MicroEvolution Defined
The various discussions here centered around evolution have often come back to my (and others') distinction between micro and macro evolution. EDogg stated the evolutionist's mindset very well in a recent comment, in that he makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution. We see changes now, thus these small changes over a vast amount of time equate to macro evolution. Small changes add up.
I have tried several times to center the definition on "observed" change as opposed to what has not been observed. But it is obvious that this has led only to further confusion and as such has been a poor definition. So, let me try it from another angle.
Let's distinguish micro and macro on the grounds of information. The micro-evolution we see around us is nothing more than the rearrangement of existing information. There is no creation of new information. Thus the attempted definition of "within bounds". Macro-evolution, from pre-life to us, requires the creation of new information, which we do not see. As a matter of fact, there is no mechanism that I know of to add information.
Now, before you point to mutation, you must recognize that mutation destroys information. Even the handful of beneficial mutations claimed is simply destroying information. So, to propose macro-evolution, one must explain the process that went from no information (pre-genetic chemical cocktails) to me writing this blog.
Be blessed...
Technorati Tags: - ‹ previous
- 33 of 56
- next ›
Syndicate
The problem is that it's
The problem is that it's tough to observe these kinds of changes in the real environment during the short time we're here. We can simulate these things in the lab by forcing big selection pressures, and the results show bigger changes that we'd expect. We still don't have the kind of time required to produce the changes that would satisfy the demands of most creationists.
That sounds to me a lot like an admission.
"There's no way we could actually observe what we are proclaiming, so why do you creationists keep demanding proof?"
We can simulate these things in the lab by forcing big selection pressures, and the results show bigger changes that we'd expect.
"We're designing simulations to prove natural selection and random mutation. We have been very impressed with the results."
A word about directionality: Evolution does not have a direction. Organisms can go towards complexity or simplicity. It's all determined by the environment and selection pressures. Just because humans are complex multi-cellular animals doesn't mean we've had the most evolution. Every living creature today is the result of the same amount of evolutionary time.
I'd like to actually form a blog post to speak to this, since I've heard the argument several times and have never heard it dealt with. I hope that you will not mind the change of venue, or my use of your statement to fuel the post.
"There's no way we could
"There's no way we could actually observe what we are proclaiming, so why do you creationists keep demanding proof?"
That's not it at all. The problem is that the only proof a creationist will accept is impossible to see in one lifetime, or even several. There's plenty of evidence out there, just none that a creationist can bring himself to accept.
"We're designing simulations to prove natural selection and random mutation. We have been very impressed with the results."
That's another misrepresentation of what's really happening. The experiments are designed to simulate what happens when the environment applies extreme selection pressures. Your response illustrates clearly that creationists will not accept any evidence short of direct observation in the field of their caricature of "macroevolution."
I'd like to actually form a blog post to speak to this, since I've heard the argument several times and have never heard it dealt with.
Be my guest, though I'm not sure what there is to argue about...
That's not it at all. The
That's not it at all. The problem is that the only proof a creationist will accept is impossible to see in one lifetime, or even several. There's plenty of evidence out there, just none that a creationist can bring himself to accept.
We creationists are always assured of this evidence, but it turns out to be a bit squirmy when you try to pin it down. As you admit, there is no observation of the proposed macroevolution, since it is impossible to view.
We were assured of the fossil record, but that hasn't panned out. You yourself had to explain the lack of evidence there.
We are offered the "hopeful monster" theory, which is a theory based on a lack of evidence.
We are assured of transitional fossils, but given no firm lines of homology; they are more holy than the Pope's underwear. These transitional fossils are defined on the ultra-scientific principle of appearance, and often based on nothing more than a couple of teeth and skull fragments. (BTW, many are proven as frauds.)
We are given embryology as proof, and that too is shown to be fraud.
We are given speciation but find them all defined by the weak definition (choices to mate as opposed to ability to mate) that would make me a different species from nearly every woman I ever met.
We are given DNA evidence for random, unguided evolution and then told that DNA is a literal code with literal error correction, etc... To all experience, an indication of design.
We are told that scientists have designed simulations that prove random/natural/unguided mechanisms.
We are told that all of this (in the Darwinian context) happened after life spontaneously generated by happenstance, even though all observable evidence indicates otherwise.
And after all of this is offered, ID is derided and called pseudoscience because it makes the inference that the apparent design we see in the universe is, well, actually designed.
That's another misrepresentation of what's really happening. The experiments are designed to simulate what happens when the environment applies extreme selection pressures. Your response illustrates clearly that creationists will not accept any evidence short of direct observation in the field of their caricature of "macroevolution."
See above.
Be my guest, though I'm not sure what there is to argue about...
It's up. If history tells me anything, it's that we can find something to argue about. ;^)
Take care, bro. Hope you get smarter on your trip...
Some answers
We creationists are always assured of this evidence, but it turns out to be a bit squirmy when you try to pin it down. As you admit, there is no observation of the proposed macroevolution, since it is impossible to view.
