NCSE: Eyeing ID

Beautifully simple to understand. Elegant and charming as in Natural Selection itself. As the ultimate source of energy, I've always pointed out to my kids the absolute need to respond to light. And any increased ability to detect it would be a great advantage over others that could not.
Through detecting light, other organisms are also detectable and thus more and more complex relationships between them evolve.
I'll be showing them this little button for sure.

I'm not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant's eyes isn't exactly the best "evidence" of evolution, is it? After all, the "information" a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn't it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right?

I await you're verbal pulverization.

Ugh. *your* Sorry.

Not only do I need an education in science, I apparently need one in English too!

The development of the eye in embryos is one of the various evidences that help scientists understand how the eye evolved.

Timothy David said: I'm not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant's eyes isn't exactly the best "evidence" of evolution, is it? After all, the "information" a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn't it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right? I await you're verbal pulverization.

Timothy David said: I'm not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant's eyes isn't exactly the best "evidence" of evolution, is it?

After all, the "information" a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn't it?

In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right?

Embryos as a reflection of evolution....sounds.....so.....pseudo-scientific!

First off, I'm glad to see that you can't spell any better than I can!

Second, who on earth said anything about Intelligent Design? Apparently by asking if the fetal development of the human being was the "best" proof of the eye's evolution, it was automatically assumed that I was arguing in favor of ID? Rest assured that I am no ID advocate. But even if I were, I don't see how biological errors would constitute a "good argument" against ID. After all, as the ID'ers themselves are fond of pointing out, something not being *perfectly* designed is not proof against it being designed. One can call to mind all sorts of poorly designed things. But I'll save that fight for the people who care to fight it.

Third, yes; I am familiar with Evo-Devo. Not terribly familiar, though; I just started reading Sean Carroll's book on the subject, and I look forward to seeing what he has to say. Actually, I'd be interested in anything that anyone here has to say about it, even you.

Finally, I still think my criticism about this not being the "best" proof for the evolution of the eye (at least at a popular level) has not been met. But I'm ready to be corrected!

I posted my last message just after Nigel D's post went up, so hadn't had a chance to read it. If it answers my question I'll shut up.

Hmm, I'm not sure what to think about this. It's simple, straightforward, and uses some good arguments. At the same time it seems a bit condescending on occasion ("Science says:") and the bit about development seems like a bad choice to me. It is reminiscent of the classic IDer freakout subject of Haeckel's biogenetic law. While development can definitely be studied for evolutionary relationships and insights into a species' evolutionary path, the clip doesn't justify it as such and seems to implicitly feed right into paranoia about recapitulation theory remaining in biology.

From the clip:

"Scientists not only see evidence of evolution in the increasing complexity of mollusc eye development, they see it even in our own development. The eyes of a human fetus grow increasingly complex in stages just as the eyes of molluscs have over thousands of years."

"First of all you get basically a light sensitive patch. And then you get a cup-like form that eventually forms a whole lens and a full eye with all the nerves and all the connections bringing light ot the brain and so forth and then the baby is born and then you can see."

"A very similar process produces an eye in an organism that's born like you or me is a process that took place over millions of years over scores of different lineages of evolving organisms."

Now, I can see how these could be defended as analogies with detailed justifications from developmental biology, but to me they give the wrong impression, especially for a lay audience which is likely what this clip is intended for. As I essentially just quoted the second half of the clip, I could argue that about half of what they get out of this could be completely misguided.

William Wallace said: Embryos as a reflection of evolution....sounds.....so.....pseudo-scientific!

Shirakawasuna said: Hmm, I'm not sure what to think about this. It's simple, straightforward, and uses some good arguments. At the same time it seems a bit condescending on occasion ("Science says:") and the bit about development seems like a bad choice to me. It is reminiscent of the classic IDer freakout subject of Haeckel's biogenetic law. While development can definitely be studied for evolutionary relationships and insights into a species' evolutionary path, the clip doesn't justify it as such and seems to implicitly feed right into paranoia about recapitulation theory remaining in biology.

Hey, I got a post to go through at the PT! Yeah.

PvM said:

You do realize that this is based on von Baer and not on Haeckel? Although you are right, the paranoia of some IDers may confuse the statement with Haeckel. I notice how William Wallace seems to have some ”concerns”.

Timothy David said: Second, who on earth said anything about Intelligent Design? Apparently by asking if the fetal development of the human being was the "best" proof of the eye's evolution, it was automatically assumed that I was arguing in favor of ID?

WW said: Embryos as a reflection of evolution.…sounds.….so.….pseudo-scientific!

William Wallace said: Embryos as a reflection of evolution....sounds.....so.....pseudo-scientific!

Nice video. It deals clearly and simply with that old canard. But it would round it out nicely if the stages of evolution illustrated in it could be related back to the fossil record (or perhaps dated back somehow using genetic techniques) so as to show the progression.

Nigel D: My experience with evo devo is limited as well, but from what I remember you can 'subtract' parts of development or delay them indefinitely, if that's the proper context of add/subtract. An example of this is cave salamanders that have partial juvenile morphology into adulthood due to regulating development differently. However, this would be very unlikely to be a reversion in entirety - the genes for the development of more adult forms would likely still be there and certainly those parts of the genome wouldn't 'rewind' back in time.

It's a good video, but I think it would be even more useful to have one demonstrating an evolutionary series regarding the eye. One of the most common arguments one comes across from Neocreationists is that "the eye is too complex to have evolved in pieces; what good is half of an eye?" Of course, we see plenty of "half-eyes" in nature — things that can detect differences in light intensity but can't form images, eyes that form images but can't reproduce color, etc.

A simple, straightforward video that went through the series of eyes and things-like-eyes seen in the natural world, beginning perhaps with Cnidaria and culminating with both mammalian and cephalopod eyes, would be a very good thing, indeed. Even better if, at the end of such a video, a phylogeny of eyes could be mapped onto some other intuitively simple reconstruction of animal phylogeny.

I essentially agree with what Shirakawasuna said here about conflating the present video with Haeckel. That's not going to happen with people already intimately familiar with evo-devo, but clearly that's not the audience for whom videos like this one are intended. I'd imagine it would be all too easy for Neocreationists to twist a video like this one into a statement like, "See? Those Darwinists rely on a discredited idea!" While those who already understand what the video demonstrates can argue against such a statement all day long, that's not a situation that I would think of as having made progress.

I actually didn't like the video. I appreciate what it's trying to do, but it felt too much like a DI PR video. Too much sugar.

I was actually having this argument on UD a week ago, about how I saw no difficulty for mutation and selection to build a complex structure like the eye, and all I got were accusations of blind faith (apparently it didn't occur to them to ask if I had actually looked into the matter) and people quoting Behe's OMG-LOOK-HOW-COMPLIFERATED-EYE-CHEMICALS-ARE HOW-CAN-YU-BELEEV-RM+NS-DUZ-ALL-THIS!1 (and then going on to believe quite happily that someone with Godlike powers who they haven't seen before did it).

And William Wallace, grow up. Nigel D posted a good explanation, which has actually made evo-devo a lot clearer to me, and which you clearly didn't read before posting your comment which ignores it all. That's insulting and rude. I'd suggest Jesus would disapprove, but I rather doubt you work for that guy.

Timothy David said: I'm not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant's eyes isn't exactly the best "evidence" of evolution, is it? After all, the "information" a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn't it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right? I await you're verbal pulverization.

Nigel D: My experience with evo devo is limited as well, but from what I remember you can ’subtract’ parts of development or delay them indefinitely,

For me, the difficulty with the fetal development analogy in the video is that the fetus doesn't have to struggle for survival at every step, so how can its development in vitro be evidence for the evolutionary development of its eye? You guys say that the video's point wasn't that but simply that organ development, as a matter of fact, mimics or is presumed to mimic its evolutionary development. That's fine. I'll take your word for it, but I think the video should have been clearer about what it was saying (or maybe it was and I missed it). Anyway, my next question is: Is that true in every case? Does organ development always follow its alleged evolutionary path?

bobby said: Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage. If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism?

While some people were a mite abrupt at first with TD, Bobby, the video does not claim O->P. Go watch again. And read Nigel's extremely clear explanation.

Q for Nigel: Your list makes me as a layman wonder if unusual changes early in an established development would more likely lead to non-viable embryos? (Like Dr. Tyrell explaining to Roy why sequences can't be changed once they've been encoded.) Is there research on this? Or whether such early changes are more/less likely than later ones? I would guess that if an early sequence step is changed, then every step after it would somehow have to still work, which would be unlikely. I seem to have answered my own question. The tea is kicking in.

Is that true in every case? Does organ development always follow its alleged evolutionary path?

nacsbf:

If you are td, please read the rules about posting under multiple names. If not, please disregard this message. Just sayin's all.

bobby said:

Timothy David said: I'm not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant's eyes isn't exactly the best "evidence" of evolution, is it? After all, the "information" a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn't it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right? I await you're verbal pulverization.

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage. If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism? Well I know the answer already. When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it. Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

Timothy (and I presume not_a_creationist_so_back_off),

I am not a scientist, or professional biologist, so my answer can't be as well thought out as some of the other posters here. That being said, I will make an attempt...

In general, through genetics, paleontology, and other disciplines, one can see how different species evolved from one another. Additionally, with genetics, it can be seen in general how things like eyes evolved independantly in different lineages.

Knowing the above, you can trace certain physiological developments. Where this can be useful in determining first steps is finding more "primitive" species from the one you are examining, and then comparing the different genes that control development. While not all of these are mapped out yet, we do know something about the ones that control development of things such as spines, eyes, and skin. By comparing the two sets of genes, the "primitive" and the more recent, along with how they develop as embryos, one can tease out how these things were changed along the way.

Keep in mind that "primitive" in the biological sense is equivalent to "earlier", not "lesser".

That is about as best as a business major can explain it. I do keep learning, I just don't have the same amount of time to devote to all of it as the posters here. I can recommend nosing around on talk origens, but it might not be as up to date. For some good posts specifically on evo-devo, you can hit up Pharyngula. If you are steadfastly religious though, I would skip any of PZ's posts on religion, and only focus on the biology posts. ;-)

Back to lurking.

I'd also like to add that I know I'm misusing the ontogeny recaps phylogeny phrase the same way creationists do, but like them I'm not a biologist. :)

bobby said: Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage.

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism?

not_a_creationist_so_back_off said: For me, the difficulty with the fetal development analogy in the video is that the fetus doesn't have to struggle for survival at every step, so how can its development in vitro be evidence for the evolutionary development of its eye?

You guys say that the video's point wasn't that but simply that organ development, as a matter of fact, mimics or is presumed to mimic its evolutionary development.

That's fine. I'll take your word for it, but I think the video should have been clearer about what it was saying (or maybe it was and I missed it). Anyway, my next question is: Is that true in every case? Does organ development always follow its alleged evolutionary path?

fnxtr said: While some people were a mite abrupt at first with TD, Bobby, the video does not claim O->P. Go watch again. And read Nigel's extremely clear explanation. Q for Nigel: Your list makes me as a layman wonder if unusual changes early in an established development would more likely lead to non-viable embryos? (Like Dr. Tyrell explaining to Roy why sequences can't be changed once they've been encoded.) Is there research on this? Or whether such early changes are more/less likely than later ones? I would guess that if an early sequence step is changed, then every step after it would somehow have to still work, which would be unlikely. I seem to have answered my own question. The tea is kicking in.

Venus Mousetrap said: bobby - I believe you're absolutely correct. Situations where the development of an organism does NOT recap the phylogeny of that organism, should be evidence against Darwinian evolution. Now... are there any such situations? I'm no biologist, but I'm going to take a guess that there are no instances where an organism has a phase in its development, that cannot be traced back down its line of descent. That's a pretty strong prediction there. Or did it not occur to you that maybe there really ARE no exceptions to the rule, which is why the theory is so well supported?

bobby said:

Timothy David said: I'm not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant's eyes isn't exactly the best "evidence" of evolution, is it? After all, the "information" a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn't it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right? I await you're verbal pulverization.

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage. If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism? Well I know the answer already. When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it. Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

Nigel D said:

Venus Mousetrap said: bobby - I believe you're absolutely correct. Situations where the development of an organism does NOT recap the phylogeny of that organism, should be evidence against Darwinian evolution. Now... are there any such situations? I'm no biologist, but I'm going to take a guess that there are no instances where an organism has a phase in its development, that cannot be traced back down its line of descent. That's a pretty strong prediction there. Or did it not occur to you that maybe there really ARE no exceptions to the rule, which is why the theory is so well supported?

Venus, I think you are mistaken. The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is not a part of modern biology. It is known that no vertebrates recapitulate their entire evolutionary history during embryonic development. However, this does not prevent evolutionary development from providing us with clues and valid inferences about evolutionary history.

Besides, I hope you actually disagree with Bobby's assessment of the general response to questioning evolutionary theory. It is only people who keep asking the same tired old (answered-many-times-over) questions that engender frustration / weariness / rage in biologists. Yes, Bobby, I'm looking at you.

Timothy,
That video had two parts. One was showing evidence of gradual evolution in the eyes of snail, natilus etc showing how the eye could evolve gradually, in a step by step fashion. And you cleanly ignored the whole thing. And you picked on the mention of the embryo. There is a reason to study the development of the embryo to understand how the genes work and how the selection pressure would work. If you are not persuaded, fine. Ignore the embryo development. Would you care to comment on the other part? The one about starting with just a few light sensitive cells and going all the way to the complex eye with lens, cornea, iris and retina?

1. General features common to a large group of animals appear earlier in the embryo than do specialized features. 2. The development of particular embryonic characters progresses from general to specialized during their ontogeny. 3. Each embryo of a given species, instead of passing through the adult stages of other animals, departs more and more from them as ontogeny progresses (in direct contrast to the invalid biogenetic law of Ernst Haeckel, discussed below). 4. Therefore, the early embryo of a higher animal is never like the adult of a lower animal, only similar to its early embryo.

I was actually having this argument on UD a week ago, about how I saw no difficulty for mutation and selection to build a complex structure like the eye, and all I got were accusations of blind faith...

— Venus Mousetrap

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage.

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism?

PvM said: ... Why are some creationists so afraid of what science is telling us?

Their faith is not strong, so they want science to prove the existence of God for them. The fact that science simply does not address the issue seems to frustrate them mightily. It’s that simple.

PvM said: It seems to be more than that, somehow they see science as materialistic and atheistic and in conflict with their faith.

I agree with chuck, there. I think that Creo/IDiots are desperate for some proof of the existence of god (Douglas Adams' Babelfish notwithstanding) in the "reality-based" world. They know (even if they don't admit it to themselves) that prayer don't work, and faith ain't moved a mountain yet so.... "He made all living things, just so that eventually there'd be MEEEEEE!"

PvM said:

Their faith is not strong, so they want science to prove the existence of God for them. The fact that science simply does not address the issue seems to frustrate them mightily. It’s that simple.

It seems to be more than that, somehow they see science as materialistic and atheistic and in conflict with their faith.

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism? Well I know the answer already. When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it. Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

PvM said:

William Wallace said: Embryos as a reflection of evolution....sounds.....so.....pseudo-scientific!

from the expert on pseudo-science... And what do you know about evolution my confused Christian friend? You are still ignoring Augustine warning about looking foolish but I appreciate your efforts to educate yourself.

Venus Mousetrap said: I actually didn't like the video. I appreciate what it's trying to do, but it felt too much like a DI PR video. Too much sugar.

PvM said:

Their faith is not strong, so they want science to prove the existence of God for them. The fact that science simply does not address the issue seems to frustrate them mightily. It’s that simple.

It seems to be more than that, somehow they see science as materialistic and atheistic and in conflict with their faith.

Science is an internally consistent "game" made up by humans to describe the physical world.
It has rules.
It isn't the only way to look at the world. Isn't even mutually exclusive of other ways of looking at the world.
Creation Science and ID people are like a kid showing up at a football game carrying a bat because they want a hit.
All I can say is it's the wrong game with the wrong rules for what they want.
The hostility and argument is like what you sometimes get with a 5 year old that doesn't get her way.
"But I want it to work the way I want it to!"

Sorry kid, those are the rules.
Go make up your own game.
But don't call it science, there is already a game with that name.

SMgr, I applaud some of your points, especially the one about not expecting the audience to believe a scientist's assertions, and using actual photos rather than drawings. However, I think the rest of your suggestions essentially surrender the war to win a few battles. Sure, we could convince creationist X to accept a demonstration of the evolution of trait A per your techniques. But without a conceptual understanding of how science works, and why that wall of distrust is undeserved, he is still going to deny the other 99% of the evidence.

For example, look at David Berlinski, who accepts the overwhelming evidence for reptile/mammal evolution, then goes and makes all the same stupid denialist mistakes on horse fossils. We have to attack the disease, not the symptoms. As long as someone thinks science should show them every step of an evolutionary pathway, they are never going to get it, now matter how many fossils you show them. They will simply demand you fill in THOSE gaps.

They have to understand that their demand is unreasonable, and that their general aproach is absurd. Hard, for sure, but in the long run, its the only way to settle the issue. For more effective, IMO, is to show them hard evidence for why the people they've been listening to have no idea what they are talking about.

Nigel D said: (2) Evolution cannot go back and "re-write" anything that was selected in the past. These have consequences: (4) When two lineages diverge (forming new species initially via cladogenesis, but perhaps leading on eventually to new families or orders), they will at first have much in common in their embryonic development. Neither of them will be able to subtract anything from this developmental program, they can only add to it*.

PvM said:

Their faith is not strong, so they want science to prove the existence of God for them. The fact that science simply does not address the issue seems to frustrate them mightily. It’s that simple.

It seems to be more than that, somehow they see science as materialistic and atheistic and in conflict with their faith.

Julie Stahlhut said: Bobby wrote:

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism? Well I know the answer already. When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it. Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

Sadly, no. My undergrad discrete-math prof would have run out of ink for his red pen if you'd written the above on an exam. "If A, then B" is not logically equivalent to "If not A, then not B."

SMgr said: ... We need to take a list of each of the most common canards about the eye and DEEPLY skewer each one of them with evidence as close to firsthand as possible. Is there a single place on earth that has the fossils stacked up in a sequence showing the eye gradually changing in higher layers? You need to show that site, and you need to show the fossils from that site at different levels, in detail, side by side. Don't rely on commentary! ...

Robin said: Nigel, just curious, but can you elaborate a little on what you mean by evolution not going back and rewriting anything that was selected in the past? Thanks.

DaveH said: I agree with chuck, there. I think that Creo/IDiots are desperate for some proof of the existence of god (Douglas Adams' Babelfish notwithstanding) in the "reality-based" world. They know (even if they don't admit it to themselves) that prayer don't work, and faith ain't moved a mountain yet so.... "He made all living things, just so that eventually there'd be MEEEEEE!"

PvM said:

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage.

That's because some people are poorly equipped to discuss let alone understand classic Darwinism ... I do not fly into a rage when I see how poorly intellectually many of the poster here are. I feel sorry for them and try to get them to think more and parrot less.

If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism?

A good example of my previous thesis... ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. Why are you confusing Haeckel and von Baer? Did I say it did?? Please try to read more carefully Sigh...

Robin said:

Nigel D said: (2) Evolution cannot go back and "re-write" anything that was selected in the past. These have consequences: (4) When two lineages diverge (forming new species initially via cladogenesis, but perhaps leading on eventually to new families or orders), they will at first have much in common in their embryonic development. Neither of them will be able to subtract anything from this developmental program, they can only add to it*.

Nigel, just curious, but can you elaborate a little on what you mean by evolution not going back and rewriting anything that was selected in the past? Thanks.

Stanton said:

Robin said: Nigel, just curious, but can you elaborate a little on what you mean by evolution not going back and rewriting anything that was selected in the past? Thanks.

Generally speaking, once a feature has been has been lost due to evolution, it can not be restored. For example, it is impossible for snakes to re-evolve limbs, because, throughout the course of their evolution, most, if not all of the various genes regulating the growth and development of limbs and digits have been turned off, never to be reactivated.

Nigel D said:

Robin said:

Nigel D said: (2) Evolution cannot go back and "re-write" anything that was selected in the past. These have consequences: (4) When two lineages diverge (forming new species initially via cladogenesis, but perhaps leading on eventually to new families or orders), they will at first have much in common in their embryonic development. Neither of them will be able to subtract anything from this developmental program, they can only add to it*.

Nigel, just curious, but can you elaborate a little on what you mean by evolution not going back and rewriting anything that was selected in the past? Thanks.

Basically, Robin, what I was trying to get across was that evolutionary mechanisms can only adapt what already exists. They cannot go back to an earlier state in a lineage's history and start again. Partly, this is due to contingency - adaptation occurs to suit the existing environment, not any past environment. It is also partly due to the competetive environment. For example, I can confidently predict that we will never discover an organism that possesses a chitinous exoskeleton but whose ancestors possessed calcifereous endoskeletons. Not only is there no pathway that would permit selectable steps from one to the other, but we have a reasonable idea of the kind of organisms that represent the common ancestor of vertebrates and arthropods. They were worm-like and soft-bodied, but they could not survive today because (1) they could not compete with their arthropod and vertebrate descendents, and (2) they could not compete with modern-day worms. I hope this helps.

PvM said:

Their faith is not strong, so they want science to prove the existence of God for them. The fact that science simply does not address the issue seems to frustrate them mightily. It’s that simple.

It seems to be more than that, somehow they see science as materialistic and atheistic and in conflict with their faith.

Venus Mousetrap said:

bobby said:

Timothy David said: I'm not biologist, nor even a scientist at all, but with all due respect, the development of an infant's eyes isn't exactly the best "evidence" of evolution, is it? After all, the "information" a baby needs to grow its eyes (short of any biological errors) is already inherent in the thing (roughly) from the get go, isn't it? In a sense, the human baby (again, short of biological error) is *inevitably* going to end up with eyes, right? I await you're verbal pulverization.

Yes it seems any questioning of classic Darwinism is responded to by a rage. If ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny supports Darwinism should not situations where this does not happen be evidence against Darwinism? Well I know the answer already. When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it. Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

bobby - I believe you're absolutely correct. Situations where the development of an organism does NOT recap the phylogeny of that organism, should be evidence against Darwinian evolution. Now... are there any such situations? I'm no biologist, but I'm going to take a guess that there are no instances where an organism has a phase in its development, that cannot be traced back down its line of descent. That's a pretty strong prediction there. Or did it not occur to you that maybe there really ARE no exceptions to the rule, which is why the theory is so well supported?

