tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4114034770549099369..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory: An Example From Michael LynchUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39634152943156116122010-09-28T12:44:15.930-07:002010-09-28T12:44:15.930-07:00It really is very simple.
Whether evolution occur...It really is very simple.<br /><br />Whether evolution occurred is one question, which can be considered on the evidence.<br /><br />Like Michael Lynch, I believe the evidence that evolution has occurred is very strong. <br /><br />That we don't have a successful model for the development and spread of complex adaptations through does not prevent this from being true.<br /><br />It is possible to insert a designer into the process to cover our ignorance of this - but there is no evidence of one, and the designer would be constrained to design in line with common descent, which is a very unnatural constraint. So there is no justification for inserting a designer here.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11802047233485045814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4404001433111659442010-09-19T13:39:24.045-07:002010-09-19T13:39:24.045-07:00http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fListingClas...http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fListingClass=0&fSearch=unpublished+evolution+papers+of+John+A.+Davison<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10886961467116258322010-09-12T16:27:00.302-07:002010-09-12T16:27:00.302-07:00Ambiorix wrote:
Actually I understand how chemis...Ambiorix wrote: <br /><br /><b>Actually I understand how chemistry works so next time be more specific, science covers many topics and subject areas.</b><br /><br />I was intentionally non specific as I was referring to science as a whole. <br /><br />For example, are you familiar with the problem of induction and it's impact on science in general? Do you understand that evidence can only collaborate a theory, rather than provide positive support? This includes gravity, chemistry, etc. <br /><br />In science, we first create a hypothesis which starts out as conjecture and guess work, and is collaborated by observations, not vice versa. This is how science works. Even gravity started out this way. <br /><br />For example, it could be there is an army of slide rule equipped demons go around pulling and pushing objects in just the right way to make it appear that gravity exists. However, these demons may decide to pull and push in a completely different way under specific conditions, such as when what we think of as gravity interacts with quantum forces. <br /><br />In other words, agency could be used to explain anything - including gravity, chemistry, etc. - by claiming the agent chooses to act consistently. (Or quasi-consistanty in cases where we lack a unified theory, such as physics.)<br /><br />As such, why is agency is a good explanation in the case of biological complexity, but not gravity, or any other phenomena? <br /><br />Without any good reason to prefer one over the other, singling out biological complexity appears irrational.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55556124458357044902010-09-11T16:42:35.032-07:002010-09-11T16:42:35.032-07:00Pastor Neal wrote:
"When was the last time we...Pastor Neal wrote:<br />"When was the last time we observed a new organ developing via evolution? Shrinking or enlarging existing organs does not count. That's the basic difference. Evolutionists see one mutation as being evidence for the whole ball game."<br /><br />You're lying. We see many mutations. We study many mutations. We study selection. We study non-Darwinian mechansims. <br /><br />You, on the other hand, repeatedly violate the Ninth Commandment.<br /><br />Why is your concept of God so weak that you think He needs you to violate His Commandments with impunity?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67667481312004646172010-09-10T18:47:57.810-07:002010-09-10T18:47:57.810-07:00Doublee: What is the minimum number of components ...<b>Doublee</b>: <i>What is the minimum number of components that must come into existence simultaneously to provide a selectable vision system? </i><br /><br />In <i>Euglena</i>, there is a pigmented region which, depending on the cell's orientation to the light, casts a shadow on the photoreceptor consisting of a photoactivated adenylyl cyclase.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28835693624778890722010-09-10T17:08:16.555-07:002010-09-10T17:08:16.555-07:00"Next time cut the infantile jibe."
Thi..."Next time cut the infantile jibe."<br /><br />This from the guy Cornelius had to slap down for his own four letter words. Does 'ambiorix' mean 'double standard' in some language?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60533057594119137092010-09-10T15:50:53.202-07:002010-09-10T15:50:53.202-07:00Scott said...
