pz

Everything I've read that you've written suggests that you don't have any idea what biology says about evolution, but do have a very clear idea about how to misrepresent the story. This is a good example.

Functionlessness was never a criterion for an organ to be called vestigial. It's not an absolute, but a relative term: an appendix, for instance, is a vestigial cecum. It has lost much of the functionality of the ancestral organ.

The existence of these relics, of genes and organs and phenotypes that are difficult to explain in terms of function but are trivially explained in terms of history, support evolution. Why? Because long and complex histories are part of the fabric of evolution. Short, simple histories are characteristic of creationism.
There is more to evolution than just a "pool of random biological variation".

It seems to me that you are the one claiming that variation is preprogrammed. I haven't seen that at all. We have a pool of variation, wide and deep, and the diversity strongly suggests that it is random; if you have some evidence that variation is channeled by some non-random, non-natural force, please do trot it out.
I hear this mistake all the time from the ID crowd, and I'd like to understand where it comes from. Where do you get this idea that evolution and complexity are incompatible ideas? Evolutionary processes are far better at producing stunning complexity than design.
Just how do the organisms of the Burgess shale contradict evolution? They support the idea that the earth is very, very old, since they are clearly over 500 million years old. They support the idea of change, since the organisms in the Cambrian are radically different from what exists today. They support the idea of common descent, since despite their great differences, we still see affinities; for instance, Pikaia has the classic attributes of a chordate, with a notochord, pharynx, myotomes, dorsal nerve-cord, myotomes, etc.

How anyone can look at the Burgess shale and see something that is contrary to evolution is a mystery. You really need to explain yourself -- your interpretations so far are bizarre and nonsensical.

Majestyk

A new term has slipped into this discussion: "God". I don't know what this is. Any argument referring to it, will be meaningless to me.

Dr Rick

What's really interesting is a creationist creating strawmen ("species just arose", "spontaneously") when debating evolution and then concluding from them that creationism must be true.

Notably absent from all of his posts is any argument against evolution that isn't a contrived strawman or a single shred of evidence that supports creationism.

Furthermore, there has been a complete failure on his part to address the real forces that drive evolution (mutation and natural selection, not "just arose" and "spontaneity"),

Not true.

Very small changes in DNA sequencing result in enormous phenotypic changes; the differences in DNA sequences between chimps and humans are only around 2%.

The argument from ignorance neither refutes evolution nor confirms creationism

Another strawman; this one assumes random probabilities rather than selective pressures.

And still another strawman: there is nothing in physics or kinetics that makes evolution unfeasible. Random assembly of hugely complex molecules is not kinetically feasible, but this strawman arguement does not address the forces that drive evolution.

caravelair

so then what is the maximum level of complexity that can arise naturally? how do we know what is too complex? you admit that complexity can arise naturally, so then you must explain what limits the level of complexity that can be acheived through natural mechanisms, otherwise we would have no reason to believe that there is some maximum level of natural complexity.

snowflakes form in seconds. the species we see today are the result of billions of years of evolution. is it not reasonable to assume that we can reach a higher level of complexity in billions of years than we can in just a few seconds?

i'm sorry, but you are wrong. since the very beginnings of evolutionary theory, uselessness has NOT been a requirement for vestigiality. darwin even discussed this in the origin of species:

taken from here.

the article above discusses this issue in greater detail, but it suffices to say that you are incorrect in claiming that evolutionists have changed the definition to accomodate new information.

the same way they would be considered evidence for evolution if they were useless. in my example in my last post, i talked about ostrich wings. they may be functional as an aid in balancing, but there is no reason that such a complex and specified structure would be required to perform that task. a much simpler structure would work easily aswell.

either way, it is clear that some vestiges ARE useless. tell me now, what use to blind fish get out of eyes that don't work? the answer is none.

one more important piece of information:

also from here.

therefore we can determine that organs lack function, and not need to worry too much about some function being found in the future.

how do you know that "a phenomenally complex adaptation system" could not be evolved?

on the contrary, it seems like a remarkably simple thing to me. animal makes sound, listens for reflection of sound. how is that complex at all?

furthermore, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that humans are capable of a rudimentary form of echolocation. all that would be required for a more useful form of echolocation would be a refinement of what is already existing. how can that be considered unlikely?

i don't know a lot about this, so i will endeavor to research the topic. in the meantime, i hope one of my fellow evolutionists will provide some useful commentary about this.

caravelair

one more thing. you keep asserting that anything that is complex could not evolve. i have not seen you provide any evidence that a complex system could not evolve, other than "it's complex! come on, i mean it's just TOO complex!" since i find this to be terribly insufficient, i would like some more detail on why complex things cannot be evolved. please explain.

RufusAtticus

Yeap, just like your complete lack of references for the following accusations.

Unless you can provide a reference from a paper in the scientific literature, we can only assume that you are making this up.

It is well known not only that evolution produces complexities, but how it produces them. In fact, it does such a good job at it that engineering is now using evolution to supplement its traditional design methods.

And your point is?

Unless you can provide a reference from a paper in the scientific literature, we can only assume that you are making this up.

What about the fact that in biology "vestigal" does not mean "functionless;" therefore, this complaint is completely worthless. You should know this, considering that you have already been told this.

It was lost in the human lineage. There is a reason why we use parsimony in building phylogenetic trees. There are more ERVs that identify a human-chimp clade than that identify other relationships.

LOL. Talk about a straw-man! Evolution is not about spontaneous change. Find me a single modern biological paper that argues as such. I find it funny when creationists try to tell evolutionists what evolution is. I have yet to encounter a creationist that wasn't ignorant about neo-Darwinism and modern biology. It is well demonstrated that populations evolve gradually, and that complexities can arrise through gradual steps.

Your list of confounding data is one based on urban legends and ignorance. Although, I should be suprised that someone thinks such things challenge evolution, after years of listening to creationists flounder, I no longer am.

Unless, I missed it, we're still waiting for 29+ evidences for a geocentric universe.

RufusAtticus

Really? I challenge you to provide a historical review of the use of "vestigal" in biological literature to support your points. In other words, I want old biological papers that say that vestigal organs are functionless. And examples of later papers that when faced with functions for vestigal features they changed the defination.

Because their function is clearly rudimentary.

No we are not. Please produce a single paper from the biological literature that says that variation is preprogrammed. Otherwise, we can only assume that you are making this up.

Ohh, an argument of personal incredulity. Never heard that one before. You're going to have to do better than claim that it is phenomenally complex. Evolution produces complexities, so claiming that it is compex in no way voids it from having evolved.

And you came to this conculsion after decades of studying biology. Oh wait. . . . Just because your handle is "Charles Darwin" does not make your opinions educated.

And we note that you still haven't provided any scientific references for your accusations. We can only assume that you are a false witness until you do.

Darwin's Beagle

A few things have become clear. Despite Charles� refusal to formally acknowledge it, he considers Special Creation as the ONLY alternative to descent with modification. The fact that he will not defend this idea with respect to the scientific data shows that even he realizes that compared to descent with modification, Special Creation is ridiculous. So what has all his carping about evolutionary theory REALLY been about if he knows that there is no other reasonable alternative to it? That has become clear as well. His whole argument is a stealth attempt at making creationism as legitimate as evolution by equating them on the basis of religion. Sorry, Charles, it doesn�t work. The only way to judge the scientific worth of theories is to see how EACH explains the data. If descent with modification is criticized because there are certain pieces of data that do no elegantly fit the theory then what theory does explain them better? You can�t try and shove creationism in through the back door. You have to look at it scientifically and determine if it makes sense. Special Creation, your ONLY alternative doesn�t and you know it even if you wont admit it.

Charles:
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sorry it seems that I have a will to not understand. I've read your points here carefully, and I'm afraid I still do not follow.
+++++++++++++++++++

You certainly do have an incredible will to not understand, but now that I recognize your purpose it becomes understandable.

