Lies or Incompetence?

[ElCodeMonkey]

I am often fascinated by the fact that people cannot come to an agreement about something. I can lay out what I think is solid and rational argument only to find the recipients entirely incapable of comprehending. Similarly, the arguments brought forth to me sound ridiculous and easily defeated, but they can never see how they've been defeated so soundly and logically. It's easy to see them as incompetent or dishonest yet I strongly believe they feel the same about me. They are absolutely just as convinced as I am in the opposite direction. We often think the other side is just being dishonest, evil, or stupid. And yet the other side thinks the same. So how in the world can we ever truly know? Is there a method of knowing if we're lying to ourselves and we're the dumb ones? Has science shown anything in the brain perhaps that can reveal that we truly DO understand something but choose to reject it and so deceive ourselves? What is really going on? Or is one side of an argument actually just evil incarnate like we're led to believe?

[Guy Threepwood]

& I agree, all the design elements in a neighborhood cannot come from a hurricane

any more than all the design stages required to turn a single cell into a human being can arise from random errors

both require preordained information, blueprints, determining outcomes- the math has no preferred world view- or disdain for any other, to taint it's objectivity on this

And there you go. You are exhibiting a gross misunderstanding of how evolution has occurred.

It's that simple.

No offense intended, but you're just arguing for a totally false and incorrect picture of evolution.

If you actually believe the misinformation you have just expressed, then it's no wonder that you reject evolution. I would reject evolution too if the picture of evolution you have just expressed was actually accurate and true. But it's not.

we agree then, I don't think all the required changes are random at all, I was giving the Darwinian version, not what I believe or many scientists at the cutting edge of the problem these days

See DrNoGods post just before this one. You have failed to recognize the role of natural selection.

not at all- populate the hurricane area if you like, with home owners who can select the best houses the hurricane has accidentally produced, and discard the rest. That doesn't help you much.

Natural selection is a selection process, it cannot create, it can only select from what has already been created, there's no way around that.


that a superior design will tend to outperform, outlast, and be reproduced in greater numbers than an inferior one, is a moot point, it's why we have more Ford Mustangs than Pintos. The pertinent question is how the superior designs arrive, not merely survive

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 8 by Guy Threepwood]

any more than all the design stages required to turn a single cell into a human being can arise from random errors

Random mutations and NATURAL SELECTION, operating over billions of years. Why do you always describe the process as if it were pure randomness and nothing more?

Natural selection can only select what has already been created

the entire creative process, according to the popular modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution, is pure randomness, nothing more. Every single new advantageous feature required to transform a single cell into a human, must, according to the theory, spontaneously materialize through pure blind chance

This understanding is beginning to change, more and more concession is being made to preexisting specified genetic information to account for the appearance of new traits, triggered by other mechanisms, epigenetics/ environmental triggers etc- not new information spontaneously appearing by random chance- that 19th C premise is just not holding water in the information age.

You can make it a materialist argument if you like 'see no need for God, all the information required already existed'' and I've heard that argument made, but Darwinian evolution it ain't!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 12 by Guy Threepwood]

You can make it a materialist argument if you like 'see no need for God, all the information required already existed'' and I've heard that argument made, but Darwinian evolution it ain't!

I think you may have too limited a view on what Darwinian evolution is, and what natural selection is. We (and other animals) have huge numbers of genes that are not expressed, and very complex regulatory mechanisms (eg. epigenetics, RNA catalysts, etc.) that control gene expression that we are barely beginning to understand. Since humans evolved from earlier primates, who evolved from earlier mammals, etc. back to some single-celled organism, we no doubt have a great number of inactive genes within us that could be expressed in some future environmental change.

For example, if the atmosphere slowly changed over the next few million years so that the O2 was gradually replaced by CO2, there would most likely be some animals that would survive by mutations and/or expression of existing genes to be able to extract O2 from CO2 rather than breathing in O2 directly. Maybe we'd end up with some kind of modified lung that became more like a gill-like structure, and we probably have inactive genes within our genome that could direct the growth of such a structure since creatures with gills do exist in our ancestral chain. The adaptations for high altitude living in humans is a good example of this sort of thing over a much shorter time scale, and a much less drastic environmental change.

But this kind of change is perfectly within Darwinian evolution and would be directed by natural selection. There is no requirement that a more gill-like lung capable of extracting O2 from CO2 appear purely by random mutations just happening to get there ... it could be the expression of existing genes and related regulatory processes that create the new lung/gill feature, while suppressing some existing genes that create our present lung structure . Natural selection would drive the process. When the first amphibians evolved from fish it was probably a similar process, where fins built up strength and structure as the advantage of being able to walk on land, and convert an existing air bladder into a lung, occurred over many thousands of generations. There certainly are new mutations that may bring new functionality, but natural selection is not restricted to only that ... the fact that we did evolve along an incredibly long and varied path that includes creatures with all kinds of features that we don't have (eg. wings), you'd expect us to have genes for many of these features still present but just not expressed. This is "material" for natural selection to work with.

