Design and Nested Hierarchies

[T.j_Runyon]

@Chris_Falter

I do believe there is valid way to invoke Paley’s watchmaker argument. The watch is not the DNA sequences or the eukaryotic cell; the watch is evolution and its highly complex and interrelated mechanisms. This is a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one, but I find it compelling.

This is interesting. I’d like to see this developed a bit more

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

If you read a little further he gives this example.

And in his analogy, what are the green bricks, the brown bricks, and the shots supposed to be corresponding to in real biology?

I look into the genome of some organism, or a collection of organisms. What do I see that corresponds to green bricks, to brown bricks, and to shots? What is the analogy an analogy of?

[John_Harshman]

@Chris_Falter

I do believe there is valid way to invoke Paley’s watchmaker argument. The watch is not the DNA sequences or the eukaryotic cell; the watch is evolution and its highly complex and interrelated mechanisms.

I think the problem with that is that evolution is inevitable given inheritance with imperfect replication. No watchmaker is required for it.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

I think the problem with that is that evolution is inevitable given inheritance with imperfect replication. No watchmaker is required for it.

With all due respect, the truth is that DEvolution, not evolution, is inevitable given inheritance with imperfect replication. This is what Sanford has shown in his book « Genetic Entropy » as well as in his recent publication below where he and Basener demonstrate mathematically that given a realistic distribution of good and bad mutations, a population’s fitness will decrease over time.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Basener/publication/320909986_The_fundamental_theorem_of_natural_selection_with_mutations/links/5a2067014585158865c4f0cd/The-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations.pdf?origin=publication_detail

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

With all due respect, the truth is that DEvolution, not evolution, is inevitable given inheritance with imperfect replication.

Sorry but that is simply wrong as evidenced by this simple model.

Sanford’s “genetic entropy” has been thoroughly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. The paper you site does not accurately model evolution because it uses a constant, non-changing environment. In the real world environments are always changing and providing new opportunities for evolution to explore with new variations.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

With all due respect, the truth is that DEvolution, not evolution, is inevitable given inheritance with imperfect replication.

If we grant that Sanford is correct about this, how do you explain the continued existence of life over the course of many millions of years?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@John_Harshman

If we grant that Sanford is correct about this, how do you explain the continued existence of life over the course of many millions of years?

This is an interesting question that opens the way to an interesting research program.

[John_Harshman]

That was a non-answer that closes the way to any further conversation.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

This is an interesting question that opens the way to an interesting research program.

So John Sanford has a result of some theoretical calculations that implies life could not have existed for billions of years. Yet we have overwhelming evidence that life has existed for billions of years.

A priori, isn’t it just more likely that Sanford has made an error?

Also, didn’t we already have an entire thread about that?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

This is an interesting question that opens the way to an interesting research program.

Then why aren’t you, Sanford, or anyone else doing any of this allegedly interesting research?

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

With all due respect, the truth is that DEvolution, not evolution, is inevitable given inheritance with imperfect replication. This is what Sanford has shown in his book « Genetic Entropy » as well as in his recent publication below where he and Basener demonstrate mathematically that given a realistic distribution of good and bad mutations, a population’s fitness will decrease over time.

Reminds me of the apocryphal story of the engineers and the bumble bee. As the story is told, the engineers created a model of bee flight demonstrating that the bumble bee shouldn’t be able to fly, and yet it did. What did this mean? It means the engineers were wrong.

When the model does not match up to reality, it is the model that is wrong. This is the case with Sanford’s Genetic Entropy. His claims lead to the conclusion that animals with short generation times, like fruit flies or rabbits, should have died off just a few hundred years after leaving Noah’s ark. This didn’t happen, obviously.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Rumraket

So John Sanford has a result of some theoretical calculations that implies life could not have existed for billions of years.

No, Sanford mathematical analysis doesn’t implies life could not have existed for billions of years. Rather, it implies that life could not have evolved through the RV/NS mechanism. And so we have to look for another explanation.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

Rather, it implies that life could not have evolved through the RV/NS mechanism.

But is it true? That’s the question. Where has Sanford applied his work to actual populations to show that it works?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

No, Sanford mathematical analysis doesn’t implies life could not have existed for billions of years. Rather, it implies that life could not have evolved through the RV/NS mechanism. And so we have to look for another explanation.

Stanford’s latest paper did not model actual evolution. It’s classic Creationist GIGO. In fact it seems very similar to his hopelessly bad “Mendel’s Accountant” program he produced a few years back which was also supposed to disprove evolution.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Giltil

in his recent publication below where he and Basener demonstrate mathematically that given a realistic distribution of good and bad mutations, a population’s fitness will decrease over time.

If the math is anything like what he presented in support of his lifespan decay curve, it will not support his conclusion. His use of non-linear regression there was completely crackpot. Why should I waste further time on him?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

What about the following 3 hypothesis ?

• the front loading hypothesis
• the hypothesis of infusion of information at certain points in the history of life
• the hypothesis that life is not as old as we think it is

[Timothy_Horton]

What about them?

Go test them, publish the results to let us know what you found.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Timothy_Horton

Go test them, publish the results to let us know what you found.

The RV/NS mechanism has been tested and it failed. So I invite its proponents to brainstorm in order to find new more promising avenues.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

The RV/NS mechanism has been tested and it failed.

Reference please. A legitimate one. Sanford’s YEC idiocy is not evidence.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@RonSewell

If the math is anything like what he presented in support of his lifespan decay curve, it will not support his conclusion. His use of non-linear regression there was completely crackpot. Why should I waste further time on him?

Contrary to his lifespan decay curve, his mathematical analysis of the Fisher theorem has been peer reviewed.