But there IS still evidence, despite the fact that you choose to ignore it.
We were assured of the fossil record, but that hasn't panned out. You yourself had to explain the lack of evidence there.
Again, there's plenty of evidence in the fossil record, it's just not detailed enough for you. To say it hasn't "panned out" is a stretch, to say the least. What I explained is why we don't have a fossil of every stage of every animal that ever lived.
We are assured of transitional fossils, but given no firm lines of homology; they are more holy than the Pope's underwear. These transitional fossils are defined on the ultra-scientific principle of appearance, and often based on nothing more than a couple of teeth and skull fragments. (BTW, many are proven as frauds.)
Again, I'm not sure why you would expect to see a fossil from every stage of every animal. Think about the animals alive today. How often do you think a skeleton gets fossilized when one dies? There are plenty of transitional fossils, but they're not close enough for you. Most are far more than just fragments (remember the humanoid skulls I've shown you?). Oh, and BTW, I wouldn't say MANY are frauds, but there have been a scant few. Guess who pointed out that they were incorrect? Hint: not creationists.
We are given embryology as proof, and that too is shown to be fraud.
Another creationist claim that doesn't quite fit the facts. It's true that Haeckel falsified some drawings and misinterpreted the evidence. His biogenetic law was proven to be wrong (guess who!), and it's not part of evolutionary theory. That said, similarities in development do still bolster the evidence for evolution, despite what creationists claim.
We are given speciation but find them all defined by the weak definition (choices to mate as opposed to ability to mate)
All? Methinks you should reconsider that language.
We are given DNA evidence for random, unguided evolution and then told that DNA is a literal code with literal error correction, etc... To all experience, an indication of design.
DNA is not like any designed code we have. I'm sure you'll just say that's an indication of a more advanced designer. Without anything else from an advanced designer, how would you know?
We are told that scientists have designed simulations that prove random/natural/unguided mechanisms.
The simulations SIMULATE the processes. The results speak for themselves. Is it your position that simulations are worthless?
Whew! That's tiring. You should Google the "Gish Gallop" sometime. You've become quite adept at it.
Whew! That's tiring. You
Whew! That's tiring. You should Google the "Gish Gallop" sometime. You've become quite adept at it.
You misinterpret my intentions. I did not post as a shotgun blast with the expectation of your response. You've commented your beliefs on each of those here already. I posted on the varying lines of evidences to make the point that evolution is not the "no-brainer" we are led to believe.
Now, you have responded with answers to each of the above. Great. I wasn't asking for them. I was pointing out that evolution is built on inference and lack of data, much of the data and observation even evolutionists admit we could never get!
All this for a theory that is purported as scientific fact, as proven as the round earth, the orbit of the moon.
Give me a break...
You didn't ask for answers, and still won't listen to them.
But I'll keep trying anyway.
None of those answers, by itself, proves evolution happened beyond the shadow of a doubt. However, when you take each piece, each independent line of evidence, and put them together, evolution is the only credible explanation that we've yet come up with. Folks have been trying for a long time, but evolution has stood the test. It's passed so many tests, that the general concept is indeed considered by many to be a fact.
You like to cast doubt, throwing all of the various creationist gems to see what sticks to the wall. When those are shown to be blown out of proportion, or just plain wrong, you generally fall back on, "that's your opinion, and plenty of people hold my contrary opinion."
When we get right down to it, you are reluctant to accept evolution because of religious misgivings. That's fine. The problems arise when you try to shroud those misgivings in a pseudoscientific cloak. If you don't want to believe, then don't believe. Those of us who ACCEPT the explanation would rather not have to deal with the same questions we've already answered over and over.
Please let me know when you come up with a credible (NON-religious) explanation that explains the facts as well as evolutionary theory. Until then, you're just galloping along.
I think you've gone over the line now.
What you're not invited here to do is imagine that you can speak from within my head.
None of those answers, by itself, proves evolution happened beyond the shadow of a doubt.
We are agreed on that. Yet, and this is my professed problem all along, evolutionists speak of the theory as if it has been-- as if it is fact.
However, when you take each piece, each independent line of evidence, and put them together, evolution is the only credible explanation that we've yet come up with.
And you have the monopoly on defining what is credible? I suggest that you amend that statement to "the only credible explanation within a priori naturalist's assumptions".
You like to cast doubt, throwing all of the various creationist gems to see what sticks to the wall. When those are shown to be blown out of proportion, or just plain wrong, you generally fall back on, "that's your opinion, and plenty of people hold my contrary opinion."
I find it incredible that you deride me for dismissing scientific interpretation because of philosophical bias when you dismiss anyone who differs from yours. You know... Those "plenty of people" who happen to be scientists.
And, by the way, they have not been shown to be blown out of proportion.
When we get right down to it, you are reluctant to accept evolution because of religious misgivings. That's fine.
That is a gross oversimplification, and I resent the cavalier way that you decide to speak my motives for me.
The problems arise when you try to shroud those misgivings in a pseudoscientific cloak.
I have entered the statements of scientists that differ from your opinion. There is a difference. For someone who has trumpeted the scientific process of arguing theories, you sure seem closed to it actually occurring.
Those of us who ACCEPT the explanation would rather not have to deal with the same questions we've already answered over and over.
Then by all means... Don't! But I'll offer some advice to your side of the discussion. If you don't want to be asked to provide what the theory predicted, don't dress the theory up as scientific fact.
I listed several areas where the evidence is bare. I got explanations as to why the evidence is bare. Fine. You did an exceptional job (repeatedly)! It doesn't change the fact that the evidence is bare. It doesn't change the fact that Darwinism is propped up with hind-sight explanations and just-so assumptions. Period.
The fact that you accept that doesn't mean that everyone will. It doesn't mean that it's religious discomfort. And it absolutely doesn't mean that you can speak for anyone but yourself. No matter how incredulous you may feel doesn't prove your case.
Please let me know when you come up with a credible (NON-religious) explanation that explains the facts as well as evolutionary theory.
Please let me know when you do, since yours is founded on a priori naturalistic assumptions. And for the record, the entire debate is just how well evolution does explain the fact.
No need to defend him
As to the definition, I think many of them are defining it as "specified complexity", if that helps
That's an invented term (Dembski, I think) that still lacks a formal definition.
I didn't attack Sanford on any of the items you're defending. I mentioned the UFO just to be sure we were talking about the same book--it's the most striking feature of the book.
I didn't mention anything about peer review. I wondered why this book wasn't written as a scientific work (in the same way that peer-reviewed works are). The ideas would be taken more seriously and it would theoretically have more data to back up the claims.
I brought up the retirement and financial stuff to point out that he doesn't have a reason not to produce an academic-quality book, but didn't. That's his choice, but I suspect (again, I haven't even read the book) his target audience is not scientists, but laymen.
He does not find evolution false because he is a Christian. He is a Christian because he found evolution false.
Not having read the book, I was under the impression (reports from both sides of the debate) that his religious conversion was the result of a personal event (divorce), and that conversion caused him to look critically at his beliefs about evolution. The religous sections of the book detract even more from the scientific aspect. It doesn't take anything away from the ideas presented, but it explains why it's not subjected to much scientific criticism.
Negative reviews may not surprise you, but you can't just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.
OK...
That's an invented term (Dembski, I think) that still lacks a formal definition.
It is the difference between crystals and language; snowflakes and code. It is the difference between organization and meaningful content.
babababababababa and 1234123412341234 are organization.
'This is specified complexity' is specified complexity.
I was under the impression (reports from both sides of the debate) that his religious conversion was the result of a personal event (divorce), and that conversion caused him to look critically at his beliefs about evolution.
His statements are that he found evolution wanting. As a matter of fact, his statements are that he tried to make the data fit, but couldn't. I haven't heard anything about his marital situation. In his words:
Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom….
Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.
Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this – but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment – which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!
End
The religous sections of the book detract even more from the scientific aspect.
Please do explain.
It doesn't take anything away from the ideas presented, but it explains why it's not subjected to much scientific criticism.
That is a sad considering the amount of scientific peer review offered those who use scientific data to make religious statements of the oppsoie extreme.
Another reason may be that much of his work is a restatement of data and information already presented into the scientific community as problematic. He told the emperor that he was naked.
Negative reviews may not surprise you, but you can't just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.
I haven't waved anything. I stated that they don't surprise me. None that I have read have impressed me, as 95% of them have been based on the subjects that you brought up-- thus why I felt the need to respond to the subjects. You'll hopefully forgive me for making the false connection.
More info: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-gene...
mmmK
It is the difference between crystals and language; snowflakes and code. It is the difference between organization and meaningful content.
Meaningful is a loaded word. It requires an observer to decipher meaning. It begs the philosophical question, if specified complexity falls in the forest, is it still specified complexity?
Please do explain.
Scientists are generally loathe to mix the disciplines of science and religion. As we've discussed, the two answer different questions. A popular book that discusses religion and science will not likely get much critical attention from scientists.
That is a sad considering the amount of scientific peer review offered those who use scientific data to make religious statements of the oppsoie extreme.
I have yet to see a peer-reviewed scientific article that says "god doesn't exist." The conclusions may conflict with YOUR idea of god, but that doesn't make the statements religious.
Another reason may be that much of his work is a restatement of data and information already presented into the scientific community as problematic. He told the emperor that he was naked.
That might just mean that he's bringing up issues that have already been addressed. To play off your fable reference, the boy's still crying wolf.
None that I have read have impressed me, as 95% of them have been based on the subjects that you brought up
The subjects I brought up? You mean lack of a definition of information? Lack of cited references? The fact that he has nothing to lose by including the above?
Did you read the review I posted? It mentions some of the issues YOU brought up, but not really critically. It's a popular review befitting a popular work, so mentioning this stuff isn't out of line. He claims to ignore these issues and argue against the content. I'll leave that judgement up to the reader.