Home » Cybernetics and Mechatronics, Darwinism » The cybernetic contradiction of Darwinism

The cybernetic contradiction of Darwinism

In automatic control theory “homeostasis” is defined as the property of a system in which variables are regulated so that internal conditions remain stable and relatively constant. Homeostasis is a fundamental concept in biology because is what allows the life of organisms. In fact, it maintains the stability of the organisms in response to changes in external conditions. The concept of homeostasis is tied to the strictly correlation and interdependence of all systems in a body, i.e. its functional unity. Organisms can live and survive only because are giant cybernetic hierarchical hologramatic macro-systems.

Donald Johnson defines cybernetics as:

… the interdisciplinary study of control systems with feedback. (Programming of Life, Big Mac Publishers 2010)

While Norbert Wiener, about homeostasis, writes:

In the process called homeostasis there is a large set of cases where feedback is applied to physiological phenomena and is absolutely necessary to the continuation of life. [...] For our internal organization we must have a large series of automatic controls, and all a series of mechanisms that could sustain the working of a large chemical industrial plant: these are what we call homeostatic mechanisms. (Cybernetics, MIT Press 1961)

As known, basically there are two kinds of feedback: positive and negative. What kind is used in the organisms? The regulation of a single physiological process (example: blood pressure) needs the collaboration of many correlated homeostatic processes with negative feedback. Biological homeostasis necessarily involves countless processes using negative feedback loops. A negative feedback happens when the results of a change act to reduce or counteract it (negative loop gain). Conversely, a positive feedback happens when the results of a change act to increase or ease the change (positive loop gain). When in the organisms, despite all and caused by illness or injury, a positive feedback happens, this produces a risky and uncontrolled ever increasing deviance, leading to disequilibrium and eventually to death. Organisms defend themselves from changes, thanks to an all-pervading homeostatic system that cybernetically self-regulates.

Since regulation and control make sense only in the perspective of what a system must do and what values/constraints its parameters must meet, they are essentially teleological. Regulation, control and guide point to design, not at all to what is unguided as Darwinian evolution. Homeostasis requires a sensor to detect changes, an effector that is able to decrease those changes and a negative feedback loop between the two. These three things necessarily need to be correlated together by an higher direction with a goal, which only design can provide.

That said, a first question to Darwinists comes to mind: if homeostasis grants the stability of organisms, and the organisms are plenty of negative feedback systems counteracting changes, how can Darwinian evolution (= macro changes of organisms) happen in the first place?

But there is another worse question for Darwinists: given evolution wants to change organisms, why evolution created so many negative feedback systems that counteract changes? Why evolution, which is by definition macro variation, created homeostasis, which is robust maintenance of the status quo?

Darwinian evolution should prefer and create systems with positive feedback. In fact, when the loop gain is positive that creates divergence from equilibrium. And what is evolution but “divergence from equilibrium”? Given the pretension of unguided evolution is to have created 500 million extremely different species, evolution should prefer and construct what diversifies, not what maintains equal. Negative feedbacks serve to stabilize systems, not to change them. Homeostatic mechanisms give organisms a strong tendency toward stasis, not toward evolution. Homeostatic mechanisms counter evolution.

Darwin’s feedbacks should be of positive kind and instead organisms are filled with negative feedback systems. Another day, another contradiction of Darwinism. This clear Darwinian contradiction is similar to the contradiction I dealt with about the repair systems in this previous post.

We know in advance what evolutionists object to this reasoning: evolution has nothing to do with homeostatic feedback systems, because they can coexist with evolution, and evolution works at the genetic level, and evolution can create X and non X in the same time, and…

Mind you, how fixity and stability in all major workings of organisms (granted by homeostasis) could be consistent with large variability and diversification (needed by macroevolution)? Evolution “works” at the genetic level but must produce phenotypic results, and at this level we see homeostasis, i.e. stasis = non evolution.

We can add the homeostatic feedback systems to the list of contradictions of Darwinism. This list is already long but it will still lengthen, because – as I like to repeat – when a thing is false, is false from all points of view. We can patiently sit down on the river side to wait for the corpse of this absurd Darwin’s theory to finally sink under the weight of its own contradictions.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

92 Responses to The cybernetic contradiction of Darwinism

  1. nirad,

    That said, a first question to Darwinists comes to mind: if homeostasis grants the stability of organisms, and the organisms are plenty of negative feedback systems counteracting changes, how can Darwinian evolution (= macro changes of organisms) happen in the first place?

    Darwinian evolution is changes that are small in impact on the fitness of an organism. By definition if a change is so large as to make the organism unfit then it dies. Sure lots of small changes adds up to a big change but from generation to generation it’s going to be small (from a fitness point of view) changes.

    But there is another worse question for Darwinists: given evolution wants to change organisms, why evolution created so many negative feedback systems that counteract changes? Why evolution, which is by definition macro variation, created homeostasis, which is robust maintenance of the status quo?

    No, evolution does not want anything. Evolution is the change in genotype so it is not anything to have wants. You are making the mistake of thinking that evolution is an agent. An ID or a god that jiggles with genotypes wants something but that’s the wrong term for evolution.

    I can see where you have gone wrong: you have gotten confused about evolution only equalling gross changes and not only that you want these gross change to make the organism unfit. Seriously that’s retarded logic you have there. I’m going to guess that confusion comes from reading too much Creation.com.

  2. Lincoln Phipps

    You cannot pass from ameba to whales by “small variations” when ameba per homeostasis tend to remain ameba.

    “Evolution does not want anything”. With “wants” I used a metaphorical language. Yes, evolution does not want anything, and this is the reason evolution gets nothing.

  3. Lincoln Phipps-

    Now would be a good time to start presenting evidence that supports your claims. And Intelligent Design Evolution is an agent.

  4. Lincoln Phipps you assert (without reference) that:

    ‘Sure lots of small changes adds up to a big change’

    That’s the ‘bottom up’ claim of Darwinists but where is your exact empirical evidence to support it? i.e. Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact on par with the observed fact of gravity. But very contrary to their claims, the plain fact of the matter is that there are ZERO observed instances of neo-Darwinian evolution building up functional complexity:

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?

    Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin December 29, 2010
    Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…
    (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42191.html

    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 1 – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_28-08_00

    “Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 2″ – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_50-08_00

    “Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt.3″ – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_09-08_00

    Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here, and no evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution surfaces:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Michael Behe talks about the devastating implications of the preceding paper for neo-Darwinism in this following podcast:

    Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_46-08_00

    How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance being proof for Darwinism?

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    That doesn’t seem to be helping! How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can catch the power of almighty evolution in action???

    Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
    Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....teria.html

  5. Shoot that doesn’t seem to be helping either! Perhaps we just got to give the almighty power of neo-Darwinism ‘room to breathe’? How about we ‘open the floodgates’ to the almighty power of Darwinian Evolution and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is, according to them, equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???

    Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011
    Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.
    (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51051.html

    Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting – Michael Behe – November 21, 2013
    Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture — a cumulative total of trillions of cells — has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that’s equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski’s project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,,
    ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, -
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

    Now that just can’t be right!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing now!?!

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    Now something is going terribly wrong here!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror!!!

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
    http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

    “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    - Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

    Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
    “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....20071.html

    Now, there is something terribly wrong here! After looking high and low and everywhere in between, we can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power to neo-Darwinism evolution whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!!

    Verse and Music:

    Romans 1:25
    They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

    Evanescence – lies
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHP9-fEuRk

  6. niwrad

    you said “You cannot pass from ameba to whales by “small variations” when ameba per homeostasis tend to remain ameba.” and that is obvious as whilst they are both Eukaryota they are equally evolved for their niche.

    What you forgot to mention is from a common ancestor.

    Based on common descent then modern amoeba and modern whales will have both originated from a ancestor that they both have in common. That will be quite a while ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

  7. bornagain77,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....on_descent

    It isn’t anything unusual in comparing genomes to show that changes add to changes. It works for humans and animal DNA.

  8. Lincoln Phipps

    Evolution is a theory of transformations. Evolutionists should describe the processes of transformation from the ancestor to ameba, to whales and the other 500 million species, as things are described in engineering, bit by bit, molecule by molecule, second by second. They don’t provide such 500 million technical explanations, they provide only fables.

  9. As known, basically there are two kinds of feedback: positive and negative. What kind is used in the organisms?

    I’m not a biologist. For that matter, I am not a Darwinist, though I am often confused for one.

    It seems to me that both kinds of feedback are used.

  10. Neil Rickert

    Where positive feedback is used in organisms, for organizational purpose? Positive feedback is divergent from the norm, it tends to destroy functionality. Positive feedbacks happen unfortunately in diseases. Any organism tries to avoid and correct these degenerative loop situations by all means at its disposal.

  11. Lincoln Phipps, when you were shown that you have no substantiating evidence for your neo-Darwinian claims, you disingenuously stated:

    “It isn’t anything unusual in comparing genomes to show that changes add to changes. It works for humans and animal DNA.”

    Actually, without a demonstration that your proposed mechanism, random variation and natural selection, is up to the task you claim for it, then comparing genome similarity/dissimilarity, and claiming that random variation and natural selection produced those differences in those genomes, is called assuming your conclusion into the evidence beforehand. The fact is that you have no evidence whatsoever that the differences we see in genomes can be produced by the mechanism you propose! Moreover, as if that was not crushing enough against you preferred materialistic worldview, and contrary to what you may believe, genome sequencing is nearly as conducive to Darwinian claims as you, and many other Darwinists, seem to think it is. For instance:

    Logged Out – Scientists Can’t Find Darwin’s “Tree of Life” Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin – Winter 2013
    Excerpt: the record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors.
    Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,,
    Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance:
    • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that “different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s].”6
    • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”7
    • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that “the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be.”8
    Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled “Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life.”9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that “the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” but “today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” According to the article, “many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.”,,,
    Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?” ,,,
    “battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life,” leaving readers with a stark assessment: “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”10,,,
    A 2012 paper noted that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception,” since “incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”12,,,
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....ed-out.php

    Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes – January 2013
    Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome.
    http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/.....l.pdf+html

    Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution – Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. – Elie Dolgin – 27 June 2012
    Excerpt: “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. “…they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist – Kevin Peterson)
    Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says.
    Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong.
    per Nature

    micro-RNAs and Non-Falsifiable Phylogenetic Trees – (Excellent Research) – lifepsy video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-i4pY6_MU

    And this disconcordance of molecular sequences to Darwinian presuppositions goes all the way to the supposed crown jewel of genome sequencing to, i.e. Human/Chimp sequence comparisons:

    Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013
    Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
    1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
    2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
    3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site)
    All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.
    http://www.icr.org/article/7867/

    Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
    Excerpt: In 2013, I published a research paper in which chimpanzee chromosomes were sequentially sliced into different sets of small pieces so that the algorithm could optimally compare them to human chromosomes. In so doing, I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall.7
    More research is needed to show specifically how the new wealth of publicly available ENCODE data can be used beyond basic studies of human-chimp DNA similarity—incorporating lincRNAs and vlincRNAs to further highlight human uniqueness. Research using three large datasets produced by the ENCODE project is now underway at ICR for the purpose of addressing these questions. In a concurrent study, I am also comparing human protein-coding regions to those in chimpanzees. In combination, these new analyses will provide a much more detailed picture of what makes humans unique and will further demonstrate we are not evolved apes.
    http://www.icr.org/article/7856/

    Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
    Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144632.htm

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” -
    Eric Davidson
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    supplemental note:

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

    Thus Mr. Phipps not only do you not have any observational evidence demonstrating that your preferred scenario, i.e. neo-Darwinism, is plausible, but the the evidence you though you had, genome sequencing, has fallen completely apart on you.,,, For you this is kind of like, if you were a soldier, waking up the morning of a battle and finding out that all your gun power you thought you had ready, is worthless because it is soaking wet.

  12. Joe,

    no niwrad has presented a strawman version of evolution that says that it consists of large changes. Not only does niwrad not know exactly how large these changes are they have no idea what subset of genome changes are needed to divide living things into “species”.

    That is understandable as no one knows !

    Yup it’s just another gap in which ID inserts a designer (lets be honest people and call it God).

    Gap..
    god….
    God of the Gaps. Again.

  13. Lincoln Phipps

    niwrad has presented a strawman version of evolution that says that it consists of large changes.

    For you, between ameba – worse, your ancestor of ameba – and whales are there small differences?

  14. Lincoln Phipps, contrary to what you may believe, ID uses the same scientific method of inferring from presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question,,

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design – video
    https://vimeo.com/32148403

    Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source — from a mind or personal agent.
    (Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).)

    Thus if you are going to argue that ID is using a ‘God of the Gaps’ of argument, then you will, since ID more effectively using the same method of inference that Darwinism does, have to concede that Darwinism uses a ‘randomness of the Gaps’ to fill in the enormous chasms in its explanatory power. Indeed, it has been observed by no less than the noted physicist Wolfgang Pauli that the word ‘random chance’, as used by Biologists/Darwinists, is synonymous with the word ‘miracle’:

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56771.html

    Talbott humorously reflects on the situation with Darwinists here:

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    Also of related interest:

    Scientific American: Evolution “To some extent, it just happens” – July 2013
    “Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.
    Biologists and philosophers have pondered the evolution of complexity for decades, but according to Daniel W. McShea, a paleobiologist at Duke University, they have been hobbled by vague definitions. “It’s not just that they don’t know how to put a number on it. They don’t know what they mean by the word,” McShea says.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....selection/

    i.e. Can you be a little more explicit here Mr. Phipps?

