Why didn't animals evolve wheels?

[Seth]

I've answered your question fully, Seth, you simply are not able to understand it...

Of course I understand it. The question is whether you understand me, which you don't, which is made clear by your personal insults and evasions and inability to discuss this subject objectively.

[Seth]

What happens is that there is a steady rate of mutational change in "neutral" DNA, the part of the genome that is not expressed as a phenotype (If organisms were designed by competent engineers, there would be none of this inefficient genetic material...).

Would there not? You assume that the goal of genetic engineering is to engineer a perfect organism when it could be merely a long-term experiment in evolution with the occasional tweak to the experimental conditions...like lobbing an asteroid at the Yucatan to reset the ecological parameters and begin a new experiment.

Because those areas of the genome are selectively neutral, natural selection does not exert the ruthless pruning of the vast majority of mutations that it does in the phenotypically active regions of the genome, and thus they accumulate.

Right, over million upon millions of years, which would serve to cloak any "tweaks" that might have been intelligently engineered in the past.

By working out the average rate of change per million years, if one compares the differences in these areas in various evolutionary lineages, one can get a good estimate of how long ago they had a common ancestor. Generally, this has fitted well with the fossil evidence.

See how easy it was to actually produce some rational input? This is how one persuades those who are actually ignorant of the facts of evolution that your theories are correct, as opposed to the kind of dismissive, insulting, derisive, arrogant, fuckwitted responses you gave to me because you made assumptions (incorrect ones) about my purpose and intentions.

And that, my friend, is precisely how Socratic dialog works.

[Jason]

The random changes in the non-operational parts of an organism's DNA occur at a measurable rate, and these correlate very well with the fossil record. So, unless you want to postulate intelligent aliens that firstly made the massive effort to direct evolution by some super technology, and then (being devious, lying bastards) went to the even more massive effort of adding all the random mess expected from natural evolution (to test the faith of future beings, no doubt ), you are simply totally and utterly wrong.

Does this mean there is a certain.. 'stratification' in so called 'junk' DNA that correlates random genetic 'drift' occurring generation to generation in a way that is commensurate with the geological strata in which the fossils are found?

That is.. hmm.. that there is regular, 'metered', random variation in this junk DNA, that is not operated on by natural selection because it doesn't code for anything, that can be used to estimate the genealogical 'age' of an organism such as is commensurate with the fossil record of its evolution?

I'm not sure how to ask the question more simply while retaining some sense of the subject.

What happens is that there is a steady rate of mutational change in "neutral" DNA, the part of the genome that is not expressed as a phenotype (If organisms were designed by competent engineers, there would be none of this inefficient genetic material...). Because those areas of the genome are selectively neutral, natural selection does not exert the ruthless pruning of the vast majority of mutations that it does in the phenotypically active regions of the genome, and thus they accumulate.
By working out the average rate of change per million years, if one compares the differences in these areas in various evolutionary lineages, one can get a good estimate of how long ago they had a common ancestor. Generally, this has fitted well with the fossil evidence.

Works for me. Thanks Jim.

[Jason]

And that, my friend, is precisely how Socratic dialog works.

With a failure to understand what was said? I find the Socratic method worked well for Plato who was, in my view, a pseudo-sophist and who really only wanted to create logical traps to frustrate his opponents, who were, by and large, sophists. His favoured method was to get his interlocutor to agree to a series of propositions that would lead to a logical negation of one of the early agreed upon premises. It is, by it's nature, disingenuous.

Anyway.. you didn't understand what Jim said.

[Seth]

And that, my friend, is precisely how Socratic dialog works.

With a failure to understand what was said? I find the Socratic method worked well for Plato who was, in my view, a pseudo-sophist and who really only wanted to create logical traps to frustrate his opponents, who were, by and large, sophists. His favoured method was to get his interlocutor to agree to a series of propositions that would lead to a logical negation of one of the early agreed upon premises. It is, by it's nature, disingenuous.

