Saturday, September 27, 2014

Without Evolution, Life Itself Would Be Impossible

A Case Study

Have you heard the one about the evolutionist who defined life as things that evolve? Evolutionists have never been too humble about their theory. Farmers must be evolutionists to grow their crops. Doctors must be evolutionists to heal their patients. Scientists must be evolutionists to do their research. In fact without evolution, life itself would be impossible. A sarcastic caricature? Not at all, for evolutionists say all these things. Listening to evolutionists one would think that the life sciences would be crippled without evolutionary theory to guide the way and explain all things. A delusion or simply the hard truth? Let’s have a look at a case study in the life sciences.

At Jacob Sivak’s lab at the University of Waterloo researchers have studied snakes and their vision. Snakes do not have eyelids. Instead they have a clear scale called a spectacle that protects the eyes. Now how a snake just happened to randomly develop a clear scale, so it could see and be selected by natural selection, is unknown.

Did each of the snake’s many scales occasionally develop to be clear due to some strange mutation? And at one point, in the evolution of the snake, did that mutation make the scales over the snake’s eyes clear? How did the snakes survive before that lucky mutation? They would have been blind.

But back to our story. When researcher Kevin van Doorn was examining a snake his instrument detected something strange. van Doorn wasn’t looking for it, but he discovered that blood vessels in the snake’s spectacles might obscure the snake’s vision.

How common it has been in the history of science that researchers have made such accidental discoveries. van Doorn’s discovery is a reminder not of how crucial theories are in guiding researchers to their discoveries, but how capricious the process can be. Breakthroughs often are not so much because of our theories, but in spite of our theories, and this should engender some humility, rather than certainty, about our theories.

But getting back to our story, van Doorn’s next move was to study the blood flow through those blood vessels under different conditions. That was the obvious and natural next move. Sivak and van Doorn didn’t need a theory to tell them what to do. van Doorn found that under normal conditions blood flow through the spectacle was cyclical, with periods of reduced and periods of increased flow, thus allowing improved vision at regular intervals.

But when the snake was exposed to a threatening environment the cycle ceased and the flow was minimal, “thus guaranteeing,” Sivak and van Doorn concluded, “the best possible visual capabilities in times of need.”

It was all reminiscent of Leibniz’ theodicy which recognized that while, yes, evil exists in the world (at least some evil is required, Malebranche had pointed out, otherwise the creation would be no different than the perfect Creator), and in fact a great deal of evil exists, what is optimized is the good-to-evil ratio. There could be less evil, the co-inventor of calculus pointed out, but in that case there would be a great deal less good.

Like a good polynomial, the world could be optimized, and it was. This is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire sarcastically panned the whole idea with his character Dr. Pangloss, but now science seemed to have the last laugh. Perhaps the snake’s spectacle’s are a necessary evil, but their designs are optimized to minimize the negative impact of the blood vessels obscuring the snake’s vision. As van Doorn concluded, “This research is the perfect example of how a fortuitous discovery can redefine our understanding of the world around us.”

But back to our story, we now ask, How exactly did evolution contribute to the research? For that we need to look at the abstract of the journal paper:

The eyes of snakes are shielded beneath a layer of transparent integument referred to as the ‘reptilian spectacle’. Well adapted to vision by virtue of its optical transparency, it nevertheless retains one characteristic of the integument that would otherwise prove detrimental to vision: its vascularity. Given the potential consequence of spectacle blood vessels on visual clarity, one might expect adaptations to have evolved that mitigate their negative impact. Earlier research demonstrated an adaptation to their spatial layout in only one species to reduce the vessels' density in the region serving the foveal and binocular visual fields. Here, we present a study of spectacle blood flow dynamics and provide evidence of a mechanism to mitigate the spectacle blood vessels' deleterious effect on vision by regulation of blood flow through them. It was found that when snakes are at rest and undisturbed, spectacle vessels undergo cycles of dilation and constriction, such that the majority of the time the vessels are fully constricted, effectively removing them from the visual field. When snakes are presented with a visual threat, spectacle vessels constrict and remain constricted for longer periods than occur during the resting cycles, thus guaranteeing the best possible visual capabilities in times of need. Finally, during the snakes' renewal phase when they are generating a new stratum corneum, the resting cycle is abolished, spectacle vessels remain dilated and blood flow remains strong and continuous. The significance of these findings in terms of the visual capabilities and physiology of snakes is discussed.

