Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 09-11-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
I haven't noticed any comment from CD on ring species, which seem to me to provide evidence for at least one process of speciation by evolution.

Well no one (at least, not I) is doubting speciation by evolution.

Charles Darwin · 09-11-2003, 05:15 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Well, maybe you know something I don't. I don't understand those details, so perhaps you could lay out how echolocation could evolve for us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
I can echolocate. My father in law is blind, and his echolocation abilities are rather astonishing. If humans lived in an environment in which the best echolocators survived more often than everyone else, then the trait will naturally increase in frequency. The best echolocators from every generation leave more descendants, and the trait is increased by gradual accumulation.

In fact, the same way everything evolves.

Did you want something more specific than that?

Yes. Echolocation in bats is, I believe, one of those designs that the US military has been interested in because it is so clever. In any case, the bat sends out several hundred chirps per second as it is flying around, and listens for echos to determine the location of mosquitos. It computes the relative location and vectors itself to intercept the insect.

Now the return echo is like a tiny whisper compared to the chirp which is like thunder in comparison. So the bat has to have come fancy logic to hear the echo. Also, depending on the range of the mosquito the echo may return after the next chirp, so the bat has to have a way to handle that. And of course there are other bats flying around to their chirps need to be filtered.

If evolution is true then this system arose via random biological variation. This is one of a thousand examples of high complexity which, frankly, the notion that is just arose on its own is ludicrious. Of course, that doesn't mean it is impossible. So what we need is a scientific explanation for how such complexity could arise on its own. What we have from evolutionists are vague explanations of how "selection pressures" influenced random change, because after all, echolocating, even crudely, is better than not echolocating at all. Well that is all well and good, but just how did the crude system come about. And how did it evolve into the more advanced system? You see no one has been able to come up with a scientific explanation (ie, an explanation that is likely and uses known natural laws and forces).

Charles Darwin · 09-11-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Blind fish are not evidence for evolution on their own. They are simply strong evidence against intelligent design. It is an example of something that common descent explains, that not much else really explains: blind fish have eyes because they are descended from a species that used them. They lost them when they moved into an environment where natural selection could not screen out detrimental mutations to vision organs.

Why are they evidence against ID?

Charles Darwin · 09-11-2003, 05:19 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Oh really? Can you please explain how selective pressures make the biological variation non random?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Oh my. You really don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory, do you?

How about just answering the question if it so obvious.

Charles Darwin · 09-11-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And, even then, you keep adding non-issues to your handful (such as echolocation).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete lack of confounding data? What about fossils that appear planted there? What about complexities such as the DNA code or echolocation? What about the fact that adapatation arises from intricate mechanisms (e.g., bacteria increase their mutation rate when under stress)? What about the fact that "homologies" often arise from different development processes? What about the fact that we keep on finding functions for those "vestigial" organs? What about an ERV that is found in chimps and apes but not humans? What about the fact that everything we know from science tells us that dramatically complex machines do not arise spontaneously (and please don't think it wasn't spontaneous because it took a long time; if you argue it wasn't spontaneous then you are arguing against evolution)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of this paragraph is just white noise. You have only presented ONE fact that apparently contradicts evolution: the ERV issue.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the blind fish evidence for evolution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you serious??? Why is this NOT evidence for common descent (which is what we're discussing)?

If you're seriously arguing that vestigial eyes are NOT vestigial eyes, or that ostrich wings are not wings, or that the human appendix is not a vestigial section of gut; and if you're further arguing that those who say otherwise are making a religious statement: ...well, you're hopelessly insane, and any further discussion with you is probably futile.

You appear to be an excellent example of the mind-crippling effects of religion.

Wait a minute. Evolution says the most complicated things we know of arose by themselves in their environment. Now highly complex things don't just come together in our world. So we need to have some explanation for how the thousands of complexities in biology were supposed to have evolved. You're the one making this claim, so you need to back it up. Why is echolocation a non-issue? Why are fossils that just appear in the strata "white noise"?

