Change Over Time and Evolution

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread Evolution Vs Creation Fisherking quotes a Dr Jonathon Sarfati and supplies this link to the full text.

Sarfati is disturbed by what he sees as equivocation by evolutionists. In fact he thinks they perpetuate a deceit regarding the General Theory of Evolution of GTE.

A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.

But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

All living things reproduce.
Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.
Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.
There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …
Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.

Sarfati is I think attempting to say that understanding “change over time” does not require invoking common descent or what might be dubbed macroevolution.

So is Dr Sarfati correct. Is it possible to understand “change over time” without the "General Theory of Evolution"? Are evolutionists guilty of deceit?

Safati then has a specific complaint.

The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)….. To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE .

So if I read Sarfati right, the GTE is not necessary for understanding change over time, and in fact invokes a specific type of change. A type of change he thinks is problematic.

So are evolutionist introducing unnecessary problems for understanding change over time?

[micatala]

I am wondering, when water vapor in clouds turns into snowflakes, is there an increase in information or not?

I ask this question because I don't believe those who talk about increases or lack of increases in information as part of evolution have defined their terms appropriately or applied them consistently. Sometimes I believe they mistake 'increased diversity or variability' for 'increase in information.'

As far as the link alluded to :

Despite what many evolutionists claim, creationists are not the only ones whose belief systems affect their interpretation of the data. Rather, both sides are biased. While the Lerner report pretends that evolution is not ‘anti-religious’, it is important to realize that the leaders of evolutionary thought were and are ardently opposed to the notion of the Christian God as revealed in the Bible — see A Who’s Who of evolutionists’ and How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?

Some evolutionary biologists might be 'anti-religious' but I think that the author is (deliberately?) confusing the anti-intellectualism that is inherent in creationism with anti-religiousness. Certainly many biologists (e.,g. Francis Collins) do not fit the description given by this author.,

In addition, the contention is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of evolution.

[Jose]

Sometimes I believe they mistake 'increased diversity or variability' for 'increase in information.'

You're probably right. I tend to give them a bit of help by suggesting that they mean "increase in number of base pairs and number of genes." This doesn't quite work, since ferns and lungfish have more DNA than we do, and we are the self-proclaimed pinnacle of biological sophistication. Still, the basic puzzle is valid: how did the quantity of DNA per cell increase? How did we get more genes and more genetic information than the starting guys? Of course, the answer is trivially simple--gene duplication and subsequent divergence of the copies.

Sarfati is disturbed by what he sees as equivocation by evolutionists. In fact he thinks they perpetuate a deceit regarding the General Theory of Evolution of GTE.

Of course there are lots of kinds of "change over time" that are not biological genetic evolution. For these, one need not understand evolutionary theory. But, to claim that evolutionists call these non-evolutionary changes "evolution" is just plain silly. Indeed, to claim that these things are claimed to be evolution could well be perpetuating a deceit. Indeed, Sarfati doesn't even seem to understand the theory of evolution, if he is willing to say,

Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

Natural selection operates at the level of the individual. It's individuals that have offspring, not groups.

To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE .

The origin of information is outside of the theory of evolution. Evolution deals with the change of life through time, which means there must be life before its evolution can occur, which means there must be genetic information in said life. Setting this misunderstanding aside, though, Sarfati is ignoring the rest of the information. He pretends that evolutionists claim "change" equals a specific type of "change." This is nuts, to put it plainly. There are many types of genetic change. Some increase information, some decrease it. Some are a net gain of zero, as some information is lost and new information is gained. The most charitable explanation is that Sarfati doesn't understand the science, and knows not whereof he speaks.

it is important to realize that the leaders of evolutionary thought were and are ardently opposed to the notion of the Christian God as revealed in the Bible

This, too, is just plain silly. I don't care a hill of beans about the notion of the biblical god. If people understand this god better than I do, and therefore believe in him, great. What evolutionists are ardently opposed to is pretending that a very narrow reading of the bible trumps centuries of science. Many evolutionists are devout Christians, and are as ardently opposed to the misreading of scripture that the anti-evolutionists seem to engage in.

