Does complexity require intelligent design?

quote:

---

And a whole lota other stuff had to happen which neither of us mentioned, like there had to be light and heat energy, et al. I simply mentioned one. Why not get over nitpicking?

---

Buz, do you acknowledge that random mutation PLUS natural selection results in changes in the allele frequencies of populations over time?...or at least, do you recognize that this is what Evolutionary theory states?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-17-2005 02:25 AM

quote:

---

Why are there so many differently shaped eyes on the different species when they perform basically the same function?

---

There have been many different evolutionary paths to the same basic evolutionary advantage.Evolution uses the materials on hand to create "good enough", ad hoc design to best adapt the species to it's environment....or, the environment changes too rapidly and the species cannot adapt, and it goes extinct.

So, is your point that the various eyes we see in nature eyes are all too similar to have evolved or all too different to have evolved?

quote:

---

when Darwin speculated that just the human eye was hard to envision forming by random evolution,

---

Let's look at exactly what Darwin said, shall we? I have highlighted certain portions for emphasis.From the Origin of Species:The Origin of Species: Chapter 6 Here, Darwin admits that when contemplating the feasability of the evolution of the eye, it seems crazy.But then he goes on to say: He is basically saying that even though it seems absurd to think that something as complex as an eye evolved, when he looks at all of the evidence, the difficulty in believing disappears.edited by AdminJar to close a quote.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-17-2005 08:05 AM

Excellent post.Anyone wanna bet that buzsaw either:1) Won't reply at all?2) Will reply but complain of some kind of unreasonable treatment?3) Will reply but say that what he has said in this thread wasn't what he meant?

quote:

---

Hi Mick, the platypus as you probably know is one of the two mammals that lay eggs, not resembling the other monotremes in any other significant way.

---

What do you mean when you say that the platypus doesn't resemble the echidna in "any other significant way"?

quote:

---

The interesting evolutionary conundrum is that the oldest monotreme fossils are almost identical to the living monotremes.

---

This is not a problem for evolution.There are several modern species which are virtually unchanged and very similar in form to their fossil ancestors, such as sharks, many crocodilians, and horseshoe crabs.You see, evolution does not claim that a species must change in any significant way. If their environment remains stable for a very long time, the prediction of the theory is that we would not see any significant change.

quote:

---

There is nothing even close to them in the fossil record, so that evolutionists cannot claim that they evolved from some other animal.

---

Nobody claims that every single species is going to have a complete fossil record, and this is a very unreasonable requirement of the theory.However, there is a fossil record of the ancestors of momotremes that are similar, but quite different, such as giant echidnas, and platypus the size of a cat.Here's a link:Fossil Record of the Monotremata

quote:

---

Any similarities in physical structure are usually grounds for evolutionists to see common ancestry, even going so far as to claim that whales are evolved from a wolf, based on the shape of a tiny bone in the wolf's ear.

---

You have your information REALLY wrong here.Whales are not descended from wolves.Whales are most likely descended from Artiodactyla (the mammalian order including cows, deer, hippos, etc.).And the claim is not based on "the shape of a tiny bone in the wolf's ear". It's based upon one of the best series of transitional fossils out there, which contains many, many more bones than just the one you mention. I have walked right down the street and seen them for myself because one of the country's leading whale evolution researchers, Philip D. Gingerich, is based here at the U of Michigan and there is a really great exhibit at the university natural history museum.Methinks you have very biased, rather out of date information. That's the great thing about science; it keeps changing and improving as research continues. Check out Gingerich's site on his research:Philip D. Gingerich

quote:

---

Also the platypus exhibits features not found in combination on on any other animal. The bill that senses prey by detecting small electical currents. Spurs on hind legs that can inject venom into a predator. Underwater it stores food in cheek pouches until it surfaces, then sorts it out. The young live on milk provided by the mother, but she does not have nipples.

---

But, every animal species exhibits features not found in combination on any other animal.Elephants are the only animals with trunks, and pandas are the only animal which has a modified wrist bone specialized for stripping leaves from bamboo.There is great diversity in the animal kingdom.So what? This would seem to be a prediction of evolution, not a falsification.

quote:

---

Another interesting species that I believe demonstrates the fallacy of evolutionary theory is the arctic flounder, but I don't have time to go into that right now.