As you can see, in the journal paper the research results have been cast into the evolution template. The eyes of snakes are “well adapted” yet there is the presence of the blood vessels. Therefore one would predict that evolution would mitigate such an impact. In other words, it was evolutionary theory that led to the discovery.

But of course evolutionary theory did no such thing. So this is the role of evolution, as an after-the-fact framework to which the results must be conformed in a fictional reconstruction of events.

Like the wicked witch of the west, evolution threatens and demands acquiescence from its soldiers while adding nothing.

34 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter: Perhaps the snake’s spectacle’s are a necessary evil, but their designs are optimized to minimize the negative impact of the blood vessels obscuring the snake’s vision.

    Evolution is particularly adroit at optimization.

    Cornelius Hunter: How common it has been in the history of science that researchers have made such accidental discoveries.

    It's almost as if evolutionary biologists are being guided by an overarching explanatory theory that propels one discovery after the next!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your point is not without merit, I think. But what I want to know is this: If Darwinian evolution was not actually capable of generating the designs we see in biology, and something else made them, would that stop us from studying them, and figuring out how they work? How does believing that they were created purely by mutation-selection evolution improve (not to mention enable) our ability to unravel biology's mechanisms?

      Delete
    2. Darel Rex Finley: If Darwinian evolution was not actually capable of generating the designs we see in biology, and something else made them, would that stop us from studying them, and figuring out how they work?

      Not at all. However, Intelligent Design, as presently constructed, doesn't propose testable hypotheses. It's intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.

      Darel Rex Finley: IHow does believing that they were created purely by mutation-selection evolution improve (not to mention enable) our ability to unravel biology's mechanisms?

      Not sure that modern evolutionary biology can be reduced to such a simple description. For much of biology, the most important framework is common descent, that all life shares common ancestry.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel: Intelligent Design, as presently constructed, doesn't propose testable hypotheses. It's intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile.

      Sometimes I feel in agreement with this statement, and at such times I feel that ID at it's core is really no more than the claim that mutation-selection evolution couldn't/didn't generate our biology. (This simple claim can be no more vacuous than Darwinism, as the two are complimentary.)

      However, ID can be formulated in a way that makes it less vacuous. For example, if start by asking, "what would design look like," and attempt to answer that question scientifically, not religiously, i.e. by looking at known cases of actual design such as cars and computers, then we could compare the observed characteristics of design with biology to see how well they match.

      Occam's Razor, however, requires that simpler explanations be eliminated first, so any scientific approach to ID must begin with showing that mutation-selection evolution was not responsible. That's keeping everyone busy enough for now.

      Delete
    4. Darel Rex Finley: Sometimes I feel in agreement with this statement, and at such times I feel that ID at it's core is really no more than the claim that mutation-selection evolution couldn't/didn't generate our biology.

      It would remain scientifically sterile unless you provide a testable hypothesis, or show why the multitude of tests in all the various related fields of study are wrong.

      Darel Rex Finley: ID can be formulated in a way that makes it less vacuous. For example, if start by asking, "what would design look like," and attempt to answer that question scientifically

      If there is an artifact, there must be causal link to the art and the artisan.

      Genesis 2,7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      Darel Rex Finley: any scientific approach to ID must begin with showing that mutation-selection evolution was not responsible.

      ID, as normally construed, is the claim that life was intelligently designed by an agent external to life. It devolves into weak arguments against evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    5. Zachriel: If there is an artifact, there must be causal link to the art and the artisan. Genesis 2,7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      I guess if the Bible says it, it must be so.. but isn't that Dr. Hunter's whole thesis, i.e. that belief in evolution is driven by religious presuppositions?

      Zachriel: ID, as normally construed, is the claim that life was intelligently designed by an agent external to life. It devolves into weak arguments against evolutionary theory.

      On that we must agree to disagree: I consider the arguments against evolutionary theory to be the strongest thing about ID, and certainly the most scientific.

      Delete
    6. Darel Rex Finley: I guess if the Bible says it, it must be so.

      At least the Bible posits artisan and art, which is something ID refuses to even attempt.

      Darel Rex Finley: I consider the arguments against evolutionary theory to be the strongest thing about ID, and certainly the most scientific.

      Then it's not ID, but just naysaying evolution.

      Delete
    7. In science, naysaying can be mighty important. And if the naysayers are correct, then that leaves ID as the inference to the best explanation. As satisfying as meeting the designers? No, I admit. But perhaps our most scientific option with the information available to us.

      Delete
    8. Darel Rex Finley: In science, naysaying can be mighty important.

      Yes, but it takes more than handwaving.

      Darel Rex Finley: And if the naysayers are correct, then that leaves ID as the inference to the best explanation.

      Um, no. Just because gravity doesn't account for planetary motions doesn't mean angels do. It takes a specific testable hypothesis.

      Delete
    9. Angels? Handwaving? Perhaps we have reached the limit of our ability to argue productively. It was fun; over and out.

      Delete
    10. Um, no. Just because gravity doesn't account for planetary motions doesn't mean angels do.

      You see it always comes back to religion for evolutionists.

      Delete
    11. Darel Rex Finley: Angels?

      Sure, that was the incarnation of the stopgap explanation when there was no sufficient physical explanation of planetary motions.

      Cornelius Hunter: You see it always comes back to religion for evolutionists.

      Or in the current incarnation, "Just because gravity doesn't account for planetary motions doesn't mean an unspecified agent does." So, no Darel Rex Finley, an unspecified agent is not the default explanation when we can't provide a physical explanation. To make that claim requires independent evidence, which means a clearly articulated hypothesis with specific and distinguishing entailments.




      Delete
    12. Hmm.. The idea of intelligent entities continuously pushing the planets around strikes us as awkward and silly, because why wouldn't they just make technology to do it automatically? But back before Newton, there was a lot more manual tedium in life, and so this idea may have seemed reasonable then.

      What this suggests to me is that inference-to-the-best explanation is indeed weak, and can change over time as human experience changes. Just as the idea of manually designing a new device (e.g. the iPhone) seems perfectly reasonable to us now, might it seem absurdly cumbersome to humans of the far future, who will then see some much more interesting inference than do IDists today?

      Perhaps ID is at its best when defined very carefully, as I shall attempt here:

      1. If there exist multiple lines of strong evidence that mutation-selection evolution can't/didn't produce a great deal of what we see in biology, and

      2. If there exists strong mathematical reason to think that certain kinds of information cannot be generated by iteration of simple laws, then

      3. Whatever did produce these biological adaptations must in some way be equivalent to human (or higher) intelligence.

      But it might be very difficult for us to know very much about such intelligence. Small improvements in our understanding may come very slowly, over thousands of years. (Sigh.)

      However, in the meantime, I think it perfectly reasonable to compare what we see in biology to the products of human design, when attempting to assess the plausibility of the general ID concept, and eminently unreasonable to compare biology to Sunday School stories, then hand Darwin a victory by default.

      Delete
    13. Darel Rex Finley: The idea of intelligent entities continuously pushing the planets around strikes us as awkward and silly, because why wouldn't they just make technology to do it automatically?

      Because the technological model didn't exist at the time angels were thought to push planets on celestial spheres. Someone had to turn the cranks.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Angelic_movers.jpg

      Darel Rex Finley: But back before Newton, there was a lot more manual tedium in life, and so this idea may have seemed reasonable then.

      The complex movements would obviously require intelligence. Try to get the conjunctions or retrogressions to occur in sync with victories in war. It's not as easy as it seems!

      Darel Rex Finley: What this suggests to me is that inference-to-the-best explanation is indeed weak, and can change over time as human experience changes.

