EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

We can't *know* for certain how the flatfish evolved, but we can speculate based upon our understanding of evolutionary processes combined with physiological, developmental and embryological evidence.The mere outward appearance of the flatfish by itself strongly suggests that it is actually a narrow fish that used to swim upright. Its tail is sideways compared to other fish, and the asymmetry in the positioning of its eyes just screams out that one of the eyes is out of place.The flatfish also does not have the same bilateral symmetry possessed by all other vertebrae, at least not until you rotate it ninety degrees from its normal orientation. Physiologically the arteries and veins for the misplaced eye indicate it was originally on the bottom side of the flatfish, and observing it during embryological and early development reveals that that eye begins in the normal position on the bottom of the fish and gradually moves toward its eventual position on the top.Physiologically, the mouth in many species of flatfish is twisted to be more closely aligned with its rotated orientation.Also physiologically, the fins of the flatfish are asymmetric right to left. Those on one side are obviously the dorsal fins that are normally on the top of a fish, those on the other side obviously the pelvic fins that normally appear on the bottom of a fish.So the evidence tells us that this was once a fish that when swimming was oriented vertically, but experienced changes that allow it to swim horizontally, often hugging the sea floor.How could this have happened in an evolutionary context?First, there was no first mutation. Species evolve as populations of many individuals. While it is individuals that experience specific mutations, any beneficial mutations quickly spread through the popultion.As with all species on earth, each new generation of flatfish received an infusion of new mutations upon which natural selection could operate. Something in the flatfish environment encouraged changing it's orientation. Perhaps it lived in waters that gradually become more and more shallow. Or perhaps something in its environment forced it into shallower waters, perhaps predators or algal blooms. Or perhaps a food source that it could prey upon while upright become less available or went extinct, forcing the flatfish to find other prey that happened to reside on the sea bottom. Or perhaps the ability to flatten itself against the sea bottom made it less visible to predators. Most likely it was a combination of factors.But regardless of the specifics of the environment of the evolutionary predecessors of flatfish, something about it strongly encouraged rotating their standard orientation by ninety degrees. Any mutation that increased the probability of survival would have been strongly selected for, including have both eyes on top. Even having the bottom eye just a little bit more toward the top side would have been selected for. The nearer the top the less likely it would be to become injured or damaged against the sea bottom, and the better the eye could be used in conjunction with the top eye. As long as this selection pressure was present, mutations encouraging the eye to move more and more toward the top would be strongly selected for.--Percy

It seems there is more recently discovered to show some of the flatfish evolution.

quote:

---

The two fossils "deliver the first clear picture of flatfish origins, a hotly contested issue in debates on the mode and tempo of evolution," said Friedman.

​

There can no longer be any doubt, he said in a statement: "The evolution of the profound cranial asymmetry of extant flatfishes was gradual in nature."

---

from: http://dsc.discovery.com/...08/07/10/flatfish-evolution.htmlAnd here is a discussion on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JFFHxkTY8

Good stuff. I had no idea that there was ever any doubt about the gradual evolution of flatfish. I thought that the idea of sudden jumps in evolution had gone extinct along with Goldschmidt's hopeful monster.It seems obvious that it is a serious advantage (and a strong selection pressure) to have both eyes on top (even if one is only part way around) instead of one buried in the sand, even without knowing all the advantages enumerated by Friedman.--Percy

