Is 'macroevolutionary' theory flawed? -- Anhar Miah vs. RGD

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Anhar Miah and RGD who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: that the modern synthesis of evolution contains flaw(s) with regard to 'macroevolution'."

Anhar Miah will affirm and RGD will oppose. The debate will have 4 rounds and Anhar Miah will go first, per the parameters ( http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3298763&postcount=22). The fourth round will consist of concurrently submitted statements.

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3311744#post3311744) is set up in the Evolution/Creation forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Anhar Miah]

BEGIN

I would like to start of by thanking RGD (my Opponent) for “Picking up the Baton”, since the Initial Challenge was offered by PLP. It was rather unfortunate that he was unable to participate in his own challenge, the timing of which could be looked unfavourably if one is a cynic. However I am sure PLP had his reasons for his self-Banning, no doubt its best to ask him for the reason then for me to be answer it. I would also like to thank IIDB for hosting it, and also to Nightshade for moderating it. Finally I hope everyone enjoys my write-up as much as I have enjoyed writing it!

1.0 Introduction:

Let us begin from the absolute root of the world Evolution, i.e. Evolve, when we look up the definition of this root word we find that it is generally described as follows:

Noun Evolve (e-volve), [1]

(1) To undergo gradual change; develop
(2) Biology. To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
(3) To give off; emit

From the Latin word “evolvere”, to unroll.

The Generic word can be used to describe a lot of different situations, however in our debate we are referring purely to the Biological model, more precisely at the flaw(s) of the Macro-evolutionary model.

1.1 Generic Biological Evolution

In terms of the biological evolution concept, in the most generic sense of the model we can describe it as such:

The Evolution model can be split into two distinct mechanisms:

(a) An agent that produces change
(b) A filtration mechanism

When both these mechanisms are used over time, biological changes occur. If we now take a closer look at the evolutionary concept two further models can be found, namely Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution.

1.2 Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution

The core of the matter lies in the difference between Macro and Micro. Micro-evolution is a fact, it is observable and is established science, this part of the model is not at contention, including everything related to Micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is what is in contention here, the general response about the difference of micro-evolution and macro-evolution is that since micro-evolution is an observable fact one can extrapolate to include macro-evolution. It is suggested that if the mechanism can work on a relatively small scale then it should also work on relatively large scale too, or that by summing many micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution. It is further suggested that to deny macro-evolution would be to deny the micro-evolution mechanism too.

These statements are logically false, as I will demonstrate later. On the face it would seem a logical proposition that macro-evolution should work, since we can see the exact same mechanism at work on the micro level. Before we look at why logically macro-evolution is false we need to take a brief detour into Systems concept (because this is a pre-requisite for understanding the logical fallacy of macro-evolution)

2.0 System(s)

A system is described as an “an assemblage of related elements comprising a whole” [2], taken from both the Latin and Greek meaning to put together or combine.

The elements within the system is usually referred to as sub-systems, these sub-systems have relationships with each other. Although they may or may not have a direct relationship with other sub-systems, any sub-system that does not have ANY relationship with the other sub-systems can not logically be part of the system. A system may be said to be either a conceptual form or a physical form, in either case all systems regardless of how complex they are do the exact same thing that is they have interfaces that allow exchange with the external environment (that which lies outside the system boundary). The interface is bi-directional, which is it allows transfer or energy/information in AND outside of it (the system boundary). The basic action of all systems is the same, they have inputs, and they have a process and finally an output, they take inputs, process it and then output it.


Sub-systems can also be a common component, which is they can be used in different configurations. A system can be used to analyse and describe anything from a Solar system to an economic system, and an organic living organ and organisms are no exceptions.

2.1 Micro vs. Macro Difference of Context

Although the mechanism is essentially the same between micro and macro, the context is fundamentally different, it is due to this fundamental shift that the premise of extrapolation is a logical fallacy. Furthermore the shift in context means that the very same mechanism that may be true in one situation is not indicative that the same mechanism be valid in another situation.

So what is this contextual shift? The contextual shift between micro and macro is a fundamental one, one that is essentially avoided in definitions of macro-evolution. The key difference between micro and macro is one of Genetic Information, in the case of micro-evolution all the evolutionary process always works on already pre-existing DNA information. In the case of macro-evolution this is NOT the same context (in terms of pre-existing DNA information), in the macro-evolution case we are dealing with the addition of NEW genetic information, that which is clearly distinct from pre-existing genetic information.

