About that "decay"....
In Richard Lenski's laboratory runs (or ran, until COVID-19 got the experiment put on hold) a long-term experiment on E. coli bacteria in sometimes-varying environments, under precisely controlled conditions. Guess what? The latest generations of the bacteria reproduce *much* faster than early generations of them did.
That is an *improvement*.
And its evolution is really well-documented.
As to the evolution of the eye--this is over twenty-five years old, so perhaps tbwp10 will have to give some updates or corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/01/science/the-wizard-of-eyes-evolution-creates-novelty-by-varying-the-same-old-tricks.html
Yeah. Be grateful to God for the design of your eyes. They are so well designed that it points to a designer.
Then you seem to be creating a problem for yourself that the evolutionist simply doesn't have: Millions of people are born every year requiring corrective lenses, so how does this come about if your 'God' is such a good designer?
We are a fallen race, living in a fallen world where decay is the norm.
Do you think that sin has the power to change the structure of physical reality?
Yes
It isn't much different than the cutting off of power from a device that requires it. God and man are cut off from the relationship they had before the fall. God creates, sustains, inhabits His creation and sin breaks this fellowship from that point on the life of God is removed and we are left with the processes winding down as all things do.
Yeah. Be grateful to God for the design of your eyes. They are so well designed that it points to a designer.
Then you seem to be creating a problem for yourself that the evolutionist simply doesn't have: Millions of people are born every year requiring corrective lenses, so how does this come about if your 'God' is such a good designer?
We are a fallen race, living in a fallen world where decay is the norm.
That may be an answer to a different question but it really doesn't address my question!
If sight imperfections are your 'God's retribution for the fall, why do some people suffer from impaired vision most of their lives, while others have excellent vision into old age?
And why do some people who have lived blameless lives suffer all manner of sight problems, even becoming blind while those who have committed the worst atrocities enjoy much better vision?
If you plan to present an argument for the way anything in this Universe is ordered, it needs to make some logical sense!
You cannot have a flawless system in a state of decay; everything is winding down in this universe; it is a way of things. The fact that life has been going on well with most systems says a lot about life's design standing up while in a state of decline.
So, you have this hypothesis: H(Design and Fall): The universe works well (reflecting its design) but imperfectly (reflecting the Fall). Now, I'm sure you see that that's not a very detailed hypothesis. If it were false, what could we conceivably (I didn't say "possibly"; I said "conceivably") observe to show that it was false?
I believe the exact opposite of decay and winding down in the universe where something simple becomes incredibly functionally complex. Evolution would be that if you could show the mechanisms that would allow for the simple first common ancestor modifying through time without a plan, purpose, and design would do it for me.
About that "decay"....
In Richard Lenski's laboratory runs (or ran, until COVID-19 got the experiment put on hold) a long-term experiment on E. coli bacteria in sometimes-varying environments, under precisely controlled conditions. Guess what? The latest generations of the bacteria reproduce *much* faster than early generations of them did.
That is an *improvement*.
And its evolution is really well-documented.
I'm unaware of what you are talking about, improvement how? One of the issues people have when they discuss design features in life as flawed is that design deals with function, control, repeatability, replication, error checking, and on and on. Seeing a feature-limited in one area can with need actually enhance another aspect of the lifeform. So what is it that improved in life, and did anything else change besides speed, was there a loss somewhere else? Speed increases was it at some cost to some other part of this, was that discussed?
As to the evolution of the eye--this is over twenty-five years old, so perhaps tbwp10 will have to give some updates or corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/01/science/the-wizard-of-eyes-evolution-creates-novelty-by-varying-the-same-old-tricks.html
I'll wait for tbwp10's input if he cares to give any, if not I'll speak to this.
As to the evolution of the eye--this is over twenty-five years old, so perhaps tbwp10 will have to give some updates or corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/01/science/the-wizard-of-eyes-evolution-creates-novelty-by-varying-the-same-old-tricks.html
I'll wait for tbwp10's input if he cares to give any, if not I'll speak to this.
Sensible. Getting expert opinion is always a good idea, if it can be done.
A little about simplicity and complexity: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-remarkable-simplicity-complexity.html#:~:text=Complex%20emergent%20phenomena%20are%20often,the%20sum%20of%20their%20parts.
A little about simplicity and complexity: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-remarkable-simplicity-complexity.html#:~:text=Complex%20emergent%20phenomena%20are%20often,the%20sum%20of%20their%20parts.
