For many years the molecular sequences in the bat genome have not been cooperating, and recent research continues to confirm these findings. If evolution is true, then we must believe that the incredible echolocation ability found in some bats arose multiple times, by evolving independently. That's not easy for evolutionists to explain. How could such uncanny design details repeat themselves via blind biological variation (no, natural selection doesn't help)?On the other hand, perhaps instead of evolving independently, it only evolved once long ago, and then repeatedly was lost in particular lineages. That's another puzzle. If it was valuable enough to be selected, then why would it later disappear?
But of course if one believes in evolution, then problems such as these are minor. In fact, they are easy to explain. Echolocation evolved repeatedly due to similar environmental pressures. Or, on the other hand, echolocation could have been lost in different lineages due to shifts in environmental pressures. See, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Sometimes the wind blows east, sometimes west. Therefore meteorology is total crap. That's basically your argument against evolution. Your argument is oversimplistic and ridiculous.
ReplyDelete"The molecular sequences in the bat genome have not been cooperating,"
ReplyDeleteIn what way? Even if this is true, a little controversy in science falsifies all evolution? Seems like its getting resolved with more data.
BTW, where is the design detection in this system? What empirical approach did you use to rule out evolution? Or is it a hunch?
"On the other hand, perhaps instead of evolving independently, it only evolved once long ago, and then repeatedly was lost in particular lineages."
Well, lost once per each lineage, I think, but ok. Ancestral bats developed echolocation at some point, some lineages lost it.
"That's another puzzle. If it was valuable enough to be selected, then why would it later disappear?"
Well, some bats evolved, and stopped chasing insects around. Fruitbats and nectar-eating bats don't so much need to echo-locate fruit and flowers. Ordinary hearing to listen to predators coming might be far better suited for them.
Taking this totally out of context it all sounds silly. You could have at least mentioned what non echo-locating bats eat! Biology makes a lot more sense in context, when you don't parody it.
Reading these blog comments makes evolution seem way more awesome than God. Brilliant at designing non-designed things.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
ReplyDelete"If it was valuable enough to be selected, then why would it later disappear?"
are you serious, or are you just playing Kent Hovind-level dumb? organisms adapt to their current environments. traits that are selected for in one environment/niche may not be selected for in another. eyes aren't particularly useful in caves, and echolocation isn't particularly useful when feeding on flowers.
"... See, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
ReplyDeleteOr, as I like to say, "With "evolution," all things are possible."
"Sometimes the wind blows east, sometimes west. Therefore meteorology is total crap. That's basically your argument against evolution. Your argument is oversimplistic and ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteYou don't know which way the UIND (*) blows, so how can you plan tomorrow?
(*) UIND (pronounced "wind") -- Un-Intelligent Non-Design
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is non-falsifiable so all things are possible, as stated previously. When a theory is non-falsifiable it is nothing but pseudo-science and story telling that invents explanations as it goes along. One day you have one story and the next day, when the evidence changes, then another story is made up to explain the new discovery.
ReplyDeleteI have seen this pattern happening for 30 years now and the story telling gets more harebrained as the the discoveries of real science continue to debunk the evolutionary myths.
Aldolfo-
ReplyDeleteCould you share some of the 'real' science regarding fruit bat creation/design? Curious how they got there and what the evidence is.
Cornelius's hunch that bats that eat fruit and nectar should have retained echolocation to track their sedentary food isn't so satisfying to me.
Anything?
Just curious - do you ID guys ever do anything but argue from ignorance based personal incredulity?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBut of course if one believes in evolution, then problems such as these are minor. In fact, they are easy to explain. Echolocation evolved repeatedly due to similar environmental pressures. Or, on the other hand, echolocation could have been lost in different lineages due to shifts in environmental pressures.
True. But that is not enough. How about actually doing some research to try to establish the truth of the matter? How about doing some actual work rather than armchair hypothesising. That is, after all, what scientists do. No-one, east of all the evolutionists, is content to just say 'however it happened, it was evolution - end of story'.
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete"Just curious - do you ID guys ever do anything but argue from ignorance based personal incredulity?"
