Replies

"The 'evolution has no direction' claim is a compromise to get the theory to match the evidence.

As opposed to what? Changing the evidence to match the theory?

This is a good indicator that you have a poor understanding of the processes behind science. Science is designed to follow the evidence, something you apparently do not approve of, and develop explanations that fit within the known constraints of the physical world. If the evidence forces a theory to be restructured or tossed by the wayside, that is what happens. That is what *should* happen if the theories we develop are to converge on a more accurate explanation.

I do thank you for agreeing that the evidence indicates that Evolution has no direction.

"This allows 'loss of function' (which is easily observed) to be passed off as 'evolution' instead of the decline that it actually represents. The little evos never know the difference.

I'm not sure why you feel a loss of function is not properly a part of the SToE, it was certainly part of the ToE as Darwin originally stated. Are you saying that the originator of the theory, Charles Darwin, had no right to incorporate the observations he made of the lack of direction in organismal change in his theory?

Even if you take a look at the common definition of Evolution, 'the variation of allele frequencies within a population due to differential reproductive success', you can see that direction is not stated.

You complain that the 'directionlessness' of Evolution has been added to, in effect disallow the recognition of *decline*, yet that attribute of Evolution is as old as Evolution itself. What you don't recognize is that the idea of 'decline' is Biblical, and the complaint against the directionlessness of Evolution is a manufactured one brought about by Creationists to use as a strawman.

Your definition of a 'loss of function' as a 'decline' is quite false as a loss of function in a successful organism is necessarily a benefit to the organism. If there was no benefit to the organism, its extinction would have been immediate (geologically speaking). In the case of snakes, the loss of functional legs allowed them to quite successfully occupy a niche for many millions of years.

How is a change that confers a survival advantage a decline?

"It also appears that you have swallowed the 'DNA controls all' canard hook, line and sinker.

I take it you did not understand my purpose in posting that short list of genome sizes.

The argument of loss of function indicating decline is a fairly common one and is generally expressed as 'there are no beneficial mutations so the information content of the genome cannot increase. This limitation means only loss of information can occur.' If that was not your intention then I misread you.

To get back to the genome. I did not state that I believe DNA controls all, I have long understood the impact the ontogenetic environment has on the development of an adult organism. My point in the previous post was that the putative information content of the genome is *not* the end all and be all; that the interaction of the processes initiated by the ontogenetic environment and the processes of the genome can produce more than what the informational content implies can be produced.

"The evidence now shows that bacteria under stress speed up the mutation of their DNA in an effort to create a genetic combination that can survive the new environment. This is evidence that 'the cell controls the DNA database' and not the other way around.

It does no such thing. You are grasping at straws.

What this shows is that the interaction of the environment and the operative portions of the genome produce a complex feedback system. The DNA is modified by the release of a catalyst from within the cell. The ability to produce and release that catalyst is a direct result of the development process which includes the DNA. In other words, the DNA gave the organism the ability to modify the DNA. Feedback systems are ubiquitous in the natural world.

"Now, if DNA controls, how did such a complex process become encoded within the very system that is being manipulated?

Is this one of the 'chicken and egg' questions?

The easy answer is that a feedback system developed. This is quite common.

Since the coding and control areas of the genome are the 'recipe' for the cell structure, the minimum needed would be for a change to the gene responsible for determining the amount of catalyst released under stress (this too is quite common). Once that occurs the feedback system (which also includes the environment) would develop.

If you are interested in the development of feedback systems in the natural world you might research complex systems and Chaos Theory.

Evolutionary processes are quite capable of producing novel solutions as shown by the many computer models put to work in recent years.

"Do you just believe *everything* you are told without question?

Of course not, I research those ideas I find interesting. It appears you readily take the word of those that belong to your family (belief system) group, without critically assessing that information.

"Is there *any* point in examining the realities of biological complexity and interrelationship of systems where you can simply recognize that they cannot develop without intelligent input or are you so committed to the naturalistic paradigm that you will accept any unobserved absurdity as the gospel truth?

I'm sorry but I do not regulate my learning through personal incredulity. What you have just stated is that I should believe biology is the produce of intelligence because *you* cannot believe natural processes are capable of accomplishing the same tasks.

There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer in the genome and the misapplication of probability as commonly found in ID documents is not compelling.

As for your contention that it's all a matter of 'interpretation' you are quite right, but not in the way you believe.

If you take one line or instance of evidence for evolution, in many cases that evidence can indeed be explained by a number of different hypotheses. However as you add additional instances or lines of evidence the number of possible correct explanations is reduced by the amount of interrelatedness of the original and the new evidence. Eventually, as you compile the interactions between lines of evidence into an aggregate the number of potential correct explanations narrows to only one. In the case of the biological world, that complex interaction of multiple lines of evidence has resulted in the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (SToE).

You seem very willing to consider the complexity inherent in the biological world when it feeds your 'personal incredulity' but seem unwilling to consider the complexity of evidence for the SToE, preferring instead to create easily attacked strawmen.