How Does Biological Evolution Deal With This?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@scd

indeed. but isnt that program the result of design in the first place?

I knew you were going to say this!! But what about a wooden robot??

[Chris_Falter]

@scd

isnt that program the result of design in the first place?

Absolutely. In the same way that a computational evolutionary algorithm is designed, evolutionary dynamics in the biological domain are, in my opinion, designed.

This does not mean, contra Behe, that evolutionary dynamics are unable to create “irreducible complexity.” This does not mean that evolutionary dynamics cannot create new information. This does not mean evolutionary dynamics cannot avoid genetic entropy in large populations. This does not mean evolutionary dynamics cannot create a new body plan.

My stance is that the creator of the universe created chemistry and physics in such a way that the biology we observe would happen. In that sense, I believe the evolutionary dynamics are designed.

My $.02,
Chris Falter

[DaleCutler]

@Michael_Callen

I’m just wondering about these and other visual adaptations and the thoughts that are evoked when one sees something that seems to be so intentionally matched (camouflage to the environment) like this.

It helps a lot to be an evolutionary providentialist. Then one can say, “Father creates things for our enjoyment.”

I enjoy his providence(!), as demonstrated here. I even enjoyed it with respect to my kidney cancer, too, some may recall.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@scd

Why would we need to ask that, scd? What makes you assume that those pigments are proteins?

because if the chance of that is very low it makes more sense that they are the result of design rather than natural process.

What makes you assume that those pigments are proteins?

@scd

so what makes you think that the chance that such a shape will exist in the first place is high?

What makes you assume that those pigments are proteins?

You wrote,

@Mercer

we also need to ask what is the chance that these shapes\colors will exist in the genome in the first place.

The only way they can “exist in the genome” in any sense is if they are proteins.

What makes you assume that those pigments are proteins?

@scd

the second problem is how many changes are needed for such a camouflage (in the octopus case).

The octopus does it on the fly.

@scd

as a designer, can you make a system that can make you almost invisible in a second by small steps?

I don’t see what that has to do with my question.

What makes you assume that those pigments are proteins?

It seems to me that you have a strong tendency to make false assumptions.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Michael_Callen

If I were to paint a picture of a leaf, it would be intentional. If I were to dip a brush into paint and flick the brush toward a canvas, the paint would splatter onto the canvas. One could ask observers what the pattern reminded them of… whatever it reminded them of would merely appear to be an image of such. In the former example, the image would intentionally be of such.

If you were to do so a million times and I chose the 5 most leaflike splatters and showed them to you, would you infer that you intended to paint images of leaves, or is the intention in my selection?

@Michael_Callen

This is exactly what “appear to look like” means. One is by chance, the other by purpose.

Absolutely not. Natural selection isn’t “chance.”

[scd]

@Mercer

What makes you assume that those pigments are proteins?

they dont need to be. but im sure that these parts works with proteins and these proteins are needed for that function.

@Mercer

The octopus does it on the fly.

im talking about genentic changes.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@scd

What makes you assume that those pigments are proteins?

they dont need to be.

Then why did you assume they were?

@scd

but im sure that these parts works with proteins and these proteins are needed for that function.

You had written:

@scd

we also need to ask what is the chance that these shapes\colors will exist in the genome in the first place.

Therefore, it makes a huge difference whether the pigments are proteins. If not, they don’t “exist in the genome” at all.

Are you retracting that claim, or just doing the Gish Gallop?

@scd

The octopus does it on the fly.

im talking about genentic changes.

But if you don’t know if the pigments are proteins or not, you have no idea what genetic (or geneNtic) changes would be involved.

[scd]

@Mercer

Therefore, it makes a huge difference whether the pigments are proteins. If not, they don’t “exist in the genome” at all.

agree. so lets move on to the main part…

@Mercer

But if you don’t know if the pigments are proteins or not, you have no idea what genetic (or genetic) changes would be involved.

forgot the colors. im talking about the the camouflage system itself. if you have seen the movie “predator” im sure that you remember the predator camouflage system and how impressive it was. so here we have something very similar in nature and im sure that we need at least several genes for this system.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@scd

forgot the colors.

You forgot them?

@scd

so here we have something very similar in nature and im sure that we need at least several genes for this system.

New genes? Not at all. But then, what do I know next to you? I’m just a guy who studied the molecular motors that move and tether the pigment granules for decades.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Mercer

If you were to do so a million times and I chose the 5 most leaflike splatters and showed them to you, would you infer that you intended to paint images of leaves, or is the intention in my selection?

This is the point that I was making as well. The pattern did not evolve as a leaf on purpose (that is to say, evolution did not intend to make the picture of a torn leaf.) It ended up being selected over time, as the millions of iterations drifted more toward an image that looked like the bug’s surroundings.

@Mercer

Absolutely not. Natural selection isn’t “chance.”

Sorry, “chance” was an unfortunate choice of words.

[scd]

@Mercer

New genes? Not at all.

https://www.nature.com/news/octopus-genome-holds-clues-to-uncanny-intelligence-1.18177

“Scientists identified six genes for proteins called reflectins, which are expressed in an octopus’s skin. These alter the way light reflects from the octopus, giving the appearance of a different colour — one of several ways that an octopus can disguise itself, along with changing its texture, pattern or brightness.”

so maybe these colors need genes after all. but lets assume that they dont need and lets assume that we dont even need new genes but only changes on existing genes. how many changes are needed for such a system to evolve? even if we assume only 3 changes on 3 different genes it might take a lot of time.

my second problem is what is the chance to such a system will exist in the first place. we know that a camouflage system is evidence for design. so what is the chance that such a sophisticated system will exist in the genome in the first place? even if evolution is true it doesnt change this chance.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@scd

“Scientists identified six genes for proteins called reflectins, which are expressed in an octopus’s skin. These alter the way light reflects from the octopus, giving the appearance of a different colour — one of several ways that an octopus can disguise itself, along with changing its texture, pattern or brightness.”

FYI
“Origin of the Reflectin Gene and Hierarchical Assembly of Its Protein”
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30965-X

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd

my second problem is what is the chance to such a system will exist in the first place. we know that a camouflage system is evidence for design.

No we don’t. We know that, in a very few rare instances, camouflage can be the result of “design”. That is an important difference to appreciate.

@scd

so maybe these colors need genes after all. but lets assume that they dont need and lets assume that we dont even need new genes but only changes on existing genes. how many changes are needed for such a system to evolve?

You are again starting from faulty assumptions. All we need is a system of some sort that results in colour. There are very few things in the universe that do not have colour. It is a very easy think to achieve, it would seem.

[scd]

@evograd

“Origin of the Reflectin Gene and Hierarchical Assembly of Its Protein”

first; they only assume that this protein evolved from a transposon. second: does that transposon has different function? also rememer that we are talking about several such genes and not just one. so how its suppose to evolve stepwise?

@Faizal_Ali

No we don’t. We know that, in a very few rare instances, camouflage can be the result of “design”

in rare cases? are you assuming that all camouflage systems in nature are the result of natural process?

@Faizal_Ali

All we need is a system of some sort that results in colour.

its not just colors but also a system that can control these colors in a second.

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd

in rare cases? are you assuming that all camouflage systems in nature are the result of natural process?

No, I am accepting the overwhelming evidence that this is the case.

You stated “we know that a camouflage system is evidence for design.” I have no idea how many examples of camouflage there are among fish, reptiles, birds, insects. mammals, molluscs, etc. etc. But it would not surprise me if it numbered in the hundreds of thousands. The only species in which it can be demonstrated to have arisen thru “design” is H. sapiens. So your claim is not even remotely true.

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd

its not just colors but also a system that can control these colors in a second.

The insect pictured in the first post in this discussion did not achieve that appearance “in a second.”

[scd]

@Faizal_Ali

The insect pictured in the first post in this discussion did not achieve that appearance “in a second.”

indeed. im talking about the octopus case. and if such a system need about 3 new specific mutations i see it as a potential problem for a natural process.

[Faizal_Ali]

@scd

indeed. im talking about the octopus case. and if such a system need about 3 new specific mutations i see it as a potential problem for a natural process.

There is no problem. Assuming you are correct (Hah!) that this particular trait required those “3 new specific mutations” and they didn’t happen, then this particular trait would not exist. And…?

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

and if such a system need about 3 new specific mutations i see it as a potential problem for a natural process.

You only call them specific after they happen, which is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@scd

we know that a camouflage system is evidence for design.

Animals are fine with eating others, but oh no, they sure don’t want to be eaten. All camouflage revolves around either facilitating a meal or avoiding being another’s dinner. Sometimes the strategy is opposite to camouflage. Poisonous animals are often as conspicuous as possible to advertise, make no mistake, this would be your last meal. That avoidance being established, some animals which are not actually poisonous mimic the gaudy coloration of poisonous relatives, and so are left alone. All of this blending in and standing out is solely based on two brutal truths of nature. One, if you are eaten, you are digested and die. Two, if you do not eat, you starve and die.

So my question is, how can you appeal to direct divine purposeful design of appearance, particular to each species, when it serves no other purpose than enabling such a nasty existence?