  15. Phipps,

    You have presented a strawman version of evolution that says that it consists of small changes accreting into large changes. You have no idea how this could happen.

    Yup it’s just another gap in which you insert Darwin.

    Gap…
    Darwin…
    Darwin of the Gaps. Again.

  16. bornagain77

    the tree of life pre-dates Darwin and the idea of kinds (or species) is more religious than science.

    Why ? well no one knows what differentiates two kinds (or species) and from an evolution point of view of genes the differences will be both what genes are in the genome and the expression of genes.

    The so-called Tree of Life is a concept that leads a lot of people astray and certain leads ID and creation apologists astray when they think they have got some killer anti-Evolution argument.

    Think of any organism that is alive today as a collection of genes and how they are expressed. Each of these genes will have an ancestral gene but there is no reason why these should be a job lot with all the other genes of the organism. So it’s quite reasonable that genes in humans are found in ‘roos.

    Basically read the limitations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....imitations
    …and then understand that you are constructing a strawman if you expect a perfectly organised Tree Of Life.

    The limitations actually suggest the happenstance of nature rather than a designer (and especially rather than a God-like designer that would make things perfect). A perfectly organised tree of life with clearly delineated differences would suggest design. It’s not and even your references say it’s a mess.

  17. cantor,

    so you are a clone of your parents ? Are you denying that you are different from your grandparents ? Go back even further and science can tell where your ancestors came from,

    https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

    Evolution is change in alleles in a population. Live with it.

    Gap,
    Your Head
    Gaps in your Head.

    etc etc etc

  18. Niwrad’s argument makes sense: the conservative power of homeostasis interferes with the concept of evolutionary change.

    An observation:
    The concept of homeostasis presupposes a stable definable equilibrium. However in reality there is no such thing. E.g the equilibrium before and during mitosis is totally different. In fact it is safe to say that during the course of its life a cell is never the same. The same can be said for an organism. Hence “equilibrium” is constantly shifting.
    This means that in order to function homeostasis must be highly flexible and must be controlled from above – from the level of the cell as a whole. It follows that there is no bottom-up explanation for homeostasis.

  19. Lincoln Phipps so now you claim that if we able to reconstruct a tree of life it would support design???

    “A perfectly organised tree of life with clearly delineated differences would suggest design.”

    So, let me get this straight, you now believe that a tree of life would equal design and since we can find no tree of life then that equals Darwin??? Well thanks for clearing that up! :) Okie Dokie guys, Mr. Phipps has settled it once and for all with his stellar wikipedia reference. We can all go home now! No tree of life equals Darwin, And ocean front property can be had in Arizona! :)

    George Strait – “Ocean Front Property”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlMzNUDM8s

  20. How about you rebut bornagain’s points, chapter and verse, as he has laid it out for you in #11.

    He even had the temerity to state:

    ‘The fact is that you have no evidence whatsoever that the differences we see in genomes can be produced by the mechanism you propose!’

    Are you not going to annihilate his arguments with your trove of empirical evidence’?

  21. What do you have to say about BA’s scandalous claim of your ‘assuming the conclusion into the evidence?’ Show us he’s wrong.

  22. Lincoln Phipps-

    Seeing that you cannot reference the alleged theory of evolution it is clear that there isn’t any strawman version as there isn’t any real version.

  23. Mr. Phipps, the shenanigans you are now pulling with this Tree of Life bit, is one of the reasons why Darwinism is not even considered science. As you have now demonstrated, there simply is no way in which to rigidly, i.e. ‘scientifically’, falsify Darwinism:

    Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates – Casey Luskin – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: there’s almost no dataset that can contradict (falsify) common descent. Every time you find that one trait predicts one phylogeny, and another trait predicts a conflicting phylogeny, you can effect a reconciliation by invoking at will more evolutionary steps of convergent loss or gain of traits, or invoking a host of other ad hoc explanations. In a worst case scenario, if genes were distributed in the most un-treelike manner imaginable, I suppose you could take all the known genes present in the most recent presumed common ancestor of that group, and then simply invoke losses (and gains) of genes to reconcile the observed distribution with a tree. -
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....80781.html

    How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....32141.html

    Darwinists utilize all sorts of what are termed ‘rescue devices’ to prevent Darwinism from ever being falsified. Here is how neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the fossil record;

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....31061.html

    Here is how Darwinian evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:

    The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011
    Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52571.html

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    the main reason that Darwinists are able to get away with such shenanigans with the evidence, and never have their theory threatened with falsification by the evidence, is that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical foundation, as the other hard sciences do, in order to falsify it as a ‘science’ in the first place!

    “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works.”
    Gregory Chaitin

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    per UD

    Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    ,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    - Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Well, do neo-Darwinists have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes?,,, I have yet to see a single novel protein arise by neo-Darwinian processes much less a entire molecular machine! Without such a demonstration and still their dogmatic insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell, the actual demarcation threshold for believing neo-Darwinism is true is this:

    Darwinism Not Proved Absolutely Impossible Therefore Its True – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/

  24. One of the biggest examples of BA’s post that we’ve seen is the rescue device of convergent evolution. When evidence began to disassemble the NDE tree of life, they invented the concept of convergent evolution.

    What would be an argument against NDE suddenly, without any merit, becomes evidence FOR NDE.

  25. 25

    LP:

    It seems to be your main thesis that evolution is true because eventually all the gaps will be filled with naturalistic explanations discovered by science. The problem with that assumption is it implies new scientific discoveries don’t raise more unanswered questions than they solve. In other words it implies that gaps are being closed faster than new gaps are being opened, and that science is converging on proving evolution rather than disproving it.

    What I mean by that is my perception is that scientifically explaining evolution has only grown more difficult with time, and continues to do so. For example, early scientists thought life was simply generic protoplasm in a membrane. The discovery of DNA and complex cellular machinery did not make the problem of OOL become easier, it made it infinitely harder.

    The development of the math of population genetics shows that mutation fixation rates are far too slow (by a factor of 100 in the case of human evolution, for instance), to accomplish known genomic differences between man and his alleged recent relatives. Any discovery that shows less DNA is “junk” makes evolution harder. I can go on and on: The failure of paleontology to identify even a single example of gradualism in the fossil record. The abject failure of OOL research. The failure of decades of experimental evolution research to generate more than a handful of bits of information.

    What evolutionists do is paper over the failures. Stuff that doesn’t match the tree? Convergent evolution! OOL mathematically impossible? Multiverses! No gradualism? Punctuated equilibrium! Functional gaps in protein sequence space? Random drift will cross them! Or they don’t exist. Selection too strong leads to local fitness peaks? Selection is really weak or even shuts down when it needs to! Selection too weak leads to slow population change? Selection is also really strong and powerful when it needs to be! Or the environment magically guided the process by changing in just the right way at the right time, countless times (basically your theory)! Again, I could go on… Besides papering over failures, the tiniest of apparent successes are magnified in importance way beyond what is reasonable.

