I thank nikolayevich for such a well-reasoned response. It raises many important questions. I'll try to provide my thinking on these.
I think a term like "ridicule" is quite weighted with baggage. Since this is a debate, I don't think it's reasonable to say we're ridiculing, nor is it a problem to attack each other's ideas. Ideas can be challenged civilly. To follow this by saying that only "naive" onlookers should believe this argument, is actually ad hominem and therefore also not valid for debate. Now, far be it for me to say that I don't have any naivete, however, whether I'm naive or not doesn't really answer the question, nor disprove my reasoning.
I fear that I used these words according to their meanings in my field, not necessarily their meanings in normal English. Being a Science Geek, I often lapse into phrasing that isn't always used the same way. The "ridicule" issue comes from using an argument to say that some notion is "ridiculous." Perhaps I should have chosen diffferent phrasing. Similarly, "naive" is used to refer to "an individual without X." In testing the effects of a chemical compound on tissue culture cells or on flies, one refers to the untreated samples as "naive" because they have not yet seen the chemical compound. Using this use of the word, I meant that people who have not studied this issue, whatever side of the debate they may eventually be on, have no background information with which to evaluate the arguments. Thus, neither you nor any of the other debaters here are naive in this sense. My sincere apologies for using this language. I thought I was being clear, not offensive.
As I've said elsewhere on the forum, I have no desire to tear down arguments evolutionists themselves don't use.
Excellent. I hadn't read enough past posts to know you well enough. Certainly, there are many who set up "straw man" arguments specifically to tear them down. The notion of rapid mutation from one type of creature to a different type of creature is one such straw man. I have seen it often...which is why I could report that many people use this argument intentionally.
There was recently a document signed by a large number of PhD holding men and women who question the validity of the theory of evolution. The point of it wasn't to prove evolution didn't exist. It was simply to let the establishment organizations and the general public know that there is in fact dissent among scientists on the issue of Darwinism.
Unfortunately, these lists tend to be peole who began with the belief that evolution is impossible. Many do their studies in the explicit effort to prove that evolution can't work. This is one of the main functions of the ICR--which maintains one of these lists. It is also quite possible for people with PhDs in other disciplines, who don't come into intimate contact with data supporting evolution, to hold creationist viewpoints easily. If their science doesn't conflict with their religion, there would be no reason to study the pros and cons carefully. They would not be faced, on a daily basis, with evidence that cannot be explained by any other mechanisms besides "evolution," or "God did it."
The real question is how the data, from God's creation itself, can be explained.
When there is a mutation that causes a leg to protrude out of its head, it must get the information to make this leg from somewhere. Does the structural data form from thin air? No, it is information already present in the genome. Can this be debated? It is a fruit fly leg on a fruit fly head. Therefore, I fail to see how this provides evidence to the addition of new information.
You are absolutely right. There is no debate about the origin of the information that produces the leg in the wrong place. It was there already, just as you say. Thus, this example--without further discussion of it--does not provide evidence for the addition of new information.
The issue here, is "where would new information come from?" It is part of the question, "how can the amount of information, and the complexity of information, increase during time?" To see how this works, we have to consider what you have mentioned above: duplicate some existing information. This achieves the first requirement: an increase in information. Sure, some of that information is redundant, but the total amount of information has increased.
The second step is mutation. Any mutation changes information. Since it is impossible to prevent mutations from happening (it's the nature of DNA chemistry), it is inevitable that the duplicated information will become different. If there are two copies of the information, one is under selection pressure to retain its function. The other is not under selection pressure to stay the same, so it is able to become different. Once it is different, it is "new information."
In this way, your question about the origin of new information is answered. It *was* old information initially, but mutation changed it, and now it is new.
I agree that one is not enough to evolve new information. But perhaps even many is not enough. In the over 30 years since David Suzuki's famous fruit fly experiments, the antennapedia is the most notable mutation.
You have conflated the issue of "many mutations" and "one mutation." The antennapedia is the most notable mutation, as you say--but it is the most notable *single* mutation that causes a dramatic effect. There has been no effort at all to breed these flies under varying conditions, and attempt to discover additional mutations that modify the legs that protrude from the head. Therefore, we can't look at antennapedia to address an issue that requires many mutations.
