Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons

We can say that a design is bad if there is clearly a simpler, or otherwise better, way to do it; and we can say it is not optimal -- even without knowing if it is the absolute best way -- if there is a measurably, demonstrably more efficient way to do it. (It is not suboptimal vs optimal, it is suboptimal vs more-optimal.)How do we know? We know by the same criteria that judge other things to be good design. Good designs are as simple as they can be in order to achieve the desired function; they are economical with the materials involved; they can include ‘good ideas’ from elsewhere if they are of use (eg putting a jet engine in a car if you want to go really fast -- for the land speed record, perhaps); they do not leave out obvious improvements without good reason; they do not include elements that are superfluous to the function; they do not have plain pointless or stupid elements, or bits that do not work.Perhaps you can explain how you decide that something is good design, then?The criteria by which we judge many biological designs ‘poor’ are precisely the criteria we use to identify good ones too. So if you reject the poor designs on the grounds that we are unable to see [a] reason, because we cannot see a logical design, then you reject the very criteria for your own argument from design.If we cannot know that these are poor, we cannot know that the others are good. So your argument from design collapses. Not to sound insulting, but this only proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.You are saying, yes they seem like poor designs, but they are good really. Okay, fine. Please explain why. Not 'why they might be', in some wishy-washy we-can't-know-God's-mind kind of way, but why the examples actually are. Why do bats have an inferior lung system to that of birds? Why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve go so far out of its way/ Why do creatures that live in total darkness have incomplete eyes that cannot work?The burden of proof lies squarely with you.TTFN, DT

To some degree I agree with you on that. To keep pushing to say that science can allow us to 'know' everything could easily cross over into "scientism".Of course, I don't give any particular credance to such fanciful suggestions. (Fanciful when we have no more than wild speculations that parallel universes are possible.) However, what we would be talking about is trying to say it can't be done without direct evidence. Trying to prove a negative? The real trick in this case would be to prove that it can't be recreated. Not just by being unable to but to show that there really is no way for it to happen. This is what the IC folks are trying to show. It seems to be a darn difficult thing to manage it keeps coming back to the same thing -- that we can't figure it out not a direct proof that it can't happen.Of course I agree that the logic is weak.I also think that spending too long arguing in this area is futile. It is an "I dunno" area for everyone. With the only reason that the science side has an advantage is history. The "I dunno"s have, so far, always crossed over to natural explanations.Both sides hope that there will always be "I dunno"s though. The creationists need gaps to hide a god in and the science folks don't want the fun of discovery to end.

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

I am fine until 3. Who is to say that a design is "bad" or non optimal. do we merely look at the "now" such as pausing a video tape and complaining that casablanca looks fuzzy? because the pause scene was not "optimized"? Just because you are unable to see reason does not conclude illogical design it only proves that you cannot see a logical design. Not to sound insultive , but this only proves your lack of creativity and/ or foreknowledge of events.

---

The problem is that if design is to be taken seriously as a scientific theory one must be able to make predictions based on it and then check to see if the predictions are observed. If #3 is not a good prediction based on the hypothesis of design, then what is?

You are saying, yes they seem like poor designs, but they are good really. Okay, fine. Please explain why. Not 'why they might be', in some wishy-washy we-can't-know-God's-mind kind of way, but why the examples actually are. Why do bats have an inferior lung system to that of birds? Why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve go so far out of its way/ Why do creatures that live in total darkness have incomplete eyes that cannot work?There are 2 ways to argue this :
1)God creates mankind and all of nature into a perfect state ---completely and utterly perfect.
sin enters the world and imperfection (entropy) begins.
Every generation of every man, animal, or plant degrades through mutation to a more and more imperfect state.
These mutations cause the said non optimal parts.
This arguement ( unlike evolution) agrees with the laws of physics in that every state becomes less complex/ degrades over time. Evolution flys in the face of the laws of physic by stating that as time passes thing become more complex -- To qoute you " the burden of proof lies with you" how does one create complexity from simplity by accident. When I set pieces of a watch on a table, if given enough time, will the watch piut it self together? that is the core of non ID evolution.2)This is the arguement you would consider "wishy washy" but needs to be placed. You stated "The criteria by which we judge many biological designs ‘poor’ are precisely the criteria we use to identify good ones too. So if you reject the poor designs on the grounds that we are unable to see [a] reason, because we cannot see a logical design, then you reject the very criteria for your own argument from design."
I am sure you are aware of a term called the "butterfly effect" usually related to weather phenomena. In this the fluttering of wings in Indiana influences the weather to create monsoons in China. Take a timeline (YEC 10-15,000 years all others 2 billion). in order for God to create certian events to happen, the lung capasity of a bat needs to be less than that of a bird, the extended nerve needs to push enough tissue to cause specific atoms to bounce just the correct way. ect. ect. To presume that you know more than an omnipotent being does not prove that one does not exist, it only proves that you cannot understand it because you are not omnipotent.
This is as you say a weaker arguement, but so are many of the Non ID arguements.Again Your arguement is equvalient to my ealier analogy. you are looking at a frame of Casablanca and judging it's quality, and then jumping on to say that due to the bad frame, the whole thing is worthless.