      For it to have scientific validity, there has to be an explicit hypothesis with specific and distinguishing empirical implications.

      Darel Rex Finley: 1. If there exist multiple lines of strong evidence that mutation-selection evolution can't/didn't produce a great deal of what we see in biology,

      False.

      Darel Rex Finley: 2. If there exists strong mathematical reason to think that certain kinds of information cannot be generated by iteration of simple laws, then

      False.

      Darel Rex Finley: 3. Whatever did produce these biological adaptations must in some way be equivalent to human (or higher) intelligence.

      Where did that come from? You kinda just jumped there.

      Darel Rex Finley: But it might be very difficult for us to know very much about such intelligence.

      A good scientific theory will generate new hypotheses as a guide to future research. A great theory will generate whole new fields of study. ID is scientifically sterile. It leads to no new insights, no new hypotheses, no new research. It's a scientific dead-end, so unlike the Theory of Evolution, which has spawned new research in everything from the content of rocks to the structure of molecules.

      Delete
    14. Darel Rex Finley,

      "Angels? Handwaving? Perhaps we have reached the limit of our ability to argue productively. It was fun; over and out."

      Well, I wouldn't take it personal. At least unlike other atheists, he generally doesn't use outright vulgar or derogatory name calling when he is backed into a corner or has nothing of value to add to the conversation as you say. His tactic appears to be intellectual game playing from what I've been told by others. Cornelius blog and a few websites are simply having entertainment value and nothing more. He appears motivated by his hatred of anything right-wing or conservative, which makes no matter for me anyway since I don't involve myself in such squabbles. In one discussion group site I believe someone mentioned he was a Theistic Evolutionist, but I've never understood that position. Anyway it was a long time back and doesn't matter now. Like you said, just move on.
      .

      Delete
    15. Lance Peckinpah: At least unlike other atheists...

      Just to be clear, we're not an atheist.

      Lance Peckinpah: He appears motivated by his hatred ...

      Nor do we harbor hatred.

      Delete
    16. Zach,

      "Just to be clear, we're not an atheist."

      Yes I'm well aware of that. I believe I stated your theistic evolutionary stance, but I don't remember you explaining how your god Jesus got the evolutionary ball rolling back in those older early 2000s Yahoo or Google discussion groups. It's been so long I've forgotten.

      Delete
    17. Darel Rex Finley,

      "However, in the meantime, I think it perfectly reasonable to compare what we see in biology to the products of human design"

      Well of course this is reasonable. This is how we humans make perfect logical sense of the natural world and more so by making practical applications in everyday life in the real world. What I am finding more and more is that these philosophical takes on evolution are not so much from the Biologists themselves, but these regular armchair philosophers who seem to incorporate many of the eastern religious concepts into their explanations or take on life. It's interesting to say the least because while they are very down on anything biblical or Christian, they are fully opened to Hinduism and Buddhism which appear to receive a free passing grade.

      Again, without such comparison to human creativity and technological innovation, there are no reasons to make practical application with what we observe in Nature. I am finding many of their arguments actually harming Nature itself which becomes evident in the mismanagement of the natural world.

      Delete
    18. Lance Peckinpah: Well of course this is reasonable. This is how we humans make perfect logical sense of the natural world and more so by making practical applications in everyday life in the real world.

      Science has far outstripped common intuition. The world is flat. The celestial spheres make music as they turn. The Earth is only as old as human memory.

      Lance Peckinpah: What I am finding more and more is that these philosophical takes on evolution are not so much from the Biologists themselves

      Um, you might want to actually read a scientific journal or two. A quick search of the literature finds thousands of articles on evolution in the journals Genetics, Nature, or Science. There are entire journals just on Evolution. Indeed, there are entire journals just on Cladistics.

      Delete
    19. Darel Rex Finley,

      "Hmm.. The idea of intelligent entities continuously pushing the planets around strikes us as awkward and silly, because why wouldn't they just make technology to do it automatically?"

