[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[Barbarian]

Does biology recognize goo-to-you evolution or is the concept as fake as Monopoly money?

That's just a creationist fairytale they pretend to be evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory assumes living things and describes how populations of them change.

 

[zeke]

But at the end of the day, if you can't back up your assertions, then its just your opinion based on your faith, and science has no obligation to accept or teach your view.

And your Darwinian mythology-- at the end of the day-- can only be back up by assertions based on much faith with a bit of worn out hand-waving. Is that all you have?

 

[zeke]

Biology dose not accept goo-to-you. There is no theory in biology that says we were an Undefined goo.

But Darwinian lore does teach goo-to-you evolution - always has. You continue to confuse biological evolution with Darwinian mythology - big deference. How did life arise from non-life in your worldview? Or are you still scratching your head on that one?

 

[zeke]

But doesn't Darwinism teach that all life arose from non-life via blind chance

No. Evolution is not about the way life began, and of course, Darwin's discovery was that evolution is not by chance.

Ditto above--Darwinian lore does teach goo-to-you evolution - always has. The concept of goo-to-you is via chance and a little luck over a long period of time - mostly luck.

 

[Barbarian]

But Darwinian lore does teach goo-to-you evolution - always has.

I challenged you to show us that in Darwin's theory, but each time, you run away from it. We all know why.

You continue to confuse biological evolution with Darwinian mythology - big deference.

You've demonstrated to us that you don't know what Darwin's theory says. So you can surely understand why no one here takes your claim seriously.

How did life arise from non-life in your worldview?

The Bible says that the Earth brought forth living things. Sounds good to me. Science says pretty much the same thing. But not evolutionary theory, which is not about the origin of life.

Go learn about it, and we'll talk.

 

[zeke]

I challenged you to show us that in Darwin's theory, but each time, you run away from it.

The fault lies with you - you confuse Darwinian lore with biological evolution (science). I know the difference.

You've demonstrated to us that you don't know what Darwin's theory says.

I'm not running at all - I am right here and I do know what the ToE says. What are you missing?

The Bible says that the Earth brought forth living things. Sounds good to me.

Yeah - but don't tell the professional evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, et al - they don't allow god-talk or bible-talk. It is anathema to them. For the record what is the difference between your version of Darwinism and the Dawkins version? Please be specific.

 

[Barbarian]

But Darwinian lore does teach goo-to-you evolution - always has.

I challenged you to show us that in Darwin's theory, but each time, you run away from it. We all know why.

The fault lies with you - you confuse Darwinian lore with biological evolution (science). I know the difference.

But you can't tell us. Do you really think anyone here believes you?

Barbarian chuckles:
You've demonstrated to us that you don't know what Darwin's theory says.

I'm not running at all

You're running away from the request that you substantiate your claim. Darwin had no idea how life began, and made no claims about it, other than (in one edition of his book) to suggest God did it.

I am right here and I do know what the ToE says.

Great. Show us Darwin's theory about the origin of life.

What are you missing?

We're missing your substantiation of your claim. When do you think you're going to be able to give us that?

Barbarian suggests:
The Bible says that the Earth brought forth living things. Sounds good to me.

Yeah - but don't tell the professional evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, et al - they don't allow god-talk or bible-talk.

Most do. As you learned, people like Gould had no problem with such thinking, although it's not science. And scientists like Miller, Ayala, and Collins actively speak up for God's role in creation.

It is anathema to them.

Many of them are Christians. Use your head.

For the record what is the difference between your version of Darwinism and the Dawkins version? Please be specific.

Mine isn't hyperselectionist. And, of course, like most other scientists, I see no conflict between God and science.

Now, how about you showing us those four points of Darwin's theory, and how they make claims about the origin of life? My prediction is you'll dodge again.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think we've come to the crux of the discussion here. Does inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events?...

My apologies for the delay in replying, Sparrow.

This is an interesting and thoughtful post and, given my position as an 'atheist Christian' (no, I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism), you will readily understand why I do not regard the Bible in this matter (and the books of the Old Testament specifically) as a source of either relevant or useful information. Consequently, I see attempts to square the circle of a pre-scientific culture's understanding of and explanations for the world (and Universe) with knowledge developed through generations of scientific research as largely futile. So my comments on the points I have chosen to highlight are coming from that point of view and, regardless of my opinions here, I have no problem with respecting your own.

