued that life must exist because it increases entropy the most rapidly from a low entropy state to a high entropy state. In classical mechanics we can formalize newtons equations with something called the Lagrangian where we are interested in the "True Path" or more formally stated as the Principle of Least Action. The trajectory of all particles follows this principle including photons and it is from this argument that entropy must therefore also obey the principle of least action. The question remains as to what is the mechanism that brings a system from low entropy to high entropy the fastest? Many would argue life does however I would argue it is a much simpler mechanism and it is this mechanism that is ultimately responsible for life.
Construct any system. Make it closed (physically impossible) or open, by definition. Then describe how entropy does not apply in that system. Show by observation, logic, or other scientific evidence, other than assertion or extrapolation. Entropy does not care how you define your system, it just operates. I am repeating myself. I do not argue against horizontal, minor changes in variability, but vertical, increasing complexity changes.. The 2 do NOT correlate. You cannot assume the 2nd from the first. It is a non sequitur. It is like saying because we can walk between towns, we can walk between planets. The 'jumps' needed to make those transitions are huge, genetically. We cannot observe it, repeat it, or describe any mechanism that can do it, other than the continued assertions that mutation does it. But that is ONLY an assertion, with NO scientific evidence.
I'm sure your descriptions use more technical descriptions, & I am using more lay terminology. But the basic issue is not in question, regardless of the language used to describe it. The 2nd law is a process.. it is a natural dispersion of energy to a simpler state. Any stored energy in any matter.. Burning gases are matter. They are simplifying. The sun & stars are burning out. Orbits are decaying. Entropy is everywhere. I'm not using it as an abstract or statistical calculation, but a scientific hypothesis, with plenty of proven data & observation to corroborate it. It is a bit fuzzy to say life counteracts entropy.. you are right that my statement is not technically correct.. it does, but only by observation & in practice. In theory, energy is being applied, & entropy is still in effect. Life just 'grabs' the energy as it passes, & uses it for it's processes. It applies these processes to organize in spite of the natural simplifying processes of entropy. And life only exists in a very small window, with very limited function. Compared to the universe, life is a minor player, & has little to NO effect on universal entropy, even in the solar system, not to mention the universe. A tiny bit of energy is harnessed & used to organize, but as soon as the life is gone, the simplifying begins again. I know this doesn't fit the exact scientific definition, but it is close enough. I have tried to simplify the concept for communication purposes.
