[_ Old Earth _] Permutation Problem for Evolution

[Asyncritus]

No it's as Barbarian stated. The man is a physicist. My studies were in biology. I did lab work where I directly saw speciation. I have a friend who is part of a research paper where their team discovered a new species of Salamander that split off from other native salamanders from the area. I've seen it for myself and worked on papers doing research. It would be like trying to convince me I don't have hands.

Where is that paper, BTW?

Kenyon:

In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and became Emeritus in 2001.[2]

So this hoohah about his being a physicist is wrong on at least 2 counts. His book Biochemical Predestination is not a physics text book, but on biochemistry. Somewhat different.

Further, wiki:

Kenyon issued an affidavit in that case, stating his support for creationism, and defining it thus:

Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, [see my remarks below on the Cambrian Explosion] and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. (...) Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts.

endquote.

When we bear in mind that a species is what a competent taxonomist defines as a species, you can see that there's room for some doubt.

In addition to that, once a species is defined and properly described, it is ring fenced - meaning that it cannot interbreed with members of another species in the wild.

Therefore, any hope of interbreeding with other related species, and thereby evolving in Lamarckian fashion into other species, is wasted hope.

These idiotic, computer-generated 'lineages' are monstrosities which bear very little connection with reality.

The most recent piece of nonsense we have had on the board, is the evolution of bats from 'sloths' or near relatives

The bats are very clearly unrelated to everything else on the planet.

Which, incidentally raises the question of what 'related' means. The sensible interpretation of the word is that there are certain features which 'related' organisms have in common: such as mammals, which are warm-blooded, produce milk etc.

They are not blood relatives, as we use the expression.

But a 'flying' mammal has no relatives - apart from the imaginary ones evolutionists are forced to invent in support of the hopeless.

We may just as easily say they are related to the birds, because they too are warm-blooded and have wings - but even the most diehard evolutionist would be hard put to support that foolish idea.

So I suggest that the fact that you saw some 'speciation', is an irrelevancy to the gigantic problem of the Cambrian Explosion, where in a relatively short time, geologically speaking, what appears to be millions of species, genera and higher taxa burst inexplicably on to the scene.

That is the heaviest blow against evolution that I can conceive.

Let me remind you of poor Lenski, who bred 35000 (maybe more now) generations of bacteria in the hope of finding a new species of E coli. All he could show for his efforts and his wearing out of his prayer mat! is a variation of E coli which could metabolise citrate in what he thinks is a new metabolic pathway.

Michael Behe said that the pathway was already there, but masked.

But let's suppose that we now have a new variety of E coli, which we'll call E coli var. Lenskii.

Of what evolutionary significance is that? None whatever. Why?

Because if 35000 generations produced no new species, how long do you think it would take to produce the millions of new species etc in the Cambrian?

My calculations show that it could not happen, thus:


0 new species come from 35000 generations

Therefore a zillion new species could not, in the time available, emerge, as in the Cambrian.
​

And it is a waste of time protesting otherwise.

Let me be clear here. I admit that some, limited amounts of speciation have observably taken place. The emphasis is heavily on the word LIMITED.

iN THE CAMBRIAN, HOWEVER, WE HAVE PRACTICALLY UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF SPECIATION, none of which can be accounted for by any known evolutionary theory.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Where is that paper, BTW?

I'll ask her for the title and if its published yet. Though considering my track record with you and your known antics, I don't know if I should cast pearls before swine.

So this hoohah about his being a physicist is wrong on at least 2 counts. His book Biochemical Predestination is not a physics text book, but on biochemistry. Somewhat different.

Still not a field of Biology that deal with the theory of Evolution. He is still making the claim that specieation doesn't happen, when I've seen it myself and had to study in college. This is another case of you finding that one person that agrees with you and ignoring everything else. So yeah, find me a consensus of biologists that disagree, and you might have a point. Not a lone person who has very little to do with the field of study.

When we bear in mind that a species is what a competent taxonomist defines as a species, you can see that there's room for some doubt.

Yep because it us as humans that decide what exactly entails a new species.

In addition to that, once a species is defined and properly described, it is ring fenced - meaning that it cannot interbreed with members of another species in the wild.

No, there are plenty of exceptions to that rule.

Therefore, any hope of interbreeding with other related species, and thereby evolving in Lamarckian fashion into other species, is wasted hope.