Nothing disingenuous about showing someone the errors in their reasoning by getting them to refute their own errors. That's a great way for the student to learn not to make logical and rational errors and to think before spouting bilge.

Anyway.. you didn't understand what Jim said.

Of course I did. That doesn't mean he's infallibly correct, which is my point.

[JimC]

If you had understood what I've said, you would have seen that all the evidence from every branch of biology and genetics is consistent with the messy process of evolution by natural selection and random genetic change, and none of it is consistent with any form of intelligent design being applied in the past.

Given that, it is perfectly reasonable to discard the speculative fairy tale of intelligent design.

[Brian Peacock]

Is it possible that DNA has been manipulated directly, with intelligent intent and design, to "improve" or somehow change species?

The DNA of livestock has been directly manipulated with an intent to "improve" by selective breeding for millennia, and genetically modified crops have been similarly, well, genetically modified (the clue is in the name). Somehow i don't think this is what Seth's aim at though.

So, does this mean that the answer to the question is "yes?" I'll take it as a yes unless you indicate otherwise, okay?

Is it possible that such genetic changes could be made without leaving obvious traces?

...

Is it possible that the original genetic design of, let's say mammals, was "clean" of this genetic debris, but that subsequent genetic drift dirtied up the genome in the intervening ages?

Ah, the Tolerist Socratic Fallacy strikes again: If Seth can imagine it then it might be true, and it's up to everyone else to prove otherwise.

Did I ask you to prove anything? I asked a simple question of biology and evolution. Are you unable to answer the question, or merely unwilling?

In a gene-centred view of evolution the imaginable is undermined by the observable every time.

And is a "gene-centered view of evolution" the only possible view of evolution, or, as I asked before, is it possible to alter genes deliberately, using intelligent design, to achieve a specific type of organism and in doing so leave no obvious trace of that manipulation in the evolutionary future?

What do you want to hear Seth? I've answered the question about 'intelligently manipulating DNA' and now you want to know if this can be applied to genes? Do you know what a gene is? Are you wanting us to comment on whether a whole population has, is, or could have it's genome 'intelligently manipulated, or whether a specific gene--which might appear in any number of disparate organisims--has, is, or could be similarly manipulated? Perhaps you could stop trying to drop 'intelligent' and 'design' into your sentences and just ask about stuff you'd like to know about - and if you're genuine to find out more why not go and do just that as you can't afford my tuition rates.

The gene-centred view of evolution holds that evolution is best, you know, viewed as acting on genes as a whole, across all species and populations, with the frequency of specific genes within a gene-pool being proportionate to the potential survivability afforded to a population by its expression. and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes.

You can check out the Wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-cent ... _evolution

Seth, go and educate yourself on genetics and evolutionary theory, possibly by taking 4 years to do an honours degree on biology...

Or just stop pussy-footing around and go the whole hog: join a seminary.

Talking about pussies, you guys epitomize the evasive pussies of "science" who won't even answer simple, rational, scientific questions about your system of religious beliefs.

Answer the question please: Is it possible that such genetic changes could be made without leaving obvious traces?

It has been answered - twice now. And if such a change had taken place how would one ever know if it left no traces?

And since we know the answer to the fundamental question of whether DNA can be intelligently designed to achieve a particular goal is yes, as you admit above, here's the next question: What level of intelligence and manipulative ability is required to perform such manipulations?

Well, in the examples given, a human-level intelligence, but humans are not the only farmers on the planet. Your point now please.

[Jason]

Seth come to the Philosophy side. We have cookies and we'll let anyone join. Give in to your feelings.

[Seth]

If you had understood what I've said, you would have seen that all the evidence from every branch of biology and genetics is consistent with the messy process of evolution by natural selection and random genetic change, and none of it is consistent with any form of intelligent design being applied in the past.

I understand that perfectly. However, theistic lurkers might not and you provided a rational and useful bit of information to them...after I dragged it out of you.

