Evolution debate enters ‘round two' (Proposal in Kansas: Change the definition of 'Science')

No possibility of that. JW was simply another one of Ted Holden's alter egos. That account's been banned or suspended.

That's a pity. JW was such a marvellous example of the intellectual level of anti-evolutionism that I suspected Loki Trolling.

A proper scientific approach would be, if the evidence led to intelligent design, to then try and determine the origins of the designers and methods used in the design process.

How would you go about doing that?

Intelligent design is not SCIENCE.

Simple, because the basis of the evolutionists is an attack on religion, not science.

Astronomers teach us that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Are they also attacking religion since that theory runs counter to the Bible as well? What about physicists with their theories on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? Are claims that time is not a constant or that subatomic particals exist an attack religion too?

Why the "ID"? Does that mean that we are leaving open the possibility that it was "designed" by space aliens?

JW [JudyWillow] was simply another one of Ted Holden's alter egos. That account's been banned or suspended.

Just when I was starting to like ol' Judy ...

Medved snuck back under another name! Who'd have thought?

;)

Simple, because the basis of the evolutionists is an attack on religion,

But not an attack on God. Apparently YOUR religion is set up to attack science. Are your relatives the ones that fought the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, also?

Thank you for the time and effort you took to address my rather lengthy post. I appreciate your endeavor to respond in a polite and informative manner, unlike many posters on such threads as this. Therefore, in the same spirit, permit me to present some counters and ask some questions concerning your post.

Unfortunately, such will again lead to a lengthy post… My apologies, again. To avoid your having to “flip” back and forth to previous posts, I have color-coded the responses… my original in blue, your response in green and the current counters or questions in black.

As I understand “Darwinism,” it is based upon inductive reasoning.

No, it isn't. It's based on empirical science, and rests upon a foundation of evidence.

em·pir·i·cal adj.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws

I am unaware of any experiment even suggesting “evolution” beyond that involving bacteria or other very simple life forms. Even those are apparently subject to some controversy as to whether they establish the concept or not…To wit, see below:

From post 20 on this thread by Getready:” Bacterial resistance to antibiotics has been shown to be due to transmissible genetic snippets, or loss of information causing less susceptibility to certain natural chemical compounds or their congeners. (no new structures are developed in order to cause resistance...just alterations of existing one… i.e. antibiotic pumps, or bacterial pore population as examples, inability of certain antibiotics to attack certain molecular structures, or expression of enzymes which destroy the antibiotic.. (some organisms remain susceptible to the same antibiotics...whatever change there might be, it is very, very limited, and does not represent a change from lets say a bacterium to a PPLO, or a fungus, or even a prion (yet)

“Whenever an event occurs, at least one sufficient condition is present and all the [...]

Yeah, yeah, get to your points.

Sorry, but I have found it necessary in posts on these threads to be very specific in attempt to avoid extraneous wanderings concerning unstated premises or explanations.

The proponents of “Darwinism” currently propose that the mechanism (in my limited understanding of the subject) for evolution is a purely random “mutation”

There's no requirement that it be "purely random". Many mutations are decidedly non-random, in fact.

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding you. There is no other “naturalistic” assumption other than “pure randomness” available as to how mutations can occur. Consequently, if mutations are not “purely random,” the implication is that something or someone is directing them. As this is exactly the argument for intelligent design, I do not think that is what you intended to say. Care to expand on this?

of existing an organism which is both heritable and beneficial in terms of natural selection to the enhanced survival and/or reproduction of future generations of that organism.

No, non-beneficial mutations also play a part, and neutral mutations can fix in the genepool through genetic drift alone.

Again, perhaps, I am misunderstanding you. Is not the basic tenant of “Darwinism” that natural selection “chooses” those individuals which have mutations that enhance their ability to survive and reproduce for continuation of their genetic material? Is this not the theory’s posited mechanism by which more complex organisms appear? It may be true that “genetic drift” would cause change, but without benefits in terms of natural selection, the same mechanism, “genetic drift,” would “erase” the change or replace it with another, would it not?

in particular, with relation to the “Cambrian Explosion:”

Stated factors/conditions:

1. Mutations must exist randomly.

Wrong.

As noted above (I will repeat for your convenience): “Perhaps, I am misunderstanding you. There is no other “naturalistic” assumption other than “pure randomness” available as to how mutations can occur. Consequently, if mutations are not “purely random,” the implication is that something or someone is directing them. As this is exactly the argument for intelligent design, I do not think that is what you intended to say. Care to expand on this?”

