9 ms·

The article frequently interchanges the terms evolution and adaptation as if they were the same thing. The snails adapted and were able to do so by expressing g

The article frequently interchanges the terms evolution and adaptation as if they were the same thing. The snails adapted and were able to do so by expressing genes they already had.

tejohnso 2y ago
The paper uses the term "adaptive evolution", so using the words interchangeably seems almost encouraged, definitely understandable.
HPsquared 2y ago
Epigenetic changes (build system and preprocessor) can move a lot faster than genetic changes (C code).
- j7ake 2y ago
  Can you elaborate on your parentheses more? Not sure why epigenetics is to genetics as build system is to C code. I was thinking more like genetics is the code base, epigenetics are like decorators that can modify function without changing the behavior without changing code.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Epigenetics is about regulating gene expression. That is, controlling which of the many genes in the organism's genome actually get "printed out" into actual proteins in a given situation). Every cell, after all, contains the entire DNA library of the organism, but not every cell needs all of those proteins, and they must not all simply be made into proteins constantly. It's a little bit like preprocessor directives ("if we're on x86, compile this bit; if we're on ARM, compile that bit"). Transcription and translation turns DNA into protein, in my analogy this is the compilation step.
- setopt 2y ago
  I like the build system analogy for the epigenetics, it is quite apt since the mechanism is to “turn and off features that are already in the code base”. Not sure I get the preprocessor analogy though. Unless you mean specifically changing some #define constants and not stuff like preprocessor macros?
  - ninkendo 2y ago
    Build systems often define constants by passing them as -D defines, which toggle code in different preprocessor #ifdef sections, so the analogy isn’t far off.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  Build systems, preprocessors, and C code are made by intelligent designers with precise designs. They are observed in reality, both forming and being iterated on, with results that work when others replicate them. They prove software requires intelligent designers. Further research on that showed highly-complex software that worked with 100% reliability required the much more intelligence to produce. There's debate in scientific communities, esp in fault-tolerance and formal verification, if our designs could ever achieve the longevity and reliability seen in the mechanics of our universe. (Now, back to scientists seeing evolution which has none of these attributes of observation-driven science. An overloaded term meaning both adaptation and large-scale changes of which I'll focus on the unproven part.) We'll start with the scientific method since it's usually absent in some way in these claims. We work from real-world observations to a hypothesis to testing that. There's usually predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. We must be willing to modify it or let it go entirely if we're scientists. There's also peer review by skeptical parties willing to consider alternatives. They're to be weighed on the bases of evidence, not feelings or politics. Dissent is always allowed regardless of credentials or numbers behind mainstream theories. With this process, you'd have to look at the testable predictions of macro-evolution, observe them happening, observe no contradictions, and review by people who didn't have die-hard faith in evolution. Unfortunately, the theory fails in all of those areas. First, we never see it happening in reality despite billions of observations over thousands of years. Second, life just appears out of nowhere fully formed in the fossil record, like the Cambrian explosion. Third, the man-made creatures don't change much or live long even under