2.2 Validity of Macro-evolution in light of Contextual Shift

How does this fundamental shift in context impact on the evolutionary mechanism dynamics? Is the said mechanism still valid or invalid? In order to find out we must re-evaluate the mechanism in its new context and see if it still holds true (as proposed via extrapolation)

In 1.1 we have shown the general evolution mechanism is in fact made up to two distinct parts namely (a) and (b) (see 1.1). From this we can identify that (b) is natural selection and in terms of our new context of genetic information, selection has no powers other than to act as a filtration i.e. that which removes information. Therefor we must focus our attention to that part which alleges to produce new information i.e. part (a), in macro-evolutionary terms new change is initiated via mutations.

2.3 Global Probability Matrix for mutations

Let us start of by stating all possibilities of a mutation on an organism:

(a) Detrimental Mutation
(b) Neutral Mutation
(c) Beneficial Mutation

From these outcomes we can neglect (a) since a detrimental change to an organism means that the organism will be filtered out. We can also neglect (b) since a neutral mutation is neither harmful nor beneficial to the organism and thus has no real impact in terms of filtration. Our new focus then is whether outcome (c) Beneficial Mutation can occur.

It is postulated that the process of cumulative beneficial mutations is the source of the explanation of how new organs, even “Cell to Man” occurs Let us now consider if this macro-evolution model can account for a new organs to appear in an organism.

2.4 Genetic addition of Information via Gradualism

A gradualism approach to explain the emergence of a new organ would mean that one would need one to apply reductionism to the new organ system.

If we denote a system by f, then it can be said that this system f is comprised of subsystems (denoted by p) such that:

(f) = (p)1 + (p)2 ….. + (p)n where (p)n being the total number of subsystems.

Now clearly ANY system (f) can be reduced to its subsystem (p), that is not a problem, even the most complex system can be reduced in the same manor. Also this system (f) can indeed be constructed sequentially:

Step 1

(p)1

Step 2

(p)1 + (p)2

Step n

(p)1 + (p)2…. + (p)n

Richard Dawkings explains such a process, and he gives the well-known analogy of “Climbing Mount Improbable”, essentially saying that even the tallest mountains can be climbed if you take a winding or gradual route.

While this analogy is perfectly acceptable (in logical terms) it has one very large problem which is not taken into consideration in gradualism (when applied to systems). The logical error is very simple indeed, that is while systems can be reduced, and systems can be constructed sequentially, however the system is NOT complete DURING the sequential process, therein lies the fatal logical fallacy of such an approach. Put another way even when climbing the mountain, while you are climbing you have not completed the journey (that would be logically impossible). Take another analogy that of building a house, as we can see we can indeed reduce it to its subsystem (bricks, mortar etc), we can indeed build it sequentially however that does not mean that while we are building the house it is simultaneously complete.

2.5 Genetic addition of Information via Simplification

An alternative method would be to take the system simplification approach. In this approach rather than building via subsystem basis one can build on a complete system basis, albeit starting of with the most simplified version of that system. And then gradually increasing the complexity of this system over time. This approach does indeed solve the flaw of the previous issue, let us now look at how this approach works from a mathematical analysis standpoint.

System simplification mathematically is the same as simplifying an equation, whereby one takes common terms and collects them as follows:

(y) = 2.x + 3.x + 5.z + 10.z

When simplified it is given as:

(y) = 5.x + 15.z (which could be further simplified to (y) = 5.(x + 3.z) )

In terms of system simplification it is the same:

(f) = (p)1 + (p)2 …(p)n + (t)1 + (t)2…(t)n

Can be simplified to:

(f) = (p)’ + (t)’ Such that (p)’ = (p)1 + (p)2 ..(p)n and (t)’ = (t)1 + (t)2….(t)n

During simplification what we are doing is one of optimisation, that is we are consolidating (where possible) two or more subsystem into one subsystem such that this new subsystem fulfils the actions of the previous subsystem that it has replaced. Although this method overcomes the problem of the last approach it introduces two new ones, namely (a) Zero system, (b) No functional change.

