Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Your Own Evidence For Evolution

The Nature of Evidence



Charles Darwin would approve of this video showing evidence for evolution found in the human body.

49 comments:

  1. I'm confused. I assume that you have a problem with these examples. But I'm not sure what it is. Care to elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For any theory, I want to know the evidences and arguments for it. I don’t care if evolution, or creationism, or AGW, etc., etc., are true or false. I have no allegiance to these theories, one way or another. It makes no difference to me. But I want to know their strengths (and weaknesses). Some people are ardent supporters of theories without really understanding these things, often because they are driven by non-empirical (nonscientific) factors, and often they are oblivious to the influence of non-empirical factors.

      Creationists certainly are driven by non-empirical factors, but they’re no fun because they admit it. This video shows some powerful evidence for evolution, and it is non-empirical. That is not to take away from the strength of the evidence, but that strength does hinge on the underlying, non-empirical, premises. You’ve been reading this blog, you should know them. Do these evidences, presented in the video, demonstrate how RM+NS created these things?

      Delete
    2. Dr. Hunter,

      "Creationists certainly are driven by non-empirical factors, but they’re no fun because they admit it."

      I am truly hurt, I thought I was a fun guy. :(

      As for the video providing powerful evidence for evolution, I could not disagree more. If you presume evolution to be true these factors would qualify as powerful evidence. If, however, you do not presume evolution to be true, in what way would these factors qualify as powerful evidence? There is nothing inherent about them which would compel one to change their minds from rejecting evolution to accepting it.

      The tailbone argument is especially humourous in light of the fact the coccyx has nothing to do with a long lost tail but is in fact an essential anchor point for muscles.

      Delete
    3. Hi Nic. I hope you are well. We just married off our son last weekend. A good time was had by all.

      I responded to this earlier but Cornelius decided that it should not be seen.

      I agree, this video is not proof of evolution. But it is evidence. Vestigial structures are completely consistent (predictive) of evolutionary theory. Your objection to the tailbone does not mean that it is not vestigial. Vestigial does not mean that it does not have a function. It only means that it does not have its original function. The appendix is vestigial. Ear muscles are vestigial. They may still have some function, but nothing like their original functions.

      Delete
    4. Actually this is why we have things like climate change, etc. I don't mean to bring up that topic, but the misuse and abuse of science has created a gross lack of respect for the way Nature has been put together and that's what the video is trying to do. Trash Nature for promoting an ideologically driven religious worldview. Otherwise known as a central secular dogma called, "Argument from Poor Design." That's where IFL Science cult members trash the earth in order to score Brownie Points against their opponents. But interestly it's effected techological innovation which has brought environmental damage to our natural world, especially since that "Green Revolution" 1950s. Take this 1977 Chevron Gardening, Landscaping, Agriculture propaganda commercial extolling the virtues of modern industrial science. Count how many times Chevron trashes the Earth and our Natural World for the purpose of pimping their science-based synthetics over actually replicating what we see and observe about Nature through biomimicry. Biomimetics seems to be a dirty word when it comes to modern science these days and creates quite a dilemma for the Environmental Activists who are predominently evolutionists. You just can't have it both ways.

      Chevron spot: "Home Gardening" - 1977

      It's amazing how much the Argument from Poor Design has actually held good ecologically responsible science back to where today the natural world is in real danger because a group of powerful ideologues resented accountability and definitions of morality. This whole thing never had anything to do with science. Science is merely a crutch.

      Delete
    5. Vestigial structures are completely consistent (predictive) of evolutionary theory

      So you say but cannot reference this alleged theory so we can all see.

      Look willie, you don't know what the original function is. It is all guesswork based on the assumption of Common Descent. You have no idea what the original function of ear muscles was. All you can do is guess.

      Delete
    6. William,

      I am doing fine, thanks. Hope you are doing well also. If I remember correctly you're done marrying off the kids, right?