If you at least understood what arguing from ignorance is you would realize that it is Darwinism that argues from ignorance everywhere -but Darwinists are too blind to see it - like they miss all the other glaring logical fallacies that riddle their inane theory from root to branches.
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
ReplyDeleteDawkins. What a poser.
Denial is what atheists are best at. Darwinists are experts at it too - thats all we witness here, denial of the obvious à la Dawkins.
"It looks designed, but of course my metaphysics says it can't be cause there is no designer therefore evolution did it"
Ya right, real smart that logic huh? Everywhere to be found in Darwinian literature -and here from the poor wannabe refuters.
So what do they do to sound "scientific" while actually being mere idiots? Easy. They invent another infamous just-so story - aka arguing from ignorance.
Usually goes like this "We don't really have a clue how this could possibly happen and no god is needed therefore here's a little story... perhaps this and perhaps that and ummm oh, please ignore the man behind the curtain"
Thorton said...
ReplyDelete"Just curious - do you ID guys ever do anything but argue from ignorance based personal incredulity?"
Oh the irony.
If only you knew what arguing from ignorance meant.
Darwinian literature is loaded with arguments from both ignorance and incredulity. Indeed the whole of Darwinism is based on incredulity! Not to mention many other logical fallacies persistently argued with overbearing self-assurance.
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
Dawkins. What a poser.
Denial is what atheists are best at. Darwinists are experts at it too - thats all we witness here, denial of the obvious à la Dawkins.
"It looks designed, but of course my metaphysics says it can't be cause there is no designer therefore evolution did it"
Real keen that logic huh? Everywhere to be found in Darwinian literature -and here from the wannabe refuters.
So what do they do to sound "scientific" while actually arguing from ignorance and incredulity themselves?
Easy. They invent another just-so story - aka arguing from ignorance.
Usually goes like this "We don't really have a clue how this could possibly happen and no god is needed therefore here's a little story... perhaps this and perhaps that and ummm oh, please ignore the man behind the curtain"
Re RobertC: I think I can help Cornelius there. It's something like this:
ReplyDeleteEcholocation evolved repeatedly due to similar design preferences. Or, on the other hand, echolocation could have been lost in different lineages due to shifts in design preferences.
See, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of intelligent intervention spanning the causation gap.
"On the other hand, perhaps instead of evolving independently, it only evolved once long ago, and then repeatedly was lost in particular lineages. That's another puzzle. If it was valuable enough to be selected, then why would it later disappear?"
ReplyDeleteTell me what you know about the eyes on blind cave fish.
Gary:"They invent another infamous just-so story - aka arguing from ignorance."
ReplyDeleteExcellent - my prediction regarding "just-so stories" seems to be holding up. Thanks, Gary!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGoogle's blogspot software seems to be failing. Comments are not being posted.
ReplyDeleteThornton: "Just curious - do you ID guys ever do anything but argue from ignorance based personal incredulity?"
ReplyDeleteGary: "Darwinian literature is loaded with arguments from both ignorance and incredulity. Indeed the whole of Darwinism is based on incredulity! Not to mention many other logical fallacies persistently argued with overbearing self-assurance."
I guess the answer is no.
Hmmm...seems to be working now, kinda. I'll delete the duplicate
ReplyDeleteRobertC
ReplyDeleteReal science is the science that discovers and describes the mind boggling complexities of the features of the living organisms. It does not make up stories as to how these complex features came about from a non-intelligent process that has never been observed in action. Pseudoscience (evolution) makes up stories that continuously change over time as new discoveries contradict the previous stories.
Let me ask. If some bats developed echolocation why didn’t nocturnal birds like owls develop it as well? Because they developed excellent eyesight you might say. But then why didn’t bats with echolocation develop the same kind of excellent eyesight instead?
Again, evolution is pseudoscience because it is non-falsifiable like real science should be. Any story can be made up to explain any discovery or observation and the story is changed if new discoveries contradict the previous story.
Richard Dawkins, the master storyteller for evolution, was asked a very simple question: can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase information in the genome? Guess what, he was stumped! This from the apostle of evolutionary storytelling who should know better.
The lack of detail and precision in evolutionary explanations drives me absolutely crazy.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists can't even imagine the complex biological pathways that evolution must take to produce echolocation abilities within a species. That does not seem to matter when hand-waving generalizations are sufficient for evolutionists.
I understand that we don't just give up our pursuit of knowledge, etc. But it would seem like evolutionists are altogether quick to throw out any kind of just-so story rather than simply being honest and saying we do not have a clue how evolution could possibly do this or that. It's just hype built on more hype.
The parallels between evolutionary science and global warming science is uncanny... the "settled science" lingo, the money, the bullying, the politics, the "deniers". Dr Hunter has nailed evolution correctly. There is definitely more that is driving evolutionary theory than honest science. No question about it.
Thornton: "Just curious - do you ID guys ever do anything but argue from ignorance based personal incredulity?"
ReplyDeleteAdolfoC: "Let me ask. If some bats developed echolocation why didn’t nocturnal birds like owls develop it as well? Because they developed excellent eyesight you might say. But then why didn’t bats with echolocation develop the same kind of excellent eyesight instead? ?
...shakes head sadly.
Why is the score of every baseball game not identical when all the players are following the same rules?
Proto-bats and proto-owls started with a vastly different morphology and different set of evolutionary pressures - different food resources, different predators chasing them, different reproductive behavior, etc. Why would you expect them to develop identical solutions to their problems?
BTW, many species of bats (i,e Flying foxes) do have large eyes and excellent low-light vision. Echolocation is an addition to their sensory arsenal, not a replacement for eyesight.
Neal Tedford: "The lack of detail and precision in evolutionary explanations drives me absolutely crazy."
ReplyDeleteLOL! "Science doesn't know everything so that means it doesn't know anything!"
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't owls develop echolocation?
How did whales evolve so that their "nose" moved from the front of their face (in a land animal) to the back of their head. Would you expect the child of Olympic swimmers to be born with its nose in the back of its neck because their parents spent incredible amounts of time in the water? By slow changes you will tell me (storytelling). Well how? In any event, a nose in the forehead for an evolving whale is as useless as a nose between the eyes.
The stories evolutionists invent to explain why this or why that is my main point: evolution is non-falsifiable. Because it is non-falsifiable it is NOT real science.
All the questions about bats and owls can really be condensed into one:
ReplyDeleteWhy does more than one species exist?
This is only a pressing, relevant question if one assumes that either
(a) populations should not change over time, or
(b) that there exists One Ideal Form for organisms to take, and hence selection should cause all life to converge on this form.
Adolfo E:
In any event, a nose in the forehead for an evolving whale is as useless as a nose between the eyes.
Tell that to modern and extinct whales! Believe it or not, they really do and really did have blowholes in those locations.
Do modern whales require divine assistance to remain alive? Maybe. There's not really any way of disconfirming that, anyway.
Adolfo: "Why didn't owls develop echolocation?
ReplyDeleteThe evolutionary pressures to do so didn't provide a sufficient cost/benefit ratio. They didn't require it for survival. Why don't humans have wings, and a third eye in the back of their heads?
Adolfo: "How did whales evolve so that their "nose" moved from the front of their face (in a land animal) to the back of their head. Would you expect the child of Olympic swimmers to be born with its nose in the back of its neck because their parents spent incredible amounts of time in the water? By slow changes you will tell me (storytelling). Well how? In any event, a nose in the forehead for an evolving whale is as useless as a nose between the eyes."
Early proto-whales recently evolved from land animals had nostrils in the front of their snouts. Those in the population with the genetic makeup to produce a nostril higher up the snout had a small but statistically significant better chance to survive and breed - didn't have to lift their heads as high out of the water to breath, could catch more prey, have a better chance at spotting a mate, etc. More of them did, and passed those genes along. In each subsequent generation the population's average nostril location slowly migrated further and further up the skull.
Whale evolution: The blowhole
Babinski: Whale evolution
It wouldn't hurt you to research this just a little bit before making the arguments from your own ignorance.