Ambiorix wrote:
Next time try som...Scott said... <br />Ambiorix wrote: <br /><br />Next time try something a little bit more constructive instead of that stupid crap.<br /><br />Ambriorix, <br /><br />It appears that you do not understand how science works.<br /><br />==============================<br /><br />Actually I understand how chemistry works so next time be more specific, science covers many topics and subject areas.<br />Next time cut the infantile jibe.Ambiorixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852370173881737294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37742955847318496872010-09-10T15:45:55.131-07:002010-09-10T15:45:55.131-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ambiorixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852370173881737294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3316727976291622432010-09-10T13:34:04.780-07:002010-09-10T13:34:04.780-07:00Neal Tedford wrote:
"Building an eye in a st...Neal Tedford wrote:<br /><br />"Building an eye in a stepwise fashion without saltation events, with each intermediate step bringing a viable benefit is quite a thought experiment, probably impossible."<br /><br />I recommend to you the Nilsson and Pelger paper. I recall that none of the 500,000 steps involved a change of more than 1% in any variable of the system - hardly a saltation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19773471500035509002010-09-10T11:45:14.261-07:002010-09-10T11:45:14.261-07:00Doublee, well said, I wish we would get an evoluti...Doublee, well said, I wish we would get an evolutionists reply on this. The minimum number of components to make a vision system requires a saltation... which is not acceptable to evolutionists today. You bring up an excellent point of the need to discuss all the components, including the signal decoding function. <br /><br />Building an eye in a stepwise fashion without saltation events, with each intermediate step bringing a viable benefit is quite a thought experiment, probably impossible. That would be loosely akin to building a USB connected computer camera in a stepwise fashin with each step bringing something beneficial to your computer system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83463971321462503952010-09-10T09:57:14.748-07:002010-09-10T09:57:14.748-07:00David vun Kannon:
I do think that transduction is ...<b>David vun Kannon:</b><br /><i>I do think that transduction is an acceptable boundary for the model.</i><br /><br />I disagree. In my post I presented only a brief summary of what I said in previous posts.<br /><br />My problem is the emphasis on the evolution of "the eye" apart from the fact that it is only one component in a vision system. The question that needs to be answered is: What is the minimum number of components that must come into existence simultaneously to provide a selectable vision system?<br /><br />A vision system, as a necessary but not sufficient condition, must consist of two functions (as opposed to physical components).<br /><br />These are the signal transduction function AND the signal decoding function - the mechanism that interprets the electrical signals provided by the photon detector and can alter the behavior of the organism in some way.<br /><br />The next question is to determine how many components are required to support this minimum functionality.<br /><br />This does not end the consideration of the vision system. The "infrastructure" of the vision system must also be considered. The infrastructure problem varies depending on the organism being considered. By infrastructure I mean those components that physically support the eye and nourish it.<br /><br />To talk about the evolution of the eye is akin to talking only about the light detecting component of a television camera. Missing in the discussion is power for the camera and a viewing screen, and the mechanical support structures.Doubleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09894977171356099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11414769955607218362010-09-10T09:39:22.915-07:002010-09-10T09:39:22.915-07:00Neal Tedford said:
"The evolutionist is boun...Neal Tedford said:<br /><br />"The evolutionist is bound to saltation at some point. How did your bacteria in your thought experiment get the "rudimentary" flagella? A Saltation? Something either exists or it doesn't at some level within any complex, integrated system."<br /><br />I can't agree with you, except in the most tenuous sense. Genetic material is made of discreet units, nucleobases. Proteins are made of discrete units, amino acids. All chemicals are made of discrete units, atoms. So it is trivially true that any change to the heritable material is a 'saltation'. But beyond that trivial sense, I can't agree with you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45782383956156822802010-09-10T09:16:12.031-07:002010-09-10T09:16:12.031-07:00David,
The evolutionist is bound to saltation at...David, <br /><br />The evolutionist is bound to saltation at some point. How did your bacteria in your thought experiment get the "rudimentary" flagella? A Saltation? Something either exists or it doesn't at some level within any complex, integrated system. <br /><br />For mutation and selection to be successful, a gene has to either be already functioning, or within 1 or at most 2 base changes from working.<br /><br />The fossil record is a history of saltation events followed by minor variation (Terns).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80663859279623965042010-09-10T08:54:50.358-07:002010-09-10T08:54:50.358-07:00Mea culpaMea culpaAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81773710474189519462010-09-10T08:42:12.698-07:002010-09-10T08:42:12.698-07:00One bacterium, a bunch of bacteria
One flagellum,...One bacteri<b>um</b>, a bunch of bacteri<b>a</b><br /><br />One flagell<b>um</b>, lots of flagell<b>a</b>Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80074750020345448742010-09-10T08:27:30.492-07:002010-09-10T08:27:30.492-07:00Neal Tedford asked:
"Why don't bacteria ...Neal Tedford asked:<br /><br />"Why don't bacteria without a flagelum develop one? There gazillions of bacteria with short generations and lots of opportunity in our big world."<br /><br />Since I agree that there are lots of bacteria with short generation times, the issue might be the 'lots of opportunity' part. Let's say your a bacteria with a rudimentary flagella. You spent resources building it, so you're not as competitive against your cousins that didn't vary in the "flagella" direction. But you're also not competitive against those bacteria that already have a great flagella that their ancestors devloped two billion years ago. They already occupy that niche. You lose.<br /><br />On the other hand, two billion years ago nobody had a flagella, and even a poor one was better than nothing at exploiting that faster swimming niche. The one-eyed man was king! Now the one-eyed man is a beggar. Times change.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16405915324417401092010-09-10T08:16:31.467-07:002010-09-10T08:16:31.467-07:00Neal Tedford asked:
"But are they ALL still ...Neal Tedford asked:<br /><br />"But are they ALL still arctic "Terns"? yes? Have they any new organs or experienced a major anatomical change?"<br /><br />I thought we cleared up that "evolution" does not equal "new organs" previously in this thread. Speciation isn't about "new organs" or major anatomical change, either.<br /><br />Is the fact that your ear bones were previously jaw bones a major anatomical change? I would say so, but the change was quite gradual, and from species to species in the fossil record you might call the change minor. That is what you'd expect in Darwinian evolution, not a saltational change. The lack of "new organs" is a rap against that interventionist Designer, not Darwinian evolution. How come I don't have zoom lenses in my eyes and fiber optic nerves? Slacker.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86035673431865746232010-09-10T07:30:02.690-07:002010-09-10T07:30:02.690-07:00Neal Tedford: Gravity has been compared to evoluti...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Gravity has been compared to evolution, but the comparison is a misnomer. Gravity is predictable and measurable based on known parameters. </i><br /><br />Newton's great insight was that the force that causes the apple to fall is the same force that causes the planets trace arcs across the sky. <br /><br />Try reading the parallel again. We have the observed mechanics of gravity. We have historical theories of planetary formation. We can model the process by which planets form. We can extrapolate the observed mechanism of gravity. We can't directly observe the entire history of planet formation, but that doesn't mean we can't have knowledge of that history, or its mechanisms.<br /><br />Similarly, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of mechanisms and an historical narrative. We can gather evidence of the historical sequence of events. We can model the process. We can extrapolate the known mechanisms of evolution. We can't directly observe the entire history, but that doesn't mean we can't have knowledge of that history, or its mechanisms. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>The funny thing is, is that mutations happen all the time, but no one has ever seen a new organ develop. </i><br /><br />The origin of most "organs" are found deep in metazoan history. <br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>It doesn't take long for a mutation to occur, so why haven't we seen new organs develop via evolution? </i><br /><br />The development of most "organs" occurred over millions of years among primitive organisms in a primordial environment that no longer exists.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38633276768281847182010-09-10T06:52:49.222-07:002010-09-10T06:52:49.222-07:00I never heard of "macro-gravity".
Well,...<i>I never heard of "macro-gravity".</i><br /><br />Well, that settles that.<br /><br />Except, why do physicists employ the term “microgravity” if there isn’t such a thing as “macrogravity.” If you really want to learn, you might start here:<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/shuttlestation/station/microgex.htmlPedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82690543639516111142010-09-10T06:49:26.754-07:002010-09-10T06:49:26.754-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57749715321850753062010-09-10T06:28:10.381-07:002010-09-10T06:28:10.381-07:00Again the gravity thing.