Lamarck's thoery was thrown out with the discovery of genetics. Darwin's thoery held up and the conflicting parts where changed.

[qoute]These idiotic, computer-generated 'lineages' are monstrosities which bear very little connection with reality.[/quote] Sorry, assertions without anything to back it up mean nothing.

The most recent piece of nonsense we have had on the board, is the evolution of bats from 'sloths' or near relatives

You only say because Barbarian was able to shut you down.

The bats are very clearly unrelated to everything else on the planet.

False, considering that genetically they are closely related to primates and they share all major mammalian traits. Far from unrelated.

Which, incidentally raises the question of what 'related' means. The sensible interpretation of the word is that there are certain features which 'related' organisms have in common: such as mammals, which are warm-blooded, produce milk etc.

that and it has the genetic homology of a mammal.

But a 'flying' mammal has no relatives - apart from the imaginary ones evolutionists are forced to invent in support of the hopeless.

None have been invented. Their have been hypothesized specimens that biologists look for based what is known of their lineage. If the specimen isn't found, the hypothesis is scrapped.

We may just as easily say they are related to the birds, because they too are warm-blooded and have wings - but even the most diehard evolutionist would be hard put to support that foolish idea.

Well duh, considering that Bats are more genetically similar and closer related to humans based on genetics. Birds descended from Dinosaurs and have more in common with modern reptiles than mammals.

So I suggest that the fact that you saw some 'speciation', is an irrelevancy to the gigantic problem of the Cambrian Explosion, where in a relatively short time, geologically speaking, what appears to be millions of species, genera and higher taxa burst inexplicably on to the scene.

There is no problem because Ghould discovered Punctuated Equilibrium and fixed the said problem.

That is the heaviest blow against evolution that I can conceive.

That is in no way a blow considering that Ghould strengthened modern evolutionary theory.

Let me remind you of poor Lenski, who bred 35000 (maybe more now) generations of bacteria in the hope of finding a new species of E coli. All he could show for his efforts and his wearing out of his prayer mat! is a variation of E coli which could metabolise citrate in what he thinks is a new metabolic pathway.

He discovered exactly what he set out to discover. A new form of E Coli. This isn't opposite land, so far you have provided 2 examples that strengthened the theory.

Michael Behe said that the pathway was already there, but masked.

You mean the guy who lied in a court of law and tried to claim there was zero research or papers that found specieation when in fact there are hundreds. Which shamed him and destroyed his credibility, especially when many of the papers where then presented in the court case. Don't use known liars as sources please.

Of what evolutionary significance is that? None whatever. Why?

Considering that the theory of evolution is about how living organisms adapt and change to take on new niches, the new E Coli did exactly that. Your just mad that it works.

Because if 35000 generations produced no new species, how long do you think it would take to produce the millions of new species etc in the Cambrian?

hey Asyn, stop lying. There was a new species. Also, do you want to tell everyone how long it actually took to have those 35000 generation of E coli? Do you also want to mention the other specimens that emerged? No? Because that would another point that contradicts your point.

My calculations show that it could not happen, thus:


0 new species come from 35000 generations

Considering your history of dishonesty, lack of education on the matter, and lack of authority. Your calculations mean nothing.

Therefore a zillion new species could not, in the time available, emerge, as in the Cambrian.

Yet you are still wrong considering both Genetics and taxonomy fully disagrees with you.

And it is a waste of time protesting otherwise.

To protest to you, because its casting pearls before swine.

iN THE CAMBRIAN, HOWEVER, WE HAVE PRACTICALLY UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF SPECIATION, none of which can be accounted for by any known evolutionary theory.

Sorry Ghould figured it out. Keep stomping on those pearls async.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hi MB

I am prepared to give you an opportunity to edit this insulting post of yours before I press the report button.

I am not amused at being called 'swine' or a 'liar'. You are perfectly entitled to call other people on your side of the fence by such names if you so desire, but I am not one of them.

So fix it.

 

[Barbarian]

In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at Ames Research Center. In 1966, he started as an Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University and became Emeritus in 2001.[2]

So this hoohah about his being a physicist is wrong on at least 2 counts.

Kenyon has a degree in physics, and a PhD in biophysics. So it's not surprising that he's not an expert in paleontology or genetics. He's a creationist, and pretty much follows that religion closely.