And there are no exceptions to this rule??

"" For example, it is impossible for snakes to re-evolve limbs,""

Why? Darwinism does not state this.

PvM said:

And there are no exceptions to this rule??

Familiarize yourself with von Baer's law.

Seems like most of the posters here assume that someone who does not 100% faith in Darwinism is a young earth creationist.

You cannot see how illogical that is?

bobby said: Seems like most of the posters here assume that someone who does not 100% faith in Darwinism is a young earth creationist. You cannot see how illogical that is?

Seems like most of the posters here assume that someone who does not 100% faith in Darwinism is a young earth creationist. You cannot see how illogical that is?

““ For example, it is impossible for snakes to re-evolve limbs,”” Why? Darwinism does not state this.

PvM said:

““ For example, it is impossible for snakes to re-evolve limbs,”” Why? Darwinism does not state this.

That is correct but Darwinism does not state much of anything about genetics so that is hardly surprising. However, evolutionary theory suggests that re-evolving limbs for snakes is an unlikely though not impossible.

bobby said:

PvM said:

And there are no exceptions to this rule??

Familiarize yourself with von Baer's law.

I was not talking to you. You lost the gist of the thread. We are not talking about Baer here. Pay attention.

JohnW said: ...But it does have something to say about some specific articles of specific faiths; for example, the beliefs that the Universe is a few thousand years old, or that life did not evolve. We now know that these beliefs are contradicted by reality.

bobby said: Seems like most of the posters here assume that someone who does not 100% faith in Darwinism is a young earth creationist. You cannot see how illogical that is?

bobby said: faith in Darwinism

chuck said: Are seconds consistent one from the next? I don't know, but the math sure is easier if you treat them that way. Science describes what reality looks like. Was the universe created Jan 1, 1970 with everything in place including memories? I don't believe this, but science can't disprove it. Science just says "The universe looks like it is 11(?) billion years old. And life looks like it evolved into the way we see it today"

bobby is ungtss.

Just to reiterate, there is considerable evidence that bobby is ungtss.

The link goes to further links comparing his posts.

JohnW said: ...we can treat the matter as settled...

Bobby said: Darwinism does not state this.

Mike Elzinga said: bobby is ungtss.

As far as I can tell, ungtss and Bobby are not the same person.

bobby said: Seems like most of the posters here assume that someone who does not 100% faith in Darwinism is a young earth creationist. You cannot see how illogical that is?

Generally speaking, once a feature has been has been lost due to evolution, it can not be restored.

Just to extend that a bit, there are many lineages that exhibit the same traits arising multiple times (and independently), though not typically within the same species.

placental-like traits in elasmobranchs comes to mind.

and in plants, for example, here's a recent paper:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1559828

there are many, many other papers that address the "re-evolution" of traits within a given lineage.

theoretically, within the same species, what might appear as an independent re-evolution of a trait could arise through a mutation in a regulatory gene, for example, turning it "on" when it had been "off" for a given number of generations. It's something that was debated within that recent thread on the evolution of cecal valves in that biogeographically isolated lizard species.

and in plants, for example, here's a recent paper:

er, not that I was attempting to imply that plants had evolved placental-like traits, of course ( :p ), but rather that there are examples across all kingdoms of the apparent independent evolution of the same traits repeatedly within a given lineage.

bobby said:

PvM said:

And there are no exceptions to this rule??

Familiarize yourself with von Baer's law.

I was not talking to you. You lost the gist of the thread. We are not talking about Baer here. Pay attention.

Dale Husband said:

bobby said: Seems like most of the posters here assume that someone who does not 100% faith in Darwinism is a young earth creationist. You cannot see how illogical that is?

What's illogical is your claim that most of the posters have "faith in Darwinism". Faith is never an issue in science, and Darwinism merely describes how evolution may occur. It's not at all a religious dogma. Who called you a young-Earth Creationist?

PvM said: You should have taken the quote in context Generally speaking, once a feature has been has been lost due to evolution, it can not be restored. So read before you comment

PvM said:

““ For example, it is impossible for snakes to re-evolve limbs,”” Why? Darwinism does not state this.

That is correct but Darwinism does not state much of anything about genetics so that is hardly surprising. However, evolutionary theory suggests that re-evolving limbs for snakes is an unlikely though not impossible.

PvM said: As far as I can tell, ungtss and Bobby are not the same person.

Science Avenger said: But without a conceptual understanding of how science works, and why that wall of distrust is undeserved, he is still going to deny the other 99% of the evidence.

Robin said:

Stanton said:

Robin said: Nigel, just curious, but can you elaborate a little on what you mean by evolution not going back and rewriting anything that was selected in the past? Thanks.

Generally speaking, once a feature has been has been lost due to evolution, it can not be restored. For example, it is impossible for snakes to re-evolve limbs, because, throughout the course of their evolution, most, if not all of the various genes regulating the growth and development of limbs and digits have been turned off, never to be reactivated.

Wow! Interesting. This is not something I've come across in my reading. Is this a hard and fast law within physiology or more a hypothesis based on some observed evidence and testing? I'd be interested in reading a bit on this if someone can supply a link.

I think you should learn about the ’null hypothesis’

I have a couple of questions regarding the first of von Baer's laws.

"General features common to a large group of animals appear earlier in the embryo than do specialized features."

Let's say there is an ancestral population with a light-sensitive group of cells situated on a flat patch of skin. An advantageous mutation occurs that causes those cells to form in a cup-shaped skin depression. Eventually, a sub-population with the specialized feature arises.

Baer's law would seem to imply that, during embryonic development, formation of the skin depression can't precede formation of the light-sensitive cells, because the depression is a specialized feature.

Why not? And, how does Rapp's developmental hourglass fit in with Baer's law?

IANAB, so if these are trivial questions I apologize in advance.

chuck said:

JohnW said: ...But it does have something to say about some specific articles of specific faiths; for example, the beliefs that the Universe is a few thousand years old, or that life did not evolve. We now know that these beliefs are contradicted by reality.

Are seconds consistent one from the next? I don't know, but the math sure is easier if you treat them that way....

Dean Wentworth said: I have a couple of questions regarding the first of von Baer's laws. "General features common to a large group of animals appear earlier in the embryo than do specialized features." Let's say there is an ancestral population with a light-sensitive group of cells situated on a flat patch of skin. An advantageous mutation occurs that causes those cells to form in a cup-shaped skin depression. Eventually, a sub-population with the specialized feature arises. Baer's law would seem to imply that, during embryonic development, formation of the skin depression can't precede formation of the light-sensitive cells, because the depression is a specialized feature. Why not? And, how does Rapp's developmental hourglass fit in with Baer's law? IANAB, so if these are trivial questions I apologize in advance.

Mike Elzinga said:

chuck said: Are seconds consistent one from the next? I don't know, but the math sure is easier if you treat them that way....

This is, in fact, more interesting as one digs deeper. ...

Stanton.

To make the statement that " the depression will not form until you have the light-sensitive cells present to secrete the appropriate hormones to allow development " implies a purpose to achieve a utility of function. And yet, we're told that natural selection has no purpose, no arrow and no direction. Therefore your assumption is false.

Joseph Alden said: Stanton. To make the statement that " the depression will not form until you have the light-sensitive cells present to secrete the appropriate hormones to allow development " implies a purpose to achieve a utility of function. And yet, we're told that natural selection has no purpose, no arrow and no direction. Therefore your assumption is false.

I take it that Joseph Alden has never taken a course in Embryology, before, and yet, presumes to know more about Embryology than my professor.

Stanton and Mike Elzinga,

Thanks

Dean Wentworth said: Stanton and Mike Elzinga, Thanks

I take it that Joseph Alden has never taken a course in Embryology, before, and yet, presumes to know more about Embryology than my professor.

Stanton said: I take it that Joseph Alden has never taken a course in Embryology, before, and yet, presumes to know more about Embryology than my professor.

Flint said: It was arguably the realization that final causes are not required to explain and understand the objective universe that triggered the entire scientific revolution.

Stanton.

It took thousands of scientists several years to sequence the complete human genome. Their efforts yielded a staggering volume of data.
The only problem is that science knows how to read only a small portion of this genome. And yet, a humble, human embryo understands it all.

This is an embryo which is actively engaged in translating a ton of information. Among other things, it must also synthesize proteins, take in nutrition, burn oxygen for cellular metabolism and strategically direct the complex process of cellular achievement. It thereby produces functional abilities that are typical of that species, which us folks happen to call Homo sapiens. Once life begins, each cell division allows the human embryo to utilize the entire genetic offering to near perfection. These achievements could hardly be accomplished via natural selection, with no arrow, no direction and no purpose.

Maybe you need to look for a new professor, my dear Stanton.

Appealing to ignorance via piety?

Joseph, you refuse to comprehend that the purpose of Science, Biology and Evolution, is to understand how life works, and not to provide a meaning for life.

Also, please do not conflate ignorance with faith, and please realize that awe and wonder are not valid reasons to give up doing research.

It took thousands of scientists several years to sequence the complete human genome. Their efforts yielded a staggering volume of data. The only problem is that science knows how to read only a small portion of this genome. And yet, a humble, human embryo understands it all.

PvM said:

It took thousands of scientists several years to sequence the complete human genome. Their efforts yielded a staggering volume of data. The only problem is that science knows how to read only a small portion of this genome. And yet, a humble, human embryo understands it all.

Not really, the embryo is just in for the ride where feedback loops, concentration gradients and other cool natural processes generate the embryo. It's quite a beauty to see how something non-intelligent can create and create these embryos. A human embryo understands less than you do, at least that is my best guess.

at least that is my best guess.

ooh, very subtle.

The second half of the video is a distraction to what is otherwise an excellent reference.

As displayed in the video, the fetal eye development segment did not present any further information or clarity to what evolution is than the mollusk eye samples did. And that fetal development is at best an analogy of evolution, its use opens the door for misinterpretation, such as bobby’s (et al) “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

If the intended audience is the general public, efforts like this need to be able to speak clearly, plainly and confidently about evolution, which the first half does so well.

PvM said: As far as I can tell, ungtss and Bobby are not the same person.

Mike Elzinga said: bobby is ungtss.

These achievements [embryological development of humans] could hardly be accomplished via natural selection, with no arrow, no direction and no purpose.

. These achievements could hardly be accomplished via natural selection, with no arrow, no direction and no purpose.

. These achievements could hardly be accomplished via natural selection, with no arrow, no direction and no purpose.

Stanton,

As long as you're offering, I'd like to get your thoughts on an online paper I came across titled "The vertebrate phylotypic stage and an early bilaterian-related stage in mouse embryogenesis defined by genomic information."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1797197

The authors conclude that mouse embryos pass through two highly constrained stages, a bilaterian stage followed by a vertebrate phylotypic stage (pharyngula?), explicitly stating that their results support von Baer's hierarchical view of embryonic development.

I may be misinterpreting this, but they seem to be more tentative about the earlier bilaterian stage than the vertebrate stage. Is that because bilateria are so much more diverse than vertebrates?

namely improved survival fitness

carry on.

Shebardigan said:

Mike Elzinga said: bobby is ungtss.

Word choice / word sequence coincidence, "bobby" vs "ungtss": 21.2% Word choice / word sequence coincidence, "bobby" vs "jacob": 85.8% You be the judge.

:-) Cool! Did you actually do a statistical comparison? Mine wasn't very rigorous. I probably spoke too soon.

These achievements could hardly be accomplished via natural selection, with no arrow, no direction and no purpose.

To Mike Elzinga -
You stated the following :

" If you start with a simpler system such as, say, the growth of icicles on an edge of a roof, there are literally millions of configurations that could happen. If you make the mistake of believing that the particular configuration you happen to observe is special and the target of icicle growth, you would be making the same error you make when you observe similar things happening with the many divergent life forms that occur."

This is false. There is this minor little detail, called gravity. There are not Millions of potential outcomes. Icicles hanging from the edge of the roof do not hang in an upward direction, nor do they hang sideways, nor at a 47.5 degree angle. They form in a vertical fashion. Once again, we have limitation of outcome, not millions of choices, left to mere chance.
Therefore, your entire assertion is bogus.

In response to Pim, you stated:
" It’s quite a beauty to see how something non-intelligent can create and create these embryos. A human embryo understands less than you do, at least that is my best guess. "

Non-intelligence can create. But Intelligent Design cannot create. Hmmm. That's called a bogus belief system. You might want to read up on the Science of Logic when you get a spare moment.

And for Stanton ? Well, we're all still waiting for his rebuttal on another thread. Looks like he came here to hide out. That's OK. ID won that joust as well.

Next ?

thanks

Ravilyn Sanders said to me:

"Timothy, That video had two parts. One was showing evidence of gradual evolution in the eyes of snail, natilus etc showing how the eye could evolve gradually, in a step by step fashion. And you cleanly ignored the whole thing. And you picked on the mention of the embryo. There is a reason to study the development of the embryo to understand how the genes work and how the selection pressure would work. If you are not persuaded, fine. Ignore the embryo development. Would you care to comment on the other part? The one about starting with just a few light sensitive cells and going all the way to the complex eye with lens, cornea, iris and retina?"

Sorry, I wasn't sure how to use the quote feature...

Anyway...

I didn't "cleanly ignore" the first half of the video as you say I did, I just didn't mention it. As others have noted already, because a fetus isn't going through a upwards "struggle" to "evolve" it's eyes during development, I wasn't sure that video was the best (I'll avoid the word "proof" because a few of the other commenters are sticklers for semantics) "theoretical demonstration" of how the eye (in Scott's own words) "probably had evolved."

Honestly, I'm still quite new to the evolutionary sciences, having only read about a dozen books in all on the subject, half supporting evolution and half rejecting it. So forgive me if I show some consternation at seeing a video full of a lot of pictorial representations of *possible* steps the eye *might* have gone through in its evolutionary development. I'm a newcomer, and as I newcomer I found the video (unfortunately) raised more questions in my mind than it answered.

Do it ever occur to you that I'm here simply to learn, and that if I make any comments that sound stupid, or even aloof to some of you who know more about the subject than I do, that it's simply because I'm mistaken on the the matter and that I need correction, and not to be accused of ignoring the video?

Joseph Alden said: Non-intelligence can create. But Intelligent Design cannot create. Hmmm.

Joseph Alden said: Stanton. It took thousands of scientists several years to sequence the complete human genome. Their efforts yielded a staggering volume of data. The only problem is that science knows how to read only a small portion of this genome. And yet, a humble, human embryo understands it all.

This is an embryo which is actively engaged in translating a ton of information.

Among other things, it must also synthesize proteins,

take in nutrition,

burn oxygen for cellular metabolism

and strategically direct the complex process of cellular achievement.

It thereby produces functional abilities that are typical of that species, which us folks happen to call Homo sapiens.

Once life begins, each cell division allows the human embryo to utilize the entire genetic offering to near perfection.

These achievements could hardly be accomplished via natural selection, with no arrow, no direction and no purpose.

Maybe you need to look for a new professor, my dear Stanton.

ID won that joust as well.

— Joseph Alden

To Mike Elzinga - You stated the following : ” If you start with a simpler system such as, say, the growth of icicles on an edge of a roof, there are literally millions of configurations that could happen. If you make the mistake of believing that the particular configuration you happen to observe is special and the target of icicle growth, you would be making the same error you make when you observe similar things happening with the many divergent life forms that occur.” This is false. There is this minor little detail, called gravity. There are not Millions of potential outcomes. Icicles hanging from the edge of the roof do not hang in an upward direction, nor do they hang sideways, nor at a 47.5 degree angle. They form in a vertical fashion. Once again, we have limitation of outcome, not millions of choices, left to mere chance. Therefore, your entire assertion is bogus.

— Joseph Alden

In response to Pim, you stated: ” It’s quite a beauty to see how something non-intelligent can create and create these embryos. A human embryo understands less than you do, at least that is my best guess. ” Non-intelligence can create. But Intelligent Design cannot create. Hmmm. That’s called a bogus belief system.

You might want to read up on the Science of Logic when you get a spare moment.

Sorry, I wasn’t sure how to use the quote feature…

— Timothy David

Anyway… I didn’t ”cleanly ignore” the first half of the video as you say I did, I just didn’t mention it. As others have noted already, because a fetus isn’t going through a upwards ”struggle” to ”evolve” it’s eyes during development, I wasn’t sure that video was the best (I’ll avoid the word ”proof” because a few of the other commenters are sticklers for semantics) ”theoretical demonstration” of how the eye (in Scott’s own words) ”probably had evolved.”

Nigel D said:

not_a_creationist_so_back_off said: For me, the difficulty with the fetal development analogy in the video is that the fetus doesn't have to struggle for survival at every step, so how can its development in vitro be evidence for the evolutionary development of its eye?

Well, it's not in vitro (Latin for "in glass", i.e. in a test tube), it's in vivo (in life). It is not that the embryo's development reflects its evolutionary history, but that its development offers clues to its evolutionsry history. Also, the embryo is struggling for survival. I understand that something in the region of 10% of human pregnancies spontaneously abort. The embryo secretes hormones into the mother's bloodstream via the placenta, as does the placenta itself. Some of these hormones shut down the ovulation cycle, others stimulate lactation at an appropriate time, others prevent the mother's immune system from identifying the foetus as "non-self". It is even proposed that a mother's changing food preferences during pregnancy are actually a reflection of the foetus's preferences. I do not know how much evidence there may be to support or refute this idea.

You guys say that the video's point wasn't that but simply that organ development, as a matter of fact, mimics or is presumed to mimic its evolutionary development.

Not really mimicking as such. In the case of the eye, there are similar stages, but no biologist actually believes this to be a direct equivalent to our evolutionary history. There are parallels, sure, and these parallels offer us clues, but that is all we can say in less than about 2000 words. There are whole textbooks on this stuff - it is quite complicated and quite subtle, but nonetheless allows valid inferences about evolution.

That's fine. I'll take your word for it, but I think the video should have been clearer about what it was saying (or maybe it was and I missed it). Anyway, my next question is: Is that true in every case? Does organ development always follow its alleged evolutionary path?

My understanding is: no. Organ development always offers clues about the evolution of the organ, but I do not think that the parallels are always as clear as the one for the eye. The simpler an organ is, the more scope there is for evolutionary jiggery-pokery to change the way it develops.

Honestly, I’m still quite new to the evolutionary sciences, having only read about a dozen books in all on the subject, half supporting evolution and half rejecting it. So forgive me if I show some consternation at seeing a video full of a lot of pictorial representations of *possible* steps the eye *might* have gone through in its evolutionary development. I’m a newcomer, and as I newcomer I found the video (unfortunately) raised more questions in my mind than it answered.

— Timothy David

phantomreader42 said: Well, Bobby, no one here was talking to you when you barged in and started whining and Lying For Jesus™. So by your own argument, you shouldn't be here wasting people's time flinging around your bullshit. But I guess you don't feel obligated to follow the ridiculous, arbitrary rules you make up for other people, do you? Nice illustration of creationist hypocrisy.

bobby said:

PvM said:

And there are no exceptions to this rule??

Familiarize yourself with von Baer's law.

I was not talking to you. You lost the gist of the thread. We are not talking about Baer here. Pay attention.

Shebardigan said:

:-) Cool! Did you actually do a statistical comparison? Mine wasn't very rigorous. I probably spoke too soon.

I've got this ten-year-old Markov chain travesty generator that creates a very interesting database of stuff about a given author. You can extract words used, frequencies, sequences, various usage patterns. Prodded by the "bobby"/"jacob" phenomenon, I'm in the process of figuring out how best to analyse the data. I have an alpha version running now and am applying it to a number of online fora that I presently infest. When it looks like the system will do a reasonably reliable job for the average user, I'll release the Windows executable and the GPLed source libraries.

Nigel D said: Well, it's not in vitro (Latin for "in glass", i.e. in a test tube), it's in vivo (in life). It is not that the embryo's development reflects its evolutionary history, but that its development offers clues to its evolutionsry history. Also, the embryo is struggling for survival. I understand that something in the region of 10% of human pregnancies spontaneously abort. The embryo secretes hormones into the mother's bloodstream via the placenta, as does the placenta itself. Some of these hormones shut down the ovulation cycle, others stimulate lactation at an appropriate time, others prevent the mother's immune system from identifying the foetus as "non-self". It is even proposed that a mother's changing food preferences during pregnancy are actually a reflection of the foetus's preferences. I do not know how much evidence there may be to support or refute this idea.

Joseph Alden said: Stanton. It took thousands of scientists several years to sequence the complete human genome. Their efforts yielded a staggering volume of data. The only problem is that science knows how to read only a small portion of this genome. And yet, a humble, human embryo understands it all.

Stanton said:

Robin said:

Stanton said:

Robin said: Nigel, just curious, but can you elaborate a little on what you mean by evolution not going back and rewriting anything that was selected in the past? Thanks.

Generally speaking, once a feature has been has been lost due to evolution, it can not be restored. For example, it is impossible for snakes to re-evolve limbs, because, throughout the course of their evolution, most, if not all of the various genes regulating the growth and development of limbs and digits have been turned off, never to be reactivated.

Wow! Interesting. This is not something I've come across in my reading. Is this a hard and fast law within physiology or more a hypothesis based on some observed evidence and testing? I'd be interested in reading a bit on this if someone can supply a link.

It's not so much a hard/fast law, it's more of a statement. It is possible for a lost feature to be restored, such as cases of humans born with visible tails, or whales with hind flippers, but, the longer a taxon goes after having lost a trait, the less likely it is to restore that particular trait. However, this does not mean that a taxon can not evolve a new daughter taxon that has a new analogous trait that functions similarly to the lost ancestral trait: the vast majority of snakes move around very easily by gripping a surface with their belly scales. Even though all amniote tetrapod vertebrates have lost the ancestral gills, some turtles are capable of extracting oxygen from freshwater through the membranes of their cloaca, thus helping to prolong their stay underwater. Likewise, just because an ancestral trait is lost does not necessarily mean that the daughter taxon can never return to environments where the lost trait was necessary to survive. In some taxa, yes, they can never return, like the way whales risk being crushed to death by their own bodymass should they come ashore for prolonged periods. In other cases, not so much: look at all of the amniotes that have returned to the water to pursue aquatic lifestyles.

bobby said:

phantomreader42 said: Well, Bobby, no one here was talking to you when you barged in and started whining and Lying For Jesus™. So by your own argument, you shouldn't be here wasting people's time flinging around your bullshit. But I guess you don't feel obligated to follow the ridiculous, arbitrary rules you make up for other people, do you? Nice illustration of creationist hypocrisy.

bobby said:

PvM said:

And there are no exceptions to this rule??

