Good subject! Would it not be sufficient to say that the ontogenetic distance in an organism would be relatively short in early predecessors and blind changes to cell differentiation could either be useful or not at every stage or at least not detrimental, if it wasn't too detrimental it could remain in the population and built upon in later generations. There could also be larger jumps in morphology which could provide greater usefulness with greater risk. At each stage the process is blind to the future requirements and wasteful, but a useful long ontogenetic sequence may eventually emerge, particularly given the vast timespans and multitude of populations. (I may have to take another listen!)
This is silly. You cannot distinguish between development and evolution, and you call yourself a philosopher of biology?? NOBODY thinks that there is an evolutionary mechanism at play that explains how a zygote develops to an adult. The whole sophisticated plan is already encoded within the DNA of the zygote. The question of how the zygote got such a sophisticated (and 'seemingly intelligently designed') plan within its DNA in the first place _is_ (supposedly) explained by evolution. (Earlier life forms had simpler plans, and with random mutation in the DNA, life forms with more complex plans arise.) Perhaps currently we don't have a clear understanding of the origin of cell differentiation. Fair point. But you, with this presentation, hasn't explained "Why Ontogenetic Depth Matters to Evolutionary Theory" either!
They came up with that nonsensical ontogenic depth as a purported metric of SOMETHING that might challenge evolution back in 2010 ish. Couldn't explain it, couldn't come up with a consistent definition and despite saying they'd have some objective manner by which one could evaluate the value -- it never came to be. It sounds sciency, so I guess that's all that matters to Discovery Inst.
Actually, it makes sense to me. How does evolution explain the information needed to form my fingernail in the first cell that didn't have fingernails? The first cell didn't need them and had no impetus for them. Not only did it need that information to get passed down to the gamete, it needed millions of bits of information BEFORE they could be selected for. Evolutionary processes have no explanation for this kind of information. Information only comes from minds. Mutations corrupt and destroy or are neutral, they don't write code.
The information for fingernails formation comes from specialized keratin genes, which are a form of cytoskeletal genes that almost all eukaryotic cells have. The information for , WHEN and WHERE the fingernails (and hairs) form are partly controlled by a sequence of gene expression like the homeobox genes. The first cells didn't have homeobox genes nor cytoskeletons. But mutations always creep in, and when certain protein producing genes (ie., any) started making keratins or cytoskeletons or such fibers, then there was no reason to stop making them.
Carey Waldie "Impetus" implies a drive towards a goal and that at first sight that requires a mind. Evolution finds "goals" but also tests plenty of blind alleys along the way. The "drive" is provided by the natural selection of what just happens to work. So if slightly harder cells at limb extremities are useful in increasing reproductive success, the genes that code for that stay in the gene pool. Similarly the evolution of teeth via hard skin cells around the mouth would be a similar process and is also well accounted for in studies. Evolution works! Asserting that a mind (by far one of the finest pinnacles of evolution) pre-existed, comes with zero explanation. It answers everything and nothing at the same time. Until religion explains how the "intelligence first" argument is better than a largely observable evolutionary explanation, then naturalistic processes remain the best explanation we have! You say also that mutation can only destroy or be neutral? So.. look at Dawkins' explanation for randomly turning a TV antenna for the best signal with feedback coming from someone below shouting better, better, worse, worse. Taking this analogy, are you saying there are never any better positions, only neutral or worse?
I'm so sad I missed this one!! Will definitely tune in for part 2. Great job, Paul Nelson!
This was far more interesting than I thought. Great presentation. I'm really looking forward to the second part.
I'd like to get in contact with Paul Nelson, could you help me please ?
Good subject!
Would it not be sufficient to say that the ontogenetic distance in an organism would be relatively short in early predecessors and blind changes to cell differentiation could either be useful or not at every stage or at least not detrimental, if it wasn't too detrimental it could remain in the population and built upon in later generations. There could also be larger jumps in morphology which could provide greater usefulness with greater risk. At each stage the process is blind to the future requirements and wasteful, but a useful long ontogenetic sequence may eventually emerge, particularly given the vast timespans and multitude of populations.
(I may have to take another listen!)
This is silly. You cannot distinguish between development and evolution, and you call yourself a philosopher of biology?? NOBODY thinks that there is an evolutionary mechanism at play that explains how a zygote develops to an adult. The whole sophisticated plan is already encoded within the DNA of the zygote. The question of how the zygote got such a sophisticated (and 'seemingly intelligently designed') plan within its DNA in the first place _is_ (supposedly) explained by evolution. (Earlier life forms had simpler plans, and with random mutation in the DNA, life forms with more complex plans arise.)
Perhaps currently we don't have a clear understanding of the origin of cell differentiation. Fair point. But you, with this presentation, hasn't explained "Why Ontogenetic Depth Matters to Evolutionary Theory" either!
They came up with that nonsensical ontogenic depth as a purported metric of SOMETHING that might challenge evolution back in 2010 ish.
Couldn't explain it, couldn't come up with a consistent definition and despite saying they'd have some objective manner by which one could evaluate the value -- it never came to be.
It sounds sciency, so I guess that's all that matters to Discovery Inst.
Actually, it makes sense to me. How does evolution explain the information needed to form my fingernail in the first cell that didn't have fingernails? The first cell didn't need them and had no impetus for them. Not only did it need that information to get passed down to the gamete, it needed millions of bits of information BEFORE they could be selected for. Evolutionary processes have no explanation for this kind of information. Information only comes from minds. Mutations corrupt and destroy or are neutral, they don't write code.
The information for fingernails formation comes from specialized keratin genes, which are a form of cytoskeletal genes that almost all eukaryotic cells have.
The information for , WHEN and WHERE the fingernails (and hairs) form are partly controlled by a sequence of gene expression like the homeobox genes.
The first cells didn't have homeobox genes nor cytoskeletons. But mutations always creep in, and when certain protein producing genes (ie., any) started making keratins or cytoskeletons or such fibers, then there was no reason to stop making them.
Carey Waldie
"Impetus" implies a drive towards a goal and that at first sight that requires a mind.
Evolution finds "goals" but also tests plenty of blind alleys along the way.
The "drive" is provided by the natural selection of what just happens to work. So if slightly harder cells at limb extremities are useful in increasing reproductive success, the genes that code for that stay in the gene pool. Similarly the evolution of teeth via hard skin cells around the mouth would be a similar process and is also well accounted for in studies.
Evolution works! Asserting that a mind (by far one of the finest pinnacles of evolution) pre-existed, comes with zero explanation. It answers everything and nothing at the same time.
Until religion explains how the "intelligence first" argument is better than a largely observable evolutionary explanation, then naturalistic processes remain the best explanation we have!
You say also that mutation can only destroy or be neutral? So.. look at Dawkins' explanation for randomly turning a TV antenna for the best signal with feedback coming from someone below shouting better, better, worse, worse. Taking this analogy, are you saying there are never any better positions, only neutral or worse?