Given that, it is perfectly reasonable to discard the speculative fairy tale of intelligent design.

Perhaps it is, but that wasn't the point of my interlocution.

[Seth]

What do you want to hear Seth?

Rational, logical discourse of course.

I've answered the question about 'intelligently manipulating DNA' and now you want to know if this can be applied to genes? Do you know what a gene is? Are you wanting us to comment on whether a whole population has, is, or could have it's genome 'intelligently manipulated, or whether a specific gene--which might appear in any number of disparate organisims--has, is, or could be similarly manipulated? Perhaps you could stop trying to drop 'intelligent' and 'design' into your sentences and just ask about stuff you'd like to know about - and if you're genuine to find out more why not go and do just that as you can't afford my tuition rates.

Feel free to keep your holy knowledge to yourself if that's what you want to do.

The gene-centred view of evolution holds that evolution is best, you know, viewed as acting on genes as a whole, across all species and populations, with the frequency of specific genes within a gene-pool being proportionate to the potential survivability afforded to a population by its expression. and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes.

And is that the only possible view of evolution?

You can check out the Wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-cent ... _evolution

If I wanted to read a Wiki page, I would do so.

Seth, go and educate yourself on genetics and evolutionary theory, possibly by taking 4 years to do an honours degree on biology...

Or just stop pussy-footing around and go the whole hog: join a seminary.

Answer the question please: Is it possible that such genetic changes could be made without leaving obvious traces?

It has been answered - twice now.

No, it's been danced around. The answer is, quite simply, "yes." That's all the answer that is required.

And if such a change had taken place how would one ever know if it left no traces?

Precisely my point.

And since we know the answer to the fundamental question of whether DNA can be intelligently designed to achieve a particular goal is yes, as you admit above, here's the next question: What level of intelligence and manipulative ability is required to perform such manipulations?

Well, in the examples given, a human-level intelligence, but humans are not the only farmers on the planet. Your point now please.

My point? My point is that intelligent design of living organisms is an inherently scientific concept, not solely a religious one as the idiot judges who have examined the concept have incorrectly ruled. One may dismiss the argument that the "only way" or even "the way" organisms could have come into being is through intelligent design of a deity as a religious belief, and indeed one should when it comes to primary school curricula.

One cannot rationally dismiss the concept of intelligent design altogether however because it is a proven scientific fact that intelligent design of living organisms has occurred. Since it has occurred in our lifetimes, there is no rational argument to be made that it could not have occurred sometime in the past.

How, why or by whom is another question entirely, but there is absolutely nothing in our scientific understanding of physics, biology or evolution that precludes intelligent design being a part of evolution, either now, in the past, or in the future.

To forestall your next, predictable diatribe, no, I do not believe that some god designed everything, but then again I cannot rationally dismiss the idea entirely because there are so many unanswered questions about the nature of the universe and its history that doing so would be an irrational act.

Indeed, I can see a perfectly rational argument for "intelligent aliens" meddling in Earth's biology, even if we humans are not presently equipped to detect that meddling. It might be an unlikely possibility, but it's neither a religious belief nor is it rational to simply dismiss the idea because one has a virulent anti-theist religious belief of one's own that intelligent design has NOT occurred...because it has.

[Seth]

Seth come to the Philosophy side. We have cookies and we'll let anyone join. Give in to your feelings.

Come to it? I've been there a long, long time.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

One cannot rationally dismiss the concept of intelligent design altogether however because it is a proven scientific fact that intelligent design of living organisms has occurred. Since it has occurred in our lifetimes, there is no rational argument to be made that it could not have occurred sometime in the past.

Just like all your arguments about religion and atheism, this comes down to a folorn statement that improbable events with zero supporting evidence can never be ruled out. This may be true in terms of pure logic, but it provides absolutely no useful contribution to our developing understanding of how the universe works.

We cannot rule out that the evolution of all flowering plants has been guided by a race of invisible fairies, who manipulate their genes (and hide the genetic traces of their manipulation) because the Elvish King has delegated them the power to be Guardians of the Flowers...

However, I have no intention of letting the fact that I cannot rule it out have any impact on my understanding of the botany of angiosperms...

Additionally, the term "intelligent design of living organisms" in terms of current genetic engineering is drawing a very long bow - we have done a little tinkering at the edges, no new species or novel morphologies have been produced...

[Seth]

Just like all your arguments about religion and atheism, this comes down to a folorn statement that improbable events with zero supporting evidence can never be ruled out. This may be true in terms of pure logic, but it provides absolutely no useful contribution to our developing understanding of how the universe works.

Maybe that's because you ignore and dismiss it without proper investigation because of your anti-theistic bias. Then again nobody's expecting you to investigate the idea or even give it credence. My point is that your obvious antipathy, if not outright hatred of all things "intelligent design" related because you (incorrectly) presume that such notions must inevitably be theistic stalking-horses is not the product of rational thinking or argumentation and that you belittle YOURSELF and science in general when you demonstrate such virulent bias and theophobia. It's beneath any true scientist or intellectual to spend so much time belittling others and so little time trying to educate them. I had to practically pull out your fingernails to get you to answer a very simple few questions with a rational answer.

We cannot rule out that the evolution of all flowering plants has been guided by a race of invisible fairies, who manipulate their genes (and hide the genetic traces of their manipulation) because the Elvish King has delegated them the power to be Guardians of the Flowers...

Strawman.

However, I have no intention of letting the fact that I cannot rule it out have any impact on my understanding of the botany of angiosperms...

Additionally, the term "intelligent design of living organisms" in terms of current genetic engineering is drawing a very long bow - we have done a little tinkering at the edges, no new species or novel morphologies have been produced...

Design is design even when it's merely redesign. It's my guess that design from the ground up is not far behind.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed, and let's not kid ourselves that 'Intelligent Design' is somehow an intellectually neutral term beyond controversy or dispute, or a legitimate scientific concept informing evolutionary theory - it's not. The proponents of ID have no regard for scientific observations, evidences, or reality and their 'arguments' rely wholly on a reifying the products of their febrile imaginations. And before somebody struggles onto their hind legs to inform me that ID cannot be 'rationally dismissed' I'll just say that I'm quite prepared to accept that we live in a bespoke universe designed specifically for us to inhabit and await only the evidence to demonstrate that things actually work that way. Until then I reserve the right to call bullshit on the whole business.

[Seth]

Indeed, and let's not kid ourselves that 'Intelligent Design' is somehow an intellectually neutral term beyond controversy or dispute, or a legitimate scientific concept informing evolutionary theory - it's not.

Only because you refuse to recognize it and acknowledge that it's a fully scientific hypothesis.

The proponents of ID have no regard for scientific observations, evidences, or reality and their 'arguments' rely wholly on a reifying the products of their febrile imaginations.

This, of course, is true. The reason they lost, and should have lost, is because they came to the table with dirty hands and a specific (and they thought secret) intent to shoehorn creationism and theism into the science curriculum by misusing the idea of intelligent design as the stalking horse. I loathe them for doing so because they put a taint on a perfectly rational scientific idea that will probably never go away. If they had honestly approached the idea of intelligent design they might have prevailed, but they let their theistic obsession with teaching creationism suborn any rational thinking about the possibilities of intelligent design, which are no more far-fetched than any of the present cosmological theories about the origin of the universe or our very small understanding of the physics of the universe.

And before somebody struggles onto their hind legs to inform me that ID cannot be 'rationally dismissed' I'll just say that I'm quite prepared to accept that we live in a bespoke universe designed specifically for us to inhabit and await only the evidence to demonstrate that things actually work that way. Until then I reserve the right to call bullshit on the whole business.

As well you should. A bunch of dumb-asses ruined the whole concept and that's also what pisses me off because the notion that there might be an intelligence out there doing something like that intrigues me.