quote:

---

When I set pieces of a watch on a table, if given enough time, will the watch piut it self together? that is the core of non ID evolution.

---

The analogy has nothing to do with evolution; you have just demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is.But more to the point: if you claim that ID is scientific, then you must be able to make testable predictions based on it. Preferrably ones that will contradict what ToE predicts.

cheri said "The analogy has nothing to do with evolution; you have just demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is."
Non ID evolution is creation of life from unlife with no help from an outside intelligence. This means that you start with "nothing" and create something by mere accident. I take all the base "parts" of a item and on there own they form into something more complex.We are saying that the first one celled creature appeared from a smattering of parts that just happened to combine in the right way to spark life.
What am I not understanding?

sorry to post twice in a row but this needed it's own section.
Cheri said "But more to the point: if you claim that ID is scientific, then you must be able to make testable predictions based on it. Preferrably ones that will contradict what ToE predicts. "First off There are 3 theories here.
1) non Id & evolution
2) ID & no evolution
3) ID & evolutionI have been only arguing ID / NO ID , not evolution itself. In no way did I claim anything was or wasn't scientific. However, since you breached the subject, what new species have been created ( not bioenginneered)? I don't mean adapted, but actually mutated into a higher, more complex species. ToE says we should have them where are they? what about hybrid creatures? how does a hybrid creature mate with the previous species it evolved from? How did poison develop? Why do creatures instictively know not to eat poisonous plants like milkweed? why are mutations always detrimental to the creature?

Your trichotomy is interesting. #1 is evolution as scientifically understood. #2 is creationism, the general version, not YEC. I call #2 separate-creationism, because its proponents always stress the discontinuity between 'created kinds'. #3 is Michael Behe's view on evolution.

quote:

---

I have been only arguing ID / NO ID , not evolution itself. In no way did I claim anything was or wasn't scientific. However, since you breached the subject, what new species have been created ( not bioenginneered)? I don't mean adapted, but actually mutated into a higher, more complex species. ToE says we should have them where are they?

---

Go to a farmyard or a dog show, and see the variation that can happen within a species. Next go to a museum collection or open an animal encyclopedia, and inspect some closely-related species (maybe groups of birds or fishes). Now tell me you can show the barrier between created kinds.

quote:

---

what about hybrid creatures? how does a hybrid creature mate with the previous species it evolved from?

---

Contrary to popular belief, hybrids don't always have total sterility when mated with closely related species. This fact had been known even before Darwin's time. Ask a plant breeder if you like.

quote:

---

How did poison develop?

---

From chemical byproducts and then rendered more lethal by arms-race evolution.

quote:

---

Why do creatures instictively know not to eat poisonous plants like milkweed?

---

Because those whose instinct does not tell them to avoid poison die before having any offspring. There are also variation in instinct.

quote:

---

why are mutations always detrimental to the creature?

---

No it is not. Most mutations are neutral. Those detriomental gets weeded out while those beneficial would be preserved.Tell you what: Read a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species. You might understand better what you're arguing against. It's worth the time.