Perhaps, we could use corn as an example. I think that the corn geneticists have a pretty good idea of which mutations were responsible for converting the scubby grass, Teosinte, to modern corn. These two plants look remarkably different. It's only been a few thousand years, however, so we don't have truly different structures. But then, we rarely have different structures in *any* plants--we just have modifications of the same basic structural units. An oak tree and a rose bush have the same basic structures, albeit in different shapes.
The same is true for vertebrate limbs, including bird wings. The basic structures are the same. There's always an upper limb bone, a pair of forelimb bones, a cluster of wrist bones, and a series of digit bones. They difffer only in their relative proportions, as determined by the interactions of genes like shh, fgf, and Hox during limb development. Feathers vs hair vs scales are all variations on the "make something out of keratin" program.
To achieve even these relatively simple changes of limb shapes took a long time. We've managed to speed up such evolution in our dog-breeding programs, by purposely choosing dogs with different shapes and sizes,and breeding them. We've purposely *not* chosen dogs with limbs that don't work well for walking and running, so we haven't made wings. Nonetheless, size and shape are clearly under genetic control, so mutations happen, and selection can sort which mutations are discarded, and which are allowed to propagate.
The genetic variability of the human genome is incredible. That is to say, the trillions of different combinations of people that can become as a result of human mating alone (outside of environmental changes or mutations). Looking at the world around us, we see the differences in every person, no one alike (even twins) and yet, is it because of evolution that we are all different from each other? The information is already present in our genes.
This is an excellent point. AT PRESENT, we can generate tremendous diversity just by reshuffling the different genes that exist in human populations. But, let's look at it historically. How many different versions of each gene did, say, Adam and Eve have? Presumably, they were people, and were diploid. Therefore, for any given trait, there can have been no more than four different alleles (versions of genes) between them. If they were both white-skinned (as many Euorpean paintings suggest), there there can have been NO genes for dark skin--just 4 copies of the genes for white skin. If they were both blond, and blue eyed, there can have been NO genes for dark hair or green or brown eyes.
However we look at it, Adam and Eve simply cannot have had enough genetic diversity to account for the current diversity among humans. Gene shuffling simply wouldn't do it--especially since we know of hundreds of different versions of particular genes (look up cystic fibrosis, for example) Where did the diversity come from? There is only one answer: mutation.
It is commonly said that "mutations are always deleterious." Is this true? Let's look at a couple that humans have, and think about why they are distributed the way they are among different populations.
How about lactose intolerance (inability to drink milk as an adult without getting sick). This is the natural state of most mammals, including us. 70% of humans are lactose intolerant. But, some European groups, some time ago, developed a culture that relied on cows as a source of protein--via milk. We could make yogurt and cheese to eliminate the lactose, but at least once, probably more often, mutations occurred. These mutations enable expression of the lactase gene in adulthood. Those of us, such as myself, who are descended from groups that carried this mutation, still have it. But, I have Asian friends and African friends who cannot drink milk without digestive troubles. They don't have this mutation. It is advantageous, if you rely on milk, to be able to drink it. But if you live in Africa, where cow milk isn't common, there is no advantage to this mutation; so, if the mutation occurred, it was lost.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is another good one. It is extremely rare in equatorial Africa. But, it is quite common in Europe. Why? CF is a nasty disease, affecting the lungs, digestive system, sweat gland, and other systems. In homozygotes, it is usually fatal at a young age (though we now have medications that can help). What makes such a nasty disease gene common in Europe? Carriers (heterozygotes) of the mutation(s) that cause CF turn out to lose less salt than non-CF individuals, when they have diarrhea. This had a big selective advantage in the overcrowded, unsanitary cities of ancient Europe, which frequently had epidemics of Cholera. Since carriers of CF lose less salt, they are therefore more likely to survive the disease. Thus, CF was selected for.
CF also makes sweat more salty. In Europe, where it isn't terribly hot, this was not a big problem. In equatorial Africa, however, CF carriers lose too much salt by sweating. Thus, CF is selected against, even in heterozygotes.