Now homologies are supposed to reveal the history of evolution. But the argument loses its force when we find them arising from different development processes. So why is this a non issue?

Am I serious about questioning the blind fish as evidence for evolution (or common descent)? Yes, I am. Can you explain why it is evidence for evolution or CD?

Charles Darwin · 09-11-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monkenstick
you don't feel the slightest bit arrogant and foolish when you say this, in spite of the fact that it is in contradiction to the opinions of people who have studied science at a tertiary level and actually do science everyday?

whenever it comes down to "layperson vs the vast majority of biologists" on the topic of the validity of the major biological paradigm I would tend to side with the vast majority of biologists

can you blame me charley?

Fortunately, science is not a democracy.

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Of course, that doesn't mean it is impossible. So what we need is a scientific explanation for how such complexity could arise on its own ... But just how did the crude system come about. And how did it evolve into the more advanced system? You see no one has been able to come up with a scientific explanation (ie, an explanation that is likely and uses known natural laws and forces).

There are two problems that you are offering up here. One is that the echolocation system would have trouble getting started, and the other is that it's too complex to evolve.

I have no idea why you brought the first of those problems up, because I've already dealt with it in the very post you were replying to. A very basic beginnings of an echolocation system are already present in most animals, including humans. You might have heard of the phenomenon of 'facial vision' in blind people? Sometimes people who are totally blind somehow still have the ability to find their way around. They report the sensation as a feeling in their face. This is sometimes sensitive enough to actually ride a bicycle around familiar streets. When it was first being researched, it was suspected that there might be some sort of light sensitivity in skin. It's turned out that it's actually coming in through the ears. Plug the ears of a blind person used to navigating by facial vision, and they completely lose the ability. Using their ears alone, they can locate people in rooms, locate furniture, and navigate unfamiliar houses to a degree.

As for evolution being able to increase complexity, thats what the entire feild of evolutionary biology has been doing for the past odd century. Can you tell me exactly what you have read on the topic? Have you ever read or studied anything to do with evolutionary theory at all? I ask only for information, as I'd like to know whether you know of the process, but reject it, or if you have simply no idea about what evolution actually proposes as a mechanism for population change. I also apologise for my earlier rudeness: "You really don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory, do you?". I had assumed that you did know something about the theory of evolution, and that you would understand the non-random nature of selection.

Charles Darwin · 09-11-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Which reminds me... funny how horses occasionally turn up born with extra toes, don�t you think Charles?

But I�d like to be more specific.

Birds ... lack teeth, ... yet, they possess the genes for making teeth, ...

Other than by descent with modification, how do you account for this? Why do creatures possess genes for making structures that they do not have, and, presumably (unless evolution�s right), never have had?

TTFN, Oolon

I think that is a good argument for evolution. I am familiar with a fraudulant (or perhaps it was humorous) case of teeth being falsified in a bird (photograph I think). I'm not saying you don't have legitimate data; just that I'm unaware of it. Can you help with a reference or two?

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2003, 07:10 PM

Kollar, E. J., and Fisher, C., 1980, Tooth induction on chick epithelium: expression of quiescent genes for enamel synthesis: Science, v. 207, p. 993-995.

God Fearing Atheist · 09-11-2003, 07:20 PM

Mitsiadis, T. et al. (2003). Development of teeth in chick embryos after mouse neural crest transplantations. PNAS, 100: 6541-6545.

-GFA

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2003, 07:10 PM	#399
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Kollar, E. J., and Fisher, C., 1980, Tooth induction on chick epithelium: expression of quiescent genes for enamel synthesis: Science, v. 207, p. 993-995.

09-11-2003, 07:20 PM	#400
God Fearing Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Massachusetts, USA -- Let's Go Red Sox! Posts: 1,500	Mitsiadis, T. et al. (2003). Development of teeth in chick embryos after mouse neural crest transplantations. PNAS, 100: 6541-6545. -GFA

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.