    Based on the arguments you make, I get the feeling that you have no idea about the arguments that ID actually makes, and choose to argue against a straw man version instead. You don’t directly address anyone’s points and simply repeat variations of the generic materialist party line.

    –NetResearchGuy/Man

  26. NetResearchGuy,

    who says Evolution is true ? Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution best explains the fact. The process of science is not like mathematics whereby a proof is obtained but science asymptomatically approaches the truth.

    The pool of knowledge grows over time.

    It’s odd because this growth in knowledge seems to be seen as a weakness by people like you. ID and creationists alike are ever the critics; new discoveries are critiqued as “Told you so” or “Darwinist propaganda”.

    You are so full of your own certainty.

  27. bornagain77,

    I see you cite a retracted paper – “Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004)”

    It’s been nearly 10 years now – isn’t it time that ID proponents stopped citing this retracted paper ? or is the argument from authority of it being in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington even for a few days just too much to resist ?

  28. bornagain77,

    Pauli write to Bohr in early 1955 but the codon structure of DNA wasn’t know until 1959 which was 4 years after Pauli has written to Bohr and 4 years after Pauli had died.

    Being critical of biologists not being able to pin a probability onto something which they did not understand what was being randomised is a valid criticism at that time in that it tells the biologists what need to be examined but it is hardly relevant today.

    Pauli is now part of the history of science.

  29. @Lincoln Phipps #27

    retracted paper – “Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004)”

    Mayer never retracted (take back) the paper. The journal publisher, BSW, merely criticized later the decision of the editor Sternberg for allowing it through the peer review and into the journal. The paper was published after passing the peer review by qualified referees. Where is the term retraction anywhere in the BSW’s subsequent critique?

  30. Lincoln Phipps, actually I am very happy to cite that particular paper since that particular paper was instrumental in showing how dogmatic and ‘un-openminded’ atheists are in their thinking and actions:

    podcast – Richard Sternberg and Douglas Axe of Biologic Institute spoke with Michael Medved about the cruel career consequences for their support giving intelligent design a fair hearing.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81061.html

    Get Expelled – Richard Sternberg – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HS03sGrehI

    Since Darwinists could not refute the paper with any empirical evidence (indeed the situation has only gotten worse for them in that regards), they did everything they could to discredit the integrity of Sternberg as a scientist. Here is Sternberg’s side:

    “Expelled Exposed” Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
    http://www.ncseexposed.org/

  31. Better link:

    Smithsonian Controversy – Richard Sternberg
    http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php

  32. F/N: At this stage it should be plain that the Internet character “Lincoln Phipps” is little more than a sock-puppet and/or Troll, probably coming from ATBC and/or Anti-Evo, or worse Darwinist fever swamps, maybe with a veneer of TSZ (which serves as a front operation for the more blatant fever swamps). The web character is probably composite, and is intended only to try to provoke exchanges that can be used elsewhere to twist design supporters into strawman caricatures, stereotypes and scapegoats. In short, we are here clearly dealing with typical agit-prop tactics, similar to Patrick May’s abuse of the already existing Web monicker, Mathgrrl. Do not expect from such reasonableness or openness to fact, much less to duties of care to truth, fairness and innocent reputation. Don’t feed the troll, expose it. KF

  33. Lincoln Phipps, you try to claim that Pauli’s critique of Darwinian Biologists,,,

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56771.html

    ,,,has no merit even though in the very next paper you were shown that,,

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    ,,,shown that the critique still carries its full weight. In fact, although you say that ‘the codon structure of DNA wasn’t know(n) until 1959′, and that somehow supposedly negates the critique against ‘random being equivalent to miracle’ in your mind, the fact of the matter is that, quite contrary to what you believe, the discovery of the codon structure of DNA has made the criticism from Pauli, against the word random being synonymous with the word miracle, all the more devastating for Darwinists. In fact Dr. Meyer elucidates how the problem has gotten much worse for Darwinists with the discovery of the codon structure of DNA in the following video. In fact so acute is the problem now that he calls the problem ‘The DNA Enigma’:

    The DNA Enigma – Where Did The Information Come From? – Stephen C. Meyer – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4125886/

    Indeed Lincoln Phipps, the more we learn about how changes to DNA codons are actually implemented, the more devastating ‘the DNA enigma’ becomes for the Darwinian reliance on ‘randomness’ as an explanation:

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
    - Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences

    Serendipity and Exaptation: Circular Arguments – Cornelius Hunter – podcast
    http://castroller.com/podcasts.....he/3708644

  34. LP: If you are not as characterised based on what is evident from your pattern of behaviour, kindly show it by not acting like a sock puppet troll. KF

  35. kairosfocus,

    Do you actually know what a sock puppet troll is ? For a start they are anonymous. Like niwrad, nightlight, NetResearchGuy, TSErik, axel, Box, joe, cantor and so on and on.

  36. LP-

    The alleged theory of evolution:

    “Somethings happened at some point in the past for whatever reason via unknown mechanisms, and here we are.”

  37. The Sternberg peer review controversy highlights the unprofessional ethics of the articles publication,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ontroversy

    It ends up in a, he said, she said, but in the end the journal’s view stands and they stated that , “Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”

    Paper retraction can happen when the author substantially copies previous work they have done without citing this (it is a misconduct of duplicate publication). Usually a correction would be in order through as the paper doesn’t meet the scientific standards of the journal it is in then that’s a moot point,

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc....._deja.html

    Robert Weitzel correctly characterised Meyer’s essay here,

    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/holy.cfm

    “Meyer relies almost entirely on negative argument and offers nothing in the way of positive research into the nature – either supernatural or extraterrestrial – of the intelligent designer. Neither does he propose any novel mechanisms by which an intelligent designer might have “engineered” such a diversity of life forms.”

    That’s quite a common theme here on Uncommon Descent too. There is always criticism of all and any science but never any positive evidence presented.

    For some it’s the YEC God, for some its a Old Earth God, there may even be Muslims, for others it’ll be some kind of Aliens, others have parallel dimensions and some have Quantum Woo and for some they just haven’t worked out what it is other than it’s not any-one-elses-view of origins.

  38. LP- you have it all backwards. Meyer’s paper was spot on. Evos got upset and threw a hissy fit.

    And true, evos never present any positive evidence for their position. And BTW, design is a mechanism…

  39. Joe,

    do you admit that when you examine the genome of each generation then it will be different from the previous generation ? If you don’t accept this then you are not going to get very far.

    You said

    “Somethings happened at some point in the past for whatever reason via unknown mechanisms, and here we are.”

    That “somethings” (sic) is how from generation to generation there are changes. One mechanism in which changes happen is during meiosis,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis

    Possibly you might have heard about sex. We won’t go into any details but it’s one mechanism.

    You asks for a reason for these mechanisms. When something is explained in sufficient detail then How something happens is Why something happens.