The bottom line, though, is that gods and religions will never decide the truth, or lack thereof, of evolutionary theory. As always, the fate of evolutionary theory depends on the data. So far, there are no data from the natural world that contradict it.

[Fisherking]

So are evolutionist introducing unnecessary problems for understanding change over time?

I do not think anyone has a problem understand things change over time. If I leave my car out in the sun, rain, and hail it is not a difficult to understand things "change over time". The problem arises when evolutionists attach a direction to this "change". When we ask if "things change over time" the next question will almost always be, "to what"? Evolutionists will sneak in what they think "to what" is (microbe-------->man) (ape-like common ancestor------->man) and then say "hey, I never said there was direction to this "change"(evolution), evolution is "fact"!--using equivocal language to sneak a neo-darwinist philosophy in. Things change, that is a fact. The philosophy tagging along behind (probably pushing) evolutionist's assumptions is not.

[Goat]

So are evolutionist introducing unnecessary problems for understanding change over time?

I do not think anyone has a problem understand things change over time. If I leave my car out in the sun, rain, and hail it is not a difficult to understand things "change over time". The problem arises when evolutionists attach a direction to this "change". When we ask if "things change over time" the next question will almost always be, "to what"? Evolutionists will sneak in what they think "to what" is (microbe-------->man) (ape-like common ancestor------->man) and then say "hey, I never said there was direction to this "change"(evolution), evolution is "fact"!--using equivocal language to sneak a neo-darwinist philosophy in. Things change, that is a fact. The philosophy tagging along behind (probably pushing) evolutionist's assumptions is not.

It is not just assumptions. There is hard data involved with it. As we actually map the gnenome of more and more species, the harder the data becomes.

[QED]

I do not think anyone has a problem understand things change over time.

That's a releif

If I leave my car out in the sun, rain, and hail it is not a difficult to understand things "change over time".

Things rolling downhill, Degeneracy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. right?

The problem arises when evolutionists attach a direction to this "change". When we ask if "things change over time" the next question will almost always be, "to what"? Evolutionists will sneak in what they think "to what" is (microbe-------->man) (ape-like common ancestor------->man) and then say "hey, I never said there was direction to this "change"(evolution), evolution is "fact"!

From the example you give of your car could it be that the real problem for you is that you see things apparently going against the all too familiar 2nd law? Evolutionary theory works within the limits of the 2nd law -- that's a cold, hard, scientific fact -- albeit one that may be unfamiliar to you. That life might seem like a thermodynamic direction change, rolling uphill or whatever, is ultimately an illusion. The overall energy equation is still maintained. Energy from the Sun continues to be transformed (concentrated and dissipated) into less useful forms by all living systems.

--using equivocal language to sneak a neo-darwinist philosophy in. Things change, that is a fact. The philosophy tagging along behind (probably pushing) evolutionist's assumptions is not.

Nothing is being "sneaked in" under the cover of anything else -- especially in such a blatant and obvious fashion. If a viable mechanism for the kind of change we see is known then the only philosophy that remains is a preference for supernatural over natural explanations. I would suggest that the natural explanation be adopted on the grounds of parsimony until it can be demonstrated to be unviable. It's a little depressing to know that in Darwin's day the mechanism (genetics) was not even understood by him, yet the principle set out in his theory was compelling enough to persuade people of it's validity. With our vast increase in knowledge regarding genetics, it seems incredible that such a philosophical preference for the supernatural still appears to be alive and kicking.

[Fisherking]

From the example you give of your car could it be that the real problem for you is that you see things apparently going against the all too familiar 2nd law?

I didn't realize I had a problem

Evolutionary theory works within the limits of the 2nd law -- that's a cold, hard, scientific fact -- albeit one that may be unfamiliar to you.

Things change within the limits of the 2nd law. I'm pretty familiar with that.

That life might seem like a thermodynamic direction change, rolling uphill or whatever, is ultimately an illusion. The overall energy equation is still maintained.

yep

Energy from the Sun continues to be transformed (concentrated and dissipated) into less useful forms by all living systems.

ayep

--using equivocal language to sneak a neo-darwinist philosophy in. Things change, that is a fact. The philosophy tagging along behind (probably pushing) evolutionist's assumptions is not.

