A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

[JohnMartin]

The evolution of the eye from the simplest light sensitive spot in algae, which had an advantage for sensing light, through increasing complexity and variety in all the phyla of the animal kingdom from Jellyfish to Humans. The study of the genetics throughout the history of the light sensitive spot in one celled animals to the complex eye involve the same genes. In all the species involved there has always been a function for survival from the simplest form to the complex.

The following is one of many research articles that describes the genetic relationship of the eye from the simplest to the complex. The same genes are involved.

New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors.

Gehring WJ1.
Author information
Abstract
Recent experiments on the genetic control of eye development have opened up a completely new perspective on eye evolution. The demonstration that targeted expression of one and the same master control gene, that is, Pax6 can induce the formation of ectopic eyes in both insects and vertebrates, necessitates a reconsideration of the dogma of a polyphyletic origin of the various eye types in all the animal phyla. The involvement of Pax6 and six1 and six3 genes, which encode highly conserved transcription factors, in the genetic control of eye development in organisms ranging from planarians to humans argues strongly for a monophyletic origin of the eye. Because transcription factors can control the expression of any target gene provided it contains the appropriate gene regulatory elements, the conservation of the genetic control of eye development by Pax6 among all bilaterian animals is not due to functional constraints but a consequence of its evolutionary history. The prototypic eyes postulated by Darwin to consist of two cells only, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell, were accidentally controlled by Pax6 and the subsequent evolution of the various eye types occurred by building onto this original genetic program. A hypothesis of intercalary evolution is proposed that assumes that the eye morphogenetic pathway is progressively modified by intercalation of genes between the master control genes on the top of the hierarchy and the structural genes like rhodopsin at the bottom.

A hypothesis of a pathway that may never have existed. The progressive modifications may never have occurred. The entire series assumes no failures in the series at any point, or failures that are of no significance. A rather grand assumption that must be ignored.

The recruitment of novel genes into the eye morphogenetic pathway can be due to at least two different genetic mechanisms, gene duplication and enhancer fusion.In tracing back the evolution of eyes beyond bilaterians, we find highly developed eyes in some box-jellyfish as well as in some Hydrozoans. In Hydrozoans the same orthologous six genes (six1 and six3) are required for eye regeneration as in planarians, and in the box jellyfish Tripedalia a pax B gene, which may be a precursor of Pax6, was found to be expressed in the eyes. In contrast to the adults, which have highly evolved eyes, the Planula larva of Tripedalia has single- celled photoreceptors similar to some unicellular protists. For the origin of photoreceptor cells in metazoa, I propose two hypotheses, one based on cellular differentiation and a more speculative one based on symbiosis. The former assumes that photoreceptor cells originated from a colonial protist in which all the cells were photosensitive and subsequent cellular differentiation to give rise to photoreceptor cells. The symbiont hypothesis, which I call the Russian doll model, assumes that photosensitivity arose first in photosynthetic cyanobacteria that were subsequently taken up into red algae as primary chloroplasts. The red algae in turn were taken up by dinoflagellates as secondary chloroplasts and in some species evolved into the most sophisticated eye organelles, as found, for example, in some dinoflagellates like Erythropsis and Warnovia, which lack chloroplasts. Because dinoflagellates are commonly found as symbionts in cnidarians, the dinoflagellates may have transferred their photoreceptor genes to cnidarians. In cnidarians such as Tripedalia the step from photoreceptor organelles to multicellular eyes has occurred. These two hypotheses, the cellular differentiation and the symbiont hypothesis, are not mutually exclusive and are the subject of further investigations.

The BBC did a good job bringing this together in one program. I may cite this next if available,

"The recruitment of novel genes" where no need is given. The "photosensitivity arose first in photosynthetic cyanobacteria" need not have changed and need not have any connection to the formation of any eye. As usual the more from less false principle is applied and TE is projected into a series of eyes.

The hypothesis assumes TE is true when TE is always false and creation is always true.

The entire show is a hoax and an unprovable act of faith in biological matter to arrange itself, because it has some materialistic principle of animation within it, which is of itself a falsely understood principle of life (denial of the soul is required here).

JM

[tabibito]

The origin of life, and the development of forms are two different topics. That development occurs is undeniable.

[JohnMartin]

Less from more is generally true, but only if you look at the biggest picture, and only if it is a closed system. If energy is being input into the system, it is indeed posible to get more from less from the point of view of some subset of the entire system.

Less from more is always true. More from less is always false. Even in miracles (eg restoring sight), the principle of more from less is not breached. For the infinite power of God acts to provide more, where the less causes only a lack in something (such as blindness in a man).

If energy is applied to a system, then more is applied to the less. Such does not infer more from the less. For the more comes from another source to then interact with the less within the system.

Secondarily, it is often incorrect to apply more from less to evolution. A change which results in six fingers instead of fI've is not more from less. It is in fact just a simple change to a certain part of the DNA. A change that is quantifiable and which happens not infrequently.

Jim

No. TE is tied to the tree of life, which always implies more from less. Micro-evolution is tied to macro-evolution. When micro is observed, then macro is implied. As macro is more from less, then micro as evolution is always more from less.

A change from five to six fingers is easily explained without any reference to TE. TE requires new information, new traits and new organs, in accord with the prninciple of more from less.

TE is always false, for more from less is always false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Except when there is abundant energy from the sun and the interior of the earth for the cause to be far far more energy than necessary for the result being simply an abiogenisis and natural evolution of life.

Energy from other sources is only energy from a greater source in accord with - less from more. The energy applied also acts in accord with less from more through any biological process that uses the energy to cause a biological outcome. Less from more is never breached in nature. More from less never occurs in nature. TE says biological life is accounted for through more from less.

Therefore TE is always false.

If less from more is breached, then the effect is greater than the cause. If so, the effect which is dependent upon the cause is then greater than the cause and consequently -

1) the effect is dependent upon the cause but greater than the cause, making the effect the cause.

2) the effect is the cause and no longer dependent upon the cause.

3) the effect is not an effect and the cause is not a cause.

1 to 3 are false. TE is likewise always false for the same reasons.


JM

[JohnMartin]

"Pride goeth before the fall". See my post 60. As I said, you had not yet gotten to the post where I began dealing with your arguments from post 45.

Jim

Post 60 is now answered. The problem remains unanswered.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The origin of life, and the development of forms are two different topics. That development occurs is undeniable.

Development only occurs when correctly understood as a small change of a species. Such small changes of species do not indicate the large changes required as described by TE.

While these cases demonstrate that cumulative selection can generate small degrees of adaptive evolutionary change in tiny incremental steps, they illustrate that the mechanism depends on the satisfaction of a demanding condition: Descendant species (or structures such as novel homologs) must be linked with their putative ancestral species (or structures) via a long series of empirically known or theoretically envisaged functional sequences of intermediate forms. This need for adaptive continuums brings us to the nub of the problem, the core contention of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and the major point defended here: Practically all the novel, taxa-defining homologs of all the main taxa are not led up to via adaptive continuums. Moreover, as argued later in this book, many of these novel Bauplans do not convey any obvious impression of being adaptive

Denton, Michael. Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (p. 42).

The "readily envisaged continuum of forms" don't exist because such forms would comply with the false principle of more from less. Such forms will never be found. If some are claimed to be found, the claims will be examined and dealt with by creationist thinkers.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The sun burn is less than the sun. The sun is the cause and the burn is the effect. The burn exists and has being. The sun exists and has being. The burn has less being than the sun.

TE requires the effect have more being than the cause. When applied to the above example, the burn has more being than the sun. Then the burn is greater than the sun. This simple example shows how absurd the false TE principle of more from less really is. TE only reduces the absurdity down to small chunks of being so the claim of speciation will be understood as part of the tree of life, which always assumes the principle of more from less. If speciation is an effect in accord with more from less, then people are disposed to beleive all life occurred according to the same principle of more from less. Of course speciation is not more from less, even if we a trained to think it is so.

Evolutionists think like this -

1. If speciation, then more from less.
2. More from less, then tree of life.
3. The tree of life, because more from less is evidenced in all biological life through speciation.
4. Therefore when biological life is observed, more from less is observed.

Line 1 is a deception. And lines 1 to 4 are all false because more from less is always false.

The creationist works with the correct principle of less from more.

1. Creation, the less from more.
2. Speciation, in accord with less from more.
3. All biological life is in accord with less from more.
4. Therefore when biological life is observed, less from more is observed.

Lines 1 to 4 are all true. So of the above two options, only creation is a viable way to understand biological life.

JM

1. If less from more is true, then TE should predict species will devolve into simpler forms.
2. If more from less is true, then TE should predict species will evolve into more complex forms.
3. If same from same is true, then TE should predict species will remain static.

We see evidence for 1 and 3, but never 2. Therefore TE is false where it counts the most, for the tree of life requires 2 to occur far more than 1 and 3.

JM

[tabibito]

If less from more is true, then TE should predict species will devolve into simpler forms.

- At the genetic level, they do. Higher order organisms tend on balance to have shorter and less complex genetic codes. The longest and most complex genetic codes are found in the most primitive life forms.

If more from less is true, then TE should predict species will evolve into more complex forms.

- As can be seen from my response to point 1, this too happens.