2. Mutations must be heritable.

If they're going to make any long-term evolutionary difference, right -- mostly. Non-heritable mutations play a small but significant role in evolution (via horizontal transfer, etc.)

3. Natural selection pressures must determine that a particular mutation provides a benefit to the organism.

Oversimplified, but close enough for a discussion like this. And again, you're leaving out genetic drift. Plus you've skipped things like mutations which by themselves may be non-beneficial, but when shuffled together with another non-beneficial mutation via sexual recombination may provide some advantage -- it's a mistake to think of a given mutation as providing a specific advantage *in isolation*. Furthermore, mutations which are advantageous in one setting may be non-advantageous in another, etc etc.

Please see my discussion below on probabilities concerning multiple beneficial mutations occurring simultaneously.

Unstated factors/conditions:

1. Mutations can only be classed into the following categories: a) none; b) benign: c) beneficial: or d) detrimental.

See above -- even the same mutation can shift from category to category depending upon other factors.

If your point is that a benign mutation may at a later point become a beneficial one, I will concede the point if you will agree that there is an equal probability that it could also become a detrimental one.

2. The sum of mutations in categories a), b) and c) must significantly exceed category d) or the organism will become extinct prior to the production of a “better adapted” next generation.

If you mean "in a specific individual", I'll buy that.

Is there any case where a heritable characteristic is not passed to the next generation except by “individuals” in the preceding generation? If this is so, do not all mutations, their probabilities and possible survival benefits in terms of natural selection have to be considered on an “individual” basis?

(note: this condition disallows excessive mutagens which puts an absolute upper limit on mutation rates which,

Correct.

Again, there is a strong implication associated with this point. If there is an absolute upper limit on the possible mutation rate, then the probability of more than one, simultaneously, becomes the mathematical product of that rate times itself. Similarly, the probability of multiple, simultaneous beneficial mutations, which occur at a much smaller rate than mutations in general, also becomes a mathematical product of a small number making an extremely small probability for such. Therefore, for all practical considerations, the accumulation of beneficial mutations in any organism is restricted to those that occur in successive generations. This successive accumulation means that benign mutations that could later become beneficial must survive many, many generations in the face of genetic drift and “negative” selection.

when combined with the requirement for purely random occurrence, negates the likelihood of multiple beneficial mutations occurring simultaneously or successive mutations occurring excessively rapidly.)

If you mean in a particular individual, good enough.

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there any other way to consider this point?

3. Beneficial mutations must occur at a frequent enough rate to accommodate the time frame estimated for new organism appearance from fossil record. (note: this condition mandates the presence of sufficient mutagens which puts an absolute lower limit on mutation rates.)

Okay.

Yet, again, there is a implication here. If there is an absolute lower limit on mutation rates, the theory of punctuated equilibrium becomes tenuous at best and, more likely, completely unsupportable.

4. A sufficient number of generations must occur within the fossil record time frame to make the beneficial mutation present in enough individuals for production of a sufficient population size to generate the next beneficial mutation within acceptable mutation rates.

Uh.. You need to clarify this more, it's ambiguous in a lot of ways.

Sorry, I failed to communicate well here by trying to cram too much into a single sentence. Let try again:

By a “sufficient” population size I intended to point out that, statistically, a minimum number of individuals are required at a certain mutation rate within a limited time to produce a mutation. In turn, even more individuals are required at that same mutation rate and limited time for the occurrence of a “beneficial” mutation in terms of natural selection. Assuming such a “beneficial” mutation had occurred in a succeeding generation, that generation’s successors would, likewise, also have to reach a minimum size population, statistically, for the “next” beneficial mutation to occur. For “beneficial” mutations to accumulate, the required population size, the required number of generations to reach the appropriate size after the appearance of each beneficial mutation, the time between generations and the mutation rate act multiplicatively to decrease the probabilities of additional beneficial mutations within a limited time.

5. For the appearance of successive (in time) species in the fossil record having new/better capabilities, beneficial mutation must make the organism more biologically complex that its parent.

Nope! Just different. It can even be simpler -- and in a lot of environments, simpler is better. But if your point is that if evolution *can't* ever increase complexity, then living forms today would still be awfully simple and not like what exists today, I'll buy that. The evolutionary scenario for producing today's living things doesn't "work" unless evolution can indeed result in increased complexity.

Agreed. There is a strong implication with this point. Bacteria have the ability to produce large populations of individuals with very short time periods between generations and thus are potentially subject to many “beneficial” mutations. Consequently, by “Darwinism’s posit, bacteria would arguably increase their complexity to the point of becoming another organism. However, to my limited knowledge, experiments with bacteria have never produced anything but other bacteria even after many thousands of generations.

6. The time between generations must be short enough to accommodate the time frame estimated for new organism appearance from fossil record.

You're throwing around a lot of undefined terms like "short enough" without actually getting specific...

Sorry, again, I failed to adequately communicate trying for brevity. By “short enough” I was referring to the time allowed in the fossil record between the appearances of different organisms. This would be the minimum time allowed for a beneficial mutation to appear and be propagated to the next generation and successor generations become large enough to sustain the mutation’s presence and, then, grow large enough for the next beneficial mutation’s appearance, etc. In short, the total time for required for the accumulation of enough beneficial mutations between generations for a new organism’s appearance in the fossil record.

8. Natural selection pressures must determine that a particular mutation provides a benefit to the organism at rate that prevents the mutation from disappearing due to genetic drift or other phenomena.

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but you're not saying it right.

Sorry, I cannot think of a better way to say this. Perhaps you could “reflect” your understanding and let me try again on that basis.

9. Natural selection pressures must not be so great as to cause organism extinction before the organism has produced an adequate number of generations with the beneficial mutation to make the beneficial mutation widespread enough to ensure its survival.

When speaking of "negative" selection pressure, yes, but "positive" selection pressure can't be "too great".

If I understand your point, here, I must disagree. As I understand it, natural selection can only offer one “pressure:” that which enhances the survival and/or reproduction of an organism having a beneficial mutation. By “Darwinian” posits, if there is no benefit to a mutation, will it not, most likely, eventually change or disappear due to genetic drift?

10. As some simpler “parent organisms,” e.g., sharks, continue to exist alongside “descendant” organisms, Natural selection pressures must not be so great as to cause organism extinction or the simpler “parent organism” cannot appear simultaneously with its more complex “descendant” organism.

Not really a problem, actually, since the "daughter" species may have moved into geographic isolation, or into a niche non-competitive with that of the "parent" species, etc. And again, it's a mistake to presume that the parent species must necessarily be "simpler" than the offspring species.

Perhaps, I can concede your point concerning “niches.” Nonetheless, there are apparently numerous situations where the “parent” organism is in competition with the “successor” organism in the same niche. If, in fact, the successor organism had an advantage by natural selection, it should completely supplant the “parent” organism, should it not? Otherwise, what is the advantage?

If the successor organism is not more complex than the “parent” organism, then how can the posit of “Darwinism” that more complex organisms sprang from less complex ones hold?

The list of “necessary” factors could potentially go quite a bit further. However, the above number, alone, establishes that “Darwinism,” as it is postulated, must overcome some very near impossible odds.

WOW, a mathematical claim without any math! Try again, son.

Alright, “dad.” Any situation less than certainty carries a probability of less than one, i.e., a fraction. Any fraction multiplied time another fraction yields a smaller fraction. If there are a number of probabilities that must occur sequentially, then each must be multiplied by the other. For example, the probability of heads of tails on a fair coin’s toss is 0.5. However, for the same coin, the probability of two heads (or tails) in succession is 0.5 times 0.5 or 0.25, i.e. a smaller number. Similarly, the probability of 7 heads (or tails) in succession is 1.52 x 10^-5. Is the math sufficiently displayed for you, now?

The probabilities associated with each “necessary” factor are multiplicative with the probabilities of each additional factor.

Horse manure! You have in no way established this. And you can't establish it by just "I say so, that's why".

Perhaps, you did understand that each condition to which I referred carried a probability of less than one. Consequently, it was not I who “just said so”… The rules of mathematics did.

Therefore, even if the probability associated with each factor were only a single decimal place

"If". Feel free to actually support such an assumption.

Again, as an example, 0.1 times 0.1 equals 0.01. Sufficiently supported?

the resulting product yields a number with a tremendously large negative exponent.

Faulty conclusion due to being based on unsupported premises and numbers pulled out of a hat instead of from real-world testing.

Unless you wish to assert that on the basis of” real-world testing,” the probability of a beneficial mutation is a certainty for any randomly selected individual of any given species, then the premise is not “unsupported.”

Additionally, there are those factors with many more than one decimal place such as beneficial mutation rates which have a negative exponent greater than 6. The implication is that the “millions” (i.e., a positive 6) of years allowable even with “millions” of individuals (i.e., another positive 6) within a species in the Cambrian fossil record cannot account the appearance of between 17 and 34 animal phyla attributed to that time frame.