This is natural, random mutation, followed by selection for or against the mutation by natural, environmental conditions. These mutations contribute to the current diversity of human populations.
Skin color is similarly selected for. In equatorial Africa, melanin helps protect against severe sunburn, skin cancer, etc. But, there is enough UV light to stimulate production of vitamin D, even if the light has to shine through dark skin. In northern Europe, there is less UV. Dark skin is a disadvantage because of low vitamin D production. Therefore, light skin was selected for in Europe, dark skin was selected for in Africa. Again, natural, random mutation, followed by selection, creating the diversity we now see.
Millions of years is certainly the wild card of evolution. Why do we not have evidence of new information added? It could be because it requires millions, billions of years. This is actually why evolution is not as falsifiable as its proponents suggest when confronting creationists. The argument I hear often is, "well, we don't see these crazy changes because it requires millions of years". As you say, even "rapid" changes are not going to be seen an one lifetime, or even a hundred. Again, we're not speaking of speciation, which creationists and evolutionists observe and accept as a part of the natural course of life.
Many rapid changes can be seen in a lifetime. Influenza virus samples have been saved for decades, and the DNA sequences have been determined. There is lots of evolution there, though of course, there's no "dramatic structure" to point to. Similarly, evolution by selection can be followed in HIV virus in a single infected individual of the course of the infection.
And, we *do* have evidence for new information added. It is easy to compare DNA of closely-related species, or whole families of species, and observe that some carry new DNA sequences that were not present in their ancestors.
But, it's not really fair to say that evolution is inherently not reasonable because of the time involved, and therefore no one can actually see it. this is somewhat like saying that we can never convict a murderer when no one was there to see the crime. We use forensic evidence to determine what evidence was left behind--and that evidence, not the testimony of an eyewitness--is what is required in a court of law. Similarly, with evolution, we use a variety of methods analogous to the forensic methods used in criminal investigation labs. Then we seek the best possible explanation of the evidence.
This does not mean that evolution is not falisfiable. It has often been said that one irrefutable example of supernatural creation would falsify evolution. As yet, no one has demonstrated such an example. Perhaps, this is because it is difficult to get *evidence* that demonstrates creation. What would a created organism look like? Probably, it would look like the organisms we see today. The only evidence is that a variety of religious texts describe creation events--though they are not necessarily the same creation events.
People have put forward ideas (like irreducible complexity) to try to "test" for creation, but those ideas have given no data. The predictions of those ideas (hypotheses, if you will) have not been borne out. Rather, they rely on philsophical logic and (in the case of irreducible comlexity) a failure to look at the scientific data that contradict the logic, and a failure to consider known evolutionary principles that also contradict the logic.
By contrast, the mechanisms of evolution have tremendous predictive power. Not only is there evidence of evolution in progress (even if some will call it microevolution, and therefore variation in kind), there are also clear predictions that have been met. Part of what makes a scientific theory a theory (like the theory of gravity) is that it is the best available explanation for large amounts of data, and that it has been repeatedly challenged and has withstood the challenges. Of course,the challenges must include evidence. If they are challenges that invoke a supernatural power, then they are dealing with SUPERnatural, not natural events, and cannot be addressed by natural science. This is unfortunate, but that's the definition of science: using the evidence present in the world around us to seek explanations, based on natural causes, for the evidence.
But let me ask a question about the last sentence of the above quote, because it puzzles me. Some years ago, the creationist argument was that microevolution has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, but formation of species has not. Therefore, evolution has not been proven because speciation has not been shown. Now that speciation has been demonstrated, we change the argument to say evolutionists and creationists alike accept speciation as the natural way of life. Why isn't speciation what it used to be--the formation of new species, where "species" is what we mean when we say "kind"? Is this a new interpretation of scripture? If every animal is to reproduce after its kind, but kind no longer means species, then what is a "kind" of animal? How do we keep the definition stable?
(maybe that's not a fair question...as new evidence accumulates, the details of evolutionary theory are revised. The best-known example, probably, is Darwin's thinking that Lamarkian inheritance seemed a reasonable way to pass on traits. He didn't know about genetics, and he didn't know about DNA sequences and mutations. Since we've learned about these things, we've adjusted our best-current-explanation of evolution to accomodate the new evidence. I'd thought that Creation couldn't do this, since the mechanism is described in scripture, and does not rely on evidence. But maybe I'm wrong, if interpretation of scripture can change.)
