Doubting Didymus

Morning, lads and lasses.

Now then, we all know how threads like these can turn out. They can end up as massive, monstrous things full of sound and fury signifying nothing. So far, we seem to have kept on this side of the ol' boundary, so I have time to post this note to make sure it stays that way. Let's keep it pleasant, and also try not to pile on too much. Mikie is only one guy.

In exchange for this, you can all have the choice between the prize door or the mystery box. Due to budgetary restraints, there isn't actually anything in either of them, but it's worth it for the fame.


Your moderator,
-DD

Oolon Colluphid

It’s quite easy to argue it. I do it all the time. And the reason is simple: the Argument from Design is based on seeing apparently good designs, and inferring a designer from them.

Let me lay this out for you.

We can either identify ‘design’ or we can’t. If we can, then the criteria by which we decide things are well-designed also reveal many poor designs.

So we must admit that the designer made lousy designs, or reject the Argument from Design.

If we do the former, then the Argument’s supporter must explain why the designer did make them.

The burden of proof is then on the Argument’s supporter to demonstrate, either that the designs are not in fact poor, or offer a plausible reason for the poor designs not being the designer’s fault. Note that by ‘plausible’ I mean supportable by other evidence / argument, not ad hoc tack-ons.

So if you want to argue that nature indicates a designer, you must show why the poor designs are not poor. Or give us a damned good reason why the designer was not at fault.

Because they evolved from sighted ancestors, who started making a living in dark places (maybe competition was less intense because of the darkness, for instance). Once the lineages started living where there was no light, any mutation that disabled part of the eye would not only not be detrimental, it could even have been beneficial, because resources would not be put into something that was of no use. Being beneficial, the ones with the ‘faulty’ eyes would prosper, out-compete those still wasting resources on building complete eyes, and eventually become the only sort around.

Is that difficult to understand? Is it not entirely plausible?

Um... you think that all fish start without eyes, and that the cave ones somehow still stupidly grow them? Ever heard of genes?

If the cave fish descended from sighted ones, then their ancestors’ genes made eyes. Therefore when they started living in caves, they made eyes. As the lineage continued to live in the dark, the mutations in the eyes accumulated.

You might also be interested to know that chickens contain unused genes for making teeth. Birds don’t have teeth... but their ancestors did.

You might further be surprised to learn that chickens also have unused genes for making complete fibulas -- the second, smaller leg-bone -- and separate tarsals (ankle bones). No bird has these; instead, the fibula is a thin partial splint (the little bone on a chicken drumstick), and the tarsals are fused together and to the tibia, making a single tibiotarsus. Yet the ancestors of birds -- dinosaurs, and their tetrapod ancestors -- had two full leg bones and separate ankle bones.

Why might creatures have genes for making things that they never have... and which according to creation, they never have had?

Apart from the ‘created’ bit, you’ve got it.

Wrong. Why not live in darkness? Fewer predators that hunt by sight; less competition from creatures that rely on sight. There’s two reasons right there. <shrug>

Wrong. Things don’t evolve in response to a need! It is a purely blind (pun intended) process. You really do seem to think that fish start with no eyes. The default setting for fish is to have eyes, geddit? They evolved only partial eyes because they no longer needed them.

Yes, when their sighted ancestors lived where there was light. But these species no longer do.

These fish have eyes that do not work, so the eyes as they currently are would be of no use in the light, if that’s what they’ve always had. So they have either evolved to have partial eyes, or god made them that way.

Please choose.

Wrong. C minus, must try harder.

Meanwhile, I’d still be interested to hear what you think our coccyx is, if it is not a greatly reduced tail.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

1) Of course it functions fully. But not as fully as it easily might have done. I explained it more fully in my EvoWiki entry here:

2) The nautilus is not a fish. Well, it’s a fish in the same way as cuttlefish are. It is a cephalopod mollusc, an octopus with a shell (rather than just a mantle). The other cephalopods have lenses in their eyes. Why leave out a useful feature? Or are the other cephalopods overdesigned, having lenses they could do without really?

The mollusc does not see as well as it easily could have, if the designer had had its wits about it.

Because an eye with a lens can make a sharp and bright image; one without has to choose one or the other, sharp or bright. Since the nautilus lives at great depths, where there is not a lot of light, a lens would let it see better. To make a sharp image, it must have its iris closed right up; since there is not much light, this makes a dim image even dimmer, perhaps non-existent. So the nautilus, in order to see at all, must generally see much more blurry images than, say, a squid does in equivalent lighting.

Therefore it is not an assumption that the design is inferior. It is a fact of optics.

No, it is not. Jets and balloons serve different purposes beyond mere transport; a jet is far more inefficient but quicker. What different purpose, apart from seeing in water, do squid and nautilus eyes have?

Many squid also live at great depths. They have huge eyes, with lenses. So since the less sophisticated nautilus eye is just as good -- the fish sees fine, I think you said -- squid eyes use excess materials. Squid eyes are the poor design then.

Fair point. Okay then. Since you agree that less sophisticated, less complex, may be better (this is what I argue all the time), please explain why there is often an excess of complexity. Try the foetal blood circulation and the various nerve wiring points in my list. Or external mammalian testes. Or the routing of the urethra. Or fallopian tubes.

No, the assumption is the creationist one -- that organisms cannot change over time. Therefore what they have now is what they’ve had since they were created: eyes that do not work. If they had eyes that did formerly work, and do not now, then they have evolved. Or god broke their eyes... rather than simply remove them completely... or something similar.

Please explain.

And I’ll ask once more about the coccyx. Why not reduced tail?

TTFN, Oolon

Sven

My point was that PE would not have been published that widely if it hasn't been tested.


Maybe you should learn first what a theory is. A hypothesis becomes a fact after it was tested, not a theory. Try this:
"Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory" ; Discover, May 1981

Sven

Others already dealt with the ridiculousness of this "analogy" - I just wanted to point out that you apparently are going through the worst examples of creationists "arguments" one can find. We had some other creationists here the last few weeks who did do a lot better, they had at least a rudimentary understanding of what they were talking about. That these guys were nevertheless also easily refuted should tell you that you should get an education about evolution first, and then try to argue here. The links I gave are a nice start.

Sven

Yes, the reason why humans share the inability to synthesize Vitamin C with all other primates must be design. Design is also the reason for that humans and all other primates still have the gene for making L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase (which is necessary for the synthesis), but the gene is non-functional (pseudogene). Design is also the reason for this:
"And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999)."
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
The abstract of the reference can be found in PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I really don't understand why some people still doubt evolution in light of this and mountains of similar evidence.

Please read the introduction of the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, think about it, then read the whole article, think about it, then come back to discuss.
Especially relevant is this part: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rt1a.html#pred
(only for a start!!)

Or elements that could work but share the same error (which makes them non-funtional) between species which are related according to evolution. See above for one example.

Sven

Here, please:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85090

MrDarwin

Mikie, just two quick but very important questions for you, when you have time:

1. Do you think that somebody looking at the design of a a car from, say, 1889 and one from the early 21st century might conclude that one design was better than the other?

2. Do you think that the nature of a design can tell us anything about the nature of the designer? Perhaps nothing so obvious as a "made in Taiwan" sticker, certainly, but can we learn anything about the "designer" by studying and analyzing his/her/its designs?

Sven

Why is saying "you don't know what you are talking about" an ad hominem when this is clear from your posts?

Why should he/we?
We only explain that neither creationism nor intelligent design have any scientific merit. This does not mean that a god does not exist, only that your understanding of your deity has to be modified.

It's very easy to prove that creationism and ID are not science. As soon as you include supernatural explanations, you've abandonded science. Why? Because when confronted with a problem, how do you decide if your supernatural explanation is the right one (which can explain *any* evidence) or if there is indeed a natural explanation which doesn't need this extra entity?
An explanation which explains all, actually explains nothing.

Then I suggest you start looking at the evidence. We gave you lots of links to start with.

Of course nobody claimed that your god doesn't perform miracles. Only that it is not science to use miracles as explanations.

Roland98

Mornin'.

Just posting another pre-emptive reminder for everyone to keep it civil. And Mikie, please feel free to use the "report this post" button for any posts you feel are out of line; this will bring it quickly to the attention of the moderators.

Thanks all,

Roland98
E/C moderator