    There are many other sources for change. But I suspect you know what these are and whilst you will find many a scientific paper that says what they are, none will ever conclude God-did-it or anything supernatural is needed.

  40. Joe,

    the journal it was published in said, “Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”

    It is that simple.

  41. Lincoln Phipps- The journel will say anything to try to save face- duh. It is that simple, indeed.

  42. LP:

    Joe,

    do you admit that when you examine the genome of each generation then it will be different from the previous generation ?

    Yes, so do YECs.

    That “somethings” (sic) is how from generation to generation there are changes. One mechanism in which changes happen is during meiosis,

    No one knows what changes, specifically, and your position cannot account for meiosis.

  43. bornagain77,

    nope, Shapiro’s NGE will be catastrophic for the ID that most around here subscribe to. We live in the Age of the Bacteria. At 360 times as much genetic information as the human carrying them and 10 times the cell count, the bacteria in our body out number and out count us many times over.

    We need these to stay alive but they don’t really need us.

    Far from damaging Darwinian evolution, work like Shapiro’s will go a long way to solve the evolution of the bacteria and other single cell lifeforms from the first LUCA. It is silly to suggest that a one-size-fits all mechanism is the only mechanism but that’s what ID are suggesting.

  44. Actually Shapiro’s NGE is in line with Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolutionary hypothesis”

  45. Joe,

    it’s called having integrity. People know it’s wrong to cite a withdrawn paper but they still do.

    The journal slipped up and hopefully everyone has learn from this mistake and it won’t happen again.

  46. Lincoln Phipps, in case you are unaware, atheists/materialists are VERY biased against ever letting ID ever get a fair hearing in the peer review literature (or popular press for that matter). Here is one infamous case of systematic bias against ID:

    How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFMXR6PqGtg

    Here are a few other examples of censorship by Darwinists:

    Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives
    Casey Luskin – August 20, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75541.html

    ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe – September 22, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-microbe/

    ,,,Yet regardless of the systematic bias against ID in the peer-reviewed literature, and in academia in general,,

    EXPELLED – Starring Ben Stein – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BDc3wu81U

    Slaughter of the Dissidents – Dr. Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0

    In spite of these Draconian tactics, the gatekeepers of Darwinian orthodoxy were unable to have complete ‘mind control’ of everyone in America Academia through their tactics of intimidation,,

    Apple – 1984 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R706isyDrqI

  47. ,,and, because many Americans refuse to be bullied and intimidated by the Darwinian thought police, ID now has been able to publish several peer-reviewed papers in the literature,,

    Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

    Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Building a Compelling Case for ID – podcast – February 2012
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....8_55-08_00

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    Bio-Complexity Publication Archive
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....ue/archive

    Biological Information – New Perspectives – Proceedings of the Symposium – published online May 2013
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....8818#t=toc

    Dr. David L. Abel (The Gene Emergence Project) – list of published papers
    http://lifeorigin.academia.edu/DrDavidLAbel/Papers

    Dr. Tom Woodward interviews all the leading figures of Intelligent Design – audio
    https://itunes.apple.com/nz/podcast/intelligent-science-intelligent/id737257892#

    How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific “Theory”? – Casey Luskin – October 2011
    Excerpt: ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to epigenetics and paleontology. ID more than exceeds the NAS’s definitions of “theory.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51841.html

  48. But as to the particular paper you take exception to Lincoln Phipps,,

    The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories – Stephen Meyer – 2004
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

    It might interest you to know, Lincoln Phipps, that Dr. Meyer recently published a New York times best seller last summer on the same exact topic,,

    Darwin’s Doubt – book
    http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/

    And it might further interest you to know, Mr Phipps, that a peer reviewed paper from Darwinists was issued that attempted to refute Dr. Meyer’s book:

    Stephen Meyer Answers Charles Marshall (Peer Reviewed Paper) on Darwin’s Doubt – October 2013 (4 part response)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77371.html

    And Dr. Meyer, as is typical of the Darwinian thought police, was denied the ability to respond to that paper in the literature,,

    The Letter that Science Refused to Publish – November 8, 2013
    Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.
    See more at:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78871.html

    Neverless, Dr. Marshall, unlike many Darwinists, was forthright enough to face Dr. Meyer personally in a debate. Judge for yourself,,,

    Steve Meyer vs. hostile reviewer Charles Marshall (audio of debate) – Dec. 1, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....all-audio/

    ,,,but in my honest opinion, Dr. Marshall did fair too well in that debate. For me, the main point to learn was, as Meyer pointed out, Marshall hypothesized far past what the evidence is actually telling us abour Devolopmental Gene Regulatory Networks just to protect Darwinism from falsification,,,

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” -
    Eric Davidson
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 8) by Paul Giem – developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=8

  49. Moreover, as I have shown you before Mr. Phipps, the problem for neo-Darwinists is now known to be far worse than they are willing to let on because it is now known to ‘form’ (i.e. body plan information) is not even reducible to the bottom up mechanism of random variation/natural selection in the first place.

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,

    ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ -
    Stephen Meyer – (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate – 2009)

    An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – September 2011
    Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM

    What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011
    Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]“,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....nisms-mean

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

    If you have a coherent ‘bottom up’ darwinian explanation for the preceding examples Mr. Phipps, please let us know.

    As to your claim that ID has no positive evidence for its claims Mr. Phipps, well that accusation is just plain false since it is, in fact, Darwinists who do not have any positive evidence for their claims,

    Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie – Douglas Axe August 16, 2013
    Excerpt: Poenie want to be free to appeal to evolutionary processes for explaining past events without shouldering any responsibility for demonstrating that these processes actually work in the present. That clearly isn’t valid. Unless we want to rewrite the rules of science, we have to assume that what doesn’t work didn’t work.
    It isn’t valid to think that evolution did create new enzymes if it hasn’t been demonstrated that it can create new enzymes. And if Poenie really thinks this has been done, then I’d like to present him with an opportunity to prove it. He says, “Recombination can do all the things that Axe thinks are impossible.” Can it really? Please show me, Martin!
    I’ll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF within a few billion years.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75611.html

    And although Darwinists can produce no positive evidence for their claims, ID proponents do have positive evidence for their claims:

    Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?”
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093

    Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous ‘intelligent’ effort that went into building the preceding protein:

    Science – Fuz Rana – Unbelievable? Conference 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=8

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:3
    All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

    Sarah McLachlan – Ordinary Miracle
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqZE4ZDnAkQ

  50. Lincoln- all of the evidence and data presented in the paper is still good. And the paper was withdrawn for cowardly reasons.

  51. Joe,

    AFAIK Shaprio doesn’t cite his work being consistent with the Talmud. Spetner’s ideas have two masters, the scientist and the theologian. Mark Perakh highlights that here,
    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm

    As for the evolution of meiosis then yes it is another gap, it is from mitosis or derived from bacteria transformation ? Who knows ? certainly no ID scientists knows. Perhaps a the Discovery Institute can publish something explaining exactly how it works, why it works, who designed it and when. Meanwhile just have to do with the gaps,

    http://www.genetics.org/content/181/1/3.full

  52. Lincoln Phipps, yeah right ‘non-random’ evolutionary change is just what the base Darwinian postulate of randomness needs to be plausible. :) Moreover, Shapiro admits he has no ‘real time’ empirical evidence for the origin of novel protein domains and/or genes by Darwinian processes (so as to be able to have the ‘protein domains’ to shuffle around in the first place) but must rely, as do neo-Darwinists, on the DNA/protein sequence similarity/dissimilarity data to try to make his case that novel protein domains were created in the distant past so that ‘natural genetic engineering’ can presently create all the diversity we see in life on earth today. Yet, just as with neo-Darwinists, Shapiro relying on sequence similarity/dissimilarity data to ultimately try to make his case for ‘natural genetic engineering’ has the very same ‘unscientific’ problem that neo-Darwinism has of assuming the conclusion beforehand to try to prove the very question being asked. i.e. Can novel functional information we see in protein domains and/or genes ever be generated in a ‘bottom up’ fashion by the unguided material processes of neo-Darwinism? Here Dr. Shapiro admits to this serious shortcoming of his ‘natural genetic engineering’ theory:

    How Natural Genetic Engineering Solves Problems in Protein Evolution – James Shapiro – May 2012
    Excerpt: When I pointed out the potential of domain shuffling by natural genetic engineering to Intelligent Design advocates who claimed protein evolution by natural mechanisms was impossible, they refused to recognize genomic data as irrefutable evidence and insisted on real-time experiments. I disagree with them strongly on the DNA sequence data.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....41180.html

    Exon Shuffling, and the Origins of Protein Folds – Jonathan M. – July 15, 2013
    Excerpt: A frequently made claim in the scientific literature is that protein domains can be readily recombined to form novel folds. In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer addresses this subject in detail (see Chapter 11).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74401.html

    Exon Shuffling: Evaluating the Evidence – Jonathan M. – July 16, 2013
    The Problems with Domain Shuffling as an Explanation for Protein Folds
    Excerpt: The domain shuffling hypothesis in many cases requires the formation of new binding interfaces. Since amino acids that comprise polypeptide chains are distinguished from one another by the specificity of their side-chains, however, the binding interfaces that allow units of secondary structure (i.e. ?-helices and ?-strands) to come together to form elements of tertiary structure is dependent upon the specific sequence of amino acids. That is to say, it is non-generic in the sense that it is strictly dependent upon the particulars of the components.
    Domains that must bind and interact with one another can’t simply be pieced together like LEGO bricks.
    In his 2010 paper in the journal BIO-Complexity Douglas Axe reports on an experiment conducted using ?-lactamase enzymes which illustrates this difficulty (Axe, 2010).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74441.html

    Doug Axe’s work on the rarity of proteins is focused exactly on the rarity of individual protein domains/folds themselves. Doug Axe addresses James Shapiro’s mistaken disagreement with Intelligent Design here:

    On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro – Doug Axe – January 2012
    Excerpt: I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55471.html

    So regardless of what you may believe Mr. Phipps, the actual situation of the matter is that Darwinists have lost their base postulate of ‘random variation’ to the genome and they STILL have no evidence that the ‘non-random’ processes within the cell that Shapiro elucidates can produce functional information.,, Only a Darwinists, completely impervious to scientific evidence, would consider such a shattering development against Darwinian claims to be an improvement for the Darwinian position in general.

    Footnote, here is a breathtaking glimpse of the process of DNA Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis:

    DNA – Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis – video
    https://vimeo.com/33882804

    Nobel laureate physicist that you sure won’t read on a Darwin pressure group Web site
    Excerpt: Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! -
    Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-web-site/

  53. Lincoln- Mark Perahk (rip) is totally off-base- he thinks natural selection actually does something- it doesn’t, well there isn’t any evidence of it doing something. Not only that he doesn’t present any science that demonstrates that all mutations are happenstance events.

  54. BTW Lincoln- Speculative articles that contain stuff that cannot be tested, are best for bed-time stories, not science.

  55. LP @6:

    What you forgot to mention is from a common ancestor.

    ROFLMAO! What a hoot! Sure, that solves the question. It was a “common ancestor,” so, ta-da! no problem!

    I’ll let the rest of you guys keep battling this one, but thanks for the laugh LP.

  56. semi OT: Molecular Machines Are Amazing Alone, but When They Cooperate — Wow! – January 14, 2014
    Excerpt: RNA polymerase — the machine that translates DNA into RNA — is the star player. It patrols the DNA like an automated inspector on train tracks. When it encounters a break, it stops and waits. The problem is, when it stops, it stalls over the break, preventing repair machines from reaching it. Not to worry. Everything is under control.
    In the new study, the NYU School of Medicine researchers reveal how another enzyme called UvrD helicase acts like a train engine to pull the RNA polymerase backwards and expose the broken DNA so a repair crew can get to work….
    The study by Dr. Nudler’s group and colleagues in Russia used a battery of biochemical and genetic experiments to directly link UvrD to RNA polymerase and to demonstrate that UvrD’s pulling activity is essential for DNA repair. The lab results also suggest that UvrD relies on a second factor, called NusA, to help it pull RNA polymerase backwards. Those two partners then recruit a repair crew of other proteins to patch up the exposed DNA tracks before the train-like polymerase continues on its way.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81111.html

  57. Thanks Bornagain77 for this dulcis in fundo reference and all other contributions!

    “molecular machines”, “they Cooperate”, “machine that translates”, “automated inspector”, “repair machines”, “everything is under control”, “acts like a train engine”, “a repair crew can get to work”, “DNA repair”, “two partners then recruit a repair crew of other proteins to patch up the exposed DNA tracks”…

    Ahh, the power of evolution! :)

  58. ‘Ahh, the power of evolution! :)’

    tee hee tither tither! :)

  59. Homeostasis is a property of individuals. Individuals don’t evolve. It certainly isn’t true that evolution “wants” lineages to do anything.

    And there are many positive feedback loops in biology. The blood clotting cascade is one obvious example.

  60. wd400

    If individuals don’t evolve then species, which are sets of individuals, don’t evolve.

    The blood clotting cascade is auto-catalytic, but not really a degenerative positive feedback as a whole. Otherwise all the blood of the organism would be congealed, provoking its death.

  61. If individuals don’t evolve then species, which are sets of individuals, don’t evolve.

    Why? This sounds a lot like the fallacy of division.

  62. RE: Post 61
    @wd400

    Why? This sounds a lot like the fallacy of division.

