G. I Debate A University Biology Instructor Who Is In a PhD Program
A university instructor who is in his PhD program wrote me, wanting to discuss my stance on evolution. He initially let me know that I misspelled Led Zepplin, which I thanked him for. His handle is EvoBiologist . Our communication went on:
Thanks for heads up on spelling.
No problem – I’m a big Led Zeppelin fan.
Out of curiosity, why do you not take friend requests? I really don’t know what ill can become of it. Am I naive on that? I have had dozens of friend requests, and have no idea what good or bad can result.
Re: your pending challenges. I welcome all, especially ones that come from well educated biologists such as yourself. I find that people in your position are such strong believers and “without a doubt” thinkers that they fare no better than the less educated. But feel free to give it a go.
If you ever do and want to see how a well educated molecular biologist did, my site (www.evillusion.net) p. 23F has the entire debate. The guy goes by joemarklawson. He even made some attack vids on my stuff.
I choose my friends carefully, and don’t feel comfortable labeling people I don’t really know as my “friends”. Also, my wife is against this practice as well.
I am a pretty strong advocate of evolution because I’ve seen and studied the evidence. I’ve conducted research on populations and species and have always found that the data objectively supports evolution. I have yet to find a decent argument against evolution, and have yet to find any explanation that is better.
I noticed that your tactic is to try to poke holes in evolution, but that you offer no alternative – is that really fair? Because we live in a huge and complex universe where unlikely events happen constantly, any explanation of a broad set of phenomena (like evolutionary theory) will necessarily have some “anomalies” that will be difficult to explain. Unless you have a better explanation, though, this does nothing to weaken the theory.
Since this is your approach, I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to waste proposing explanations for the “holes” you find. I do find it disingenuous of you to claim that evolution of certain things is impossible simply because you can’t come up with a scenario under which these things may have evolved. That is simply an argument from incredulity – maybe you just haven’t thought it through enough. Regardless, that’s an incredible claim to make about anything. Impossible? I’m not even willing to say that about things having NOT evolved.
That populations change I would agree. The data doesn’t support the formation of complex organs, consciousness, et al.
I don’t pretend to have a better explanation, and I think no man who ever lived on the face of the earth up to this point has any realistic idea either. But the best way to get a better one is to eliminate a bad one.
Is “fair” a word that should even be considered in science?
I am sure we are a bad mix, and would probably go round and round until we got tired of it.
Anyway, thanks for the reply, the spell ck, and have a nice life.
Re: “The data doesn’t support the formation of complex organs, consciousness, et al.”
What organs did you have in mind? I’ve taught Zoology and Comparative Anatomy labs, and as far as I can tell, every complex organ has a progression of simpler ones leading up to it in a stepwise manner. Consciousness also appears to be related to the evolution of a complex brain – we see varying degrees of self-awareness in monkeys and apes that are related to the complexity of their brains.
Re: “But the best way to get a better is to eliminate a bad one.”
No, the history of science supports the idea that the best way to get a better explanation is to invent one. If it explains things better than a current explanation, it will eventually replace it.
Re: “If there is no plausible explanation, then its imagination until there is one.”
No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Everything I’ve ever come across has potential steps though which it could’ve evolved. That doesn’t have to be the case, but it is. Even the best examples of the advocates of ID have been revealed to have intermediate steps in LIVING organisms, not simply hypothetical ones.
Re: “Is fair a word that should even be considered in science?”
Yes. As I said, every large-scale explanation in science will necessarily run up against so-called “anomalies” because this is a complex universe where unlikely events occur all the time, and evidence of specifically what happened in the past may be severely limited. It’s easy to throw stones, but if you offer no alternative, then you have no case. As they say, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” – but your case is even more extreme – you live in NO house, yet you throw stones at the only solid home in existence, trying in vain to break a window. Build a new home, and then let’s take turns throwing stones at each other’s homes and we’ll see which one is left standing in the end.
Look, Newton’s law of gravity had holes, but it wasn’t abandoned until Einstein came up with his theory of gravity. Even that theory breaks down at the quantum level, but you don’t see scientists abandoning it or engineers ignoring it when building satellites and such. It’s the best we’ve got, and until someone comes up with a better explanation, we’ll still teach it and use it to explain the universe and build models from.
Re: “I am sure we are a bad mix, and would probably go round and round until we got tired of it.”
I don’t know, but I do know that I can probably offer you plausible explanations for how the things you think are impossible to evolve could’ve actually evolved – if you’re actually interested in learning about evolution and not just trying to find problems with it to support your current position that you’ve obviously invested a lot of time and energy into advocating.
If you’re interested, then let me know – I’m pretty knowledgeable about a broad range of info on evolution, I understand the process at a deep level, I understand the scientific method well, and I’m willing to discuss. Send me your best arguments and I’ll give you thoughtful responses – if you’re interested.
Re: “Consciousness also appears to be related to the evolution of a complex brain.”
Complete imagination. No species has anything remotely close to the consciousness of humans. This is “saying it is so” evidence.
Re” What organs did you have in mind?
All organs. I have three vids on complex visual systems which you will not be able to answer. Your ploy will be excuses after the fact. Your only shot, so take it if you like. They didnt evolve better eyes because they didnt need
Re: “No, the history of science supports the idea that the best way to get a better explanation is to invent one.”
And that is what Charlie did. An invention, not science that follows the information and evidence. Charles had the exact same doubts that I do now. He hated flowers and eyes because they killed his ideas. Evolution doesn’t show up on ANY species over long periods of time. Clades connect different species, and SAY they morphed into each other. You need species like T. Rexs that show evolving arms, and fossils that show a single species that has no eyes to evolving eyes. They should be all over the place, but they are nowhere to be found. If and when you do you will have something.
Re: “No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
What is evidence of absence to you? Zero evidence that an event happened, or an evolving item was present is meaningless? This saying allows imagination to creep into science, and excuses it.
Re: “Look, Newton’s law of gravity had holes, but it wasn’t abandoned until Einstein came up with his theory of gravity.”
If the holes in his theory were glossed over like the holes in Darwin’s, Einstein would have never had the stimulus to form a new one. He would have been attacked, (actually he was) just like I am for my thinking. (No comparison scolds, please. )
If you want to know why I think the way I do, feel free to check out my site (www.evillusion.net) or any of my vids. And attack away. You will be in a long line of evos who don’t have much to say except to demean me, and tell me how great evolution and science is. And, if anyone can put me down, it should be you, with your terrific resume. I put my chin out to be attacked, and always look forward to GOOD debate.
If you or anyone can find a chink in my thinking on any blog fact, or any vid, I will make immediate changes, BTW. I am not too proud to, for sure.
Anyway, have at it, or if not, again, have a nice life.
Re: “Complete imagination. No species has anything remotely close to the consciousness of humans. This is “saying it is so” evidence.”