Let us look in detail what these new problems means. In terms of Zero system, what this means is that how does mutation account for the rise of the most basic system (i.e. System 1, to which the system becomes more complex over time)? Since this method assumes you start of with a system already existent, but zero system means that if it’s a new organ say (a new system) then its state has to be zero at some point hence the name Zero system.

The second problem is that when one simplifies the system, the equation still remains the same as before, i.e. the function of the system remains the same. Therefore from a filtration mechanism view, the increase of a system complexity holds no benefit since the function of both systems remains the same. In fact increasing complexity means one will be reducing optimisation and efficiency, because having more subsystems requires more energy.

Clearly in light of this information macro-evolution utterly breaks down, furthermore to rationally or logically defend macro-evolution is impossible simply because neither the rationale nor logic permit it so.


END

Anhar Hussain Miah

Sources:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolve
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

Word Count: 1875

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

RGD,

Please note that the deadline to post your next statement has passed. You will have a 3 day grace period, however, extending your deadline to April 26.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[RGD]

I salute my opponent, our moderator, and our judges.

Ave, ave, ave.

I appreciate Anhar's willingness to permit me to stand in for PLP.

I will divide this post into two sections. The first addresses the nature of Anhar's post; the second addresses the substance of his post.

Section One

It would appear that my misgivings are confirmed: Anhar's intial post does not address flaws in the current theory of evolution. Instead, he has offered a strawman version in which 'macro-evolution' is defined as 'an increase in genetic information.' He follows that with an attempt to demonstrate, using pure logic rather than empirical evidence, that such an increase cannot occur.

As for the latter, I shall show that his logical proof is flawed and inadequate; for the former, I can do nothing more than draw Anhar's attention to the debate strictures that we agreed to: you claimed flaws in the current theory of evolution. In order to show such flaws, you must address the actual theory, not a strawman.

Section Two

Anhar offers two argument against the increase in genetic information; the additive and the subtractive. I will deal with them from a purely logical point of view, rather than a biological one - both because they do not represent genuine biological scenarios, and because they are inherently flawed.

His additive argument is that information cannot be increased in a system because any incremental increase does not possess the functionality of the end-state. This argument fails to take into account the possibility that the incremental increases are either neutral or add functionality which is not present in the end system.

He is essentially arguing that I can never pile up one inch blocks to form a pile 12 inches high because at any given point the pile is less than twelve inches high.

His subtractive argument is that information lost from a system only preserves functionality; and that subtraction requires the existence of a simplifiable system in the first place. The second part of this argument is irrelevant: we are not discussing the origin of the system, but rather the issue of how information (functionality) is added to that system. The first part of his argument fails because he neglects the fact that systems can change in functionality. After all, the systems do not exist in isolation, they exist synergistically, and the absence of a system may change the operation of the others. A simple example will suffice to demonstrate the problem.

If I have a flashlight whose lens is painted black, I can increase the functionality of the flashlight by removing the paint. I have now added the functionality of being able to see things in the dark.


I recognize that I have treated his two examples in a fairly sketchy fashion, but they are not actually relevant to our debate. I look forward to Anhar's next post which will, I hope, actually deal with flaws relating to macro-evolution in the current theory of evolution.

RGD

[Anhar Miah]

BEGIN:

Rebuttal

My Opponent divided the counter into two sections, I will make my response in the same manor.

(a) Section 1

My opponent asserts that my arguments are nothing more than a mere “straw-man” argument version of Macroevolution, however I have laid out the exact mechanism that general evolution consists of. If my opponent had any contention with the definition of macro-evolution, then my opponent should have identified the error in that definition (see 1.1), my opponent did not identify any such errors, instead offered a factually incorrect quote:

My opponent said that I defined macro-evolution as:

“In which 'macro-evolution' is defined as 'an increase in genetic information.'

This statement is wholly false, if one re-reads my post one will not find any such wordings, the quote is false and incorrect. My exact wording was as follows:

In the case of macro-evolution this is NOT the same context (in terms of pre-existing DNA information), in the macro-evolution case we are dealing with the addition of NEW genetic information, that which is clearly distinct from pre-existing genetic information.

Notice first that I CLEARLY state that the CONTEXT is different, not the mechanism, so stating that I defined macro-evolution in terms of “an increase in genetic information” is completely false.

Secondly, the word I used in bold was “NEW”, the use of this word neither says whether it results in an increase OR decrease in genetic information, merely that it is “NEW” (i.e. that which is distinctly different from all ready existing information)

My opponent raises another contention that I have somehow invalidated our agreement because of my use of “Pure logic”, my opponent said:

“for the former, I can do nothing more than draw Anhar's attention to the debate strictures that we agreed to”

If one looks at the strictures of the formal debate that we agreed upon, one will see the following:

“3) The scope of the debate.

The debate will concern alleged flaws in the current scientific theory and practice which the topic comprises. These alleged flaws will be [based on logical], methodological or metaphysical objections.” Emphasis added in bold and brackets.

Clearly the use of logic is well within the strictures, I have not invalidated the agreement.

My opponent finishes this section my re-hashing the same unqualified accusation of the “straw-man” argument, my opponent said:

“In order to show such flaws, you must address the actual theory, not a strawman.”

Merely accusing an argument of being a “straw-man” is not a logical or rational counter argument since it does not by itself invalid the original argument, since one is required to demonstrate the invalidity of an argument and not merely say its false.

(b) Section 2

In this section my opponent attempts to actually demonstrate why my arguments are false by way of offering solutions and flaws to my arguments.

My opponent tackles each of my argument in turn. My opponent refers to my “Genetic addition of Information via Gradualism” (2.4) as “additive” this is a close approximation of (2.4)

However my opponent incorrectly refers the second “Genetic addition of Information via Simplification” (2.5) as “subtractive”. This term “subtractive” is NOT the same as “Simplification”

The word “subtractive” describes the action of removing (i.e. taking away) such that the value or outcome is LESS than before, “simplification” on the other hand describes the action of consolidation (i.e. combing two or more elements) such that the value or outcome is the SAME as before. Clearly the two are not the same, if my opponent had referred to it as “Simplification” then that would be a close approximation of (2.5)

My opponent attempts to tackle my first argument (2.4) by presenting two counters:

(C1) The flaw that I did not take into account the possibility of neutral mutations.
(C2) The flaw that I did not include the possibility that added functionality (not present in the end state) was not taken into account, (i.e. this is the “Change of Functionality” Counter).

My Opponent also offers (C2) as a solution to (2.5), therefore I will deal with (C2) later.

Let us now consider if (C1) makes any difference to my argument (2.4), we need to take a look at the “Global Probability Matrix for mutations” (2.3):

(a) Detrimental Mutation
(b) Neutral Mutation
(c) Beneficial Mutation

My opponent asserts that “Incremental increases” can occur from neutral mutations, however how does “Incremental increases” actually occur in the evolutionary mechanism? Incremental increases can only happen in conjunction with the filtration mechanism (natural selection), for this reason (a) Detrimental Mutations can not result in an “Incremental increase” because the filtration mechanism filters AGAINST it. As for (c) Beneficial Mutation “Incremental increases” can occur because the filtration mechanism filters FOR it. However for (b) Neutral Mutation “Incremental increases” does NOT occur because although the filtration mechanism does not filter AGAINST it, more crucially it does not filter FOR it either, which is required if “Incremental increases” is to occur.

If we where to demonstrate this with the “Climbing Mount Improbable” example, we can think of Detrimental Mutation as falling off the mountain (i.e. no increase). We can think of beneficial mutation as gently walking up the incline (i.e. an increase). We can also think of Neutral mutation as going nowhere (i.e. no increase) since we are neither falling off NOR gently walking up the incline.

(C2) Change in Functionality

My opponent claims that I have neglected that functional change can occur and essentially if we include this then this can bring about a solution to my problems (2.4 & 2.5) respectably.

Let us see if we now include the functionality change if indeed this resolves the problem:

Let us denote a function as f(1), also a different function as f(2), and the final function as f(n).

Let us look at the first step:

f(1) = p(1) + (2) + …p(n)

Now let as add another term such that it causes a change in functionality:

f(2) = [p(1) + (2) + …p(n)] + t(1)

Now let us add another term such that it causes a change in functionality yet again:

f(n) = [p(1) + (2) + …p(n)] + t(1) + t(2)

Clearly we can indeed arrive at f(n) our final end system without it having the same function as the initial and intermediate systems f(1) and f(2) since f(1) is not equal to f(2) or f(n).

