Evolution & common descent: facts. I'll answer all questions and criticisms

[seinfeldrules]

*Grabs some popcorn in preparation for the oncoming show

 

[Hazar]

/me eats popcorn.

then decides it's spam :O

it'll prolly be awhile, since mine took me quite awhile to write.

 

[seinfeldrules]

/me eats popcorn.

then decides it's spam :O

it'll prolly be awhile, since mine took me quite awhile to write.

Heh, I meant it in both ways. You gave a very thought out response, and I cant wait for Apos' similar response. Gonna be fun to see!

 

[GiaOmerta]

Do we? I would put it to you that we know a lot more about the human brain than most people know, and a lot less about the ocean than most people think

Tell me what you know about the brain.

The biological world is indeed incredibly complex, but it's also extremely messy and almost unbelievably wasteful. It's important not to have a false picture of what nature is like, whether or not that image of perfection and harmony comes from an expectation of what a perfect designer might design, or not.

Like I said earlier, our minds are limited. What we might see as wasteful and messy exactly holds purpose and fits into the puzzle.

 

[Apos]

Hazar,

1. you are basically stating here the idea of irreducible complexity: the idea that there are certain structures that are too complex to be formed gradually. Unfortunately, IC has been debunked over and over, and the basic idea is weak to begin with: it's basically nothing more than a claim that YOU cannot see how certain features might have developed: an argument from personal incredulity. Unfortunately, one person's lack of imagination or lack of knowledge of biology is not a good guide to anything.

The case of the eye is actually a fantastic example wherein it's actually quite easy to map out a progression from simple light-sensitive eye spots to complex compound eyes, all achieved by gradual steps, each beneficial. While it might seem that certain features are inseparably interconnected and would have had to appear all at once (i.e. several pieces have to be in place before a feature works) this neglects the possibility that the individual parts could each serve different functions originally than they eventually do. Which is exactly what we find in the evolution of the eye.

You also display a basic misunderstanding of evolution when you claim that anything "needs" to evolve into anything. Evolution does not have foresight or plan ahead to distant goals: at no point were lizards ever 'trying" to become birds, and nothing in the process was aiming at that particular result. Instead, each and every small step along the way from certain lizards to birds was beneficial in some way to the lizard's adaptive fitness. It would only seem detrimental if you didn't know the particular path it took through its particular environment.

2. Nonsense. The fossil record is replete with "transitional" fossils that predate modern animals. Even the most dogmatic creationists admit THAT: they just complain about the supposed "holes" (which, of course, can never be closed, because every single fossil found just creates two more holes on either side of it, leading to the absurd conclusion that the more fossils we find, the more "gaps" there are!)

But then, the very idea of transitional forms is a flawed way to think, because it assumes that creatures are "in between" one form and another. But all forms, all steps along the way, are functional, complete creatures, and they are not "on their way" to any particular goal: that's something we only see looking back with hindsight. As I've discussed here before, the concept of species is a very sloppy one w use mostly for grouping convienience, not because it reveals any important truth about true divisions in nature.

3. This is worth quoting since it's so amusing that you would admit it: "Well, I hate to break it to you, but if you start out with 2 medium sized horses, you can selectively breed thoes two horses to miniture horses and giant horses in a single man's lifetime." <--- this is evidence FOR the power of evolution, not against it! What is going on in this situation is a form of evolutionary change called artificial selection: namely that people decide which horses get to breed. But there is no real difference between what's going on in artificial selection and natural selection other than that the selection in natural selection is based on fitness in a particular environment rather than the whims of man. Otherwise, it's the same exact process! So the fact that artificial selection can so swiftly alter major features of animals only further confirms that the basic idea that evolution via natural selection can alter living species.

4. I don't even understand what you are talking about here. Your body also has billions of cells: a lot more cells than you have neural pathways. But to think that each and every one of these cells and pathways is spelled out in your DNA only belies your complete ignorance of how DNA works. DNA is like a recipe, not like a blueprint. What it specifies are the basic patterns, the basic construction instructions that are then carried out, mostly in embryological formation. It is these processes, by the replications of cells acting under particular chemical rules and direction, that build a particular body. Those connections and the position of each cell is NOT explicitly spelled out in your DNA anymore than the number of hairs on your head is.

 

[Apos]

Like I said earlier, our minds are limited. What we might see as wasteful and messy exactly holds purpose and fits into the puzzle.

The logical contortions one would have to do to achieve that result would basically make the very concept of "purpose" and "fits into the puzzle" semantic nonsense. The fact is, DNA really is full of just plain archaic junk left over from earlier generations, most of which is never even expressed into a protein and so never gets used. The natural world really is incredibly wasteful (with almost 99% of every species that has ever lived going extinct, and out of control predator/prey relationships basically destroying both sides of the coin), instead of being harmonious and balanced.

Deeper point: you can always claim that ANY fact about the world ultimately fits into some higher order we can't understand, but a) where is the evidence for this? and b) so what: how does that negate the evidence we HAVE found? Even if there is an intelligent designer who CAN direct the process, the fact is, the process itself renders his potential interactions unecessary. And if there is an intelligent designer, then it really appears to have gone out of its way to make a natural world that looks like one that arose via the messy and wasteful process of natural selection instead of by careful engineering.

 

[gcomeau]

There is an awful lot to comment on in this thread, but for now, I'm going to try to stick to the basics.

Evolution is absolutely not a fact.

And you are absolutely wrong. It's been observed. You don't get much more solidly factual than that.

1) Evolution has no way of 'blundering' on such a devine creation such as us. Let me take the sense of sight for an example. Let's just imagine that there is this little worm back in primordial times. This worm has developed slighly dark spots on it's forhead, a very primitive retina. Then, let's say by sheer chance, it passes along the genes that are responsible for this trait to it's decendent

I'm sorry... through sheer chance? Do you know how reproduction works?