Go to a farmyard or a dog show, and see the variation that can happen within a species. Next go to a museum collection or open an animal encyclopedia, and inspect some closely-related species (maybe groups of birds or fishes). Now tell me you can show the barrier between created kinds.variation =/ evolutionContrary to popular belief, hybrids don't always have total sterility when mated with closely related species. This fact had been known even before Darwin's time. Ask a plant breeder if you like.
Not quite what I meant but totally my fault- i placed a quick post. i should not have used the term Hybrid in the way i did. the example is that you evolve from a chimp and so, survival of the fittest , your genes should be domaniant ( in order to have been passed on) and compatable ( to enable you to mate with the most range of creatures that you have come from ) So you should be able to mate with a chimp and have a viable offspring, that is genetically controlled by your domainant genes. ( that is the only way a mutation would be passed on- it would need to not only be present, but dominate- otherwise it must spring up in multiple host to be present in the next "batch " of children, in which you are saying that a random occurence is now " not random" which would suggest a outside force affecting it.From chemical byproducts and then rendered more lethal by arms-race evolution. Show me the path- from no posion to poison , how it hypothetically would happen- If you say arms race, I want the steps involved- this answer is vague and doesn't tell me anythingNo it is not. Most mutations are neutral. Those detriomental gets weeded out while those beneficial would be preserved.
I'll bite
So, if I add a mutagin to a large enough container of fruit flies, to enhance the mutation rate, by the end of say 5 years , I should have a new species, that is completely distinct from fruit flies.
Easy enough, is anyone doing this? If they all die off, we try again.Well so far as I see it adaption is not evolution
adaption changes to its envirnoment affect changes to the system that are already present, however evolution is the adding of new, more complex , features.

We did not evolve from chimps; we share a common ancestor with chimps. The two are in no way equivalent.I'm not sure the sense in which you are using 'Dominant' with reference to genes. Usually the term dominant with genes is used in opposition to 'resesive', in which case your statement that genes need to be dominant to be passed on is simply false.In general a daughter species is not better adapted to the species from which it derives in the environment for which the parent species is adapted but instead speciation occurs where the environment has changed, or where a species expands into new environments.

Ahh, the classic cartoon abiogenesis argument. Someone's been watch Ken Ham again. Might I suggest you do some reading on the "other side"? After all, if you're going to slay dragons, it behooves you to be able to discriminate a real one from a fake when you encounter it, right? There's a marvelous new book out by Andrew Knoll - one of the top researchers in the abiogenesis field (at least in the sense of attempting to synthesize geology, molecular biology, paleontology etc into a cohesive explanation) - called "Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth" (Princton Uni Press, 2003). IF you bother to read it and still think the 747-in-a-junkyard strawman is a valid argument against abiogenesis, then we can discuss your misunderstanding in greater detail.