Familiarize yourself with von Baer's law.

I was not talking to you. You lost the gist of the thread. We are not talking about Baer here. Pay attention.

Do you really think using words like 'bullshit' will increase your crediblity?

We are truly at at stage in the science community where real research into the mysteries of embryonic development are being avoided in order not disturb the devotion to Darwinism. It is a sad fact.

We are truly at at stage in the science community where real research into the mysteries of embryonic development are being avoided in order not disturb the devotion to Darwinism. It is a sad fact.

Dean Wentworth said: I may be misinterpreting this, but they seem to be more tentative about the earlier bilaterian stage than the vertebrate stage. Is that because bilateria are so much more diverse than vertebrates?

Joseph Alden said: In response to Pim, you stated: " It’s quite a beauty to see how something non-intelligent can create and create these embryos. A human embryo understands less than you do, at least that is my best guess. " Non-intelligence can create. But Intelligent Design cannot create. Hmmm. That's called a bogus belief system. You might want to read up on the Science of Logic when you get a spare moment.

And for Stanton ? Well, we're all still waiting for his rebuttal on another thread. Looks like he came here to hide out. That's OK. ID won that joust as well. Next ?

Nigel D said: No, I think Stanton's prof had it right. You, on the other hand, my dear Joseph, are lamentably ignorant about some basics of biology, biochemistry and embryology. Until you are prepared to acknowledge that people who have studied such systems for decades know more about it than you do, go away.

Robin said: Clearly as you note, this doesn't preclude a different daughter taxon from developing, but it makes sense that rewinding is unlikely.

phantomreader42 said:

bobby said:

phantomreader42 said: Well, Bobby, no one here was talking to you when you barged in and started whining and Lying For Jesus™. So by your own argument, you shouldn't be here wasting people's time flinging around your bullshit. But I guess you don't feel obligated to follow the ridiculous, arbitrary rules you make up for other people, do you? Nice illustration of creationist hypocrisy.

bobby said:

PvM said:

And there are no exceptions to this rule??

Familiarize yourself with von Baer's law.

I was not talking to you. You lost the gist of the thread. We are not talking about Baer here. Pay attention.

Do you really think using words like 'bullshit' will increase your crediblity?

What a laugh, you talking about "credibility". I can see you just ignored the point of the post, that you whine about people daring to respond when you "wearn't talking to them", but see no problem with responding to people who aren't talking to you. Good work focusing on irrelevancies while ignoring the substance. .... the point was he was responding to a different thread of conversation ...

We are truly at at stage in the science community where real research into the mysteries of embryonic development are being avoided in order not disturb the devotion to Darwinism. It is a sad fact.

No, it's not a fact at all. It's just another of your bullshit lies. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

Where's the bigotry in expecting you to be an honest person?

"Boo hoo, pr42 said the 's' word. Now I don't have to argue the facts."

Oh, wait, I forgot. Your arguments are never about facts to begin with.

bobby said: Do you really think using words like 'bullshit' will increase your crediblity?

… well your language and bigotry speaks for itself …

— Bobby the disingenuous

fnxtr said: Where's the bigotry in expecting you to be an honest person? "Boo hoo, pr42 said the 's' word. Now I don't have to argue the facts." Oh, wait, I forgot. Your arguments are never about facts to begin with.

Mommy, mommy, he said a bad word!!!1111one Not that he ever bothered to leave it.

A quick look online showed that current thought is that around half of all pregnancies abort before the first missed menstrual period. Add to that your 10-15% that abort later so at least 60% to two thirds of all pregnancies don’t make it to successful birth.

— DP Robin

phantomreader42 said:

fnxtr said: Where's the bigotry in expecting you to be an honest person? "Boo hoo, pr42 said the 's' word. Now I don't have to argue the facts." Oh, wait, I forgot. Your arguments are never about facts to begin with.

Yep, bobby's regressed to his childhood:

Mommy, mommy, he said a bad word!!!1111one

Not that he ever bothered to leave it.

Joseph Alden said: To Mike Elzinga - You stated the following : " If you start with a simpler system such as, say, the growth of icicles on an edge of a roof, there are literally millions of configurations that could happen. If you make the mistake of believing that the particular configuration you happen to observe is special and the target of icicle growth, you would be making the same error you make when you observe similar things happening with the many divergent life forms that occur." This is false. There is this minor little detail, called gravity. There are not Millions of potential outcomes. Icicles hanging from the edge of the roof do not hang in an upward direction, nor do they hang sideways, nor at a 47.5 degree angle. They form in a vertical fashion. Once again, we have limitation of outcome, not millions of choices, left to mere chance. Therefore, your entire assertion is bogus.

bobby whined:

phantomreader42 said:

Bobby lied: We are truly at at stage in the science community where real research into the mysteries of embryonic development are being avoided in order not disturb the devotion to Darwinism. It is a sad fact.

No, it's not a fact at all. It's just another of your bullshit lies. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

... well your language and bigotry speaks for itself ...

Bobby, Jacob, George, et al. We are truly at at stage in the science community where real research into the mysteries of embryonic development are being avoided in order not disturb the devotion to Darwinism. It is a sad fact.

Creationism is based on a lie, so ultimately the only way they can stop lying is by religious conversion. In fact, most people who do manage to escape from creationism start their deprogramming with the flash of insight that their thought leaders' claims are demonstrably false, and when corrected they repeat them, but this time *knowing* they are false. Why, those guys are lying to us. And sure enough, within a few years, comes the understanding that creationists have no honest options; reality forecloses on any of them.

Nigel D said:

bobby said: Do you really think using words like 'bullshit' will increase your crediblity?

Since when has calling a spade a spade decreased anyone's credibility, Bobby?

To DU.

Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus. As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations.
Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

Joseph Alden said: To DU. Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus. As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations. Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

Joseph Alden said: To DU. Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus. As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations. Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

Jackelope King said:

Joseph Alden said: To DU. Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus. As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations. Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

Joseph, your analogy that "all icicles will point down off the edge of a roof" is the equivalent in embryology of saying "at all stages of development, the embryo will be composed of cells". Will you address the point above about how billions of different developmental schema arose throughout life's history, and clarify why a human embryo's particular developmental processes are evidence of Intelligent Design?

Article Today in Boston Globe by Ken Miller on Stein and Expelled' s lies

And before I have to get back into another long day of studying, I wanted to point out that icicles actually could be an interesting model for evolution. Assume for a moment that each time an icicle forms, it makes a dent in the gutter such that icicles resembling it (in length, width, bumpiness, and spacing from other icicles) are more likely to form the next time that icicles form. Bigger icicles will crowd out the territory of smaller ones (giving larger icicles a selective advantage over smaller ones), but icicles that are too large will damage the gutter enough that the homeowner will replace it with a new one (deleterious mutations). Between these two selective pressures, you will begin to see predictable patterns of icicles arising each time icicles formed. Natural processes will stumble forward and hit upon a solution that improves fitness, and keep chugging along down that path, blindly trying other potentially beneficial traits, until it belly-flops onto a landmine (deleterious mutation).

So claiming that a particular embryological development is "special" to the exclusion of all other development patterns, that natural forces couldn't have shaped it, remember that thinking that is the same as thinking that all icicles need to have the particular set of characteristics hanging off of this guy's gutter right now, and that it couldn't possibly have arisen by natural processes.

Nigel D, you said earlier that "Evolution can never go backwards.".

I'm sorry, but I am forced to disagreee with you on this one.

I bring as my exhibit "A", the current Republican party.

I rest my case.

Joseph Alden said: To DU. Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus. As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations. Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

DaveH said:

Joseph Alden said: Non-intelligence can create. But Intelligent Design cannot create. Hmmm.

No, not "cannot", just "did not" Next?

Very cool icicle photo, David.
Thanks.

This is false. There is this minor little detail, called gravity.

To DU:

2nd Icicle photo. Nice. However, this type forms sometimes when snow drifts from roof tops melt and refreeze. Icicles then form on the boundary. Warm weather hits and the snow melts. Ice is more dense and thus remains. Big Deal.

As for your college lab demo ? No, that would NOT be valid evidence. That's a controlled environment, with humans providing the input mechanisms. Thus again, a bogus example.

Joseph Alden said: To DU. Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus. As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations. Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

Science 26 September 1997: Vol. 277. no. 5334, pp. 1931 - 1932 DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5334.1931 Special News Report COMPUTER ENGINEERING: Computer Design Meets Darwin Gary Taubes Some 50 researchers are pursuing the vision of the computer chip as a biological entity that can be set to evolve at electronic speeds through Darwinian natural selection. The process should yield a configuration of logic gates that perform a desired task, even if the programmer had little or no idea how to go about configuring the chip to begin with. Researchers have already used the technique to create simple proof-of-principle devices, but the ultimate endpoint for evolvable hardware--at least for the extreme technological optimists--is the creation of artificial intellects.

Boo said:

Joseph Alden said: To DU. Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus. As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations. Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

Go back and read the original quote. The entire original quote. He didn't say that they vary with no constraints whatsoever. His point is that even within the constraints, same as with evolution, you could get tons of variety.

Joseph,

I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions of this morning. They're really quite simple.

Joseph Alden said: This is false. There is this minor little detail, called gravity. There are not Millions of potential outcomes. Icicles hanging from the edge of the roof do not hang in an upward direction, nor do they hang sideways, nor at a 47.5 degree angle. They form in a vertical fashion. Once again, we have limitation of outcome, not millions of choices, left to mere chance. Therefore, your entire assertion is bogus.

Frank J said: Joseph, I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions of this morning. They're really quite simple.

Ernie said:

Joseph Alden said: This is false. There is this minor little detail, called gravity. There are not Millions of potential outcomes. Icicles hanging from the edge of the roof do not hang in an upward direction, nor do they hang sideways, nor at a 47.5 degree angle. They form in a vertical fashion. Once again, we have limitation of outcome, not millions of choices, left to mere chance. Therefore, your entire assertion is bogus.

"Gravity"? It's just a theory!. Those conical icicles are designed every winter by go..., sorry, a supreme Celestial Ice Designer. =)

I must be completely missing some underlying premise or concept within Joseph's argument. How exactly are icicles constrained by the force of gravity and biological organisms somehow are not? It strikes me that there is a limit in the expression of organism body plans for the same reason there is a limit to the growth expression of icicles, neither of which changes the fact that both systems still exhibit other variables in their structures and appearance within the respective groups.

blackant said: Article Today in Boston Globe by Ken Miller on Stein and Expelled' s lies

Venus Mousetrap said: You mean you're doing ID research?!

It strikes me that there is a limit in the expression of organism body plans for the same reason there is a limit to the growth expression of icicles, neither of which changes the fact that both systems still exhibit other variables in their structures and appearance within the respective groups.

Ken Miller Boston Globe: Kenneth R. Miller Trouble ahead for science By Kenneth R. Miller May 8, 2008 AMERICAN science is in trouble, and if you wonder why, just go to the movies. Popular culture is gradually turning against science, and Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled," is helping to push it along.

raven said:

Ken Miller Boston Globe: Kenneth R. Miller Trouble ahead for science By Kenneth R. Miller May 8, 2008 AMERICAN science is in trouble, and if you wonder why, just go to the movies. Popular culture is gradually turning against science, and Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled," is helping to push it along.

This is true. 1. Funding has been flat for years while inflation roars along. 2. The number of papers published by the US has also been flat. While the number of papers from the rest of the world goes up. 3. The present administration is hostile to whole branches of science, stem cell research, ecology, climatology, etc.. US science has always been world leading, the reason why the US is the world leader. Lose that and we are on our way to banana republic status. All civilizations fall but I was hoping the US one would hold together for my lifetime at least.

Some historian believe it was religion, Catholicism more specifically, that doomed the Roman Empire and brought the Dark Ages to Europe

I received an e-mail from someone who got to my blog from Pharyngula, and accused me of having "faith" in evolution and failing to understand this, that and the other. Rather than reply as someone without the relevant expertise in biology, I thought I'd invite any scientists interested in giving someone who says he is a chemist but who clearly has little understanding of biology and how the study thereof works a good workover. I've posted his e-mail on my blog at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/05/scientists-responses-solicited.html

Have at it!

To Frank J.

Sorry for the delay Frank.
However, you pose some EXCELLENT questions.
I salute you. I can tell by your post, that you're obviously an evos Comrade. And yet you will at least entertain the idea, that there may a hint of a potential alternative to pure-blood neo-darwinism.

Yes, I do agree somewhat with Behe's assertion of all life possibly descending from a front loaded cell, etc. I would even go further to suggest there could be multiple front loaded cells, each designed for a different purpose.

First you must understand, I'm an Old Earth IDer, similar to Behe and others. The moronic YEC-Fundy view is not even essential to me. I could care less how old the earth is. Arguing over millions, billions or trillions, is equal to watching paint dry.

The complexity of the human eye is extremely interesting.
Even the research conducted by pro-evos scientists, like Dr. Walter Gehring, is very fascinating. His discovery of the Pax 6 gene is what's most revealing. Gehring calls it a master control gene when it comes to human eye development. There's now even more evidence of a Notch control gene, etc. etc. This subject matter may have already been discussed earlier in this thread, since it's now getting quite lengthy. And I'm sure even newer information is being discovered on a daily basis.

Bottom line is, these master control genes have a purpose. Gehring of course gives credit to their development via natural selection, etc. I disagree. There is a purpose to their existence. Remove them from the equation or limit their utility of function and you have diseases like macular degeneration in humans. They simply cannot be the result of random, beneficial genetic mutations, occurring over millions of years. They are TOO COMPLEX.

Now add in all the other requirements necessary to allow a human eye to properly function. A complex central nervous system, a vascular system, a skeletal system and a muscular control system. All are interdependent on each other to allow a utility of function to exist, that being visual clarity. Then complicate things further, with all this genetic information at some point in time, being transferred to a male's sperm cells and a female's eggs. Now it's counting on a very efficient and complex reproductive system, to continue the transformation of eyesight to the next generation within the species, etc.

That's why Lord Charles called the human eye, an organ of extreme perfection. I could not agree more.

Yeah, an organ of extreme perfection, with a completely avoidable blind spot that is lacking in octopus eyes. I guess PZ is right, the designer is a cephalapod.

Nigel D said:

William Wallace said: Embryos as a reflection of evolution....sounds.....so.....pseudo-scientific!

Well, WW, hello again. I see that, once again, you have either misunderstood or misinterpreted my comment.

Eugenie Scott talks about a pinhole v. lens. But somehow I doubt she understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. Even so, she claims that the lens is an advantage. Without recourse to the internet or references, I challenge Eugenie to explain what the advantages and the disadvantages of the lens is v. the pinhole.

Probably too tough for an anthropologist.

That's why Lord Charles called the human eye, an organ of extreme perfection. I could not agree more.

what a coincidence!

just 5 minutes ago, I linked to Ian Musgrave's excellent essay on the subject over on Pharyngula:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton_vs_squid.html

and speaking of Pharyngula, PZ himself wrote a great article on the evolution of the vertebrate eye a few months back as well:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php

Alden is not only behind the times, but entirely ignorant as well.

what else is new?

Science Avenger said: Yeah, an organ of extreme perfection, with a completely avoidable blind spot that is lacking in octopus eyes. I guess PZ is right, the designer is a cephalapod.

belief in god is preposterous! i chose to believe that aliens seeded the earth. scientific!

So, Joe, do you have anything to offer besides incredulity? How about those pyramids, man? Or the Nazca Lines (cue Zappa's "Inca Roads")? Like, wow.

William Wallace said: Eugenie Scott talks about a pinhole v. lens. But somehow I doubt she understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. Even so, she claims that the lens is an advantage. Without recourse to the internet or references, I challenge Eugenie to explain what the advantages and the disadvantages of the lens is v. the pinhole. Probably too tough for an anthropologist.

William Wallace said: Nigel D., my comment was directed at the propaganda piece, not you. If it had been directed at you, or anything you had said, it would have quoted you, like now. I hope this clears things up.

Pim, why do you insist on trying to communicate with him?

months and months should have convinced you it's like trying to have a rational conversation with a screaming monkey.

why am I even asking, for that matter?

You've obviously decided that screaming monkeys speak for some larger group, instead of just befouling the room with the excrement they fling.

PvM said:

William Wallace said: Eugenie Scott talks about a pinhole v. lens. But somehow I doubt she understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. Even so, she claims that the lens is an advantage. Without recourse to the internet or references, I challenge Eugenie to explain what the advantages and the disadvantages of the lens is v. the pinhole. Probably too tough for an anthropologist.

Here we have William Wallace looking foolish again in his anger. Making Christianity look foolish once again. The advantage of a lens over a pinhole is almost self evident... Of course, it may be tough for someone who teaches his son nonsense about the age and origins of the univers.

Still false. Your referenced icicle photos were cute, but not valid evidence. First, he said edge of a roof. The plant examples thus are bogus.

— Joseph Alden

As for the roof and gutter example ? Still hanging vertically downward, with the wind having blown the tips sideways, etc. Still gravitational limitations.

Therefore, your evos argument is still bogus.

To DU: 2nd Icicle photo. Nice. However, this type forms sometimes when snow drifts from roof tops melt and refreeze. Icicles then form on the boundary. Warm weather hits and the snow melts. Ice is more dense and thus remains. Big Deal.

— Joseph Alden

As for your college lab demo ? No, that would NOT be valid evidence. That’s a controlled environment, with humans providing the input mechanisms. Thus again, a bogus example.

... I can tell by your [Frank J's] post, that you’re obviously an evos Comrade.

— Joseph Alden

And yet you will at least entertain the idea, that there may a hint of a potential alternative to pure-blood neo-darwinism.

Yes, I do agree somewhat with Behe’s assertion of all life possibly descending from a front loaded cell, etc. I would even go further to suggest there could be multiple front loaded cells, each designed for a different purpose.

Bottom line is, these master control genes have a purpose.

— Joseph Alden

Gehring of course gives credit to their development via natural selection, etc. I disagree. There is a purpose to their existence.

Remove them from the equation or limit their utility of function and you have diseases like macular degeneration in humans.

They simply cannot be the result of random, beneficial genetic mutations, occurring over millions of years. They are TOO COMPLEX.

First you must understand, I’m an Old Earth IDer, similar to Behe and others. The moronic YEC-Fundy view is not even essential to me. I could care less how old the earth is. Arguing over millions, billions or trillions, is equal to watching paint dry.

— Joseph Alden

Yes, I do agree somewhat with Behe’s assertion of all life possibly descending from a front loaded cell, etc. I would even go further to suggest there could be multiple front loaded cells, each designed for a different purpose.

— Joseph Alden

This attempt to make evolution oh so user friendly necessitates putting one's head in a pickle jar and leaving it on the far side of the moon.

I can still remember my good old palaeontology lecturer. He was a Lord Kelvin man. "Science is bound by a pledge of honour to have a crack at any question reasonably put to it" - definitely not Kelvin's precise words, but he meant, Hey, there's no backing out of this - we answer it with science. The lecturer got past the flowering plants - he was an expert on fossil spores and pollen - with a wonder that bordered on awe. In all the many drill cores he had painstakingly examined, never once could he have fitted even the thickness of a razor blade, between the (Cretaceous) rock void of flowering plant pollen, and the overlying rock teeming with it. But that's another story. As I say, he brought us on, up from the Pre-Cambrian, through the trilobites, the fish, the flowering plants - until he got to good old ORNITHORYNCUS. Been in the news lately, for its genome, has good old ORNI. Is it a duck, is it a drake, is it a wobbygong? Well, it is partly bull, more turkey, definitely a dash of dino.. It also happens to be a species, ORNITHORYNCUS, in the past, a platypus, currently, a platypus, always will be, a platypus.
As I say, our palaeontology lecturer, a Darwin man, a Kelvin man, a man who turned not back from the implications of his training and his duty - he left the room with an aura of wonder after expounding on the flowering plants: but after attempting not to be comical about ORNI., he left the room, and you could see him metaphorically shaking his head.

Send up a probe and recover those pickle jars. ORNITHORYNCUS is a product of information playing a tune on a set of keys, that brought forth music.

The eye is the product of information playing on other sets of keys, that brought forth music.

Keep up the medieval dust-produces-lice-under- scientifically-certifiable-actions-of-nature, and one will bring forth laughter.

Signalled Evolution - the result of information interacting with "mother boards". Genes are not the product of natural selection - they pre-date the circumstances that call them into expression. Now shown to be so, but it had to be so, if one thinks about it. Environment can be a source of information, which is "handled" by the system, and can trigger certain genetic responses. Logic, the geologic record, and modern technology, are screaming the message.
Signalled Evolution - the unfolding of life through information capacity in Nature.

Or is someone really going to recount the blow-by-blow account of how the eye/ORNITHORYNCUS got itself organized without information playing on the keys? Who/what were the common ancestors? What actually happened? We await the technically certifiable account. We have been waiting for it since Darwin.
Signalled Evolution is currently technically sketchy, but it is possible, and harmonious with the human mind. We have had it with us since Owen, who preceded Darwin. We now have the technology to test it.

Joseph Alden said: Yes, I do agree somewhat with Behe's assertion of all life possibly descending from a front loaded cell, etc. I would even go further to suggest there could be multiple front loaded cells, each designed for a different purpose.

PBH tells a rambling story about a palaeontology lecturer's attitude to the platypus but, given his propensity to lie about what people say, I for one think he's making the whole thing up.

"We now have the technology to test it [signalled evolution]."

Well then, what are you waiting for? Go ahead and test it instead of indulging in barely coherent comments.

Now add in all the other requirements necessary to allow a human eye to properly function. A complex central nervous system,

— Joseph Alden

a vascular system, a skeletal system

and a muscular control system.

All are interdependent on each other to allow a utility of function to exist, that being visual clarity.

Then complicate things further, with all this genetic information at some point in time, being transferred to a male’s sperm cells and a female’s eggs.

Now it’s counting on a very efficient and complex reproductive system, to continue the transformation of eyesight to the next generation within the species, etc.

That’s why Lord Charles called the human eye, an organ of extreme perfection. I could not agree more.