Well its pretty obvious that Thorton doesn't understand arguing from ignorance
ReplyDelete-which is what Darwinists do everywhere -"evolution must have done it because no god is needed", "we don't know how this happened so lets make believe it was an accident"
ID does not argue from ignorance but rather from statistical mechanics and standard probability theory, and that based on the probabilistic resources know to exist in nature.
A mighty huge difference.
Unfortunately, Darwinists pretend to themselves (then put on a smiley show to the public) that probability is not important and has no bearing on anything regarding the alleged molecule to 13 million species evolutionary fairy tale.
ID also uses known and ubiquitously accepted (accept in biology) design detection methods.
Ignorance of such methodologies and persistent cognitive dissonance makes you Darwinists mad with delusion.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"The evolutionary pressures to do so didn't provide a sufficient cost/benefit ratio. They didn't require it for survival."
Amazing. This fellow claims Darwinian theory is based on empirical evidence and right away in answer to a simple question hands out a quaint "just-so" story.
Then he has the nerve to accuse IDists of arguing from ignorance and incredulity.
Oh the irony!
This should be published for the "Believe it or not" TV series because this is exactly what Darwinism is all about.
Gary: "ID does not argue from ignorance but rather from statistical mechanics and standard probability theory, and that based on the probabilistic resources know to exist in nature.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like Dembski's 'Explanatory Filter', which was so atrociously bad he dropped the idea and hasn't used it in over 10 years?
Or Behe's Edge of Evolution, which has so many beginner's mistakes in both biology and probability that it made him a laughingstock in both the scientific and mathematics communities?
Those sort of arguments?
Gary,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the ID argument from statistical mechanics?
References will do, but it would be helpful if you would also explain it in your own words.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteID does not argue from ignorance but rather from statistical mechanics and standard probability theory...
Unfortunately, Darwinists pretend to themselves (then put on a smiley show to the public) that probability is not important
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...!!!
Probability? Yes, let's play the probability game for a moment, shall we?
ID requires the existence of a designer - a being willing and able to create whatever ID is being called on to account for: typically life and/or the universe.
And here's the thing - a being capable of designing life/the universe must be MORE COMPLEX than life/the universe.
Thus, the existence of such a being is LESS LIKELY than the natural existence of life/the universe.
If you think you are playing the odds, then you have no idea about probability at all. ID assumes an agent which is LESS LIKELY than the problem it is invoked to explain.
And you actually think probability is on your side? Ha ha ha...
"Well, some bats evolved, and stopped chasing insects around. Fruitbats and nectar-eating bats don't so much need to echo-locate fruit and flowers. Ordinary hearing to listen to predators coming might be far better suited for them. "
ReplyDeleteAnd when you change your diet, the first thing that selective pressure is delete your ecolocation? Not change your teeth or you digestive system?
Really strange way to work for natural selection.
Blas -
ReplyDeleteNot really. If a species stops using a certain feature or it becomes obseolete due to a change in environment (eyes for fish who have taken to living in pitch black caves, for example), then there is no selection pressure to weedle out the mutations which 'break' the genetic code which renders that feature useless.
Among bats who require echolocation, mutations which disrupt its functionality will be punished by natural selection. Among bats who do not require it, such mutations will not - they will be allowed to thrive regardless.
Simple, no?
Blas : "And when you change your diet, the first thing that selective pressure is delete your ecolocation? Not change your teeth or you digestive system?"
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about "first thing"? Fruit bats do indeed have different digestive and chewing systems… at the same time as their lacking the echolocation behavior! Whichever came first is an interesting and important question, but neither of those developments somehow rules out the other.
What I don't think I will ever truly understand is why the hypotheses of evolutionary biologists are "just so stories" (horrors!) but not those of IDists. Do IDisists have some kind of time-travel camera that biologists lack?
I mean, IDists aren't merely saying "We have no idea". They're saying (something to the effect that) "We have good reason to believe that the origin of echolocation was an intelligent agent's causing it." So it's silly to paint things as though all the anti-evolutionists are saying is "Whoah, don't jump to hasty conclusions; let's wait for more data." They're postulating an answer too!