(never mind the fact that this trait would not help the species in the slightest to increase it's chance of survival; therefore not concentrating the gene). This next decendent happens to get a small mutation that makes these spots darker. This happens for several generations just by chance.

Oh geez... look, variation across a population happens. Whether or not any one specific individual within the population is taller or shorter, darker or lighter, skinnier or heavier, weaker or stronger, far sighted or nearsighted, and yes even more sensitive or less sensitive to light is indeed to some degree a matter of chance... but across the entire population each of these characteristics will tend to be plottable in something resembling a bell curve. They are not uniform, they are not homogenous. If one end of that curve is occupied by a trait that is more suited to survival than the rest then over successive generations the gene frequency within the entire population will tend to shift in that direction as those traits are selected for. In this case, if the "worms" with the most sensitive pigment patches have some survival or reproductive advantage over other "worms" they will survive and reproduce more and in successive generations the average member of that population will inherit more sensitive patches.

THAT is hardly a matter of chance at all, in fact it's damn near unavoidable as a consequence of the way in which DNA replicates. ANY population of imperfect replicators within a hostile environment with some kind of selective pressures WILL evolve. Period.

And as for only the entire finished system providing an advantage, what a ridiculous idea. Even an incredibly limitted ability to sense the presence of light with any kind of photosensitive cell structure would provide a significant advantage over anything that didn't possess that capability. And once you have that genetic code introduced to the population it's a given that the extent to which that ability is developed will vary across the population from individual to individual in successive generations, and the most effective forms will be selected for... and then those will vary further, and the most effective forms will still be selected for. Ad infinitum.

This example can also be applied to a primitive lizard that 'needs' to 'evolve' into a bird. One lizard by chance has slightly longer scales then the average lizard of the time.

Which specific lizard will have longer scales: chance.

THAT in any population some lizards will have longer scales than others: Unavoidable. If those longer scales offer any kind of advantage (like, oh, they're more efficient heat dissipators/collectors) they'll tend to be selected for.

When you understand this simple fact your entire objection falls apart.

The process of evolution is highly non-random. You seem to like stressing that 'chance' aspect pretty often as if it presents some kind of problem but this only serves to demonstrate to me that you don't actually understand what it is you're talking about.

2) Another reason why evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes ever: These 'inbetween' species have absolutely no fossil record. None.

Absurd.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Feel free to browse through those pages, here's a summary of the fossil transitions listed:

PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:

1. Introduction:
1. Types of transitions
2. Why are there gaps?
3. Predictions of creationism & evolution
4. What's in this FAQ
5. Timescale
2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians
5. Transitions among amphibians
6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
7. Transitions among reptiles
8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
9. Transition from reptiles to first birds

PART 2 has transitions among mammals (starting with primates), including numerous species-to-species transitions, discussion, and references. If you're particularly interested in humans, skip to the primate section of part 2, and also look up the fossil hominid FAQ.

1. Overview of the Cenozoic
2. Primates
3. Bats
4. Carnivores
5. Rodents
6. Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
7. Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
8. Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
9. Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
10. Elephants
11. Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
12. Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
13. Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups

Yeah, there's no fossil record of transitional forms. None at all.

Logic would say that there would be more of these, since they would tend to die out quicker, as illustrated in the previous example.

No, they wouldn't. You clearly don't understand what a transitional form is. If it wasn't viable ON IT'S OWN then it would be a dead end in the evolutionary "tree". No species evolves only to serve as some kind of stepping stone on it's way to a different species. It evolves because it is suited to it's environment.

3) Well, I hate to break it to you, but if you start out with 2 medium sized horses, you can selectively breed thoes two horses to miniture horses and giant horses in a single man's lifetime.

So... what you hate to break to us is that it is fully demonstratable and reproducible that applying selective pressures to successive generations of a population results in morphological change?

Well gee, I sure am upset that you've broken it to us that the major mechanism by which evolution operates can be easily shown to work and even accelerated in controlled conditions.

And as for #4... there you go with that "chance" thing again.

Now, some questions for you. If evolution isn't how it happened explain why the fossil record looks like this:

http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/GeologicalTime.htm

Why are there no reptile fossils found in the Archaean? Ever?
Why are there no mammal fossile found in the Silurian? Ever?
Why are there no birds found in the carboniferous? Ever?

Why, as we progress from 3.5 billion year old fossils to billion year old fossils to 500 million year old fossils to 100 million year old fossils to 100,000 year old fossils is there a steady progression of morphological change falling into the pattern of a nested heirarchy that ONLY evolutionary theory predicts and explains?

Why is there a matching genetic nested heirarchy across all living things on the planet today showing various degrees of relation (ie: common ancestry)?

Why do all primates (and guinea pigs, close genetic relation) share the same non functional L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase pseudogene in their genetic makeup which prevents them from synthesizing vitamin C? Every other animal on the planet has a functional L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene. We don't, so we either get vitamin C it in our diet or we get a little thing called scurvy.

Option 1: We all inherited it from our most recent common ancestor that had a natural diet such that synthesizing vitamin C wasn't of any use to it.

Option 2: God designed a NON FUNCTIONAL peice of genetic code into humans. And he designed the SAME non functional peice of genetic code into chimps. And he designed the SAME non functional peice of genetic code into bobobos. Etc...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Some people still believe that God makes it rain, even though we have plenty of evidence and understanding of hwo and why this natural process occurs. Because God is defined as being supernatural, one can always claim he's involved in litterally anything, even if we already have a good cause for it, with no evidence whatsoever. That's why science doesn't bother with such explanations: they go nowhere and don't explain anything. In a sense, they explain too much, too easily, too lazily.