William Wallace said: Eugenie Scott talks about a pinhole v. lens. But somehow I doubt she understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. Even so, she claims that the lens is an advantage. Without recourse to the internet or references, I challenge Eugenie to explain what the advantages and the disadvantages of the lens is v. the pinhole. Probably too tough for an anthropologist.

Timothy David said: I didn't "cleanly ignore" the first half of the video as you say I did, I just didn't mention it. [snip] I wasn't sure that video was the best (I'll avoid the word "proof" because a few of the other commenters are sticklers for semantics) "theoretical demonstration" of how the eye (in Scott's own words) "probably had evolved." Honestly, I'm still quite new to the evolutionary sciences, having only read about a dozen books in all on the subject, half supporting evolution and half rejecting it. So forgive me if I show some consternation at seeing a video full of a lot of pictorial representations of *possible* steps the eye *might* have gone through in its evolutionary development. I'm a newcomer, and as I newcomer I found the video (unfortunately) raised more questions in my mind than it answered. Do it ever occur to you that I'm here simply to learn,

Nigel D said:

William Wallace said: Eugenie Scott talks about a pinhole v. lens. But somehow I doubt she understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. Even so, she claims that the lens is an advantage. Without recourse to the internet or references, I challenge Eugenie to explain what the advantages and the disadvantages of the lens is v. the pinhole. Probably too tough for an anthropologist.

Fortunately for her, she does not have to do this. The information is in the public domain, there to be found in any good library. All it takes is a couple of hours and a desire to learn. I guess that latter requirement is too big a hurdle for you.

How did the trilobite eye evolve?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: ... I can still remember my good old palaeontology lecturer. He was a Lord Kelvin man. "Science is bound by a pledge of honour to have a crack at any question reasonably put to it" - definitely not Kelvin's precise words, but he meant, Hey, there's no backing out of this - we answer it with science.

... As I say, he brought us on, up from the Pre-Cambrian, through the trilobites, the fish, the flowering plants - until he got to good old ORNITHORYNCUS. Been in the news lately, for its genome, has good old ORNI. Is it a duck, is it a drake, is it a wobbygong?

Well, it is partly bull, more turkey, definitely a dash of dino..

It also happens to be a species, ORNITHORYNCUS, in the past, a platypus, currently, a platypus, always will be, a platypus.

As I say, our palaeontology lecturer, a Darwin man, a Kelvin man,

a man who turned not back from the implications of his training and his duty - he left the room with an aura of wonder after expounding on the flowering plants: but after attempting not to be comical about ORNI., he left the room, and you could see him metaphorically shaking his head.

Keep up the medieval dust-produces-lice-under- scientifically-certifiable-actions-of-nature, and one will bring forth laughter.

bobby said: How did the trilobite eye evolve?

Back to the eye ...

In regard to:

"Here we have William Wallace looking foolish again in his anger. Making Christianity look foolish once again. The advantage of a lens over a pinhole is almost self evident… Of course, it may be tough for someone who teaches his son nonsense about the age and origins of the univers."
PvM replied to comment from William Wallace | May 8, 2008 11:47 PM

The foolishness of Scott's video and your comment centers on these two false premises, neither of which has any empirical evidence behind them:

1. Needs produce the miraculous appearance of novel traits
2. The genetic process that begins to build novel traits progressively proceeds to refine them:

http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/756950/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/748021/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746941/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730697/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/709476/

Here's critique of Myers scenario of the evolution of the eye:

“This ancient animal probably had very simple eye spots with no image-forming ability, but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense both slow, long-duration events such as the changing of day into night, and more rapid events, such as the shadow of a predator moving overhead. These two forms arose by a simple gene duplication event and concomitant specialization of association with specific G proteins, which has also been found to require relatively few amino acid changes. This simple molecular divergence has since proceeded by way of the progress of hundreds of millions of years and amplification of a cascade of small changes into the multitude of diverse forms we see now. There is a fundamental unity that arose early, but has been obscured by the accumulation of evolutionary change. Even the eyes of a scorpion carry an echo of our kinship, not in their superficial appearance, but deep down in the genes from which they are built.”
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/eyeing_the_evolutionary_past.php?page=3

Critique:

1. “ … but still needed some diversity in eye function. It needed to be able to sense …”
An organism senses a need? This suggests that a particular need produces change:
“Contrary to a widespread public impression, biological evolution is not random, even though the biological changes that provide the raw material for evolution are not directed toward predetermined, specific goals.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, 3rd edition, page 50.

2.“ … very simple eye spots,”
No explanation for the initial evolution of each complex component that makes-up the spot or the response triggers that activate the flagella. Read how complex “spots” are:
“These eyes constitute the simplest and most common visual system found in nature. The eyes contain optics, photoreceptors and the elementary components of a signal-transduction chain. Rhodopsin serves as the photoreceptor, as it does in animal vision. Upon light stimulation, its all-trans-retinal chromophore isomerizes into 13-cis and activates a photoreceptor channel which leads to a rapid Ca2+ influx into the eyespot region. At low light levels, the depolarization activates small flagellar current which induce in both flagella small but slightly different beating changes resulting in distinct directional changes. In continuous light, Ca2+ fluxes serve as the molecular basis for phototaxis. In response to flashes of higher energy the larger photoreceptor currents trigger a massive Ca2+ influx into the flagella which causes the well-known phobic response.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9431675

3.“ … simple gene duplication event”
There is NO such thing as a “simple gene duplication event” let alone one that changes the coding sequence to instruct the cell to build an unknown structure that it never possessed before.
An overview of this claim:
a. For a gene to be inherited by offspring, it MUST reside in a germ cell:
"Crossing-over during meiosis usually occurs with great precision. Homologous genes pair with each other, and although genes which were together on the chromosome before meiosis may now be on opposite chromosomes of the pair, each chromosome still contains a complete set of genes. Occasionally, however, an error occurs and pairing during meiosis is imperfect. Under these circumstances—unequal crossing-over, one of the daughter chromosomes contains a duplicated gene, while the other one exists with a gene deleted...."
http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=2149296
b. To reduce selective pressure, the new gene must ‘neutralize’ its existing coding sequence.
c. The gene must randomly assemble a previously unknown sequence that codes for the detailed instructions to begin building a new structure.
d. The new gene sequence must become fixed in a population so that it’s preserved.
“A duplicated gene newly arisen in a single genome must overcome substantial hurdles before it can be observed in evolutionary comparisons. First, it must become fixed in the population, and second, it must be preserved over time. Population genetics tells us that for new alleles, fixation is a rare event, even for new mutations that confer an immediate selective advantage. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that one in a hundred genes is duplicated and fixed every million years (Lynch and Conery 2000), although it should be clear from the duplication mechanisms described above that it is highly unlikely that duplication rates are constant over time.”
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&
doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020206&ct=1

4.“concomitant specialization”
This apparently means that, “rather than having two copies of a gene do two things poorly, they both specialize on one substrate.”
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/pz-meyers-casey.html#
more Comment #145689
Evolutionists devise all sorts of redundant and scientific sounding terms when they want to make something sound complicated. This term adds nothing to describe how the genetic process occurred.

5.“of association with specific G proteins”
An overview of this claim:
a. The new gene must first somehow ‘acquire’ a molecular switch (G protein) from another gene that had an unrelated function. (Which would inactivate the other gene thus prohibiting all of its functions.)
b. The new gene must reprogram the molecular switch to coincide with the specific regulation needed to precisely regulate the new gene function:
“G-proteins have been so named because they bind guanosine triphosphate (GTP). Gilman and Rodbell found that G-proteins act as signal transducers, which transmit and modulate signals in cells. G-proteins have the ability to activate different cellular amplifier systems. They receive multiple signals from the exterior, integrate them and thus control fundamental life processes in the cells.”
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1994/press.html

And Myers doesn't go on to explain the creation of the necessary 'wiring' of the eye to the brain so that the images can be interpretted, AND the brain development to process the information.

When and if evolutionists actually cite proof for their philosophical arguments, let us know. Until then, it's just your nonsensical denial of science.

WW said: I challenge Eugenie to explain what the advantages and the disadvantages of the lens is v. the pinhole.

bobby said: How did the trilobite eye evolve?. . . How did the fly eye evolve? How did the mouse eye evolve? How did the hawk eye evolve? How did the nautilus eye evolve? How did the human eye evolve? How did the flounder eye evolve?

To both Frank J and Nigel D.

First Frank.

Sorry dude, you're starting to lose me. Your first post claims ID contributes nothing to science and next came creationism and it's failed assertions.

Now you come back with, " I also think that God designs and creates life" ? ? ? My original suspicions are gaining momentum. You want to joust over time lines ? Behe said 4 billion, but Joseph says 3 billion ? Now we're back to watching paint dry Frank.

This thread began with the human eye. Now take that complexity and apply research to the human brain. Now we have a much larger discussion. Genes responsible for allowing memory to take place ? That's Intelligent Design, with a huge utility of function.

----------------------

To Nigel,

You said a skeletal system is not necessary for eye function. Wrong again. Without the proper placement AND size of the eye sockets in the human skull, eyesight CANNOT take place.

Your worn out regurgitation of Dawkins is comical.
An average retina of an octopus contains 20 million photoreceptor cells. The average human retina contains around 126 million photoreceptor cells.
Octopod eyes are not set up for the perception of small detail, but for the perception of patterns and motion thus eliminating the need for the very high processing power seen in human and other vertebrate eyes.

You might want to update the evos in-bred script you read from. Ever heard of Muller cells ?

They work like optical fibers & their function is similar to fiber optic plates used for low-distortion image transfer. They help reduce the problem of image transfer through the retina with minimal distortion and loss of clarity.

Something that seems to have eluded you is that science makes advances on a daily basis.

bobby said: When O recaps P it supports Darwinism but when we do not see it does not hurt it. Circular logic and failing the falsifiability test.

bobby said: I think you should learn about the 'null hypothesis'

Frank J said: ID is specifically formulated so that it can't lose.

PvM said: It's time creationists familiarize themselves with the science of evolution. It's never too late, even for those who tell their kid about "The improbability and downright absurdity of a big-bang explosion resulting in a well ordered universe."

Mike Elzinga said: Compare this with pure solipsism, in which it is apparently impossible to decide if there is an external universe or that only the “self” exists. As it turns out, it doesn’t matter. In trying to explain how new knowledge comes about, one ends up behaving as though there is an external universe. The laws remain whether it is an external universe or simply a “hidden aspect of self” that is being discovered and studied.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: This attempt to blah, blah, blah, blah...

The only reason we see as well as we do is because of the vast resources we apply to image processing. You can argue that it’s the solution the designer intended, but that makes no sense if the designer is any good.

who is your creator said: these two false premises, neither of which has any empirical evidence behind them: 1. Needs produce the miraculous appearance of novel traits 2. The genetic process that begins to build novel traits progressively proceeds to refine them:

I've been searching for information on an evo-devo question that has been hard to come by, so I'm appealing to anybody here with knowledge in that area for help.

Here goes:

Omitting multiple levels, snakes are nested with Squamata, Amniota, and Tetrapoda, respectively.

From what I have been able to find, snakes lack limbs and have a radically lengthened thorax (features that set them apart from most other Squamata) because of Hox gene expression that occurs fairly early in development.

Per von Baer, the general features common to Tetrapoda through Squamata should appear earlier in snake embryos than the specialized features unique to snakes.

Does that mean that the general features common to Tetrapoda through Squamata appear before the skeleton begins to form?

(I'm hoping this question isn't too off-topic, but the fact that people have been discussing icicles emboldened me to ask.)

No new PT articles since Wednesday. Is everyone on vacation?

Me

William Wallace said: Once again you're wrong. But back to the video, which has a pretty graphic (again) showing that the octopus evolved from the marine snail which evolved from the nautilus which evolved from the snail which evolved from the mussel...hmmn...Something smells fishy. Can somebody confirm or disavow this graphic? Anybody?

And how about this whopper of an evolander fairytale: "Next along the line you have basically the equivalent of a pinhole camera, where primitive focusing becomes possible."(Eugenie Scott in NCSE propaganda piece) Hmn. Show me a pinhole camera that has a focus adjustment. PvM, I suppose your Ph.D. adviser allowed you to say "It is so self evident" but science requires a little more.

It seems to me that the relevance of the video has been lost on some creationists. What the video shows is how intermediate forms of the eye, from a light sensitive patch, a cupped light sensitive patch, a pinhole, a lens etc have significant advantages and thus are selectable. While the creationist is left to wonder "what good is half an eye", science has shown how "half an eye" still has a function and how selection can explain the evolution of the eye. That such evolutionary patterns can be retraced to certain extent in embryological development is just icing on the cake as it helps us further understand what processes likely played a role in eye development.

And then there is the genetic evidence which links, just like the morphological development, the genetic pathways that were involved. Significant is how the Pax6 hox gene plays a significant role in the evolution of novelties. This goes directly to the heart of the ID argument that evolution cannot explain novelties, complexities and emergence when in fact, the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

May I invite William to explain to us how ID explains the origin and evolution of the eye?

Hint: Because ID is scientifically vacuous it refuses to explain anything.

Perhaps the following article at Wikipedia can help William understand the relevance of the pinhole

In Christ

PvM said: Perhaps the following article at Wikipedia can help William understand the relevance of the pinhole In Christ

But back to the video, which has a pretty graphic (again) showing that the octopus evolved from the marine snail which evolved from the nautilus which evolved from the snail which evolved from the mussel…hmmn…Something smells fishy. Can somebody confirm or disavow this graphic? Anybody?

— William Wallace

And how about this whopper of an evolander fairytale: ”Next along the line you have basically the equivalent of a pinhole camera, where primitive focusing becomes possible.”(Eugenie Scott in NC”S”E propaganda piece) Hmn. Show me a pinhole camera that has a focus adjustment.

Sorry dude, you’re starting to lose me. Your first post claims ID contributes nothing to science and next came creationism and it’s failed assertions.

— Joseph Alden

You want to joust over time lines ? Behe said 4 billion, but Joseph says 3 billion ?

— Joseph Alden

who is your creator said: Back to the eye ... In regard to: "Here we have William Wallace looking foolish again in his anger. Making Christianity look foolish once again. The advantage of a lens over a pinhole is almost self evident… Of course, it may be tough for someone who teaches his son nonsense about the age and origins of the univers." PvM replied to comment from William Wallace | May 8, 2008 11:47 PM The foolishness of Scott's video and your comment centers on these two false premises, neither of which has any empirical evidence behind them: 1. Needs produce the miraculous appearance of novel traits 2. The genetic process that begins to build novel traits progressively proceeds to refine them: [some irrelevant crap and lies removed]

To Nigel, You said a skeletal system is not necessary for eye function. Wrong again. Without the proper placement AND size of the eye sockets in the human skull, eyesight CANNOT take place.

— Joseph Alden

Your worn out regurgitation of Dawkins is comical.

An average retina of an octopus contains 20 million photoreceptor cells. The average human retina contains around 126 million photoreceptor cells. Octopod eyes are not set up for the perception of small detail, but for the perception of patterns and motion thus eliminating the need for the very high processing power seen in human and other vertebrate eyes.

You might want to update the evos in-bred script you read from. Ever heard of Muller cells ? They work like optical fibers & their function is similar to fiber optic plates used for low-distortion image transfer. They help reduce the problem of image transfer through the retina with minimal distortion and loss of clarity. Something that seems to have eluded you is that science makes advances on a daily basis.

Since you have it all figured out, why don't you give us the likely scenario the first 3 genetic changes that might begin to build the first 'simple' eye spot?

Your evolutionary philosophy is fine in a coffee shop, but unless you can back it up with actual empirical scientific evidence of (macro) evolution occurring, it's nothing but a philosophical argument.

And how about this whopper of an evolander fairytale: ”Next along the line you have basically the equivalent of a pinhole camera, where primitive focusing becomes possible.”(Eugenie Scott in NC”S”E propaganda piece) Hmn. Show me a pinhole camera that has a focus adjustment.

Getting off the subject but Alabama anti science bill died.

So here we have it again. The creationist demands an answer to a very difficult question. No matter what you respond they will always claim that it is not good enough. They will never give any alternative and they will never present any evidence for any alternative. They will however gleefuly ignore all of the evidence because you can't answer one question to their satisfaction. They are never content with the demonstration of the plausibility of evolution, they always demand more detail from you than they are willing to provide themselves.

Well Dr. Who (if that is your real name), what is your explanation for all of the genetic evidence that ribosomal genes, histone genes, hox genes, hemoglobin genes, olfactory genes, etc. have indeed arisen through a process of gene duplication and divergence? Why do you think that an argument from personal incredulity or genetic ignorance will persuade anyone that this could not happen? How do you explain the fact that this turns out to be the answer for the origin of so many novel morphological features?

And by the way, there are many different mechanisms of gene duplication that are well understood, including unequal crossing over, slipped strand mispairing, replicative transposition, etc. Also, if the change is beneficial, drift will only be important in the initial stages after the mutation occurs and no fixation is not required in order to preserve a mutation. You really do need to stop placing imaginary requirements on the process of evolution, especially when a mechanism is known to occur.

Now, if you disagree, what is your alternative explanation for the origin of hemoglobin genes for example? And if you have no alternative and you admit that these genes could arise by gene duplication followed by divergence, why couldn't other genes do the same? And oh yea, if you can't answer that question to my satisfaction then I don't have to listen to anything else you have to say. Your philosphical musings are fine in a coffee shop, but in science we have actual empirical evidence for macroevolution.

Molluscs show an interesting series of developments that probably also represent stages in the evolution of the vertebrate eye. First you get a light sensitive row of cells and that has an advantage because that at least lets you tell light from dark and that is important for some biochemical processes, next you have another mollusc that has basically a cupped structure where the cells are inside of a basin and that allows you to tell from which direction the light is coming from, that's an advantage of just being able to tell light from dark. That could be selected for. Next along the line you have basically the equivalent of a pinhole camera where primitive focusing becomes possible, next comes the evolution of a primitive lens which is an additional improvement in the ability to focus an image and finally you have a very complex structure.

— Eugenie Scott

A method of calculating the optimal pinhole diameter was first attempted by Jozef Petzval. The formula was improved upon by Lord Rayleigh into the form used today: d=1.9 sqrt{f λ} Where d is diameter, f is focus length (distance from hole to photographic film) and λ is the wavelength of light, all given in metres.

Quidam said: William Wallace said:

And how about this whopper of an evolander fairytale: ”Next along the line you have basically the equivalent of a pinhole camera, where primitive focusing becomes possible.”(Eugenie Scott in NC”S”E propaganda piece) Hmn. Show me a pinhole camera that has a focus adjustment.

The film did not say that a pinhole eye has adjustable focus. A focus adjustment would be redundant for a pinhole eye since objects are equally sharp no matter what the distance from the eye.

So here we have it again. The creationist demands an answer to a very difficult question. No matter what you respond they will always claim that it is not good enough. They will never give any alternative and they will never present any evidence for any alternative. They will however gleefuly ignore all of the evidence because you can’t answer one question to their satisfaction. They are never content with the demonstration of the plausibility of evolution, they always demand more detail from you than they are willing to provide themselves.

— David Stanton

Note, I meant that nearly all anti-science activists promote the double standard, but that they constitute only a small % of the population.

PvM said: Seems that some have no problem understanding what the movie is telling us, of course it is worrisome that creationists seem to still misunderstand evolutionary theory

Part Zwei - To Frank J & Nigel D

Frank - you stated " I’m just trying to rule out if you are the ”kind” of old-earther who thinks that all life began only 1000s of years ago."

You didn't read my post. Billions or Trillions, matters not to me. It's irrelevant in this discussion topic. To you it appears, it's the ONLY thing that matters. You then you asked if I think humans are related to plants. No, I don't. And how again does this relate directly to the discussion of the human eyeball ?

You then proceed with continued castigation of ID and Creationism in other posts. Yet, you originally said " God " creates things. Your contradiction in logic is now self-evident.

----------------

To Nigel D -

I'm referring to human eyes, not our friendly sea creatures.
You said our skeletal system is irrelevant. Not to humans. Again, proper placement & size of our eye sockets in the skull is Paramount to obtaining vision. You then continue describing how our eyes are poorly designed, i.e. the whole " detached retinas cause blindness " BS. Just how strong of an attachment would you require, dear Nigel ?
If the human skull could withstand 10,000 foot pounds of kinetic energy being applied to the back of the head, would that have made you a " believer " ? ?

Next you claim there is no dependence on other supportive systems. Add these to my previous list. Our eyes require a proper nutritional system as well. Vitamin A allows complex photoreceptor cell function in the retina. Vitamin D is necessary for proper development of the cornea. These nutritional duties are thus dependant on a complex digestive system. Add in a fully functional immune system, to repair damaged cells and fight eye infections. Complexity denotes Design.

Third, you continue your rant with the same, lame excuses.
The eye MUST have evolved over millions of years, from earlier, less complicated species. Strike Three Nigel !

Trilobites, which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian period, had an extremely complex eye structure. They consisted of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system. Their eyes emerged over 500 million years ago in a perfect state. This in turn disproves the bogus, evos position, that natural selection made it all come about.

More Intelligent Design evidence ? No problemo. The honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to this day, with very few modifications. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same basic eye structure as did the trilobite. This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis, that eyesight evolved in a progressive fashion, from the very primitive to the very complex.

Sorry gentlemen.
Your prior posts have since become irrelevant.

Stanton said:

PvM said: Seems that some have no problem understanding what the movie is telling us, of course it is worrisome that creationists seem to still misunderstand evolutionary theory

I think it goes way beyond misunderstanding... Creationists refuse to understand it, and make a big song and dance about refusing to let people help them to understand it, as demonstrated by the various Creationist trolls infesting this particular thread.

Joseph wrote:

"The honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to this day, with very few modifications. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same basic eye structure as did the trilobite. This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis, that eyesight evolved in a progressive fashion, from the very primitive to the very complex."

Please explain exactly how this pattern is inconsistent with descent with modification. Then, please explain how this in any way represents any kind of argument for any kind of intelligent design.

If insect eyes do indeed represent modified trilobite eyes, then descent with modification must be true. Of course, if trilobites and insects did in fact share a mommon ancestor, then natural selection could be responsible for any differences that developed.

