Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Why Eyes Did Not Evolve in the Back of the Head

In a recent Scientific American (July, 2009) "Ask the Experts" column, evolutionist S. Jay Olshansky explains why humans have not evolved eyes in the back of the head. Olshansky makes the argument that (i) natural selection is limited to those designs that just happen to arise and (ii) what happens to arise is not driven by need. In other words, we don't have eyes in the back of the head not because they wouldn't be useful, but because early versions never happened to arise there in the first place.

The term "contingent" is sometimes used to describe this sort of explanation. The idea is that evolution's designs are not a consequence of necessity or good design, but rather the vagaries of historical accidents. Far from answering the question, this explanation simply raises even more questions and problems.

One problem is that this doctrine that biological variation, from which natural selection does its choosing, is blind and independent of fitness, though long a staple of evolutionary theory, is false.

Another problem is that strikingly similar designs, which could not be due to a common ancestor, are common. Biological designs are clearly not contingent on a capricious process of historical accidents.

Yet another problem is that the contingency explanation for evolutionary designs cuts both ways. For if this is the explanation for why eyes did not evolve in the back of the head, we could then just as easily ask, why then did eyes evolve in the front of the head?

It is all one big tautology. Eyes did not evolve in the back of the head because they did not accidentally arise there. On the other hand, eyes did evolve in the front of the head because they did accidentally arise there. This reminds me of a debate I was in where the evolutionist explained that the purpose of science is to explain nature, and that evolution is good science because it explains biology.

Given the absurdities it is not surprising that Olshansky changes gears. Instead of "it all depends on what happens to arise accidentally," Olshansky retools the explanation, this time with selection doing the heavy lifting:

Although light-sensitive cells are likely to have appeared on different parts of early forms of life, selection seems to favor those that enable creatures to detect light in the direction they are headed rather than the direction from which they came. Forward locomotion probably was a driving force for the current location of light-sensitive cells.

In the space of a few paragraphs, Olshansky has completely reversed himself. I guess we should think of it as a menu of explanations from which to choose your favorite. You may have contingency or you may have necessity. You can limit biological variation, leaving selection with little flexibility, or you can expand the powers of variation and use selection to winnow back the many choices. Evolution is not merely one tautology--it has multiple tautologies.

Another problem is that if biological variation is blind, then how do nature's intricate designs arise? Olshansky glosses over this problem, assuring the reader that:

The first light-sensitive cell most certainly arose through random mutation among the earliest multicellular creatures.

In fact, even the simplest light-sensitive cells in nature are phenomenally complex. The idea that they "arose through random mutation" is "certainly" not motivated by the science. And that is only the beginning. Evolutionists such as Olshansky forget that light sensitivity, even if it could magically arise on its own, would do the creature no good without a host of concomitant capabilities to take advantage of the windfall. For the newly available sensory data must be processed, transmitted, and ultimately integrated into the creature's cognitive processes. Even primitive versions of these requirements render evolution silly.

59 comments:

  1. Let's see...

    Quote mining. check

    Zero understanding of actual evolutionary theory. check

    Attacking strawman version. check

    Embarrassingly bad faulty logic. check

    Argument from ignorance based personal incredulity. check


    Another day at the office for CH. Ho hum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have been conspicuously absent from the thread on evolution and entropy. People who have some idea about the subject matter—Jeffrey Shallit and yours truly—have responded at some length and you don't seem interested in commenting any further.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: The first light-sensitive cell most certainly arose through random mutation among the earliest multicellular creatures.

    Is the assertion that the light-sensitive cell most certainly arose through random mutations backed up by any kind of detailed analysis? Call it a plausibility study if you will. A number of questions come to this layman's mind.

    1. Can a light-sensitive cell arise for its own sake, independently of any other function other than to detect light? If so, how does this alone provide a selective advantage? In other words must not a light-sensitive cell and a signal transduction system that controls the motility of the organism arise all at once? (What is the probability of that?)

    2. If the light sensitive system does not arise all at once, what are the steps that take us from the "blind" organism to the one with a light-sensitive cell?

    3. What is the selective advantage of each step?

    4. Can science even provide plausible answers to these questions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Doublee said...

    Re: The first light-sensitive cell most certainly arose through random mutation among the earliest multicellular creatures.

    Is the assertion that the light-sensitive cell most certainly arose through random mutations backed up by any kind of detailed analysis? Call it a plausibility study if you will. A number of questions come to this layman's mind.


    A number of detailed studies on eye evolution have been done. Generally speaking, what evolved first on the epidermal layer were radiation sensing cells, later specialized to visible light wavelengths. The 'signaling' system as you call in - nerve impulses to the brain - was already in place and only needed to be adapted. As in all evolution, the other parts of the overall vision system evolved in parallel. One of the biggest drivers in the process were mutations to the opsin family of genes.

    Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup

    There's lots of info out there if you search.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Doublee: Can science even provide plausible answers to these questions?

    Of course. We might look for more primitive structures in extant organisms.

    Photons have a tendency to cause changes (e.g. photoisomerization) to sensitive organic molecules. A very simple phototaxis system is found in the single-celled organism, Euglena, where a single protein (Photoactivated Adenylyl Cyclase) harvests the light and generates the signaling molecule. That's it. One protein.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius,

    "Even primitive versions of these requirements render evolution silly."

    I think ludicrous is a more apt description.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course, none of these objections could possibly be raised against ID, because there is a well-thought body of literature explaining precisely why the Designer made each and every decision he did, mutation by mutation. Or at least, if there isn't yet, one is being developed.

    What's that? A designer's actions are unpredictable by definition? I see.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For Thorton:

    Concerning your reference to the Lamb, et al publication on the eye.

    Read posts 4, 24, and 6 at this Hunter link
    Is "Why Evolution is True" True?

    ReplyDelete
  10. cdevoclast said...

    For Thorton:

    Concerning your reference to the Lamb, et al publication on the eye.

    Read posts 4, 24, and 6 at this Hunter link
    Is "Why Evolution is True" True?


    OK, I did. The only one with any relevance is Post 4. It's a bunch of handwaving creationist drivel going "nuh uh" and whining because Lamb et al used words like evolved , diverge, and develops.

    Do you have any specific evidence that the information presented in the Lamb paper on the primordial photosensory system of protochordates, or the origin of vertebrate photoreceptors, or the evolution of vertebrate opsins, or the evolution of ciliary photoreceptors, or the development of the vertebrate eye cup, or the development of retinal neural circuitry, or the contacts at the inner and outer plexiform layers, or the ganglion cells is wrong?

    If so, please present it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Hunter -- you are the master. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thorton,

    In your checklist you forgot avoidance of the evidence in the primary scientific literature because Dr. Hunter quote mined from SA.

    Dr. Hunter, you wrote:
    "Olshansky makes the argument that (i) natural selection is limited to those designs that just happen to arise and (ii) what happens to arise is not driven by need. In other words, we don't have eyes in the back of the head not because they wouldn't be useful, but because early versions never happened to arise there in the first place."

    "in other words"? You gotta be kidding me. In what English dialect does "needed" mean the same thing as "useful"?

    Your post is silly because the location of the eyes, as much as anything, define the front vs. back of the head.

    Do you know the difference between protostomes and deuterostomes? IOW, embryologically (completely independent of evolution vs. the Designer God), your mouth is homologous to a fly's _________?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Your post is silly because the location of the eyes, as much as anything, define the front vs. back of the head."

    Not completely true. Look at birds for example. Eyes more to the side of the head. Front is more relative to the entire body than just the head.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, completely true. Birds aren't an exception. The front is the direction that the body travels most frequently, and that's the direction the eyes face.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Some birds, like owls, have eyes directly in front like humans. Some, like parrots, are on the sides. The location of the eyes in them does not determine front and back. Everything else, the beak, body, internal structure makes it clear which is the front.

    " The eyes of birds are locate on the side of their heads. Because of their relative positions, head bobbing, a behavior commonly seen in birds, is used to help them with depth perception."

    http://www.explorebiodiversity.com/BIRDS/Adaptations/Nervous%20System.htm

    Eye position, in and of itself, does not ALWAYS determine fornt and back of the head.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Despite their increased visual acumen, most birds are saddled with one competitive disadvantage: monocular vision (see sidebar). Avian eyes are set on each side of the head and are capable of only limited rotation toward the bill tip. Birds are therefore able to see better to the side than straight ahead. This often forces birds to observe objects one eye at a time, and the resulting image is flat and lacks accurate depth perception."

    http://www.ducks.org/DU_Magazine/DUMagazineJanFeb2010/4786/ABirdsEyeView.html?poe=magLanding

    ReplyDelete
  17. I wrote:
    "the eyes, as much as anything, define the front vs. back of the head."

    Fil, desperate to misrepresent, quote-mined and wrote:
    "Eye position, in and of itself, does not ALWAYS determine fornt and back of the head."

    Now, Fil, how could any honest person conflate "as much as anything" with "ALWAYS"? And why did you capitalize your blatant violation of the Ninth Commandment?

    Why are you creationists so dishonest?

    Do you see that nothing you quote-mined even suggests that birds have eyes in the back of their heads?

    Let's test your reading comprehension and hooey detector. Dr. Hunter wrote, "In his book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, evolutionist Tim Berra admits that vertebrate embryos do not respire by means of gills… "

    What does this mean, Fil?