If same from same is true, then TE should predict species will remain static forms.

- and in the absence of interesting events, this is what happens.

[JohnMartin]

If more from less is true, then TE should predict species will evolve into more complex forms.
- As can be seen from my response to point 1, this too happens.

An Evo claim without the required transitional forms of the defining features of major taxa. See post 96.

JM

[tabibito]

Such small changes of species do not indicate the large changes required as described by TE.

what are you asking?
A radical and sudden change could hardly leave any evidence of transition.
Evidence of slow developmental changes wouldn't be likely with migratory populations.
That leaves a scant few species that don't move around much and developed slowly over time to work with.
However, the development of the whale from a land living species, which also gave rise to the hippotamus, is well documented. precis here: http://stories.anmm.gov.au/whale-evolution/

[oxmixmudd]

"not on the verge of extinction" indicates the situation is not grave.



"in its current environment" indicates the situation is not grave.



"if the environment itself (N+1) changes" is ambiguous in relation to the initial problem I posed that focussed on the contradiction of grave and not grave in relation to small changes over long time periods. The ambiguity fudges over the problem of grave and not grave with an 'environment change'.




The problem remains unresolved. Jim has assumed not grave in 2 and 3, and placed an ambiguity in 4. The problem is evolution is supposed to account for an animal's fitness in an environment that can bring an animal population to extinction if the animal population does not evolve is response to a predator. The slow biological changes either occur or not. If not, the population goes to extinction. If change occurs, the biological changes occurs over a long time, where the predator threat to cause extinction is

1) grave in the short-term period, for extinction will occur due to the predator.

But also

2) not grave in the short term, for the animal has millions of years to change and thereby overcome the predator threat.

TE is one convoluted theory. Even those who espouse the theory cannot explain it, nor defend it.

TE is a complicated, convoluted hoax.

JM

You are assuming the predator itself arises instantly in sufficient quantity to wipe out the species. This can happen (e.g. a virulent strain of a 100 % fatal disease), but it is in fact rare. It is not by any means necessary and does not present any sort of contradiction. And you clearly do not understand induction as demonstrated by you objections to case N. Induction shows truth for an initial state, and then GIVEN truth for the Nth state, shows truth for the N+1 state.

Your claim hinges on a necessary contradiction in ALL cases. Therefore it is shown false if there is any case in which the conditions from which the contradiction arises are not necessay.

We need only look at the current state of life on the earth to recognize the conditions driving the implied contradiction are, in fact, not a necessary state.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

You are assuming the predator itself arises instantly in sufficient quantity to wipe out the species. This can happen (e.g. a virulent strain of a 100 % fatal disease), but it is in fact rare. It is not by any means necessary and does not present any sort of contradiction. And you clearly do not understand induction as demonstrated by you objections to case N. Induction shows truth for an initial state, and then GIVEN truth for the Nth state, shows truth for the N+1 state.

Your inductive demonstration ignored the problem of both grave and not grave threats by the same predator by reducing the threat to non grave, and making an ambiguous claim about a change in the environment. Your example avoided the problem. To address the problem, begin with a situation of a population confronted with a predator that is a grave threat to the populaton. You will not be able to solve the problem using TE principles of slow change.

Your claim hinges on a necessary contradiction in ALL cases. Therefore it is shown false if there is any case in which the conditions from which the contradiction arises are not necessay.

We need only look at the current state of life on the earth to recognise the conditions driving the implied contradiction are, in fact, not a necessary state.

Jim

The case was given by me, which you essentially ignored. You created your own case and claimed there was no contradiction, when in fact the contradiction remains. The initial case given by me was simple, when in fact in the real there are probably more than one threat to any population at any one time. The case then becomes more difficult to explain how a population can survive many predators with slow changes over long time periods.

Species go to extinction or near extinction in the modern age and nothing happens in the biology to change the population to adapt in time. TE is a fiction.

JM

[JohnMartin]

what are you asking?
A radical and sudden change could hardly leave any evidence of transition.
Evidence of slow developmental changes wouldn't be likely with migratory populations.
That leaves a scant few species that don't move around much and developed slowly over time to work with.
However, the development of the whale from a land living species, which also gave rise to the hippotamus, is well documented. precis here: http://stories.anmm.gov.au/whale-evolution/

Eight divergent animals with divergent organs over 30 million years is hardly compelling evidence. It's more like a sad fantasy than science.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Observations can never overturn principles.

Of course they can when the "principles" are made up and false as your are.

[HMS_Beagle]

TE is always false, for more from less is always false.

JM

If more from less is always false how does a huge oak tree grow from a tiny acorn?

Is the acorn more or less than the oak tree?