No, there is actual evidence:
– humans older than 18 months, apes, dolphins, elephants, and some birds can recognize themselves in a mirror
– humans have been tested having varying degrees of brain damage in various areas of the brain. Activity of the cortex seems critical to consciousness. Humans are the most conscious because the relative size and wrinklyness (and thus surface area) of the human cortex is higher than other animals. The difference between a human cortex and a chimp one is only a matter of degree, though, and not the addition of any new “irreducibly complex” structure. Humans are more self-aware than chimps, which are more self-aware than most other animals.
Re: “All organs. I have three vids on complex visual systems which you will not be able to answer. Your ploy will be excuses after the fact. Your only shot, so take it if you like. They didnt evolve better eyes because they didnt need”
Re: “Didn’t need [them]?” You are aware of the step by step progression in complexity of eyes seen in living mollusks, since I’ve seen your use of the famous figure in your video on skin, so you know that gradualism is possible here. Complex eyes may not be needed, but they are certainly beneficial, especially for predators that do well to be able to judge distance to moving prey, so I don’t know what you mean here. Evolution by natural selection isn’t about survival of the necessary, but survival of those most able to survive and reproduce, for which the ability to better distinguish predators and food is an important factor. What’s your point?
Re: “And that is what Charlie did. An invention, not science that follows the information and evidence. Charles had the exact same doubts that I do now. He hated flowers and eyes because they killed his ideas. Evolution doesnt show up on ANY species over long periods of time. Clades connect different species, and SAY they morphed into each other. You need species like T. Rexs that show evolving arms, and fossils that show a single species that has no eyes to evolving eyes. They should be all over the place, but they are nowhere to be found. If and when you do you will have something.”
Invention of explanations is the first step of the scientific method – hypothesis formation. Gathering data and testing the hypothesis comes next, and Darwin (and MANY others since) did this as well. Darwin explained the evolution of eyes in “Origin”, anticipating criticism. Flowers, whether or not Darwin understood them, are easily understood through natural selection and co-evolution with pollinators. The fossil record is incomplete because fossils are hard to make, and soft tissue (like eyes) is even harder to fossilize. You seem to be wanting every single minor change fossilized in the evolution of an organism, which is unreasonable. You’d do better examining the DNA record, which is much more complete and informative.
I thought you were simply some sort of advocate of ID in cases of complex traits, but you seem to be denying common descent, which puts you firmly in the Creationist camp for most practical purposes. Do me a favor and watch my video on GULOP, and see if you can come up with an explanation for the pattern other than common descent. The DNA record, which is huge and thorough, can only be explained by common descent. DNA alone would support evolution from a common ancestor even if no fossils existed.
Re: “What is evidence of absence to you? Zero evidence that an event happened, or an evolving item was present is meaningless? This saying allows imagination to creep into science, and excuses it.”
Evidence of absence: If we looked at genomes and didn’t find things like turned-off genes for teeth and tails in birds, that would be evidence of absence.
There are plenty of transitional forms present in the fossil record and in living organisms (this is obvious from any cursory study of comparative anatomy or zoology). So the question is, how minute are the transitional steps that you would require before you accepted that something evolved? You seem to be demanding to either see more fossils than are remotely likely to occur or directly observing evolution faster than is considered possible (faster than any organism has ever evolved, based on fossil dates).
Re: “If the holes in his theory were glossed over like the holes in Darwins, Einstein would have never had the stimulus to form a new one. He would have been attacked, (actually he was) just like I am for my thinking. (No comparison scolds, please. )”
The holes in Newtonian physics were no less hidden than those in evolution, they just happened to be more major and unsolvable than the problems with evolution. Not to scold you for comparing yourself to Einstein, but Einstein was attacked for INVENTING a new theory (like Darwin), while you offer no solution to the perceived problems with evolution – there’s the difference (intelligence aside). Once you come up with a new theory, it will be attacked just as heavily as evolution has been attacked for the last 150 years, and if it holds up, then it becomes part of mainstream science like evolution and relativity.
Re: “You will be in a long line of evos who dont have much to say except to demean me, and tell me how great evolution and science is.”
I won’t demean you, but will be thorough in pointing out flaws I find in your arguments. It’s hard not to argue how great evolution and science are when your position is basically the opposite. Come up with a testable alternative to evolution, and you will surely find that a more productive debate occurs. I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to devote to trying to show you that the holes you perceive aren’t as critical as you think when you offer no alternative that better fills these holes, but we’ll see.
Re: “If you or anyone can find a chink in my thinking on any blog fact, or any vid, I will make immediate changes, BTW.”
So does this mean you will remove your video on human skin being impossible to evolve since I proposed a plausible scenario that could explain it’s evolution through natural selection?
You are aware of the step by step progression in complexity of eyes seen in living mollusks…..The ability to better distinguish predators and food is an important factor. What’s your point?
In my third eye vid I make the point that why didn’t these great evidences for evolution (mollusks) all evolve the best type of eye system, as they’ve had hundreds of millions of years to do it, thousands of times longer than it took eyes to evolve in the first place. They didn’t NEED vision? Where is the evolution? Mollusks are evidence AGAINST ev, but as is usual, it is claimed to be in favor of, and highly touted by Eugenie, et al.
Flowers, whether or not Darwin understood them, are easily understood through natural selection and co-evolution with pollinators.
Re: “Easily understood”? Sorry, not so.
Re: “Darwin explained the evolution of eyes in “Origin”, anticipating criticism.”
Sorry, he gave his fantasy about how he thought it might have happened. Darwin had no idea how a complex visual system evolved, or how it worked, for that matter. Or even how cells worked. And he is quoted as saying eyes may be his downfall.
Re: :The fossil record is incomplete because fossils are hard to make, and soft tissue (like eyes) is even harder to fossilize”.
So, if we don’t have the fossils, lets fill in the blanks with imagination and fantasy. Right? No evidence, no science. Real science must wait until evidence is found. And it is going to wait a very long time, because we now have millions of “spot checks”. Filling in the spot checks won’t be helpful, I am afraid.
Re: “It’s hard not to argue how great evolution and science are when your position is basically the opposite”.
Science is wonderful, evolution is fantasy. There is a huge difference, so please dont accuse me of not being scientific. I LOVE science, or I wouldn’t be here and doing what I do. I just want honest science.
Re: “I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to devote to trying to show you that the holes you perceive aren’t as critical as you think when you offer no alternative that better fills these holes, but we’ll see.”
The better alternative is to admit there must be a blueprint and intelligence for nature, and admit we don’t know the source of that intelligence. There is nothing wrong with that take, on a purely scientific basis, as Dawkins described. After all, we dont know why the universe is here instead of nothing, but it is. And we admit that we don’t know. We cant even come up with a good fantasy on that one, or it would probably be a great science, like evolution is. Nothing didit just doesn’t cut it for the universe. It does for evolution.
Re: “So does this mean you will remove your video on human skin being impossible to evolve since I proposed a plausible scenario that could explain it’s evolution through natural selection?”