It still is not unique as I said earlier, there are different genera of flatfish. to be unique there would have to be only one species of flatfish.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I thought I wasn't going to post but Percy is a moderator so I guess it is fine to post again here. How very interesting.I believe the flatfish design is good for evading certain types of predators. I have swam over flatfish before and I accidentally put my hand on one. Its camouflage was very good over the particular shade of sand. It darted off almost like a bullitt and I was barely able to see what it was. The camouflage probably helps it fool its prey too.I believe there are 500 species of flatfish and some have body designs that are mirror images of others. In other words, I believe some have jaws that face the opposite way.An ID perspective: Once at least two flatfish were designed by a series of mutations, natural selection and evolution could take over and evolve from the new design. "The Edge of Evolution" by Mike Behe stated that new genera were within that zone (among with families and classes, I think?) of the tentative edge of Darwinian evolution. Any thing above what I think is the neutral zone of the edge, (such as new phyla) would call for multiple coherent mutations. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You do realize that the Declaration of Independence is not a US document, don't you. It has no standing in US jurisprudence. The USA was not founded until the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. Using your logic anything in the Articles of Confederation should be accepted now also. Nowhere does any US founding document mention anything about any god giving any rights. I always warn people about using words like "most". I venture to guess "most" americans don't have an idea what ID even is. If you are going to use "most" you need to back it up with legitimate evidence.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Come on cough up the source. Oh was it a chain email with Democratic quotes? Gee, did you even research any of them? They are all misquotes or impossible to find an original source. Sort of sounds like ID doesn't it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

If you want to debate politics, why not go to a political debate forum? It is not hard to find one on the net.

More than interesting, it's fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Each generation of all populations brings an infusion of new mutations upon which natural selection will operate. This is why evolution is gradual, because natural selection is operating on very tiny changes from the previous generation.Larger and more significant mutations are possible, but consider an analogy to changing your position in space. If some transporter were to suddenly change your position by just a few feet in a random direction, what are the odds that it would be fatal? If you rematerialize in one direction you're fine, in another direction you're in the middle of a wall or floor or piece of furniture and die. This is analogous to simple mutations. The odds of bettering your position are not large, but it's not impossible.But what if you were suddenly transported a few miles in a random direction. The likelihood of rematerializing safely is vanishingly small. The most likely places to rematerialize would be beneath the earth, which is instant death, or somewhere in the air with at most a couple minutes before falling to earth at great speed and dying. Rematerializing above ground level by no more than a couple dozen feet and not within a tree or bridge or office building is very unlikely. This is analogous to large mutational jumps because the odds of producing a viable creature are just as extremely tiny. It's not impossible, but no one's expecting it. The problem with Behe's view is that evolution isn't thought to operate through sudden jumps. The reason sudden jumps aren't part of the evolutionary consensus is that we never see it happen in animals, and there doesn't seem to be an effective mechanism for it. For example, genetic accidents sometimes cause animals to be born with two heads or two vertebrate or two sets of legs, but they can only survive with assistance.And if you refer back to NosyNed's Message 347 about flatfish you'll see he references recently uncovered paleontological evidence that I was unaware of that is also completely at odds with Behe's ideas.So let's explore what evidence for ID might look like. Certainly sudden appearance in the fossil record is evidence for the jumps in evolution that one might expect if there were a designer making wholesale genetic changes from time to time, and there are tons of examples of sudden appearance. But working against this interpretation is the fact that the whole history of paleontology is full of the discoveries of new fossils intermediate between known fossils, and the more paleontologists look the more they find. Also working against this are some examples of exceedingly fine graduated change, such as certain types of shellfish found in Chesapeake Bay.To counter this evidence of gradual change IDists offer two arguments. One is that fossilization is common and that therefore most of the gaps in the fossil record are genuine gaps that will never be filled in. Given that one can walk through any forest without tripping over bones left and right, this argument isn't very convincing, and I'm not aware of this argument ever being offered in a scientific paper. This argument is specifically focused on a general public who is unqualified to judge.The other argument is that the transitional fossils are not really transitional. Common examples are Tiktaalik and Archeopteryx where IDists argue that it's just a fish or or just a bird. As before, IDists do not offer this argument in scientific circles, again reserving it for use on the scientifically naive public.Actual observational evidence of evolutionary jumps would be enormously helpful to ID, but at least in animals these have never been observed to provide viable creatures. Duplicated chromosomes are very large and significant mutations, but they cause only serious birth defects. Down's syndrome is an example. It's not impossible that it could happen, but it would be such a rare event that it could not possibly be a significant contributor to evolution.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.