Read it, and I am now really anxious to see your opinion of James Tour's discussion since he is all about the molecular world. (I accidentally had not instead of now in my response, sorry)
As to the evolution of the eye--this is over twenty-five years old, so perhaps tbwp10 will have to give some updates or corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/01/science/the-wizard-of-eyes-evolution-creates-novelty-by-varying-the-same-old-tricks.html
Well, I'll start if he responds excellent; if not, that is okay too. I'd have to say I'm very disappointed when I read things like this from a world of hardware and software design. The statements below suggest an alteration of an existing function to a new function without explanation; it merely states it "appears to" as if this makes the event credible. The statement below is nothing more than a just-so story without details of mechanisms. There is nothing but an announcement about what people believe, nothing about specifics of things getting done.
In excellent coding, nothing is just done haphazardly; it is all done with a cause. Construction of a new species is a monumental task, rewiring the body's form, reassigning all of the code to do completely different things. The one statement, "You see the same genes used again and again, always co-opted for other uses." These processes are doing things that are required within living systems in the current code. Altering what changes in its current capacity to be resigned to something new requires intent and well-thought-out goals, none of which are in a mindless goalless methodology of mutational changes. For eyesight to even be a known goal, a light would have to be detected, and since there would have been no means for that to happen, why would it happen? In a mindless process, we have to remember that there is no intent to do anything for life or against it with a goal in mind.
"Instead, a species appears to construct useful new features by adapting existing molecules to new uses.
"In some cases, researchers say, evolution simply changes the settings in the program by which an embryo develops into an adult, producing some powerfully novel results just by altering the timing and extent of use of existing genetic building blocks."
As to the evolution of the eye--this is over twenty-five years old, so perhaps tbwp10 will have to give some updates or corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/01/science/the-wizard-of-eyes-evolution-creates-novelty-by-varying-the-same-old-tricks.html
Well, I'll start if he responds excellent; if not, that is okay too. I'd have to say I'm very disappointed when I read things like this from a world of hardware and software design. The statements below suggest an alteration of an existing function to a new function without explanation; it merely states it "appears to" as if this makes the event credible. The statement below is nothing more than a just-so story without details of mechanisms. There is nothing but an announcement about what people believe, nothing about specifics of things getting done.
In excellent coding, nothing is just done haphazardly; it is all done with a cause. Construction of a new species is a monumental task, rewiring the body's form, reassigning all of the code to do completely different things.
I have already addressed a number of points:
(1) Failure to *directly* address evidence for human-chimp common ancestry from endogenous retroviruses and provide a *valid* alternative explanation that explains the evidence better than common ancestry
(2) Failure to acknowledge bacterial DNA in plant cells comes from bacteria
(3) Failure to acknowledge that as we physically go up through the layers of the fossil record we encounter different types of life
(4) Incorrect and/or deficient knowledge with refusal to correct
Here we see another example of #4. Speciation (origin of new species) is an *observational fact* as I have told you before and given you supporting research. New species are not "constructed," nor is speciation a "monumental task" but quite easy in fact and happens all the time including instantaneous speciation that we've observed right before our eyes.
One of the issues here is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a species is. If individuals in a population stop interbreeding with the rest of the population then you have a new species. Speciation sometimes involves marked changes in morphology and sometimes it doesn't. It certainly doesn’t require "rewiring the body's form" (a statement that doesn't even make any sense) or "reassigning ALL of the code to do completely different things." It's statements like this that show a deep and fundamental misunderstanding or lack of understanding about biology.
At its basic level, species are recognized by their ability to exchange genetic information *vertically* through inheritance and reproduction. When this is prevented, then you have a new speces.
There are dozens of different ways that this is accomplished: e.g., pre- and post-zygotic mechanisms; endosymbiosis (by which light-sensing organs have also been acquired by eukaryotes); inter-specific hybridization; whole genome duplications; genome restructuring; and more.
The one statement, "You see the same genes used again and again, always co-opted for other uses." These processes are doing things that are required within living systems in the current code. Altering what changes in its current capacity to be resigned to something new requires intent and well-thought-out goals, none of which are in a mindless goalless methodology of mutational changes. For eyesight to even be a known goal, a light would have to be detected, and since there would have been no means for that to happen, why would it happen? In a mindless process, we have to remember that there is no intent to do anything for life or against it with a goal in mind.
One of the problems you keep having is that you are hung up on this idea that meaningful genetic alterations require an intelligent mind (like intelligence of humans or higher) and requires a "mind" that has "intent" and specific "goals." You understandably believe this based on your experience with computer coding. But as I've said before, this is where the analogy breaks down and the simple fact is that we OBSERVE *genetic engineering* happening in cells all the time without the need for "higher intelligence" "intent," "goals," or "purpose"---human or above. In fact, humans do genetic engineering by stealing the genetic engineering techniques and mechanisms that already exist in cells.