If some magic designer creates eyes from scratch, the pattern makes no sense whatsoever. Who performed the modifications, when and why? Why were modifications needed if the eye was perfect in the first place? Why not just design a new type of eye for insects? Why reuse an old inappropriate kind of eye?

Once again, no alternative and no evidence, just silly demands and misconceptions.

I also love Joseph Alden's assertion that vitamins prove that a creature needs a complex gut. Chalk up one more ludicrous cock-up to the "designer".

In regard to the above:

"Once again, no alternative and no evidence, just silly demands and misconceptions."

Silly us (creationists) that we would demand evidence.

When you guys actually figure it out, let us know. Until then, it's just your faith, nothing else.

"Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F

“Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today."
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html

“But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

“Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution.”
The American Geological Institute
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/mechanismforchange.html

To David Stanton.

You rebutted: " if trilobites and insects did in fact share a common ancestor, then natural selection could be responsible for any differences that developed."

OR Intelligent Design could be equally responsible. Modifications could be simply an adjustment based on nutritional needs from their food supply and or lack thereof. I've already listed nutrition as a necessary support system. Without it, you get all kinds of negative consequences that may affect proper genetic function.

And also " If some magic designer creates eyes from scratch, why were modifications needed if the eye was perfect in the first place? Why not just design a new type of eye for insects? Why reuse an old inappropriate kind of eye? "

And who determines what is inappropriate or what is perfect, YOU, David Stanton ? What you're leaving out of your rant is all types of eyesight may be perfectly functional for any given animal. It differs from one to another. Many species have different requirements, based on their environment. Earthworms tend to view objects at very close range and thus have light receptors, NOT COMPLEX VISION systems. Jellyfish are another fascinating species; the Box Jellyfish being most intriguing. And yet they do not need a complex brain or central nervous system, as in humans. Their surroundings do not require it, in order for them to sustain life ! The Bald Eagle's eyesight is much more complex than humans. Why ? It hunts prey from several hundred feet in the air. Simple.

When you look at the 37 phyla of multi cellular animals, only six have some sort of eyesight. Why David, why ? Why not 12 or 16 or 22, why, why ? Your rant is most comical. That's what I love about you evos. Always reading from the same propaganda script. What a joke. Please, don't ever change that oh so predictable Modis Operandi !

who is your creator said: "Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today." Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html “But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.” University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50 “Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution.” The American Geological Institute http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/mechanismforchange.html

Silly us (creationists) that we would demand evidence. When you guys actually figure it out, let us know. Until then, it’s just your faith, nothing else.

Aye, Whoisyourcreator, Luckily for you, "Goddidit" requires no research. Phew! That's settled, then.

Joseph A: it's "modus" And: "When you look at the 37 phyla of multi cellular animals, only six have some sort of eyesight. Why David, why ? Why not 12 or 16 or 22, why, why ?" Indeed. What did the designer have in mind???? Your ID-ist hypotheses, please, or are you not allowed to ask in case you're sent to the bad place?

And who determines what is inappropriate or what is perfect, YOU,...

DaveH said:

who is your creator said: <snip> "Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today." Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html “But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.” University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50 “Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution.” The American Geological Institute http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/mechanismforchange.html

Whereas "Goddidit" requires no research or evidence. Pheew! That's settled, then.

Silly us (creationists) that we would demand evidence.

DaveH said:

who is your creator said: [snip] "Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today." Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html “But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.” University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50 “Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution.” The American Geological Institute http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/mechanismforchange.html

Whereas "Goddidit" requires no research or evidence. Pheew! That's settled, then.

Joseph Alden, WISYC, WW, and some of the others seem to be practicing a somewhat new shtick.

This shtick is an attempted imitation (they are not capable of original thought) of the argument against ID; namely that ID neither predicts nor explains anything.

However, their copy-cat argument has to rely on yet another fundamental misconception (and we can see how this is being constructed right here in front of us).

ID/Creationists must construct misconceptions and misinformation about science in order to hang onto sectarian dogma.

So we are seeing demands from the ID/Creationists that we construct a point-by-point, causal, deterministic history for every evolutionary feature we see in the natural world.

In making such demands, however, they expose another of their misconceptions (either real or consciously constructed) namely, that the study of stochastic processes is impossible and that one cannot draw conclusions or develop explanations from studying such systems.

Unfortunately, what follows from this misconception is that we understand nothing about gases, solids, the relationship between atomic motions and macroscopic phenomena, weather, gambling, insurance risks, or any other area characterized by random events.

So, if the study of evolution is wrong and can produce no certain knowledge, then statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, kinetic theory, insurance estimates, weather prediction, etc. are also wrong and can tell us nothing. Conclusion: no deterministic certainty implies the theory is wrong. Therefore: Design.

The unjustifiable demand for certainty in science is being used as an excuse for ID and sectarian dogma. However, deterministic certainty is full of even more serious problems for sectarian dogma (e.g., some poor slobs are destined to go to hell even before they are born while some lucky con artists will go to heaven no matter how much they lie).

Joseph wrote:

"And who determines what is inappropriate or what is perfect, YOU,…"

Actually Joseph, YOU are the one who claimed that Trilobite eyes were perfect. You were also the one who claimed that they needed to be modified in order to be useful to insects. Now exactly how did you determine that these eyes were perfect from the fossils?

All you have is a vague idea that a some designer would have created eyes this way in these organisms. Well I don't see it. I think it could have been done much better. I also don't see why it would have to be done in such a way as to be entirely consistent with the predictions of common descent. Unless of course you have an example of a vertebrate eye in an insect, or an insect eye in a vertebrate.

who is your creator said: In regard to the above: "Once again, no alternative and no evidence, just silly demands and misconceptions." Silly us (creationists) that we would demand evidence. When you guys actually figure it out, let us know. Until then, it's just your faith, nothing else.

"Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today." Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html “But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.” University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50 “Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution.” The American Geological Institute http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/mechanismforchange.html

Dr. Who wrote:

"Silly us (creationists) that we would demand evidence."

Yes, very silly when you ignore all of the eivdence that does exist.

Yes, very silly when you don't demand any evidence to support your own ideas.

Tell me, why don't you demand evidence of the makers of Expelled? They seem to have missed the opportunity to present their evidence. Too bad since they are so repressed.

The evolution deniers are interesting in a psychological way. Their entire argument amounts to "Oh yeah, well explain THIS!" In the end that's all Joseph's and Bobby's arguments amount to. They remind me of a child who can't grasp that you can count to a million, and isn't satisfied with your explanations and demonstrations of counting from 1,000 to 1,100.

Science Avenger said: The evolution deniers are interesting in a psychological way. Their entire argument amounts to "Oh yeah, well explain THIS!" In the end that's all Joseph's and Bobby's arguments amount to. They remind me of a child who can't grasp that you can count to a million, and isn't satisfied with your explanations and demonstrations of counting from 1,000 to 1,100.

* To All - First bit, after this post, I'm off on vacation.
Seriously, the jousting has been quite enjoyable.

* However, one last response to David Stanton.

You said " ..... Unless of course you have an example of a vertebrate eye in an insect, or an insect eye in a vertebrate."

Not quite, but close. I have a GENE example that may shed some light.
I mentioned Dr. Walter Gehring earlier in this thread. Several years ago his studies helped with the discovery of the Pax 6 gene. I invite you to check out his research. He's Pro-Evos, so there's no slant implied. The Pax 6 was discovered to be one of many master control genes. It's found not only in insects, but also in vertebrates including humans, and has since been considered one of the greatest scientific discoveries, in the genetic control of eyesight development.

This was part of my intention earlier with Frank J.
I care not WHEN life forms arose, I'm more interested in HOW. The Designer could have established into existence, all of the basic master control genes and let time take its course. I have no problem with survival of the fittest, etc.

One last example, which myself and many IDers agree on, & that's the complexity of the Lobster eye. Check it out sometime. This dudes eye's operate on the principle of reflection, NOT refraction. The eye of the Lobster contains a unique, geometric pattern, with perfect squares. It's design features are so complex, that if one of it's components were eliminated, the eye could never function properly.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

* As for future topics ?
If anyone on this site knows Pim, get him to encourage some Evos - Expert to start a thread about THORNS in nature. The whys and hows of their existence. I just love debating the PLANT KINGDOM !

I will be keeping an " eye " open for this future joust.

Adios !

Joseph,

So the answer to my question is no. You don't have any example at all of any eye that does not conform to the pattern consistent with common descent.

So now you claim that the designer just started out with all of the master control genes and then "let time take it's course". So who was this mysterious designer? Why did she just create master control genes? Didn't she care whether humans eventually evolved or not? How is this in any way different from macroevolution?

The so called master control genes for development in the animal kingdom evolved just like every other gene did. They arose through gene duplication and then diverged. So as long as the designer created the master control genes this way, why not make everything else this way as well? As you can see, the results would be indistinguishable from modern evolutionary theory. So your idea is worth exactly nothing and is supported by no evidence whatsoever. All it amounts to is wishful thinking about some magic tinkering for some unfathomable purpose by some undiscovered designer.

Now about that lobster, how do you know that if one element was removed that the system would not function? Are you just assuming, or are you like Behe ignoring all of the evidence? Have you done knock-out experiments, or are you just making stuff up? In the words of Dr. Who, how silly of me to ask for evidence.

Joseph Alden said: The eye of the Lobster contains a unique, geometric pattern, with perfect squares. It's design features are so complex, that if one of it's components were eliminated, the eye could never function properly.

Joseph Alden said: One last example, which myself and many IDers agree on, & that's the complexity of the Lobster eye. Check it out sometime. This dudes eye's operate on the principle of reflection, NOT refraction. The eye of the Lobster contains a unique, geometric pattern, with perfect squares. It's design features are so complex, that if one of it's components were eliminated, the eye could never function properly.

A lobster paces the ocean bottom in a shadowy world where vision is not all that important. Each eye, set on a movable stalk, has up to 10,000 facets that operate like many tiny eyes. The lobster probably doesn't see images, but its eyes can detect motion in dim light. In bright light, a lobster is probably blind.

* As for future topics ? If anyone on this site knows Pim, get him to encourage some Evos - Expert to start a thread about THORNS in nature. The whys and hows of their existence. I just love debating the PLANT KINGDOM ! I will be keeping an ” eye ” open for this future joust.

who is your creator said: Since you have it all figured out, why don't you give us the likely scenario the first 3 genetic changes that might begin to build the first 'simple' eye spot? Your evolutionary philosophy is fine in a coffee shop, but unless you can back it up with actual empirical scientific evidence of (macro) evolution occurring, it's nothing but a philosophical argument.

who is your creator said: Since you have it all figured out, why don't you give us the likely scenario the first 3 genetic changes that might begin to build the first 'simple' eye spot?

PvM said: From the Pinhole article we learn that

A method of calculating the optimal pinhole diameter was first attempted by Jozef Petzval.

angst said: Hmm. Despite all that amazing complexity it seems that lobsters do not see that well. From Gulf Of Maine Aquarium:

A lobster paces the ocean bottom in a shadowy world where vision is not all that important. Each eye, set on a movable stalk, has up to 10,000 facets that operate like many tiny eyes. The lobster probably doesn't see images, but its eyes can detect motion in dim light. In bright light, a lobster is probably blind.

To Nigel D - I’m referring to human eyes, not our friendly sea creatures. You said our skeletal system is irrelevant. Not to humans. Again, proper placement & size of our eye sockets in the skull is Paramount to obtaining vision.

— Joseph Alden

You then continue describing how our eyes are poorly designed, i.e. the whole ” detached retinas cause blindness ” BS. Just how strong of an attachment would you require, dear Nigel ? If the human skull could withstand 10,000 foot pounds of kinetic energy being applied to the back of the head, would that have made you a ” believer ” ? ?

Next you claim there is no dependence on other supportive systems.

Add these to my previous list. Our eyes require a proper nutritional system as well. Vitamin A allows complex photoreceptor cell function in the retina. Vitamin D is necessary for proper development of the cornea. These nutritional duties are thus dependant on a complex digestive system. Add in a fully functional immune system, to repair damaged cells and fight eye infections.

Complexity denotes Design.

Third, you continue your rant with the same, lame excuses. The eye MUST have evolved over millions of years, from earlier, less complicated species. Strike Three Nigel !

Trilobites, which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian period, had an extremely complex eye structure.

They consisted of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system.

Their eyes emerged over 500 million years ago in a perfect state.

This in turn disproves the bogus, evos position, that natural selection made it all come about.

More Intelligent Design evidence ?

No problemo. The honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to this day, with very few modifications.

Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same basic eye structure as did the trilobite.

This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis, that eyesight evolved in a progressive fashion, from the very primitive to the very complex.

Sorry gentlemen. Your prior posts have since become irrelevant.

If I ever get a chance to discuss the matter with a Designer from the Vertebrate Eye Team, I'll ask for a clarification of the need for the structure to be susceptible to idiopathic preretinal macular fibrosis. I really like looking at the world through the equivalent of wrinkled cellophane.

Hey Nigel,

I may be coming late to the party here, but I'd like to take a shot at the title.

Let's see:

1.) You complain above, about how some Joe Alden quote-mined you. Funny, you did nothing but quote mine his entire comments. A Double Standard, very common with Evo-Clowns.

2.) You said above " ... you have failed miserably to assemble anything resembling a scientific argument."
You mean like Dr. Scott's video, which began this discussion ? She said the genetic advantages, are those traits which are SELECTED for. If a species can make this discernment, why would it choose a trait, that creates for itself a DISADVANTAGE ? You said " ... No, the vertebrate eye is a botch job. You refuse or fail to address the actual failings of the eye (such as the blind spot)". How can it be a botch job, if only the ADVANTAGES were SELECTED for, over millions of years ? So much for beneficial genetic mutations. A second evolutionary double standard.

( I think I just heard Chuck Darwin rolling over in his grave. )

3. Next, I saved your best evo - rant for last.
Nigel says " ... All that is required is to refute the ID position is to demonstrate the " possibility " that the eye evolved through natural processes. This has been done."
Gosh, you mean it's really that easy Nigel ?
Simply demonstrating the " possibility " that the eye evolved ?

Cool. You just validated Intelligent Design. It's POSSIBLE there is a Designer of the universe. That this Designer established into existence all the scientific laws, the concept of DNA, genes, water, gravity, mathematics, etc. This is validated through scientific discovery, so it's been accomplished. Gregor Mendel did not invent the Laws of Genetics, he " discovered " them. John Dalton did not invent the Law of Partial Pressures, he discovered it. All of this is POSSIBLE, therefore it MUST be true. Thanks Nigel. Our cause just took a giant leap forward.

See, if you just had the fossilized progression of all this eyeball evolution nonsense, you'd actually have a scientific law, instead of just a scientific theory.
Evo-Clowns always respond with " Well, we can't present that as evidence, because Chuck said ... No organism wholly soft can ever be preserved." Well, Chuck was dead WRONG. Ever seen all the fossils of Jelly Fish ? They're located all over the world; here in the States where I reside, Wisconsin, Utah, & even a great find in Australia.

Funny how Neo-Darwinists are now using the mollusk, as the latest model.
I can remember the days when Lenny the Fraud used to rant about Fish eyes, being the perfect example. UNTIL, it was also pointed out, that many fish have DISADVANTAGES too. Their depth perception is poor, most are near-sighted and they have a blind spot as well. Once again, another species who supposedly SELECTED all these so-called ADVANTGES over time, which turned out to be DISADVANTAGES. Yet another, evo-clown double standard.

Intelligent Design is still in it's beginning stage, i.e. formulating an agreed upon hypothesis. Just like Mendel, it may take several years, for our research to become scientific law. As for evolution ? It's still stuck in between, at the theory stage. It continues propping up it's house of cards, with even more theories; monster mutations, co-evolution, parallel evolution, punctuated equilibrium, etc.

When you guys become LEGAL, let me know. Until then, myself and millions of others will continue performing our own scientific research.

See, if you just had the fossilized progression of all this eyeball evolution nonsense, you’d actually have a scientific law, instead of just a scientific theory.

Well, he did add a couple of new twists: now "quote-mining" means "quoting in the process of dismantling", just like "circular argument" has come to mean "any argument with which I disagree".

Its been a very long time since I saw an evolution denier so ignorant as to think species consciously choose their evolved traits. One might just as constructively have a theological debate with someone who asks "If Jesus is the lamb of God, then where is his wool?".

Nice try Mike.

Fossilized progression is something I threw in the post for fun, knowing exactly how you would respond. It's always the convenient defense mechanism; use the fossil record when it appears to prove a point, yet discount it's validity entirely, when it exposes us as fools.

In addition, you conveniently dodged the first three subjects.

My guess is you're lazy or paranoid. Most likely both.
Nothing new here. My suggestion would be not to feed this evo-clown.

It will result in more of the predictable, contradictions in logic, exposing the fallacy of neo-darwinism.

They always read from the same propaganda script.

It will result in more of the predictable, contradictions in logic, exposing the fallacy of neo-darwinism.

Cool. You just validated Intelligent Design. It’s POSSIBLE there is a Designer of the universe. That this Designer established into existence all the scientific laws, the concept of DNA, genes, water, gravity, mathematics, etc. This is validated through scientific discovery, so it’s been accomplished.

Gary McGuire said: In addition, you conveniently dodged the first three subjects.

So, Gary, can you explain why Intelligent Design proponents make absolutely no effort to use Intelligent Design "theory" to explain the fossil record better than Paleontology or Evolutionary Biology?

The only times Intelligent Design proponents mention the fossil record is when they parrot their Creationist predecessors to say that "the fossil record does not prove evolution" without ever explaining why it doesn't prove evolution. It's almost as if Intelligent Design proponents are reading from a script.

They always read from the same propaganda script.

Contradictions Pim ?
Uh..... for starters, read # 2 of my first post above.

Since species don't consciously choose their evolved traits, then what does ? Natural selection ? The destructive forces of nature don't discern anything. A forest fires burns everything within reach. There's no selection. Lava flows don't pick and choose what is more advanced. Floods cover everything in their path; no discrimination. If a meteor hits the Yucatan, it most likely kills nearly 70 % of all life species currently residing on earth. It chooses NOT to destroy the other 30 percent ? ? Impossible.
Remember, this thread is a discussion of a complex internal organ, so let's keep things in perspective.

And, you can spare me the usual rants about the different selective forces of biology or genetics, being sexual, stabilizing, destructive, etc. Those describe changes in EXISTING species, i.e. survival of those more fit. NOT, the organizational construction of complex internal organs; eyes, brain, liver, heart. Discussions of Biology and Genetics come AFTER the fact. I'm well aware of scientific laws.

As a sidebar Pim, I think it was Ken Oberlander above who suggested a thread to discuss Thorns in the plant world ?
Sounds good to me. Evo-clowns love to debate the animal kingdom, but when it comes to Plants, they get real nervous. I'm sure it would provide a ton of fun, especially if it diverged into Carnivorous plants. But Thorns are also a good place to start, so I agree with Ken. Try & get a thread started.

Also, you too, conveniently dodged the selectivity issues. If Dr. Scott says the advantages are always selected for, how come Nigel says we ended up with a bogus, flawed specimen, riddled with all these huge, disadvantages in function ? Answer that contradiction.

Oh, and thanks to you too as well Pim. You also validated ID. You said there may be a possibility, and Nigel said that's all that's required, so I appreciate your confirmation. In addition, you never provided any scientific evidence to disprove the existence of a Designer, so it's definitely valid. You remember, Nigel said scientific evidence is always necessary.
OR .... is this evos contradiction number three ?

I once listend to a guy ramble on about how algebra was the core of our problems with education. You see, kids understand their letters, and they know their numbers, but when we mix them, the kids get confused. He wondered why I laughed at him, but wasn't real interested in a debate. What are the odds that it's either "Gary" or "Keith"?

Gary wrote:

"Since species don’t consciously choose their evolved traits, then what does ? Natural selection ?"

Well Gary, perhaps you could enlighten us, what chooses the traits that evolve? Do the species consciously do this? Really, by what mechanism? Perhaps you could consciously wish for wings and then humans would be able to fly. That sure would help with the price of gas being what it is. How about other species, do cockroaches consciously wish they would be harder to squash and then they become harder to squash?

What in the world do the destructive forces of nature have to do with anything? Do you think that no species has ever gone extinct? Do you think that would prevent the survivors from evolving? Do you think that it is impossible for all species to go extinct? Now why on earth would you believe that?

You have nothing whatsoever except for an argument from personal incredulity regarding natural selection. Well no one could possibly be that stupid, so I don't believe you.

Gary McGuire said: Contradictions Pim ? Uh..... for starters, read # 2 of my first post above. Since species don't consciously choose their evolved traits, then what does ? Natural selection ? The destructive forces of nature don't discern anything.

Remember, this thread is a discussion of a complex internal organ, so let's keep things in perspective.

Also, you too, conveniently dodged the selectivity issues. If Dr. Scott says the advantages are always selected for, how come Nigel says we ended up with a bogus, flawed specimen, riddled with all these huge, disadvantages in function ? Answer that contradiction.

Oh, and thanks to you too as well Pim. You also validated ID. You said there may be a possibility, and Nigel said that's all that's required, so I appreciate your confirmation. In addition, you never provided any scientific evidence to disprove the existence of a Designer, so it's definitely valid. You remember, Nigel said scientific evidence is always necessary. OR .... is this evos contradiction number three ?

2.) You said above ” … you have failed miserably to assemble anything resembling a scientific argument.” You mean like Dr. Scott’s video, which began this discussion ? She said the genetic advantages, are those traits which are SELECTED for. If a species can make this discernment, why would it choose a trait, that creates for itself a DISADVANTAGE ? You said ” … No, the vertebrate eye is a botch job. You refuse or fail to address the actual failings of the eye (such as the blind spot)”. How can it be a botch job, if only the ADVANTAGES were SELECTED for, over millions of years ? So much for beneficial genetic mutations. A second evolutionary double standard.

Intelligent Design is still in it’s beginning stage, i.e. formulating an agreed upon hypothesis. Just like Mendel, it may take several years, for our research to become scientific law.

I’m well aware of scientific laws.

Since species don’t consciously choose their evolved traits, then what does ? Natural selection ? The destructive forces of nature don’t discern anything. A forest fires burns everything within reach. There’s no selection. Lava flows don’t pick and choose what is more advanced. Floods cover everything in their path; no discrimination. If a meteor hits the Yucatan, it most likely kills nearly 70 % of all life species currently residing on earth. It chooses NOT to destroy the other 30 percent ? ? Impossible. Remember, this thread is a discussion of a complex internal organ, so let’s keep things in perspective.