---

I did a search on "arctic flounder evolution" and I found this paper third in the list.It answers your yet-unasked question of how the "antifreeze" in this fish evolved.NCBI

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure about the ear part.

---

Wha???WHY are you "pretty sure about the ear part?"Where are you getting your information from? I got mine from the actual fossils themselves, which I have seen with my very own eyes. I have also gotten lots of information from one of the country's leading whale evolutionary researchers, Dr. Philip Gingerich.You are completely utterly, wrong about the ear part, and if you had bothered to read the link I provided to Gingerich's site, you wouldn't be looking quite as foolish as you are currently looking.

quote:

---

Since there is nothing near a complete fossil record for the whale, regardless of how many artist's renditions there were, the shape of the bones in the ear is the connection to the ungulate.

---

Wha???Did you look at the site that showed the ankle bones?Did I mention that I have seen several of the transitional fossil skeletons which are close to 100% complete with my very own eyes?

quote:

---

I didn't have a question about the antifreeze in the flounder. I may be predictable about some things, but give me a break, I've never mentioned the flounder prior to that. I would like to discuss the movement of the eye from one side of the head to the other sometime,

---

This smells a bit fishy, I'm afraid. (pun intended)If you just wanted to discuss the movement of the eye of the flounder, then why specify the arctic flounder, since all flounder have both eyes on one side, not just the arctic flounder?I think I was quite accurate in my prediction that you were going to bring up the "impossibility" of an evolutionary origin for the arctic flounder's "antifreeze".This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-19-2005 08:00 PM

I noticed tht you did not address this part of my post, but I think it a vital part of your misunderstanding of what the Theory of Evolution states, so I am repeating it here so it doesn't get overlooked.

quote:

---

The interesting evolutionary conundrum is that the oldest monotreme fossils are almost identical to the living monotremes.

---

So, do you now understand that evolution does NOT require significant change, and that change is driven by environmental pressure, such that if there was a relatively stable, unchanging environment a species within that environment and well-adapted to it would not change significantly?

quote:

---

1 I do not concede that no eye is "perfect". It seems as if the intended argument here is that we are still evolving to some higher form of life.

---

No, the intended argument is that each feature of every species is "good enough", not perfect.

quote:

---

I maintain that each eye is perfectly suited for the required usage.

---

What if I require seeing something several miles away?I have to use a telescope to do that, because my eyes aren't good enough.

quote:

---

I have seen individuals argue about the imperfection of the human eye, yet it seems a marvelous instrument to me.

---

It is marvelous, but that doesn't make it perfect.

quote:

---

Binocular vision for estimating distances;

---

Yeah, but we can't look at two things at once like a chameleon can.

quote:

---

immediate automatic focus from 3inches to infinity;

---

Yeah, except that that focus wears out or is wrong in some people from birth, so many of us need corrective extra lenses to see well enough to not bump into things.

quote:

---

auto tracking on high and low speed objects;

---

Yeah, but we can't track a fish underwater from a thousand yards up, like an eagle can.

quote:

---

full color spectrum and black and white;

---

Except that we don't see the full color spectrum; we don't see ultraviolet the way bees can.

quote:

---

extreme low light functionality;

---

Except that many of us have "night blindness", and even the best of us don't see anywhere near as good as cats do in near pitch darkness. Why don't you try to catch a mouse or a spider in the dark?

quote:

---

automatic clean and wipe functions;

---

Yeah, except that crocodiles have a transparent eyelid that protects their eye when they swim; humans have to put on goggles to do that.

quote:

---

automatic cover for protection when not in use;

---

Yeah, except if you get a tiny piece of dirt or sand or even an eyelash up under your eyelid and you do what comes naturally (rub your eye) , it will scratch up your cornea and lead to days of discomfort, and possibly an ulceration.

quote:

---

and self repairing for minor damage.

---

Yeah, except that some kinds of amphibians, when young, can actually grow new eyes when they are injured. Wouldn't that be nice to be able to do that? But we can't as humans.

quote:

---

The eyes of birds have different capabilities, and I have seen a bald eagle suddenly take flight from a tree overlooking a bay, fly approximately 1/4 mile and pluck a fish about 12 inches in length from below the surface of the water.

---

Yep. that is amazing, isn't it? Too bad they can't regenerate their eyes if they are injured, eh?Edited to fix spellingThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2005 12:51 PM

quote:

---

The law of cause and effect is based on observation. There was no one around to observe either the beginning of the universe or evolution.

---

Irrelevant."Observation" in science doesn't have to mean "somebody saw an event with their own eyes". It often means "observed the evidence left behind by an event". This is called "inference" and is what most of science is based upon.Nobody has ever directly observed the existence of electrons, for example, but we have inferred their existence with experiments and instruments.Also, we actually have and do directly observe evolution happening every day, both in the lab and in the field.Are you absolutely SURE you were familiar with the evidence for evolution before you rejected it? Cause you seem to be making an awful lot of typical mistakes regarding the scientific method and Evolution that we have commonly seen in people who have no knowledge of either subject.

quote:

---

What is scientifically wrong with postulating the existence of an unknown thing?

---

Postulating is fine, but what parameters are you setting for the abilities or effects of this unknown thing? What result could ever occur or evidence be found which would falsify your hypothesis?If you say that no event or condition or evidence, if found, would ever cast any doubt whatsoever that your unknown, unseen entity exists, then it is unscientific. It explains everything, so explains nothing.

quote:

---

Of course it's impossible to "prove" an event that we didn't witness, and is not repeatable,

---

Of course we can, and it's done every day in science. It's that thing called "inference" I mentioned before.The thing scientists rely on is evidence. Events leave evidence that can be observed.

quote:

---

but we can speculate as to the probabilities and or mechanisms that may have caused it.

---

...and that is exactly what scientists do, and they also infer the causes and mechanisms from evidence left behind by the event.

quote:

---

The fact is that you don't require that. The human race has apparently been successful.

---

Then why did people invent binoculars and telescopes if they didn't need to see something several miles away?Apparently, you completely missed my point.The human eye is a wonderous thing, but it is not perfect as you said it was.If it was, we wouldn't have to use telescopes, binoculars, goggles, corrective glasses, and corneal transplants to improve or fix what was lacking in human eye design, now would we?The human evolutionary advantage has always been to be the great generalists and problem solvers. We use technology and the ability to pass on complicated learned information to future generations to make up for physical mediocrity compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.Just to be clear, the following was the main point from my last post:

quote:

---

1 I do not concede that no eye is "perfect". It seems as if the intended argument here is that we are still evolving to some higher form of life.

---

Do you concede that the human eye is "good enough" rather than perfect?

quote:

---

Here's some things I think are accurate.

​

1 Nothing Darwin predicted would be found in the fossil record was.

---

False.Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence.However, Darwin doesn't really write that much about fossils. He deals with things like inheritance, variation, artificial and natural selection, and why we see the distribution of species around the world (biogeography).So, what do you mean? Which specific predictions of the fossil record are you talking about?

quote:

---

2 The cambrian explosion exploded the myth of evolution and scientists have been trying to patch it back together.

---

False. Creationist Claim CC300

quote:

---

3 There is not one uninterrupted record of evolution from one order to another. There are large gaps in every "line."

---

What do you mean by "uninterrupted"?Do you require every single generation to have been fossilized?Similarly, if we do not have a complete geneology of your family all the way back to Adam and Eve, does this mean that it isn't possible that you exist, or because you can't show me evidence that your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great granfather existed, it means that you didn't have one?

quote:

---

4 Current theory that beneficial mutations are the mechanism of change ignore the fact that beneficial mutations are extremely rare, far outnumbered by harmful ones.

---

False. We fully understand that beneficial mutations are rare. However, most mutations are neutral WRT fitness, and some are harmful.Additionally, mutations alone are not the mechanism of change. Mutation PLUS selection is the mechanism of change. It is CRUCIAL to never, ever forget that they work hand in hand to drive evolution.Are you SURE you understood Evolutionary Theory before you rejected it?Please answer the following questions:1) If an offspring has a harmful mutation that is fatal, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on the harmful mutation?2) If an offspring has a less harmful, but still somewhat harmful, mutation that makes it sickly or weak in some way or unable to mate successfuly, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on the harmful mutation, and will any of it's offspring likely live to be able to also reproduce?3) If an offspring has a neutral mutation that has no effect upon the success of it's survival and reproduction, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on it's neutral mutation, and will any of it's offspring with the mutation likely live to be able to also reproduce?4) If an offspring has a beneficial mutation that has a beneficial effect upon it's survival and the success of it's reproduction, will it be more or less likely to reproduce and pass on it's beneficial mutation, and will any of it's offspring with the mutation likely live to be able to also reproduce?5) Which sort of offspring mentioned above is the most likely to survive and successfuly reproduce, thus passing on it's mutation to future generations, thus spreading that mutation throughout the population?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2005 08:50 PM

quote:

---

Are you referring to microevolution?

---

I am referring to evolution, which is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

quote:

---

Perhaps we are not on the same page here. I don't consider adaptation {minor changes in animals such as growing a longer thicker coat in a cold climate} to actually be evolution.

---

Does it involve the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?If it does, it is evolution.

quote:

---

True, since macro evolution has no evidence to support it,

---

So, what would you say if the trees of life which were based upon morphology of existing species and fossils were shown to be very nearly identical to the trees of life which were later drawn using only genetic similarities between species?Would you consider this evidence of long time scale evolution.

quote:

---

the faithful are calling adaptation and variation within a species, evolution.

---

Does it involve the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?If it does, it is evolution.

quote:

---

I've had some tell me that if you breed two different types of dogs together, say a lab and a poodle, the labradoodle you end up with is a new species. If that's true, then every time two mongrel dogs mate sucessfully, a new species is born.

---

Well, those people would be wrong.You still have a dog.One of the definitions of "species" is the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

quote:

---

My dictionary has two meanings, similar organisms with the capability of interbreeding only among themselves, and, a group having in common certan attributes. Adapt, to become adjusted to a condition or environment. Strangely, I can't find microevolution in the dictionary.

---

That's because the term is one only anti-science religious folks such as yourself use as as a way to artificially separate short- and long-time scale evolution.In reality, there is no difference.Tell me, what is the barrier that stops many, many small changes in a population from accumulating over time?How much change is "too much" for evolution to be responsible for? Where, exactly, does evolution stop? Please provide an example of a species where this barrier to change in it's allele frequencies has been observed.

quote:

---

Not at all. But since there is an accumulation of many small changes over an extremely long period of time, wouldn't there be literally thousands of generations, each with many characteristics of the preceeding form and the "improvements" of the new?

---

If there was environmental pressure for change, yes.If there was a period of relative stability in the environment, there would be no selection pressure, so we would not see much change.

quote:

---

Also there wouldn't be just one of each type but whole population groups, thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, increasing the probability of preservation by fossilization or tar pits, wouldn't there?

---

I really don't understand what you mean here.Just how common do you think the conditions for fossilization are, particularly for certain groups of organisms?OTOH, take a look at this link on Trilobites. We have an excruciatingly long list of gradual changes in form over time; ofer 15,000 described species! Of course, marine animals are represented in disproportionately high numbers in the fossil record compared to land mammals. Can you think of why that would be the case? trilobite orders

quote:

---

This should give us a relatively complete record, not the dozen or so {radically different in form}fossils with huge gaps that are supposed to be evidence of whale evolution.

---

So, basically, you are saying that because we don't have all, or nearly all, knowledge, we are incapable of drawing any conclusions at all from any of our evidence.Here are some examples of the many, many, many transitionals in the fossil record: link1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.1. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).2. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).3. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).4. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.5. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).6. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).7. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).8. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).9. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).10. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:1. Human ancestry Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).2.Dinosaur-bird transitions.3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).Links:
Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ.Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record.Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation.Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils.
References:1. Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
2. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
3. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
4. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
5. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
6. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
7. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
8. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
9. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
10. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
11. Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
12. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
13. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
14. Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina
15. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
16. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
17. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
18. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
19. Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
20. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
21. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
22. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
23. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

quote:

---

Are you referring to Archaeopteryx? Hasn't it definitely, especially with recent research, been found to be a bird?

---

No.Birds don't have teeth. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-29-2005 03:34 PM

Sure, I'll start a new un.