"Instead, a species appears to construct useful new features by adapting existing molecules to new uses.
"In some cases, researchers say, evolution simply changes the settings in the program by which an embryo develops into an adult, producing some powerfully novel results just by altering the timing and extent of use of existing genetic building blocks."
This is exactly right and what we empirically observe. Extensive "rewiring" and changing of "all the code" is not required at all. MAJOR changes in morphology are often the result of MINOR changes in genetics and development.
You have never witnessed a rewiring on the level that changes one species into another, but then again you know what happened millions and billions of years ago. I keep forgetting your superpower.
You have never witnessed a rewiring on the level that changes one species into another, but then again you know what happened millions and billions of years ago. I keep forgetting your superpower.
What don't you understand about "rewiring" is NOT needed to create a new species and that all you need is a mechanism that prevents interbreeding and that we know of dozens of such mechanisms and that we have OBSERVED speciation happen today, including INSTANTANEOUS speciation that we've observed in real-time? Yes, we have observed "changes of one species into another" and it doesn't take millions or billions of years or even thousands, but can happen instantaneously.
Processes taking place in cells that do work no one disputes that some species are wired differently no one disputes that, the fact that something resembles other things more closely in species over another no one disputes that. Seeing one species simpler in its makeup in the present than a contemporary doesn't make that simpler one an ancestry of the more complex one, any more than you seeing simpler lifeforms in the past ancestors of the present-day life. Seeing specific jobs within life in the present does not mean something completely different could happen in the past, which is what altering a process means.
One of the continued problems is that you speak in generalities without specifying what you are talking about Processes taking place in cells that do work no one disputes that some species are wired differently no one disputes that I dispute it because it is entirely unclear what you mean. What do you mean by "wired differently"? Give a specific example the fact that something resembles other things more closely in species over another no one disputes that. What do you mean by this? Closely resemble in what way and how are you quantifying this? Seeing one species simpler What do you mean by "simpler"? in its makeup in the present than a contemporary doesn't make that simpler one an ancestry of the more complex one What do you mean by "more complex"? Even the "simplest" bacterium is incredibly complex. Your statement reflects another misunderstanding. This is NOT how biologists determine relationships, any more than you seeing simpler lifeforms in the past ancestors of the present-day life. This is NOT how paleontologists determine relationships Seeing specific jobs within life in the present does not mean something completely different could happen in the past, which is what altering a process means. Stop speaking in ambiguous generalities. Give specific examples of what you mean.
More importantly, you are changing the subject. None of this changes the fact that you have made false statements: speciation is NOT a monumental task, it does NOT require extensive "rewiring" and we do NOT need millions of years for speciation and have OBSERVED speciation happen in real-time.
One of the continued problems is that you speak in generalities without specifying what you are talking about Processes taking place in cells that do work no one disputes that some species are wired differently no one disputes that I dispute it because it is entirely unclear what you mean. What do you mean by "wired differently"? Give a specific example the fact that something resembles other things more closely in species over another no one disputes that. What do you mean by this? Closely resemble in what way and how are you quantifying this? Seeing one species simpler What do you mean by "simpler"? in its makeup in the present than a contemporary doesn't make that simpler one an ancestry of the more complex one What do you mean by "more complex"? Even the "simplest" bacterium is incredibly complex. Your statement reflects another misunderstanding. This is NOT how biologists determine relationships, any more than you seeing simpler lifeforms in the past ancestors of the present-day life. This is NOT how paleontologists determine relationships Seeing specific jobs within life in the present does not mean something completely different could happen in the past, which is what altering a process means. Stop speaking in ambiguous generalities. Give specific examples of what you mean.
More importantly, you are changing the subject. None of this changes the fact that you have made false statements: speciation is NOT a monumental task, it does NOT require extensive "rewiring" and we do NOT need millions of years for speciation and have OBSERVED speciation happen in real-time.
Not really, did you watch the video, I doubt it. I'm not changing the subject, nor my arguments. There must be a reason for something to alter what it is into something else, to create a new form or function. You missed that when you watched the video about mathematical challenges to evolution and you missed it with this video too which I'm assuming you watched. If not I guess it is you who wanted to change the subject from the topic of the video to whatever you wanted to talk about, I'm sorry to say that would not surprise me.
Try to stay on point and not change the subject further. You know that I am specifically addressing your recent posts #51, #53 and #55 above.
