Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Symmetry in Evolution
International Society for Complexity, Information and Design ^ | 11-30-02 | Philip L. Engle

Posted on 01/31/2003 9:04:31 PM PST by CalConservative


Symmetry in Evolution

by Phillip L. Engle


ABSTRACT#8212;In this paper, evidence is presented that multicelled plants and animals are organized in accordance with a strict typological hierarchy consisting of a nested structure of monophyletic taxons (i.e., clades). It is further shown that, if this strict monophyletic hierarchy is to be regarded to be the result of an evolutionary process, then it must be the case that (in general) evolution has proceeded in such a way that each more-generic taxon has split symmetrically into two more-specific taxons: By symmetrically I mean that each moregeneric taxon has ceased to exist as an independent entity after the split, instead continuing to exist only in the generic features of the two more-specific taxons into which it has become divided..

It is next demonstrated that there is no formulation of the evolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism that can account for this fact of symmetry in evolution, but that Robert F. DeHaan’s theory of macrodevelopment (suitably expanded using concepts from nonlinear science) can explain evolutionary symmetry.

Finally the Stewart/Cohen formulation of the principle of evolutionary symmetry is presented and is then expanded to include cases of “temporary” imbalance in nested evolutionary bifurcations. The resulting law of macrodevelopmental symmetry is shown to provide for a far-more-elegant explanation of protein molecular-sequencing data than neo- Darwinism’s clumsy and intricate “molecular clocks” hypothesis.

(Portions of this paper have been adapted from my book Far From Equilibrium, which can be found at www.laurelhighlandsmedia.com, as well as from portions of the paper “Teleology and Information in Biology”, which I presented at the first e-symposium of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) on October 3, 2002)

To read the entire paper, please click here


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: Burkeman1
Please see #39
41 posted on 01/31/2003 11:31:24 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Explain The Haiwan Islands then.
42 posted on 01/31/2003 11:32:19 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Explain The Haiwan Islands then.

Did you ever see the videos or the pictures of Surtsey Island in the North Atlantic. A brand new island formed in a matter of weeks and inside of a year, plant life was springing up, birds were nesting and so on. I remember everyone being amazed at how quickly it happened and I think National Geographic even did a spread on it.

43 posted on 01/31/2003 11:36:28 PM PST by CalConservative (.,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Also please explain why it is that the entire world of mining or dirilling operates from the concept that the world is more than 8 grand year old? Not only that - but all of mathematics and science in general?

What about the giant meteor hole in the Maya penisula?

Good lord- I am now in insano land.
44 posted on 01/31/2003 11:37:09 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
NOt a matter of weeks. That had been trying to burst the srufice for thousands of years!
45 posted on 01/31/2003 11:38:36 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Also please explain why it is that the entire world of mining or dirilling operates from the concept that the world is more than 8 grand year old? Not only that - but all of mathematics and science in general?

What about the giant meteor hole in the Maya penisula?

Naww - you are just keeping an open mind and that is often refreshing here on FR!

The simple fact of the matter is that much of the finding of mineral deposits as well as oil and gas doesn't have much to do with how old the earth is presumed to be and that goes for a lot of science, in general. 1 + 1 still equals 2 whether you believe the earth is 10 days old or 10 billion years old.

From the perspective of a geologist, I can map the geology and stratagraphic relationships quite effectively without ever worrying about the age of rocks involved - just their relative position to each other. In a macro-sense it the mechanisms that are consistent with a young earth geology and those that go with an old earth geology can make a difference in interpretation, but I've never had problems with that.

46 posted on 01/31/2003 11:45:56 PM PST by CalConservative (.,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
NOt a matter of weeks. That had been trying to burst the srufice for thousands of years!

It is amazing how fast volcanoes can build land surface. Do you remember the story about the Paracutin volcano in Mexico? I think it was the earlier part of this century, but a volcano literally popped up in the middle of a corn field and grew so rapidly that it buried the local town and became a mountain in a relatively short time. There was apparently litttle or no warning. Once again, extremely rapid mountain building, but this time right on land.

47 posted on 01/31/2003 11:51:44 PM PST by CalConservative (.,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
stratagraphic relationships

I cannot, however, spell! It should be "stratigraphic."

48 posted on 01/31/2003 11:53:17 PM PST by CalConservative (.,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Sorry- don't buy it. I am not a follower of any one science but am an avid amateur of all. From astromony to Earth science to biology. From what I can read- evolution is not prooved, the universe is billions of years old (and the Earth at least a billion), the bing bang may not be true, life on Earth is unique and that Christ, the son of God and therefore God and also the Holy ghost created Earth and the life on it now.
49 posted on 01/31/2003 11:58:03 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Ah- never mind the thousands of years it would have taken for such a geological pimple to rise through 3 miles of ocean floor- it just "appeared"! Good lord man- have you no shame? What about wheather stripping of exposed mountains due to rain and wind erosion? Disgusting.
50 posted on 02/01/2003 12:01:05 AM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Never mind the techtonic drift of the islands. I am sure you can explain that as a big conspiracy as well!
51 posted on 02/01/2003 12:02:42 AM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Sorry- don't buy it.

Well, I'm certainly not here to proselytize you. All I can tell you is why I believe what I believe and let you consider that. I teach classes on this for non believers and we spend a lot of time going over the scientific evidence that supports the literal interpretation of Genesis. From my observations, a lot of nonbelievers are amazed when they find there is a lot of good science that supports the Biblical creation account.