Pardon my amateurish descriptions, and please do read what I'm saying here for my intent -- because it serves our purpose and it is my hope that we might be able to clarify the issue here. If we could incorporate the expanded definition of "species" to that of "miyn" or "kind," we would observe that a new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

Maybe amateurish (I should talk), but clear and concise, which is what's important. This is an interesting approach, but seems simply to push the 'problem' further up the taxonomic rankings. The evidence from theropod dinosaur to bird in terms of transitional features, shared traits and molecular genetics, for example, seems to push the apparent fact of speciation events into families, orders and classes.

Although Richard Dawkins' views on religion and its role in society are anathema to many here, I think it is worth considering his argument as a scientist about the tendency amongst humans (including highly-trained scientists) to want to categorise everything into well and precisely-defined groups. He calls this the discontinuous mind, which tends to see life (or whatever) in terms of discontinuous groups, when the more appropriate perspective, in this case, is to view life as a continuum, including living and extinct forms, so that each is connected to all others in never-ending chains of interrelationship. In some case the routes along this chain are simple and straightforward, but others are more complex. In the same way that you could picture a horizontal chain of touching hands connecting related living humans, so you can picture a vertical chain of touching hands, connecting each of us with an immediate ancestor and that ancestor to their immediate ancestor and so on.

There is no end-point to this chain of connectedness, but ultimately you will reach a point where the ancestor you have arrived at is related to (or may even be the source of) a split in the population that will ultimately bring about a speciation event. As I said, you can make these links continually, but the point is that we should not fall into the trap of regarding species as necessarily distinct and unique things and, by using this descriptive tool, we can see that we can ‘touch hands’ across species, genuses, families and classes.

So a ‘kind’ becomes no less a product of the discontinuous mind than does a species. And while science makes a fairly precise definition of what constitutes a species –

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance.

(source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml)

- if we follow Dawkins’ line of reasoning we would expect to see grey areas where the distinction between individual species – or even what constitutes and individual species itself - breaks down and blurs. So domestic dogs are generally regarded as a subspecies of C lupus, the successful interbreeding of some breeds is effectively impossible without human intervention – think Chihuahua and Great Dane, for example. And while grizzly bears and polar bears are classified as separate species, they can, in fact, interbreed, but so rarely as to make the separate classification otherwise unremarkable. Ring species are, of course, the classic example of this blurring, but I think my point has been made.

I think that the real problem that we have yet to grapple with is the question about where "new information" in the genetic pool comes from. Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained.

I do not think you can reasonably conclude that speciation involves ‘partitioning’ of some pre-existing genetic pool of information such that at best genetic information is conserved and cannot be gained. Do you have evidence for such a model? For example, Wiki tells us that:

Although they do not use the haploid/diploid method of sexual reproduction, bacteria have many methods of acquiring new genetic information. Some bacteria can undergo conjugation, transferring a small circular piece of DNA to another bacterium. Bacteria can also take up raw DNA fragments found in the environment and integrate them into their genomes, a phenomenon known as transformation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics

Respectively, I'd like to modify lordkalvan's question then. Instead of asking, "Does this inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to speciation events?" I'd like to ask, "Does inherited genetic change in populations over many generations lead to changes in "kind"? Do we have evidence of this?

Given the broad range of shared traits, transitional features, atavisms, vestigial features, the evidence from molecular genetic analysis, developmental embryology, ERVs, etc, the inevitable conclusion seems to indicate that not only does change occur within broad taxonomic classifications, but also across them such that, ultimately, all life on Earth appears to have a common origin.

It is my assertion that no only did God create each "kind," He also created their seed in them.

To me it seems that, if any supernatural agent was involved in the creation of life, it was either to provide the conditions in which life could naturalistically come about, or else created the very first life itself.

 

[lordkalvan]

You may have confused yourself – biological evolution does not propose dogs will 'morph' wings but Darwinian mythology proposes reptilians evolved into canaries via blind chance.