      "The appendix is vestigial. Ear muscles are vestigial. They may still have some function, but nothing like their original functions."

      Is there definitive proof the coccyx, appendix and ear muscles were different in function than what they are now or is that belief only found within the evolutionary narrative? Can you direct me to definitive research which proves the appendix functioned in a manner different from its modern function? Can you do the same with the coccyx and ear muscles?

      People are not occasionally born with functional tails as the video stated. That is palpable nonsense. Children are sometimes born with an appendage resembling a tail but for a number of reasons they are not considered an actual tail.

      Delete
    7. Do these evidences, presented in the video, demonstrate how RM+NS created these things?

      The facts provided in the video aren't offered as evidence for the RM+NS mechanism. They are offered as evidence evolution through common descent over (relatively) deep time has occurred. But you already knew that, didn't you.

      Delete
    8. GR: So why are functionless, etc., structures presented as powerful evidence (as opposed to all the other similarities, such as bones, organs, muscles, etc)?

      Delete
    9. CH: "GR: So why are functionless, etc., structures presented as powerful evidence (as opposed to all the other similarities, such as bones, organs, muscles, etc)?

      Comparative anatomy is presented as evidence for common descent. Vestigial structures are just more (or less) of the same. They are not proof of evolution. But they are consistent with the theory that Joke insists doesn't exist, and spends a huge amount of time and effort arguing against. I'm sure that there is a mental pathology that explains this, but that is beside the point.

      Vestigial structures are just evidence. No more, no less.

      Delete
    10. Nic: "I am doing fine, thanks. Hope you are doing well also. If I remember correctly you're done marrying off the kids, right?"

      No. Married off one on the weekend but still have one to go. My bank account is only two thirds depleted.

      "Is there definitive proof the coccyx, appendix and ear muscles were different in function than what they are now or is that belief only found within the evolutionary narrative? "

      Of course there is no definitive proof. Science seldom works in that fashion. Science deals with the most probable explanation. We have an appendix that shares the same embryonic origin as the appendix of many other mammals. In other mammals, it has a very important function. In humans, less so (although it is far from functionless). Evolution explains this as a "residual" organ that is no longer critical and has degraded over time because its persistence has not been selected for.

      The same can be said for the genes responsible for the production of vitamin C. We retain almost all of the genetic sequence necessary for its production (vestigial) but a mutation has rendered it non functional.

      A better question would be why the designer provided us with 99% of the genetic sequence needed for the production of vitamin C but decided to give us scurvy instead.

      Delete
    11. So why are functionless, etc., structures presented as powerful evidence (as opposed to all the other similarities, such as bones, organs, muscles, etc)?

      They're strong evidence for evolution because evolution through common descent explains why we possess functionless structures - their remnants are carried on through our descendants even though no longer needed. ID-Creationism has no rational explanation for the deliberate "design" of functionless structures or the occasional appearance of atavistic features.

      Delete
    12. William,

      "No. Married off one on the weekend but still have one to go. My bank account is only two thirds depleted."

      Cheer up, your bank account will recover and grand kids make up for everything. :)

      "Science deals with the most probable explanation."

      And the most probable explanation is that the appendeix, etc., function now as they always have, as there is no real evidence to the contrary other than the narrative of evolution.

      "A better question would be why the designer provided us with 99% of the genetic sequence needed for the production of vitamin C but decided to give us scurvy instead."

      From a Christian perspective we no longer live in a perfect world and somethings which were perfect are now simply broken.

      Hoping all the best for your recently married son, by the way. Are they close to home or far flung?

      Delete
    13. They are offered as evidence evolution through common descent over (relatively) deep time has occurred.

      And it fails. It fails as for one it cannot account for the alleged original structures.

      Delete
    14. Comparative anatomy is presented as evidence for common descent.

      Comparative anatomy is also presented as evidence for common design. A common design is a better explanation for the similarities. And Common Descent still cannot account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between two allegedly related species such as humans and chimps. And without that Common Descent has nothing but hopes and prayers

      Delete
    15. We have an appendix that shares the same embryonic origin as the appendix of many other mammals. In other mammals, it has a very important function.