If a viable mechanism for the kind of change we see

Ahh, what kind of change do we see?

I would suggest that the natural explanation be adopted on the grounds of parsimony until it can be demonstrated to be unviable. It's a little depressing to know that in Darwin's day the mechanism (genetics) was not even understood by him, yet the principle set out in his theory was compelling enough to persuade people of it's validity. With our vast increase in knowledge regarding genetics, it seems incredible that such a philosophical preference for the supernatural still appears to be alive and kicking.

Naturalisic philosophies need not be invoked to understand change over time (evolution) though. Hitler persuaded a whole country to accept his philosophy, but that doesn't mean it was the correct one.

[Furrowed Brow]

The problem arises when evolutionists attach a direction to this "change". When we ask if "things change over time" the next question will almost always be, "to what"?

The evolutionary answer will be something different from what was seen in previous generations. The only direction being attached is an earlier/later direction of a timeline.

Evolutionists will sneak in what they think "to what" is (microbe-------->man) (ape-like common ancestor------->man) ….

The time line shows earlier forms, and later forms of fauna. The “sneaky” evolutionist then go and try to figure out what connects one earlier state of affairs to alter state of affairs, and common descent forms part of that figuring because change implies diversification, and diversification implies common ancestry.

Things change, that is a fact.

Yep. So man has changed then? And that is a fact - yes?. How much change are you willing to accept?

Ok here’s a thought. Lets for the moment assume common descent is false. All human ancestors trace back on an “historical” family tree with no branches. No other mammal or life form currently on this planet share a common ancestor with man.

So the development is linear and goes “Ancestor” --> “Modern human".

The point is that if one holds on to the principle that change is fact, then a denial of common ancestry does not guarantee that our distant ancestors looked like modern humans. There could have been change. Only the changes that occurred are restricted to a linear descent. So that in principle distant human ancestors could have looked like Australopithecus anamensis for example. This Australopithecus anamensis like creature having no other descendents other than those that trace in a linear progression directly to modern humans. We could then interpret the fossil record in the following way.

[mrow]Million Years Ago[col][b]SPECIES[/b][col][b]Status[/b][row]5 to 4 [col] Ardipithicus ramidus [col] POSSIBLY HUMAN ANCESTOR[row]4.2 to 3.9 [col] Australopithecus anamensis [col] POSSIBLE HUMAN ANCESTOR[row][row] 4 to 2.7 [col] Australopithecus afarensis [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 3 to 2 [col] Australopithecus africanus [col] HUMAN ANCESTOR[row][row] 2.2 to 1.6 [col] Australopithecus robustus [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 2.2 to 1.6 [col] Homo habilis [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 2.0 to 0.4[col] Homo erectus [col] HUMAN ANECESTOR[row][row] 400 to 200 [col] Homo sapiens archaic [col] HUMAN ANCESTOR[row][row] 200 to 30 [col] Homo sapiens neandertalensis [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 200 to present [col] Homo sapiens sapiens

Earlier forms of humans could not have shared the planet with any other form of human because that implies common ancestry. Therefore alternatives in the fossil record such as Neanderthal could not possibly be classed as human as they shared the planet at the same time as early humans. Their ancestry tracing back in a similar linear fashion but never crossing with modern human ancestry. Following the same line of reasoning Homo habilis could not have been a human ancestor but Australopithecus Africanus was. There is a gap in the fossil record between 3 million years to 3.9/4 million years ago. Hey but that’s science! This model needs more reseach!

As an evolutionist I’d say the picture the above table presents has huge problems, but it does not invoke common descent whilst it allows that change is fact. To deny this non common descent picture one then has to deny that change is fact.

[Fisherking]

The evolutionary answer will be something different from what was seen in previous generations. The only direction being attached is an earlier/later direction of a timeline.

Sounds good so far.

Evolutionists will sneak in what they think "to what" is (microbe-------->man) (ape-like common ancestor------->man) ….

The time line shows earlier forms, and later forms of fauna. The “sneaky” evolutionist then go and try to figure out what connects one earlier state of affairs to alter state of affairs, and common descent forms part of that figuring because change implies diversification, and diversification implies common ancestry.

So we draw timelines to show the earlier forms and then go try and figure out how we can fit these earlier forms into the timeline we drawed

Things change, that is a fact.

Yep. So man has changed then? And that is a fact - yes?.

Yes

How much change are you willing to accept?

How much change can we emperically verify?

There could have been change. Only the changes that occurred are restricted to a linear descent. So that in principle distant human ancestors could have looked like Australopithecus anamensis for example.

If I could ask Austy a few questions I would be able to tell you if he was a man or an ape.

[mrow]Million Years Ago[col][b]SPECIES[/b][col][b]Status[/b][row]5 to 4 [col] Ardipithicus ramidus [col] POSSIBLY HUMAN ANCESTOR[row]4.2 to 3.9 [col] Australopithecus anamensis [col] POSSIBLE HUMAN ANCESTOR[row][row] 4 to 2.7 [col] Australopithecus afarensis [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 3 to 2 [col] Australopithecus africanus [col] HUMAN ANCESTOR[row][row] 2.2 to 1.6 [col] Australopithecus robustus [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 2.2 to 1.6 [col] Homo habilis [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 2.0 to 0.4[col] Homo erectus [col] HUMAN ANECESTOR[row][row] 400 to 200 [col] Homo sapiens archaic [col] HUMAN ANCESTOR[row][row] 200 to 30 [col] Homo sapiens neandertalensis [col] NON HUMAN[row][row] 200 to present [col] Homo sapiens sapiens

Earlier forms of humans could not have shared the planet with any other form of human because that implies common ancestry.

You fine gentlemen are illuminating the a priori commitment you have to common decent and I'm thinking I am the only one in the discussion that sees it
I see no reason to assume any of the species listed on the table are related to man. They could just be an ape-like species that is now extinct... like I said, it would help if we could ask them.

Therefore alternatives in the fossil record such as Neanderthal could not possibly be classed as human as they shared the planet at the same time as early humans. Their ancestry tracing back in a similar linear fashion but never crossing with modern human ancestry. Following the same line of reasoning Homo habilis could not have been a human ancestor but Australopithecus Africanus was. There is a gap in the fossil record between 3 million years to 3.9/4 million years ago. Hey but that’s science! This model needs more reseach!

I do not see any reason to assume any of the above species were related ancestrally to man.

[Furrowed Brow]

Your fine gentlemen are illuminating the a priori commitment you have to common decent and I'm thinking I am the only one in the discussion that sees it.

How so? Common descent means that different life forms, residing on different branches of the evolution tree have a common ancestor. In the picture I am offering Australopithecus afarensis for example will be an ancestor of modern humans and only modern humans. In turns its ancestors will only be the ancestors of modern humans. The picture permits change but does not permit common descent, and that is why only one species that inhabits any time period can be a human ancestor. By this means we can eliminate some species as potential human ancestors.

I see no reason to assume any of the species listed on the table are related to man. They could just be an ape-like species that is now extinct... like I said, it would help if we could ask them.

To be true they could just be ape-like creatures.

But why does their ability to talk define whether they can be a human ancestor. You are permitting change as a fact. Well one of the changes could be the ability to talk. If you were able to go back in time and ask them a question but the reply you got was an animalistic grunt, that does not mean they could not be human ancestors. Given change is a fact.

In addition. The evidence shows modern humans are missing from the vast majority of the time this planet has supported living organisms. So modern humans appeared from no where, or they took an earlier form represented on the above table, or we are missing some fossils. Fossils that if they turn up may well look just as ape-like as our friends on the table, or maybe they will look like modern humans.?

That would be a turn up. A modern human skull in 4 million year old rock. The sort of thing that creationist really need to dig up to blow the evolutionist away. But if that did happen, then change would not be a fact. Instead, stability would be a fact. But that can’t be true given change is a fact - can it?