An alternative explanation that some kind of god did it is far more unbelievable don't you think? Humans have invented literally tens of thousands of gods, yet not a single one of them has a shred of physical evidence for their existence (besides many being utterly incompatible with each other). What is the probability that any one of these god beings actually exists? It has to be vanishingly small. Gods are purely man-made inventions and there is no evidence to the contrary. At least Darwinian evolution has a great deal of observational data to support it, while gods and devils and angels and afterlives have zero. But the old "god of the gaps" approach were anything not completely explained by science is attributed to the default explanation of some god is responsible, seems to never die.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 13 by DrNoGods]



Certainly. Likewise [font=Georgia]I can [/font] express andrepress several different attribute parameters in this text, randomly, without creating lots of new information, and with a reasonable shot at a viable result, because that capacity for adaptation within a specific viable range has already been provided for.


But of course the software did not, and could not write itself by this same trial and error process- because fundamentally these options are a design feature, not a design mechanism.

i.e you are still merely selecting from what has already been specifically created- no matter where you squeeze the balloon, you can not posit a selection mechanism to provide you with all your selections! Something has to be created to select from, and HOW is still the pertinent question

If I show you a fully automated watch factory, complete with a range of models and options, and claim this supports the theory that no intelligent design is involved in the design of the watch, only purely spontaneous processes-- I am not only pushing the problem back, I'm making it far far bigger

But the old "god of the gaps" approach were anything not completely explained by science is attributed to the default explanation of some god

quite the opposite,

'After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal." Dawkins

^ this is what you and I are trying to explain, by either spontaneous mechanisms or intelligent agency. I don't rule either out, we have no means to make such an arbitrary restriction based on anything other than personal preference- world views need not enter into it

But, what do we know? we absolutely do have a proven, repeatable, observable mechanism by which such hierarchical digital information systems are created- and it involves intelligent design, and as far as we can possibly tell- it absolutely requires it.

Not to say a materialist/spontaneous mechanism which can achieve the same.. is technically impossible, I'm certainly open to any speculation on this but it's not looking too promising.- & certainly has nothing to merit 'default explanation' status!

[Divine Insight]

the entire creative process, according to the popular modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution, is pure randomness, nothing more.

Again, misinformation.

It's not pure randomness. It's based on the underlying structure of the fundamental constituents of the universe (i.e. electrons, atoms, molecules, and their associated forces).

Those are not "random". For example, electrons always repel each other. Opposite charges always attract. The is no randomness in the laws of physics.

Now you may want to BACKTRACK and claim that it must then be the laws of physics that are "Intelligently Designed". And that's a perfectly fine position to take. But then you're still stuck with evolution being the result of this.

So even as a theist who would like to believe that some gods designed the physics of the fundamental constituents of the universe, you're still stuck with evolution. You can't avoid the fact of evolution no matter how hard you try.

The argument that evolution is based on pure randomness is an argument from ignorance. Pure and simple. That argument doesn't hold water. It's nothing more than a display of ignorance of how evolution actually works.

You clearly do not understand the physics and chemistry behind evolution. That's just a fact. To say that it's "pure randomness" is absolute nonsense. If someone taught you to believe that, all I can say is that I hope you didn't pay them any money for that misinformation.

[Guy Threepwood]

the entire creative process, according to the popular modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution, is pure randomness, nothing more.

Again, misinformation.

It's not pure randomness. It's based on the underlying structure of the fundamental constituents of the universe (i.e. electrons, atoms, molecules, and their associated forces).

Those are not "random". For example, electrons always repel each other. Opposite charges always attract. The is no randomness in the laws of physics.

Now you may want to BACKTRACK and claim that it must then be the laws of physics that are "Intelligently Designed". And that's a perfectly fine position to take. But then you're still stuck with evolution being the result of this.

So even as a theist who would like to believe that some gods designed the physics of the fundamental constituents of the universe, you're still stuck with evolution. You can't avoid the fact of evolution no matter how hard you try.

The argument that evolution is based on pure randomness is an argument from ignorance. Pure and simple. That argument doesn't hold water. It's nothing more than a display of ignorance of how evolution actually works.

You clearly do not understand the physics and chemistry behind evolution. That's just a fact. To say that it's "pure randomness" is absolute nonsense. If someone taught you to believe that, all I can say is that I hope you didn't pay them any money for that misinformation.

Again I personally agree, it's not really random, but yes pure blind random chance, is the mechanism relied upon to introduce variation according to popular understanding of the theory of evolution, don't blame me for that!

blame misinformers like these!

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... tations_07



DNA and Mutations :

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

[Divine Insight]

DNA and Mutations :

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Yes, randomness is certainly involved. No one is denying this.

But there a huge difference between randomness being involved and proclaiming that the entire process is "pure randomness". <- that's the misinformation right there.

So the information you have been taught is false. And now you are trying to pass that misinformation onto others.

So your argument that it could never occur by "pure randomness" doesn't apply. Evolution is not a process of "pure randomness" therefore your argument that it is, is false.

It's an argument based on ignorance of how evolution actually works.

Evolution is not a process of "pure randomness".

