Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Observe_the_trend=2E_It=E2=80=99s_happening=2E_Give?= =?UTF-8?Q?_it_time=2E?= Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 22:51:11 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 242 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References:

Reply-To: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="27335"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:4KnMA83pe0n3G8suWuMIR4Hl7AM= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 7FDCF22978C; Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:51:25 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 224B9229783 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2025 18:51:23 -0400 (EDT) by pi-dach.dorfdsl.de (8.18.1/8.18.1/Debian-6~bpo12+1) with ESMTPS id 52FMpEKv513459 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2025 23:51:14 +0100 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1CE4622AF for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2025 22:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: name/F1CE4622AF; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=meden.demon.co.uk id 7B1DDDC01CA; Sat, 15 Mar 2025 23:51:12 +0100 (CET) X-Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 23:51:12 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18aS/H8VpG+si9s7l/dr7UqrJjmzuRNq3eAzQMtyRymoNEVbWG1ftu6VPnbbsfz28NW+UNLlB4owA== In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, TVD_PH_BODY_ACCOUNTS_PRE,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 smtp.eternal-september.org On 14/03/2025 04:57, MarkE wrote: > On 14/03/2025 12:18 am, Ernest Major wrote: >> On 13/03/2025 11:17, MarkE wrote: >>> On 12/03/2025 9:31 am, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> On 08/03/2025 04:34, MarkE wrote: >>>>> On 7/03/2025 9:29 pm, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>> On 06/03/2025 00:45, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/03/2025 3:31 pm, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>> Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine, >>>>>>>> adapt and create the “appearance of design”? Yes: the mechanism >>>>>>>> itself of “differential reproductive success” has intrinsic >>>>>>>> limitations, whatever it may be able to achieve, and this is >>>>>>>> further constrained by finite time and population sizes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin, let's stay on topic. Would you agree that there are >>>>>>> limits to NS as described, which lead to an upper limit to >>>>>>> functional complexity in living things? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How these limits might be determined is a separate issue, but the >>>>>>> first step is establishing this premise. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First, natural selection is not the only evolutionary process. >>>>>> Even if one evolutionary process is not capable of achieving >>>>>> something that doesn't mean that evolutionary processes in toto >>>>>> are not capable of achieving that. >>>>> >>>>> Natural selection is the *only* naturalistic means capable of >>>>> increasing functional complexity >>>> >>>> Creationists have been known to argue that natural selection doesn't >>>> create anything; it merely selects what's already present. As an >>>> argument against evolution that's worthless; but as an observation >>>> it's true enough. Each step in functionality complexity originates >>>> from mutation, or recombination, or gene flow, and is subsequently >>>> fixed or not by natural selection or genetic drift. >>>> >>>> For example Ron Okimoto (I think) recently mentioned that one >>>> flagellar gene is a truncated version of another, and results in the >>>> assembly of a tapered flagellum rather than cylindrical one. I can >>>> imagine that the tapered flagellum is advantageous, and was fixed by >>>> selection. It might be that the gene was duplicated and fixed by >>>> drift before a truncation mutation occurred, but as selection >>>> against excess DNA is effective in bacteria I suspect that it >>>> originated as a partial duplication of the gene, which was then >>>> selected. But note that the initial increase in complexity was >>>> caused by the mutation. Natural selection fixes this in a >>>> population, and as you have mentioned acts as a ratchet allowing >>>> changes to accumulate. >>>> >>>> But you are assuming increases in functional complexity are >>>> adaptive. They could be neutral or slightly deleterious and fixed by >>>> genetic drift. I don't accept without question your >>>> panadaptationist/ panfunctionalist premise. >>>> >>>> Passing over the problems with defining an objective criterion for >>>> irreducibly complex systems, there are at least three classes of >>>> evolutionary paths to this. I think that coadaptation is the >>>> predominant one. This goes from non-interaction to facultative >>>> interaction to obligate interaction. Both steps could be fixed by >>>> either natural selection or genetic drift. >>>> >>>>> and genetic information. >>>> >>>> Increases in functional complexity and genetic information are not >>>> the same thing. If you use a Shannon or Kolmgorov measure natural >>>> selection tends to reduce, not increase, information in a gene pool. >>>>> >>>>> All other factors have only a shuffling/randomising effect. In >>>>> every case, NS is required to pick from the many resulting >>>>> permutations the rare chance improvements. >>>>> >>>>> Without the action of NS, all biological systems are degrading over >>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, you've changed the question. Evolutionary processes have >>>>>> limitations, but those limitations need not be on the degree of >>>>>> functional complexity achievable. Evolution cannot produce living >>>>>> organisms that can't exist in the universe. (You could quibble >>>>>> about lethal mutations, recessives, etc., but I hope you can >>>>>> perceive the intent of my phrasing; for example, I very much doubt >>>>>> that evolution could result in an organism with a volume measured >>>>>> in cubic light years.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Applying this to functional complexity, physical limits on how big >>>>>> an organism can be, and how small details can be, do pose a limit >>>>>> on how much functional complexity can be packed into an organism. >>>>>> But such a limit doesn't help you - humans are clearly capable of >>>>>> existing in this universe, so aren't precluded by that limit. You >>>>>> need a process limitation, not a physical limitation; I don't find >>>>>> it obvious that there is a process limitation that applies here. >>>>>> >>>>>> You say that the first step is establishing the premise. That is >>>>>> your job. >>>>>> >>>>>> That there are things that evolution cannot achieve (a classic >>>>>> example is the wheel, though even that is not unimaginable) >>>>>> doesn't not mean that evolution cannot achieve things that already >>>>>> exist; one of the reasons that ID is not science is it's lack of >>>>>> interest in accounting for the voluminous evidence that evolution >>>>>> has achieved the current biosphere. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The limits of NS are not simply due to physically possible >>>>> organisms. It's much tighter constraint. The mechanism of >>>>> "differential reproductive success" is a blunt instrument, rightly >>>>> described as explaining the survival but not arrival of the fittest. >>>>> >>>>> To elaborate my hypotheses (not proofs): >>>>> >>>>> 1. NS, along with any other naturalistic mechanisms, do not have >>>>> the logical capacity to fully traverse the solution space, >>>>> regardless of time available. Some (many) areas of the fitness >>>>> landscape will be islands, local maxima, inaccessible via >>>>> gradualistic pathways (e.g. monotonically increasing fitness >>>>> functions). These are however accessible to intelligent design. >>>> >>>> You are moving the target again. It is not legitimate to take the >>>> probably truism that evolution cannot reach all targets, and use >>>> that to argue that are limits to the degree of complexity that >>>> evolution can generate. >>> >>> I'm not claiming a limit the degree of complexity that evolution can >>> generate, but rather the extent of of the solution space. >> >> "Would you agree that there are limits to NS as described, which lead >> to an upper limit to functional complexity in living things?" - MarkE, >> 5th March 2025. (Quoted by MarkE on the 13th March 2025 - see above.) >> > > To recap different contributing factors to an upper limit in functional > complexity in living things in relation to natural selection: You were being invited to address your vacillation about whether you claim that there is an upper limit to the amount of functional complexity that evolution can generate. > > 1. Fitness landscape > > If the fitness landscape has unreachable islands (local maxima sparsely > distributed in a plain), then if some of these represent "solutions" of > greater functional complexity than those in local maxima accessible to > NS, this implies an upper limit, lower than that of all physically > possible organisms. > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========