Evo’s have such a huge habit of declaring themselves the winner. Your scenario: that furry hominids with all weather outer coverings evolved skin because they invented clothing? Again, not impossible by evolution. That is so weak that it is difficult to respond to. Furry hominids with all weather outer coverings walked around with clothing they didn’t need? Sorry, that is preposterous. Why would they invent clothing if they did fine in the weather and didn’t need it? If they migrated before they had clothing and after losing their AWOC, they would have died. And, you should know that your own science doesn’t work that way. If we began going around naked, would we then re-evolve fur and an AWOC over generations? Would our genetic makeup change because we had clothing on? Why arent Eskimos in the process of evolving AWOCs? This nice thing about imaginary evidence is that you can go anywhere with it. And you have.
Anyway, thanks for the response, and as I said, feel free to go on the attack, but you really fare no better than the molecular biologist. There are TOO MANY holes for you to reasonably defend. The great thing about evolution is all I have to do is prove ONE THING couldn’t have possibly evolved, and the whole science falls. Unless there were two entirely different MO’s for the formation of nature.
Re: “They didn’t NEED vision? Where is the evolution?”
Organisms don’t all have the same beneficial mutations occur in each (opportunity for evolution) and don’t all have the same selective pressures (push for evolution). Eyes are energetically expensive to build, maintain, and use, and are prone to infections. If you only really need to detect light and dark, then there’s not much of a push to do anything more, especially considering the drawbacks.
Re: “Flowers: Easily understood? Sorry, not so.”
Yeah, pollinators are attracted to flowers, and drastically improve reproductive success – divergence of flower types can take advantage of differences in pollinators, thus decreasing the chance that pollen will be wasted by less specific pollinators going to different species and wasting the pollen. All of this fits nicely into an evolution by natural selection framework.
Eyes: What Darwin said is of no consequence. He gave a basic explanation of eye evolution that has been backed up by modern evidence and expanded to include our modern understanding of the visual system. Where does he say eyes may be his downfall except in “Origin” right before he explains how they could’ve evolved gradually through natural selection and are therefore no problem for his theory?
Re: “So, if we don’t have the fossils, lets fill in the blanks with imagination and fantasy. Right? No evidence, no science.”
In the absence of evidence, we can only fill in the blanks with our best guesses from what we do know. Evolution is the best answer so far proposed. Propose an alternate, and we’ll see which fairs better under scrutiny.
Re: “Science is wonderful, evolution is fantasy.”
It’s hard to know what your position actually is. You already said that evolution is NOT fantasy when you claimed that it can explain a large portion of the data. So, are you going back on that assertion now? If you think that science is wonderful and evolution is not, then follow the scientific method and propose a new testable hypothesis to explain the things that you think evolution does not, and lets use this wonderful science to see which one wins.
Re: “The better alternative is to admit there must be a blueprint and intelligence for nature, and admit we don’t know the source of that intelligence. There is nothing wrong with that take, on a purely scientific basis, as Dawkins described. After all, we don’t know why the universe is here instead of nothing, but it is. And we admit that we don’t know. We cant even come up with a good fantasy on that one, or it would probably be a great science, like evolution is. Nothing didit just doesnt cut it for the universe. It does for evolution.”
Now you finally directly admit your actual position as an ID proponent. Dawkins claims that there are two known causes for complexity:
1) natural forces like evolution
2) intelligent agents like humans
Which of these two is the cause of the complexity of your designer? Ultimately, it has to go back to natural processes like evolution. In the case of life here on Earth, evolution seems to be the answer, since no intelligent designer would actually make things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve that is several feet longer than it needs to be in a giraffe (not as long, but still significantly longer than it needs to be in other animals). Also, all we have to do is look at things designed by humans to see that a smart designer reuses good complex ideas over and over. Instead we see a nested hierarchy of similarity. Bats don’t have hollow bones or feathers like birds do, and have different wings, chordates have eye spots even though we know from cephalopods that these aren’t necessary, humans have back problems from having a spine “designed” for quadrupeds, and heart problems from having a four-chambered heart with the same blood supply as a two-chambered fish heart. Practically all of life is hobbled together from modified forms of preexisting parts. Look at the history of horns as a contrast – for instance, valves sprung up in one branch and then quickly spread to be used in a variety of different “lineages” of horns. Nothing like this exists in living organisms.
I’d really like your input on my GULOP video. There is no better explanation for the pattern than evolution from a common ancestor.
So, unlike the origin of the universe, the diversity of life does have a good explanation. I’m sorry that you can’t see it as such – that may be a failing in our educational system, which doesn’t cover the evidence for evolution nearly as much as it should, instead it takes it as a given and describes the process without much detail.
Re: “Furry hominids with all weather outer coverings walked around with clothing they didn’t need?”
Yes. They didn’t need the clothing in general, but the did need it if they wanted to go out during cold winter nights. Having a removable extra layer allowed a much broader range of temperatures under which they could hunt and otherwise perform. Losing their fur afterward further increased this range.
Re: “Why arent Eskimos in the process of evolving AWOCs?”
They have clothes to keep them warm and avoid parasites by not having fur.
Re: “The great thing about evolution is all I have to do is prove ONE THING couldn’t have possibly evolved, and the whole science falls.”
Right, and people have been trying unsuccessfully for 150 years. That’s why evolution is so awesome. This idea of a designer is in contrast unfalsifiable in general. In specific, ID has been falsified in every instance so far proposed.
Congrats. You have declared yourself the winner again!
You have so many explanations after the fact. “It happened this way because it didn’t happen that way” Everything is so easily explained”.
Re: “Yeah, pollinators are attracted to flowers, and drastically improve reproductive success….”
I could easily do that with super fairies: Super fairies had an easy time making flowers, eyes, intestines, hearts…….. They used their super hands to form the petals……easy super fairy formation. Oh, and eyes were super easy for super fairies! They formed irises with their super fingers and……..
I wouldn’t do that ploy with intelligence because it is obviously there, but I have no idea exactly how it took place. I won’t make up stories, or refer you to a religious book. I simply don’t know. Evolutionauts can’t do that. Hurts their ego too much. They HAVE to have an answer. And like evolution, there was no conscious observer. Made up stories are not evidence to me, but if you like it that way, you can prove evolution all day long. All based on imagination. And your fellow biologists will accept your imagination, if you will accept theirs.
So, you can fool yourself into thinking you have all of the answers, when you actually have none. Just like me. But I will accept the overwhelming evidence for intelligence as a first step. In that way, I am farther along than you with your “explanation after the fact” evidence.
Re: “Congrats. You have declared yourself the winner again!”
No, evolution is the winner by default already because no scientific alternative has even been proposed. This has nothing to do with me.
Re: “I could easily do that with super fairies: Super fairies had an easy time making flowers, eyes, intestines, hearts…….. They used their super hands to form the petals……easy super fairy formation. Oh, and eyes were super easy for super fairies! They formed irises with their super fingers and…….”
That is EXACTLY what you are claiming. In contrast, we understand the mechanism behind evolution, and it actually works. Additionally, experiments have shown conclusively that pollinators have these very specific selective pressures I’m talking about.
Re: “They HAVE to have an answer.”
No, but we DO have an answer, and people should know that.
Re: “All based on imagination.”