So, they dont explain anything, but THEN they explain too much?

Is there a chance that amungst the folds and dimensions of space, an entity like a God, could exist possibly? Or does that not just hook your Darwin Fish on a line?

 

[Apos]

To piggyback on gcomeau's excellent post, that last bit is exactly what I'm talking about in my longer essays (already linked to in the OP) when I reffer to an convergence of proof.

You really COULD, if you were a stubborn soul, claim that option 2 is the answer to his riddle. But the problem is, you can tell the same SORT of story for that gcomeau told for hundreds if not thousands of different genes, gene complexes, organs, and so on in all sorts of different modern species, all of which make up a similar riddle, but all of which have different grouped linages, lengths of time since the last common ancestor, and so on. And yet all of these different, indepedant "coincidences..." they all fit right into the same exact tree of life: the same tree of descent from common ancestors. Faced with all this evidence, the person who chose option 2 is now pretty darn hard pressed to explain why a God would structure the genomes of living creatures so that they happened to provide such an incredible web of cross-confirming evidence that also happened to match up with the fossil record, homology, the geographical separation of the continents which isolated various species... and so on. As I note, again and again, if this logic were in error, if it contained false methods and calculations, then we _wouldn't_ expect them all to give the SAME wrong answer: we would expect them to give lots of different wrong answers. That they all coordinate on one single answer can only mean one thing: that this answer is correct.

And in the face of that, the BEST such a person would be able to lamely claim was that an intelligent designer set all of this up to deliberately decieve us: no different than if the world had begun two seconds ago and all your memories and the evidence of the world existing prior to that were faked. That is, instead of being able to present evidence and argument rejecting evolution as a fact, the skeptic would have to invent an elaborate scenario whereby all reality was a sham and you couldn't trust evidence any for ANYTHING in the world.

The destruction of all knowledge, and absolute skepticism about all reality: that's a pretty darn high price to pay just to defend an ideology of anti-evolution!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

However, you also destroy the absolute skepticism about all reality, when you say something like a God is devoid of all plausible chance.

 

[Apos]

So, they dont explain anything, but THEN they explain too much?

Indeed, in empiricism, explaining everything is akin to explaining nothing at all. As I just noted with the "denial of all reality" scenario, once you basically declare "all bets are off, anything is possible" then there is no longer any such thing as truth or error anymore: no way to prove that anything is true or false. And yet, because you can explain anything in an almost infinate number of ways, you've actually destroyed any ability to "explain." For explanations require finding the _particular_ true solutions to a problem, separating truth from falsehood. If you can't do that, if that process has become irrelevant since there is no evidence, no natural law, nothing certain or stable on which to base truth claims, then you have left the realm of science and knowledge, and there is nothing more those disciplines can offer.

Is there a chance that amungst the folds and dimensions of space, an entity like a God, could exist possibly? Or does that not just hook your Darwin Fish on a line?

Such bitterness is unwarranted. This thread is not about the existence of God. Many evolutionary biologists believe in God. I don't happen to (because I see no reason to), but I also don't begrudge those who do, and they generally have strong personal reasons for it that are beyond my judging. As to whether it is possible that a God exists, I have no idea, no real opinion one way or the other. Could be, dunno.

What concerns me here is science and knowledge, both of which are limited fields of inquiry, not all encompasing. They can tell us about life on earth, about the physical history of the universe. They can't tell us what's right and wrong, or answer questions of about what your life's purpose is, or whether there is a god outside of all detectable reality. As I have stated time and time again, science cannot prove or disprove untestable, unverifiable ideas. So it is irrelevant to the question of God: such questions are outside the scope of science and empirical inquiry.

While evolution may contradict SOME of the factual, testable claims that SOME religious people make about the world, it's not an attack on religion per se to correct those faulty claims. It's simply a considered rejection of those claims based on new evidence. If that causes problems for someone's religious belief, it's between them and their faith to resolve the matter for themselves any way they see fit. All I can speak to is the what the best science and the preponderance of the evidence can tell people who choose to consider evidence and logic to be valuable aids to understanding the world.

 

[Apos]

However, you also destroy the absolute skepticism about all reality, when you say something like a God is devoid of all plausible chance.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. When and where I have stated anything about the possibility of the existence of God?

All I have noted is that, as an "explanation" the claim that "God did it" is as unhelpful as saying "something that I cannot comprehend did it in an unknown way for reasons I cannot comprehend" which is pretty much just a glib and creative way of saying "I don't know how it was done." That's why science isn't much interested in such answers. They are too easy (they can be used to explain anything from your armchair, without any effort or examination, without going out and bothering to look), and they don't lead anywhere or even really increase our knowledge at all.

Consider what medicine would be like if, instead of trying to explain how blood works, early doctors simply declared that it worked by the will of God? It certianly would have saved them a lot of extra time and effort into further research, that's for sure! But it wouldn't truly have told them anything about blood or how it works: they wouldn't have learned anything. Indeed, they wouldn't have even needed to DO anything. Anyone in any profession, at any time, could simple declare that "God did it," and then take a vacation. Imagine how easy trials could be: we could simply declare all events the will and doing of God, and save the taxpayers the expense of a lengthy trial.

Does this mean that there is no God, or that it is impossible that God plays any role in reality? Of course not. It's just that, if so, it's outside the role of medicine, outside of the role of science. Those methods proceed by logical inquiry based on an examination of evidence. If a God is truly to blame, then there is nothing left for these methods to do, no evidence to examine, no logic of natural laws to explain. There is nothing more left for them to say.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

... I should've brought my 8-ball ...

Indeed, in empiricism, explaining everything is akin to explaining nothing at all.

Sounds cool.

As I just noted with the "denial of all reality" scenario, once you basically declare "all bets are off, anything is possible" then there is no longer any such thing as truth or error anymore

Oh I see, so you've just got to have all your ducks in row.

OT: Do you organize a lot?

way to prove that anything is true or false

Death is the ultimate proof. Whoever gets their first, wins.

And yet, because you can explain anything in an almost infinate number of ways, you've actually destroyed any ability to "explain."

Explain to me how you could make explanation pointless when you leave yourself open to various explanation and they're criteria?

For explanations require finding the _particular_ true solutions to a problem, separating truth from falsehood. If you can't do that, then you have left the realm of sceince and knowledge, and there is nothing more those disciplines can offer.

Suiting -- but how can you clammer the statement that a God is just too complicated a reason; is'int it Sciences job to explain complications or rule out equations unto why they occur?

Course, I dont think its a matter that science is uncapable of providing us with such answers -- I just believe the people that are capable of wielding such theories, provide themselves not, having discovered their social importance.

Such bitterness is unwarranted.

You can choose when something is bitter -- I've not done so.

This thread is not about the existence of God.

No, its become about what exists to you, and simply what does'nt exist. You chose it in your first context, by stating that the Bible explains too little, and yet too much.

I still have this question placed to you, and I'd like to have it answered on wether or not you were being inspecific or mistyped. Also, since you've involved the bible, on the first page, I still believe its of relevant context.

While evolution may contradict SOME of the factual, testable claims that SOME religious people make about the world, it's not an attack on religion per se to correct those faulty claims.

Well this helps some.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I honestly don't know what you are talking about

The destruction of all knowledge, and absolute skepticism about all reality: that's a pretty darn high price to pay just to defend an ideology of anti-evolution!

Yes you do. This prompt was more or less an attack on Bible thumpers who dont believe in the probability of evolution. You cited it, as if people who chose different options and besides religious ones, denounced themselves of intellectual thought and discovery.

Yet, I believe that if a man is open to anything, that he learns more and has more options available to him. With this, I also noted you had a anti-religious over tone in your post; although minor.

I was addressing that factor, and its no mystery from where your comments were drug out of, and who they were meant to address. So, my reply to you;

However, you also destroy the absolute skepticism about all reality, when you say something like a God is devoid of all plausible chance.

was to give comment on your direction.

I wish to cite now, not all anti-evolutionists are devoid or denounce themselves of knowledge, or the gathering of -- and yet, I support scientific theories as much as I do my own religion. For that, I've never once caught myself shaking off something for the next; perhaps now you understand where I caught some insult.

 

[Hazar]

Once again, I've slept too long and there's tons to comment on.

The most notable thing that comes to mind is the comment apos had about the horse example. I guess I didn't explain it well enough, because you missed the point. Thoes horses, whether the big ones, or the small ones, or the medium sized ones, the all had the same genes. You could take the selectively breeded large horses and then breed them back to the small horses. No evolution takes place.

Secondly, you say that the different parts of the sense of sight could work independently of each other, providing some advantage, therefore they would be concentrated and provide the species and advantage. This is very erroneous, how is a fully formed eye supposed to do anything if it has nothing to send it's signals along? How is a fully formed optic nerve with a fully formed eye supposed to accomplish anything without a part of the brain to recieve the signals? And most importantly, if the eye/system is accomplishing some other function along the way, then why would it evolve into an eye?

One thing I forgot to mention in my biggest post to date P), was that every mutation only has a 1 in 10,000 chance of being beneficial. All 9,999 mutations are either harmful, fatal, or prove no advantage at all. This means that the species will long go extinct before any good mutations occur.

I'm rather tired right now for any more answers, but go here for more answers to any of your questions.

 

[gcomeau]

Explain to me how you could make explanation pointless when you leave yourself open to various explanation and they're criteria?

The point was that explanations that explain absolutely everything aren't really explanations at all. Let's compare a couple scenarios to demonstrate what is being talked about when we say that.

1. Person A comes up with what he calls his model of celestial mechanics which attempts to explain the manner in which interstellar bodies move and predict how they should move in any given situation. (Think Newtonian physics). He says, alright... according to my model we should see this, this, this, and this... but if we see THAT it would contradict the predictions of my model, it will be shown that my model is wrong, and I'll need to come up with something else. Now there's any number of ways in which a proper model like this could be shown wrong but let's just choose one over the top one for illustrative purposes. If the earth stops in it's tracks tomorrow, then reverses course and starts orbitting the other way around the sun... either someone has to find the big giant engines somebody attached to the planet or person A needs to come up with a new model that can explain this.

That's called falsifiability, and it's very important. You have to have some means of determining whether or not your explanation is wrong.

2. Person B comes up with his own "model"... roughly summed up as "magic pixies do everything".

Now, as the earth orbits around the sun as usual he says "my model explains that! The pixies are doing it.".

If tomorrow the earth stops in it's tracks.

"My model explains that! The pixies are doing it!"

If it reverses course.

"My model explains that! The pixies are doing it!"

If it takes a quick swing out around the asteroid belt.

"My model explains that, the pixies are doing it!

If it sets itself on a collision course for the sun.

"My model explains that, the pixies are doing it! Gee... you must have made them mad when you laughed at my earlier explanations..."

Magic pixies can "explain" EVERYTHING. Any possible observation can be reconciled with "magic pixies did it". So, would you say they're a superior model to newtonian physics? Is the "explanation" offered really explaining anything at all in anything resembling a useful manner?

I think not.

What does this model tell us about where the earth will be in 24 hours? Nothing. Because it could be anywhere and still be within the model. What does it tell us about how ANYTHING will behave in the future? Nothing. Because any imaginable possibility is reconcilable with the model.

Basically all appeals to the supernatural to explain observed phenomena fall into the "magic pixies" category of "explanation". Completely unfalsifiable, able to "explain" any imaginable occurance... nothing but exercises in ad-hoc storytelling to "explain" things after the fact.

 

[Edcrab]

I think that's definitely a key issue- whether or not you believe in the existence of a higher power, you can't deny that there're laws governing our lives- and I mean those that have a hold on reality, not the justice system.

'Course, even when everyone accepts physics, the argument often degenerates into how/why they are what they are- but we're not trying to get too far into creationism here.

Of course, I ocassionally wonder on the existence of other universes and wonder how (or rather, if) different variations of "reality" (sorry to be so inexact- I can't think of a better term other than "existence", but either way I don't want people I'm talking about dimensions) form.

Who are we to say that gravity isn't a sub-atomic network of linked matter that holds everything large enough in place, rather than a similar force acting on (at least) two bodies? It makes sense to us because we know it to be true and have proved as such- but could it have ever been different, if the universe had formed differently?

Urgh, I confuse myself. At least we're not discussing Steady State/Big Bang theorums yet...

 

[gcomeau]

Once again, I've slept too long and there's tons to comment on.

The most notable thing that comes to mind is the comment apos had about the horse example. I guess I didn't explain it well enough, because you missed the point. Thoes horses, whether the big ones, or the small ones, or the medium sized ones, the all had the same genes.

No, they don't. Exactly what did you think was involved in selective breeding if not the isolation of desired genetic code? If they all had the same genes they would be clones.

You could take the selectively breeded large horses and then breed them back to the small horses. No evolution takes place.

You appear not to even know what evolution is, otherwise you couldn't possibly make that statement.

Secondly, you say that the different parts of the sense of sight could work independently of each other, providing some advantage, therefore they would be concentrated and provide the species and advantage. This is very erroneous, how is a fully formed eye supposed to do anything if it has nothing to send it's signals along? How is a fully formed optic nerve with a fully formed eye supposed to accomplish anything without a part of the brain to recieve the signals? And most importantly, if the eye/system is accomplishing some other function along the way, then why would it evolve into an eye?

You're talking like you think the individual parts of the eye need to be the same form they are in modern humans. Look, you don't need a specialized optics nerve to go along with the light sensitive patch in the early going, you just need ANY nerves which can relay sensations from those cells. So you start with a light sensitive patch developing, which doesn't allow the organism to "see" light in the sense that we think of visual perception but it can detect light and that's a survival advantage. Then over the generations this patch spreads through the population and all kinds of variation gets introduced. Some have lighter patches and some have darker patches. Some have patches that are a little more convex, and some have patches that are a little more concave.... and oh look, the more concave patches allow those organisms to start sensing the light source direction just a little more accurately than those with less concave patches because the rim of the concave area shades parts of the patch when light comes in at certain angles so the organism can orient himself to get a stronger "signal" more accurately. And successive generations get patches that are more and more concave as that end of the curve in the population gets progressively selected for.

Flatworms have 'eyes' just like this so we know they work.

Then from there you get the development of orgnisms where the opening of the depression narrows, so instead of having like a cup or a crater shaped sensory patch you have more of a chamber. That allows even greater ability to detect direction and even movement of a light source, at the tradeoff of some sensitivity due to decreased light intensity. The "image" is sharper, but it's dimmer.

The Chambered Nautilus has 'eyes' just like this, so we know they work too.

Then an organism develops some kind of translucent membrane over that little opening... and lookey there, we have a lens. And our eye is moving right along.

And of course at any point along this progression you would also be having selection acting on organisms which had nervous systems which relayed sensation from those cells just a little more efficiently than their neighbours. And organisms which were able to interpret and react to those sensations just a bit more effectively than those neighbours.

After a few million years... you have a modern camera-type eye. You have modern optic nerves. You have organisms whose brains process the information from those nerves extremely effectively.

And here's the part you need to deal with. Humans eyes are well developed, but they are far from optimum. There are animals with much better eyes than we have, so if our eyes are a result of some kind of deliberate design process instead of evolution why did the designer muck it up in humans? Our optic nerve endings sit in FRONT of the photosensitive cells in our retinas, screwing up our visual acuity by getting in the way of incoming light. Not only that, but because our optics nerve protrudes through our retina we all have a blind spot out brains have to constantly correct for. Because our retinas sit on top of their blood supply a sufficiently strong blow to the head can detach our retinas!

If our eyes are designed instead of evolved, why didn't the designer do it right like in the eyes of some cephalopods? They have superior vision and no blind spot because their optic nerve endings are behind the photosensitive cells in their retinas and the nerve doesn't protrude through it... and the nerves coming in from behind anchor the retinas to their blood supply so they don't get detached.

One thing I forgot to mention in my biggest post to date P), was that every mutation only has a 1 in 10,000 chance of being beneficial. All 9,999 mutations are either harmful, fatal, or prove no advantage at all.

Yup. Of course in evolution on a planetary scale we're talking about billions upon billions of mutations undergoing selection.

This means that the species will long go extinct before any good mutations occur.

What? How so?

1. Not every case of reproduction will involve a mutation.
2. Cases that DO involve a mutation that is harmful or fatal mean that ONE offspring won't survive to pass on it's genetic material so it ends there.
3. Which leaves those few cases where a mutation IS beneficial and gets preserved... and passed on... and spread.

Let's say I'm drawing marbles from a bag. The bag contains an infinite number of marbles (it's a magic, self-replenishing marble bag). 99% of the marbles it generates are grey (no mutation case). 0.9999% of the marbles it generates are black (harmful or fatal mutation case). 0.0001% of the marbles it generates are white (beneficial mutation case). Feel free to argue about the percentages, the numbers were thrown in as a generalization to illustrate the process at work.

Now gee, the odds of me collecting a bunch of those white marbles don't look so hot do they? But wait... I haven't told you the manner in which I'm drawing them.

For one thing, it's not happening one at a time, it's happening in a great big mass automated process. (Reproductive events across the entire population of a species). And there's an inline filter in this process which discards black marbles when they're drawn (death before reproduction and gene duplication), it only keeps grey and white ones.

And this process takes all the marbles it keeps and it puts then through another filter, and this one preferentially weights white marbles (survival of the fittest) so that they are more likely to be kept in successive drawings.

And both those processes run continuously. For billions of years.

Now, what are the odds of me accumulating a whole bunch of those white marbles?

It approaches unity.

I'm rather tired right now for any more answers, but go here for more answers to any of your questions.

Those guys are hilarious. The first time I came across thier site I thought it was a parody for like a week.

 

[Apos]

K e r b e r o s, your posts are so disjointed that I can't really tell what you are talking about. Quoting and then responding to each point in turn only seems to feed into the problem. Perhaps English is not your first language, in which case I apologize for not understanding what you are saying half the time, but then perhaps you aren't understanding what I'm saying either by the same token. But, really, what I am supposed to think when, after discussing the problems with existential supernatural entities as explanatory agencies in general, you then start talking about the Bible account in specific? The message I get from this is that you are so confused as to what we are talking about that any offense you read out of my comments is highly questionable.

In fact, biblicaly literalist creationists are actually an entirely different story: UNLIKE deistic explanations, actually DO make specific testable claims, such as the Earth being only a few thousand years old. And these claims turn out to be wrong. As I said before, I don't point this out because I want to hurt their religious beliefs. But they made the claims, and thus have to face the consequences when they run up against the facts. Scientists don't set out to challenge religion: they set out to learn about the world.

And frankly, it's a bit frustrating when people are willing in the normal course of things to accept scientific evidence in one realm, but when science starts doing exactly the same sorts of things in terms of biology or life's origins, they cry foul and start claiming that all of reality is a giant illusion or science is narrowminded and pointless. The fact is, science has contradicted recieved religious wisdom about the world before, and in almost every case religion has come out okay. Catholicism didn't collapse because of Gallileo, and in fact because the church was eventually able to realize it's myopia about the subject, it became a _better_ institution because of the controversy, with a canon of beliefs that were more universal and spiritual rather than dogmatic about a particular state of nature.

 

[Apos]

I think that's definitely a key issue- whether or not you believe in the existence of a higher power, you can't deny that there're laws governing our lives- and I mean those that have a hold on reality, not the justice system.

Which is exactly the point. We don't need to agree on the existence of Gods to discuss the regularities and evidence we find in our common reality. We can both agree that a rock is 10 pounds, that certain isotopes decay at certain rates, that species populations have increasing variation, and so on. That's all something like evolution is concerned with.

And why? Because those things are precisely the things we can ALL test and verify and come to agreement on. That's why we have science. When it comes to God, not everyone has the same beliefs or experiences, and there is no evidence to test so that we can prove anything to each other. So there is no room for science to offer any hope of reconcilliation. In other words, it's a moot point.

'Course, even when everyone accepts physics, the argument often degenerates into how/why they are what they are- but we're not trying to get too far into creationism here.

I agree. Evolution, common descent, abiogenesis: these are LIMITED explanations that only purport to explain particular things. We could have some pretty interesting discussions about physics and the nature of the universe, no doubt, but we don't really HAVE to agree on any of those larger more philosophical issues in order to consider the evidence for evolution. We can agree to disagree on them and still discuss life on this planet (a concept of limited and usefully defined scope) just fine.

 

[Maxi]

The best evidence for evolution is the Aids virus... It can mutate into a new string inside a person, changing entirely from the strain that entered the person.

 

[Apos]

Well, really, that sort of single example of a single change is nowhere near the best: the best is what I noted before: the fact that nearly countless lines of indepedant reasoning and evidence all converge on the basic predictions of the theory and claimed facts.

Someone can claim that God wants this or that. That's all well and good. But that's not the same sort of claim I'm making when I say that the world is around 4.5 billion years old and all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. But unlike the God claim, I can provide knock-down solid evidence to prove my claim. The God claim is also just something you either believe or you don't (since there's no way to test if it's true or not, and it's predicated on having specific religious beliefs first anyway), and I don't really care if you do or you don't. What I care about are the actual facts about the actual world that we can all look at and confirm and debate to our satisfaction.

As an example, let's look at Hazar's link from Answers in Genesis:
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

These people think that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. And why do they believe this? Because they believe that the Bible is a litteral account, factual and never metaphorical or poetical. Now, that's great for them. If believing that makes them happy, fine. But the fact is, that's not even what a majority of CHRISTIANS believe, let alone what Jews or non-Christians think.

In other words, as a basis for a system of truth that we can all agree upon as being objective, it's pretty darn lousy because it demands that you hold very particular fundamentalist beliefs about a particular religion's holy book to be the absolute last word on everything. Of course people have no basis to agree on something like that!

Science takes a different approach. It says: what sorts of things are common to us all? Well, our everyday experience is. We might disagree about whether God thinks a particular rock somewhere is blessed, but we can at least agree that the rock is there, that it's grey, that it weighs 13 pounds, and so on. Why? Because we can all confirm these things via observation. No one person is special and gets to just declare the truth about the rock without explaining his evidence. Instead, everyone has access to the evidence to confirm things for themselves.

It is on this sort of basis for agreement that all science is built. Scientific findings have taken us to some pretty complex and hard to understand places (quantum theory is plain mind-blowing!), but the same principles always apply: we're talking about evidence and argument here, not claims of religious belief which only apply to some people.

That's why AiG's methods are so weak, even if you were to buy their nonsense about dating methods being flawed and so forth (most of their claims about it are plain LMAO goofy, but no matter). They demand special authority to particular belief systems, instead of giving precedence to actual evidence and considered, testable theory. You aren't allowed or able to confirm the claims they make. All you get told is that you must believe their take on what the Bible says is true, and you must accept that that reading of that text is an infaliable record of history. They're the boss, The End.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

K e r b e r o s, your posts are so disjointed that I can't really tell what you are talking about. Quoting and then responding to each point in turn only seems to feed into the problem. Perhaps English is not your first language, in which case I apologize for not understanding what you are saying half the time, but then perhaps you aren't understanding what I'm saying either by the same token. But, really, what I am supposed to think when, after discussing the problems with existential supernatural entities as explanatory agencies in general, you then start talking about the Bible account in specific? The message I get from this is that you are so confused as to what we are talking about that any offense you read out of my comments is highly questionable.

Big side-step. Not going to cut it.

And frankly, it's a bit frustrating when people are willing in the normal course of things to accept scientific evidence in one realm, but when science starts doing exactly the same sorts of things in terms of biology or life's origins, they cry foul and start claiming that all of reality is a giant illusion or science is narrowminded and pointless.

I only cried foul when you stated that those who wish not to believe in such things as a "theory of evolution", are infact witholding themselves of intellectual and scientific understanding.

You said it best yourself:

The destruction of all knowledge, and absolute skepticism about all reality: that's a pretty darn high price to pay just to defend an ideology of anti-evolution!

Moving on ...

 

[Apos]

Big side-step. Not going to cut it.

It's the reality. To jump from a problem about untestable supernatural explanations to the Bible and it's distinctly testable claims really DOES demonstrate that you are not really understanding what is being discussed, and are just randomly throwing out nasty comments.

I only cried foul when you stated that those who wish not to believe in such things as a "theory of evolution", are infact witholding themselves of intellectual and scientific understanding.

This is just a reality. Common descent is an undisputed fact, as solid as just about anything else in science and the basis for all modern biology. They ARE science. And evolution is one of the most powerful explanatory frameworks (i.e. theories) that science has. It isn't a matter of belief: you can of course believe whatever you want. But you cannot legitimately dispute (at least not without presenting any evidence or argument yourself!) that evolution as an established fact in the realm of science. If you don't wish to play on the field of scientific inquiry, that's fine. But don't claim to be playing on it and then ignore all the basic rules (and rules are: present evidence and argument). I may think Hazar has it all wrong, but I at least respect that he intuitively knows that the way to argue this is, well, to present arguments. Not to simply declare beliefs in this or that. That's what I did, that's what gcomeau did, and that's what you should do if you disagree.

You said it best yourself

Again, I don't have any real assurance that you even know what that sentance means. What it means is that the price you'd have to pay to simply sweep evolution as fact away would be the price of declaring all evidence and argument to be useless. This is essentially the sort of thing that the people at AiG do: they simply declare that the Bible is a litteral and straightforward document of total truth (someone not everyone, not even every Christian, believes) and that all evidence against this view is wrong by definition. They are more than willing to pay the price in defense of their dogmatism. But their own very particular and demanding beliefs are no basis for any common understanding. The point is: evidence and argument are. And that is extremely valuable in a world where some many people have so many different faith beliefs on which it is very unlikely we can come to an agreement on. It offers us a way to discuss at the very least a limited range of truth without having to worry that we might disagree about religion or other untestable matters. To bitterly throw all that out simply because it doesn't immediately bend to all your beliefs is myopic and self-centered. Yet that's exactly what is done when people start bringing in their own untestable religious beliefs on which no one is ever going to agree.

 

[The Mullinator]

The best evidence for evolution is the Aids virus... It can mutate into a new string inside a person, changing entirely from the strain that entered the person.

Dog breeding and horse breeding are also very good sources of evidence. Considering alot of the current breeds of dogs today didn't even exist a few centuries ago certainly means something. Heck, take a look at a chiuaua and a Huskey, both are dogs and both originally started as wolfs, but wouldn't you say that a chiuaua is almost a different kind of animal when compared to a husky or wolf?

 

[Apos]

Heck, take a look at a chiuaua and a Huskey, both are dogs and both originally started as wolfs, but wouldn't you say that a chiuaua is almost a different kind of animal when compared to a husky or wolf?

And this example belies two major claims against evolution.

First, that information is never "added" to the genome. But the mere fact that these breeds have become what we wanted: that we've been able to breed them to our specifications, demonstrates that information HAS been added. Information, in this case, about our particular desires. Information is essentialy defined as the reduction of ambiguity: either long legs or short: which is wanted? The gene pool has a range of both. When we choose "short," and thus skew the entire gene pool towards that direction, we reduce that ambiguity, hence adding information to the genome. Q.E.D.

Secondly, it demonstrates that variation arises naturally in gene pools. That's because the genes for something looking like a chiuaua simply didn't exist in the original archaic wolves. While the two animals may share some basic body structures, and are still technically the same species (though with a LOT more difference than the difference between most actual species: see my discussion of "species"), chiuauas have gene sequences in them that archaic wolves just didn't: sequences that appear to be modified versions of the standard wolf genome. Same goes for Great Danes, only we find those same gene's modified in a different direction. Now, nothing in human breeding itself magically "adds" those genetic differences. They had to get there somehow, and the reality is that they got there because variation naturally increases on its own through mutation and sexual combination and other factors.

And I'm actually even being coy here. As gcomeau hinted at, we have actually have plenty of solid evidence and understanding about just how variation happens, at what rates, and so on. But all that stuff is very technical and complicated to explain, and quite long-winded: we can get into it if people want to. But the dog example is nice because it demonstrates the issue bluntly and directly: no matter what the underlying reason is, it's clear that new and viable variations really DO arise within breeding populations. You can launch all the arguments you want about how mutation would destroy gene pools and never accomplish anything useful. The example of dogs flatly refutes such claims: refutes them without having to get into all the complicated biology and chemistry. New variation arises naturally all the time (in fact, arises much FASTER than is needed for natural selection to work, which is why one of the surprising effects of natural selection actually seems to be to slow such quickly increasing variation down!), just the same in domestic dogs as in all animals.

 

[Apos]

Where did everyone go? Cat got your tongue? You tongue and a cat's tongue both evolved from a common ancestor organ?

 

[Tr0n]

Where did everyone go? Cat got your tongue? You tongue and a cat's tongue both evolved from a common ancestor organ?

I'm still here.

 

[Apos]

I think I scared eveyone away. Don't the people I was debating with have any response or comment?

 

[Pericolos0]

well noone likes getting owned with knowledge

 

[CptStern]

I think I scared eveyone away. Don't the people I was debating with have any response or comment?

heh, sorry Apos but, while your intention was noble indeed, everyone knows facts and religion just dont mix :E


btw:

"Cat got your tongue? You tongue and a cat's tongue both evolved from a common ancestor organ?"

- hilarious

 

[PvtRyan]

Nicely said Apos and gcomeau! :thumbs:

Here's a funny quote that illustrates many flaws in creationist arguing:

Can't find the source, but most likely talkorigins, was about that "a half an eye is worthless" (ie: IC)

My question is: What is 100% of an eye?
If the creationists get worried about how 50% or 5% of an eye can function, shouldn't there be some standard to tell us just what is 100% of an eye?
I'd say that 100% of an eye would be one which sees 100% of the information in the electromagnetic spectrum. Well, maybe we can relax that a bit, and just confine ourselves to some standard range of wavelengths, those which are "visible" to some animal's eyes. That would cover something from the ultraviolet to the near-infrared, if I'm not mistaken.
But 100% of an eye would have to do a good job of distinguishing between wavelengths in that spectrum. The standard human three-color vision is clearly inadequate. Even some humans have four-color vision, which means the rest of us are getting by with - at most - 75% of an eye. We shouldn't be unreasonable about this, so I wonder what is the most number of distinct color receptors in any animal eye? Maybe five or six? That makes the normal human eye only 50%-60% of an eye, with respect to color discrimination.
And, then, there's the matter of acuity of vision. The standard there would be set by some birds of prey, I think. I understand that some of them have vision that is eight times as sharp as normal human vision. 12.5% of an eye for humans, with respect to acuity.
And finally, there is the lack of 360-degree vision. I think that humans have, at best, a 90 degree field of vision.
Multiply them all together 60% x 12.5% x 25% = 2.875%, but let's be generous and call it 3% (or 5% for the rare tetrachromat).
What good is 5% of an eye? Ask any human. They'd be lucky to have 5% of an eye.

They see the lack of an eye as the beginning and a human eye as the end of the line. Which is plain wrong. Evolution has no direction, or will that steers the process to a certain end, no path that is followed. There is no 'chance' that a human eye will form, there is a certainty that something will form. A human eye is no perfection, nor is merely one light sensitive cell useless.
Creationists will give you a picture of an eye, and will say "hah, lets see your precious evolution produce this!" which is pointless. Any result out of evolution came through necessity. Asking for a result and then pointing out the odds of that actually happening, is stupid.

 

[Apos]

Any result out of evolution came through necessity.

I would say: not necessity, but rather, contingency. While I do think there are some general repeating trends and long term directions (that are there because there are "lifestyle niches" out there to fill on our planet's environment, more than anything else), the point is that while SOMETHING adaptive had to happen, there is no guarantee WHAT it will be.

Asking for a result and then pointing out the odds of that actually happening, is stupid.

I concur. Especially because when non-random processes like natural selection are at work, the concept of "odds" becomes pretty nonsensical.

 

[Edcrab]

Precisely. Who's to say that the next mammalian ocular stage wouldn't involve insectile navigation caps (i.e., so-called "bubble eyes")? Sure, they see things less clearly, but they don't suffer from detatched retinas and since they're physically bonded to the skull they don't suffer injury quite so frequently. It depends what situations a species would find itself in- one where optic supremacy is required or hardiness?

Humanity isn't too good an example of evolution at work in my view. Granted we're prime examples of how evolution may have eventually produced our genus, but I think society and technology have negated the need for any physical advancements, presuming we last that long. I could easily see our bodies gradually weakening and our minds improving as we rely on technology to do our hard labour.

 

[Apos]

Come on people! You talk a big game, but let's see it. seinfeldrules, you know-it-all, put down the popcorn and let's see what you've got! ghost: you ever going to get back to me? Let's do this people!

 

[CptStern]

dont hold your breath :E

 

[Tr0n]

dont hold your breath :E

*holds his breath*

*releases*

Well damn...that didn't last long.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Come on people! You talk a big game, but let's see it. seinfeldrules, you know-it-all, put down the popcorn and let's see what you've got! ghost: you ever going to get back to me? Let's do this people!

I left because you said agree to disagree, not, "Convince me otherwise".

 

[Apos]

Agree to disagree about the existence of God, silly. As I said, that question is outside the scope of science and there's no need to argue about it when we can simply discuss more terrestrial matters for what they are. The questions of life's origins and evolution are still squarely open for discussion.

 

[Ranga]

My Question:

If god exists, and we are to take the bible literally (ie. god creates man...)... what happened to the dinosaurs?