However while functionality of each system in each step is different, WITHIN each system a COMMON base system remains the SAME, i.e. [p(1) + p(2) + …p(n)], it is this system to which the other subsystem are added such that it causes its functionality to change. In other words this base system MUST be present in all these different systems, and furthermore it STILL does not solve the problem of Zero System as described in (2.5(a))

Rather than answer the problem of (2.5(a)) Zero system my opponent falsely deems it as “irrelevant” to the argument. The reason why this counter is false is because macro-evolution is alleged to explain the following as I have already posted:

“It is postulated that the process of cumulative beneficial mutations is the source of the explanation of how new organs, even “Cell to Man” occurs“

Therefore one MUST explain or try to resolve the issue of zero system, deeming an integral issue of macro-evolution as “irrelevant” when it is highly relevant does not solve the problem merely avoids the question altogether.

My opponent then makes an attempt to demonstrate to further the cause of “Change in functionality” by way of a simple “flashlight” example:

“If I have a flashlight whose lens is painted black, I can increase the functionality of the flashlight by removing the paint. I have now added the functionality of being able to see things in the dark.”

There are two major flaws in this example:

(P1) The initial function of this system has NOT been defined, (i.e. what is the function of a “flashlight” with blackened lens?)

(P2) The functionality of the flashlight was ALREADY EXISTENT had not this system of the flashlight been present then removing the blackened lens would not have brought about the “increase in functionality”. This examples fails to answer the question of how that base system arises.

Finally my opponent finishes by rehashing the same unqualified statement that I have somehow not shown flaws in the macroevolution model. Despite the fact that my opponent has attempted and failed to counter the very flaw(s) that my opponent now alleges does not exist, this statement yet again merely avoids the problem rather than actually addressing it.

I have demonstrated that the defence mounted by my opponent has not succeeded in countering my original arguments, my opponent has unable to neither find any flaws NOR bring about any solution that resolves the issues that I have raised. This outcome is not entirely astonishing, as I have already posted:

“furthermore to rationally or logically defend macro-evolution is impossible simply because neither the rationale nor logic permit it so”

END

Anhar Hussain Miah

Word Count 1503

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

RGD,

Please note that the deadline to post your next statement has passed. You will have a grace period of 2 days (48 hours) from the time of this post to submit your statement.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The grace period has expired so unfortunately I must declare a forfeiture. Anhar Miah will now have the opportunity to post a concluding statement if he wishes to.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Anhar Miah]

Conclusion:

It is unfortunate that my opponent was unable to offer any further recompense. My conclusion will therefore be made as follows:

C1.0 Victory Speech
C1.1 Conclusion
C1.2 Announcement

C1.0 Victory Speech

To the victor “the spoils of war” so it is said, I however do not feel that I wish to indulge in Triumphalism. Though however you may come to regard me, one must admit in the least that I have earned my wings.

This battle however was a battle of rationale, and as I had wished it both rationale and logic prevailed, far for me to say I think I shall quote from history words that a greater man has said:

“The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is.” – Winston Churchill

C1.1 Conclusion

The Macro-evolution model is both illogical and irrational, no amount of conjecture, speculation, nor inference can change this simple fact. This does not mean to say one has to reject evolution as a whole, one needs to readjust ones perspective in light of this information. It is perfectly acceptable to accept micro-evolution however this does not automatically infer that one has to be shackled into the macro model as well.

C1.2 Announcement

I wish to thank my opponent once again for having the courage and allowing me to carrying on the debate in absence of my original opponent. I would also like to thank the moderator for diligently carrying out his duties, and finally the readers for taking the time to enjoy the formal debate.

It is my pleasure to announce that I am currently in development and discussions with professional web designers and Digital Artists for my latest project, which will hopefully be an information packed web page. I am also going to include a large section that well shed light on some of the logical and rational errors found on www.talkorigins.org. I feel strongly that this particular web page is working within a framework of a biased agenda, and as such misleading in its characterisation of its presented information. So Ladies and Gentlemen watch the cyber space!

Anhar Hussain Miah

End of Communiqué

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This debate is now complete. Though ended prematurely, we would like to thank RGD and Anhar Miah for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- NS, FD Moderator