Again, you've provided no real math, just made up numbers followed by a non-mathematical conclusion ("can't!"). Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

Again, as an example, 0.00001 times 0.00001 equals 0.0000000001. Does this example “cut it?”

Furthermore, you've overlooked quite a few things in your simplistic "Cambrian" scenario:

1. Mutation rates are *per nucleotide* *per copy*, if I recall correctly. Quick, Einstein, how many nucleotides in the genome of a single organism? You've presumed it's per individual, per generation. Wrongo. In fact, I don't have it at hand right now, but one study determined that every individual human has on the average *four* new mutations that are unique to him (or her), having occurred in the mother/father germ line which led to his conception.

My comments were based upon a rate of mutation in organisms of "one mutation per locus per 10⁵ to 10⁶ gametes."(Campbell, 1990, p. 445) Calculations must consider the total number of possible loci, the probability that any particular gamete will fertilize/be fertilized by another gamete, the probability that a resulting zygote will be viable, the probability that the mutation is benign or beneficial, the probability that any resulting individual organism resulting from maturation of the zygote will be fertile, the probability that the organism will survive, the probability that the organism will reproduce, the probability that the succeeding generations will pass on the mutation unaltered, etc.

2. You use "million" as your "population size", but that's a *very* small number for most species. Do you have any idea how many, say, Green Crabs there are in the ocean? A million is a drop in the bucket.

Actually, I thought I was being generous with this number. The situation of a beneficial mutation appearing in any given individual is very low. Even assuming that the mutation appears and is passed to the next generation, the size of that first generation having that mutation is limited. Similarly, each new generation must pass the beneficial mutation to successor generations unaltered, etc. In short it will take a finite period of time for the population to reach a million. In fact, I suspect that the population size must be much greater than one million for the probability of a beneficial mutation to occur.

There a great many green crabs in the ocean, now. However, the operative question is how many were there when they first appeared?

3. You mention the Cambrian radiation evolving from "a species", but even leaving aside the obvious that the Cambrian explosion likely resulted from advances in *multiple* species, and buying your oversimplified scenario that it arose from *one* preCambrian species, you're still overlooking the fact that after the first bifurcation, now there are *two* species within which the further mutations can arise, and so on as the clades further split in turn.

Your point is well taken. However, my point was not with the number of species or clades. Rather, my point was that each branch, a beneficial mutation had to appear, be propagated, and pass through the next branch, etc.

4. You have provided zero, zip, nada estimate of how many mutations (at least on the order of) would be a necessary number to result in the Cambrian evolutions. Sort of *need* that for your calculation, don't you?

If my above arguments have been insufficient at this point to illustrate my point, it would require a doctoral dissertation for me to provide more detail. Sadly, I haven’t quite got the time for that.

5. The actual time over which the Cambrian radiations occurred is at least 100 million years, not just on the order of "millions" as you assert.

I am willing to admit that I may be misinterpreting what I have read. However, according to my information, on which I could be mistaken, the Cambrian radiations occurred over a period of approximately 17 million years approximately 570 million years ago. Nonetheless, even if your number is the more accurate, it only increases the positive exponent by 2. Such an increase does not seem, in my estimate, to alter the overall probabilities I have been discussing significantly.

6. You mention "between 17 and 34 animal phyla" as if that's a large number to evolve in 100 million years, but a "phylum change" back in that era was little more than what we'd write off as a "species change" now (although in another half billion years a few of today's "species differences" may have resulted in enough subsequence divergence to be recognized, *then*, as a "phylum split" -- it's all relative to where you're measuring from). For example, today vertebrates are hugely different than invertebrates, thanks to a half billion years of subsequent evolution and divergence, but back in the early Cambrian the difference between the "vertebrate phlyum" and the "invertebrate phylum" was little more than a worm with a notochord versus a worm with a neural net -- hardly a huge amount of genetic change.

Even if the differences were small, the probabilities of that many splits, given the mutation rate discussed above makes the issue still on the “very low end of probable” in my view.

Given the length of this post, with your concurrence, I will terminate here rather that continue.

. How can complicated new body parts or new organs (e.g., eyes and feathers) form when the necessary thousands or millions of intermediate steps would have offered no selective advantage

1)Your hypothesis that they offered no advantage is unproven. Plants react to light and thus obtain an evolutionary advantage. Reactions to light are common among even sightless creatures. The advantages are well documented. Maybe small feathers would not allow a creature to fly but they serve well as insulation and the heat transfer/insulation properties can be easily varied to the condiditions. That would give the creature advantages and propagate creatures with larger feathers. Maybe giving him a chance to glide away from a predator, initially and finally able to fly. That is evolution.