The important thing is that you have accepted Jesus Christ. All the rest is fun, but is just window dressing compared to that.

52 posted on 02/01/2003 12:06:30 AM PST by CalConservative (.,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
The important thing is that you have accepted Jesus Christ. All the rest is fun, but is just window dressing compared to that

True- that is all that matters in the end.

53 posted on 02/01/2003 12:10:43 AM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
��5{��������e you can explain that as a big conspiracy as well!

No conspiracy - just simple geology and physics. The ocean floor is pretty thin where you get these hot spots. Based on the convection currents in the molten rock and lighter densities, they can move pretty rapidly.

Think about the seismic detection of the magma movements (recorded as "microquakes" under the volcano) at Mount St. Helens and how soon after we got the big eruption. This was a much denser felsic lava and much slower moving than the basaltic lavas you would see erupting in the Hawaiian Islands, Surtsey or any of the oceanic volcanic provinces.

54 posted on 02/01/2003 12:14:45 AM PST by CalConservative (.,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1; LiteKeeper
Burkeman1 and LiteKeeper: I've enjoyed the exchanges, but need to catch some shut eye. God Bless and I hope to see you on the threads again soon.
55 posted on 02/01/2003 12:17:24 AM PST by CalConservative (.,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Good night- Good talking with you. I have a lot of reading to do before I can compete with your knowledge. I concede nothing. But you make me think.
56 posted on 02/01/2003 12:19:56 AM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
It is further shown that, if this strict monophyletic hierarchy is to be regarded to be the result of an evolutionary process, then it must be the case that (in general) evolution has proceeded in such a way that each more-generic taxon has split symmetrically into two more-specific taxons: By symmetrically I mean that each moregeneric taxon has ceased to exist as an independent entity after the split, instead continuing to exist only in the generic features of the two more-specific taxons into which it has become divided..

Total garbage. Evolution demands no such symmetry and no such symmetry is observed in nature. According to the theory of evolution, a split can be symmetrical or not. Some splits in nature are symmetrical and some are not. This is true both genetically and morphologically. Furthermore, it is not true that when a taxon splits into two, the "parent" taxon necessarily ceases to exist.

I haven't read the above article in its entirety yet, but from the blurb you posted it isn't clear whether the author is saying that evolutionary theory demands symmetrical splits and doesn't get them, or that evolutionary theory can't explain why all observed splits are symmetrical. Either way he's wrong, however.

57 posted on 02/01/2003 5:56:48 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative; Sabertooth
It is further shown that, that (in general) evolution has proceeded in such a way that each more-generic taxon has split symmetrically into two more-specific taxons: By symmetrically I mean that each moregeneric taxon has ceased to exist as an independent entity after the split, instead continuing to exist only in the generic features of the two more-specific taxons into which it has become divided..

The most sophisticated-sounding formulation of the "Why are there still monkeys?" argument that I've seen. But it's still "Why are there still monkeys?" and it's still a stupid question.

There are still cyanobacteria, cephalochordates, lobe-finned fish, amphibians, you name it. You don't have to have two daughter species, the parent population being gone. Natural selection pressures can be innovative or conservative. Darwin knew this. Gould and Eldredge explained it again.

I'll put it another way. Look at the logic of the quoted paragraph. It claimed that evolution inevitably requires a "symmetric split."

... if this strict monophyletic hierarchy is to be regarded to be the result of an evolutionary process, then it must be the case ...
Now, we have no original research so far, simply a supposed logical inference from the consequences of an evolutionary process. Proceeding further:

... It is next demonstrated that there is no formulation of the evolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism that can account for this fact of symmetry in evolution ...
Did you derive the requirement for symmetrical divergence from the supposition of evolution itself or did you not? Hello? If evolution inevitably predicts it, then it "explains" it. Is that hard to follow?

Does it depend upon what you mean by "neo-Darwinism?" Gould used to spend a lot of time arguing with people he called "neo-Darwinists," which is why he so very often gets quote-mined out of context by Luddites trying to paint false pictures with the words of others. The people Gould was embroiled with for much of the 1970s didn't accept any important role for punctuated equilibrium. They were probably the majority for a short time but that situation has reversed. Hardly anyone now would deny that Gould was onto something, although they might argue about the importance of other scenarios or indeed whether Gould's insight wasn't a rehash of some statements of Darwin.

I mention it only because you clearly don't have a clue, yourself. You've found yet another instance of somebody, anybody, saying bad things about "neo-Darwinism." This you cite as proof that it's all a house of cards. Is this guy Engle one of you or one of us? I don't know offhand. From the pattern of the articles you've flooded FR with in the past week or so, neither do you. Who does he mean by "neo-Darwinists?" I don't know or much care. You think it means everybody but you.

Science is harder than you try to make it.

58 posted on 02/01/2003 8:34:03 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].

59 posted on 02/01/2003 9:21:29 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Your name looks familiar enough that I suspect you should know better than to still be posting the kinds of statements you make here. Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective, by Roger C. Wiens. All your recycled old chestnuts are dealt with there. Number 14 is your Mt. St. Helens story, which only shows that if some willful idiot wants to deliberately create a "bad" reading, he can. By the same logic, you can prove your old junk car is young by citing cases where somebody "fooled" an odometer. (By spinning his wheels on the ice or with the car up on blocks, for instance, or just tampering with the counter.)
60 posted on 02/01/2003 10:56:13 AM PST by VadeRetro (Creationism is the science of showing up back again, dumb as a stump, trolling for new suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson