Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity

On Oct 16, 9:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:49 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 14, 2:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Snip material already addressed in previous posts....



No. We were talking about the definitions of microevolution, random
mutation, natural selection and common descent.  You decided to
respond only to the first of these, but obviously do not understand
why the prefix *micro* is present, since you are ranting about things
that are not the provenance of microevolution.  If you want to test
microevolution, the fossil record is irrelevant, speciation is
irrelevant.  But if you cannot even tell the difference between
microevolution, random mutation, natural selection, and common
descent, and somehow think the same unsupported assertion can falsify
all of them, I have magnus doubts that your opus magnus will be
magnus.

You have misunderstood just about everything, having conflated many of
my replies and imagined that they were provided in a context defining
microevolution.

You are the ones doing the conflating. I asked for your definition of
microevolution, gave mine, and had to listen to you argue about
speciation and fossil records as if they were relevant to
*microevolution*.

Since adaptation is
universally accepted phenomena, said changes *were* beneficial or
"good" as Darwin described them.

Except we are specifically talking about 'adaptations' that are a
consequence of genetic differences.  The only way that that type of
'adaptation' can increase is by a change in the genetic composition of
the population via (or leading to) differential reproductive success.
We are not talking about the non-genetic 'adaptations' that can occur
in individuals in a population.

This evolutionary change in mean allele frequencies can be
either due to chance alone (neutral drift) or by environmental changes
that alter the selective pressures on different allele combinations
(aka, natural selection).

Evolution is not a change in gene frequencies.

Yes it is.  At base, all evolutionary changes are ultimately due to
changes in allele (not gene) frequencies.

You have evaded:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4

No I didn't.  You failed to notice that there *was* genetic change; it
was just not reflected in visible phenotypes (at least those that can
be seen in fossils).

The study showed much genetic change but very little, if any,
morphological change.

Which is expected because there is *neutral* drift in the absence of
*directional* selection but only *stabilizing* selection -- you expect
to see time-related *evolutionary* change in the genome, but only in
those parts of the sequence that are selectively neutral. Such
genomic change is *evolution*, which only requires change over time.
I do NOT define evolution (micro or not) as requiring only *selective*
directional change. What the best bird data shows is that, even in
the absence of visible phenotypic changes, there is time-directed
change. In fact *almost all* evolutionary change in genomes is
neutral or near neutral and not due to *directional* selection.

Once again: the point is that genetic change
occurred but these changes were not reflected externally. So called
microevolution did not occur.

Remember that my definition of microevolution does not *require* a
phenotypic change; it does require a genotypic change. Not that there
aren't examples of microevolution that does involve phenotypic
change. There are plenty of those, some of which I have already
mentioned. But microevolution, like all evolution, only requires a
detectable change over time.

Stasis continued while genetic change
flourished. This is one reason why the Naturalist position rejects
evolution *to be defined* at the genetic level----***my only point.***

So you seem to be saying that evolution can only be those changes that
affect phenotypes you can see with your naked eye?

The same cannot be falsified.

You mean changes in allele frequencies could have been false, but
aren't.  It could have been that mutations do not occur.  It could
have been that the environment is indiscriminate wrt phenotypes it
would support. It could have been that phenotypes were not the result
of genotypes (and some aren't, which is why evolution only involves
the phenotypes are affected, to some degree, by hereditary factors)..
Something that could have been false, but isn't, is exactly what
science requires of its hypotheses and theories.

Change at the genetic level is not evolution produced by unguided
material causation. It is designed change accomplished by a mechanism
built by Divine power and intelligence----just like IC systems.

So, are you claiming that mutation does not occur or that all
mutations are due to divine intervention?  

Since organized complexity is the result, whether in micro or macro
domains, we know that mutation is not random.

This doesn't make any sense. Mutation is not another word for
"organized complexity". Mutation is a permanent change in a genomic
sequence. Period. Such changes include point mutations due to
chemical instabilities, radiation induced chemical changes, and other
chemical reactions. It also includes errors in replication,
recombination, and repair. Mutation has absolutely nothing to do with
whether the mutational change in the genome has any effect at all.
The change could have no selective consequence (meaning it would
undergo neutral drift), could have a deleterious effect on relative
reproductive success in the local environment (meaning it would likely
trend toward extinction from the population in that environment), or
could have a selectively beneficial effect in the local envirionment
(meaning it would tend to locally increase in frequency). Perhaps,
like many creationists, you are confused and think that "mutation" and
"deleterious mutation" are identical terms. *Most* mutation (in
eucaryotes) is selectively neutral; a *significant* amount is
selectively detrimental; and a non-zero few are selectively beneficial
(typically only in a changed local environment).

They are, in fact,
produced by a mechanism that reflects Divine power and intelligence. I
doubt seriously that you have the will to understand what I just said.

Where is your evidence of this? I defined mutation as a change in
genome sequences, and pointed out that, in thousands of experiments,
it is clear that mutations appear at random wrt need. [That more
mutations are deleterious than beneficial should be evidence that
mutations are not reflections of Divine power and intelligence unless
you believe that God is a vicious torturer of innocent children.]

Mutations that occur
naturally cannot produce any useful change?  What?  Do you have
evidence for some magical poofer that I have not seen?  BTW, "change
at the genetic level" is indeed not "evolution".  It is "mutation".
The two terms are not identical.

But you define evolution at the genetic level.

Evolution always involves change in the genomes of populations.
Mutation involves specific change in the sequence of a genome.
Two different things.
The mutational change in a specific genome (mutation) can spread (or
not) via vertical transmission through offspring to the point where
there is an evolutionary change in the population.

Random mutation is modern men, in their suits and ties, or lab coats,
advocating the essence of Materialism (= voodoo). It is a magical wand
needed by Atheism. The mutations that we are talking about *cannot* be
random since the result is design, organized complexity and
adaptation.

Mutation is *any* permanent change in a gene sequence. It has been
demonstrated time and time again that genome sequences are not
immutable; mutation happens. The randomness of such changes wrt need
has been amply demonstrated. It is clear that you seem to think that
"random mutation" means something else entirely. But whatever you
think "random mutation" means, it certainly doesn't mean "modern men,
in their suits and ties, or lab coats, advocating the essence of
Materialism (= voodoo)." It certainly isn't defined by scientists as
"a magical wand needed by Atheism." Apparently you are not talking
about *mutation*, but only an undefined subset of mutations "that we
are talking about". I assure you that I am talking about *all*
mutations, not any subset, and certainly not the subset that is "a
magical wand".

Try again to define the words "mutation" and "random" and how one can
determine whether "mutations" occur at "random".

Evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is deduced to have
happened after it allegedly occurs based on various lines of evidence.

That doesn't mean that evolution is not, at base, a change in allele
frequencies.  And, since microevolution is defined as evolution within
a species, we need not concern ourselves with speciation processes and
events in discussing microevolution.

The *main claim* of Darwinism is that species change into a different
species over vast amounts of time by unguided material causation.

Yes.  But that is not what we are discussing.  We were defining
microevolution.  [SNIP....]

Which was accepted, and is accepted, as continuous or unimpeded.

Microevolution is NOT defined as "continuous or unimpeded". It would
not be defined that way even if you could tell us what is being
"continuous" or "unimpeded". *I* defined microevolution as evolution
below the species level, which meant only those aspects of the larger
theory of evolution that occurs below the species level are relevant.
That means that the appropriate test of microevolution

This
is the only aspect that I am interested in, Howard. In view of this
fact: the low level evolution that Sean Pitman accepts is not
Darwinian, do you agree?

Evolution is Darwinian if it involves selection. It is non-Darwinian
evolution if it involves neutral drift. That is the only distinction
I make. I have no idea what Pitman means by "low level" other than
"those evolutionary changes it would be stupid for me to deny".

They
are not produced by special creation. Darwin wrote the "Origin" to say
that special creation "is erroneous" (1859:6).

If evolution is correct, creation by direct magical poofing is
erroneous.

I completely agreeg

But *only* creation by *direct* magical poofing would be erroneous. A
deity that works by guiding (invisibly) evolution is not forbidden.

A change in gene
frequencies does not support the *main claim.*

Again, we were defining *microevolution*.  If you want to discuss the
mechanisms of and evidence supporting *speciation*, we are not
discussing *microevolution*.  If you want to discuss *common descent*
and the evidence that supports it, we are not discussing
*microevolution*.  If you want to discuss *random mutation* and the
evidence that supports it, we are not discussing *microevolution*.  If
you want to discuss *natural selection* and the evidence that supports
it, we are not discussing *microevolution*.  You are suffering a huge
case of muddled thinking where you cannot even distinguish that these
terms are not the same thing.

I never said any such things. I am only interested in discussing the
"low level evolution" that Sean Pitman accepts.

And I am not interested in that, since Sean Pitman cannot define what
he means any better than you can.

What "supports" this
claim is interpretation of evidence seen in macro-reality, like
Linnaean hierarchal classification. Darwinists say the hierarchy
connectedness is real. Creationists know that it is an illusion or
delusion.

Well, they *assert* that it is an illusion or delusion.  They have
nothing but boringly repeated assertion as evidence.  But I am just
trying to get you to focus on the specific terms you mention, not some
muddled 'whatever'.

Evolution is an interpretation of evidence; it says the similarities
between species is real, that they derive from one another (horizontal
causation).

Vertical, Ray, vertical.  It is hard to argue with someone who does
not know if he is standing up or lying down.  Vertical transmission of
genetic information is transmission from one generation to the next to
the next to the next.  Horizontal transmission of genetic information
is transmission of genetic information from one species to another in
the the same generation.

I was not talking about genetics.

Evolution is all about genetics.  Evolution *requires* genetic
change.  

And those penguins ruin your fantasy. Gene-centricism is like a
submarine, Howard. It must eventually surface and re-join reality
where life has its relationship with environment.

Neutral drift is evolution.

Ray

The reason we can generate the formation of a tree or bush of> life (or a Linneaean nested hierarchy if you are looking at current
morphology) is precisely because almost (but not quite) all genetics
(at least since the last ur-organism) is vertical rather than
horizontal.

I was talking about the main
difference between Creationism and Darwinism. The former says
causation forces in nature are vertical or Divine. The latter says
causation forces in nature are horizontal-material-natural, not Divine
or supernatural.

I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone but you just now saying that Divine
intervention is "vertical" and natural causation is "horizontal".  In
what way is divine intervention "vertical"?  Can you post a citation
that is not yourself where this useage is presented?  To be blunt, I
think you are lying or confused.  Neither bodes well for your (always)
future masterwork.

I notice a lack of a citation here.

Much genetic change can occur without a species changing in observed
macro-reality:

Microevolution, Ray, is evolution within a species.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e5e4...

Note that this definition, unlike yours, makes clear how one can
actually determine if "microevolution" can or has happened.

The above link and its data falsifies your contention.

The described change in the genome *is* evolution.  It is
phenotypically, and probably selectively, neutral evolutionary
change.  But the genome of the species has changed and the species has
evolved.

The penguins in the study in the link falsify your opinion.

No. The genome has changed. Visible phenotypes have not.  Again, the
nature of the genetic system is such that the only mechanism that can
prevent change is *when* "natural selection" prevents change rather
than causes it. In the absence of selective direction, drift will
invariably lead to change.

There does not have to be a large *phenotypic* change for
evolution to have occurred.  In fact, changes like those described in
the "best birds" above are what you would expect if evolution were
primarily a function of time and only secondarily one of phenotypic
change.

You look
at a species over time and observe if there is time-directed change in
1) the frequency of different alleles that have no selective benefit
or 2) the frequency of different alleles that have changed because of
an environmental change.  Frequencies of alleles in a population are
quite measurable (in small populations) or estimateable (in large
ones).  Moreover, one can set up experimental situations where one
either varies the environment or doesn't and follow whether or not
allele frequency changes occur as predicted.

Falsity (F): The appearance of design and organized complexity seen in
every aspect of nature corresponds directly to Divine power-causation
and not unguided material causation.

The *appearance* of design is not sufficient to distinguish that
something was manufactured by an outside agency.  Neither is, by
itself, organized complexity.

Design logically indicates that it was produced by a Designer.

Only if the object that appears to be designed was in fact
manufactured by an outside agent.  For living things, you lack the
evidence that they are manufactured by an outside agent.  In fact, it
is clear that living things imperfectly self-reproduce.  There are
many objects that have the *appearance* of design that we know, as a
fact, are not designed and manufactured by outside agency but instead
are a consequence of natural processes.  E.g., snowflakes.

So does
OC. If similarity logically indicates evolution to have occurred then
you are accepting the same logic used to conclude that design =
Designer. Rejection of the latter is then based solely on the
restrictions of your Materialism-Naturalism philosophy. But the
evidence plainly supports the existence of a Designer.

What evidence of manufacture by an outside agency do you have for
living things?  Other than your repeated assertions, that is.

Appearance-observation of design.

*Apparent* appearance-observation of design is not proof or even
evidence of *actual* design.

Additional empirical evidence
includes sudden appearance of species in the geological crust of the
earth enduring in a state of changelessness, abrupt disappearance,
absence of descendants.

But the pattern *is* a pattern of massive change over time.

Counterfactual interpretation. Gould 2002 calls the pattern I
described "literal signal." It exists. To interpret said phenomena as
evidence of an antithetic concept (= evolution) is, once again, based
on the requirements of your interpretive philosophy. But the evidence,
at face value, says the exact opposite (= special creation).

How can the pattern of fossil species, which appear and disappear in a
time-ordered fashion in the different geologic layers, get interpreted
as a *single* event of special creation?  Multiple creations,
possibly.  But a *single* creation event?  No way.

This is why both Creationism and Evolutionism are interpretations of
the same scientific evidence.

Not those that accept the Bible's claim of a single creation event.

Neither the Bible or Creationism accept a single species creation
event.

Really?  The Bible, in Genesis, talks about a single week-long event
in which *all* creation (not just the immutable species) occurs.
Where does it talk about any degree of creation and subsequent
exitinction of species at quite different times?

Only YEC Fundamentalists accept this error riddled view. 19th
century Creationism accepted on-going real time special creation to
account for new species.

So, *if* your designer is manufacturing new species right now, where
is the evidence that such a designer is even present?

New species owe their existence in nature to
direct creation. This is why mutability is not necessary. Besides,
mutability is impossible. Animals and nature do not have magical
powers.

Are you saying that mutation does not occur?  That genomes are
incapable of undergoing sequence change?  Do you have any evidence for
that wild claim? Why do you think that mutation (a permanent change in
a genome sequence) is a "magical power"?

Geological layers can be identified by the different suite of fossils
they contain (a fact that oil companies take full advantage of)..  By
the very definition of "species" via the morphological definition one
must use with fossils, any fossil found that is identified as "species
x" must, of necessity, be very similar to other fossils called
"species x".  In fact, the changes that *do* occur in fossils that
have an extensive record causes paleontologists to either be "lumpers"
or "splitters" wrt whether a new fossil find is a different species
from an earlier similar fossil or a different species.

common ancestry

D: horizontal connectedness of **species** via unguided material
causation ("horizontal" includes branching viewpoint).

Uh, Ray.  You seem to be confusing "vertical" and "horizontal".
"Horizontal" is used for cases of transfer that are not due to the
vertical branching process that produces the bush.  Mitochondria
(horizontal transfer of a bacterial genome) and cross-species plasmid
transfer are examples of horizontal transfer.  If you are going to
present this argument as part of your "magnus opus" against evolution,
I would suggest you correct this before you put it into print.

