Making a case for evolution: answer to ID advocates

by hamilcarr 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hamilcarr

  To all defenders of intelligent design: it is wrong to assume that evolutionary mechanisms cannot be empirically observed.

  I'll give only one example to show evolution is all around us:

  Fish are becoming smaller and growing more slowly in response to pressures introduced by fishing, scientists say (google Ulf Dieckmann).

  Researchers call this fisheries-induced adaptive change, showing that harvesting drives evolution towards smaller fishes.

  Many people think evolutionary mechanisms require millions of years to bring about such drastic changes and that it is therefore impossible to empirically observe adaptive change.

  It is, however, becoming more and more clear that only two or three decades are needed to provoke large changes, in particular when pressures are high.

  Although some of Darwin's are outmoded and easy targets of ID advocates, these data perfectly fit in with the mechanisms he predicted to steer evolution.
• 

  Gopher

  Hamilcarr, can I offer you a big welcome (although a little belated) to our forum?

  I enjoyed your post. Since leaving the JW's, I have been questioning everything I learned before, including the notion that every species was specially created by a deity. I've learned that both in the fossil record and even now in current experience, change and evolution are constant. The more information we have (such as what you present), the closer we get to correct conclusions.
• 

  minu

  Welcome Hamilcarr! I too enjoyed your post. Just recently, I've decided that what I was brought up to believe doesn't make 100% sense to me. I'm currently exploring other avenues of thought on god, creation, evolution, etc.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Thanks for your welcome.

  I would like to hear some critical voices too, so, if you are an ID defender, feel free to post a comment.
• 

  Shazard

  Hamilcar... here is my response!
  
  Often ppl does not understand the very word "evolution". There are different meanings ppl attach to the word. In reality when discussed you have to move to another level! To the very core of any organism - DNA
  
  And here is the question. What do you understand Evolution is, coz there are different scenarious!
  
  1. Changes in EXISTING DNA information, kind a "tooning" of organism parameteres. It is known that such things as "size" "color" are regulated by variable genes, by signalling genes. It is like changin property files on software, it is changin properties on your Windows desktop and you can get VERY VERY different sizes, colors, fonts and shapes of your desktop.
  
  2. Are you speaking about DEGRADATING EXISTING information. Like fishes loosing their eye-sight and color when moved from natural environment in some dark cave... and soon you get species which are blind and adapted to this environment as being with eyes does not provide any survival advantage in such environment, but gene mutations which affect eye genes does not affect survival, so actually degradated fishes have better surival value then ones with eyes in dark environment. But I guess you understand that to restore eyesight in such fish you have to restore the very eye gen which is covered by random mutation genetic "noise"
  
  3. Or you are speaking about adding NON EXISTENT genetic information to EXISTING one which provides very new functional traits and organs to the organism. And this process is direceted by RM+NS
  
  ID stands that #1 and #2 is observable in Natural Environment but #3 lacks evidence and more, lacks mathenmatical background and from mathenmatical and IT point of view is just plain wrong as we do not know any naturalistic process which actually creates novel information where it is not presented. Only one really observable case is Intelligent agent. But no Biology or any other discipline has demonstrated Inductive transition from physical 4+1 forces to Intellect, so Intelligence for current state of affairs should be considedered as separate force which acts on matter very differently then other 4+1 (electric, magnetic, weak, strong + gravitation)
  
  Your example is case for #1 and #2 or in Agronomy it is called - Selection!
• 

  hamilcarr

  Hi Shazard,

  I'm glad you posted a reply.

  To answer your question: all three examples you gave are examples of evolution. Some people indeed mix up evolution and evolutionary mechanisms. Strictly spoken, ID'ers are not against evolution, as some posters on this forum seemed to hint at (see previous topics). They are against the theory that evolutionary forces may bring about qualitative changes, i.e. the rise of new species. You're right when asserting that the third case (adding non-existing genetic information to existing one by means of RM and NS) is plain wrong.

  However, it would be wrong to conclude that this important form of evolution doesn't exist at all. RM and NS is only one of the many explanations of evolution. For instance, eukaryotes are believed to have resulted from a symbiosis (a non-Darwinian mechanism) between various sorts of bacterias. This involves adding non-existing genetic information and provides new functional traits and, consequently, brings about qualitative change. Another example is exaptation, as put forth by Gould in opposition to adaptation. This means that EXISTENT genetic information is used in different ways according to the context in which it is placed. This also leads to new functional traits. Other non-Darwinian mechanisms are epigentic mechanisms and autopoiesis.

  I think that dropping RM & NS in favor of ID isn't the right thing to do, it's maybe the line of least resistance, but it certainly doesn't exclude the existence of natural and more accurate explanations for evolution.

  H.
• 

  Caedes

  The bacterium that eats nylon is a good example of a new ability arising through evolution

  http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
• 

  hamilcarr

  Thanks for your comment, Caedes.

  I think it's a good example to show most functional changes are the result of recombining existing material rather than adding non-existing to material to existent information.
• 

  slacker911

  Actually, you are incorrect Hamilcarr...

  When sequencing the genome of the bacterium that had adapted to consume nylon, it was found that it had acquired an additional thymine nucleotide. Over a relatively short period of time, it had adapted to its environment, and this adaptation was expressed through the generating of additional genetic information.