ideal, lab conditions but somehow random events worked better millions of times. Fourth, complexity science along with studies of life and the universe proved both are vastly more complex than initially assumed. We can't create them, esp self-sustaining. Yet, mainstream science keeps believing evolution just happened in a way that kept happening, doesn't now the same way, and just take their word for it. No dissent is allowed either with or without observations or experiments. Eventually, there's going to be some actual science done. That requires evolution being marked as refuted by observed evidence. (Minor adaptation is proven, though.) They need to ask where we came from with a clean slate. They must factor in complexity theory, evidence of design, what optimization theory taught us about success rate of random vs intelligently-parameterized changes, and observations in programming like design and maintenance requirements. Whatever is predicted must match real-world observations. That will be science. Christian scientists already do that. Our current theory is that the universe and humans must have been designed by a being whose power exceeds all human knowledge and technology. The purpose isn't scientifically discoverable. The Bible, separately proven, explains it's to know and glorify God (Jesus Christ) and reflect His character as we live together and love each other. The awe of the purpose, beauty, and brilliance of God's overall creation motivates us to dig deeper into it to understand it. That God requires truth to come first is why we can't allow popular, unproven lies about either science (macro-evolution) or theology (false religion).
nickpsecurity 2y ago
“Once again, evolution was not observed in real time. The snail remained a snail instead of turning into a new type of animal. Evolutionists are baffled by how what they claim about all the species on Earth never actually happens. Instead of being disproven, the proponents now say the lack of evidence is proof it happened… on extremely-long, time scales science can’t confirm. That science can’t prove everything, like their core beliefs. They called for believers to keep having faith.” It would be a great news story. Especially if it contrasted the proof of minor adaptations within types of creatures vs lack of actual evolution of the kind we always read about. Then, explain what falsification is, evolution’s predictions, and how observations contrary to predictions should decrease belief in the theory. Meanwhile, snails are still snails, ants are still ants, and chickens are still chickens. Billions of things not turning into new animals. It’s like God had to intervene to create these categories since it’s observationally impossible by chance.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Changing into new species is just a longer time frame of more an more adaptations. Not sure why people aren't able to extrapolate that.
  - jdthedisciple 2y ago
    Maybe that's how fairy tales work, but not science. Changing your chromosome numbers is an entirely different (and unproven to have ever occurred) beast compared to simply expressing some different but previously already present genes due to changing environments (something easily observable). Not sure why people aren't able to grasp that.
    - sethammons 2y ago
      What are you talking about? Of course chromosome number changes have been seen: see every Down's syndrome person ever. Had that been an advantageous change, Down's people would be successfully increasing their percentage of the population
melagonster 2y ago
Adaptation has a specific meaning in the evolution context; it is a type of evolution.
shellfishgene 2y ago
Evolution means that genetic characteristics change through the generations of a population. Adaptation via selection is one process that can cause evolution. Sexual selection is another process that can cause evolution (male peacock's tails for example), but that is not caused by adaptation to the environment.

The article frequently interchanges the terms evolution and adaptation as if they were the same thing. The snails adapted and were able to do so by expressing genes they already had.

tejohnso 2y ago

The paper uses the term "adaptive evolution", so using the words interchangeably seems almost encouraged, definitely understandable.

HPsquared 2y ago

Epigenetic changes (build system and preprocessor) can move a lot faster than genetic changes (C code).

j7ake 2y ago
Can you elaborate on your parentheses more? Not sure why epigenetics is to genetics as build system is to C code. I was thinking more like genetics is the code base, epigenetics are like decorators that can modify function without changing the behavior without changing code.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Epigenetics is about regulating gene expression. That is, controlling which of the many genes in the organism's genome actually get "printed out" into actual proteins in a given situation). Every cell, after all, contains the entire DNA library of the organism, but not every cell needs all of those proteins, and they must not all simply be made into proteins constantly. It's a little bit like preprocessor directives ("if we're on x86, compile this bit; if we're on ARM, compile that bit"). Transcription and translation turns DNA into protein, in my analogy this is the compilation step.
setopt 2y ago
I like the build system analogy for the epigenetics, it is quite apt since the mechanism is to “turn and off features that are already in the code base”. Not sure I get the preprocessor analogy though. Unless you mean specifically changing some #define constants and not stuff like preprocessor macros?
- ninkendo 2y ago
  Build systems often define constants by passing them as -D defines, which toggle code in different preprocessor #ifdef sections, so the analogy isn’t far off.
nickpsecurity 2y ago
Build systems, preprocessors, and C code are made by intelligent designers with precise designs. They are observed in reality, both forming and being iterated on, with results that work when others replicate them. They prove software requires intelligent designers. Further research on that showed highly-complex software that worked with 100% reliability required the much more intelligence to produce. There's debate in scientific communities, esp in fault-tolerance and formal verification, if our designs could ever achieve the longevity and reliability seen in the mechanics of our universe. (Now, back to scientists seeing evolution which has none of these attributes of observation-driven science. An overloaded term meaning both adaptation and large-scale changes of which I'll focus on the unproven part.) We'll start with the scientific method since it's usually absent in some way in these claims. We work from real-world observations to a hypothesis to testing that. There's usually predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. We must be willing to modify it or let it go entirely if we're scientists. There's also peer review by skeptical parties willing to consider alternatives. They're to be weighed on the bases of evidence, not feelings or politics. Dissent is always allowed regardless of credentials or numbers behind mainstream theories. With this process, you'd have to look at the testable predictions of macro-evolution, observe them happening, observe no contradictions, and review by people who didn't have die-hard faith in evolution. Unfortunately, the theory fails in all of those areas. First, we never see it happening in reality despite billions of observations over thousands of years. Second, life just appears out of nowhere fully formed in the fossil record, like the Cambrian explosion. Third, the man-made creatures don't change much or live long even under ideal, lab conditions but somehow random events worked better millions of times. Fourth, complexity science along with studies of life and the universe proved both are vastly more complex than initially assumed. We can't create them, esp self-sustaining. Yet, mainstream science keeps believing evolution just happened in a way that kept happening, doesn't now the same way, and just take their word for it. No dissent is allowed either with or without observations or experiments. Eventually, there's going to be some actual science done. That requires evolution being marked as refuted by observed evidence. (Minor adaptation is proven, though.) They need to ask where we came from with a clean slate. They must factor in complexity theory, evidence of design, what optimization theory taught us about success rate of random vs intelligently-parameterized changes, and observations in programming like design and maintenance requirements. Whatever is predicted must match real-world observations. That will be science. Christian scientists already do that. Our current theory is that the universe and humans must have been designed by a being whose power exceeds all human knowledge and technology. The purpose isn't scientifically discoverable. The Bible, separately proven, explains it's to know and glorify God (Jesus Christ) and reflect His character as we live together and love each other. The awe of the purpose, beauty, and brilliance of God's overall creation motivates us to dig deeper into it to understand it. That God requires truth to come first is why we can't allow popular, unproven lies about either science (macro-evolution) or theology (false religion).

nickpsecurity 2y ago

“Once again, evolution was not observed in real time. The snail remained a snail instead of turning into a new type of animal. Evolutionists are baffled by how what they claim about all the species on Earth never actually happens. Instead of being disproven, the proponents now say the lack of evidence is proof it happened… on extremely-long, time scales science can’t confirm. That science can’t prove everything, like their core beliefs. They called for believers to keep having faith.” It would be a great news story. Especially if it contrasted the proof of minor adaptations within types of creatures vs lack of actual evolution of the kind we always read about. Then, explain what falsification is, evolution’s predictions, and how observations contrary to predictions should decrease belief in the theory. Meanwhile, snails are still snails, ants are still ants, and chickens are still chickens. Billions of things not turning into new animals. It’s like God had to intervene to create these categories since it’s observationally impossible by chance.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Changing into new species is just a longer time frame of more an more adaptations. Not sure why people aren't able to extrapolate that.
- jdthedisciple 2y ago
  Maybe that's how fairy tales work, but not science. Changing your chromosome numbers is an entirely different (and unproven to have ever occurred) beast compared to simply expressing some different but previously already present genes due to changing environments (something easily observable). Not sure why people aren't able to grasp that.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    What are you talking about? Of course chromosome number changes have been seen: see every Down's syndrome person ever. Had that been an advantageous change, Down's people would be successfully increasing their percentage of the population

melagonster 2y ago

Adaptation has a specific meaning in the evolution context; it is a type of evolution.

shellfishgene 2y ago

Evolution means that genetic characteristics change through the generations of a population. Adaptation via selection is one process that can cause evolution. Sexual selection is another process that can cause evolution (male peacock's tails for example), but that is not caused by adaptation to the environment.