    1) Are humans vertebrates?
    2) Are fish vertebrates?
    3) Do human embryos respire by means of gills?
    4) Do fish embryos respire by means of gills?

    After answering those questions, please explain Dr. Hunter's point to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow, you are like, frothing at the mouth.

    ""Eye position, in and of itself, does not ALWAYS determine fornt and back of the head."

    That was probably not the best way to phrase it, after review. However, eyes have less to do with it that other things, like maybe the entire body positioning and internal structure.

    And no I don't know of any examples with eyes in the back of it's head...except maybe my mom when I was young. But I do know of several with eyes on the side.

    Take a breath Smokey.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ""Your post is silly because the location of the eyes, as much as anything, define the front vs. back of the head."

    A better example.

    Would you say eyes define the front vs the back of the head as well as a beak does, when speaking of birds?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Wow, you are like, frothing at the mouth."

    No, I am not. You, OTOH, are bearing false witness again and again.

    "That was probably not the best way to phrase it, after review."

    It was a deliberate misrepresentation.

    "However, eyes have less to do with it that other things, like maybe the entire body positioning and internal structure."

    So you say, but you provide no evidence. Evolutionary theory predicts that these things are all interdependent. What does your particular ID/creationist hypothesis predict, Fil?

    "Would you say eyes define the front vs the back of the head as well as a beak does, when speaking of birds?"

    Yes. The beak is at the midline between the eyes. But all this "definition" stuff is just obfuscation anyway.

    Do you know the difference between protostomes and deuterostomes?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Yes. The beak is at the midline between the eyes."

    Your own obfuscation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Smokey, Fil, you guys are talking past each other. In simple protists the anterior (front) is defined as the end with a mouth, or the end that points in the direction of the animal's locomotion. In bilaterally symmetric vertebrates anterior is defined as the 'head' end, and the 'front' of the head is the anterior facing side. It has nothing to do with eye position - just look at flounders for a good example.

    All that goes out the window for animals with radial symmetry like jellyfishes.

    Did you guys know that many animals have a third light sensing organ called a parietal eye on the top of their heads?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "How so? "

    The back of the head is sometimes the midpoint between the two eyes as well.

    Is that light sensor on the top like a bald spot?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Fil said...

    Is that light sensor on the top like a bald spot?


    That would be a light reflector, not a sensor. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. oleg:

    ===
    You have been conspicuously absent from the thread on evolution and entropy. People who have some idea about the subject matter—Jeffrey Shallit and yours truly—have responded at some length and you don't seem interested in commenting any further.
    ===

    Jeffrey Shallit seemed to be responding to someone else's comments, and it seemed that you agreed that the paper's formulation was problematic. I'll repond to your further comments.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This post seems to be one long list of ways in which you can completely misrepresent how evolution works.

    "The term "contingent" is sometimes used to describe this sort of explanation. The idea is that evolution's designs are not a consequence of necessity or good design, but rather the vagaries of historical accidents. Far from answering the question, this explanation simply raises even more questions and problems.

    One problem is that this doctrine that biological variation, from which natural selection does its choosing, is blind and independent of fitness, though long a staple of evolutionary theory, is false."


    Ugh... are you joking?

    I cannot possibly believe that someone who appears to devote this much time to pontificating on evolution has that ridiculous an understanding of how it works.

    First of all, evolution doesn't have "designs". It just has outcomes.

    Second of all, of course those outcomes aren't selected for IN ADVANCE based on fitness. That would require that mutations in the genome were being pre-determined by environmantal requirements, which is ridiculous. So of course having eyes in the back of your head being useful isn't going to somehow cause a random mutation that produces eyes in the back of your head.

    This in NO WAY WHATSOEVER conflicts with the evolutionary concept that selection based on fitness occurs. But selection acts on what happens to show up, it doesn't DETERMINE what shows up.

    "Another problem is that strikingly similar designs, which could not be due to a common ancestor, are common. Biological designs are clearly not contingent on a capricious process of historical accidents.
    "


    Name one.

    "Yet another problem is that the contingency explanation for evolutionary designs cuts both ways. For if this is the explanation for why eyes did not evolve in the back of the head, we could then just as easily ask, why then did eyes evolve in the front of the head?

    I can't even decipher what argument you *think* you're making there.

    As for your later claim that Olshansky reversed himself... umm, no. He remained completely consistent throughout. It is only your own gross misunderstanding of the processes involved that leads to your perception of a reversal.

    And I'm just going to skip over berating you for your "I can't imagine this happening therefore it didn't" approach at the end there. I did write a series of summary posts on the evidence for evolution last month back on my own blog however, you might consider clicking on my name, scrolling down to the blog link, and giving it a look. You appear to be someone who could benefit greatly from exposure to that information.