Charles:
++++++++++++
You have two allied species, with, not surprisingly, similar chromosomes.
++++++++++++

Why is this not surprising? The gene alignment could have been any way on the chromosomes and still worked perfectly well if each species were Specially Created. In fact, in more distantly related organisms (human and mouse, for instance) we have chunks of genes (thousands of them) that HAVE been rearranged to separate chromosomes and function perfectly well. It is called synteny and is more evidence for evolution (that your will to not understand will prevent you from seeing).

Perhaps you are thinking that even though there is no reason to do it the same way between species there is no reason to not do it either. So it makes sense that the Creator would do it that way if the species are closely �allied� (to use your terminology). But that just begs the question, �Why are they closely allied�? What does �allied� mean anyway? Evolutionary theory says that they are allied because they are closely related by common descent. Special Creation says they are allied because for no apparent reason the Creator decided to make them that way. The latter explanation IS ad hoc and DOES involve significant handwaving. It is logically possible, God could have done it that way, but it doesn�t make sense that he would. Of course, I may be wrong and you are free to show where it does make sense, but if you can�t, hiding behind the statement that God may have a greater purpose that we are unaware is only more handwaving and is not an explanation. It is a fault with the theory.


Charles:
+++++++++++++++
Then you have a chromosome fusion event in one of the species that superficially makes the its genome appear to have a significant difference from the other species. But upon closer inspection, the question is resolved, as a chromosome fusion event is the likely explanation for the difference. This explanation does not entail evolution, and it is hardly ad hoc.

You may ask, "but why are the chromosome sets similar in the first place?" And you may argue this is evidence for evolution. But this is entirely aside from the hypothetical chromosome fusion event. If there were no event then your argument from homology would still hold.
++++++++++++++++++

Chromosomal fusion is the ONLY reasonable explanation for the data, we seem to be agreed upon that. Chromosomal fusion fits in GREAT with evolutionary theory. A difference in diploid number makes successful mating more difficult. It is a potential isolating mechanism and can contribute to speciation. That doesn't seem like something that would a creator intent on keeping species constant would do. It doesn�t fit with Special Creation. If all species are created separately then one might expect the Creator to go out of his way to prevent speciation. Of course he doesn�t have to, but if he didn�t then this fact just sits out there as sort of an interesting but specious event (read ad hoc and handwaving, Charles). While evolutionary theory incorporates it into a coherent theory.

Charles:
++++++++++++++++++
Furthermore, you may claim that evolution predicts the same diploid number for chimp and human. And by virtue of the hypothetical chromosome fusion event it has escaped falsification and now enjoys one of its predictions being confirmed.
++++++++++++++++++

Not only escapes falsification, it escapes it gloriously by adding additional confirmation to evolutionary theory.

Charles:
+++++++++++++++++++
But there are two problems here. First, as stated, the explanation of the hypothetical chromosome fusion event doesn't require evolution. In fact, you are avoiding the parsimonious explanation, and multiplying entities.
+++++++++++++++++++

Oh really?? Chromosomal fusion WITHOUT descent with modification involves postulating a supernatural Creator to have made chimps and humans separately in the first place. It also involves a Creator that makes them so it seems to be closely related by common descent. I�m afraid it is YOUR (denial or not) alternative that is not parsimonious nor is it reasonable.

Charles:
+++++++++++++++
We don't need evolution to understand that a chromosome fusion event explains the strange looking chromosome 2, nor the fact that the chimp and human genomes are similar.
++++++++++++++++

Yes, we do. Otherwise we have to go postulate a supernatural creator that does things without any apparent reason. That is simply silly.

Charles:
+++++++
Second, evolution, in fact, makes no such prediction to begin with. The fact is, genomes vary widely across nature and evolutionists maintain that all those changes occurred as a result of evolution. To think that evolution was in danger of falsification from such different diploid numbers is stretching things to say the least.
++++++++

Oh really?? Evolution most certainly DOES make those predictions and if Human genomes looked nothing like Chimp genomes that looked nothing like Gorilla genomes and on down the line. Then you would have something that looked like Special Creation and evolution WOULD be falsified.