Anyone who postulates an answer to a question whose answer is not known for certain is, by definition, engaging in speculation. Science is simply an art of really rigorous and evidence-focused speculation.
Ritchie: "Among bats who do not require it, such mutations will not - they will be allowed to thrive regardless."
To clarify and expand on this, it's important to remember that echolocation costs resources; hence, bats which both lack it and do not need it will thrive as a result.
Still waiting for the Intelligent Design explanation for the eyes in blind cave fish.
ReplyDeleteSomething tells me it might be a while...
Blas: "And when you change your diet, the first thing that selective pressure is delete your ecolocation? Not change your teeth or you digestive system?
ReplyDeleteReally strange way to work for natural selection."
What makes you posit that the teeth and digestive system didn't evolve/adapt at the same time too?
Really strange way for anyone to think how natural selection actually works.
"Still waiting for the Intelligent Design explanation for the eyes in blind cave fish."
ReplyDeleteOh, sheesh, I can answer that in just two words: "Genetic entropy".
I can't answer it in much more than two words, because there's no actual definition of genetic entropy. It seems to refer to either an increase in deleterious mutations, a decrease in biodiversity, or a decrease in "information" (in the ID "definition" of the term).
All you have to do in conflate the three as the same thing and voila, genetic entropy!
"What makes you posit that the teeth and digestive system didn't evolve/adapt at the same time too?"
ReplyDeleteDid them?
Lenoxus
ReplyDeleteTo clarify and expand on this, it's important to remember that echolocation costs resources; hence, bats which both lack it and do not need it will thrive as a result.
Fair point. Every physical feature has an upkeep cost. So yes, once a feature has become redundant/inactive, actively losing it will be an advantage.
Blas -
ReplyDeletePresuming you meant to type 'Did they?', why wouldn't they? Why/how could bats adapt to feeding on fruits if their teeth and digestive systems weren't at all suited to that purpose?
Neal says:"But it would seem like evolutionists are altogether quick to throw out any kind of just-so story rather than simply being honest"
ReplyDeleteThen Gary, undeterred, says:"Amazing. This fellow claims Darwinian theory is based on empirical evidence and right away in answer to a simple question hands out a quaint "just-so" story."
Another day and yet two more lazy accusations of "just-so" stories in lieu of arguments, in the same thread today. Cute how one of these is apparently quaint.
Oh, creationists, your rhetoric knows no bounds!
Oh, creationists, your rhetoric knows no bounds!
ReplyDeleteWhen the only tool you have is the empty rhetoric hammer, every argument you can't refute looks like a nail.
Thorton says: "Still waiting for the Intelligent Design explanation for the eyes in blind cave fish."
ReplyDeleteThe lack of eyes in blind cave fish hardly constitutes an example of evolution but of natural selection. Evolution, to be true, should be adding information to the genome not removing it as in the case of the blind cave fish. Natural selection takes the information available in the genome and "selects" the best one suitable for the environment. These selections in fact are a loss of information because the organism becomes specialized to its environment.
A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are not examples of evolution but of selection; in the case of dogs guided by humans not the environment. A polar bear and a grizzly bear are still bears selected for their specific environments. If they mate their offspring will be fertile and could mate with other types of bears. In the case of dogs different breeds can mate and give birth to fertile offspring.
Again, for evolution to work information has to be added to the genome. The genome of the blind cave fish has lost information due to natural selection.
Can you provide an example of an increase of information in the genome? Dawkins, the apostle of evolution, couldn't provide such example so I am not holding my breath.
Adolfo says:"The lack of eyes in blind cave fish hardly constitutes an example of evolution but of natural selection.
ReplyDeleteIs natural selection no longer a part of evolution?
"Evolution, to be true, should be adding information to the genome not removing."
Why? To be true to whom?
"Natural selection takes the information available in the genome and "selects" the best one suitable for the environment. These selections in fact are a loss of information because the organism becomes specialized to its environment."
Yes, it is a follow-on process, after mutation. It can constitute a loss of information when the alleles selected against are not simply reduced in frequency but made wholly extinct. I hope you understand the distinction.
"A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are not examples of evolution but of selection"
Artificial selection on natural variation - on which natural selection could act. What amazing variation natural populations have, for selection to act upon!
"A polar bear and a grizzly bear are still bears selected for their specific environments. If they mate their offspring will be fertile and could mate with other types of bears."
I really don't think that work has been done on nuclear genes, although mtDNA surely shows signs of introgression. Historically, at least. What other bears do you mean, and what is your basis for saying so?
"In the case of dogs different breeds can mate and give birth to fertile offspring.
Of course, they are subspecies of the grey wolf.
"Can you provide an example of an increase of information in the genome? Dawkins, the apostle of evolution, couldn't provide such example so I am not holding my breath.
Well don't hold your breath. Suspend your disbelief and read some literature. Maybe start with the work from Lenski's lab. E coli metabolising citrate in only a matter of decades - that is pretty darned good evidence.
Can you provide an example of an increase of information in the genome?
ReplyDeleteYes. Can you give a rigorous scientific definition of 'information' as it pertains to biological organisms?
It's trivially easy to show if you just consider genome sequences, because anything evolution can do it can undo.
Start with a genetic sequence AAGT that produces a certain morphological feature, say fur color.
Next generation it mutates to AAGT ----> AAGC and produces a slightly different color
The following generation it mutates back AAGC ----> AAGT and produces the original color again
We end up with the original sequence AAGT
By any definition of 'information', one of those mutations must have added information, and one must have lost it. Therefore both directions of change are possible
abimer:
ReplyDeleteE. coli metabolizing citrate is exactly evidence for what? Did you know that E. coli is able to utilize citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions. So, a deleterious mutation or two removed information from the E. coli genome and now it can metabolize citrate. What does this have to do with adding new information to the genome and making the E. coli a more complex organism.
Have new features been added by evolution to the E. coli cultures since then? No. This is the edge of evolution. It can't go anywhere from here.
Are we to expect that the E. coli from Lenski's lab will eventually evolve into more complicated organism until finally, after millions of years, they will take over the lab because they became microbiologists? Don't hold your breath!
Adolfo-
ReplyDeleteWild-type E. coli only use citrate anaerobically, and only in the presence of other carbon sources.
Lenski's use citrate aerobically, as a sole carbon source.
Quite different. They evolved-learned a new trick, if you will. Are you arguing new functions arise without an increase in information?
I understand that the enzyme for disgesting citrate was there all the time. They just had to figure otu how to get it throught the membrane. But this may involve the breaking of something in the membrane.
ReplyDeleteAdolfo E
ReplyDeleteThe lack of eyes in blind cave fish hardly constitutes an example of evolution but of natural selection. Evolution, to be true, should be adding information to the genome not removing it as in the case of the blind cave fish.
Not true. The less of eyes in blind cave fish is not an example of degeneration. The genes for eyes in the blind cave fish are still present. It is not that the genes have degenerated, but they are being actively SUPRESSED.
The genetic code for eyes has had a bit added on, if you like, which supresses the code. The eye in blind cave fish is MORE complex than eyes in sighted fish, not less.
So even going on your definition, this IS an exanmple of evolution after all.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/hitchens-luskii.html
Adolfo E, you forgot to provide your rigorous scientific definition of 'information' as it pertains to biological organisms.
ReplyDeleteWe're waiting.
According to the article linked the loss of sight in cave fish is due to a trivial change in a preexisting gene, not something new. And some biologists consider blind cave fish to be the same species as sited fish, just a different subspecies.
ReplyDeletenatschuster -
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article linked the loss of sight in cave fish is due to a trivial change in a preexisting gene, not something new.
??? Where are you getting that idea? From the article I linked to...?!
And some biologists consider blind cave fish to be the same species as sited fish, just a different subspecies.
Yes, there will always be arguments about exactly where you draw the line between sub-species and species. That is an inevitable consequence of common descent.