Kenyon issued an affidavit in that case, stating his support for creationism, and defining it thus:

Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, [see my remarks below on the Cambrian Explosion] and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. (...) Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts.

And the court, after looking at the evidence, ruled that "creation science" is a religion. Which it is. Kenyon wrote a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, which essentially became unsellable after creationism was found to be a religion. He and others changed it to an "intelligent design" textbook by simply removing "creator" and inserting "designer" throughout the book. Unfortunately, errors in the process showed how it was done, and in the Dover trial, it became clear that "designer" was just a creationist attempt to relabel their idea of God to get it into public schools.

When we bear in mind that a species is what a competent taxonomist defines as a species, you can see that there's room for some doubt.

In addition to that, once a species is defined and properly described, it is ring fenced - meaning that it cannot interbreed with members of another species in the wild.

Therefore, any hope of interbreeding with other related species, and thereby evolving in Lamarckian fashion into other species, is wasted hope.

First, our definitions don't affect nature at all. So what we call them doesn't "fence" them in the least. Second, there are numerous examples of hybridization producing new species which are reproductively isolate.

The most recent piece of nonsense we have had on the board, is the evolution of bats from 'sloths' or near relatives

True, but that was your invention, after all. No one here said bats evolved from sloths.

The bats are very clearly unrelated to everything else on the planet.

I know you want us to believe so, but the evidence clearly shows genetic relationships to other mammals. And notice that a newly-discovered transitional bat was accurately predicted by scientists based on that information.

Which, incidentally raises the question of what 'related' means. The sensible interpretation of the word is that there are certain features which 'related' organisms have in common: such as mammals, which are warm-blooded, produce milk etc.

They are not blood relatives, as we use the expression.

As you learned, they are connected by the same genetic similarities by which we can find the lineage of related humans.

But a 'flying' mammal has no relatives - apart from the imaginary ones evolutionists are forced to invent in support of the hopeless.

See above. Surprise.

We may just as easily say they are related to the birds, because they too are warm-blooded and have wings

And that's a classic case of a creationist confused by the difference between analogous structures and homologous ones.

but even the most diehard evolutionist would be hard put to support that foolish idea.

Because scientists understand the difference. We discussed this some time ago, and I pointed out that this was one of the things that is holding you back in understanding biology.

So I suggest that the fact that you saw some 'speciation', is an irrelevancy to the gigantic problem of the Cambrian Explosion, where in a relatively short time, geologically speaking, what appears to be millions of species, genera and higher taxa burst inexplicably on to the scene.

As you learned, these new taxa have antecedents in the Precambrian. Would you like me to go over those again, for you?

That is the heaviest blow against evolution that I can conceive.

If so, evolution is home free.

 

[Donnyboy]

Forget the competition. The question is valid -- can anyone prove evolution? And when I say (as a person with degrees in mathematics and physics) I mean prove in the mathematical sense, not the scientific sense. In science, one only needs to collect enough evidence to draw a conclusion that is difficult to argue with. So, in a way, believers have 'scientific proof' as there is so much historical evidence supporting it. As a scientist, I'd like more hard evidence of EITHER theory as on both sides, most of the evidence seems circumstantial.

 

[Asyncritus]

talkorigins on Gould and species:

Gould:

But are these Linnaean species, recognized by independent cultures, merely temporary configurations of the moment, mere way stations on evolutionary lineages in continual flux? I argue ... that, contrary to popular belief, evolution does not work this way, and that species have a "reality" through time to match their distinctness at a moment. [In other words, they DON'T EVOLVE!] An average species of fossil invertebrates lives five to ten million years (terrestrial vertebrates have shorter average durations). During this time, they rarely change in any fundamental way. [In other words, they DON'T EVOLVE!] They become extinct, without issue, looking much as they did when they first appeared. ...

Therefore they are distinct, stable, identifiable, and do not change.

In other words, they do not 'evolve'.

These are genuine species.

Hybrids in general, are sterile for one reason or another. Some non-sterile ones have been reported, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

They cannot therefore, be major contributors to evolution. Gould says as much in the quote above:

An average species of fossil invertebrates lives five to ten million years (terrestrial vertebrates have shorter average durations). During this time, they rarely change in any fundamental way. They become extinct, without issue, looking much as they did when they first appeared. ...

Gould talks out of both sides of his face.