The creationist standpoint on speciation is that God has designed every species with certain mechanisms to cope with varying conditions, and that other adaptations are resultant from loss of information. The evolutionist view is that all mechanisms have come about as a result of unguided processes.
There are well-understood mechanisms of adaptation developing through evolution. It is unfair to say that evolutionists claim that this has come about "as a result of unguided processes," because (see argument above), evolutionists *don't* say that. The evidence (and again, it is essential to refer to evidence) is that mutation is random. There's the unguided process. Selection, however, it not random. It is guided. It is not guided by an intelligence (except in breeding programs), but it *is* guided. Look back at the discussion of human skin color. Where the environment results in light-skinned people being at a disadvantage, mutations to "whiteness" are selected against. Where the environment results in dark-skinned people being at a disadvantage, mutations to "darkness" are selected against. This doesn't make any of the mutations "better" or "worse"--it simply indicates that selection guides the outcome. Only mutation is random.
Even the statement that "new information can arise by duplication" makes no sense outside of evolutionary reasoning. In plain language, duplicate only ever doubles, or copies information. It can double-double, or double-double-double, but it means copy or facsimile. I believe that Darwinism allows for statements like the above though, because these gymnastics must occur for evolution to be true.
There are many statements that make no sense outside of evolutionary reasoning, just as there are statements that make sense only in the context of their particular issues. When discussing evolution, we must discuss the processes that occur therein. Gene duplication is well known. There is a great deal of evidence for it. There is also a great deal of evidence or duplication followed by diversification as a result of mutation.
But let's use an example, to see if this helps. A xerox machine makes duplicate copies, correct? so, if we make a double, we get a double. If we make a double-double-double, it should be the same as the original. In practice, however, if we xerox a blank page, then xerox the copy, and keep going for a long time, we get something that is no longer a blank page. Rather, it has a pattern on it. The pattern clearly looks like a series of concentric circles formed of dots. We seem to have generated new information out of nothing. As with evolution, each duplicate was allowed to have mutations--little electronic errors, or spots on the platen, or something, that result in the appearance dots. Repetition, generation after generation, gives us a pattern that never existed in the original--new information.
But, I wouldn't say that these kinds of [linguistic] gymnastics must occur for evolution to be true. The "gymnastics" result from studying God's creation, and looking for unifying explanations. It's not a matter of inventing statements to justify a pre-conceived belief. It's a matter of obtaining evidence, and asking "how the heck can I explain this?" We know that like begets like, and that offspring get their DNA from their parents. It seems unlikely that it has ever been different since the beginning of DNA-based life. We also know that the chemistry of DNA makes it impossible for it *not* to suffer mutations, which will change the DNA code. We also know that changes in code can cause changes in the organism, so that they compete better, or worse, with other organisms. The ones that compete best are the ones that pass on the most DNA to the future. Since there were mutations, the future organisms are not like the originals--just like Adam and Eve were not identical to everyone currently living.
In DNA sequences, we see the "footprints" of this parent-to-offspring sequence of events. In DNA-based things with rapid generations (like the HIV example I mentioned above), we can trace the full series of events. Where generation times are too slow for us to watch in real-time, we use forensic methods, and look at the DNA. The "footprints" of DNA duplications are preserved in many genomes. So are DNA rearrangements, and other means of creating new information. In some cases, there is undeniable evidence for loss of information.
The perhaps unfortunate result of looking at the evidence, and explaining it, is that we come up with evolution as the answer. People have tried since Darwin first proposed "descent with modification" (as he called it) to disprove evolution *using evidence* and, so far, it hasn't happened. Instead, evidence supporting evolution has accumulated steadily. Indeed, most world religions, and the majority of Christian religions, accept evolution as not only plausible, but accurate.
The difficulty with ID, or other creationist approaches, is that they don't offer evidence. Rather, they usually offer examples of things that seem, on the surface, to be impossible to explain by evolutionary mechanisms. So far, they always have been possible to explain.
Best regards.
--Jose
