Behe's argument in Darwin Devolved

#81
I'd still like to know more about these HAR's, TES. The block which gets inserted, does it seem to have existed elsewhere in the genome before the insertion, or does it seem to have appeared from nowhere?

David
 
#82
I'd still like to know more about these HAR's, TES. The block which gets inserted, does it seem to have existed elsewhere in the genome before the insertion, or does it seem to have appeared from nowhere?

David
Non-precedented/non-GenBank, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic, fatally improbable happenstance of novel advantageous first-time ergodicity inside an absence of genetic pressure - occurring over and over and over and over and over.

This is called Ordination (and of course Acceleration). Darwin did not address either of these.
 
Last edited:
#83
Non-precedented/non-GenBank, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic, fatally improbable happenstance of novel advantageous first-time ergodicity inside an absence of genetic pressure - occurring over and over and over and over and over.

This is called Ordination (and of course Acceleration). Darwin did not address either of these.
I'd still like to know - did the block exist somewhere else in the genome to be copied, or does it seem to have been created de-Novo at some point?

David
 
#85
I went ahead an penned a blog article on this very matter today.

The necessity of proving that intent does not exist inside the five facets of evolutionary theory. The burden of proof does not JUST reside on those who bear sponsorship of intent-based-study. Materialists must also PROVE their case - their answer cannot be accepted by default (Einfach Mechanism).

To simply a priori declare an absence of intent inside the broader set of evolutionary dynamics - is pseudoscience.

 
Last edited:
#86
I'd still like to know - did the block exist somewhere else in the genome to be copied, or does it seem to have been created de-Novo at some point?

David
David,

I read through a number of new studies (2018 and more recent), and have updated the description of Human Accelerated Regions in my blog. Some surprise updates have arisen in the last 18 months, to wit: (the references can be found in the blog footnotes)

Human Accelerated Regions (HAR) – of the human genome.
HARs are short, [approximately 270 base pair] on an average, stretches of DNA, [which are] 97% non[protein]coding. They are conserved in vertebrates, including Pan troglodytes, but not in Homo sapiens, in whom the conserved sequences were subjected to significantly, in many cases dramatically, higher rates of single nucleotide substitutions.8 A number of genes, associated with these human-specific alleles, often through novel enhancer activity, were in fact shown to be implicated in human-specific development of certain brain areas, including the prefrontal cortex.9 10
A number of contiguous and single point intron regulatory sequences [2.5% protein coding exon] codon substitution and insertion allele differences, of 270 base pairs in average length, between humans and their last universal common ancestor (LUCA) with hominidae (apes, australopithecines and archaic homo). Non-precedented/de-Novo/non-GenBank, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic, fatally improbable happenstance of novel first-time ergodicity inside an absence of genetic pressure – occurring simultaneously and all advantageously, 43+ times, all between 60k and 350k years ago (Neanderthal and Denisovan extant pre-archaic only).11 12 13
This is called Ordination (and of course Acceleration). Darwin did not address either of these facets of evolution. Our domain knowledge of this sub-discipline inside evolution is very scant. One can make no claim herein to a priori exclusions of intent.
“Human accelerated regions exhibit regulatory activity during neural development” (Doan-Bae, et. al.)14 Fourty-three percent of HARs function as neuronal enhancers which express as de novo cerebral and neurological development in humans.15
Given the fortuitous emergence of the 43+ Human Accelerated Regions – their regulation of and association with human cerebral, neural and limb articulation expression, Ockham’s Razor plurality has been surpassed. The argument is manifest and the dual-burden proof ethic broaches.
Three rather stark implications result from this:

1. "Non-coding" regions is a misnomer, because these HAR non-coding regions are coding for morphological changes to the brain, neural development and limb articulation. This is deductive in its implication as to intent.
2. The pace of these mutations far exceed the Roach-Glusman human mutation rate of 1 per 100,000,000 base pairs every 20 years. 100 to 300 base pairs should have mutated on average in these regions - and maybe, maybe have served to produce one trivial novel trait of pan troglodytes speciation (a chimp with lighter skin for instance, at the extreme). Instead, 12,000 base pairs mutated and every single one of them produced novel, first time, and highly advantageous traits - of intellectual advancement - all at once. - Ordination.
And I am being gracious here by giving this advancement 290,000 years in which to develop. It actually happened quicker than this.
Therefore, materialists are incorrect. The evidence is not just compelling, it is deductive in its level of bootstrap inference.
3. One must prove that intent is absent here. Such an input to evolutionary constructs and theory cannot be assumed a priori, nor as the null hypothesis (einfach mechanism).
 