And, you can spare me the usual rants about the different selective forces of biology or genetics, being sexual, stabilizing, destructive, etc. Those describe changes in EXISTING species, i.e. survival of those more fit. NOT, the organizational construction of complex internal organs; eyes, brain, liver, heart. Discussions of Biology and Genetics come AFTER the fact.

Also, you too, conveniently dodged the selectivity issues. If Dr. Scott says the advantages are always selected for, how come Nigel says we ended up with a bogus, flawed specimen, riddled with all these huge, disadvantages in function ? Answer that contradiction.

Wow, I didn't realize I was walking into a clown convention. I thought this website was dedicated to the discussion of science. You know, that principle of collecting & discovering new information, that overturns previously accepted & agreed upon principles ?
I guess not.

Oh well, back to the evo - rants.
Let's see, I'll start with Science Avenger. ( Now, pay attention David Stanton, since you pulled the lame defense tactic of answering a question with another question. )

Sci-Avenger said " Its been a very long time since I saw an evolution denier so ignorant as to think species consciously choose their evolved traits. "

OK, cool, we've established this is factual evidence, since it was spoken by an evo-clown, correct ? Species do not consciously choose their evolved traits. Great. And in our example provided by Dr. Scott, we are using the mollusk, as an example of human eye evolution, so keep that in mind.

Now, is it the destructive forces of nature ? Floods, lava flows, fire, etc. NO ? everyone agrees, correct ?

Next, is it the primitive eye itself, the organ within the mollusk ? No, that would be part of the species, right ?
The brain of the mollusk ? No, still species related.

So how is the selection process being accomplished ? Pim tried to say, " well it's random, see, it's that traits evolve through the process of variation and selection, etc. In other words, ( he claims ), to explain evolution, you have show that the steps taken confer an advantage to the species."
This is circular logic, where one presents an argument that assumes it's own conclusion. ( See Gary, it's just a random mutation, you know, it varies, but in the end, what's always selected is an advantage. ) Right ...... NOT. What you are saying is, you have to ACCEPT the assumptions of evolutionary theory, and thus it becomes proof. Wrong again. Because what you are left with Pim is are the genes themselves, correct ?

This is what the entire keystone of Neo-Darwinism rests on. Beneficial, genetic mutations, that are selected because they present an advantage. Therefore, if we're left with the genes themselves, let's examine how an ADVANTAGE is somehow selected for. Do the genes consciously say " wow, this species vision just improved from 5 percent to 6 percent ? No, that's impossible, that would denote the gene has the ability to apply discretion, because if it was a disadvantage, we're told the gene would not select that trait. Yet, the gene is not looking through the lens, to determine visual clarity, it cannot comprehend 5 percent to 6 percent improvement. It's a microscopic particle, therefore it cannot discern or select or discriminate the choosing of an advantageous trait. The Pax genes in the eye are programed to construct the organ, not act as referees, deciding what is good or bad. And thus, you're entire evo-rant is therefore useless.

And, this can be easily proven. Who is more intelligent, in the selection of improved vision, a human being like Pim van Meur, or a Pax gene ? My money is on Pim. I challenge you to go to an optomitrist and see if you can distingish a 1% gradient change in vision. You cannot. Five percent to six percent is not recognizable. But a microscopic gene, can somehow determine an improved trait of visual clarity by 1 percent, SELECT THIS TRAIT, and then also have the mechanisms to encode & thus retain it ? That probability is zero in one trillion.

Next we had Nigel claiming the eye was a botch job. Not quite. The human retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity. Moreover, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons. Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1000 to one. Even specialized equipment doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic range of the human eye.
It's a botch job you say Nigel ? Is that what the script says, it was organized back assward ?

Incorrect again. The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy. The nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides a constant blood supply needed to regenerate the photo receptors, and to absorb excess heat. So it is necessary for the nerves to go in front instead.

And Mike Elzinga claims I'm bluffing ? ( ROFLMAO )

OK, now for your future redemption. Since all you evos collectively agree that a species cannot consciously choose their evolved traits, I want you to keep this vividly in your mind. You cannot change positions when Pim eventually puts up the discussion of Thorns in nature. If you do change, it will simply expose yet another double standard, and be added to the list of contradictions, which Pim asked for earlier. So remember. NO conscious thought to retain traits, got it ?
All of you agree, right ? Sci-Avenger, Pim, David Stanton, Mike E., Nigel, Richard Simons ?

Now Pim, go get your evo - expert on Thorns like Ken suggested. Then we'll continue to prove the fallacy of natural selection.

A question was raised earlier about how a creationist can claim that a particular structure (in this case an eye) is "perfect", when in fact it has demonstrably imperfect features. I think I can answer that. They aren't ignoring the imperfections. To them, they aren't imperfections. Reading what Joseph Alden and the others are saying here, it appears to me that, to them a particular structure is "perfect" because it is exactly sufficient for the task in which it is employed. Even though hawks may see with 10x the acuity of a human, human eyes are "perfect" because we don't "need" to see any better than we do. If we needed to see a mouse in a field a mile away, we would have eyes that "perfectly" matched that requirement. If our eyes needed to survive a heavy blow to the head, we would have retinas that didn't detach so easily.

Of course, this is the same notion that a pot hole is "perfectly" matched to contain the ice that has formed in its cavity, and so was obviously "designed" exactly for that purpose.

And of course, this is exactly what one would expect from evolution, not design. But they see the sufficiency of function as evidence of "design", of "intent". It goes along with the misconception that "selection" means "intent", and that an organism can "select" its own adaptations.

Gary McGuire said: Wow, I didn't realize I was walking into a clown convention.

So how is the selection process being accomplished ? Pim tried to say, " well it's random, see, it's that traits evolve through the process of variation and selection, etc. In other words, ( he claims ), to explain evolution, you have show that the steps taken confer an advantage to the species." This is circular logic, where one presents an argument that assumes it's own conclusion. ( See Gary, it's just a random mutation, you know, it varies, but in the end, what's always selected is an advantage. ) Right ...... NOT. What you are saying is, you have to ACCEPT the assumptions of evolutionary theory, and thus it becomes proof. Wrong again. Because what you are left with Pim is are the genes themselves, correct ?

This is what the entire keystone of Neo-Darwinism rests on. Beneficial, genetic mutations, that are selected because they present an advantage. Therefore, if we're left with the genes themselves, let's examine how an ADVANTAGE is somehow selected for. Do the genes consciously say " wow, this species vision just improved from 5 percent to 6 percent ?

And, this can be easily proven. Who is more intelligent, in the selection of improved vision, a human being like Pim van Meur, or a Pax gene ? My money is on Pim. I challenge you to go to an optomitrist and see if you can distingish a 1% gradient change in vision. You cannot. Five percent to six percent is not recognizable. But a microscopic gene, can somehow determine an improved trait of visual clarity by 1 percent, SELECT THIS TRAIT, and then also have the mechanisms to encode & thus retain it ? That probability is zero in one trillion.

Now Pim, go get your evo - expert on Thorns like Ken suggested. Then we'll continue to prove the fallacy of natural selection.

No, that’s impossible, that would denote the gene has the ability to apply discretion, because if it was a disadvantage, we’re told the gene would not select that trait. Yet, the gene is not looking through the lens, to determine visual clarity, it cannot comprehend 5 percent to 6 percent improvement. It’s a microscopic particle, therefore it cannot discern or select or discriminate the choosing of an advantageous trait. The Pax genes in the eye are programed to construct the organ, not act as referees, deciding what is good or bad. And thus, you’re entire evo-rant is therefore useless.

The human retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity…. Even specialized equipment doesn’t have anywhere near the dynamic range of the human eye.

And Mike Elzinga claims I’m bluffing ? ( ROFLMAO )

Interesting to see the emergence of this new IDiot shibboleth about the thorns. I wonder how it will go..... probably "An accacia tree is irreducibly complex: if you remove the roots, the trunk, the branches and the twigs, then all the thorns would fall to the ground. SEE!"

Gary McGuire said: She said the genetic advantages, are those traits which are SELECTED for. If a species can make this discernment, why would it choose a trait, that creates for itself a DISADVANTAGE ? You said " ... No, the vertebrate eye is a botch job.

Gary McGuire said: Nigel says " ... All that is required is to refute the ID position is to demonstrate the " possibility " that the eye evolved through natural processes. This has been done." Gosh, you mean it's really that easy Nigel ? Simply demonstrating the " possibility " that the eye evolved ? Cool. You just validated Intelligent Design. It's POSSIBLE there is a Designer of the universe.

Gary McGuire said: Natural selection ? The destructive forces of nature don’t discern anything. A forest fires burns everything within reach. There’s no selection.

Gary McGuire said: I’m well aware of scientific laws.

Gary McGuire said: Next we had Nigel claiming the eye was a botch job. Not quite. The human retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity. Moreover, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons. Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1000 to one. Even specialized equipment doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic range of the human eye.

Gentlemen, It appears now we are re-discussing the same issues. Some additional thoughts.

Pim - Sorry for the attitude. I apologize. As for the Thorns request, I was simply agreeing with Ken. It would be a great discussion. I know, others have said it's old hat, been there, done that, etc. However, science is about new discoveries and new ways of looking at previous data, is it not ? So why the reluctance ? I realize you have another project you're working on, that's cool, no problem. I never said you had to organize it. Let some other evos take a shot at starting that thread.

WAIT, I have a suggestion. Hey Pim, how about nominating Mike Elzinga to start the Thorns discussion. He seems to be the self-ordained, resident expert on everything. I'm sure he would love to take up the challenge.

I think part of the hesitation is what I mentioned earlier. Most neo-darwinists don't like debating the plant kingdom, when it comes to applying evolutionary theory. It's much more difficult, for several reasons.

Torbjorn - You said " ... a forest fire will contribute to selection. Likewise there are plants that have evolved to take advantage of the ecological opportunities offered by forest fires clearing the land. They sprout only after fire."
Incorrect. That's an existing species of plant life. The seed pod, or root system is already pre-designed and genetically programed. Fire simply destroys a canopy, which then allows sun light in and photosynthesis takes place. That's plant science 101. The " Fire " did not genetically modify the seed pod in any way. The seed had already been Designed.

Next, you said " ... The claim isn’t that it is totally botched (because it offers a selective advantage) but that it could be better. " Really ? better based on what standard, yours ? Comparison to what, other animals ? If normal human vision is 20/20, you're saying " if it was Designed, then it could have been 20/15." OK .... and if 20/15 was normal, you'd come back with " ... well it could have been 20/10 ....." Thus, your argument becomes an exercise in futility and proves nothing. Third, you mentioned " .... Much of it comes from the backward design.." This has already been proven. If it were designed your way, based on your request, the human eye would not function properly.

Finally, you stated " It won’t be an empirical possibility until there is observational and theoretical evidence of it. You know, like the work that creationists won’t do. "

SO, you're claiming Creation - based scientists have never offered up anything to the fields of science, say modern medicine for instance ? Are you saying Torbjorn, that " our guys " have never done any scientific research, that contributes to improving human health ? Please answer this simple question.

Gary McGuire said: WAIT, I have a suggestion. Hey Pim, how about nominating Mike Elzinga to start the Thorns discussion. He seems to be the self-ordained, resident expert on everything. I'm sure he would love to take up the challenge. I think part of the hesitation is what I mentioned earlier. Most neo-darwinists don't like debating the plant kingdom, when it comes to applying evolutionary theory. It's much more difficult, for several reasons.

SO, you're claiming Creation - based scientists have never offered up anything to the fields of science, say modern medicine for instance ? Are you saying Torbjorn, that " our guys " have never done any scientific research, that contributes to improving human health ? Please answer this simple question.

Also, Gary, please explain to us why you should have more clout about Evolutionary Biology than actual biologists who have taken literal decades out of their lives to study Evolution, as opposed to you, especially since all of your comments betray a gross ignorance of Biology and Evolution inherent to all Intelligent Design proponents and their Creationist predecessors.

Stanton said " .. The onus is on you, Gary, to provide the names of those Creationists who have made significant contributions to Medical Science using a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible.

So, either please provide actual evidence, not appeals to ignorance nor strawmen arguments grown from your ignorance, to back up your claims, or please go away."

And what would happen next Stanton ? You said please provide actual evidence ? What are the consequences if I do ? Would you then accept the fallacy of evolutionary theory, regarding complex organs like the eye, establishing themselves into existence, based on mere random, genetic mutation, from a primitive cell structure ?

In addition, I think it was Torbjorn, to whom the question was originally posed. Is Torb no longer available ?

Gary McGuire said: Torbjorn - You said “ … a forest fire will contribute to selection. Likewise there are plants that have evolved to take advantage of the ecological opportunities offered by forest fires clearing the land. They sprout only after fire.” Incorrect. That’s an existing species of plant life. The seed pod, or root system is already pre-designed and genetically programed. Fire simply destroys a canopy, which then allows sun light in and photosynthesis takes place. That’s plant science 101. The “ Fire “ did not genetically modify the seed pod in any way. The seed had already been Designed.

Gary,

If you are just going to claim, without any evidence whatsoever, that every adaptation was "pre-designed" and "programmed" into plants, then there really is no point in discussing anything.

Who did this programming? How, when, where and why? Does God intervene every time there is a fire, or just once every few years? Why didn't God give all plants the ability for their seeds to survive fire? Are some plants God's chosen plants? Why don't plants have eyes? Couldn't God figure out how to do this? And ray guns, yea, why don't plants have ray guns?

What about other plant characteristics? Were they all poofed into existence? If so, why do they form a nested hierarchey exactly as predicted by evolution? And why is the same nested hierarchy found in the genes of these plants as well?

You see Gary, shifting the goalposts to plants doesn't get you anything. Your assumption that evolutionary biologists do not study plants exists only in your own mind. Real scientists study all natural phenomena. God is no better an explanation for plants that animals. How about dinosaurs? Were they intelligently deisgned? Were they on the ark? Did God screw up?

Torbjorn - You said “ … a forest fire will contribute to selection. Likewise there are plants that have evolved to take advantage of the ecological opportunities offered by forest fires clearing the land. They sprout only after fire.” Incorrect. That’s an existing species of plant life. The seed pod, or root system is already pre-designed and genetically programed. Fire simply destroys a canopy, which then allows sun light in and photosynthesis takes place. That’s plant science 101. The “ Fire “ did not genetically modify the seed pod in any way. The seed had already been Designed.

What are the consequences if I do ? Would you then accept the fallacy of evolutionary theory, regarding complex organs like the eye, establishing themselves into existence, based on mere random, genetic mutation, from a primitive cell structure ?

In addition, I think it was Torbjorn, to whom the question was originally posed. Is Torb no longer available ?

What is it with ID tag teams…?

Gary McGuire said: And what would happen next Stanton ? You said please provide actual evidence ? What are the consequences if I do ?

Would you then accept the fallacy of evolutionary theory, regarding complex organs like the eye, establishing themselves into existence, based on mere random, genetic mutation, from a primitive cell structure ?

You didn’t read my post. Billions or Trillions, matters not to me. It’s irrelevant in this discussion topic. To you it appears, it’s the ONLY thing that matters. You then you asked if I think humans are related to plants. No, I don’t. And how again does this relate directly to the discussion of the human eyeball ?

— Joseph Alden

You then proceed with continued castigation of ID and Creationism in other posts. Yet, you originally said “ God “ creates things. Your contradiction in logic is now self-evident.

— Joseph Alden

Gary McGuire said: He seems to be the self-ordained, resident expert on everything.

I challenge you to go to an optomitrist and see if you can distingish a 1% gradient change in vision. You cannot. Five percent to six percent is not recognizable. But a microscopic gene, can somehow determine an improved trait of visual clarity by 1 percent, SELECT THIS TRAIT, and then also have the mechanisms to encode & thus retain it ? That probability is zero in one trillion.

Correcting my typos in the last paragraph of my 11:55 comment:

classic creationism

bad theology

"" And they “suddenly” appeared in the fossil record, which does not mean that they evolved overnight. The early Cambrian shows distinct phases, starting with low-diversity shelly fauna, progressing through moderate-diversity shelly fauna and eventually getting to high-diversity shelly fauna. Trilobites only appear in the high-diversity shelly fauna. ""

Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed?

Frank J said: Which makes perfect sense because ID/creationism is not only bad science but bat theology.

Gary McGuire said: Gentlemen, It appears now we are re-discussing the same issues. Some additional thoughts. Pim - Sorry for the attitude. I apologize. As for the Thorns request, I was simply agreeing with Ken. It would be a great discussion. I know, others have said it's old hat, been there, done that, etc. However, science is about new discoveries and new ways of looking at previous data, is it not ? So why the reluctance ? I realize you have another project you're working on, that's cool, no problem. I never said you had to organize it. Let some other evos take a shot at starting that thread.

I think part of the hesitation is what I mentioned earlier. Most neo-darwinists don't like debating the plant kingdom, when it comes to applying evolutionary theory. It's much more difficult, for several reasons.

How did schizochroal eyes evolve? Phacops rana has large, schizochroal eyes All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form

Understanding of the calcified composite eyes of trilobites, the oldest preserved visual system, has advanced greatly in recent decades. Three types of trilobite eye occur, the more derived abathochroal and schizochroal types having evolved neotenically from holochroal eyes. Comparative morphology and phylogenetic considerations suggest that all three eye-types were underlain by common developmental systems. So far, understanding of these systems has been based entirely on morphological data from fossils, particularly the way the visual surface grew and the patterning of lens emplacement. Lenses characteristically form a hexagonal array comprising horizontal rows and, conspicuously in schizochroal eyes, dorso-ventral files. Because individual trilobites sometimes have eyes with different numbers of files, file number must reflect the operation of a developmental programme rather than being under immediate genetic control. An empirical developmental model has been devised to describe trilobite eye development, with separate rules dealing with the initiation of lens emplacement, growth and differentiation of the visual surface, and the termination of lens emplacement. Rarely, trilobites may have visual surfaces of normal size, but which lack lenses. This confirms that visual surface growth must have been regulated separately from lens emplacement, and is a feature that cannot be accounted for by the existing developmental model. Such a developmental separation is one of a number of similarities shared with Drosophila, the modern arthropod in which eye development is best understood. Many aspects of eye development are conserved in the Euarthropoda, and in bilaterian metazoans in general. A revised model for trilobite eye development is proposed using extant phylogenetic bracketing, interpreting morphological data from the fossils in the context of the hierarchy of developmental controls now becoming known from living animals. This new model suggests that overall eye shape and size did not require differential growth of the generative zone, as previously thought, and that no separate instruction was needed to specify the termination of lens emplacement. Instead, these features were regulated directly, by controlling the proliferation of cells making up the nascent visual surface. A process documented from Drosophila, which involves the selective inhibition of cells in front of a wave-like front of differentiation, and that is regulated by widely conserved genes, can be used to explain how the trilobite visual surface became differentiated. The model implies also that changes in hormonally regulated developmental pathways known from recent arthropods may have been responsible for the development of abathochroal and schizochroal eyes, and for heterochronic secondary eye reduction and blindness in trilobites.

bobby said: "" And they “suddenly” appeared in the fossil record, which does not mean that they evolved overnight. The early Cambrian shows distinct phases, starting with low-diversity shelly fauna, progressing through moderate-diversity shelly fauna and eventually getting to high-diversity shelly fauna. Trilobites only appear in the high-diversity shelly fauna. "" Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed?

bobby said: Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed?

Science Avenger said:

bobby said: Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed?

No. Your point?

Perseveration. It’s a clear indication of mental illness.

Keith, bobby, as well as these other trolls who keep repeating the same crap over and over as though they have never done this a few posts prior; all seem to engage in this behavior.

I think we have already concluded that Keith and bobby are mentally ill from some of their other behaviors which exhibit extreme bottled-up anger and hatred.

Both Keith and bobby are in a manic phase of their illness at the moment. Glimpsing any form of reality seems to set them off.

* To Pim -

Incorrect again. I am not Joe Alden.
You need to read his last post.

He's off on vacation. Joe is my uncle and I'm watching his house & therefore using his computer. I will be back using mine tomorrow.

However, since paranoia is the norm among evos, I'll also contact Joe and he can respond.

Thanks for making yet another mistake.

Gary McGuire said: * To Pim - Incorrect again. I am not Joe Alden. You need to read his last post. He's off on vacation. Joe is my uncle and I'm watching his house & therefore using his computer. I will be back using mine tomorrow. However, since paranoia is the norm among evos, I'll also contact Joe and he can respond. Thanks for making yet another mistake.

He’s off on vacation. Joe is my uncle and I’m watching his house & therefore using his computer. I will be back using mine tomorrow.

Mike Elzinga said:

He’s off on vacation. Joe is my uncle and I’m watching his house & therefore using his computer. I will be back using mine tomorrow.

That there was some connection was obvious. Same vitriolic hatreds and the same sources of misconceptions and misinformation.

However, since paranoia is the norm among evos, I’ll also contact Joe and he can respond. Thanks for making yet another mistake.

* Attn:
Pim van Meurs.

Thanks for making the correction on the thread.

I just spoke to Joe on my cell. Again, he is on vacation, and he won't return home until Friday, May 16th.

He said to share with you the following. That linked page from Evolution-Facts, is from a condensed abstract, written several years ago. Joe has constructed a lengthy essay on the occurrence of thorns in nature and the study of plants in general. The abstract was condensed by Evolution-Facts Inc., and therefore may contain grammatical errors.

Joe promised to answer any and all questions, relative to the discussion topic. He also said to offer his sincere thanks for the forum.

* My last post was in response to claims that Creation based scientists have offered no contributions to the various fields of scientific research, including modern medicine. I was asked to provide sources of proof.
Below is but one of many potential links. I rest my case.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

As for the discussion of the eye, please also keep in mind the various sub-components that are involved. The eye lid, eye lashes, tear ducts, millions of nerve endings surrounding the eye itself, etc. There is a purpose to the human eye. It provides a utility of function. It is not the result of random genetic mutations.

Gary McGuire said: As for the discussion of the eye, please also keep in mind the various sub-components that are involved. The eye lid, eye lashes, tear ducts, millions of nerve endings surrounding the eye itself, etc. There is a purpose to the human eye. It provides a utility of function. It is not the result of random genetic mutations.

