Yes, this is what I meant by "mutations acting upon such genetic information and biology", although if I were more careful I'd reword this to something more like "mutations happening in genetic information." It's not so much that "mutations" act (like say Natural Selection acts), but more meant the genetic information is needed for mutations to occur. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with you you've written; but it does accentuate my point that this "critical mass" (which I'll try explain below) is needed in order for the main evolutionary mechanisms (NS acting upon mutations) to do their thing.
Ofcourse genetic code is needed for it to be garbled but it doesn't need to be predefined. Let's say I throw a handful of marbles on the ground and they land in a specific order, random one I didn't arrange them. And then a passing you, kicks one marble slightly off path, now the order is again random but a different random then the random before. That is what I think happens when the four chemicals AGCT of our dna shaped up and factors like radiation (you) kicked one or two pieces off the way. You are assuming that the information that mutates must be predefined and I am saying it doesn't need to. And I think that is why we disagree.
It could be a random arrangement out of millions which just happened to perform a cellular function among many that can't. That is how mutations work anyway, the idea that an eye formed via mutation where there was none before is ridiculous. Or wings just popped out. The eye formed in stages and, with no blueprint to form an eye, that is important to acknowledge. Mutations to the eye only gave way to whichever function worked best at the moment and if that survived it evolved further. That is why eyes have evolved separately in many species and are obviously different but took such long times.
I'd like to respond to this, and really, when we're talking psudeogenes, I find biologists start thinking themselves theologians. They raise theological arguments to do with God and God's design rather than focus on evolution. Trying to prove evolution through falsifying what they see as an outrageous competing position (aka certain creation positions). Falsification of another position, doesn't prove your own position (someone should tell that to Jerry Coyne
).
You are right but that has no effect on the evidence itself, no matter what Jerry thinks.
There is an often made formal fallacy by many evolutionary scientists too, that is, affirming the consequent. Note, the following logic doesn't follow:
1) If P then Q
2) Q is true
3) Therefore P
It's easy to do, I'm sure I've done it, we all do it. So then, let me substitute in the argument from the egg-yolk gene found in humans that is apparently non-functional.
1) If 'we are descended from reptiles' then 'we should carry non-functional genes'.
2) We do carry non-functional genes (Vitellogenin "egg-yolk" genes)
3) Therefore, these egg-yolk making sequences we carry are left over from when our ancestors delinked from reptiles
Note, the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument presented. Yes, you do have a confirmed prediction, and one that might be quite troubling for those who believe God created life forms. It is good evidence, but it is not equivalent to proving that we are descended from reptiles.
That indeed is a poor argument and I am glad science doesn't do that. If you look up in detail you will see that the next step is to find CA's and see if they carry it and how far back does it go. Does it land us anywhere near a common ancestor? There will be a slew of creatures which should carry the traits or genes at important branchings in the TOL which they do.
The proper argument is:
1) If 'we are BRANCHED from reptiles' then 'we MAY carry non-functional genes' and our nearest and MRCAs MAY show that. And reptiles may carry non-functional genes too when they branched from amphibians and apmphibians may carry the same when they branched off from fish. And we must see if their MRCAs carry the gene in the same way.
The beauty is that all life does the same. It isn't an isolated case at all.
2) We do carry non-functional genes and our MCRAs do to. The same way all the other species do to.
3) Therefore, non-functional genes we carried over gradual generations are left over from when our ancestors delinked from reptiles, because the more we go back the more functional they become.
That is not affirming the consequent, k. It is as close to evidence and the nature of it that you can get and I am sorry but I don't know how else to view it.
[img]
https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/asse ... cestor.gif
[/img]
if the image doesn'y open properly please see this link:
https://www.evogeneao.com/learn/tree-of-life
Is it prove? I doubt there will ever be enough for anyone.
One thing I find troubling with evolutionary theory as scientists use it, is that if a sequence is not the case, then evolution can account for that too. Evolution is used to explain a wide range of observable features, that's great right? The downside is that it becomes less falsifiable, and in doing so, evidential arguments are less forceful. If it can explain A, and B, and C, then when we find 'C' it isn't compelling evidence for the theory.
But that is exactly what a good theory does, that it explains a lot of things. And no, contrary to what you say it is completely falsifiable but not with rational thinking alone because it isn't based on it. It's based on evidence. Find contrary evidence and it will crumble down.
Of course, things like the yolk sac, and egg-yolk gene, this particular apparently non-functional psuedogene, when I bring such information back to my theological beliefs, and beliefs on creation, I need to work through it in order for my beliefs to be consistent with reality. Any rationalist, which I consider myself as being, ought to and, that I believe I do best as I can.
Ofcourse, that I understand. I respect it because it's sincere, otherwise I think you are wrong in overlooking the details and how neatly they fit.
A "critical mass" of such genomic information is required. A critical mass of "life", and I'd say "life forms", is required before natural selection can work its magic. Otherwise, there can be no mutations. First, an accumulation of life is necessary, an accumulation of genetic information within populations (and by all accounts being qualified in Information Technology, I think I'm fit to see that such is clearly "information" on different levels), then once this is had speciation can take place via natural selection acting upon mutations
That is again where we disagree. what you call information is just a random arrangement of the DNA molecule which is helping it or killing it. I think the word information is loaded with the connotation of having been predefined which is why I don't think we should use it anymore than we should say God has a beard the connotation being that he made humans in his own image.
Back to the point, the arrangement of the AGCT is either simple or complex, it doesn't matter, it's rearrangment is producing results where some are helpful, others are not. And it isn't based on prebuilt designs nor information, nor it has a purpose to design. It is what helps it survive at the moment and increase is what has a greater chance to evolve further. Please refer back to the marbles example, and when it reshapes you get something different, maybe your kick broke a piece into two and now we have two odd shaped pieces forming a different shape than before. My point is there is no need for a critical mass, you don't need critical mass at all. It is an unnecessary assumption.
A finch remains a finch, the Italian lizard as it lizard, despite these adapative changes. It's like they have an elastic band on them, which allows them to travel inches and not miles.
Ofcourse they will remain a finch and a lizard. what else will they be. I really think you should look into detail how the TOL branches out. The actual scenario is that two finch species will eventually pan out to different species and lineages if there is pressure and corresponding mutations with it. If not, they will not evolve pass the normal variation.
Hugh is right on his remark on your elastic band. The same processes which rearrange DNA and similar are what leads to other genetic traits. But they build upon each other, just as the TOL explains. Wings don't pop out in a single generation. They happen when inches gradually turn into miles.
Just my thoughts, K.