Charles:
+++++++++
2) Religious beliefs, or, let's back up a minute

Let's review the discussion from way early on up to the present:
++++++++

OK, but this time let me do a review of how the discussion has gone so far:

C: Why do you believe evolution is a scientific fact?
WE: Because of evidence points to only one direction.
C: But there are problems with the evidence.
WE: Even so the evidence still points in only direction.
C: That is because you underlying assumptions are that evolution is real in the first place. You have ruled out the option of Special Creation.
WE: But if you look at Special Creation then it fails miserably.
C: That�s religion and it shows that evolution is a theology not a science.
WE: Then what is your alternate explanation?
C: �
WE: What is your alternate explanation?
C: �
WE: What is you alternate explanation? It�s Special Creation, isn�t it?
C: Of course I�m a Christian so it may be reasonable to assume it�s Special Creation, but I haven�t said that.


Charles:
+++++++
S: Your argument is valid, but is it sound? I agree that evolution would be a fact if creationism is false, but how do know creationism is false?
++++++++++

Here is your tacit admission that Special Creation is your only alternative explanation and it has always been so. Since that is the yardstick that YOU have chosen to compare with descent with modification to explain scientific facts, you have no right to start crying �Religion� when someone takes a scientific look at its ability to rationally explain the facts.

Charles:
++++++++
S: I'd be happy to talk religion with you, but I'm not sure we'd get anywhere. For instance, what if I were to say that God is soveriegn and so He can create as He pleases. He can make terrifying creatures, and he can make the donkey to be obstinent. He can deny the ostrich of wisdom.
++++++++

Er� Charles, making a donkey obstinate and denying an ostrich wisdom was not what we are talking about. We are talking about making a recurrent laryngeal nerve according to the plan that embryonically was derived from fish. The result is that the fibers of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe run 19 feet when a mere 12 inches would have sufficed. We are talking about non-functional parts of the genome that are shared between related species just like they would have been had they been derived by common descent. We are talking about certain elements in the genome that only make sense in light of evolution � things like segregation distorters and transposons. We are talking about organs like the appendix that look like they are the degraded remains of the cecum of distant ancestors and whose function seems to be to prevent infections of itself, and even then it still remains the part of the intestine that is most susceptible to infection. We are talking about the fossil record in which there is a near perfect change from chimp-like Australopithecus to present-day Homo sapiens in the correct temporal order that records a 3+ fold increase in brain size and a transition from knuckle walking and brachiation to upright walking. These things do not make sense in the light of Special Creation, unless God is intentionally trying to fool us into believing descent with modification. We are also talking about life cycles of certain organisms that if they were created on purpose strongly suggests the creator is a psychopath, but make perfect sense if they were created by a moral neutral process like descent with modification.

Charles:
++++++
You see I am a Christian so I believe these things.
++++++

OK.

Charles:
++++++
I believe He can even create evil. Though I suspect all these things have a greater good in mind, it is not my place to declare constraints on God.
++++++

Such undue credulity is a little unwise but that�s your thing.

Charles:
++++++
Now as I see it, if I were to tell you these things you would have three options. First, you could disagree with my beliefs about God, preferring something closer to the pie-in-the-sky theology you said you did not believe in. This would preserve your falsification of your pet version of creationism, and therefore you could safely conclude that evolution is a fact. Second, you could own up to your claim of not having any religious beliefs. As such, you would have to accept the legitimacy of my beliefs as much as the pie-in-the-sky theology that you were more than happy to consider, and you would have to agree that at least one form of creationism is not falsified, and therefore evolution is not a fact.

Or third, you could reject my religious belief as not being scientifically testable, and amounting to nothing more than an ad hoc system. This would be a way to preserve simultaneously your claim of being areligious and the fact of evolution. But your claim would be false, as this is not an areligious position. For it is a religious belief that any religious position worth considering must be scientifically testable. I highly doubt you will opt for the second choice, so you see why I doubt that my explaining my creation model will advance things any. I'm sure you'll find some way round things to arrive at the position that creationism is falsified (or non scientific to begin with, or non testable, or something). But whatever way you choose, it will involve religious assumptions of some sort. So we are back to my initial comment that you are bringing religion into the picture, so that while your evolution may be a fact for you, it is not a scientific fact.
+++++++

By using the same reasoning it would be valid for someone whose religious beliefs entailed God having created the world last Tuesday from limburger cheese to deny that there are any established facts concerning geology, history, or cheese-making for that matter. But that is not the case, there is abundant evidence that points just one way. While God COULD be fooling us, it is not REASONABLE from a scientific or practical point of view to invoke supernatural deceit as a legitimate explanation for any phenomenon. While it may be that there is some unknown thing that makes it good for God to have made the world out of limburger cheese last Tuesday, it is not REASONABLE to invoke the possibility of the unknown to counter established and verifiable facts.

I don�t care about your religious beliefs except as how they pertain to explaining the scientific facts. Your version of creationism seems to be that God could create things such that the only apparent motive is to fool us into believing in descent with modification (supernatural deceit). That this is justified to believe because there may be something that we don�t know that justifies these apparently inconsistent things (invoking the possibility of the unknown). That may be logically possible but it is not REASONABLE. You are simply denying the obvious answer � descent with modification. In science it is OK to deny the obvious answer, but you have to build a GREAT case to do so. You have built no case what-so-ever. Nor have you tried.

Charles:
++++++++
And so in the end we are left with a theory that is as absurd as the day is long, yet claimed to be a fact.
++++++++

If you are going to try and claim Special Creation as a fact then you are correct. But if you are talking about descent with modification then you are wrong. See how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.

Charles:
++++++
Beagle wrote: Now, I do not care particularly much about gall midges. And I have even been happy to spot some parasitic wasps in our garden figuring that they will help with our caterpillar problem. But, it would scare the hell out of me if I thought that my future was under control of a being that intentionally created such an intrinsically cruel system.

CD wrote: Sounds like a purpose was achieved.

Beagle wrote: Well again exxxxcuuuusse me if I misrepresent Special Creation here again, but I was of the impression that God was supposed to be intelligent as opposed to psychotic. If God created gall midges with that life cycle ON PURPOSE then that is a sadistic thing to do. Are you suggesting that�s that the purpose?



No, the purpose I was referring to was scaring you.
+++++

Then not only is your creator psychotic, he is incompetent as well. I was not scared since I never thought my future was under control of a being that intentionally such an intrinsically cruel system.

Regards,

Darwin�s Beagle

Principia

For those who are interested, here are a couple of threads at ISCID featuring Cornelius (name conjures up images of that dude in The Fifth Element) and his inanities:

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimate...c;f=6;t=000266
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb....c;f=6;t=000316

Eh, you get the idea. Do a search for some of his other stuff.

Soralis

Hmm.. that interesting, I know of a few math books that would disagree with you on the initial statement. Especially since my initial statement didn't reference evolution at all. You could use it with the example of a car, with changing distance over time, and a speed that was positive, and from that conclude that the distance traveled over a longer period of time would be greater then that of a shorter period of time.

The rest of my arguments were basically thinking of possible situations that might make it so that didn't apply to evolution, and refuting them. As well as asking you to point out any that I may have missed that could apply to that, or if you saw any specific problems with my arguments.

As for needing more premises, you'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to, what specifically would be incorrect without what specific premise?

That seems to be a disagreement with my point #2 then. Hmm.. which lab experiments and husbandry in particular are you referring to though? Here's an interesting one that examines 10,000 generations of an ecoli bacteria, leading to a very large genetic diversity by the end of it. "tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations." (and remember this is in a asexual population, without viruses or plasmids, so the only mechanism for change here is mutation, and only passed on from a single ancestor). The rate of increase in relative fitness does drop off after a couple thousand generations, however the rate of change in the genome doesn't drop off like the measure of relative fitness.

That wouldn't really address the initial statement I made, since even if it were the case that different groups of organisms had incompatable differences, that would simply limit the change to within each incompatable group. Although it is a good point for the system as a whole, if it were the case. Actually, there really isn't that much change between organisms in regards to things done with DNA, or change in it's structure, changes to the form of the DNA molecule, etc. Most of it is only change in the sequence of bases. Other changes, for the most part you'd basically have to step outside of eukaryotes for that to apply very much. (in other words it wouldn't really apply to changes just between animals and plants and such) There are changes between protiens in organisms that deal with DNA, but those are largely the same within many eukaryotes.

That is true, many regions may impact promoters, and when and under what circumstances that certain bits of DNA get translated, or don't get translated. But still, whether they're used for coding to proteins or not, they're still just sequences of bases.

It doesn't have to look at design functions however, just a bit of random change, and you let the world do your calculations for you. Also, it's not like there's just one path, there are many different changes that could have the similar or same effects. (having something end up hydrophobic amino acid instead of another hydrophobic amino acid for example may not make much of a difference, and sequences that code for the same amino acid definitely won't make a difference), not to mention that there's obviously not just one thing that can be done that will make an improvement, there are many things, it's not like there's a specific path that needs to be created by random chance.

It does make it likely, in that so many organisms share such a similar molecule of heredity. If they all had some completely different mechanism of passing along genetic information, then that would make it extremely unlikely that they were related.

Where did you get that idea? I've certainly never seen or heard of a situation where mutation would happen in areas to test out different designs. Or anything that would suggest any sort of "pre-programmed" changes. I also havn't seen much on mutational rates changing based on need. Certain stimulai may increase the rate of mutation (ratiation, various chemicals), because they can cause a bit of damage. Not to mention, if surrounding events change rapidly, that may lead to a situation where more changes successfully incorperate themselves into the genomes of successive generations, which might be what you're talking about, but that wouldn't have an affect on the rate at which mutations happen, or where they happen. Certain changes can also make other changes more likely, a change that knocks out one of a cell's DNA repair mechanisms will certainly result in more mutations sticking around.

Except the system of adaptation isn't created by evolution, it's simple mathematics. If you have something that replicates itself more then something else replicates itself in a given environment, there will exist more of the first object in that environment. If those things don't replicate themselves perfectly, and those changes lead to differences in ability to create copies of those changes, then there will be more copies of those changes which lead to more replication of themselves, then those that don't. Not to mention that it's known that such changes and adaptation are seen to happen through direct observation, even you agreed with that it seems.

Also, as for issues of complexity that were brought up before. One of the great things that makes evolution so powerful (And one of the reasons why evolutionary programming and genetic algorithms are becoming more common in computer programming), is that complexity is somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't matter how complex an object is, because that object itself, or the process, doesn't have to plan ahead, or think about the results, or such process for which complexity would be a negative. It's just making a random change, and then using the world itself to do the calculation of how effective it is. (with computer programs you do either have to test it in the world, or provide a model though, but from there it's basically plugging in the numbers and seeing the result.)

There's a great interesting example of this here, where evolutionary programming is used, with an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array, basically a computer chip that can have it's gates changes around to easily test different arrangements, before actually creating that chip design) in order to make a chip which can tell the difference between two frequencies.

I suggest reading the article, it's very interesting, especially reading about what some of the chips ended up doing. Like one, which ended up doing it only using 32 cells, whereas human designs would need to have 10x-100x as many. Not to mention the way that it worked. The current kept feeding back and forth through the gates, swirling around rather then the ordered path a human-designed chip would take. Not to mention that it had some cells that were out of the loop, that weren't directly involved in the circuit, but were affecting the outcome. It took them a while to figure out what it was doing, and how the thing was working. They narrowed it down to a few explanations, one of which is electromagnetic coupling, that those elements outside of the loop were basically acting as a radio transmitter. Otherwise, that the elements might be sending signals through the substrate or the power-supply wiring or such. Another chip somehow picked up on what the computer was doing during the test, rather then the frequency itself. A lot of this also involved "overexploiting the physics" of the situation, such that changing the temperature by a degree or so might cause them not to work.

There are also a number of other interesting things that it's being used for, such as getting a virtual character to walk, under realistic physics, muscles, etc. Or here's another example, in which it was used in order to create a cheap sterling engine.