Gary McGuire said: He said to share with you the following. That linked page from Evolution-Facts, is from a condensed abstract, written several years ago. Joe has constructed a lengthy essay on the occurrence of thorns in nature and the study of plants in general. The abstract was condensed by Evolution-Facts Inc., and therefore may contain grammatical errors.

In regard to the above: “Once again, no alternative and no evidence, just silly demands and misconceptions.” Silly us (creationists) that we would demand evidence.

— Who is your creator

When you guys actually figure it out, let us know. Until then, it’s just your faith, nothing else.

“Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life http://www.project2061.org/publicat[…]h5/ch5.htm#F “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today.” Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotim[…]n_life3.html “But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that’s not an easy job.” University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli[…]0_0_0/evo_50 “Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution.” The American Geological Institute http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolutio[…]rchange.html

* My last post was in response to claims that Creation based scientists have offered no contributions to the various fields of scientific research, including modern medicine.

Joseph Alden said: To David Stanton. You rebutted: " if trilobites and insects did in fact share a common ancestor, then natural selection could be responsible for any differences that developed." OR Intelligent Design could be equally responsible. Modifications could be simply an adjustment based on nutritional needs from their food supply and or lack thereof. I've already listed nutrition as a necessary support system. Without it, you get all kinds of negative consequences that may affect proper genetic function. And also " If some magic designer creates eyes from scratch, why were modifications needed if the eye was perfect in the first place? Why not just design a new type of eye for insects? Why reuse an old inappropriate kind of eye? " And who determines what is inappropriate or what is perfect, YOU, David Stanton ? What you're leaving out of your rant is all types of eyesight may be perfectly functional for any given animal. It differs from one to another. Many species have different requirements, based on their environment. Earthworms tend to view objects at very close range and thus have light receptors, NOT COMPLEX VISION systems. Jellyfish are another fascinating species; the Box Jellyfish being most intriguing. And yet they do not need a complex brain or central nervous system, as in humans. Their surroundings do not require it, in order for them to sustain life ! The Bald Eagle's eyesight is much more complex than humans. Why ? It hunts prey from several hundred feet in the air. Simple. When you look at the 37 phyla of multi cellular animals, only six have some sort of eyesight. Why David, why ? Why not 12 or 16 or 22, why, why ? Your rant is most comical. That's what I love about you evos. Always reading from the same propaganda script. What a joke. Please, don't ever change that oh so predictable Modis Operandi !

To Pim van Meurs.

Really ? Would you like to be proven incorrect yet again Pim ? Gosh, that would be what, several times being proven incorrect, all in one day ?

You claim above :

Indeed, luckily evolutionary theory is
" not about random genetic mutations."

Surely your uncle should know better. -

Sigh

-----

No Random Genetic Mutations ?

Uh..... your boys over at Talk Origins say you're wrong too.

http://www.tccsa.tc/archives/max/fittness_max.htm

First paragraph, Introduction 1.0
First two sentences state :

" 1.0 Introduction
The theory of evolution includes a number of ideas that some people find difficult to accept intuitively. One of the most difficult seems to be the notion that the intricate and interdependent structures we observe in modern plants and animals arose through “ random genetic mutations selected over time.” For some people it is much easier to believe that the beautiful and functional features of the human eye, for example, were designed by an intelligent creator than to imagine how they could have been “ generated through random events.”

And they even threw in the eye of all things, relative to this thread.
ANOTHER BONUS !

Don't worry, I'll inform Joe as well. He'll have a nice laugh too.

Pim van Meurs. Proven wrong yet again. As usual.

Hello, I'm an artist and art educator and have been lurking here and at several other sites trying to get the substance of the ID/evolution "debate" straight. This is a little off topic, so I apologize, but I wanted to make a couple points:

First I wanted to thank the posters like Stanton, PvM and several others for making the details of evolutionary science a little less opaque to someone like me with no background in science. It seems odd that someone like Behe (who I've read some of to try and get his point of view) who supposedly is an educator as well manages to so completely obfuscate the details of his own theory while scientists and educators explaining some of the more esoteric aspects of evolution manage to make it so clear. I've experienced several pleasant little "eureka" moments when I've finally grasped some of this stuff, so thanks for the endorphines. (psst...Hey kid, want some endorphines?...here, read this book)

Second, an observation:
The Rule of Fives (from certain conspiracy theory circles) states that if you assume there is a conspiracy leaving messages in the form of the number five (the numeral, sets of five objects, etc) throughout your daily life, your capacity to identify those messages is limited only by your imagination. Irreducible complexity as a concept strikes me as the opposite of that theory, in that the level of complexity necessary for irreducibility is limited only by your lack of imagination.
First the eye was irreducible, then it was bacterial phlegellum, now it’s…well, I forget, but it’s smaller. I say keep up the pressure. At this rate you should be able to hand them off to the chemists soon, and from there it’s a short trip down physics lane where I’m sure they will drown in the math.

Lastly, if any of these loosing of academic standards laws ever pass (hopefully not) I am creating a new theory based solely on a typo in someone’s post here who, when referring to “The Big Bang” typed “Big Band”. It just feels good to know that the universe was swung into existence by the Duke Ellington Orchestra, don’t you think? :)

You complain above, about how some Joe Alden quote-mined you. Funny, you did nothing but quote mine his entire comments. A Double Standard, very common with Evo-Clowns.

— Gary McGuire

2.) [irrelevant misrepresentations and miscinceptions excised. Oh. That appears to be the entire post] Until then, myself and millions of others will continue performing our own scientific research.

— Gary McG

Joe promised to answer any and all questions, relative to the discussion topic. He also said to offer his sincere thanks for the forum.

— Gary McGuire

Gary McGuire said: There is a purpose to the human eye. It provides a utility of function. It is not the result of random genetic mutations.

Emil said: At this rate you should be able to hand them off to the chemists soon, and from there it’s a short trip down physics lane where I’m sure they will drown in the math.

exhibiting quantitatively different chemical properties. “Irreducible complex, atoms must be designed!”

Next we had Nigel claiming the eye was a botch job. Not quite. The human retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity.

— Gary McG

Moreover, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons. Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1000 to one. Even specialized equipment doesn’t have anywhere near the dynamic range of the human eye.

It’s a botch job you say Nigel ? Is that what the script says, it was organized back assward ?

Gary McGuire said: Stanton said " .. The onus is on you, Gary, to provide the names of those Creationists who have made significant contributions to Medical Science using a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. So, either please provide actual evidence, not appeals to ignorance nor strawmen arguments grown from your ignorance, to back up your claims, or please go away." And what would happen next Stanton ? You said please provide actual evidence ? What are the consequences if I do ? Would you then accept the fallacy of evolutionary theory, regarding complex organs like the eye, establishing themselves into existence, based on mere random, genetic mutation, from a primitive cell structure ? In addition, I think it was Torbjorn, to whom the question was originally posed. Is Torb no longer available ?

bobby said: "" And they “suddenly” appeared in the fossil record, which does not mean that they evolved overnight. The early Cambrian shows distinct phases, starting with low-diversity shelly fauna, progressing through moderate-diversity shelly fauna and eventually getting to high-diversity shelly fauna. Trilobites only appear in the high-diversity shelly fauna. "" Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed?

Gary Mcguire.
What is the VERY NEXT WORD after "random genetic mutation" in your beautiful attempted quote mine of talk.origins?

Evolution consists of variation introduced by "random genetic mutation" AND the mechanisms that filter/constrain/allow those mutations to become fixed. One of the most prominent such mechanisms is natural selection. Both variation and mechanism must be present for evolution to occur.

Stanton said:

Science Avenger said:

bobby said: Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed?

No. Your point?

Then bobbyTroll will have to concede that, because he refuses to understand how trilobite eyes developed, he is right and evolution is wrong.

Nigel D said: Cats have nictating (sp?) membranes in their eyes, that reflect light that has passed through the retina back through it a second time.

bobby said: Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed? The point is that science needs evidence. We can talk all day about how things might have happened but we need validating observations. And until we get some for trilobite eyes this is all very nice discussion but not science.

bobby said: "" And they “suddenly” appeared in the fossil record, which does not mean that they evolved overnight. The early Cambrian shows distinct phases, starting with low-diversity shelly fauna, progressing through moderate-diversity shelly fauna and eventually getting to high-diversity shelly fauna. Trilobites only appear in the high-diversity shelly fauna. "" Can you show me the fossils of the lineage leading up to trilobites and how the eyes gradually developed?

Gary McGuire said: * To Pim - Incorrect again. I am not Joe Alden. You need to read his last post. He's off on vacation. Joe is my uncle and I'm watching his house & therefore using his computer. I will be back using mine tomorrow. However, since paranoia is the norm among evos, I'll also contact Joe and he can respond. Thanks for making yet another mistake.

He said to share with you the following. That linked page from Evolution-Facts, is from a condensed abstract, written several years ago. Joe has constructed a lengthy essay on the occurrence of thorns in nature and the study of plants in general. The abstract was condensed by Evolution-Facts Inc., and therefore may contain grammatical errors. Joe promised to answer any and all questions, relative to the discussion topic. He also said to offer his sincere thanks for the forum. ... http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

— Gary McGuire

As for the discussion of the eye, please also keep in mind the various sub-components that are involved. The eye lid, eye lashes, tear ducts, millions of nerve endings surrounding the eye itself, etc.

There is a purpose to the human eye. It provides a utility of function.

It is not the result of random genetic mutations.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Emil said: At this rate you should be able to hand them off to the chemists soon, and from there it’s a short trip down physics lane where I’m sure they will drown in the math.

Nice delurking, gets my endorphines working. :-P But you know they will never stop claiming that design follows.
- Take away a nucleic charge, and the atom will stop being the atom it was, exhibiting quantitatively different chemical properties. "Irreducible complex, atoms must be designed!"
- You can't calculate all atomic properties from first principles with the exception of hydrogen. (Or has it changed since I studied physics?) "Gaps in the theory, atoms must be designed!"
- Either you can synthesize atoms in the lab or you can't.
"You can't synthesize atoms, atoms must be designed!"
"You can synthesize atoms, atoms must be designed!"

whereismybrain: Since you have it all figured out, why don’t you give us the likely scenario the first 3 genetic changes that might begin to build the first ‘simple’ eye spot?

whyamilying: Since you have it all figured out, why don’t you give us the likely scenario the first 3 genetic changes that might begin to build the first ‘simple’ eye spot?

Genetics. 1999 Oct;153(2):721-9. Links Eyespot-assembly mutants in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.Lamb MR, Dutcher SK, Worley CK, Dieckmann CL. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington 98416-0320, USA. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is a single-celled green alga that phototaxes toward light by means of a light-sensitive organelle, the eyespot. The eyespot is composed of photoreceptor and Ca(++)-channel signal transduction components in the plasma membrane of the cell and reflective carotenoid pigment layers in an underlying region of the large chloroplast. To identify components important for the positioning and assembly of a functional eyespot, a large collection of nonphototactic mutants was screened for those with aberrant pigment spots. Four loci were identified. eye2 and eye3 mutants have no pigmented eyespots. min1 mutants have smaller than wild-type eyespots. mlt1(ptx4) mutants have multiple eyespots. The MIN1, MLT1(PTX4), and EYE2 loci are closely linked to each other; EYE3 is unlinked to the other three loci. The eye2 and eye3 mutants are epistatic to min1 and mlt1 mutations; all double mutants are eyeless. min1 mlt1 double mutants have a synthetic phenotype; they are eyeless or have very small, misplaced eyespots. Ultrastructural studies revealed that the min1 mutants are defective in the physical connection between the plasma membrane and the chloroplast envelope membranes in the region of the pigment granules. Characterization of these four loci will provide a beginning for the understanding of eyespot assembly and localization in the cell.

Stanton said:

Nigel D said: Cats have nictating (sp?) membranes in their eyes, that reflect light that has passed through the retina back through it a second time.

You're confusing the tapetum lucidum, which is a reflective layer directly beneath the retina of many vertebrates, with the nictating membrane, which is a third eyelid present in many mammal, reptile and bird taxa (primates have lost it) that helps to protect the eyes from damage, or exposure, essentially allowing them to "blink without blinking."

Gary McGuire said: Pim van Meurs. Proven wrong yet again. As usual.

This leaves me confused about the distinction between a cat's "nictating membrane" and a bird or reptile's "nictitating" membrane. I have a feeling Nigel and Stanton are talking about different things, made more complex by a misspelling.

I say keep up the pressure. At this rate you should be able to hand them off to the chemists soon, and from there it’s a short trip down physics lane where I’m sure they will drown in the math.

…who, when referring to “The Big Bang” typed “Big Band”. It just feels good to know that the universe was swung into existence by the Duke Ellington Orchestra, don’t you think? :)

Flint said: This leaves me confused about the distinction between a cat's "nictating membrane" and a bird or reptile's "nictitating" membrane. I have a feeling Nigel and Stanton are talking about different things, made more complex by a misspelling.

Hey Pim, did you apologize to your fellow comrades, for being wrong about the random, genetic mutation slip up ? You remember. You said that RGM does not apply to TOE. And yet Talk Origins said you’re dead wrong.

Oh and Gary, you are welcome to present your uncle's arguments on IDExposed.wordpress.com. I am surprised that you have not yet commented? Surely the thorny issue which you insisted we should pursue, has not come back to bite you? You know how those thorns always manage to catch you when you least expect them to do...

Freakish almost...

Oh and Gary, you are welcome to present your uncle's arguments on IDExposed.wordpress.com. I am surprised that you have not yet commented? Surely the thorny issue which you insisted we should pursue, has not come back to bite you? You know how those thorns always manage to catch you when you least expect them to do...

Freakish almost...

Indeed there are ID/Creationists who think they can take on chemistry and physics. But chemistry and physics are simpler and easier to understand than biology. Thus, those ID/Creationists who make the mistake of trying to take on physics and chemistry (e.g., they love to mangle entropy and thermodynamics), get their asses handed to them charred and blackened, not just reddened and blistered.

— Mike Elzinga

Biology deals with some of the most complicated systems we know; thus, much if it is described in qualitative terms (although these terms are based on quantitative understandings of simpler systems). With so many complex concepts to deal with, it is easier for a charlatan to babble endlessly and pretend to be informed and formidable. This tactic, in itself, shows them to be glib flim-flam artists; an honest scientist will try to patiently explain complicated ideas to someone who really wants to learn. ID/Creationists mix in all sorts of misconceptions, misinformation, and confusion. They are acting politically, not scientifically.

— Mike Elzinga

Emil said: I totally agree, however if the largest construct they can come up with where irreducible complexity can be applied is at the atomic level, how can that be considered any kind of refutation of modern evolutionary theory?

* * * To Pim van Meurs

Thanks Pim, but I think I'll let Uncle Joe respond to the thorns issue.

As for the random genetic mutations.

You originally said:

"" Indeed, luckily evolutionary theory is “ not about random genetic mutations.”

Surely your uncle should know better. -

Sigh ""

You first said it's not about random genetic mutations.
Now you're changing your tune and somehow trying to take your post back ?

Because now, you back peddle by saying on 5-12-08 above, " Random genetic mutations are part of evolutionary theory, it’s called genetic drift.

ROFLMAO. Double-speak. Figured.
And remember, check my IP address, I may be "someone else."
NOT.

Gary the cultist moron: ““ Indeed, luckily evolutionary theory is “ not about random genetic mutations.”

Gary McGuire said: You first said it's not about random genetic mutations. Now you're changing your tune and somehow trying to take your post back ? Because now, you back peddle by saying on 5-12-08 above, " Random genetic mutations are part of evolutionary theory, it’s called genetic drift.

but I think I’ll let Uncle Joe respond to the thorns issue.

Gary,

Do you disagree with your uncle on any issues concerning evolution or your alternate "theory/theories"? If so you could add that information to your answers to the questions that recently asked.

Frank J said: Gary, Do you disagree with your uncle on any issues concerning evolution or your alternate "theory/theories"? If so you could add that information to your answers to the questions that recently asked.

raven said:

but I think I’ll let Uncle Joe respond to the thorns issue.

We have a weed around here, that looks a lot like the picture of Jimson weed. It might even be the same one. The seed pods are prickly. But it isn't just to deter predators although it may well do so. The spines are to stick to animal's fur for seed dispersal. It works very well. They stick to clothing especially socks and when they are ripe, the dog and cats get them tangled in their fur and bring them home. Small birds and bats also get stuck in them.

These changes are one molecule at a time, not “one mole at a time” where you invariably get “tar.”

— Frank J

Perhaps you’re thinking of burdock?

Although, to be fair, I have seen someone obtain white crystals from a reaction work-up that did look very like tar.

— Nigel D

raven said:

Perhaps you’re thinking of burdock?

No, although that is another ride along seed disperser. Many plants use this method. From the pictures on the net, it is probably jimson weed. The seed pods look identical.

raven said:

Perhaps you’re thinking of burdock?

No, although that is another ride along seed disperser. Many plants use this method. From the pictures on the net, it is probably jimson weed. The seed pods look identical.

On the other hand, it could be that we’re thinking of two different species of jimson weed. Have you ever seen devil’s claw seed pods?

Merely hearing the phrase “random mutation” they think of something along the lines of ideal gases (which as you know don’t exist) rather than polymers undergoing highly constrained chemical changes (e.g. no chance that a sodium atom will replace a carbon atom) that are only “random” in the sense of not anticipating the selection “pressures” that they will encounter. These changes are one molecule at a time, not “one mole at a time” where you invariably get “tar.”

Perhaps more focus on the chemistry, and the associated misconceptions, will alert more people to the games that these flim-flam artists are playing. Including the vast cover-up of their irreconcilable differences.

David Berlinski, with customary verve, noted "The ... group's more recent paper, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila" (Science 267, 1988) is among the most remarkable in the history of biology, demonstrating as it does that the ey gene is related closely to the equivalent eye gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and Nemerteans. This strongly suggests (the inference is almost irresistible) that ey function is universal (universal!) among multicellular organisms, the basic design of the eye having been their common property for over a half-billion years. The ey gene clearly is a master control mechanism, one capable of giving general instructions to very different organisms. No one in possession of these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory.

"How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?" [r52]

The mathematical answer is suggestive of an unambiguous interpretation.

Bobby,

So, instead of admitting that an ancient gene has been adapted to serve a similar function in many descendent species you conclude what? God is either an incompetent boob or she is just out to fool us? Why would God use the same old gene over and over? Why not poof a new and better gene for each new species? Why follow exactly the pattern that would be expected based on common descent?

Really Bobby, this ie exactly the pattern predicted by the modern theory of evolution. No other interpretation even makes sense. And by the way, it's a pattern repeated over and over again for many different genes. Take the hox genes for example. There was no anticipation of their role in the development of all of the different animal body plans, they simply changed over time in response to selection pressure. That's how evolution works. It makes changes to genes and pathways that already exist. That is not however a constraint that one need place on God. Your "mathematical answer" is nothing but wishful thinking.

Now you can come up with ridiculous scenarios pretending to know the mind of God all you want, but in the end this is exactly the pattern predicted by modern evoutionary theory. If you don't think that it's evidence for evolution fine, stick with your fairy tales, but don't try to tell informed poeople how to interpret the evidence. Now if you can demonstrate that the genes controlling eye development in different species are not homologous, then you might have an argument to make. Better get in the lab and start sequencing.

Now if you can demonstrate that the genes controlling eye development in different species are not homologous, then you might have an argument to make. Better get in the lab and start sequencing.

— Stanton

Jeez you missed the whole point. Read it again.

"" Really Bobby, this ie exactly the pattern predicted by the modern theory of evolution ""

No it isnt. Read it again.

“How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?”

You just dont understand the above do you??

And please leave 'God' out of this. The concept is not scientific.

bobby said: "" Really Bobby, this ie exactly the pattern predicted by the modern theory of evolution "" No it isnt. Read it again. “How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?” You just dont understand the above do you??

bobby said: And please leave 'God' out of this. The concept is not scientific.

Bobby,

No I don't. There is no problem here for evolutionary theory, none whatsoever. There was NO anticipation, none. All you have done is claim that there was, you have no evidence whatsoever, just wishful thinking.

Now, are you also going to claim that the hox genes "anticipated" all of the different animal forms that would evolve? Are you going to claim that the fact that a gene in one organism is "closely related" to a gene in another organism is not evidence of common descent?

Now exactly what is your explanation for the observed pattern? Why did God have to anticipate anything? Why did God make genes that are "closely related" if the organisms aren't related? Did God anticipate the need for humans to have wings and therefore give us the genes for wings? Are they homologous to the genes for bird wings? Can you demonstrate any genes for eye development that don't have any homology to any other genes?

Seriously Bobby, any pattern that is produced by descent with modification will give the appearance of "anticipation" even thouogh there was none. The molecular details of gene evolution betray this as an illusion. The "anticipation" of the observed pattern is simply produced by the fact that the pattern could and in fact did evolve. None of the patterns that could not evolve did so. How is this "anticipation" in any meaningful sense? Did the reptiles "anticipate" that birds would need feathers? Did the Artiodactyls "anticipate" that Cetaceans would need to become aquatic again? Did you anticipate that your argument would have absolutely no validity whatsoever?

Some people are just psychologically and possibly physiologically incapable of conceiving of a world without teleology. We are here, therefore we were meant to be here, therefore everything led to us being here. It's a rut they've worn in the floor of their minds my running it over and over and over. Sad, really.

OK Bobby, you explain it to me then. What pattern do you think would be predicted by the theory of evolution? What pattern do you think would be produced by descent with modification? What alternative do you propose? Who did the anticipating? If not God then who and why? What predictions can you make based on this idea? What is the ultimate goal of the entity doing the anticipating? How would this better explain the observed pattern? What point are you getting at if any? You just don't understand how evolution works do you?

David Stanton said: OK Bobby, you explain it to me then. What pattern do you think would be predicted by the theory of evolution? What pattern do you think would be produced by descent with modification? What alternative do you propose? Who did the anticipating? If not God then who and why? What predictions can you make based on this idea? What is the ultimate goal of the entity doing the anticipating? How would this better explain the observed pattern? What point are you getting at if any? You just don't understand how evolution works do you?

David Stanton said: OK Bobby, you explain it to me then. What pattern do you think would be predicted by the theory of evolution? What pattern do you think would be produced by descent with modification? What alternative do you propose? Who did the anticipating? If not God then who and why? What predictions can you make based on this idea? What is the ultimate goal of the entity doing the anticipating? How would this better explain the observed pattern? What point are you getting at if any? You just don't understand how evolution works do you?