No, based on known mechanisms, evidence of transitions and evolution in action, and a series of far fetched extremely unlikely predictions that have all turned out to be precisely true. No theory in the history of science can claim the success of evolution when it comes to the diversity of precise successful predictions.
Your statements are further evidence that you obviously have a very poor background in evolution, ecology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and animal diversity. I suppose dental school had you focus on human anatomy to the exclusion of these other disciplines. If I’m wrong, then I’m sorry, but your claims seem to back up this assertion.
Re: “Bye” “have a nice life”
You are so ready to blow me off. Do I get under your skin that much?
I’m just trying to help you understand that your assertions are unfounded. You claimed you were glad to have someone as knowledgeable about evolution as me to talk to about this stuff, but you don’t seem like you really want to bounce your arguments off an actual expert.
By the way, the fact that T-rex had short arms is a result of gene regulation. Minor mutations in the genes regulating limb development are responsible for the differences between species in limb length. I saw a talk on bat development, and they showed how the difference between a bat and a mouse in length of fingers simply resulted from a particular hormone in limb development that was activated longer in bats. They even plotted the location and duration of the growth factors in embryonic bats. Similarly, a gene can be slightly altered in bird development that causes them to grow long tails like lizards (much of the tail usually grows in normal unaltered embryos only to be later destroyed during development – intelligent?)
The fact that T-rex arms led to an epiphany that made you reject evolution leads me to believe that you never really understood development or evolution. Relative limb length is easily modified genetically, and several of the other bipedal dinos in the same group have much longer arms than T-rex. Interesting how we keep finding new ones with various types of primitive feathers.
“Congrats. You have declared yourself the winner again!”
No, evolution is the winner by default already because no scientific alternative has even been proposed.
“No alternative” does not make evo the final answer. Sorry, that isn’t good science. So many theories in history would have stuck because there simply was no alternative….until the theory collapsed.
That is EXACTLY what you are claiming. In contrast, we understand the mechanism behind evolution, and it actually works. Additionally, experiments have shown conclusively that pollinators have these very specific selective pressures I’m talking about.
Please don’t tell me what I am claiming if you really want to discuss. That is bad but oft used evo-strategy. The rest is written very confidently by you, but the evolution that would produce flowers from none is absent. Your evidence isn’t there, but celebrated as if it is the answer. Did the pollinators evolve before the flowers, or the other way around? Did the seeds precede the flowers, or the other way around? I’m sure you will have a very confident unobserved explanation.
No, but we DO have an answer, and people should know that.
Your answer satisfies you and your fellow evos, but not scientific challengers. Evo peers jump up and down and celebrate anything, be it imaginary or not, as long as it proves what they want it to prove. Like your “evidence” above. It does not answer the questions. Writing it confidently doesn’t help.
Re: “Your statements are further evidence that you obviously have a very poor background in evolution, ecology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and animal diversity.”
This is the demean part. You seem like a very nice person, so you demean nicely. But demean you do. Which is stooping pretty low. You must know that I have spent a large amount of time updating myself on current evo theory. I also had an excellent education in biology, histology, anatomy, oral histology, embryology, pathology, paleontology…………….I won’t bore you. On top of that I am pretty damn intelligent. And I have found current evolution science horribly lacking and disappointing. I was a full on and enthusiastic evolutionaut for many years. What really disappointed me was that the fossil record looked no different than when I studied it in school. The more I dug, the more it looked the damn same as it did. And the theory looked worse. Eg? Discussions about the evolution of sexual repro. I have read many current evo papers on the subject, and not at one has any notion about how that happened. They tell WHY, never HOW. They are sadly lost. I’m sure you have a scenario. But the several current papers had no idea, even though they were long and complex. But not a clue.
Re: “You are so ready to blow me off. Do I get under your skin that much?”
Obviously not, but I see you telling evo tales confidently and “quickly”, as in “we have all of that, we have all the answers, we know how it worked” When you don’t . That discussion gets old and it’s hard to combat. Which is why I used the ‘super fairy” example. Just by saying something, you think you can gloss over the real problems you have, and satisfy the questioner. You can’t.
Re: “I’m just trying to help you understand that your assertions are unfounded.”
Sorry, but this is a demean. Nice, again, but demean it is. You are going to help me? Your problem, and the problem I see with all evos (yes, all) is they NEVER wonder, question, or become skeptical of the most absurd tales of how evo occurred. Theropods to woodpeckers is a great example. I’m sure you buy that one, but to me it’s …..well, I won’t say. Don’t you question these kinds of tales? At all? That to me is the miracle of this science. Lock step, no questions, no doubts, no skepticism.
………result of gene regulation. Minor mutations in the genes regulating limb development are responsible for the differences between species in limb lengtht…………
Excuses after the fact. Tons and tons of them. There is just no way to challenge an evo because there is always a story or excuse, and never a doubt or skepticism. When you were religious, you questioned. So did I. And the religion lost as soon as I got to college. I LOVED evolution. But then I very belatedly started to question again. And the more I did, the worse evolution looked. You have stopped questioning. You can’t. You are a PHD in this subject, so your peers place great group-think pressure on you. And, you probably wouldn’t anyway. You have become brain-locked on this subject, and forfeited you ability to REALLY THINK objectively and independently, like you did when you “saw the light” on religion.
Re: “The fact that T-rex arms led to an epiphany that made you reject evolution leads me to believe that you never really understood development or evolution.”
Finish it off with a little more demeaning….
Re: “Relative limb length is easily modified genetically, and several of the other bipedal dinos in the same group have much longer arms than T-rex. Interesting how we keep finding new ones with various types of primitive feathers.”
……….and excuses after the fact.
Well I said I was done, but I am on vacation, and everyone is asleep, and I love to write.
Re: “No alternative” does not make evo the final answer. Sorry, that isn’t good science. So many theories in history would have stuck because there simply was no alternative….until the theory collapsed.”
I never said that evolution was the final answer. I think it is, but everything in science is tentative. I just said it is the winner (as in current undisputed champion of theories explaining the diversity of life). No theory in the history of science has ever “collapsed” before being replaced. Even Ptolemy’s concept of an Earth-centric universe was still being widely used despite a few long noted difficulties when Kepler refined the Copernican heliocentric model with elliptical orbits. Ptolemy’s was still the best around until Kepler.
Re: “Your evidence isn’t there, but celebrated as if it is the answer. Did the pollinators evolve before the flowers, or the other way around? Did the seeds precede the flowers, or the other way around? I’m sure you will have a very confident unobserved explanation.”
Well, from fossil evidence of primitive plants, it appears that the first “flowers” were wind or water pollinated (as many still are today and as are non-flowering plants). Of course seeds preceded flowers, because non-flowering plants (which have been around a lot longer) also produce seeds. Here’s where I have to start speculating: The more open nature of the primitive flowering plants’ reproductive parts (as opposed to the more closed-off cones of non-flowering plants) likely made them targets for insects looking for an easy meal, and by accident at first, helped in pollination. This would cause heavy selective pressure for attracting insects since insect pollination is more effective than wind.
None of this scenario would be possible if wind pollination wasn’t the primitive plant form, but it is. Funny how it always works out in evolution’s favor. I promise you that you can’t trap me like you just attempted to do. The complex structure needed for the next step is always there to be modified in a selective manner. This need not necessarily be the case, but it always is everywhere we look.
Re: “Evo peers jump up and down and celebrate anything, be it imaginary or not, as long as it proves what they want it to prove.”
Look, you’re claiming that things are IMPOSSIBLE to have evolved. That’s even more imaginary than the scenarios I come up with to show that it is POSSIBLE. The thing is, we may never know exactly how something happened in the past, but if I can show that it could’ve happened through evolution, then there’s no reason to imagine some magical, miraculous, or super-advanced alien or God or fairies or whatever came to Earth and fiddled with stuff in order to explain things. Evolution has plenty of other evidence to back it up despite the historical mysteries. Just look at the DNA record – like my GULOP video for instance.
I apologize for demeaning your educational background. That was wrong of me. You have, however, been pretty demeaning yourself, lumping all proponents of evolution together with a demeaning made-up name: “Evolutionauts can’t do that. Hurts their ego too much.” Yeah, like this is really just about egos and we’re all in outer space with our wacky ideas. So, I apologize for being demeaning, but you might want to check your own house before throwing stones at mine.
I don’t doubt your intelligence. My point was that your arguments seem to stem from ignorance of the facts. This is not meant as an insult, but merely an observation that goes for many opponents of evolutionary theory. If there were such glaring holes in evolution as you claim, then why aren’t there more people with PhDs in evolution, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc. that support ID after viewing the evidence thoroughly? Instead, the leading proponents of ID are dentists and mathematicians and philosophers, with an odd cell biologist that happens to accept the common descent of all life. There is an ultimate reality that we are pulling our data from, and it doesn’t have to always support evolution, but so far it does. Every time we think something might be too complex to evolve, we find intermediate steps showing it could and did evolve.
For example, your epiphany with the T-rex arms seems to show that you didn’t really understand gene regulation and development – maybe I’m wrong, but if you had, then you’d know that things like limb length are easily altered by small genetic changes. Your question about which came first, seeds or flowers shows ignorance of the evidence (genetic and paleontological) that non-flowering plants evolved first and that flowering plants came from them.
Maybe I’m wrong about your background, but these sorts of arguments make me think that I’m not.
You argue that we haven’t determined how sexual reproduction evolved. Again, you point to things in the distant past that are difficult to find an answer to – good luck finding evidence of design of the sexes. Sexual reproduction probably evolved in soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Maybe from hermaphroditic worms or something else we’ll never find fossils of. Explaining WHY it evolved at least shows that there was selective pressure for such a change.
Re: “Just by saying something, you think you can gloss over the real problems you have, and satisfy the questioner. You can’t.”
And neither can you by simply claiming something is impossible. I am simply showing you that there are scenarios that are plausible. I’m not making definite claims as you are. “Impossible” is a claim that requires a lot to back it up, and is easy to tear down, which is all that I’ve been doing with the scenarios I’ve given. I don’t claim to KNOW how it happened, but you claim to KNOW that it can’t have happened. Who is making the bigger more unfounded claim here?
Re: “Don’t you question these kinds of tales? At all?”
Yeah, I do. I also question filling in the gaps with mysterious super-beings. That’s too easy. Anything we can’t yet understand -> mysterious super-being.
How is that any better than bronze age people claiming Zeus or Thor or Yahweh or spirits were responsible for lightning? The premise of ID is the very same thing that held back science during the dark ages. I’m sorry, but I’ll need more than “it’s so complex – I can’t understand how natural forces could explain it” before I go pointing to mysterious unknown beings as the most plausible answer. I’ll first try to find a natural explanation.
Re: “You have stopped questioning. You can’t.”
Sorry, but that’s just not true. I question all the time, but I haven’t yet found a better explanation than evolution for the diversity of life. 1,000 years ago, “fairy circles” were thought to be a result of ID, but now we know they are a result of the action of mushroom rhizomes. I accept that ID is possible, but I have yet to see a strong case for it anywhere, and I’m reluctant to give up on natural explanations unless there’s a damn good reason to. History backs me up on this, as does the failure of ID in so many instances.
Re: “excuses after the fact.”
How am I supposed to anticipate every issue you are going to have and explain it before you raise it? How does finding the answer after the question is asked make the answer any less meaningful? Regardless, evolution has provided tons of predictions that have turned out to be precisely true.
And talk about the pot calling the kettle black, ID is nothing but excuses after the fact. “I found something complex! It must’ve been designed. Oh? There’s tons of evidence of intermediates? Never mind. Oh, wait, look at this! It’s so complex…”
How about a set of predictions for ID that aren’t the same as the predictions for natural selection? Like no bad designs (which we see), or no left-over non-functional genes (which we see), or some really complex trait popping up the exact same way in two separate lineages (which we never see). These are some of the things we might expect to occur if we were dealing with an intelligent designer (aka predictions). I mean, the third one would only have to happen once to show that evolution is insufficient. Humans use new complex features all over the place in their inventions once someone comes up with it the first time. Life instead follows a nested hierarchy of similarity in regards to these structures and all others. No, ID doesn’t make these predictions because it isn’t actually testable, and therefore isn’t scientific.
Have fun on your vacation.
Re: “The only way to test a claim like that with a necessarily incomplete fossil record is to make up scenarios. How else should we do it?”
Very simple. And honest. Teach what we know for sure. Don’t “make up” scenarios. Teach what is real. Not made up evolution, but that there certainly is changes in genetics and in populations. Not “an intelligent agent” but show the wonderful design in nature, and that we are not sure how it came about. Then you are teaching REAL science. Teach evolution forming complex devices and an “intelligent design agent” in philosophy classes, where they should be nested. And as we find out more, and what is sure, move that into science. And. above all, keep digging and testing and thinking. That is real science and real philosophy.
I will check out your vid……..
Re: “What’s wrong with being an astronaut?” Nothing, if you’re actually involved in space travel. Evolutionaut seems to imply that evolution proponents are space cadets with ideas that are out of this world and not grounded on Earth. It’s no better than IDiot instead of ID proponent.
We would only expect to see large variation in limb length in populations if limb length were not under strong selective pressure. If it were, as is likely, we would expect for mutants with extra long (or extra short) limbs to be weeded out of the population quickly and not show up in the fossil record due to their low numbers. We do find many intermediate fossils, but we don’t expect to find them for everything because fossils are VERY rare to form. Just because you can’t locate your great X 50 grandfather’s grave doesn’t mean I should question your humanity.
Re: “And the notion that some species in a population survive, some don’t and that can produce that incredible design is simply not worth arguing. It’s just too ridiculous.”
No, it has been demonstrated in computer simulations using proven population processes and genetic algorithms and in lab populations of bacteria (the only ways to make it happen fast enough to observe). What hasn’t been demonstrated is that there’s some mysterious intelligent being that likes fiddling with life. Regardless, you’ve yet to prove evolution of complexity is IMPOSSIBLE, which was my whole point, and which is why I have to make up scenarios to show that it is possible.
“It was biblical Christianity, superstition, ignorance, and an immense lack of scientists and scientific tools, not ID.”
ID is like these things because it attempts to side-rail actual scientific explanations by replacing them with untestable super-beings.
Re: “My stance is that there is no possible path, none whatsoever, from point A to point B using mutations and NS, or any form of microsteps that are completely unplanned. NO POSSIBLE PATH is the problem, not that it’s too complex for me. Strawman time.”
But you have yet to prove that there is no possible path. What you are actually doing is claiming that you can’t think of any possible path, and shooting down any suggested paths because you don’t realize that evolution through natural selection actually has been demonstrated conclusively to be capable of building complexity over time. You argue from incredulity and ignorance. Ancient people made the same mistakes about fairy rings and lightning. That’s why your position is anti-science.
Re: “Hey, guess what? The Bible has too! What a coincidence!”
Unlike evolution, however, the Bible has made many blatantly incorrect predictions. The Bible has some historical data that is fairly accurate (if you remove the mystical stuff), but has zero scientific accuracy as far as predictions go.
Life is complex, ecosystems are complex, and genes are complex. Any theory that attempts to explain the patterns observed in these things is necessarily complex. We will probably never know the full story, but we don’t have to to show that evolution is still the best explanation. You complain about evolution proponents making up stories, yet you claim that no story can possibly explain X. What do you expect when you make this claim? The only way to test a claim like that with a necessarily incomplete fossil record is to make up scenarios. How else should we do it?
I’d really like your input on my GULOP video.
Re: “The truth is important.” We agree. So, let’s not make things up, then teach them as real, like evolution does. (And creationism) GULOP is a fine argument against Genesis, which you would know by now that I don’t go for at all. So, we both agree that the six day SHAZAAM is fantasy. Interesting watch.
Re: “Teach what we know for sure.”
That’s why I don’t teach things like the evolution of the loss of human hair. But just because we don’t know exactly how it happened doesn’t automatically make it impossible, contrary to your claims, which was all I was getting at by pointing out possible scenarios whereby hair could be lost through gradual changes and selective pressures.
Things like the observation that birds evolved from dinosaurs are much better supported by fossils and the fact that crocodiles are more genetically related to birds than they are to other reptiles. How each step along the way occurred is not well understood. In a similar vein, the vertebrate tree of life is VERY strongly supported by independent evidence from DNA, morphology, biochemistry, development, fossils, atavisms, etc. This nested hierarchy only makes sense with common descent.
Re: “Just because we don’t know exactly how it happened doesn’t automatically make it impossible”
I would change this to:
Just because it’s impossible, doesn’t automatically make it impossible”
If we don’t know how it happened, then it shouldn’t be taught as if we do. And, unfortunately, it is taught way.
I think we are full circle. I don’t think nature could have been put together without tremendous intelligence and planning, you do. And we are not going to change each other’s minds.
So you agree that apes (including humans) share a common ancestor? Do you just think that a designer modified human ancestors to remove their hair and make their brains bigger?
I’m just curious because your position is still unclear to me.
If you go by the fossil record, you can’t come to the common ancestor conclusion. Same species fossils don’t show evolution like they should. Items appear at different times, but quickly. Birds, flowers, and insects are examples. They also vanished quickly at very different times, and very puzzlingly. Then there is the Cambrian. The earth appears to be 4.7 BYA. Trying to tie birds to theropod dinosaurs is nothing but an attempt to prove they evolved from the only possible flying ancestor, archeopteryx. That just isn’t a fit. So, I don’t know what kind of model can be made from those facts, and we certainly don’t have enough information to make on that satisfies me. It does you, I realize.
Re: “Same species fossils don’t show evolution like they should. Items appear at different times, but quickly. Birds, flowers, and insects are examples. They also vanished quickly at very different times, and very puzzlingly.”
This is often exactly what we expect to see. Think about it – new adaptations arise in a single population. At first, they are not as refined as the final form. Once they’ve had time to be perfected, we expect the population to expand all over the place. THAT’S when we expect to see fossils crop up, not when it’s a small isolated population with an imperfect adaptation. After the adaptation is perfected, we don’t expect to see much change, since change would likely be detrimental.
That said, all the examples you gave are cases where we DO see intermediates. For birds, we have a series of bird-like dinos and dino-like birds, with primitive hair-like feathers at first and more complex ones later, as well as gradual changes in wing structure, gradual loss of claws, and gradual changes in tail length and beak morphology.
In flowers, we also see gradual changes starting with simple leaves around a stem with the sex organs on top with a gradual movement of the leaves so that they are closer together as you get near the sexual organs, and gradual modification of the leaves into petal structures. In many modern flowers, there is little distinction between stamen, petals, sepals, and leaves – they spiral into each other, and are built by many of the same genes. Even in modern flowers, we can see that the more basally related ones share many primitive features that change gradually as we get to more derived less basal flowers.
Insects also show many transitions in the several groups we see from fossils. There are too many for me to really even begin to go into here, but I’ve got a whole textbook about it. Basically, we see ancestors that appear half-way between two modern groups of insects, and we find complex wing folding occurring after non-wing-folding insects like dragonflies.
Re: “Then there is the Cambrian.”
Which occurred several 10s of millions of years after fossils of worm holes. Worms have the segmentation pattern seen in most higher animals that allows for specialization of segments into different functions (just like insects developing from worm-like larvae through fusion and specialization of segments). Some (like polychaetes) even have primitive limbs. Worms also have primitive eyes (and several other primitive organs) , and tend to be soft-bodied, making them hard to fossilize. Therefore, any evolution occurring in these worms pre-Cambrian may never be seen in the fossil record.
Re: “Trying to tie birds to theropod dinosaurs is nothing but an attempt to prove they evolved from the only possible flying ancestor, archaeopteryx. That just isn’t a fit. So, I don’t know what kind of model can be made from those facts, and we certainly don’t have enough information to make on that satisfies me. It does you, I realize.”
Do you have a better explanation for archaeopteryx (just look at the pictures of this thing to see the mix of reptilian and bird traits), feathered theropods, and the more bird-like fossils that still have reptilian features? Or how about the fact that tiny experimental mutations can cause birds to grow teeth, longer tails, and change the scales on their feet to feathers? There’s even a breed of chicken that has feathers instead of scales on it’s legs.
Does this designer you have in mind just want us to think it wasn’t involved? It’s truly subtle if it does the things you claim it is responsible for and apparently has to keep coming back frequently and tweaking things in small steps (and in MANY species that eventually go extinct) if we are to account for what we see in fossils and living organisms.
I can see how you have trouble seeing how this stuff can happen through evolution. We’re talking about large numbers of individuals having large numbers of various kinds of mutations with complex population dynamics involved over VAST time scales. The human mind didn’t evolve with the ability to truly grasp these sorts of scales, but it did evolve with the capacity to recognize patterns and the tendency to imagine intelligent motives for those patterns (just as primitive peoples do for every change in the weather, every disease, etc.).