Your quote from Message 265
Your original quote from Message 263
You sir, are the one that brought politics into this. Also, if you look into what this thread is really about it is about the movie Expelled and the attack on science. That sir is politics. You reference a lame unattributable quote after you make a lame argument
about the Declaration of Independence and then, when you are called on them you accuse me of misrepresenting the argument? How dare you. Lets get on topic and how about you provide the source for the quote. Or at least admit you have no source other than some email you received.Fair enough??

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Somehow that analogy between comparing unfortunate genetic accidents (extra sets of body parts) and building fundamentally new irreducibly complex systems seems to be quite a stretch. (Remember, if the TTSS devolved from the flagellum, then I am back to square one.) You would have to persuade me much more than simply using that analogy. Not that I am asking you to do so because this would be a tall order requiring some detailed genetic references. You haven't read my ID counter to the evidence. With shellfish, you can have a series of what appears to be changes but there could be problems with this. It doesn't factor any possible ecophenotypic variations that can effect the development of structures of shellfish. Some seashells in one particular ecological habitat could turn out to look a little bit different in another. Actually, I have seen drawings of the fins of tetrapods and Tiktaalik's fin doesn't persuade me. I realize it fits within the evolutionary time sequence.I have read different views of archeopteryx (not in ID books) but in evolution books. "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, says its a reptile and a fancy book (forget the name) on prehistoric birds and precursors of birds says that archeopteryx is a true bird. What is the matter here?I just wanted you to know that my message mood between you and I is still cool. I see that you sincerely believe in your views. You are of course entitled to believe in them.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You sound like a little kid pointing a finger at me.I bought it here because I was revealing one of my motives behind believing what I believe. Another motive is simply because biology from an ID perspective fascinates me. Another motive is to help myself further develop my rational thinking abilities. When someone counters my debate, I can analyze where I could be wrong. (I want people to come after me. I will now apologize to some of you ahead of time for being a smart ass.) Developing my rational thinking skills will hopefully help me become a better trader.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This is one of the things that creationists just can't seem to grasp.Archaeopterx is a transitional! It shares traits with critters on both sides of that transition. Different scientists may have different ideas of how those traits should be evaluated and weighed, leading some to classify it differently than others. That doesn't change a thing, nor does that discredit the fossil--as much as creationists would like to do so.See the following:

quote:

---

Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds. Archae's avian affinities are allowable on the strength of the following 4 main characters:

​

...

​

It can be seen that Archae possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archae is a true transitional species, because it shares some characters which are diagnostic of one group whilst still retaining characters diagnostic of its ancestral group. Anyone who claims that Archae is 100% bird is wrong. Anyone who claims that Archae's skeleton is even predominantly bird- like is wrong. Anyone who claims Archae has a "totally birdlike" skull is wrong.

​

(see the rest of this long and detailed article for the particulars)

​

All About Archaeopteryx

---

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The "matter" is that archeopteryx is a transitional fossil. As such, it has characteristics of both birds and reptiles. As a result, a compelling argument can be made that it is either. This is exactly what we see.What else would you call an animal that has some characteristics of a reptile and some of a bird? What do you think a transitional fossil is going to look like?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You requested I go to another forum because you did not like the fact that I don't accept your prattle blindly. I was simply pointing out that I was responding to a line of discusssion you brought up. If you do not like the responses that is your problem not mine.So therefore, I assume you are not going to address any of the false arguments and false quotes you posted. You do not like being called out that you are making lame arguments and lies, so you resort to personal attacks.This is your typical MO. I would like you to at least try to address my rebuttals to your arguments. Do you accept that fact that your reference the Declaration of Independence to support ID was not a very sound argument, and are you going to provide your source for the Nancy Pelosi quote.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts