Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 278 of 438 (516799)
07-27-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
Hi TraderDrew,
About CSI, this is an unsubstantiated and unproven idea first proposed by William Dembski. It isn't at a stage where arguments can be predicated upon it. It is still incumbent upon advocates of this idea to provide evidence that it has some reality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 2:20 PM traderdrew has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 319 of 438 (517188)
07-30-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by bluescat48
07-29-2009 11:59 PM


Re: CSI and DNA
bluescat48 writes:
My rational thought thinks, do Darwinists not approach science with the perspective that a creator does not exist?
To be blunt, the "Darwinists" approach would be that it matters not whether a creator exists or not.
Or to put it yet another way, the "Darwinist" approach would be to insure that no matter what conclusions are reached, they're based upon evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2009 11:59 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by bluescat48, posted 07-30-2009 9:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 346 of 438 (517379)
07-31-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by traderdrew
07-31-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Off Topic (Flatfish)
traderdrew writes:
What advantage would natural selection have to act on if one of the eyes was displaced but still on one side? I would theoretically believe that the first mutation would have occurred in a single fish. This being the case then, how do the descendants of the first mutant build upon that mutation without being wiped out or repressed by the genetics of normal fish as the genes get passed on?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by traderdrew, posted 07-31-2009 11:19 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by NosyNed, posted 07-31-2009 2:04 PM Percy has replied
 Message 350 by traderdrew, posted 08-01-2009 11:23 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 348 of 438 (517417)
07-31-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by NosyNed
07-31-2009 2:04 PM


Re: More on Flatfish Evolution
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by NosyNed, posted 07-31-2009 2:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 354 of 438 (517554)
08-01-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by traderdrew
08-01-2009 11:23 AM


Re: Flatfish an ID Perspective
traderdrew writes:
As with all species on earth, each new generation of flatfish received an infusion of new mutations upon which natural selection could operate.
How very interesting.
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.
traderdrew writes:
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.
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.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by traderdrew, posted 08-01-2009 11:23 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by traderdrew, posted 08-02-2009 1:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 375 of 438 (517978)
08-03-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 2:43 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
From the "Be careful what you ask for" category:
traderdrew writes:
So please show me an atheist that is a firm believer in guided transpermia.
Francis Crick is an atheist who also codiscovered DNA in 1953.
See page 248 of "Darwin's Black Box" (quoted below)
The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origoin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.
Nice job, TD!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 2:43 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 4:49 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 380 of 438 (518027)
08-03-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Doh!
Sorry, TD, I'm going to have to take it back, and give myself a kick in the pants, too. You're going in the right direction, though, making sure you support your position with evidence. But on the Internet you have to make sure you're using reliable sources, and be especially careful of sites with an agenda.
For an example of the Internet's potential for unreliability, try looking up who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Let me know what you find.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 4:49 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:10 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 382 of 438 (518038)
08-03-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 8:10 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Anonymous. Who woulda' thought!
Bartlett's Quotations doesn't include it, and it *does* have sections for anonymous sayings.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 425 of 438 (519589)
08-15-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Wounded King
08-13-2009 2:45 PM


Re: My personal bugbear
Like science on television, the YouTube manifestations of the creation/evolution debate seem more focused on techniques that draw an audience than accuracy. I love it when the science side corrects itself as you do here. I thought that video was spectacularly well done, but also intentionally provocative, which seems to go with the genre. The EvC Forum version of the same video would use only the graphics with a neutral voiceover.
If I could push one of my new dBCodes, if you use [tid] (for Thread ID) instead of [thread] you get a nice hoverbox.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2009 2:45 PM Wounded King has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 432 of 438 (519616)
08-15-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by traderdrew
08-15-2009 10:46 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
traderdrew writes:
If you wish to define science as something that doesn't pursue the truth and ID is something that does pursue the truth then, I won't argue with you.
You're ambiguating what I think has been made clear many times. Science doesn't attempt to answer the eternal and timeless questions of philosophy and religion, like "Why are we here?" Science attempts to understand what is true about the real world of the senses. That means we're striving to make our understanding of reality as accurate as possible, not that we're pursuing eternal and timeless truths.
Because of obvious conflation with religious truth, you cannot safely use the words "truth" and "science" in the same sentence without being clear about what you mean. To many people you just said that Theodoric believes that science doesn't care whether it gets things right or wrong.
Motives behind perpetuating Darwinism could easily come from the faith of antireligion or atheism.
Except that most people who accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life and natural causes as an explanation for the origin of life are religious.
Darwinism could also be an attempt to build a cocoon or a bubble around your psyche in order to shield yourself from the realities of life or religion. I'm not asking anyone here to be upfront and honest with me. Bubble worlds are somewhat personal and this particular one may require introspection for people to see it within themselves.
Those who accept evolution come from all cultures and religions. This is an extremely diverse group. Any non-scientific motivations for accepting evolution would have to be equally diverse and likely do not exist beyond some tiny minority.
The vast majority of those who reject evolution are evangelical Christians. This is an extremely homogeneous, uniform and insular group. Their motivations are religious, and they insulate themselves from what they feel are the evil influences of the secular world. This is the epitome of, to use your words, "shielding [yourself] from the realities of the world."
When you think about it, Darwinism and young earth creationism are the extremes. I think the answers are there somewhere between the middle in some form of a chaotic mixture.
Scientific answers are not found somewhere between science and religion. They're found in science.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by traderdrew, posted 08-15-2009 10:46 AM traderdrew has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024