And neither is exactly original. Thus you accept that they are indeed suboptimal. It’s just that they are not part of god’s design, but caused by sin. Correct?How, exactly, does sin invert a retina... and still work so well that creationists try to argue it’s not suboptimal?How does it reroute a nerve?How does it replumb the urethra and the larynx-pharynx junction?How does sin give bats -- and all other mammals -- an inferior (but still pretty good) lung ventilation system to that of birds?How does it form a coccyx?How does it cause marsupial infants to not be born straight into the pouch?How does it make dolphins have to breathe air -- did they use to have gills, but lost them?Why might sin cause whales to have small bits of pelvis embedded in their bodies?How did it put genes for making teeth into birds?Why might sin give us ear-wiggling muscles?These are all pretty large mutations. Yet their owners still function quite well. You appear to be crediting sin with some pretty amazing creationary abilities. Care to explain?Why do creationists struggle so hard to show the usefulness of vestigial features, and the non-stupidity of these things, then? Oooh, I’ve not seen the 2LoT argument for a while!Firstly, evolution states no such thing. Try looking up Sacculina barnacles.Secondly, there is no law of physics prohibiting an increase in complexity over time. If there were, it would prohibit your own birth, cos you couldn’t have developed into the trillion-cell person you are from a single fertilised egg. But you did. Since you did accomplish this, please explain how these laws of physics prevent offspring differing slightly from their parents, and their offspring differing a bit more, and so on.Thirdly, invest in a spellchecker, or at least a dictionary: flys, ferchrissakes?! My my, you’ve swallowed Hovind whole, haven’t you!Firstly, complexity comes from simplicity in small cumulative steps, not in one go.And secondly, evolution by natural selection is not a theory of chance, of accidents. Mutation provides the variation, randomly, but then natural selection picks out the best of the variants. And selection, by definition, is not random. Natural selection is the precise opposite of randomness.So one creates complexity -- er sorry, complexity can form -- by accretion. No it is not. It is an incorrigibly stupid straw man argument.Write that our one hundred times, or go and see the Headmaster. Bwahahaha! I was assuming you know that that is a hypothetical... but I’m not so sure. You’re talking about chaos theory. And it has nothing whatever to do with what you go on to say. Irrelevant refutation. If you are right, you have even less grounds for an argument from design. In fact, you are agreeing with my analysis. If we cannot know the mind of god (and to try to is a form of hubris -- someone will be able to provide the biblical passages on this I’m sure), then we cannot know if any of the designs are ‘good really’. So, well done. You may now reject my list, and all of your design evidence along with it.And, uh... were these things caused by sin, then, or not? The Bellman’s Fallacy: repeating yourself does not make what you say more valid. I understood you last time, and rejected it last time. You, however, haven’t grasped the reasons why, so I guess I shall have to repeat myself.It’s quite simple, really. Feel free to reject the poor designs because we can’t understand god. But if you do, out goes all the evidence for the designer from good designs too.TTFN, Oolon

The following may be the single most ridiculous, pathetic, asinine statement I have ever read on this site and is a perfect example of the kind of junk evolutionary biologists have to deal with every day: Here is the second: And finally the third: Please, agrav8r, stop trying to debate about a topic that you apparently know next to nothing about.

"Thus you accept that they are indeed suboptimal. It’s just that they are not part of god’s design, but caused by sin. Correct?""Firstly, complexity comes from simplicity in small cumulative steps, not in one go.And secondly, evolution by natural selection is not a theory of chance, of accidents. Mutation provides the variation, randomly, but then natural selection picks out the best of the variants. And selection, by definition, is not random. Natural selection is the precise opposite of randomness.So one creates complexity -- er sorry, complexity can form -- by accretion. "Just so I have this correct:
Mutation is random
Natural selection "chooses" the most advantegeous type by passing it's genes on to the next generation, thus if a mutation does not allow genes to be passed, it will not survive.
So a mutation that allows one to mate more frequently, or with more females, would be more "survivable" than one that does not allow this.
so why do we se homosexuality in the animal kingdom? If it is random mutation, it would have killed itself off after the first generation, and yet it appears again and again. so it could be the same mutation- oh wait mutation is random ."No it is not. It is an incorrigibly stupid straw man argument.
Write that our one hundred times, or go and see the Headmaster."then please explain the core view- if i have it wrong ,then please explain the core view-, or perhaps at least place a link- just saying I am wrong does not prove it."Bwahahaha! I was assuming you know that that is a hypothetical... but I’m not so sure. You’re talking about chaos theory. And it has nothing whatever to do with what you go on to say."Yes it does- if you are equal to the creator than what we think is chaos would be as patterned as a checkerboard. However because you cannot have a omnipotent intellect, it appears as chaos. thus we observe a bat having a smaller lung capasity, and find it odd, but God would see that the play of atoms by the bat's breath being shorter would affect or cause desired events?"The Bellman’s Fallacy: repeating yourself does not make what you say more valid. I understood you last time, and rejected it last time. You, however, haven’t grasped the reasons why, so I guess I shall have to repeat myself." and yet if you rejected it, you never mentioned it to me, If I however , ignored a section of your post, I am sure you would gladly bring it back up and point out how I ignored it- which i might add you have managed to side step again, but I will let it pass.

"The following may be the single most ridiculous, pathetic, asinine statement I have ever read on this site and is a perfect example of the kind of junk evolutionary biologists have to deal with every day:Here is the second:Please, agrav8r, stop trying to debate about a topic that you apparently know next to nothing about. "Wow
personal attacks and no rebuttal- i assume you concede and I accept it gracefully- see you at church sunday.