Your comments plainly indicate that you did not understand what I said
or you lost track of the context.

I contrasted the main difference between Creationism (= vertical-
Divine casuation, God-did-it) and Darwinism (= horizontal-unguided
material causation, Evolution-did-it).

That is not how "horizontal" and "vertical" are used.  You are simply
making up terms.

Ridiculous.

Yes. Using those terms the way you are certainly is ridiculous.

Said terms have many legitimate meanings depending on context. You
simply cannot admit that you were not paying attention to the context
in which they were being used.

I have NEVER EVER seen those terms used to describe the difference
between divine and natural mechanisms.  Feel free to point me to a
source other than yourself.

In fact most of your replies lost track of the fact that I was
answering your questions. You evaded most of my answers and embarked
upon a non-sequitur agenda.

No. *I* am the one trying to stick to the point: the definition of
microevolution, common descent, random mutation, and natural
selection.  *You* are the one who conflates all those terms into a
meaningless mush.  Microevolution is not *all* evolution. Common
descent is not *all* evolution.  Random mutation is not *all*
evolution.  Natural selection is not *all* evolution.  Focus on the
terms and what *they* mean, golden drop of sun. Don't ramble all over
the map with fossils and speciation (when microevolution doesn't
involve those) or claim that the same unsupported mantra ("It looks
like design to me.") is evidence against all of them.

F: Based on the appearance of design & organized complexity seen in
each species the same corresponds to vertical-Divine causation.

Isn't this the same meaningless drivel you claimed provided evidence
against microevolution?  You still haven't provided a mechanism for
distinguishing between the hypothesized natural processes that can
produce the "appearance of design & organized complexity" and those
that *were* produced by some outside intelligent agent.

random mutation

D: Darwinian voodoo taking the place of Mind.

I would define "random mutation" as the idea that "permanent changes
in the sequence of the genetic material" occurs at random wrt the need
for that mutation.  Randomness, in this case, can be determined as a
rate of mutational sequence change that is unaffected by the need for
that mutation.  The rate can be changed by the presence or absence of
'mutagens', but cannot be changed by the 'need' for that mutation.

There is no such thing as *random* mutation. Results reflect
purpose----adaptation. Species were created to fit their environments..
Since very many different species occupy the same environment the same
is evidence of the work of one Mastermind.

You are confused and/or ignorant of literally mountains of research,
done by Nobel winners and beginning college students alike that 1)
mutation occurs and 2) occurs at random wrt need.  Perhaps you are
confusing the combination of mutation (which is random) and selection
(which is not) for mutation alone.  That's the kindest interpretation..

This is a simple mathematically determinable genetic test.  And, with
the possible exception of a very few sites where mutation has been
'domesticated' and 'localized', experimental tests (starting with the
Luria/Delbruck experiments in the 1940s) have demonstrated that
mutation is random in the sense described.

Phenomena is *called* random because evolutionists want to send a
message that Mind is absent. But your *explanation* defines "random"
to not hold its understood definition. This is an ordinary bait-and-
switch.

I am using standard methods for determining that two variables (mutant
or not mutant is one variable; needed or not needed the other)are
independent variables.  It is no different than determining randomness
in throwing two dice (die A and die B as one variable; face pips as
the other).  If you don't believe that randomness exists, I will be
happy to play a 1000 games and let you pray that you get snake eyes
all the time rather than only 1/36th of the time at a dollar a
throw.

The test for the randomness of mutation wrt need is very simple with
bacteria. Grow a large number colonies (each colony is grown from a
single genetically identical bacteria and the starting culture is also
grown from a single genetically identical bacteria) on a plate where
both new mutants and the original strain can grow. Replica plate to a
plate where only the mutant can grow.  Compare that to the number of
mutants when you plate the same number of bacteria directly on the two
types of plates.  If mutation occurs more frequently when needed, the
number of mutant colonies to non-mutant will be higher when you plate
the bacteria directly on the plate where only the mutant can grow.  It
isn't.