Last edited:
#88
Could it even have happened in one go? Haven't the Discovery Institute lathed on to this issue?

David
Given that 43% of the HAR genetic changes relate to the prefrontal and cerebral cortex, I suspect that the following morphology (picture) applies. This occurred in a primary instance: - appearance of Denisova/Neanderthal and archaic homo sapiens 300,000 years ago. However, I would disagree that this type of allele change was 'speciation'. That is far too simpleton a way of looking at the issue. One must compare actual genetic speciations to a HAR event. They are not the same thing at all, and scientifically should not be treated as such.

Not sure if these studies have been out long enough for the agenda people to grasp their implications. :) Two processes have yet to occur.

1. Intelligent Design minded sponsors need to glom onto this and say 'Hey, wait a minute... this is rather odd. How do we construct a model which explains this 100x acceleration (actually 5,000+x acceleration in all likelihood)? But they will have no 'proof'.​
2. Materialists then have to make up a new intimidating-sounding explanation which solves hyperacceleration; because the old laundry list of evolutionary terms won't fool anyone regarding the HAR issue. Thereafter 'skeptics' and science enthusiasts can wield the word like a shillelagh to beat up people who ask unauthorized questions or intimidate scientists who might even think of examining an unauthorized idea.​
The word they create will of course, mean absolutely nothing - but it will sound scientific:​
pseudo-theory : intimidating terminology which explains anything, everything and nothing - all at the same time.​

Neanderthal vs Human.png
 
#89
Below is included a very interesting discussion that shows some of those somewhat sympathetic with ID are in fact not IDers themselves. In fact, 2 of the 3 interviewees agree with IDers only insofar as they recognise that IDers have successfully challenged Darwinism using sound logical/scientific arguments. It's just that they don't agree with the religious implications that the remaining interviewee (Stephen Meyer) holds. Nonetheless, the interview doesn't really stray much into religious territory and the argument on all sides is mainly about the deficiency of Darwinism in its own terms.

My own view is that whilst I can see that there seems to be what is loosely defined as "intelligence" involved in evolution, that doesn't lead me to posit that the ultimate source of that intelligence is "God" in the usual monotheistic sense. Mine isn't a religious view: it's a philosophical one; I'm unsure what "intelligence" means or how it arises, only that evolution appears to be governed by processes that do appear to be intelligent, whatever that term actually means. I can't think of a better term, but there may be one better than it that will in due course be more precisely defined.

 
#90
My own view is that whilst I can see that there seems to be what is loosely defined as "intelligence" involved in evolution, that doesn't lead me to posit that the ultimate source of that intelligence is "God" in the usual monotheistic sense.
Precisely, and it is fortunate that most of the books about ID avoid identifying the source of that intelligence. Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields are supposed to have intelligence, so something along those lines might be the explanation.

David
 
#92
Interesting, but maybe a bit misleading!

The evidence is overwhelming that evolution by natural selection is true: organisms change from generation to generation by the accrual of genetic mutations. These mutations are selected for, or against, according to the ability of the resulting organisms to survive and reproduce in their respective ecosystems.
The problem is, that to refute the idea of an intelligent creator, you need to consider what such a creator would probably do. Wouldn't he do exactly what humans do when designing stuff - re-use successful subsystem designs in new organisms. I mean sure you see the genes for various enzymes (say) passed on down and down, but equally you see resistors (say) of much the same design used in generation after generation of electronic gadgets! I am sure T.E.S. will have a name for that sort of logical goof!

However, then we get the idea that mutation might operate non-randomly. Now the first question is what the hell would that mean? Would it mean that some of the four bases would mutate more easily than others (indeed I seem to remember that something like that does happen), or would it mean that a series of 500 mutations (say) would happen in just such a way as to make an enzyme with a totally new function from a copy of an existing enzyme? In other words, as posed the question naively introduces a mechanism which might have almost no importance, but might 'explain' the whole evolution just like that.

This only seems to muddy the debate. I mean a universe that contained such curious mutation patterns would surely have to be intelligently designed with masses of forethought.

I can't decide if BK has written this a bit tongue in cheek?

David
 
Last edited:
#93
I thought that was pretty good. But when he says:

But we don’t really know that randomness is enough, do we? The only way to verify it would be to run a quantum-level simulation of the evolution of life to see if, with trendless genetic mutations as input, we could reproduce the biological variety empirically observed.
There are other ways to show that chance cannot explain the origin of life or macro evolution.
 
#94
The problem is, that to refute the idea of an intelligent creator, you need to consider what such a creator would probably do. Wouldn't he do exactly what humans do when designing stuff - re-use successful subsystem designs in new organisms. I mean sure you see the genes for various enzymes (say) passed on down and down,
Success is Lindy - But striving to reinvent the wheel is not. This simply means that mechanisms or systems which tend to survive longer, are ones that bear an inherent bias against re-inventing themselves throughout at every new 'model' release or inflection point - unless there is a necessity for such re-invention.

In the original National Geographic Laetoli Footprints article, from decades ago, when the tracks were first discovered - they were later aged to be Australopithecus afarensis tracks from 3.66 million years ago. In that same volcanic debris field were giraffe tracks. The giraffe tracks were exactly the same interval, shape, size and stride as modern giraffes - even exhibiting the characteristic drag of the left hind leg when running. Giraffes did not change at all during that same time in which humanity changed dramatically. Giraffe was Lindy.

Success is Lindy in genetics - and in absence of population stress - one must ask themself, 'How does a population, not under duress, accelerate its genome 10,000 x faster than the observed rate?' AND more importantly, WHY? Then, why does a population under high duress not exibit any change at all during that same time interval?

but equally you see resistors (say) of much the same design used in generation after generation of electronic gadgets! I am sure T.E.S. will have a name for that sort of logical goof!
Yes, Wittgenstein's Ruler. It simply means that if one observes an effect which could serve to threaten one's narrative (reuse of code - or even back use of code or lateral transfer of genes), simply change the measuring stick of the observation until you bring it into accord with your desired epistemology.
 
Last edited:
#95
Success is Lindy in genetics - and in absence of population stress - one must ask themself, 'How does a population, not under duress, accelerate its genome 10,000 x faster than the observed rate?' AND more importantly, WHY? Then, why does a population under high duress not exibit any change at all during that same time interval?
Conventional evolutionary explanations often seem a bit off to me. I mean as you increase the mutation rate, you obviously increase the rate of potentially useful mutations (from very, very, very small to very, very small IMHO) but increase the rate of disease. However, if a higher rate of mutation is beneficial (from the point of view of survival of the fittest) in a time of stress why is there any survival advantage to lowering that rate at other times?

Cells contain a lot of mechanisms to reduce the mutation rate as low as possible - which certainly makes sense from Behe's POV, because almost every mutation destroys a piece of genetic machinery essentially irreversibly.

BTW, 'Lindy' is not an expression I have come across!

David
 
#96
BTW, 'Lindy' is not an expression I have come across!
It is part of the new philosophical language - a revolution currently underway. 'Lindy' is a term which fits inside the new philosophical view of examining the natural world as domain sets comprising systems, agency versus bias, feedback cycles, robustness and ergodicity - rather than viewing the universe as a set of objects along with linear cause to effect (all of 15th bce - 20th ad Century Academic Philosophy). I contend it is a line of philosophy which renders material monism just as irrelevant as Abrahamist-Godism.

I placed the Wikipedia link in there on the word, not to demonstrate that Wikipedia authors grasp what the Lindy Effect is (they do not), rather to show that I did not simply make the term up.

It is from Nassim Taleb's Antifragile. It is the idea that 'antifragile' systems or dynamic objects are things which are able to gain from disorder, non-convergency (not cap-constrained) and iteration. It stemmed from his original idea that - a persistent-successful organization need be 'exposed to white swans (beneficial events) and robust to black swans (calamatous events)'.

It simply means that, the longer something has been in effect or success or existence, the longer proportionally it should be then expected to remain in effect, success or existence. If a genetic code set has been around for 100 million years, then it should be around for another 100 million years (unless specifically targeted for extinction). If that genetic code set continues extant for 120 million years then it should be expected to be around for another 120 million years. And so the principle continues.

In skepticism this principle is applied in the idea that "I do not have to prove what I believe is actually correct. I just have to enforce the idea and hang around long enough for it to stick, to be the default Lindy Einfach Mechanism."

Our genes gain from disorder and death. Our genes are the goal, not us.

Genetics function is Lindy - However, we are not. This would make the ergodistic-purpose of the planet, to produce antifragile code functional sets - in other words, not to select for most adapted, rather to select against least-adaptable. This would entail needing a planet featuring a variety of environments/climates both over geographics and time, constant change in those conditions and ample time - and lots and lots of iterative death.

So, in this view of dynamic function - it does not matter whether or not there are gods, God, The God, aliens, or none of the above, etc. The issue is that DNA is exactly what an intelligent intent-set (whatever that may be) would choose, to enact its work. It is a method of warfare and conquest (to our paradigm of understanding - however in an unconstrained as opposed to constrained geographic as we have experienced it).
 
Last edited:
Top