      And yet yours cannot account for embryonic development nor the appendix.

      So how is evolutionism the best explanation for things it has no chance of explaining?

      Delete
    16. GR:

      They're strong evidence for evolution because evolution through common descent explains why we possess functionless structures - their remnants are carried on through our descendants even though no longer needed.

      Strong evidence because evolution “explains” it? Well let’s have a look at the facts. First, Evolution “explains” anything. It “explains” the trilobite eye—an “all time feat of optimization.” It “explains” the most complex, sophisticated designs. And it “explains” functionless structures. And it “explains” everything in between. There is literally no type of design, or no level of functionality, that evolution does not “explain.” It “explains” everything. This is, of course, an abuse of science. To claim something as evidence because it is “explained” by the theory when the theory “explains” everything.

      Second, it goes without saying that evolution never did predict these “evidences.” This is all after-the-fact reconstruction.

      Third, it should be clear that if those functionless structures were not there, evolution would care less. The absence of this evidence has absolutely zero effect on the evolutionary wizards and their hilarious pronouncements of truth.

      And fourth, of course there really is no “explanation.” In fact evolution has yet to “explain” how the biological world, the entire biological world, just happened to arise by itself by random mutations (yes, they must be random).

      This standard f6 response reveals the complete absurdity of evolution.


      ID-Creationism has no rational explanation for the deliberate "design" of functionless structures or the occasional appearance of atavistic features.

      Ah, and now we see the real reason why evolution is proved. Because creationism/design must be false. Again, this argument has been around for centuries. It drove the thinking in the mid 19th century for Chambers, Wallace, Darwin and the transmutationists. And of course it entirely hinges on (i) the claim of dysteleology, and (ii) absolute knowledge of what God would do in creating the world. The first assumption is continually failing with the march of science, and the second assumption is purely philosophical / metaphysical / theological.

      Bad metaphysics leads to bad science. You proclaim the truth of sheer absurdity on the basis of absurdity. And you point the finger at others for making “religious” arguments.

      Delete
    17. Exactly ... Cornelius, nice explanation, much appreciated.

      Delete
    18. KBH:

      Yes, it's all metaphysics--science is just the window dressing to make it look good. Darwin was player in a much, much bigger game.

      Delete
    19. Ah, and now we see the real reason why evolution is proved. Because creationism/design must be false.

      LOL! I'm glad it makes you happy to post and attack your silly strawmen. Heaven knows you have nothing else to offer to science besides the usual childish tantrums as entertainment.

      Delete
    20. LoL! ghiostrider doesn't know anything about science and its posts prove that

      Delete
    21. Cornelius, you wrote:

      "Ah, and now we see the real reason why evolution is proved. Because creationism/design must be false. "

      Isn't it true that evidence for the falsehood of one model is evidence for the truth of another if it can be known that those are the only two models.

      I think we have a genuine case of that in the case of contrasting common descent vs independent ancestry. There seems to be no third option.

      Delete
    22. Cake: Isn't it true that evidence for the falsehood of one model is evidence for the truth of another if it can be known that those are the only two models."

      Sure. When you have compelling evidence of the falsehood of evolution, and proof that creationism is the only other viable model, get back to me.

      Delete
    23. Well, wee willie, there isn't any way to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, so that would be compelling evidence for its falsehood. Heck all you can do is lie and bluff when asked questions about it.

      Delete
    24. Joke: "Well, wee willie, there isn't any way to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes,..."

      Except for the hundreds of scientists who test the "claims" on a daily basis. It must be a blow to your ego when your often repeated statements are not supported by the facts. Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency.

      Delete
    25. Exactly as predicted- all lies and bluffs. Thank you. It must be a blow to your ego to keep getting exposed as a bluffing liar.

      No one has ever tested the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase and no one is looking into it. There isn't a methodology to test the claim that blind and mindless processes could produce ATP synthase.

      Your statements are not supported by the facts, you own-goal scoring champ. Maybe you should stick to trolling special education sites.

      Delete
    26. Joke: "No one has ever tested the claim that blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase and no one is looking into it."

      Yet a search of journal articles on the subject comes up with hundreds of hits. And when I do a journal search on ID research into ATP synthase... crickets. No surprise.

      Delete
    27. Yet a search of journal articles on the subject comes up with hundreds of hits.

      And your equivocation is duly noted. Again Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Not one of your journal articles refers to blind and mindless processes. Not one. I would bet some, most or probably even all call upon gene duplications to accomplish the task. yet without ATP synthase you don't have life. And without life you don't get gene duplications. Never mind the fact that gene duplication followed specific mutations to change the function of the protein is outside of the blind watchmaker's capability: waiting for two mutations

      So what we have here is a willfully ignorant and equivocating wee willie spearshake. No surprise at all

      Delete
    28. If you take a look at ATP synthase you can see it consists of two major subunits (F0 & F1) that are connected together by an external tether. This tether doesn't have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it no ATP synthase. The problem for evolution by blind and mindless processes is exacerbated. Not only does it need to produce the two subunits but one has to be embedded in some membrane so that a gradient can be formed. And the other has to to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away. The tether looks like the membrane subunit F0 somehow formed an external docking site the proper length with F1 forming an external mating site.

      Again these two different protein subunits, the tether and mate, have nothing to do with the function of the protein complexes they are attached to and tether together. And without them there is no way to get the two working subunits together to produce ATP.

      There you have it- A simple external tether that stably holds the major F1 subunit/ rotary motor the proper distance away from its F0 motor force is evidence for the Intelligent Design of ATP synthase. The two major subunits and how it works is just icing on the cake.

      ATP synthase-The architecture and subunit composition of ATP synthase

      Delete
    29. Cale:

      Isn't it true that evidence for the falsehood of one model is evidence for the truth of another if it can be known that those are the only two models.

      I think we have a genuine case of that in the case of contrasting common descent vs independent ancestry. There seems to be no third option.


      None of what you are saying (which I do not believes holds, but that is another story) diminishes the reliance on metaphysics.

      Delete
  2. You can say that an organ has changed his "original" function to the actual function only if evolution is true. At most only support that organism change, not that evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH: "...absolute knowledge of what God would do in creating the world."

    Don't we already have that provided to us in the book of Genesis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't we already have that provided to us in the book of Genesis?

      No.

      Delete
  4. So is the Genesis story just a partial explanation then? If so, how do you know that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Genesis doesn't provide absolute knowledge. It is pretty vague with respect to details that would entail said absolute knowledge

      Delete
    2. I guess God likes us to speculate about the details.

      Delete
    3. Newton and others saw science as a way to uncover God's handiworks, ie figure out those details- at least how it works and what's it for if not how it came to be.

      It could be, as I used to think anyway, God could have provided details but they were way over the author's head so the author had to write it down in terms he understood.

      Delete
  5. Where would one start to show how poor this video was done.
    First, babies do not get born with tails!. What some get is, in a probability curve, a error of WHILE IN UTERO the 'tail" does not vanish etc.
    I don't think anyone says its a mutation problem BUT REGARDLESS its just a error. its not showing a tailly past. its showing a fetus EXTENSION past.
    Entry level fetus looking alike is not evidence of common descent. IT COULD only be this way. what else could it be if we did not come from common descent? Tiny, tiny, tiny, hippo fetuses(for later born hippos) soon afterr conception??

    now this chick tries to say having these muscles is evidence of what once we needed them for.
    Yet we have a complete like body plan with primates.
    If so then why WOULD'T we have the same muscles. Did god create all the varieties of primates on creation week? NO! they are later adaptations. Yet have within the original model the ability to use these muscles.
    We simply have the same body plan.
    Its only a line of reasoning, without evidence, that ear/wrist muscles show a past of using them fully.
    NAW. In fact to say this would be admitting all our body likeness proves we once were apes.
    NAW. WE simply have the same, best, body plan for a God being within the blueprint of biology.
    They are not vestigial in us.

    By the way. if we did evolve, body plan to body plan from fish to primates. then we should be crawling with vestigial bits thropughout our bodies.

    Come on . Think harder about connecting the dots evolutionists. Don't convince yourself so quick. reflect more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert, you go girl. You are the best advocate that the evolution side could have. Or, at least, the second best. The best unwitting advocate award must be awarded to Joe.

      Delete
    2. LoL! What a desperate fool you are, Barney. I am such an advocate I have all but proven evolutionism is BS.

      That said, you are one of the best advocates of evolutionism being total BS. Thanks for the help.

      Delete
    3. WS
      I'm not a girl. Few girls engage in origin contentions relative to males.
      Whats wrong with my points.
      these terrible claims for evolution by using body parts should be debunked. its a good chance for creatyionists to show the failure of evolutionary presumptions.

      This tail stuff is absurd. Do they think carefully about what they say. No humans have tails. Any extension is simply a simple error or in utero actions.
      If it was a mUTATION that created the TAIL then this alone would be unrelated to a tailly passt. iTS A NEW MUTATION!
      If they mean the mutation just got in the way of normal then creationists can say this too.
      Its not evidence of human tails of the past.

      likewise these muscles in ears and wrists must be there if we were given the same body plan as primates. Do we have the same body plan? YES!
      Is it independent of primates? NO! its a copy par excellence based on a common design in biology by a creator.
      In fact we should have all parts of the primates hiowever rudimentary.
      Saying these parts proves a common descent is nothing more then a line of reasoning that rejects other options and so corners the market on conclusions.

      If we were once fish/this/that before being primates then where are the vestigial bits from those days??

      Delete
    4. Robert: "I'm not a girl. Few girls engage in origin contentions relative to males."

      Could it possibly be that most "girls" are far more intelligent than you?

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

      Delete
    6. Could it possibly be that most "girls" are far more intelligent than you?

      That makes them far, far more intelligent than you, wee willie.

      Nice own goal

      Delete
    7. When reading my last comment I realise it wound up looking like a knock on Robert. I'm sorry, that was not my intent. My intent was to say girls tend to make better use of their spare time than do men in general.

      Sorry, Robert.

      Delete
    8. I was referring to involvement. Most Girls could be FAR more intelligent or a bit more intelligent then me. Most boys could be far/bit more intelligent rthen girls or its entirely a individual thing.
      I could be far more/bit more intelligent then most girls.
      However its a fact that few females relative to males engage in serious or moderate attention in origin contentions relative to males. Of coarse its a tiny minority in the poulation that engages. Everyone has a off the hip answer but few bring a intellectual attention to the subject.

      You didn't address my points but flew off on a unrelated direction.
      My points must be pretty good and persuasive to you since you bothered to post me!!

      Delete
  6. I should come here more often.

    When evolutionary theory is said to explain this or that, does this mean that a story can be concocted that someone might find plausible if they were in the right frame of mind?

    Or are evolutionary explanations free from story-telling.

    ReplyDelete
  7. common design = better evidence of common designer or convergent evolution?

    as noted who know the definitive answer to original function(s)?

    could it be that there are functions to these 'functionless' organs that we just don't know about yet. This kind of discovery happens practically daily.

    Isn't this evidence of loss of function? Darwinism is a theory entirely based on gain of function, yet this is strong evidence for it? If there was any evidence of naturalistic gain of function then 'vestigal' organs might be supportive as a coralary, but not on it's own merit.

    Seems to me if anything it is rather a support of Entropy, which the Curse of the Creator explains cleanly.

    ReplyDelete