Fascinating new research suggests that the mere sight of a sick person can trigger an immune response. When test subjects viewed photos showing symptoms of infectious disease, their immune systems responded more aggressively compared to test subjects who viewed other types of photos (including photos of people bearing firearms). It is the first hard evidence that visual cues alone can influence the immune system. Evolutionists have no difficulty explaining this new finding, but that may not be a good sign for Darwin’s theory.Biological designs that appear to be inefficient or useless are, not surprisingly, explained by evolutionists as a consequence of the blind, happenstance process of evolution. But it is also easy for evolutionists to explain profound designs and complexity, such as the immune response discovered by this new research.
This immune response begins with the viewing and processing of symptoms of infectious disease. These are complex visual scenes that easily can be confused with scenes having nothing to do with disease, infectious or otherwise. Other research suggests that persistent priming of the immune system is not good, so this visual processing needs to be reasonably accurate.
Next in line is a link to the immune system. Once the visual processing identifies a scene as containing signs of infectious disease, then signals need to be sent to the immune system to trigger an appropriate response. Of course, the response should not be too aggressive.
Certainly this immune response to the sight of sickness is not a trivial design. But divining an evolutionary explanation is a simple matter. Why? Because the design works. And anything that works is said to be a consequence of selection, for if it works, then of course it would be selected. Useless junk is due to evolution’s ineptitude—profound designs are due to evolution’s efficiency. As one science writer put it:
Having this immune response may have had its advantages in the days of early humans - even though they may have recoiled at the sight of other sick people too, their immune responses would have helped them live in proximity with others.
There you have it—evolution happens. But such facile explanations are too easy. For while it certainly seems obvious that selection would select what works, it is not obvious how what works arises in the first place. This is the elephant in the room that is so often conveniently ignored in evolutionary just-so stories.
In fact, there is no scientific reason to think that this incredible physiological response would just happen to arise occasionally, and then patiently await selection’s nod. But scientific reasoning is not the driving force.
your article is slihtly unclear. I do not see any evidence or even hypothesis against the evolutionary facts.
ReplyDelete'it is not obvious how what works arises in the first place. This is the elephant in the room that is so often conveniently ignored in evolutionary just-so stories.' - well yeah, provided you ignore all the evidence.
'But scientific reasoning is not the driving force here.' - not on your blog anyway! Can't include the full story or any available evidence that would have evolution outweigh creationism now can we.
Cornelius Hunter: There you have it—evolution happens.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what vast amount of evidence collected, from geology to genetics, indicates. So when confronted with a newly discovered adaptation, it is reasonable to hypothesize that this newly discovered adaptation evolved too.
Isn't that the point though, Where's and Zach, that there is no explanation for this by evolutionists other than the response was just naturally selected. Great hypothesis, but where's (er, no not you, Where's) the science in that? Please demonstrate the mechanics of this system and how it arose.
ReplyDeleteJonathan: Where's and Zach, that there is no explanation for this by evolutionists other than the response was just naturally selected.
ReplyDeleteAll the planets move according to the laws of gravity. If we discover a new one, we is reasonable to hypothesize it moves according to the laws of gravity.
Jonathan: Great hypothesis, but where's (er, no not you, Where's) the science in that?
A well-constructed scientific hypothesis should have empirical implications. There is an adaptive advantage to having an immune response to exposure to disease, so it is consistent with the hypothesis, but the results are certainly not definitive. That will require additional testing.
The process of devising such tests is key to the scientific method. Perhaps related social animals have similar responses. A better understanding of the actual mechanism may point to the specific system involved and its evolutionary antecedent. The hypothesis is not the end of the process—it's the beginning.
"For while it certainly seems obvious that selection would select what works, it is not obvious how what works arises in the first place. This is the elephant in the room that is so often conveniently ignored in evolutionary just-so stories."
ReplyDeleteExactly. Why aren't evolutionists uncomfortable with their inability to understand most of the incredible pathways necessary for the evolution of complex biological and physiological processes?
They are tough on not allowing for a "God of the gaps" but are content with having their magical box called natural selection that miraculously outfits every sort of creature. No explanation of pathways necessary, just say natural selection did it and we're good to go.
Is there something physiologically different in the minds of those who are content with generalities and those that want the pathways explained? Perhaps those that are content with generalities should pick another career other than science or biology.
Jonathan: "Great hypothesis, but where's (er, no not you, Where's) the science in that? Please demonstrate the mechanics of this system and how it arose."
ReplyDeleteAs Zachariel has pointed out, science begins with a hypothesis from which experiments and further gathering of data can occur. In this example, is this a good hypothesis? Possibly, given that already is known, it seems like a reasonable one.
But of course the real issue here is that there is a hypothesis. As usual Cornelius has offered us no alternative hypothesis and I suspect has no intention of doing so. How about you - since you don't seem to like this particular hypothesis, do you have another one to offer? For many of us here, this is the most troubling part of ID, that usually no hypotheses are even on the table. Now, is that science?
Neal-"Why aren't evolutionists uncomfortable with their inability to understand most of the incredible pathways necessary for the evolution of complex biological and physiological processes?"
ReplyDeleteBecause we're just getting started. How long have we had comparative genomics? RNAi? Understanding is growing by leaps and bounds, but still no evidence for design. Still nothing against evolution.
"Is there something physiologically different in the minds of those who are content with generalities and those that want the pathways explained? Perhaps those that are content with generalities should pick another career other than science or biology."
"God did it" isn't a generality? A showstopper to me. How is diving into the details of the molecular evolution each pathway not seeking the explanation, the fine details?
As for the paper, I'll wait till they find a molecular mechanism. Dr. Hunter wants us to speculate on a evolutionary pathway without mechanism? Likewise, how does he conclude this is designed?
What design criteria is applied to an OBSERVATION that rules out natural selection?
It could be as simple as a single hormone stimulating cells. Is that irreducibly complex?
Or is everything designed? Has Dr. Hunter dispensed with the 'science' of ID, and inserted creationism?
By the way, the evolutionary speculation is from a CNN staff writer, and not any scientist as far as I can tell. It is not wrong on face, but it is speculation--and Dr. Hunter goes too far in making it sound like the scientists have made a firm affirmation of the evolution of this system based on that third-party speculation!
In short, he's somehow turned an observation, plus third party speculation into damning evidence against evolution.
Neal:
ReplyDeleteIs there something physiologically different in the minds of those who are content with generalities and those that want the pathways explained?
I agree with your observation. The problem as I see it is what constitutes an "explanation"?
Explanations can be constructed at various hierarchical levels. At the top of the hierarchy are the broad explanatory outlines that are mere summaries of the processes being described. Are these broad summaries such that they indicate true understanding of the subject processes, or are they mere guidelines that beg for further research to flesh out the details?
At the lower levels of the hierarchy are the real, painstakingly obtained, detailed explanations that reflect science's best understanding of the processes being described, or in the case of evolution, what is actually required to effect a major evolutionary transition.
Does science know at this point what is actually required to effect a major evolutionary transition? If not, then there in no theory (theory = explanation) of evolution; evolution is still a hypothesis.
RobertC:
Because we're just getting started. How long have we had comparative genomics?
Your saying "we're just getting started" confirms my point. Yes, indeed. Science has a long way to go before the fundamental processes of evolutionary change are truly understood.
Yet, the general explanations are still out there that are intended to give the impression that evolution is well understood and that it is a fact as much as gravity.
That is the problem I have, and I believe it is the problem Neal has. The theory of evolution is at the same time fact and not fully explicated. The theory can't be both at the same time.
-- Doublee: That is the problem I have, and I believe it is the problem Neal has. The theory of evolution is at the same time fact and not fully explicated. The theory can't be both at the same time. --
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a fact in the sense that is has been proven to be correct so many times. The probability that it is correct is so high, it makes no sense to call it anything else.
100 years and xxxx studies, all supporting evolution, later, ID-people would still not want it to be called a fact.
Maybe you don't understand the definition of fact in science. In biology scientific statements can never be 100% true, we can only say how high the probability is. For that matter we have empiricism.
How should the process of evolution be verifiably per se? Therefore, we have a huge number of theories (e.g. inclusive fitness theory, asymmetrical investment, etc.) that explain the process of evolution. All those theories fit and work, thus, it makes sense to call evolution a fact.
"The theory of evolution is at the same time fact and not fully explicated."
ReplyDelete"Science has a long way to go before the fundamental processes of evolutionary change are truly understood."
So until we know everything, we teach nothing? Or just that God did it, until the impossible happens-that non-scientific hypothesis is disproved.
You also mistake my intent. We understand the fundamentals of evolution. The details are still a work in progress.
BTW, I would argue no theory is 'fact' as you mean it.
"In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
So, observations of common descent, molecular and fossil data, direct observations of speciation, etc. are facts. Evolution as an observation, therefore, is a fact. The theory is the best, most useful hypothesis to date that encompasses all these facts. It is unfalsified.
As a comparison, gravity, for example is a fact. Stuff falls. We can measure the rate. The theory of gravity is a work in progress-no graviton, nothing that squares it with quantum mechanics.
Doublee, well said!
ReplyDeleteRobertC, you can find some facts to support evolution, but the bigger question is why do some facts contradict evolution? A theory that does not make consistly accurate predictions is not a sound theory.
"Evolution is a fact in the sense that is has been proven to be correct so many times"
ReplyDeleteHA! Name one. Just one!
"the bigger question is why do some facts contradict evolution?"
ReplyDeleteI know of no fact that disproves the theory of evolution.
Is this post by Dr. Hunter one? The speculation of a staff writer, sans mechanism disproves the theory of evolution?
--HA! Name one. Just one! --
ReplyDeleteFor example: In our past women risked a lot by getting pregnant. Nine years of pregnancy and up to 3 years of lactation. Men don't risk that much. It takes men in average about 3minutes of investment.
Now if evolution is true, women should have found a way to reduce this risk. It has been found that women have the more active role in mate choice. This gives them the opportunity to carefully choose men who would be willing to share their resources (time, food, etc.) with the women and children. This is the theory of female choice in the theory of sexual selection. Those theories fit and support evolution over and over again.
Now in return, I am still waiting for ID-studies, ID-theories or anything that I can use in my speech where I will honestly try to be Pro-ID.
All I find reading this blog are arguments against evolution, nothing that supports ID.
Help would be much appreciated.
Science is the study of physical phenomena. God is outside physical law and so He cannot be studied through science. My prediction is that scientists will continually discover new mechanisms and connections and some theists will continually declare that the next unsolved question is proof of God. It's been going on for centuries. However, such declarations are hubris.
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear to me that God does not want to be discovered in this manner, and since God is perfect, He won't be. Instead, God only requires faith to be discovered. I suppose that most Christians, if not other religions, believe this. So to declare any proof of God demonstrates disbelief in His perfection.
Furthermore, by proposing to know when and how God inserts information into species is tantamount to knowing Gods mind. His works are miraculous, anything less and they are repeatable physical laws. We cannot ever hope to describe the mechanisms of miracles, because that mechanism is God’s mind. So in ID attempting to pinpoint God’s evolutionary miracles is an attempt to think God’s thoughts. Again, this is hubris.
I also see no reason why a perfect God would require constant corrections to his creations as ID proposes. Did He fail to plan ahead? If He wanted us to evolve then we're going to evolve, and it looks to me like this is the case. Scientists are describing Gods creation. It allows us to understand its beauty and to live better lives. They deserve accolades, not derision.
I've been reading these comments for a few weeks and find them very informative. Sometimes I find evolutionists to be a smug bunch, but ultimately more credible than the ID crowd. They are nowhere near as smug as anybody that proposes to prove God’s existence and show how He works. In short, ID is Christian hypocrisy.
Finally, because some of the lamer posters to this blog will want to know my belief in God’s existence before deciding whether or not to agree with me, I'll leave you with the following. God’s existence is irrelevant. The only useful question is how we can lead virtuous lives. This is a question on which atheist and theist will find much common ground.
Launzz,
ReplyDeleteYour "proof" of evolution is preposterous. A female choice of partner in no way shape or form is a "proven fact that has proven evolution true". I agree that a woman does want a loving husband, but does this support the TOE? Not even close.
--I agree that a woman does want a loving husband, but does this support the TOE? Not even close. --
ReplyDeleteIn the broader sense it does exactly that. All the theories we found answer different questions that, at first, seemed so confusing.
Of course you didn't buy my example and of course not any-, what we call, evidence will ever change a Pro-ID's mind. The debates will be the exact same in 5 more years.
But at least Evolutionists have something to sell.
There is a video on the uncommen descent page: dramatic music and a few lines: NO DESIGN? NO PURPOSE? BLIND INDIFFERENCE? WHERE DID WE COME FROM?
The conclusion to draw from this is that there is a big saddened ego involved in the whole ID concept. The bigger this ego becomes the more unlikely it is for the person to ever change his opinion, even when confronted with logic. After a while a person's whole identity is built upon this ego and therefore, it must be defended. In this case, a designer is an ideal concept because it avoids logic by being untouchable and divine while at the same time it comforts the ego.
Darren, are you pro-ID or just contra evolution? If you are the former, you surely are able to give me one empirical evidence for ID that I could use.
RobertC:
ReplyDeleteSo until we know everything, we teach nothing?
Of course we don't have to know everything, before we teach something, as long as the something we teach doesn't claim we know everything.
If science can't explain or at least outline the basic processes involved in building a body in the first place, and what would be required to modify that body in the second place such that each incremental change maintains a viable organism, then science is far from claiming it has a theory of evolution.
What does science really know about what it takes to effect a major morphological change in an organism?
There must be a hierarchy of processes that must be changed in order to build a new body. Is a series of random mutations that merely create new proteins all that is required? Surely there is more to it than that.
Zachriel: "But of course the real issue here is that there is a hypothesis. As usual Cornelius has offered us no alternative hypothesis and I suspect has no intention of doing so. How about you - since you don't seem to like this particular hypothesis, do you have another one to offer?"
ReplyDeleteUm, ok, just thinking out loud here...I don't know, how about maybe *ID* as the hypothesis? I thought that's the point--it answers all these "just so" stories that evolutionists create to explain what they have no imperial reproducible explanations for. How do I prove my hypothesis of ID? As this article does, by pointing to the places where TOE fails to be able to empirically deconstruct and repeat the process, but just relies on *just so* processes.
What do you mean Dr Hunter offers no alternate hypothesis in these? It's about ID, that's the point. His blog title is so apt--"How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters." Evolution is a religion of faith.
Doublee....
ReplyDelete"explain or at least outline the basic processes involved in building a body in the first place"
Developmental Biology
"what would be required to modify that body in the second place"
Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo)
Whole fields are dedicated to the explanation of these very things-with fundamentals well in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology
"Is a series of random mutations that merely create new proteins all that is required? Surely there is more to it than that."
The impact of random mutation has been studied in development. The Hox gene literature is full of studies on changes made in body plan by alteration to single proteins, or transcription factors. We even know know Darwin's finches are largely diversified by bone morphogenesis protein mutations.
Even swapping experiments have been done-inducing water flea body plans in flies, or example.
There's a simple intro here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_01
Also a excellent free review here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18243095
how about maybe *ID* as the hypothesis?
ReplyDeleteID is not a hypothesis. Please state it as a falsifiable hypothesis, and describe a prediction it makes in the system in this post.
Also, this whole post is based on 1 speculation of a CNN staff writer, not any scientist.
This is disproof of evolution? That is the evidence for ID?
Launzz:
ReplyDeleteIf what you are saying is true, why do so many women tkae up with men who are downright abusive, or just pathetic losers? What is the evolutionary explanation for that?
Jonathan: "As this article does, by pointing to the places where TOE fails to be able to empirically deconstruct and repeat the process, but just relies on *just so* processes."
ReplyDeleteI love it when people talk about "just-so" stories! How about this one:
A long time ago (maybe even a very long time ago, but we're not sure) - Something or maybe even a Someone, caused all things to come into being. But we're not what things exactly; we think, perhaps, that this same Something/Somebody may have been tinkering with this "design" as time goes along, but if that's the case we can't really tell what or when exactly. Unfortunately the Something/Somebody (despite being unimaginably Intelligent) does not want to talk to us about it. Some people say though that Somebody did write something down in a 3,000 year-old book (although we don't exactly know who really wrote it), but that looks increasingly to be at best an allegorical myth because it conflicts with everything we now know about the natural world.
Now...if that isn't the epitomy of a "just-so" story I don't know what is!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested, here is a great NYT article on just one way how ACTUAL evolutionary hypotheses (not the musings of a CNN writer-though her speculation is interesting) lead to predictions that drive medicine forward.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27gene.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
"The scientists took advantage of a peculiar feature of our evolutionary history. In our distant, amoeba-like ancestors, clusters of genes were already forming to work together on building cell walls and on other very basic tasks essential to life. Many of those genes still work together in those same clusters, over a billion years later, but on different tasks in different organisms.....
When scientists started sequencing DNA, they were able to find homologies between genes as well. From generation to generation, genes sometimes get accidentally copied. Each copy goes on to pick up unique mutations. But their sequence remains similar enough to reveal their shared ancestry."
Result:
"... Our method suggests a yeast model for angiogenesis defects, a worm model for breast cancer, mouse models of autism, and a plant model for the neural crest defects associated with Waardenburg syndrome, among others... Phenologs reveal functionally coherent, evolutionarily conserved gene networks—many predating the plant-animal divergence—capable of identifying candidate disease genes."
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/14/6544.long
natschuster: If what you are saying is true, why do so many women tkae up with men who are downright abusive, or just pathetic losers? What is the evolutionary explanation for that?
ReplyDelete--
What qualities women look for in a men has been studied many many times. We know that some women go gene shopping. During their 2-4 fertile days of their period they are more likely to cheat on their partner. Now lets assume an example: The woman's partner is a very social, intelligent and rich man. He provides her with the resources. Lets also assume this man isn't the most healthy and tall man. Furthermore, your example (the abusive man) has no resources but a higher level of testosterone, he is taller and acts more dominant. The woman sleeps with him during lunch break. She feels guilty, sleeps with her husband the same night. She gets pregnant and her husband takes it for granted that it must be his own child. Wife worries (she does not know who the real father is). After giving birth, the first thing she will say: Look honey, our baby has your eyes!
Offspring possesses Mr Abusive's healthy genes and father provides all the resources.
Keep in mind that you can't make broad generalizations here. It's just one "tactic" humans, in this case women, use.
But some women will marry the abuser, or parthetic loser, and not the good provider.
ReplyDeletenatschuster: But some women will marry the abuser, or parthetic loser, and not the good provider.
ReplyDelete--
That is so far from a scientific question/statement. Because SOME women marry abusive men the TOE cannot be correct?
It seems like once again it's the ego talking here. Is it possible that you seek refuge in ID because such questions of life trouble your own life? If you believe in ID it must be the intelligent design that makes women marry those men. Or do I misunderstand ID?
I could again answer those questions with science but to me it seems like you are looking for something like this: http://www.realsocialdynamics.com/
launzz:
ReplyDeleteI was resonding to your assertion that a woman's choice of mate is evidence of evolution. As was questioning the feacts that you presented as evidence. I was not making any assertions about Id of my own.
Sorry, typos
ReplyDelete"As" should be "I" and "feacts" is "facts"
And now that I think about it, many religions do have a concept of Evil, which can make people do self distructive things, like pursue a relationship with an abusive person. Just a thought.
It is extremely difficult for the layperson to know what the scientists may be saying with todays media. While it is obvious that some reporters do not have a clue, it is also obvious that other reporters are supporting a political agenda.
ReplyDeleteTake for example the question of life on Mars. For years the public has been told that Mars is dead. Dig deeper and its obvious that the Vikings came back with insufficient evidence.
What I find that doesn't ring true with evolution (although my commonsense dictates that it must play some part, but I seriously doubt it as a leading force) is that humans are intelligent. Given that intelligence exists why is it so heatedly denied as the force shaping anything other than civilization.
I do not believe the human brain isn't the only container for intelligence.
Both sides of the argument are just getting started, if random mutations can be selected as a tool for gaining survival advantage then surely intelligence would be.
BTW you may want to read Eschel Ben-Jacobs work on intelligent bacteria.