From my perspective, that is the real issue here with our disagreement.
I hope that I’ve been more civil and less demeaning. I understand your perspective, but I think you’re wrong from a scientific methodological, evidential, and philosophical standpoint. We may just have to agree to disagree on that, but I wish you wouldn’t claim that things are impossible and then attack people for imagining possibilities. When evidence is lacking for ANY explanation (i.e. a specific pathway of evolution OR a specific method of genetic engineering by a designer), hypotheticals are the ONLY way to actually determine if something is impossible or not. It’s disingenuous to make a claim like that and not accept hypotheticals. I agree that people shouldn’t then go and teach those hypotheticals as science unless there’s some pretty good evidence to support them. Evidence of HOW something evolved, though, is often different than evidence THAT it evolved.
Re: “If you go by the fossil record, you can’t come to the common ancestor conclusion.”
ID proponents like Behe would disagree with you on that point. Also, it’s a good thing we also have the genetic, morphological, embryological, developmental, and biochemical evidence to back up the fossil evidence. All totaled, it’s rock solid evidence of common descent. I’ve seen this evidence, and I’d bet my life and eternal soul on it – much more than I’d be willing to bet on general relativity being true.
Thanx for your very intelligent and respectful reply. And the lack of demeaning. Much more fun of a read.
Bottom line is the same as I said before. You think things came about without intelligence, I don’t see how that is possible. And good science WANTS us both to continue expressing our thoughts. Good challenges for any science should be welcomed. That makes good science better, and people can choose. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Evolution, which, for the most part,
does not look kindly at challenges.
You will be the winner of most votes for the near future. But we will never really know what science will find in the next hundreds of years. So we will both die a lot puzzled, because it is still a great Puzzle for both of us. We both can admit we don’t have all the answers. But it sure is fun to think about……
I basically agree with everything you’ve said except for:
Re: “Good challenges for any science should be welcomed. That makes good science better, and people can choose. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Evolution, which, for the most part, does not look kindly at challenges.”
I agree with the first part, but not the second. In the field of evolution, there is healthy debate about what is responsible for large-scale evolutionary change. For instance, there has been a growing movement of evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) biologists who claim that developmental plasticity can cause huge morphological changes with small triggers, and that this is responsible for much of the macroevolutionary differences we see, which challenges the mainstream neo-Darwinian consensus. These people are welcomed at meetings and regularly publish in prestigious journals.
You will find the same resistance if you try arguing with most cosmologists about evidence that a designer is responsible for the universe itself. The physicists who study gravity don’t get these kind of challenges because no one is advocating “intelligent falling”. The same goes for most other fields.
You think that by poking holes in the evolutionary explanation that the only alternative is “intelligent design”. Well, you’re wrong. The evo-devo people have proven that that is not the case. The problem with intelligent design is it offers no testable alternative, no predictions of what we expect to see in the future. It doesn’t even attempt to explain HOW anything happened (like how was the design arrived at and how was it implemented), which is the basic requirement for any scientific theory. If you really want to discredit a theory, the only real way to do it is to beat it with a better one. The ID proponents don’t even have research programs. Basically all of the money donated to groups like the Discovery Institute goes to marketing and attempts at legislation. Even Behe said during the Dover trail that he doesn’t actually do any ID research because he doesn’t think it would be a fruitful use of his time. What kind of science are you guys actually promoting here?
You find opposition from evolution proponents because we see ID as an affront to the scientific method and therefore science as a whole, and we happen to be on the front lines. Produce something approaching a real research program and then we’ll be willing to talk. Darwin and Wallace basically simultaneously invented evolution through natural selection, along with a whole research program to support it, with less money than any professor today gets as start-up funds when he opens his lab. We’re not asking for much if ID actually qualifies as science.
Anyway, I don’t take issue with people pointing out unsolved issues in science, it’s just the claim of “impossible” that irks me. Most good scientists don’t tend to use that word when discussing science. That’s why hypotheses are never “proven”, “disproven”, “true”, “false”, “correct” or “incorrect” – they are tentatively accepted or rejected until better information overturns the decision.
I hope you can see my point.
What is a “prestigious journal””? Prestigious is a rather subjective word for a sci journal. Can the Discovery Institute write a “prestigious” journal?
The problem with evolution is it has no place to go. Naturally selected random mutations is it. It can’t change, as you say it will with new info, to accommodate new information. Fast here, slower there, in equilibrium over there, but it’s always the same. And we are talking about something that has NEVER been demonstrated in nature or any laboratory ever. No mutation has been shown to form healthy organ tissue, as well as place it in the proper body positions, in just the correct amounts, attach it to necessary blood vessel and nerve hookups, for good utility. (With some BIG etc’s.)
When all of our organs were forming, it’s just unimaginable what nature must have looked like. Millions of different organs forming in different individuals. Millions of partially evolved parts. Millions of dead ends that weren’t “selected for”. Attempts at forming different kinds and numbers of limbs, facial designs that were unselected for, rib designs that were set aside for better and hence more selected versions, joint pathways that were not selected for because of superior versions. Populations should show partial evolutionary changes that weren’t selected. They should not be uniformly alike. If Dar-ev were true, the fossil record would be MUCH different. It sure would be nice if it were. It would make the argument much easier for your wing of the explanation. The fossil record is just too neat for RM and NS to be true. So, this HUGE science has a foundation that isn’t even sand. It should and will collapse of its own weight. That is why imagination is such a huge part. Imagination is absolutely necessary to shore up the foundation. So, “prestigious journal” is a pat-on-the-back sales term that isn’t deserved.
Behe blew it at the Dover trial. I wrote a piece on why on my blog if you want to see why. So please don’t use that as an argument against me. Actually, all of biological research and study IS a study of intelligence in nature. The order, organization, and design that is studied by biologists IS evidence FOR design and against randomness. And going on a search for the source of the intelligence would be like going on a search for the reason for the BB. Astronomy isn’t demeaned because it can’t find that source. It’s way too big for humans. So, don’t be too proud that lab tests aren’t being done for ID. It’s a meaningless complaint.
Re: “Produce something approaching a real research program and then we’ll be willing to talk.”
I thought you were talking…to me.
So, what is the source for the BB? Do you find searching for a source for that an “affront” to real science? Can you give me an answer to that question that doesn’t involve some sort of mysterious force that we are not yet able to come close to comprehending? I’m sure you will skip this question, but you think you have an answer for the origin of life and the formation of incredibly designed nature that is really, you say, just the “appearance of design”. An illusion?
And, looking at the universe, and the design and forces involved, design is apparent there too. Just the ever so slight change in molecular attractions and forces would make life impossible. So, intelligence is not only apparent in nature, but the universe, the foundation that supports it. I’m sure you know this, but if the strong nuclear force was a ruler as long as the universe is wide, 13 BLY ‘s, gravity would be one inch of that ruler. If it were two or three inches, life would be squashed or unable to form. Intelligence is so apparent that I find it amazing that you could ignore it, gloss over it, and pretend it’s not there. Ignoring and glossing over intelligence is a difficult undertaking that did for a while, but it just didn’t hold up for me.