You made the claim that the origin of a new species is a "monumental task" (but it's not) that involves "rewiring the body's form" (but it doesn't) and changing "all of the code to do completely different things" (wrong again) and that it happens on a scale of "millions or billions of years" (wrong again, we have observed it contemporaneously and in real time)
Try to stay on point and not change the subject further. You know that I am specifically addressing your recent posts #51, #53 and #55 above.
You made the claim that the origin of a new species is a "monumental task" (but it's not) that involves "rewiring the body's form" (but it doesn't) and changing "all of the code to do completely different things" (wrong again) and that it happens on a scale of "millions or billions of years" (wrong again, we have observed it contemporaneously and in real time)
What have you observed?
@MindWalk wrote: As to the evolution of the eye--this is over twenty-five years old, so perhaps tbwp10 will have to give some updates or corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/01/science/the-wizard-of-eyes-evolution-creates-novelty-by-varying-the-same-old-tricks.html
Even though this article is over twenty-five years old it still hits on some of the more fundamental principles we've learned. Two important ones include: (1) The fact that all animals from humans to jellyfish share the same basic developmental toolkit and that small changes in regulatory genes or even just in the sequence and timing of development and gene expression can produce MAJOR changes in morphology; and relatedly (2) All the different types of eyes we see in the animal kingdom did not originate independently *de novo* as was once believed (which indeed would be improbable and hard to swallow, and if such were the case, then I'd side with TruthMuse on this one), but instead the evidence shows that the great diversity of different eyes we see in the animal kingdom stem from a single master control gene Pax6. Examples from the article include:
"Researchers have even found that the genes that regulate the development of eyes have been widely used and re-used across the animal kingdom. In a finding that researchers say surprised many, a Swiss group found that the same gene appears to control the development of both the multifaceted, kaleidoscopic eyes of fruit flies and the eyes of humans. Yet these two were considered classic examples of complex structures that had evolved independently.
Dr. Walter Gehring, a developmental biologist at the Biozentrum at the University of Basel, and his colleagues found that the fruit fly gene known as "eyeless," which regulates the development of the insect's eyes, shows striking similarity to the Pax-6 gene, which controls eye development in vertebrates, including humans. Once again, researchers studying the fine details of evolution's craftsmanship in the eyes of humans and flies have found not novelty but parsimony."
And also:
"Scientists studying how the trick is accomplished at the level of genes and their protein molecules say they are finding a common thread in this varied tapestry: evolution produces the strikingly new by tinkering with the old.
Animals do not evolve whole new suites of genes and proteins to build complex structures. Instead, a species appears to construct useful new features by adapting existing molecules to new uses. In some cases, researchers say, evolution simply changes the settings in the program by which an embryo develops into an adult, producing some powerfully novel results just by altering the timing and extent of use of existing genetic building blocks."
***These are the same basic points I raised above in post #16, where I wrote in part:
"Finally, as far as eye evolution is concerned, there is a staggering amount of research on this, far too much to cover. Suffice it to say, while the origin of many genetic systems is still problematic, once we have the requisite regulatory genes, an amazing variety of functional-morphologies can be produced by simple "tinkering," genetic "switch" re-configuration and the like.
For example, it used to be thought that eyes had to separately evolve some 40-60 different times independently of one another due to all the variation in types of eyes that exists in nature as TruthMuse notes. The evidence now supports a single, monophyletic origin for all eyes with the discovery of the Pax gene: a master control gene found in all animals from mammals to insects to jellyfish to flatworms that regulates the expression and sequence in which other genes are switched on/off to effectuate the development of a diverse range of different eye forms that we see in nature.
The existence of this same master control gene in all animals is yet another one of countless evidences for common ancestry. So, once again, even if for argument sake it's all the result of intelligent design, then it would still only show that EVOLUTION was intelligently designed/directed."
Yeah. Be grateful to God for the design of your eyes. They are so well designed that it points to a designer.
Then you seem to be creating a problem for yourself that the evolutionist simply doesn't have: Millions of people are born every year requiring corrective lenses, so how does this come about if your 'God' is such a good designer?
We are a fallen race, living in a fallen world where decay is the norm.
That may be an answer to a different question but it really doesn't address my question!
If sight imperfections are your 'God's retribution for the fall, why do some people suffer from impaired vision most of their lives, while others have excellent vision into old age?
And why do some people who have lived blameless lives suffer all manner of sight problems, even becoming blind while those who have committed the worst atrocities enjoy much better vision?
If you plan to present an argument for the way anything in this Universe is ordered, it needs to make some logical sense!
People suffer due to the wrongs they do, the wrongs done to them by other people, and various reasons.
I suffer because of your wrongs? You suffer because of mine? And you think that's just?