In the first place, he claims that the palaeontologists are right, and that there are no transitional fossils worthy of the name. Hence his theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Then he changes his tune, and says that there are no or very few interspecific transitionals, but higher up the tree, there are!

How foolish for a man of this calibre to talk such nonsense. If there aren't any intraspecific transitional fossils, then how can there be all these transitionals above that level? Where do they come from?

He doesn't know, and is covering his back, back-tracking because he recognises just how damaging punctuated equilibrium really is to evolution theory!

John Maynard Smith:

Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by nonbiologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.

What a recommendation for a theory!

In fact, if you really pay attention to what he is saying, and accept it, you might start to wonder how evolution could have created anything as intricate as a human being.

Evolution couldn't possibly have done so. It's major crutch (natural selection) has broken down, and was shown to be broken down a long time ago (1968), by Mootoo Kimura, later King et al, and more recently by Lynch. Koonin hammered it fiercely too.

Here's Kimura again: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v267/n5608/abs/267275a0.html

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]ACCORDING to the neutral mutation–random drift hypothesis of molecular evolution and polymorphism1,2, most mutant substitutions detected through comparative studies of homologous proteins (and the nucleotide sequences) are the results of random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations. This is in sharp contrast to the orthodox neo-Darwinian view that practically all mutant substitutions occurring within species in the course of evolution are caused by positive Darwinian selection3–5. [/FONT]

So, says Kimura, they can mutate all they want - but the mutations are not fixed by Darwinian selection ie natural selection.

In other words, natural selection as purveyed by barbarian, is pure eyewash.

Now that is what I call really bad news for evolution.

If natural selection, on which Darwin pinned such hopes, for which Kettlewell cooked so much data, and on which almost all the evolutionary writers depend, is a major fabrication, or at least far too heavily leaned upon, then what's left?

Zero. Nothing. No evolution.

And common sense tells us so. Look, for example, at the peacock. If natural selection was correct, then it should not exist at all. It can't really fly, it can't fight, and it certainly can't hide! So why does it still exist? Natural selection has no answer to give - because it's as dead as a dodo.

So let's not allow barbarian to kid us into thinking that all is well with evolution. It has failed in so many instances that only bluff and handwaving can save it.

Just look at his previous post. With a wave of the hand, and a hugely empty promise, he dismisses the mighty Cambrian Explosion, with its millions of new species, which appear in the geological blink of an eye.

Where did they come from?

Well they didn't arrive on the wings of natural selection and mutation, that's for sure, Kimura says.

So where DID they come from? Creation, of course.

Kicking and screaming all the way, the evolutionists are being dragged by the nose through the dirt, in which they have been digging for the last 150 years and more.

I pity them.

 

[Barbarian]

I know you're going to be disappointed, but seeing as how that was an affidavit to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT where there are serious penalties for perjury,

But there are no penalties at all for not knowing what you're talking about, which was the case with Kenyon. I've actually done graduate work in the field of evolution and populations. Kenyon has not.

while you're just some random dude on the internet with prior commitments to evolution

Who happens to actually know the field. That does give me a considerable advantage over Kenyon, as you see.

I think I will trust Kenyon knew what he was talking about.

That's what keeps creationism alive, for the time being.

 

[Barbarian]

talkorigins on Gould and species:

Gould:
But are these Linnaean species, recognized by independent cultures, merely temporary configurations of the moment, mere way stations on evolutionary lineages in continual flux? I argue ... that, contrary to popular belief, evolution does not work this way, and that species have a "reality" through time to match their distinctness at a moment.

In other words, they DON'T EVOLVE!

Gould says they do:
For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

This is really a moot point, anyway, since most creationists with any education, agree that speciation is a fact.

An average species of fossil invertebrates lives five to ten million years (terrestrial vertebrates have shorter average durations). During this time, they rarely change in any fundamental way.

In other words, they DON'T EVOLVE!

According to Darwin, a well-adapted population in a stable envirionment shouldn't evolve. As Gould points out:

In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

In the first place, he claims that the palaeontologists are right, and that there are no transitional fossils worthy of the name.

Well, let's take a another look at that article you read...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
(Your source)

So, it seems your assumption is not supported.

How foolish for a man of this calibre to talk such nonsense. If there aren't any intraspecific transitional fossils, then how can there be all these transitionals above that level? Where do they come from?

Let's see what he says...

We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years.
(your source)

Speciation usually occurs in small, isolated populations (for reasons we discusssed earlier, but if you don't remember it, I'll go over the math with you again) in a relatively short period of time. Remember the difference between directional and stabilizing selection? That's why. And this is directly observed today. Part of PE was inspired by Mayr's findings on species and populations.

He doesn't know, and is covering his back, back-tracking because he recognises just how damaging punctuated equilibrium really is to evolution theory!

Gould's theory is entirely Darwinian; Huxley discussed the same issue shortly after Darwin's book was published, and pointed out that the theory supported the idea of pacing in evolution that could be fast or slow, as Darwin suggested in his book.

(John Maynard Smith doesn't like Gould)

And so...? It's probably more to the point that PE is generally accepted and taught in evolution courses today; that's a much more convincing statement about what scientists think of it, is it not?

In fact, if you really pay attention to what he is saying, and accept it, you might start to wonder how evolution could have created anything as intricate as a human being.

See above.

Evolution couldn't possibly have done so. It's major crutch (natural selection) has broken down, and was shown to be broken down a long time ago (1968), by Mootoo Kimura, later King et al, and more recently by Lynch. Koonin hammered it fiercely too.

As you learned, Koonin declared that the human race would become unfit without natural selection or some devised alternative. You also misunderstood what Kimura said. Indeed, his theory of neutral mutations depends on natural selection to week out the harmful ones. I can show you again, if you like. And of course, you saw that Lynch recognizes that natural selection is an essential part of evolution.

Here's Kimura again: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../267275a0.html

"My theory is not antagonistic to the cherished view that evolution of form and function is guided by Darwinian selection, but it brings out another facet of the evolutionary process by emphasizing the much greater role of mutation pressure and random drift"
Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution

As you see, you've been misled about Kimura's opinions on natural selection.

In other words, natural selection as purveyed by barbarian, is pure eyewash.

See above.

If natural selection, on which Darwin pinned such hopes, for which Kettlewell cooked so much data

Ah, this is great. You're going to show us data instead of edited quotes? By all means, show us how Kettlewell cooked the data. Be careful, though. Jonathan Wells did the "cooking" in his book, and the truth is not what he represented it to be. Show us the data, and we'll take a look at what Kettlewell and Majerus actually got for data.

And common sense tells us so. Look, for example, at the peacock. If natural selection was correct, then it should not exist at all.

In fact, one species already doesn't exist at all. It only survived because there was at one time, enough deep underbrush left to let it avoid large predators. And even then the males had pretty short lifetimes because once they fledged as adults, they had a rather sort time to find a mate and reproduce before being caught. A second species is now about 50% down in population, also because of habitat destruction. Without thicket cover avoided by big cats, they are pretty easy prey.

So let's not allow barbarian to kid us into thinking that all is well with evolution.

As you know, all sciences have problems, which is why there are scientific journals for scientists to report on solving them. This is true of chemistry, physics, and all disciplines. It's just that evolutionary science has progressed relatively rapidly in the last few years, relative to other sciences.

Just look at his previous post. With a wave of the hand, and a hugely empty promise, he dismisses the mighty Cambrian Explosion, with its millions of new species, which appear in the geological blink of an eye.

Actually, the Cambrian started with only a small percent of the total number of species that appeared in the Cambrian. That's a common misconception. There was, as you know, a great increase in species after fully-armored bodies evolved, but there were many species of complex animals prior to the Cambrian. Would you like to learn about that?

Where did they come from?

As we discussed earlier, there were many sorts of precursors to the Cambrian fauna in the Precambrian. The fact that they were soft-bodied made it difficult for early researchers to find them, and so there was this idea that complex metazoans just suddenly appeared in the Cambrian.

Subsequent evidence has shown that to be a false idea.

Well they didn't arrive on the wings of natural selection and mutation, that's for sure, Kimura says.

Surprise. Kimura considers mutation and natural selection to be essential parts of evolutionary processes. His dissent from most other biologists is in believing that neutral processes also have a part to play.

So where DID they come from?

The Vendian precursors to the Cambrian. Shall we talk about those?

Creation, of course.

Of course. It's how He did it that bothers you.

Kicking and screaming all the way, the evolutionists are being dragged by the nose through the dirt, in which they have been digging for the last 150 years and more.