F: Dembski 1999 says if specified or organized complexity is the
result then the same is caused by [I]ntelligence and not antonymic
phenomena (randomness). Of course all scholars agree that organized
complexity exists (Dawkins 1986).

But all the experiments and scientific literature says that mutational
change of genome sequence is random wrt need.  [There may be some rare
exceptions, like the a to alpha yeast mating type switch.]

Only evolutionists say it is random.

Obviously that must include everyone that has the simplest
understanding of statistics.  We are not using some special kind of
math in biology.  Standard statistics are what we use.  I think you
must be confusing the result of *both* random mutation and
*selection*.

The results, that is, design,
organized complexity and adaptation evidence a mechanism reflecting
Intelligent causation. Again, this is why both Creationism and
Darwinism are interpretations of the same scientific evidence.

natural selection

D: unguided material causation, the main, but not the exclusive cause
of evolutionary change.

Notice that word "selection"?  It means that, *when* natural selection
is the cause of change (or conservation; one should never forget that
most natural selection is for conservation of sequence and function
and not for change) in allele frequencies, the change is "guided".  It
is "guided" by features of the local environment and not by an outside
intelligent agent, but it is still guided.

Okay, so?

The local environment is not a supenatural divinity.

But no such mechanism exists. NS is a short list of truisms
euphemistically called a "mechanism."

Do you have *any* evidence that natural selection, as described, does
not exist?  Every time a student lays a millions of bacteria on a
plate with streptomycin, he or she is observing natural selection of
random mutations.

Natural selection can be defined as the relative differential
reproductive success of different *phenotypes* in a local
environment.  [Natural selection that has evolutionary implications
requires that the *phenotype* have a hereditary or *genotypic*
component that affects the phenotype.] This definition is
experimentally testable.

F: Nature and each species are directly comparable to a watch (but the
former, beyond all computation, exceeds a watch in organized
complexity, Paley 1802). Watches (= species) correspond directly to
the power of an invisible Watchmaker. Based on these condensed facts,
Michael Behe, in "Black Box," says no one has ever answered Paley 1802
much less refuted him. Of course I completely agree. Therefore this
analogy of nature by Paley obliterates any notion of unguided material
causation existing in nature.

How does this *test* whether or not "natural selection" occurs?  Paley
clearly thought that "natural selection" occurred.  

Preventing evolutionary change. You have agreed in principle, above.

Michael Behe
thinks that "natural selection" occurs.  All you are doing is
presenting an analogy and asserting that a watch is directly the same
in its mode of manufacture as a worm is.  Even simple observation
should disabuse you of the idea that worms are produced in worm
factories or in Swiss jeweleries by an

...

read more »

You do not understand Paley's analogy. Read Dawkins 1986, he does.

I understand Darwin's analogy (what happens in nature to biological
organisms in the absence of man is analogous to what man has done in
agriculture for his own purposes).  Both have modified species by
selection among variants.  That analogy is much more apt than an
analogy of living organisms to dead watches that must be manufactured.

Ray



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... The citizens around the world are expected to believe that the exact same random mutation is just suppose to target a segment of a particular population, ... Madman seems to think that natural selection doesn't exist, and all evolution is multiple, directed mutations. ... Natural selection is suppose to target the same segment of fish for millions of years to slowly change that segment into land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural selection is a random force, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... Each miscopy or new code (random mutation) that became ... Madman seems to think that natural selection doesn't exist, ... land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... We were talking about the definitions of microevolution, ... mutation, natural selection and common descent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... Each miscopy or new code (random mutation) that became ... Madman seems to think that natural selection doesn't exist, ... land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... mutation, natural selection and common descent. ... that are not the provenance of microevolution. ... The study showed much genetic change but very little, if any, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading