Yes, but that doesn't mean people will take you seriously.
In order to evolve such a system all you need is for the separate components to be useful. A cell laying still and multiplying is useful enough, so that is the baseline. Then adding a flagella to move randomly so it can move away from its waste product and keep hitting new nutrients is also useful. From there it can start to detect waste and move when it is near waste and stop moving when it is near food. Then yo just continue such steps, not very hard to imagine compared to imagining macro evolution.
But doesn't that reduce to a point where something useful becomes from separate useless components?
In your case, why would a flagella be useful if it's not propelling something? A flagella is only useful as a component of something, but not by itself.
Flagella only exist as components of something, they do not need to and shouldn't exist by themselves. If flagella spontaneously popped into existence and cells picked them up, that would be quite difficult to explain without design, but cells producing flagella because they are useful components makes perfect sense on its own.
I think he's saying, random mutation wouldn't produce all required components at once. One mutation gives you a bit of a flagella, another gives you bit of a nose, but how does the flagella mutation survive to coexist with the nose mutation that makes it useful.
I suspect the answer is that having flagella without a nose is still better than having no flagella. If so it suggests evolution isn't good at accessing groups of mutations that aren't individually beneficial.
Evolution doesn't produce 1st part of the flagellum, second part of the flagellum, third part of the flagellum.
It produces shitty flagellum, better flagellum, good flagellum.
But the problem is we don't see the intermediate forms. So right now you might see a complicated flagellum that has a lot of highly specialized parts that all need eachother, but that is merely a refinement that took place after all the pieces were already there. Like once an arch is complete, all the scaffolding that was holding it up is now vestigial and if it is removed the arch will remain standing.
It seems you may have misunderstood the original argument. The iterative approach suggests increments so minute at each step that they wouldn't significantly impact an organism's survival at any given time. Also given the extremely slow process of evolution and the relatively short number of iterations it is infeasible to suggest such a solution. If a person would like to create an iPhone it's easy to tell them to start with a shitty scrap of metal and work from there. You can make that sort of argument as a solution for creating anything but it is clearly not feasible.
No, I understand the argument, it is just built on a false assumption about how the iterations work. That a change is small does not make its effects insignificant. A single codon change could profoundly alter the protein it encodes, and even a small change to a protein or its expression can have a massive effect on the organism. It's not the structures of an orgnaism that mutate, it's the instructions that generate those structures which mutate. Imagine for example a typo on a blueprint - where there was supposed to be a " instead there is a ' and suddenly instead of an 8 inch air vent, now you have an 8 foot door. There is no intermediate step where you have a useless 2 foot hole.
Evolution is not a slow process, it is an irregular process. The odds of a useful mutation popping up at any given time is low, but once it pops up it's there immediately. Yes, an evolutionary process could never make an iphone, but no is claiming that evolution produced the iphone. The complex systems evolution produces are things where all the changes are individually useful.
>so minute at each step that they wouldn't significantly impact an organism's survival at any given time.
That's the thing. Evolution isn't "survival of the fittest" or even "driven by more efficient anything", evolution is simply; if you die before you pass on your genes, you don't pass on your genes. Over long enough time scales, with large enough populations, with tight enough tolerances and strict enough niches, the system roughly approximates a directed iteration of more efficient parts.
Nothing about evolution prevents carrying forward explicitly negative mutations! Nothing about evolution prevents carrying completely unused functionality and features! Nothing about evolution guarantees monotonically increasing fitness!
The giraffe has a certain nerve that goes from it's brain, all the way down around it's aorta, back up it's neck, to it's tongue. It does this, because in the fish we all evolved from, such a detour was less than a centimeter longer than an "optimal" path, and as each next generation went in different directions, it's just not that big a deal. A few hundred extra calories in development, and rare instances of a negative injury outcome are just not going to get fixed, because evolution is almost never vigilant. Most higher level animals have mating behaviors that explicitly favor "wasted" energy, including the long neck of giraffes! Sexual selection has a stronger influence on most animals than evolutionary pressure.
> Also given the extremely slow process of evolution and the relatively short number of iterations it is infeasible to suggest such a solution
This is silly. The vast majority of the ground work for complex life was developed by single celled organisms that produced a new generation every half hour, there were billions of these little creatures experiencing basically any possible mutation all the time, and a water droplet with a billion short lived single cells is exactly the kind of tight tolerance, competitive atmosphere where evolution is most prominent!
Evolution is not iteration. Evolution is pruning bad branches in your breadth first tree based algorithm.
Why not? People think in such a short time and amount scale such that we cannot comprehend trillions of cells spending billions of years, iterating. Even a small change can be significant at those scales.
I understand that, but it seems like even the MVP "shitty" flagellum would require many mutations that individually have no benefit. But I suppose with enough generations/parallelism you get enough stacking of useless mutations to reach the useful ones.
That's the thing most people have difficulty wrapping their head around. What you need to remember is it's not the structures evolving, it's the instructions evolving. If for example you have a small molecular pump that the cell uses to suck up sodium ions, and a mutation causes the part of the rotor sticking out of the cell to just be longer, which might be due to a single change to the gene controlling the length of the rotor, then congrats, you now have a shitty flagellum. The mutations don't even need to be useful for the eventual purpose. For example the highly dexterous fingers which enable complex tool use that humans used to conquer the world and with which I type this comment now started out as structural reinforcement for fish fins, absolutely useless for object manipulation. And those reinforcements in turn are just extremely bastardized version of a calcite growth which offered some protection to a soft body organism hundreds of millions of years before.
But again you're starting with a fairly complex system already, the molecular pump.
And my (limited) understanding is that changes that are not useful or helpful would get lost.
And additional to that, if an organism has a pump (which it needs to function properly) and that pump suddenly is no pump, it's a very bad flagellum, that organism has a very big problem. It's like if we swapped our arms for wings. Wings are cool, but we wouldn't be able to fly anyway, and we'd have serious problems as humans with no arms and hands.
> and that pump suddenly is no pump, it's a very bad flagellum, that organism has a very big problem
Cells has many duplicates of pumps, not just one. Switching one of those to a motor to move around the liquids so the pumps can get to new molecules to absorb will be extremely beneficial to the cell, now all pumps are more efficient at just the cost of a single pump.
> But again you're starting with a fairly complex system already, the molecular pump.
Yes, but it's less complex, and it in turn evolved from even simpler forms. The point is a single mutation doesn't need to create a working flagellum from scratch, it just needs to make it from what's already available. Flagella are complex structures that did not arise until after a lot of other things had already developed.
> And my (limited) understanding is that changes that are not useful or helpful would get lost.
This misunderstanding again comes from the distinction between the features and the instructions. If a mutation isn't harmful, it doesn't get reverted and in fact will spread throughout a sizeable fraction of the population. The thing is that without evolutionary pressure as more mutations occur, they will eventually break whatever the original mutation did, so the feature it coded will eventually disappear, though it can take a long time and it may change significantly before it does. There are some caveats though - a gene might code for multiple features, or may exist on a part of the DNA where further mutations are suppressed anyway, and thus even though the feature provides no advantage on its own there will still be evolutionary pressure to preserve the gene, and thus a neutral or even a slightly bad mutation might be retained indefinitely.
> And additional to that, if an organism has a pump (which it needs to function properly) and that pump suddenly is no pump, it's a very bad flagellum, that organism has a very big problem. It's like if we swapped our arms for wings. Wings are cool, but we wouldn't be able to fly anyway, and we'd have serious problems as humans with no arms and hands.
In this particular case, cells have many molecular pumps, so converting some to flagella is not a very big problem. The benefits of a shitty flagellum did outweigh the cost of losing some molecular pumps, but this is a very real limitation to what evolution can produce. Humans certainly won't evolve wings naturally without a lot of other changes happening first. But at the same time wings have evolved - in the case of birds their ancestors evolved an extremely efficient respiratory system more than 100 million years before they took flight, which helped them survive the great dying and subsequently take advantage of the oxygen rich Mesozoic era. Among these a mutation for hollow bones aided agility on the ground, among these adaptations for feathers helped with retaining body heat, among these adaptations for lunging their arms forward helped them grab prey, among these adaptations for tree climbing allowed them to become better ambushers, and it was among these that sacrificing some of their arm capabilities for shitty wings was a net gain.