Any confusion resides in your unwillingness to tell us exactly what you mean by 'biological evolution' and explain how this differs from the modern evolutionary synthesis developed from Darwin's original work. You also still seem to be asserting without substance that this work amounts to 'mythology' and that evolution occurs 'via blind chance'.

Linnaeus correctly understood that via the “Almighty Creator's hand†God designed man and chimp genetically similar.

Did he really? I would be more than interested to see your citation for any such understanding on Linnaeus's part, that man and chimp are genetically similar. As far as I am aware, Linnaeus's work comprised classifying organisms on the basis of shared traits.

Francis Collins correctly stated - genetic similarity “alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor†because a designer could have “used successful design principles over and over againâ€.

Ah, but there's that five-letter word 'alone' that rather changes the thrust of what you are seeking to co-opt Collins into agreeing with you about. Can you provide the citation for this quotation and its context so that we can see exactly what Collins is proposing?

Do you agree with Linnaeus' comment regard the Almighty's hand in creation?

First catch your rabbit and show us that Linnaeus was correct in his quoted comment.

In your mind could God have “used successful design principles over and over again�

Presupposes that I accept the idea that there exists a God to do what you allege it might have done.

If not, why not?

in order to propose God as a designer of individual life-forms, you need to show that such a God exists and that naturalistic explanations and evidence for the development of life on Earth are better accounted for by a supernatural agent.

Are we still on the same page - do we agree with Collins that genetic similarity does not prove a common ancestor?

Perhaps you should provide us with the full quote and it's context and then reflect on whether or not Collins was talking about 'proof' in the sense that Sparrowhawke and Barbarian have explained to you.

It is self-evident of course - a designer could have “used successful design principles over and over againâ€.

How is it 'self-evident' and what makes it so? Simply asserting this as if it is an undeniable truth has no merit in a forum supposedly addressing science.

Stephen Gould said homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Was he mistaken?

And yet we're still waiting for yu to provide the full quotation and it's context from the relevant article that you must surely hold. Or did you source this alleged 'support' from a secondary source? If so, which one?

The genetic similarity between man and chimp, exactly. Do you not see that similarity?

Perhaps you can explain this genetic similarity in the context f how it supports 'common design' and also why genetic dissimilarity also, presumably, supports 'common design' rather than a multiplicity of designers?

But it is relevant – I believe there is but one Designer. Do you have polytheistic beliefs of some kind?

You seem to keep missing the point, though whether intentionally or not, I don't know. Whether you or I believe in 'one Designer, in polytheism or in no supernatural forces at all makes no difference to the question posed: if, as you assert, the existence of genetic similarity supports common design, why does it support it; and, if genetic dissimilarity exists (which it does), why is this not evidence for a multiplicity of designers? Your answer does not require you to have any belief at all about one, many or no designers, but simply to address the implications of what you assert.

I am not evading anything – your statement makes little sense. You have provided no evidence for multiple designers and God was not limited on how He designed 'in the beginning'.

So is it your argument that both genetic similarity and genetic dissimilarity are equally evidence for a unique designer? If so, how are they such evidence?

Lol - are you saying you are above 'prejudging'?

Whether I am or not does not deal with the points raised that you are supposedly responding to.

Mechanisms that allow an organism to adapt to an environment in a fallen world.

What are these 'mechansims', how do they operate and how can they be identified? What do you mean by 'adapt'? How far can 'adaptation' go, what limits it and how can whatever limits it be identified? What constitutes 'a fallen world' and how and why must organisms 'adapt' to it?

Sure – in England there is an annoying species of mosquito (Culex) that resides in the London subway system that are thought to have evolved from an above ground species (Culex pipiens). Of course this 'speciation' supports a common designer using already-existing genes.

How does it support 'a common designer using already-existing genes' and how does this explanation better account for the speciation event than the evolutionary algorithm of modify, if successful repeat, otherwise discard.

These species no longer interbreed due to isolation but that hardly supports your religious statement that dinos evolved into birds - right?.

Unsupported assertion, that the hypothesis that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs is a 'religious statement'. Why would a common designer individually create birds and theropod dinosaurs with so many shared characteristics? Why, indeed, would this common designer need to do any such thing? And how does a common designer better explain the evolution of birds better than the evolutionary algorithm and the available fossil, morphological, physiological and genetic evidence?

It would be helpful if you can provide your definition of 'species'?

Why would this be helpful? If you're interested, see my reply to Sparrow in the post before this one.

 

[Sparkey]

Trying to unfog the cloud is, of course, impossible but there are many unsupported or unclear allegations that could reasonably be looked at here. Underlying much of what zeke says is the accusation of a "scientific religion" which requires "faith" as much as Christianity does.

What is this "religion" or what is religion itself for that matter? If we define religion as ascribing attributes or qualities to something without scientific proof, clearly the belief in God is religion. If instead, we were to give those same attributes to something less personal, nature or "mother earth" - would that be any less a religion? If there is no record of the conditions necessary for life in the fossil record (I'm speaking of a biotic 'soup') and yet we say something 'must' have happened along these lines for life to arisen, are we not ignoring the fact that there is no evidence for the assertion? Is belief in naturalism (without supporting evidence) a form of religion?

Webster defines religion as follows: ..." cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Since all "evidence" of evolution that we have is in the present time, and none have observed the actual origins of life, nor have any observed changes to what is located in the present (fossils, animals and plants) sufficient to "prove" evolution, what we are left with is the words of men who were not there.

Being a Christian, I am familiar with (and maybe sensitive to) "begging the question" types of criticisms. The classic explanation for this type of fallacy is thrust toward Christianity:
Example

1. The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
2. Whatever the Bible says is true.
   Therefore:
3. The Bible is inerrant.

This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true.

But is this not the very same thing that is going on when we state

1. Science states that Evolution occurs naturally
2. Science only observes the natural and does not observe God
3. All species have arisen naturally and apart from God

Although Richard Dawkins' views on religion and its role in society are anathema to many here, I think it is worth considering his argument as a scientist about the tendency amongst humans (including highly-trained scientists) to want to categories everything into well and precisely-defined groups.

The observation about human tendency is more that of a philosopher than a scientist. The illustration continues to define a new term, "the discontinuous mind," which is worthy of the greatest wordsmith or propagandist. This term at once elevates those who are of similar thought while denigrating dissidents. Would it be fair to consider the elevated position of "continuous minds," the minds capable of reaching back into the past with such power, clarity and continuity, to the ranks of the priesthood? No? Why not?

If you and I were to travel together to a fossil bed and I were to ask you to examine the evidence and to then tell me if all the animals and plants contained in the deposits lived together, died together, or were buried together... but then cautioned you to base your answer on SCIENTIFIC evidence only -- only the latter could be asserted: they were buried together. There are fossil beds that contain birds, mammals, insects and aquatic creatures buried together. Animals that live in the air, land and sea - all mass buried (together). Conclusions about their living together or dying together based on the evidence alone assumes greater knowledge than what we actually have.

The very reason that scientific theories change is because we don't have all the evidence. We don't know everything. The implication that they who do not have all the evidence are somehow "discontinuous in mind" or to weak minded to be able to construct a single continuity (that of evolution) from limited evidence is a pretense that have all the evidence (all the facts) and that we should be able to construct a mental picture of how life originated.

The choice of "nature" vs. God is a choice of belief system, not one of science. Science does well when it speaks of observable repeatable occurrences. We enter the realm of speculation when it goes further than what can be seen.

 

[Sparkey]

Science has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism, or naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, and nature is made up of particles. It follows that matter had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included a role for anything outside of nature, such as God.​

Dawkins concedes that even the simplest living organisms contain immense amounts of genetic information. How this "information" is conserved or transmitted from one kind to another is the stumbling point that presents itself to me. If we extrapolate knowledge from observation, and note that Darwin's finches exploit a niche to see evolution in progress regarding the bills and beaks of birds, for instance, we might reasonably conclude that the changes to the beak, useful for obtaining food, might also create a speciation event because of the secondary changes to the sexual criteria of their birdsong. ​

While discussing 'the problem' encountered when we try to determine how birds may have been the ancestor of dinosaurs, for there is as much evidence of that as the other way around (I say this in jest), it is rightly said that this simply pushes the 'problem' further up the taxonomic rankings. But what 'problem' are we in fact discussing?​

How does any system capable of reproduction allow for new information? Surely the example of asexual reproduction (bacteria) fails to satisfy the means for sexual creatures (dinosaurs and birds) that indeed share common traits to be able to transcend its own inherent limitations. This is a far cry from any explanation (except by extraordinary leaps of imagination). ​

"God created" is an attempt to explain 'the problem', but if He has a role, it wouldn't be evolution any longer --because evolution is an argument that, by definition, says nature itself is all that is needed to create life in all the variety that we see today.​

 

[Barbarian]

Being a Christian, I am familiar with (and maybe sensitive to) "begging the question" types of criticisms. The classic explanation for this type of fallacy is thrust toward Christianity:

Example

The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
The Bible is inerrant.

This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true.

But is this not the very same thing that is going on when we state

Science states that Evolution occurs naturally
Science only observes the natural and does not observe God
All species have arisen naturally and apart from God

It's not circularity, it's a hidden premise:

Science states that evolution occurs naturally. (true)
Science only observes the natural and does not observe God. (true)
[hidden premise]Science observes all that there is.[/hidden premise]
All species have arisen naturally and apart from God.(faulty conclusion)

And completely opposed to what science has to say about it.

Although Richard Dawkins' views on religion and its role in society are anathema to many here, I think it is worth considering his argument as a scientist about the tendency amongst humans (including highly-trained scientists) to want to categories everything into well and precisely-defined groups.

You don't see that much in biology, since it's kind of messy, with lots of "in between" cases.

If you and I were to travel together to a fossil bed and I were to ask you to examine the evidence and to then tell me if all the animals and plants contained in the deposits lived together, died together, or were buried together... but then cautioned you to base your answer on SCIENTIFIC evidence only -- only the latter could be asserted: they were buried together.

There are ways to check that. For example, alluvial deposits indicate "buried together." A protoceratops and a raptor locked in a death struggle, says "lived (and died) together."

There are fossil beds that contain birds, mammals, insects and aquatic creatures buried together. Animals that live in the air, land and sea - all mass buried (together). Conclusions about their living together or dying together based on the evidence alone assumes greater knowledge than what we actually have.

It's more interesting than that in real investigations.

 

[Barbarian]

Science has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism, or naturalism.

During the Middle Ages, Jews had become identified with spreading plague by poisoning wells. An extreme example, but worth noting here.

This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, and nature is made up of particles.

Keep in mind, that is not part of science, which makes no such claims.

Dawkins concedes that even the simplest living organisms contain immense amounts of genetic information. How this "information" is conserved or transmitted from one kind to another is the stumbling point that presents itself to me.

Nucleic acids. It might be that God made the first DNA, but the evidence today suggests that self-catalyzing RNAs came first.

If we extrapolate knowledge from observation, and note that Darwin's finches exploit a niche to see evolution in progress regarding the bills and beaks of birds, for instance, we might reasonably conclude that the changes to the beak, useful for obtaining food, might also create a speciation event because of the secondary changes to the sexual criteria of their birdsong.

Or a feathered dinosaur might become small enough to fly, and take up residence in trees, from which the population diverged into an entirely different group. That would take more than a few years, but we have more than a few years.

While discussing 'the problem' encountered when we try to determine how birds may have been the ancestor of dinosaurs, for there is as much evidence of that as the other way around (I say this in jest), it is rightly said that this simply pushes the 'problem' further up the taxonomic rankings.

For example, the evidence is still somewhat compatible with the idea that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, but both evolved from a thecodont ancestor.

But what 'problem' are we in fact discussing?

How this can happen, I suppose.

How does any system capable of reproduction allow for new information?

Mutation. All new mutations add information to a population.

Surely the example of asexual reproduction (bacteria) fails to satisfy the means for sexual creatures (dinosaurs and birds) that indeed share common traits to be able to transcend its own inherent limitations.

One advantage of sexual reproduction (especially for larger organisms) is the more rapid spread of favorable mutations in the population.

This is a far cry from any explanation (except by extraordinary leaps of imagination).

It's mathematically demonstrable. There's an entire field of population genetics that can calculate such changes, depending on fitness.

"God created" is an attempt to explain 'the problem', but if He has a role, it wouldn't be evolution any longer --because evolution is an argument that, by definition, says nature itself is all that is needed to create life in all the variety that we see today.

Which is like saying if God has a role in hurricanes, it wouldn't be weather any longer.

 

[Sparkey]

How does any system capable of reproduction allow for new information?

Mutation. All new mutations add information to a population.

ORLY?

View attachment 2278

Mutation alone, heh? How exactly can we explain the method behind the "mutative abilities" of the Hemeroplanes triptolemus caterpillar in Costa Rica? Were other types of mimicry attempted? Where did the startling resemblance come from, and how did that very specific information get relayed into the genetic information of a catepillar?

Actually, I am quite amused by the idea that this was only one of many attempts of genetic variation using mimicry as a strategy. Maybe we'll find evidence of other (failed) attempts. My imagination lets me picture failed attempts (like a cat head on its tail) but I am honestly curious at any real attempt at explanation. It almost seems that the Lord Himself has replied to this attempt of Man to explain things without a Creator, doesn't it?

 

[Barbarian]

How does any system capable of reproduction allow for new information?

Barbarian observes:
Mutation. All new mutations add information to a population.

ORLY?

Yep. I don't think "information" is what you want to ask. There is a solid definition for "information", used in such diverse fields as communications, biology, mathematics, etc. And it can be measured by the Shannon equation. But information doesn't mean "order" or "effectiveness" or anything like that.

I think that you're asking, is "how can effective mimickry be selected for?" Is this right?

Mutation alone, heh?

For information, yes. For what you're showing me, here, mutation plus natural selection.

How exactly can we explain the method behind the "mutative abilities" of the Hemeroplanes triptolemus caterpillar in Costa Rica?

Batesian evolution.

Were other types of mimicry attempted?

There was no "attempt." You might was well say that mantids "attempted" to hang out where their colors blended in.

Where did the startling resemblance come from, and how did that very specific information get relayed into the genetic information of a catepillar?

Actually, I am quite amused by the idea that this was only one of many attempts of genetic variation using mimicry as a strategy. Maybe we'll find evidence of other (failed) attempts. My imagination lets me picture failed attempts (like a cat head on its tail) but I am honestly curious at any real attempt at explanation.

Remember, birds are visual. And even a slight resemblance to eyes will tend to make a bird back off, which might be all that's needed. But the better the illusion, the better it works. So there's strong selective value for better and better illusions. The caterpillars don't do it; the birds do it, by picking off the least convincing.

It almost seems that the Lord Himself has replied to this attempt of Man to explain things without a Creator, doesn't it?

Maybe the Creator is much more effective in His subtlety than we think.

 

[Sparkey]

I think that you're asking, is "how can effective mimicry be selected for?" Is this right?

No. I want to know the mechanism that is used for parent caterpillars that don't have snaketails to be able to copy the appearance of a snake and transmit that information to their offspring. Was it a trial, if success, then continue process? Genetic drift? By the way, the term "Batesian evolution" isn't new me, but unlike some, I don't think that I understand something simply because it's labeled. In absence of creative intelligence, what mechanism or mechanical process explains the process and shows how the information is encoded into the DNA so that it can replicate? How can this happen?

Remember, birds are visual. And even a slight resemblance to eyes will tend to make a bird back off, which might be all that's needed. But the better the illusion, the better it works. So there's strong selective value for better and better illusions. The caterpillars don't do it; the birds do it, by picking off the least convincing.

Okay, you've treid to explain why it is effective and you suggest that because of its effectiveness "nature" selects for it. That being the case, we would expect the non-mimic population to be less successful and have a smaller portion of the total number of caterpillars in a given area. If a required part of the selective process is as you state, and the birds eat the least convincing, why are non-mimic caterpillars not extinct? Certainly this "birds eat the less convincing" fails because there are more non-mimic caterpillars than the "successful".
View attachment 2279
But that isn't my question. How did the mommy and daddy caterpillars DO IT? Have you ever tried to teach children how to draw? How proud would you be, as a parent if your child could represent a snake as well as this? That would be a talent worth praise, right? Okay, now please don't pretend that it takes less information for a caterpillar to be able to pass the ability to mimic a snake to their offspring than it would take to teach a kid how to use crayons. I know of no mechanism for such a thing. Do you? It's okay to say no, but to say that it must exist and that the only known mechanism is trial and error stretches credulity.

 

[Barbarian]

No. I want to know the mechanism that is used for parent caterpillars that don't have snaketails to be able to copy the appearance of a snake and transmit that information to their offspring.

Mutations, followed by natural selection. Small changes that made it less effective tended to be removed, and small changes that made it more effective tended to be retained. And that became the stage for the next generation. As you see, there are numerous transitionals still around.

Was it a trial, if success, then continue process? Genetic drift? By the way, the term "Batesian evolution" isn't new me, but unlike some, I don't think that I understand something simply because it's labeled. In absence of creative intelligence, what mechanism or mechanical process explains the process and shows how the information is encoded into the DNA so that it can replicate? How can this happen?

Mutation and natural selection. Random changes can be selected to pick out only those that are useful. Engineers are now copying the process in genetic algorithms for problems that are too difficult to solve by design.

Barbarian observes:
Remember, birds are visual. And even a slight resemblance to eyes will tend to make a bird back off, which might be all that's needed. But the better the illusion, the better it works. So there's strong selective value for better and better illusions. The caterpillars don't do it; the birds do it, by picking off the least convincing.

Okay, you've treid to explain why it is effective and you suggest that because of its effectiveness "nature" selects for it.

In this case, birds do it.

That being the case, we would expect the non-mimic population to be less successful and have a smaller portion of the total number of caterpillars in a given area.

And that's what we see. In any given species of mimics, the better ones outnumber the less effective ones.

If a required part of the selective process is as you state, and the birds eat the least convincing, why are non-mimic caterpillars not extinct?

Because mimicry is not the only game in town. For example, monarch caterpillars are foul and toxic because of the milkweed they eat. Birds never try eating a second one. So they are left alone. Indeed, one species of butterfly (the viceroy) has evolved to mimic the monarch, a process known as Mullerian mimicry.

Others simply blend in by color, find hiding places, and so on.

Certainly this "birds eat the less convincing" fails because there are more non-mimic caterpillars than the "successful".

I can't think of a species where that is true.

But that isn't my question. How did the mommy and daddy caterpillars DO IT?

They didn't. The birds did it. If a caterpillar happened to have spots that were remotely eyelike, birds (which avoid "eyes" so avidly that cartoon eyes on expanses of glass will keep them from flying into them) it was less likely to be eaten. So the next generation has "sorta eyes." But then the race is on; the ones most likely to survive the next generation have eyes just a bit better at making birds hesitate or turn away.

And the next generation is therefore better, and so on.

Have you ever tried to teach children how to draw? How proud would you be, as a parent if your child could represent a snake as well as this?

Wrong process. Not learning. Mutations. It might seem incredible, but engineers are doing remarkable things by nothing more than random changes and natural selection.

Think about this:
In Africa, ivory poachers are being thwarted because tuskless elephants are becoming the rule. The elephants didn't do this. The poachers did. They selectively kill the elephants with tusks, leaving the occasional tuskless mutant alive. Over time, the population evolves and there you are.

Not surprising, when you think about it. There are more amazing things in shorter-lived species, such as the new, irreducibly complex enzyme system that evolved in Barry Hall's E. coli.

 

[Sparkey]

Barbarian concedes, "It might seem incredible..."

I guess that is the best I can hope for. Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

I also find it incredible that burning kerosine and spinning fans from the hot gases can carry hundreds of people thousands of miles through the air.

But the evidence is that it can.

 

[Sparkey]

I also find it incredible that burning kerosine and spinning fans from the hot gases can carry hundreds of people thousands of miles through the air.

But the evidence is that it can.

Okay, I'll go along with that. But if I were to ask you HOW such a thing (the mechanical processes or methods involved in the history of flight) might have happened, you would not have to rely on mysterious methods to explain it. I'll accept your assessment that the evidence for evolution is as strong (for you) as the evidence that airplanes exist. What other choice is there?