      Yes i agree it was silly and juvenile, but not surprising as I seem to remember this sort of strategy and unwillingness on his part in the Yahoo Discussion forums to deal with any reality there. His response to you there was characteristic of his behavior for over a decade now and was meant as the modern day intellectual put down as it was originally purposed and intended. For example, here is another example which never comes close to addressing what I wrote:

      "The world is flat. The celestial spheres make music as they turn. The Earth is only as old as human memory."

      Zach,

      "Um, you might want to actually read a scientific journal or two. A quick search of the literature finds thousands of articles on evolution in the journals Genetics, Nature, or Science. There are entire journals just on Evolution. Indeed, there are entire journals just on Cladistics"

      Ouch, I'm sensing that same hostility as previous in experiences of attempting to have a serious discussion in this world where we reside. Your answer doesn't even remotely come close to what I said regarding the majority of Biologists, but I understand the purpose was never intended to address what I wrote. The closest biologists that I work with come to Darwinism is merely giving evolution honorary credit for some small real or imagined change. I have never experienced them tripping off into eastern religious philosophy in attempts at making events real which most educated people cannot observe in real life, other than the Seer or Mystic from the past. Now if I recall correctly, in that yahoo site, we all were identified by our email handles, your's was

      lcroteau@yahoo.com - which I later came to realize was Lee Croteau and you eventually morphed over to Zachriel, of which your dot come website also use to contain that same name [ lcroteau ] as registered owner till you apparently sometime back went anonymous registration.

      That's not important. What is important and you have yet to ever address this important back then to the present is just how you believe your god Jesus started the entire evolutionary experience. Would it be too much to request that now ? Don't be intimidated, you're among other religious folk here, both atheist and conventional religious. We're all curious now.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. Lance Peckinpah: Ouch

      Again, we are responding directly to your comment that evolution is essentially a philosophical take, not one taken by working biologists. Referring to journals is entirely appropriate.

      Neither point did you bother to rebut.

      Lance Peckinpah: just how you believe your god Jesus started the entire evolutionary experience

      We never made such a claim.

      Delete
    22. Lance Peckinpah: Yes i agree it was silly and juvenile

      Angels pushing planets on celestial spheres is a historical example, not something we made up. Because they didn't have a physical explanation, and because the movements were very complicated, they assumed some intelligence was directly involved.

      Delete
    23. Lance Peckinpah: What I am finding more and more is that these philosophical takes on evolution are not so much from the Biologists themselves

      Let's see if we can further the discussion another way. What do you mean by "philosophical take"? And can you justify your generalization?

      Delete
  2. I wish it was a joke: Just recently I bought "Principles of Cell Biology" by George Plopper, and after all the fluff introductions, acknowledgments, and descriptions of the book's own organizational structure, the very first sentence of the actual book says, "For most cell biologists, the definition of the word *life* is fairly straightforward: it is a chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution." Thankfully, I got a bargain price on a used copy from Amazon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that note Darel. It is astonishing but true.

      Delete
    2. Darel, thank you for your comments. Good and thoughtful points. I hope you post here again.
      May I suggest that arguing with Z. and the rest is a huge waste of time. It's like wrestling with a pig: you can wrestle all day and the pig will never leave its sty. Moreover, the pig likes wallowing in the mud and likes it even more if you will wallow there with it.

      Delete
  3. "Life" is more properly identified with the overall evolutionary process that can be traced back at least as far as the formation of chemical elements in the stars, rather than just the biological phase. All phases of this process, which includes the evolution of technology,although differing in mechanisms can be shown to be contiguous.
    This is dealt with very informally in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" , a free download in e-book formats from my "Unusual Perspectives" website.

    A much more formal treatment will be found in my latest book "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry and Geometry Uphill"., which is awaiting publication.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So we should go there for an even more casual treatment? Take my money now!

      Delete
    2. So we should go there for an even more casual treatment? Take my money now!

      Delete
    3. Cognosium, you whole post is a religious statement of faith.

      Delete
    4. I didn't see a single religious reference in that comment. How do you define religion?

      Delete
  4. This information is very useful... thanks for sharing......
    low budget flats for sale in Chennai

    ReplyDelete