> cells producing flagella because they are useful components makes perfect sense on its own.
But that's the thing, this sort of implies that a complete flagellum can be spontaneously produced because it's useful, which sort of collides with the parent comment on systems evolving by combining previously useful components.
Flagella aren't useful until they are complete. So intermediate forms should be lost, right?
Would this leave us in a scenario where a single combination of several mutations at the same time suddenly gives you a complete, functional flagellum?
I read a quote once that said “Simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.” I haven't performed the math to back up the quote. As well would it change the time required if the bacteria mutate in parallel rather than in series?
It's the "one at a time" that is the issue here. Evolution is a massively parallel process. If a beneficial mutation happens once every million gnerations, and a generation is 20 minutes, that's a beneficial mutation every 38 years. If you have a million cells, that's a beneficial mutation every 20 minutes. If you have a billion cells, that's 1000 beneficial mutations every 20 minutes. In your body there are around 40 trillion cells. There are something like 10^31 cells on earth.
It's called the plasmid exchange. The search is parallelized to however many individuals there are, which is arbitrarily large, then the result is shared.
I find this to be an incredibly bizarre thing to say. Nobody is stopping you from thinking anything, of course you're allowed and surely you know this very well.
I suspect what you're really saying is "Will you still respect me for being a creationist". And the answer is, LOL of course not. Nobody is entitled to have their wacky ideas be respected. A lot of the "free speech" complaints are really demands that other people treat your bullshit with respect, which is an absurd demand.
But if my suspicion above is way off, please tell me. I am curious why anyone would say what you said.
It’s funny, because the creationists generally feel the exact same about evolutionists.
Both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way. Getting caught up in absolutes thinking your interpretation is the gold standard is a sign of an unrefined critical thinking process.
No, evolution is not faith based. If you want something faith based, which creationism purports to resolve, it would be if someone has a strong belief on how abiogenesis actually happened, since that is something that is still not well understood. But, we see evolution happening all around us, all the time.
It most certainly is. Evolutionists believe in the time invariance of the laws of physics with no proof, creationists believe the processes by why things have changed in the universe (“physics”, broadly) have changed over time, also with no proof. That there is some external influence that we cannot directly observe that has some massive impact on the development of the universe in ways we cannot explain.
(Funnily, physics have come to acknowledge the same, but they call it dark matter and say it’s all very scientific, whatever it is. But this is unknown enough to be not worth much discussion.)
Regarding the evolution we see around us all the time, I and many creationists besides me have full confidence in the idea that micro-evolution does occur. That there is a stochastic gradient decent process that hones in on time-varying local maxima over generations cannot really be denied. But that provides absolutely no answer to the questions of abiogenesis and speciation en-masse.
The reason we believe in time invariance of the laws of physics is based on observation of old structures in the universe (at least we only have to look back about 4 billion years to the beginning of evolution on earth). So far we have not found any convincing evidence that the laws have changed (either new or different interactions, or the strength of the interactions).
I will say all of science is based on faith- the faith that the human mind can perceive the universe as it truly is, using rational thought and experimental data collection. For some reason this really bothers some scientists and they like to treat science as an unquestionable objective truth, but realistically, we can't exclude any number of hypotheses, but merely state them as improbable based on our understanding.
I fear you are failing to comprehend how fundamental the axiom in question (is the universal state influenced by actors beyond our comprehension?) really is. There is no experiment that can answer it, any and all observations must be looked at under a lens that is fundamentally influenced by your answer to the question.
We can certainly say that the observations look like they may have progressed at the rate we expect for the past 13 billion years, but that does nothing to exclude the possibility that around 6,000 years ago some actor we do not understand took 1 week to craft everything we observe now to be precisely how it is.
Reading your final paragraph, I believe we are more aligned than I previously thought. :)
Some might. There are many branches and leaves in both the evolutionist and creationist worldview trees. That axiom is simply a fairly significant trunk-branch.
That said, it is very rare that I hear someone describing themselves as Christian who denies the general 7 day creation story. I happen to personally believe it was seven consecutive days^, but I've heard arguments it could have been seven days with an unknown gap in-between each pair.
^ "day" being the most morally-understandable way of describing the intervals at which the creation occurred. Obviously there was no sun or even light at first, so the concept of a day itself is shaky, and I make no claims as to how many cesium-133 transitions may have occurred in that period, or how far light might have travelled in one of them once it was created, or the magnitude of the various fundamental forces' impact on matter in that period, or really anything related to our understanding of how the dynamics we currently observe may have behaved in those intervals.
Yep, and CS Lewis was religious as well- didn't stop me from enjoying the creation of narnia in the Magician's Nephew. It did stop me from enjoying the Last Battle, as that was too egregious.
Oh they really aren't. Its sort of a tired rhetorical ploy pitting them as faith based beliefs on equal intellectual footing though.
Both are theories about the world. 'Creationism' as a theory really only became pure faith very recently as most specific claims attributable to it have been disproven or better explanations have been found. For a long time it was a perfectly cogent theory.
This is objectively false. Evolution explains absolutely nothing creationism doesn’t, and creationism explains a whole lot that evolution cannot. For instance, universal origins and the formation of cells.
You don't have to take evolution on faith. You can write a computer program that demonstrates that selection among almost-but-not-quite identical entities with heritable properties generates adaptive forms. Many people have.
DNA is real. Reproducing lifeforms are real. We know how they work in some detail. There's no faith required.
How so? For that to happen you'd need to have the usual "evolution-is-science-and-creationism-is-religion-which-denies-science" stance, no?
There are creationist scientists, there is "creationism-proving", or at the very least allow "creationism-compatible" evidence in science, and so on. Let's reduce it even more, science hasn't been able to disprove Creation.
Believing "God did it" should not invalidate science, wanting to understand more, and actually making experiments. On the contrary, it should encourage it, as it did with many scientists who, in a way, brought us to where we are.
And as other commenters say, your computer program would prove absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, primarily because micro-evolution (which can easily be understood as a feature of Creation) does certainly not imply macro-evolution or abiogenesis.
Please understand the discussion at hand before commenting. Nobody is denying the existence of small-scale "micro-evolution" that subtly guides species into local optima. The question is of abiogenesis and mass-speciation, topics evolutionism has been thoroughly unable to explain, despite many attempts.
I do understand the discussion. You don't seem to understand what explanation is. Saying "God did it" doesn't explain the origin of life. We may never have a scientific explanation for how life arose. It may be that it was an act of God (which, for what it's worth, I personally believe) but that doesn't explain it. There are limits to human knowledge, and faith transcends those limits. You seem to confuse faith and science and put them in some sort of competition with each other, they're not, they are both approaches to the Truth.
You are using the evolutionist's definition of "explain", which is not applicable to the creationist's interpretation of reality. Under the evolutionists view, there is no actor with the ability to alter universal state besides those physical laws which we currently observe. Thus, any change in universal state that has ever occurred would naturally be able to be "explained" by providing a detailed step-by-step rundown of how those laws interacted with universal state S until it reached universal state S'. Under creationism, this definition is nonsense: any change in state can occur at any time based on the whims of the unknown actor, no further rationale is necessary or indeed possible.
Accordingly, if we take a definition of "explain" which does not assume a particular interpretation of the fundamental axiom (as we should, when that axiom is the very thing under debate), my statement is perfectly valid: That actor which we cannot fathom made it so. Thus, it is.
Could you show us an experiment that would demonstrate creationism is a better explanation than evolution (and random chance) for the formation of cells? If you can't come up with an actual experiment, there's really no way to say that creationism "explains" something.
Creationism explains everything very simply: "X is the way it is because God ordained it to be". There is no need to experimentally verify, its existence is the proof. In general, the need for experimental evidence is only present when you've accepted the lack of external intervention as axiomatic. When that very axiom is under debate, experimentalism is entirely irrelevant.
Not to mention, anything I present as being evidence of intelligence being more able to produce functional complexity than randomness you would reinterpret as "randomness-that-produced-something-that-look-like-intelligence producing functional complexity better than randomness-that-doesnt-look-like-intelligence".
You're trying to package your religion as something which it isn't. Creationism is Christian theology, not science. People know this. On some level, you know this.
Of course I know that. And further I know evolutionism is the same. Indeed I opened this entire thread with the statement: "both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way."
It would seem you are not paying attention to what is actually being said.
In fact, I'm not. Science covers the field of things which can be observed and explained via repeatable tests. The concept of micro-evolution is well within the purview of science, as we can and have observed small changes in populations based on environmental conditions, and we have established many repeatable tests of such phenomena.
Macro-evolution (what I call evolutionism), on the other hand, has never been scientifically observed, explained, tested, or anything of the sort. It is an attempt at creating a fanciful story of how things came to be by extrapolating back from what we see now in entirely unrigorous, untestable, unobservable ways. It fits much more squarely in the category of History, Mythology, and indeed Theology (aTheology?) than "Science".
What a bizarre loop to find oneself caught in. So sure the other person is lying, but thoroughly unable to come up with any evidence to show for it. And unwilling or unable to consider the implications of that lack of evidence.
And people say religious folks are the brainwashed ones!
That's cool and all, but do you give an equal amount of credit to Young Earth Creationists and regular creationists? Because both are equally based in faith. It is equally possible some holy being made fake dinosaur bones 6000 years ago to fool us, and no amount of scientific rigor can compete with a being with the foresight to know exactly how we would test the bones. At what point is "umm we obviously have evidence these bones are over 6000 years old" thinking in absolutes? In the meantime, I'm willing to be disrespected for thinking both forms of creationism are equally woo-woo in comparison to evolutionary theory.
It’s important to understand why we think the bones are over 6,000 years old, and especially consider what assumptions we make in determining that age. Most importantly, the time invariance of physics.
Really it boils down to whether you believe the laws of physics we observe now have been constant throughout time. If you do you’re called an evolutionist, if you don’t you’re called a creationist. Neither side has any proof, nor is any proof fundamentally possible.
Then please provide a consistent with observations theory on how physics has changed with time. Or do you have to throw thermodynamics out the window because you've gone and screwed causality? One side has a whole bunch of consistent observational evidence. The other side has a lot of frantic handwaving and inconsistent data points.
The point being is, creationists have zero idea why they think 6,000 is some magic number in this case, other than bob said so in a book. But yea, books are written by men and men are liars. Even looking at things like RNA/DNA mutation rates in known species it's pretty damned easy to see that things have been around a whole lot longer than 6k years.
> looking at things like RNA/DNA mutation rates in known species it's pretty damned easy to see that things have been around a whole lot longer than 6k years
Again, please understand the underlying assumptions you are making when you concoct statements like this. Namely: DNA/RNA started as a single form and has mutated at a constant rate since then. You have no evidence to support that, and I disagree with every component of it.
Then lay down a dissertation that at least provides some evidence you're correct.
Also, any guesses on why the 'modern' age is suddenly going in slow motion. Not exactly sure how you're going to pull that off without breaking chemistry completely.
God designing us in an emergent manner or through a static blueprint are the same thing. Someone had to create the laws, the genetic algorithm idea itself and all of these components and the environment for it to operate within never mind things like colors, matter etc. Evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees.
Then that's not believing in creationism, that's believing in evolution. You wouldn't "not believe in fusion theory" because you believe God created the sun through the process of inventing a universe that sustains nuclear reactions. You would just believe in fusion, as a part of God's creation.
This is unknown and a quite anthropomorphic view on the universe. Just because we can create things doesn't mean we ourselves were created, even in the way you're talking about in the First Mover argument.