Re: “What is a “prestigious journal””? Prestigious is a rather subjective word for a sci journal. Can the Discovery Institute write a “prestigious” journal?”
A prestigious journal is one where only a very small select group of papers are accepted out of a giant group of submissions, and all of those papers have been reviewed by at least 3 of the top scientists in the field the research is in (the 3 scientists should also vary widely and not always be the same 3). The Discovery Institute could have one if it were much more selective about what it published (which would require FAR more submissions, and a generally higher quality of submissions) and if it actually sent everything submitted to it to at least 3 experts in that very specific field. They could be a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal if they simply did the latter and rejected those papers found lacking by the reviewers. Unfortunately, every ID paper I’ve read is full of logical flaws and a poor understanding of the evidence and subject matter and would never pass this review process in any legitimate journal. Not because they advocate ID, but because of poor science.
Re: “And we are talking about something that has NEVER been demonstrated in nature or any laboratory ever. No mutation has been shown to form healthy organ tissue, as well as place it in the proper body positions, in just the correct amounts, attach it to necessary blood vessel and nerve hookups, for good utility. (With some BIG etc’s.)”
This is not what is expected to occur. New organs form from pre-existing organs, which ultimately are derived from basic cell types from the pre-cambrian that took many many millions of years to evolve. We have certainly observed genetically based modifications of organs in the lab and in nature. Name one organ that would’ve had to arise in the way you suggest.
Re: “If Dar-ev were true, the fossil record would be MUCH different.”
No – you just have a false expectation of what would occur. We do see variation in populations, fossil and modern, in the precise amounts predicted by evolution.
Re: “Millions of dead ends that weren’t “selected for”.”Like the countless species that went extinct?
Re: “And going on a search for the source of the intelligence would be like going on a search for the reason for the BB. Astronomy isn’t demeaned because it can’t find that source.”
True, but Astronomy doesn’t claim that it’s guesses about the reason for the BB are scientific theories on par with evolution, while ID does.
Re: “I thought you were talking…to me.”
I am – I was referring to ID being actual science (like evolution), not philosophical discussion fodder like we’re having.
Re: “So, what is the source for the BB? Do you find searching for a source for that an “affront” to real science? Can you give me an answer to that question that doesn’t involve some sort of mysterious force that we are not yet able to come close to comprehending? I’m sure you will skip this question, but you think you have an answer for the origin of life and the formation of incredibly designed nature that is really, you say, just the “appearance of design”. An illusion?”
I don’t know the source of the BB, and searching for a source is not an affront to real science. What would be an affront to real science is claiming to have found the source without the tests to back it up and meanwhile claiming some other option is impossible without the evidence to back up that claim. The origin of life is a separate issue from the origin of the diversity of life, and is a biochemical question and not an evolutionary one. I don’t have an answer to that, but I have a guess.
Re: “Just the ever so slight change in molecular attractions and forces would make life impossible.”
And if there are multiple universes, then the anthropic principle solves this problem.
Re: “Geez, this was just going to be a short one. You sure get me going.”
Thanks, I’ll take that as a compliment. Have fun in your golf game.
Oh. c’mon. Do you think I could get a paper through all of that barbed wire? A ‘prestigious” paper is self described by evolution supporters. If you don’t support evolution, no biological peer review, no “prestige”, and you know it. Peer reviewed by the Discovery Institute would be meaningless, and laughed at in university biological circles.
Re: “Name one organ that would’ve had to arise in the way you suggest.”
Re: “Millions of dead ends that weren’t “selected for”.”
Re: “Like the countless species that went extinct?”
No, like the millions of evolutionary dead ends that aren’t there. Not extinct species. You are too smart to miss-state the question. But, actually, you had to because you had no answer.
Do astronomers pretend that matter has no design? Or gives only the “appearance” of design? Not an issue with astronomy. But it sure is with evo.
Re: “We do see variation in populations, fossil and modern, in the precise amounts predicted by evolution.”
The fossil record doesn’t look at all like it should to demonstrate the evolution that you say made all of nature.You pretend you are happy with what has shown up in the digs, but you cannot be. You are playing pretend here, and when you say the nature only has the “appearance of design”. Evolution has the “appearance” of not occurring, but it did! Nature has the “appearance” of design, but it isn’t. It’s all just an illusion.
Re: “the anthropic principle. You think the universe is designed to support life?
Re: “Do you think I could get a paper through all of that barbed wire?”
If your research and logic are water tight and informative, then yes, you could. You admitted that you can’t do ID research yet, though.
Re: “Peer reviewed by the Discovery Institute would be meaningless, and laughed at in university biological circles.”
If the ID had experts in the field peer review their stuff, and actually consistently published good research, then they’d become well respected. They don’t come remotely close to doing either of these things. Forward me the best ID paper published by the DI, and watch me rip it to shreds on a purely logical and evidential basis. Gaining acceptance for new theories has never been easy, and always requires incredible evidential support which is frankly lacking in ID.
Zero organs would have had to arise in the way you suggest – I won’t explain the intermediate steps we see for all of them as that would take more time than I’m willing to give in private correspondence, but pick one and I’ll show you what I mean.
Re: “No, like the millions of evolutionary dead ends that aren’t there. Not extinct species. You are too smart to miss-state the question. But, actually, you had to because you had no answer.”
Extinct species ARE evolutionary dead ends. You’re expecting to see monsters, but what evolution predicts are small variations which we see EVERYWHERE in the fossil record and in natural populations.
Re: “Do astronomers pretend that matter has no design? Or gives only the “appearance” of design? Not an issue with astronomy. But it sure is with evo.”
Yes, many claim precisely that, but most laypeople don’t argue about the design of matter. If matter is to exist at all, it must behave some way or another. Most of astronomy isn’t concerned with the make-up of matter, anyway. You know, people used to argue that planets had to be designed because of their near-perfect round shape, but after we understood the mechanism (gravity), people stopped arguing that – there’s a lesson here.
Re: “The fossil record doesn’t look at all like it should to demonstrate the evolution that you say made all of nature.You pretend you are happy with what has shown up in the digs, but you cannot be.”
No, actually, I’m ecstatic about the current fossil record. Darwin could’ve never dreamed his theory would be so well supported. You just have a serious misconception about how evolution works and what is expected if it does.
Re: “You are playing pretend here, and when you say the nature only has the “appearance of design”. Evolution has the “appearance” of not occurring, but it did! Nature has the “appearance” of design, but it isn’t. It’s all just an illusion.”
Just like planets have the appearance of design until one understands gravity, life has the appearance of design until one understands evolution.
Re: ” the anthropic principle. You think the universe is designed to support life?”
No, I think that the only reason THIS universe does support life is because we wouldn’t be around to be talking about this in any of the other ones that don’t. That’s the whole point of the anthropic principle.
And with that note, I terminate the discussion. We have been circular for a while, and that was it.