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]


& nobody is denying other mechanisms, natural selection, genetic drift, extinction, etc which all play a role- they are unavoidable

& nobody argues that superior designs tend to survive better..

Or that if you take white and dark moths, and kill the white ones, you are left with dark ones... and I've never heard any skeptic of Darwinism say otherwise.

But none of those things can account for novelty, they merely juggle what is already provided


the question is then, and has always been, how you actually create all the new instructions for variations for natural section to operate on

This is where ToE ultimately relies entirely on pure blind random chance to come up with novel functional specified information-

we had no idea how mathematically problematic this was in the Victorian age, the theory was far less problematic when it was created.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 18 by Guy Threepwood]

But none of those things can account for novelty, they merely juggle what is already provided.

Where do you draw the line on "novelty"? All mammals have genes for building bones, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, eyes, etc. So "juggling what is already provided" is sufficient to build everything from a 200 million year old shrew-like mammal to a modern human. A bat's skeleton looks very much like a human skeleton except for the relative sizes of finger and toe bones, the skin around them, and other proportions. No novelty there. Would you consider the difference between a tree shrew and a human novel, or just juggling what is already there?

If the latter, then what about a transition between a fish and an amphibian? There is nothing "novel" there either as the genes to build the various body components exist in both. If a fish living in small pools near a shoreline had to constantly move from one pool to another as they dried up, and travel across short distances of land to do so, then the 4 fins they may "walk" on would, over time, become more structurally sound and can eventually turn into what we'd call legs rather than fins. The genes to build the needed bones and muscle are already there, and only relatively minor reorganization is needed to change the bone and muscle structural arrangements. Would the resulting legs be "novel", or just a modification to fins due to the actions of the fish "walking" on them and natural selection giving an advantage to those fish that developed stronger "legs"? Same with air bladder to lungs.

If you start from a population of single-celled organisms 4 billion years ago, and some basic genome for it, there's no reason not to expect it to evolve new features and functions over time that can eventually become dramatic (eg. fish to amphibian). Would you call the transition from a chimp-like creature living 6-10 million years ago, and a modern human, "novel" or just juggling existing components? Where do you draw the line? Evolution doesn't draw imaginary boundaries like this ... legs may evolve from fins due to the benefit legs may provide to the animal in the environment it is living in, and there is no imagining needed to "create" something new.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 18 by Guy Threepwood]

But none of those things can account for novelty, they merely juggle what is already provided.

Where do you draw the line on "novelty"? All mammals have genes for building bones, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, eyes, etc. So "juggling what is already provided" is sufficient to build everything from a 200 million year old shrew-like mammal to a modern human. A bat's skeleton looks very much like a human skeleton except for the relative sizes of finger and toe bones, the skin around them, and other proportions. No novelty there. Would you consider the difference between a tree shrew and a human novel, or just juggling what is already there?

If the latter, then what about a transition between a fish and an amphibian? There is nothing "novel" there either as the genes to build the various body components exist in both. If a fish living in small pools near a shoreline had to constantly move from one pool to another as they dried up, and travel across short distances of land to do so, then the 4 fins they may "walk" on would, over time, become more structurally sound and can eventually turn into what we'd call legs rather than fins. The genes to build the needed bones and muscle are already there, and only relatively minor reorganization is needed to change the bone and muscle structural arrangements. Would the resulting legs be "novel", or just a modification to fins due to the actions of the fish "walking" on them and natural selection giving an advantage to those fish that developed stronger "legs"? Same with air bladder to lungs.

If you start from a population of single-celled organisms 4 billion years ago, and some basic genome for it, there's no reason not to expect it to evolve new features and functions over time that can eventually become dramatic (eg. fish to amphibian). Would you call the transition from a chimp-like creature living 6-10 million years ago, and a modern human, "novel" or just juggling existing components? Where do you draw the line? Evolution doesn't draw imaginary boundaries like this ... legs may evolve from fins due to the benefit legs may provide to the animal in the environment it is living in, and there is no imagining needed to "create" something new.

I think we agree to a large extent; the gulf between a chimp and a human is nothing like that between a single cell and a mammal- the vast majority of emergent properties have already emerged- though specific powers of speech and thought may well involve further instructions, those being the things that separate us more than mere morphology

The larger point being though, none of these new attributes are appearing accidentally, they are pre-programmed- just as we found with classical physics.- a handful of simple immutable laws + lots of random interaction is only what we see superficially- the major developmental stages of physical reality played out according to lots of highly specific information, determining where, when, how development occurred, it should not be too much of a surprise, that biology seems to be heading in the same direction. It's just a little more complex, and faces greater headwinds from certain world views- which are not simpatico with the implications of so much preordained design information

Evolution doesn't draw imaginary boundaries

no it has plenty real ones to deal with; between gene sequences and epigenetics and gene regulatory systems- things do work differently at different scales. just like physics, and so requires a similar hierarchical information system to regulate it.

Random mutation within specified limitations works fine for giving us slightly different facial features, or mountain peaks. Bigger beaks for finches, or moths with lighter wings, or weather patterns that prevent us from running out of things to talk about! they cannot author the very systems that support that capacity for variation.