Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".

John Harshman wrote:

On 6/9/24 4:22 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 6/9/24 5:16 AM, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:32:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

On 2024-06-08 20:51:39 +0000, John Harshman said:
>

On 6/8/24 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

jillery wrote:

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

>
>
The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.
>

IOW - None!

>
>
IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.
>

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

>
>
Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.
>

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
it as "no data".
>
But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".
>
Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden
disappearance.
>
IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

>
Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
>
1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
>
2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
>
3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.

>
Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)

>
>
I like this example:
<https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
>
 From the abstract:
*************************
Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
generations, can be established in only three.
*************************
>
Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.

>
Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.

 >
Species can vary, even to a minor stage of evolution. We can observe this with dogs, pigeons and mice. But we never observe major evolutionary change on the family level. The specific information is not present in the dog genome to evolve into anything with wings they can never evolve out of the dog family into another family.

 So you're saying that because we can only observe things that happen over a short time, nothing more can have happened over a long time?

 >
Things can happen within a family, but nothing at or above family level, because _new_ specific information would be required.

 And what makes you think that evolving wings is an index of what's needed to get to a different family?

 >
That certainly would be evolution at or above family. There is no specific information for this to happen.

 

Furthermore, the origin of DNA and the origin of instructive information can only be theorized. In the real world we actually see the loss of information in DNA, but the origin of  _new_ information in DNA is rarely observed, if ever.

 Not in any way true. New information originates all the time, and we can see it happening frequently. Gene duplication, for example, creates a great amount of new information. Of course your use of "information" is probably as a meaningless buzzword;

 >
I disagree, repeating the same exact statement adds nothing.  In a sentence you inject a second word or series of words no new meaning arises. It means nothing: it means nothing it: means nothing.
 >
I sincerely doubt you have a

definition in mind.

 >
Specific information is instructions, procedure, direction, orders, arrangement.

 

But it must have happened for evolution to be valid. The theory of evolution requires vast amounts of new specific information to arise. But how? From our everyday experiences, instructive information never just appears. Books don't write themselves even if the printing press are automatic and set up to run, randomly selecting letters of the alphabet and printing them. If you trace it back specific information always cones from intelligence. Ten thousands monkeys on keyboards in time of the earth's existence could not write a book of 100 pages with meaning. What is the chances of blindly and randomly selecting from a disordered alphabet and placing the letters in proper A to Z order?

 That's nice. But you see, DNA gets replicated, and replicated genomes differ a bit from their templates. That's where new "information" comes from. Nobody is making that happen. And replication is the opposite of random. No monkeys, no typewriters, just slightly imperfect copying.

 >
OK, but I suppose the edit and repair machinery is off on a tangent.

 

There is one chance in 26 of blindly selecting the A. One chance in 25 of selecting B next, One chance is 24 of select C next, one in 23 of selecting D next, one 22 of E. so we have 26x25x24x23x22 equals 7,893,600. So, just getting the first five (5) letters in the proper order is 1 chance in 7,893,600 and there is 21 letters remaining. Going just through H = 1 chance in 2,999,568,000
>
In in a blind, aimless, random universe what chose the 20 - 22 amino acids from the ones that existed 4000 years ago.

 4000 years ago? Are you really a young-earth creationist??
>

No, my mistake!  I meant 4 billion years ago. But the question was not answered.

 

One might ask can we determine the number of acids that existed on earth 4 billion years ago.

 OK, back to the normal timeline. Do you even pay attention to what you're typing?

 >
Yes usually!

 

But chances are at least 100 existed. So the chance are astronomical as to the random selecting the 20 amino acids from 100. But time is the hero, so given the millions of years anything can happen including selecting these special 20 amino acids. . Looking at the chart below how does mindless random processes "create" the right sequence or order of these amino acids observed in the chart below to fashion proteins and in the precise folding needed. There can be little variation.
So, as I see it, it requires tremendous faith to believe this could happen without any intelligent guidance. Faith I do not have.
>
https://rsscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/read-codon-chart-table.pdf >

That was senseless. Any other sequence, any other ordering of the genetic code, would also produce the same proteins as long as the sequence of the mRNAs being translated was appropriate.

 >
You _know_ better than this.  You are deliberately and purposely trying to frustrate and confuse me! So, as I see it, my time on TO is a complete waste of time!
 >
And there can be

lots of variation in proteins. Have you ever even looked? This is a subject on which you appear so profoundly ignorant that your ideas depend entirely on faith.

 

  Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
of examples of peripheral isolates, notably in a trilobite, Phacops
rana.
>
4. You should know that punctuated equilibria is not very popular with
evolutionary biologists.

>
-- To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

>

>