ID is not a scientific theory

Why are they pushing ID. Are they afraid to say "God"?

I>None of my post was "cut and paste" from any creationist web site.

I searched on google for Senapathy "If the mutation rate is constant" and found this page:

LOL, he got those talking points from Senapathy? Senapathy has some just plain strange theories about genomics.

Here's Gert Korthof's review of Senapathy's book.

Why are they pushing ID. Are they afraid to say "God"?

Yep. Like Peter, they'll deny Him in the face of adversity. Of course, ID is really a Wedge Strategy to reintroduce religion into the school system. To admit it, though, would get this stuff tossed out instantly.

Medved snuck back under another name! Who'd have thought?

"Say it isn't so, Joe."

None of my post was "cut and paste" from any creationist web site.

Did you find something in this statement that was untrue?

I searched on google for Senapathy "If the mutation rate is constant" and found this page: ...

Do you mean to imply that Dr. Senapathy is a creationist? If not, what is your point?

...he got those talking points from Senapathy? Senapathy has some just plain strange theories about genomics.

As my first point, only the questions came from Dr Senapathy's site, all else was mine, including the less than clear wording. My rationale was simple: I had asked others not to cite referrals to other web sites in replying to my post. Consequently, I felt that I should not do so either. Hence, the questions "cut and paste." Nonetheless, I would like to examine the implications of some questions arising your statement:

Are you impugning Dr. Senapathy's credentials? Does his doctorate not come from the correct area? Has he not published enough in his field? Alternately, is it, perhaps, that you merely disagree with his proposed theory? If so, do your credentials entitle you to equal standing in the field in order to do so or are you merely offering questions and/or criticisms you might think are justified? If this is the case, how is your position any different than mine offering questions of "Darwinism?"

I agree that mainstream bio departments withhold funding for research in this topic, and thus I agree that the imagination of scientists is being truncated regarding developing theories regarding this issue.

Why should biology departments seek to hire people with ideas but without research plans, who don't have advanced degrees in the field? It isn't going to happen.

I also suspect that you'd believe SETI has no bearing what so ever on this topic either.[snipped Dr. Hood's biography]

Not particularly, but I'll read anything that appears in a scientific journal that looks promising. Remember, ID still has yet to do that where it wasn't snuck in behind an external review panel.

(but of course, anything Johnson has to say is useless, right?)

I've never said that, but what I have said is that Johnson's taking the wrong tack if he wants to convince the scientific community of anything, and truly introduce something interesting to the scientific community. Instead he wants to do an end run around science and get in science textbooks without doing any real thoughtful and meaningful work. If he or another ID scientist does good work that stands up, I, for one, will praise him for it. But as long as they continue to take the coward's way out, I will berate them for it.

Can I give you a raincheck for now, and I'll get back to you on it later today?

Why, Yes you may!

You're the first person I've met that goes to bed even later than I do. (It was 6:49 a.m. MY time when you last wrote; for your sake I hope you live on the west coast... or maybe Hawaii!) I am very interested in hearing your answer about the birds.

And how many of those "brilliant scholars" who don't accept evolution are biologists who have studied the data...

Of course I know none personally, but there are probably quite a few. The odds are greatly against all biologists accepting the theory of evolution.

About 100x as many biologists who have studied the data do accept evolution, and they comprise multiple religions as well as agnostics and atheists.

So how about you??? can you back up this claim? And why am I surprised that agnostics and atheists choose to trust evolutionary theory??

I recall hearing of debates between creationists and evolutionists in which creationists were more convincing. I wish I could point to some as proof, but I can't. If that is true, what would you make of it?

Here's another couple of questions which won't require as much thought, most likely. 1) What is the most recent example of a newly evolved species? 2) Can you name a plant or an animal of which there is only one species? If so, how long has it been known to exist without another species evolving from it?

Are you impugning Dr. Senapathy's credentials? Does his doctorate not come from the correct area? Has he not published enough in his field? Alternately, is it, perhaps, that you merely disagree with his proposed theory?

I remember reading Korthof's extensive review of Senapathy's book which I linked to. Senapathy is simply "out there" - not an orthodox creationist, but he advocates an equally baroque theory.

If so, do your credentials entitle you to equal standing in the field in order to do so or are you merely offering questions and/or criticisms you might think are justified? If this is the case, how is your position any different than mine offering questions of "Darwinism?"

Credentials? I don't need no steenkin' credentials!