    I think niwrad might be correct in this instance, for he isn’t conferring the properties of the species as a whole, on each of the individuals. Rather, he is working in the other direction. If none of the constituent members of a set possess a property (in this instance ability to evolve), then it wouldn’t be possible for the set (species) to contain that property.

    If my understanding is correct about what niwrad is communicating he is saying the equivalent:

    Set A is the collection of colored marbles. Set A as a whole contains the properties of “Blue”, “Red”, “Green”, “Yellow”. If none of the constitute components (colored marbles) are pink, then the Set A cannot contain the property “Pink”.

  63. he is working in the other direction. If none of the constituent members of a set possess a property (in this instance ability to evolve), then it wouldn’t be possible for the set (species) to contain that property

    Why? Neurons can’t think, brains are collections of neurons that can think.

  64. niwrad #10:

    Where positive feedback is used in organisms, for organizational purpose?

    Again, I am not a biologist. You should ask an expert if you want a definitive answer. When I look at the signaling behavior of neurons, that looks like what one would expect from positive feedback, and not at all like what one would expect from negative feedback.

    Positive feedback is divergent from the norm, it tends to destroy functionality.

    The operation of a flip-flop, in computers, depends on positive feedback. The computer clock (the oscillator that generates the machine cycles) depends on positive feedback. Yet those components don’t self-destruct.

  65. Neil #64

    The examples you cite are very simple compared to organisms. In a flip-flop unit A output is connected to unit B input and viceversa. This can be seen as a simple loop. Only in certain input situations on certain kinds of flip-flop this may cause oscillation, which is non destructive because finally stabilizes on a certain frequency whose value depends on the values of the transmission delay of the gates. No, the flip-flop doesn’t explode :) but, I repeat, this flip-flop loop has nothing to do with a illness emergency situation in a ultra complex system as an organism. To give an idea, cybernetically speaking, a flip-flop is an atom, while an organism is a galaxy.

    The quartz oscillator is an example of stability. It is indeed used because its frequency is stabile and precise, depending on the resonance value of the crystal. Again no explosion, but nothing of cybernetically meaningful.

    Differently, brain is of course cybernetically meaningful! All in a healthful brain fortunately is under control of many negative feedback systems. I don’t see the normal signaling between neurons per se as a positive feedback. I do see destructive positive feedbacks in certain neurological and psychic diseases.

    wd400 #63

    Neurons can’t think, brains are collections of neurons that can think.

    This is a different story, worth of discussion in other threads. What chipertext @62 has explained you very well, better than me, is that if – example – in a population of apes no individual ape becomes a human, you evolutionists cannot say that ape species evolves to human. If in a set of cars zero cars become a F1 bolide, then we cannot speak of car technological evolution toward F1…

  66. ciphertext,

    colours are abstract (just like numbers) and so the marbles can possibly can be any color from any visible light frequency (or mixture). The colour pink is an abstract and that exists exactly like any other color exists as an abstract.

    That a set of marbles are certain colours now doesn’t preclude them from being any other colour unless the physical mechanism that makes them that colour forbids or is biased towards a sub-set of (abstract) colours.

    That we see marbles as red, green or blue then it is because the marble reflects those frequencies (or subset of frequencies) of light. If it was pink then it would reflect a mixture of red, green and blue.

    “Pink” is just one possibility out of countless possible colors. With a mutation then the color pink could be expressed.

    And that’s the bit that probably confuses people who think that the properties must be pre-defined by something to exist to be expressed.

  67. Nirward,

    That seems to be wholly unrelated to the question at hand. Homeostasis is something individuals do during their lifetimes. Individuals don’t evolve in their lifetimes, so it’s very hard to see what the point of this post is.

  68. wd400:

    Individuals don’t evolve in their lifetimes,…

    Strawman- no one said individuals evolve in their lifetimes.

    Natural selection pertains to the individual. Variations occur in individuals. Individuals mate and reproduce.

    Evolution is all about the genetic turnover of individuals within a population- Mayr WEI.

  69. niwrad #10:

    The examples you cite are very simple compared to organisms.

    Simple examples make for a better illustration of the point.

    Let’s use an even simpler example, the pendulum clock. Those have been around for several hundred years. On each swing of the pendulum, it receives a little positive feedback (a push in the direction of motion). It is not destructive.

    You are probably thinking of linear feedback. If the amount of positive feedback given were proportional to the length of the swing, you might get a desctructive run-away effect. Instead, the amount of feedback is constant (per swing). This is non-linear controlled positive feedback. If properly done, it is not destructive.

    Returning to neurons, when a neuron fires, there is an avalanche effect. It seems very likely that is a case of positive feedback, though again, it would be controlled positive feedback.

    Incidentally, when you are eating, there is positive feedback. As you feel something to bite on, you strongly chomp down. This is occasionally destructive, as when you bite your tongue.

    To summarize my point: biological systems appear to use both positive and negative feedback. The positive feedback is presumably non-linear and controlled so as to not be destructive.

  70. Joe, have you read this post? Nirward is trying to make something out of the fact homeostasis exists. How is the existence of homeostasis, which acts in individuals over their lifetimes, relevant to the plausibility of evolution?

  71. RE: Post 63 @wd400
    Why? Neurons can’t think, brains are collections of neurons that can think.

    I’m assuming that by “why” you mean “why is it impossible for a set to contain properties that aren’t properties possessed by the constituent members of the set?”. Is that what you mean?

    RE: Post 66 @wd400

    I fail to see how you have refuted my assertion concerning the properties of sets in your post. In your scenario, the set of marbles is still precluded from containing any property not possessed by any of its constituents. Even if you were able to include a marble that could itself emit light at a range of given frequencies, the container set of marbles would still be constrained by the emitted frequencies of that marble. In other words, if the marble could emit all frequencies in the visible light spectrum; and assuming no other constituent marble included ranges such as infrared or ultraviolet; then the set could be said NOT to posses the property of infrared.

    I agree with you that “properties” mustn’t be predefined before they (properties) can be expressed, and certainly not before they can exist. The simple fact that they are a measurable property demands that they exist in the first place! Humans later came along and defined color (or more specifically the divisions in visible light range of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum). However, I do believe that the properties themselves must be created before they can “exist” and thus be measured, let alone defined. The EM spectrum was created (that is came into being), which enabled the possibility of its detection, measurement and subsequent definition.

  72. I’m assuming that by “why” you mean “why is it impossible for a set to contain properties that aren’t properties possessed by the constituent members of the set?”. Is that what you mean?

    Yes. I think it’s very obviously untrue. Take your specific example about colour – none of the atoms in a blue marble are blue…

  73. Why? This sounds a lot like the fallacy of division.

    I think niwrad might be correct in this instance, for he isn’t conferring the properties of the species as a whole, on each of the individuals. Rather, he is working in the other direction. If none of the constituent members of a set possess a property (in this instance ability to evolve), then it wouldn’t be possible for the set (species) to contain that property.

    Ok, so it’s the fallacy of composition instead.

    Roy

  74. wd400-

    If individuals are stable- homeostasis- then they can’t pass on any changes because they don’t have any to pass on.

  75. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that individuals are, in fact, different each other, though?

  76. Neil #69

    The positive feedback is presumably non-linear and controlled so as to not be destructive.

    If what you call biological “positive feedback” (and I deny to be a “positive feedback” in its complete sense of global degenerative loop) is controlled, that means an higher homeostatic system is in place to govern that process and maintains stability and functions of the organism. The claim of my post was indeed that the presence of homeostatic systems maintaining the norm always and everywhere disagrees with evolution.

  77. Yes, wd400, individuals, even identical twins, are different from each other.

    Yes mutations happen. Yes change happens. It’s just that there are factors that regulate that change- ie try to stop or minimize it.

    IOW evolution is even more gradual and constarined than Darwin could have imagined due to “homeostatic systems maintaining the norm”.

  78. Re: Post 73 @Roy

    Ok, so it’s the fallacy of composition instead.

    I don’t believe so, because while he isn’t conferring properties contained by the whole onto each of the constituents; he isn’t asserting that the whole has a given property either. Rather, he’s asserting that the “whole” cannot possess a property that none of the constituents themselves possess. There would be no source for this property available to the greater whole.

    An example for such a fallacy I’ve seen is something along the lines of:
    Atoms have no color. Paint is made of atoms. Paint is therefore colorless.

    While it is true that atoms (constituents) themselves lack coloration, that cannot be said for the paint (the whole).

    Re: Post 72 #wd400
    It is true that atoms are “colorless”. However, my example was explicitly stated as “Set A is the collection of colored marbles.” I’m not sure of which set you are attempting to refute in this instance.

    Are you saying it is possible for a set to contain a property that isn’t possessed by any of its constituents (or elements if you prefer)?


  79. Yes, wd400, individuals, even identical twins, are different from each other.

    Yes mutations happen. Yes change happens…

    So you disagree with Nirwrad that physiological homeostasis has anything to do with the plausibility of evolution – since it doesn’t prevent mutations from happening?

  80. Ciphertext,

    I was trying to understand the original claim that becuase individuals don’t evolve species, which are groups of species, can’t.

    That can’t be a general law. After all a blue marble is a set of colourless atoms, but it’s still blue.

  81. wd400:

    I was trying to understand the original claim that becuase individuals don’t evolve species, which are groups of species, can’t.

    I explained that to you. You chose to ignore that part of my comment. Also Darwinism demands much more than just a change in allele feequency. It is all about universal common descent via accumulations of genetic accidents.

    That said, what the OP does is show that that premise is contradicted by “homeostatic systems maintaining the norm”.

  82. The nature of the atoms, and without a stretch, their spatial arrangement (someone correct me if I’m wrong), determines how electrons will be excited by EM waves in order to exhibit a particular colour.

    In other words, rephrasing ciphertext’s,

    Set A is the collection of marbles which can exhibit colours. Set A as a whole contains an atomic arrangement which can reflect the colours “Blue”, “Red”, “Green”, “Yellow”. If none of the constitute components (marbles with this ability to exhibit colours) have an atomic arrangement to exhibit pink, then the Set A cannot contain an atomic arrangement that exhibits “Pink”.

    It is said small changes in some organisms in the past led to big changes we see now. Using the marble example, it is possible for the marble to become pink if the spatial arrangements of the atoms are changed. One can say it is a small change. But supposing that this marble has some negative feedback which it does not allow this particular small change (the marble getting the pink colour), then this change will never happen. Of course, this example isn’t even good simply because there is no negative feedback in marble. It is just to see if I got niwrad’s post correctly.

  83. “In other words, rephrasing ciphertext’s example”; not “In other words, rephrasing ciphertext’s”

  84. wd400 / 5 = #80 :)

    I was trying to understand the original claim that becuase individuals don’t evolve species, which are groups of species, can’t.
    That can’t be a general law. After all a blue marble is a set of colourless atoms, but it’s still blue.

    Your analogy between marble and species doesn’t stand up. No one pretends that the atoms of a blue marble are blue. Instead, all pretend that if a species has – say – the wings, there may be at least some individuals with wings.

    Suppose I come here and say “boys, I found in a forest a new species of pink dogs that have the same echolocation apparatus of bats”. You go, explore all the forest, see all the pink dogs but no one has the echolocation apparatus. What would you say? “niwrad, your new species is pink but has no echolocation”.

    Species is not a whole that can have properties different from the properties of its parts (as an airplane that has properties different from those of its components). Species is simply a set or collection of individuals. When we speak of the “properties of a species” we speak of the properties of its individuals.

    Consider this set of integers: {7, 3, 1, 9, 13}. I say “this set is even”. You say “you are crazy, no number is even, how can you speak of even set if all its numbers are odd”.

    Analogously, we cannot say that a species evolved a property if nowhere existed and nowhere exists at least one individual of that species with that property.

  85. We are still left, after all these wasted pixels, where we started. Homeostasis is a process that happens in individuals during their lifetimes. Evolution is not. If you can’t grasp this simple point I don’t know what the point of this is.

  86. and when evolution happens? when all individuals are dead?

  87. Are you serious?

    In case you are, evolution is change over time. The variation from which that change is made comes from mutations in each new generation.

  88. wd400- niwrad is discussing Darwinism, not just mere evolution. And Darwinism is UCD via accumulations of genetic accidents.

  89. Well, Darwinism is in particular those theories of evolution that emphasize the role of natural selection. But what difference does that make to this point?

    Homeostasis doesn’t prevent evolutionary change, be it Darwinian or not

  90. Homeostasis prevents Darwinian UCD- natural selection does too.

  91. Thank you for this enlightening post, now that I’ve seen the error of my ways I’ll be out of you way…

  92. I’ve been thinking about the use of “sets” and how we have collectively described them here in the post. With each attempting to persuade the other to adopt a particular definition of the set. In considering the case of my marbles as constituents (or elements, representatives) of a set, and reviewing the discussion of my marbles (), I noticed that some are arguing that a marble is itself a set. I don’t think that should be the case. While certainly a marble possesses properties by virtue of its being, I don’t think we can rightly call a marble a set. I think we must use the definition of a

    set as “a collection of distinct entities regarded as a unit, being either individually specified or (more usually) satisfying specified conditions.”

    I might add that the “distinct entities” could be either concrete or abstract. In accepting this definition, we are required to accept that a set is an abstract concept. Which means that an individual marble is not a set. It is rather a member or element of a set. Such as the “Set of All Colored Marbles” or the “Set of All Blue Marbles”. The set itself would be abstract (in sense that it technically can only exist within the confines of the mind), it is just a concept.

    I think therefore, that we could dispense with a lot of confusion by constraining how we utilize “sets”, if we adopt this working definition.

Leave a Reply