I never heard of "m...Again the gravity thing.<br /><br />I never heard of "macro-gravity". Gravity has been compared to evolution, but the comparison is a misnomer. Gravity is predictable and measurable based on known parameters. <br /><br />The funny thing is, is that mutations happen all the time, but no one has ever seen a new organ develop. It doesn't take long for a mutation to occur, so why haven't we seen new organs develop via evolution? The fact that we don't is evidence that the fundamental basis of believing it could happen is nonsense. <br /><br />Why don't bacteria without a flagelum develop one? There gazillions of bacteria with short generations and lots of opportunity in our big world. The flagelum would be a handy benefit. What would the stepwise evolutionary development look like?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75914330574915340932010-09-10T06:25:13.397-07:002010-09-10T06:25:13.397-07:00Neal Tedford: Comparing tectonics to biological ev...<b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>Comparing tectonics to biological evolution is not an apples to apples comparision. </i><br /><br />We can observe continents move. In itself, that doesn't mean they had radically different configurations in the past, including a common Pangaean origin. However, we can amount historical evidence to support these different configurations, and evidence that the mechanisms we observe today worked similarly in the past. <br /><br />We can observe evolution. In itself, that doesn't mean organisms descended from radically different configurations, including a common ancestry. However, we can amount historical evidence to support these different configurations, and evidence that the mechanisms we observe today worked similarly in the past.<br /><br /><b>Neal Tedford</b>: <i>This whole business of stepwise evolutionary development of new organs does not even work as a thought experiment unless you grossly ignore the details (as Dawkins did with his BOX EYE). </i><br /><br />{broken record mode} In order to determine the historical order of events, we should start with <a href="http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html" rel="nofollow">the nested hierarchy</a>, as well as a look at <a href="http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/principle-of-superposition.html" rel="nofollow">the fossil succession</a>. {/broken record mode}Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61863996103206276512010-09-10T06:05:40.339-07:002010-09-10T06:05:40.339-07:00David V.
But are they ALL still arctic "Tern...David V.<br /><br />But are they ALL still arctic "Terns"? yes? Have they any new organs or experienced a major anatomical change?<br /><br /><br />John,<br /><br />Comparing tectonics to biological evolution is not an apples to apples comparision. A little bit more plate movement can continue to add up and we can measure the movement. A little bit more of a mutation does not develop new organs. We do not see novel, new organs developing via evolution.<br /><br /> This whole business of stepwise evolutionary development of new organs does not even work as a thought experiment unless you grossly ignore the details (as Dawkins did with his BOX EYE). There is a reason why developing embryos are still in the womb or egg.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65279281693401510072010-09-10T04:57:03.865-07:002010-09-10T04:57:03.865-07:00Thorton: Micro-gravity can be demonstrated. Can ma...<i>Thorton: <b>Micro</b>-gravity can be demonstrated. Can <b>macro</b>-gravity be demonstrated?<br /><br />Has any one person ever observed Pluto making an entire orbit around the sun?</i><br /><br />Exactly.<br />Similarly, microtectonics (earthquakes, volcanism, a few inches of drift) can be demonstrated, but no humans were around to witness that you could walk from what would become Africa to what would become South America 250 million years ago. To scientists, the physical evidence of the rock and fossil records are sufficient to establish Pangaea's historical reality. Of course, physical evidence is generally more reliable than human witnesses anyway.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66199140451150659512010-09-10T04:33:27.865-07:002010-09-10T04:33:27.865-07:00Steve said:
"In short, ID challenges the mac...Steve said:<br /><br />"In short, ID challenges the macro-evolution from micro-evolution unwarranted inference."<br /><br />I don't think any and every person in the Big Tent of ID would agree with you on that. I think Behe has come out in agreement with Deep Time and common decsent, just not for every change. But I'm not that interested in discussing their positions, lets continue with your understanding of this micro/macro issue.<br /><br />While you say 'new organisms' I'll assume you agree that we are talking about populations of organisms.<br /><br />Yes, change in allele frequencies drives speciation. Look at a ring species, like arctic terns. Where the ring overlaps itself, you have two distinct species - populatioins in nature that do not interbreed. (As with the previous "evolution = change in allele frequencies", these are commonly accepted definitions of terms in the scientific world.) But tracked around the globe, you have interbreeding populations (that is what makes it a ring species). You could sample and sequence the DNA of birds around the ring and chart the changes in allele frequencies.<br /><br />We are lucky in the case of terns that the process is stretched out across geography, and all the stages are still extant. If the intermediate terns went extinct over Canada and Russia, you'd be left with two distinct species and no direct record of how one evolved from the other through gradual changes. But in this case the evidence is alive.<br /><br />Since you are sensitive to definitions, I'll be clear that I've assumed you mean 'change within a species' for micro-evolution, and 'change of a species' for macro-evolution. And since you brought up goal posts, nice move! The OP was discussing the factuality of evolution. If you think Dr Hunter only had "macro-evolution" in mind when he was writing, please take that up with him.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.com