David Stanton said: Bobby, No I don't. There is no problem here for evolutionary theory, none whatsoever. There was NO anticipation, none. All you have done is claim that there was, you have no evidence whatsoever, just wishful thinking. Now, are you also going to claim that the hox genes "anticipated" all of the different animal forms that would evolve? Are you going to claim that the fact that a gene in one organism is "closely related" to a gene in another organism is not evidence of common descent? Now exactly what is your explanation for the observed pattern? Why did God have to anticipate anything? Why did God make genes that are "closely related" if the organisms aren't related? Did God anticipate the need for humans to have wings and therefore give us the genes for wings? Are they homologous to the genes for bird wings? Can you demonstrate any genes for eye development that don't have any homology to any other genes? Seriously Bobby, any pattern that is produced by descent with modification will give the appearance of "anticipation" even thouogh there was none. The molecular details of gene evolution betray this as an illusion. The "anticipation" of the observed pattern is simply produced by the fact that the pattern could and in fact did evolve. None of the patterns that could not evolve did so. How is this "anticipation" in any meaningful sense? Did the reptiles "anticipate" that birds would need feathers? Did the Artiodactyls "anticipate" that Cetaceans would need to become aquatic again? Did you anticipate that your argument would have absolutely no validity whatsoever?

“How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?”

Bobby,

My questions to you were not rhetorical and you have failed to answer any of them. I asked you for an explanation and you said "just walk it through." From this response I conclude that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. If you are the only one who sees any problem here then I guess you won't convince anyone else of anything.

You have failed to demonstrate any problem for the modern theory of evolution, period. If you understand evolution so well, why did you fail to correctly determine the pattern that would be expected? Why do you think that historical contingency is not the correct answer to your supposedly rhetorical question?

Now as to your rhetorical nonsense, you quoted:

“How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?”

This implies that some anticipation was necessary. If you don't think that random and natural selection could successfully anticipate this, then what could and did? If no anticipation is necessary then you have no argument. You still haven't explained why you think that evolution cannot explain this or provided any alternative. Really, how do you expect to convince anyone if you won't even give a clue what you are talking about? If you don't think that these organisms evolved, please, tell us where you think they came from. You have already stated that most of evolutionary theory is correct.

You know I just have to ask: What do you posters do for a living? Are you college students? High school? Really is this whole website some sort of joke? I have not seen such childish behavior since junior high. It reminds me of the school yard game 'your mother wears combat boots'.

Some says simply they do not believe that Darwinism explains EVERYTHING and most of you go into a rabid dog mode.

Don't you see it. Just questioning Darwinism in the smallest is retaliated with insults, attacks and childish quips. Is this the way 'scientists' operate??

bobby said: You know I just have to ask: What do you posters do for a living? Are you college students? High school? Really is this whole website some sort of joke? I have not seen such childish behavior since junior high. It reminds me of the school yard game 'your mother wears combat boots'. Some says simply they do not believe that Darwinism explains EVERYTHING and most of you go into a rabid dog mode. Don't you see it. Just questioning Darwinism in the smallest is retaliated with insults, attacks and childish quips. Is this the way 'scientists' operate??

bobby said: Some says simply they do not believe that Darwinism explains EVERYTHING and most of you go into a rabid dog mode.

Bobby,

Nice explanation. I see your point now, I'm totally convinced. No need for you to ever post anything again. I mean it. Don't even bother.

"To come onto a science site spouting such ignorance is arrogant in the extreme"

And what 'ignorance' did I spout? I simpley said that Darwinism does not explain everything. And many here went ballistic.

Interesting that you compare this site to a construction site implying that disagreement will be met with violence.

And if you are teaching at Saginaw you really should be trying to make better study plans rather than wasting your time ranting here.

bobby said: "To come onto a science site spouting such ignorance is arrogant in the extreme" And what 'ignorance' did I spout? I simpley said that Darwinism does not explain everything. And many here went ballistic. Interesting that you compare this site to a construction site implying that disagreement will be met with violence.

You come in here babbling about "Darwinism" (a term which, as far as anyone can tell, refers to nothing more than some ill-defined pile of strawmen in your own hollow head),

..... the term is used by Dawkins, Gould and is in the literature

never clarifying what the hell you're talking about. You claim to have some amazing mathematical proof

... science does not 'prove' study harder

(of what you won't say) and declare everyone else unworthy of knowing the slightest detail of it.

.... I said I would walk it thru

You whine about how mean people are to you just for daring to suggest you might need to supply some tiny speck of evidence in support of your claims. Every post you make only serves to further illustrate your stupidity and dishonesty.

... I think you are completely dishonest, ignorant and stupid

Do you even have the slightest idea what the hell you're saying? Forget ignorance of science, you're completely ignorant of the meaning of your own words. Do you even speak English?

... You have to have extremely poor powers of observation if you think the language I am typing it not English (What a dummy!)

bobby said: You come in here babbling about "Darwinism" (a term which, as far as anyone can tell, refers to nothing more than some ill-defined pile of strawmen in your own hollow head), ..... the term is used by Dawkins, Gould and is in the literature

Henry J: “Darwinism” = “those parts of science that a given anti-evolutionist doesn’t accept”.

never clarifying what the hell you're talking about. You claim to have some amazing mathematical proof ... science does not 'prove' study harder

(of what you won't say) and declare everyone else unworthy of knowing the slightest detail of it. .... I said I would walk it thru

You whine about how mean people are to you just for daring to suggest you might need to supply some tiny speck of evidence in support of your claims. Every post you make only serves to further illustrate your stupidity and dishonesty. ... I think you are completely dishonest, ignorant and stupid

Do you even have the slightest idea what the hell you're saying? Forget ignorance of science, you're completely ignorant of the meaning of your own words. Do you even speak English? ... You have to have extremely poor powers of observation if you think the language I am typing it not English (What a dummy!)

You said you would walk it through, but you never actually DID, you never even started, you never even tried. What’s the first step? Put up or shut up.

Obviously YOU are an inveterate liar. And a slanderer.

bobby said: I understand the TOE very well.

But the evidence simply does not support all of it.

Of course most of it is valid.

bobby said:

David Stanton said: OK Bobby, you explain it to me then. What pattern do you think would be predicted by the theory of evolution? What pattern do you think would be produced by descent with modification? What alternative do you propose? Who did the anticipating? If not God then who and why? What predictions can you make based on this idea? What is the ultimate goal of the entity doing the anticipating? How would this better explain the observed pattern? What point are you getting at if any? You just don't understand how evolution works do you?

"" Who did the anticipating? "" When did I say anyone was 'anticipating'?? Do you have trouble reading??

bobby said: David Berlinski, with customary verve, noted "The ... group's more recent paper, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila" (Science 267, 1988) is among the most remarkable in the history of biology, demonstrating as it does that the ey gene is related closely to the equivalent eye gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and Nemerteans. This strongly suggests (the inference is almost irresistible) that ey function is universal (universal!) among multicellular organisms, the basic design of the eye having been their common property for over a half-billion years. The ey gene clearly is a master control mechanism, one capable of giving general instructions to very different organisms. No one in possession of these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory. "How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?" [r52] The mathematical answer is suggestive of an unambiguous interpretation.

D'oh! Now I've gone and muddled Stanton and David Stanton. Apologies to both of you. In my previous post, I should have said "David's questions".

The anticipating comment was meant to be rhetorical. Not a statement. I think you have trouble reading.

— Bobby the weasel, master weasel of Weaselville

If I said “How could a dog grow to 20 feet?” Is not a questioned that is supposed to have an answer. It is rhetorical really meaning: there is no way a dog could grow to 20 feet.

How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?

> Now go back and read those comments again and remember much of it is rhetorical.

— Bobby

( He must take everything completely literally. Maybe Aspergers?? )

bobby said: You know I just have to ask: What do you posters do for a living? Are you college students? High school? Really is this whole website some sort of joke? I have not seen such childish behavior since junior high. It reminds me of the school yard game 'your mother wears combat boots'. Some[one] says simply they do not believe that Darwinism explains EVERYTHING and most of you go into a rabid dog mode.

Don't you see it. Just questioning Darwinism in the smallest is retaliated with insults, attacks and childish quips. Is this the way 'scientists' operate??

bobby said: "To come onto a science site spouting such ignorance is arrogant in the extreme" And what 'ignorance' did I spout? I simpley said that Darwinism does not explain everything. And many here went ballistic. Interesting that you compare this site to a construction site implying that disagreement will be met with violence.

Nigel D said:

bobby said:

David Stanton said: OK Bobby, you explain it to me then. What pattern do you think would be predicted by the theory of evolution? What pattern do you think would be produced by descent with modification? What alternative do you propose? Who did the anticipating? If not God then who and why? What predictions can you make based on this idea? What is the ultimate goal of the entity doing the anticipating? How would this better explain the observed pattern? What point are you getting at if any? You just don't understand how evolution works do you?

"" Who did the anticipating? "" When did I say anyone was 'anticipating'?? Do you have trouble reading??

bobby said: David Berlinski, with customary verve, noted "The ... group's more recent paper, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila" (Science 267, 1988) is among the most remarkable in the history of biology, demonstrating as it does that the ey gene is related closely to the equivalent eye gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and Nemerteans. This strongly suggests (the inference is almost irresistible) that ey function is universal (universal!) among multicellular organisms, the basic design of the eye having been their common property for over a half-billion years. The ey gene clearly is a master control mechanism, one capable of giving general instructions to very different organisms. No one in possession of these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory. "How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?" [r52] The mathematical answer is suggestive of an unambiguous interpretation.

The emboldened word, Bobby, is where you mentioned anticipation. Now stop weaselling around and answer Stanton's questions. Oh, and, before you get to the word games again, try interpreting that particular question as "who or what did the anticipating?".

Nigel D said:

bobby said: You know I just have to ask: What do you posters do for a living? Are you college students? High school? Really is this whole website some sort of joke? I have not seen such childish behavior since junior high. It reminds me of the school yard game 'your mother wears combat boots'. Some[one] says simply they do not believe that Darwinism explains EVERYTHING and most of you go into a rabid dog mode.

Bobby, now you are whining that we have asked you to back up your assertions, which is the childish behaviour of which you accuse us. This is a site for discussion of science. If you question or disagree with the conclusions of mainstream modern science, that is your prerogative. However, if you are going to make (and repeat, several times) an assertion about those conclusions, you should expect to be asked to justify your disagreement. Any scientist would expect no different treatment. In science, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are of equal value. At the end of the day, opinions can be crudely subdivided into "correct" and "wrong". What you have done is claimed that the consensus of experts in modern evolutionary theory are, at least in part, wrong. You have then failed to justify your disagreement. It is this failure to justify your comments that has raised some vehemence in other commenters.

Don't you see it. Just questioning Darwinism in the smallest is retaliated with insults, attacks and childish quips. Is this the way 'scientists' operate??

You have not been insulted. Where you have been ignorant or foolish, this has been pointed out in no uncertain terms, but these are not personal attacks. These are attacks on your comments, and your failure to put forth a coherent argument to support your claims. You have shown significant disrespect for the decades of effort that scientists have put in to reach our present unsderstanding of biology. You must justify this, or retract your comments. So, stop weaselling around and and answer David's questions.

bobby said: You come in here babbling about "Darwinism" (a term which, as far as anyone can tell, refers to nothing more than some ill-defined pile of strawmen in your own hollow head), ..... the term is used by Dawkins, Gould and is in the literature

never clarifying what the hell you're talking about. You claim to have some amazing mathematical proof ... science does not 'prove' study harder

The mathematical answer is suggestive of an unambiguous interpretation.

— Bobby

(of what you won't say) and declare everyone else unworthy of knowing the slightest detail of it. .... I said I would walk it thru

You whine about how mean people are to you just for daring to suggest you might need to supply some tiny speck of evidence in support of your claims. Every post you make only serves to further illustrate your stupidity and dishonesty. ... I think you are completely dishonest, ignorant and stupid

Do you even have the slightest idea what the hell you're saying? Forget ignorance of science, you're completely ignorant of the meaning of your own words. Do you even speak English? ... You have to have extremely poor powers of observation if you think the language I am typing it not English (What a dummy!)

bobby said: Obviously YOU are an inveterate liar. And a slanderer.

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

bobby said: David Berlinski, with customary verve, noted "The ... group's more recent paper, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila" (Science 267, 1988) is among the most remarkable in the history of biology, demonstrating as it does that the ey gene is related closely to the equivalent eye gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and Nemerteans. This strongly suggests (the inference is almost irresistible) that ey function is universal (universal!) among multicellular organisms, the basic design of the eye having been their common property for over a half-billion years. The ey gene clearly is a master control mechanism, one capable of giving general instructions to very different organisms. No one in possession of these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory. "How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms?" [r52] The mathematical answer is suggestive of an unambiguous interpretation.

The emboldened word, Bobby, is where you mentioned anticipation. Now stop weaselling around and answer Stanton's questions. Oh, and, before you get to the word games again, try interpreting that particular question as "who or what did the anticipating?".

Your ignorance and poor readings skills are showing: That was a quote from Belinski. Please stop the lying.

How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and controlling its expression in widely different organisms

bobby said: Please stop the lying.

Nigel D said:

bobby said: Please stop the lying.

Bobby, if I could prevent you from posting, I could stop the lying. Alas that I cannot.

Your behaviour here has been abysmal.

— Bobby

Your comments are ignorant and willfully so. You comments show little understanding of science.

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

bobby said: Please stop the lying.

Bobby, if I could prevent you from posting, I could stop the lying. Alas that I cannot.

Again poor reading comprehension: Please stop YOUR lying. That you can control ( or can you)? Is it pathological with you?

bobby said: And what 'ignorance' did I spout? I simpley said that Darwinism does not explain everything. And many here went ballistic.

"" And I know a great deal about biochemistry. My first degree was in biochemistry and chemistry, and my PhD was in biochemistry. I work in the biopharmaceuticals industry. So, no, I am not ignorant about the science ""

Right. Excuse me while I dust off my Nobel Prize. You have shown little professionalism and knowledge or even decent logic.

You have a hard time following the most basic logical arguments.

bobby said: You said you would walk it through, but you never actually DID, you never even started, you never even tried. What’s the first step? Put up or shut up. Obviously YOU are an inveterate liar. And a slanderer.

"" Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did, ""

Then why can't the areas that it does not explain be discussed?

So you agree there are 'holes' in the theory? And you think 'dogpiling' is ethical? or productive? Isn't dogpiling bullying?

Is this behavior of telling people they have Neanderthal skulls and 'dogpiling' typical of 'scientists'?

bobby whined: "" Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did, "" Then why can't the areas that it does not explain be discussed?

bobby whined: So you agree there are 'holes' in the theory?

bobby whined: And you think 'dogpiling' is ethical? or productive? Isn't dogpiling bullying? Is this behavior of telling people they have Neanderthal skulls and 'dogpiling' typical of 'scientists'?

bobby said: "" Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did, "" Then why can't the areas that it does not explain be discussed? So you agree there are 'holes' in the theory? And you think 'dogpiling' is ethical? or productive? Isn't dogpiling bullying? Is this behavior of telling people they have Neanderthal skulls and 'dogpiling' typical of 'scientists'?

phantomreader42 said:

bobby whined: "" Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did, "" Then why can't the areas that it does not explain be discussed?

Because you won't say what areas those are, and you won't offer the slightest shred of evidence. Because you refuse to actually attempt to discuss them, you'd rather whine about imaginary persecution. Seriously, nothing is stopping you from discussing these things you keep whining about except your own stupidity. What, in your mind, is "Darwinism"? What does it not explain? How do you know this? Are you physically capable of explaining what the hell you're talking about? If so, do it. If not, go away and stop making a nuisance of yourself.

bobby whined: So you agree there are 'holes' in the theory?

What holes? YOU'RE the one claiming there are "holes", but you won't say what you're talking about. So, what holes do you mean, and where is your evidence? Because you haven't even come close to offering any.

bobby whined: And you think 'dogpiling' is ethical? or productive? Isn't dogpiling bullying? Is this behavior of telling people they have Neanderthal skulls and 'dogpiling' typical of 'scientists'?

Shorter bobby: WAAAAAAAHHH!111!! Mommy, they're being mean to me!!11! If you're tired of having so many people asking you for evidence, there's a simple solution: Show your evidence. Why don't you? The obvious explanation is that you can't, because you don't have any. This has been pointed out repeatedly. This is why people think you're a liar, because you claimed to have evidence you didn't have. If you'd like people to reevaluate this, there's a simple solution: Show your evidence. That seems to be the one thing you can't do. Why? And if you're going to keep saying stupid things, people are going to call you stupid. It's just a fact of life. If you don't want to be called stupid, then stop acting stupid and show your evidence. But we all know you don't have any.

bobby whined: "" Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did, "" Then why can't the areas that it does not explain be discussed?

bobby whined: So you agree there are 'holes' in the theory?

bobby whined: And you think 'dogpiling' is ethical? or productive? Isn't dogpiling bullying? Is this behavior of telling people they have Neanderthal skulls and 'dogpiling' typical of 'scientists'?

Stanton said: You said you were able to "mathematically disprove "Darwinism"" So either demonstrate how to do this, or be subjected to our ire.

bobby said: "" Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did, "" Then why can't the areas that it does not explain be discussed? So you agree there are 'holes' in the theory? And you think 'dogpiling' is ethical? or productive? Isn't dogpiling bullying? Is this behavior of telling people they have Neanderthal skulls and 'dogpiling' typical of 'scientists'?

""" Shorter bobby: WAAAAAAAHHH!111!! Mommy, they're being mean to me!!11! """

What a childish display! Worthy of any spoiled Junior High bully. Bravo!

"""" I'm not making this up, this moron is actually posting over in the "More expelled news" thread, defending overheatin' keaton. As if we needed more evidence he was totally batshit fucking insane. """

Who is 'shitting on the chess board'?? I think your language shows how intellectually sophisticated you are.

scienceavenger said: Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did,

For example, "Darwinism" doesn't explain why ice cream has no bones. You need a completely new theory to explain that one.

bobby said: So tell us what it does not explain, please.

bobby said:

scienceavenger said: Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did,

So tell us what it does not explain, please.

phantomreader42 said:

bobby said:

scienceavenger said: Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did,

So tell us what it does not explain, please.

Why don't you? Oh, yeah, you're a worthless, brain-dead troll. That explains it. You're the nutcase who came in here whining about how there's some vast conspiracy to stop you from questioning "Darwinism". But for some reason, this nefarious organization that exists only in your hallucinations hasn't made any move to stop you. After all these useless posts you've made, no one has had you locked up or killed, you haven't even been banned from the site yet. But you still haven't been able to offer the tiniest, most microscopic speck of evidence to support anything you've said, nor have you been able to so much as define your terms. So what, aside from your own idiocy, is stopping you from making some actual substantive criticism of this "Darwinism" that you so hate?

bobby said:

phantomreader42 said:

bobby said:

scienceavenger said: Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did,

So tell us what it does not explain, please.

Why don't you? Oh, yeah, you're a worthless, brain-dead troll. That explains it. You're the nutcase who came in here whining about how there's some vast conspiracy to stop you from questioning "Darwinism". But for some reason, this nefarious organization that exists only in your hallucinations hasn't made any move to stop you. After all these useless posts you've made, no one has had you locked up or killed, you haven't even been banned from the site yet. But you still haven't been able to offer the tiniest, most microscopic speck of evidence to support anything you've said, nor have you been able to so much as define your terms. So what, aside from your own idiocy, is stopping you from making some actual substantive criticism of this "Darwinism" that you so hate?

You are the one that is sounding hateful. I simply stated that Darwinism does not adequately explain how humans came from bacteria. Then I was 'dogpiled'. Then posters agreed it did not explain everthing in this realm. And now I am simply asking what posters here thing Darwinism does not explain as far as evolution/origins goes. Or do posters here think Darwinism explains everything completeley adequately.

You are the one that is sounding hateful. I simply stated that Darwinism does not adequately explain how humans came from bacteria. Then I was ‘dogpiled’. Then posters agreed it did not explain everthing in this realm. And now I am simply asking what posters here thing Darwinism does not explain as far as evolution/origins goes. Or do posters here think Darwinism explains everything completeley adequately.

bobby said: "" Again, that’s because “Darwinism” clearly doesn’t explain everything, no one ever said it did, "" Then why can't the areas that it does not explain be discussed?

phantomreader42 said: Shorter bobby: You do my homework for me, I'm too lazy! You've never even tried to explain what the hell you mean by "Darwinism", a term that trolls such as yourself constantly equivocate about.

And why, in all the time you've spent whining here, have you never even attempted to answer a single one of these questions?

Then why can’t the areas that it does not explain be discussed?

“What, in your mind, is “Darwinism”? What does it fail explain, that you think people are claiming it does? How do you know this? What, if anything, is your alternate explanation? What evidence do you have for that explanation? How would you test that explanation?”

No, no. There is me and about 6 other posters. Again the dogpiling (bullying).

OK instead of using the term Darwinism I will use the term General Evolutionary Theory. To me the terms are very close. But OK lets go with GET.

So:

Does GET explain everything as far as the bacteria to man progression adequately??

bobby said: Does GET explain everything as far as the bacteria to man progression adequately??

bobby said: “What, in your mind, is “Darwinism”? What does it fail explain, that you think people are claiming it does? How do you know this? What, if anything, is your alternate explanation? What evidence do you have for that explanation? How would you test that explanation?”

OK instead of using the term Darwinism I will use the term General Evolutionary Theory. To me the terms are very close. But OK lets go with GET. So: Does GET explain everything as far as the bacteria to man progression adequately??

Now I also have a question for Bobby. If evolutionary theory cannot yet sufficiently explain a particular feature, should we call our ignorance what it is or should we call it 'design' as ID creationists insist we do, where 'design' has little to do with what a layperson may consider it to be?

bobby said: “What, in your mind, is “Darwinism”? What does it fail explain, that you think people are claiming it does? How do you know this? What, if anything, is your alternate explanation? What evidence do you have for that explanation? How would you test that explanation?” No, no. There is me and about 6 other posters. Again the dogpiling (bullying).

more bobby bullshit: OK instead of using the term Darwinism I will use the term General Evolutionary Theory. To me the terms are very close. But OK lets go with GET.