    ReplyDelete
  27. CH: "Another problem is that strikingly similar designs, which could not be due to a common ancestor, are common. Biological designs are clearly not contingent on a capricious process of historical accidents.

    This particular piece of stupidity needs a comment. Convergent evolution - animals not closely related evolving similar morphologies - is not due to lucky "accidents". It is caused by the fact that there are only a small number of optimum solutions to physics problems, and that natural selection drives morphology to those solutions. A great example is the streamlined shape of tuna and dolphins. They evolved a similar shape because that shape is the best for overcoming the physics problem of how to move most efficiently through water.

    The shape of birds' and bats' wings is another. Although the inner structure is radically different, the external shape is similar because there are only a few ways to make a lift generating airfoil.

    For someone writing a supposed science blog, CH knows surprisingly little about the actual evolutionary sciences.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Grant:

    Thanks for commenting. You have a great blog. I had no idea you were out there. Dr Hunter's open blog policy is allowing a lot of intelligent people to introduce themselves.

    Good work, Dr Hunter.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @David:

    Thanks! Appreciate the feedback. I have to say I find blogs like this one bewildering. Obviously what we have here is someone who devotes massive amounts of time to thinking about this subject, writes about it constantly, delves fearlessly into discussions of subjects like horizontal gene transfers... and yet somehow he's apparently managed to avoid ever learning how natural selection works.

    That's a little like finding a mathemetician discussing how to calculate power spectral densities of a signal... but not knowing how to multiply fractions.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A beautiful analogy. Another example is Dr. Hunter's inability to resist portraying evolution as happening to individual organisms instead of to populations.

    ReplyDelete
  31. " Convergent evolution - animals not closely related evolving similar morphologies - is not due to lucky "accidents". It is caused by the fact that there are only a small number of optimum solutions to physics problems, and that natural selection drives morphology to those solutions."

    "But selection acts on what happens to show up, it doesn't DETERMINE what shows up."

    Is that contradictory? Or am I reading it wrong?

    And this is why chance still plays a HUGE role in the evolutionary theory. Positive, beneficial mutations that will absolutely be kept and spread throughout generations need to happen to show up. Not just once, but time and time again until the point that you literally need millions?, hundreds of millions? of these mutations to just happen so evolution can select them.

    Chance then selection.

    Oooooo there goes my incredulity again.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fil: And this is why chance still plays a HUGE role in the evolutionary theory.

    If you open a perfume bottle, the aroma will disperse through the room. We know this is due to the random motions of gas molecules, yet the result is inevitable. You might say "Oooooo there goes my incredulity again."

    If there are sufficient population resources, then a population might experience every possible single-point mutation. Some variations are much rarer, though, and populations may be limited, in which case evolution can only explore some areas of the fitness landscape. The point is that your personal sense of incredulity, without a consideration of the specifics, has no intrinsic scientific merit.

    Fil: Chance then selection.

    Consider we have two organisms with bilateral symmetry, a flexible spine, a cranium, living and feeding in the water. Whenever a small change makes the organism a bit more hydrodynamic, it will be subject to selection. All it takes is a small change to provide a reproductive advantage. As you say you accept that the morphology of bird beaks is subject to selection, you should have no trouble accepting convergence of hydrodynamic morphology in fish and dolphins.

    It turns out that if you look closely, we can see important and complex transitions were due to incremental and selectable changes, each step seemingly small and of no foreseeable consequence, but of utility to the organism at the time. And because each of these changes are akin to the observed changes in beak morphology, you should have no trouble accepting these broad changes occurring over long spans of time.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Fil said...

    " Convergent evolution - animals not closely related evolving similar morphologies - is not due to lucky "accidents". It is caused by the fact that there are only a small number of optimum solutions to physics problems, and that natural selection drives morphology to those solutions."

    "But selection acts on what happens to show up, it doesn't DETERMINE what shows up."

    Is that contradictory? Or am I reading it wrong?


    It's not contradictory. You're reading it wrong.

    And this is why chance still plays a HUGE role in the evolutionary theory. Positive, beneficial mutations that will absolutely be kept and spread throughout generations need to happen to show up. Not just once, but time and time again until the point that you literally need millions?, hundreds of millions? of these mutations to just happen so evolution can select them.

    No Fil. "Beneficial" mutations don't show up. Random (with respect to fitness) mutations show up. There's no way to tell if they are beneficial, deleterious, or neutral until after natural selection has a chance to act on their effects.

    A mutation that turns out to be beneficial in one environment can end up being harmful in another. What happens a lot in evolution is a neutral mutation shows up, gets carried along for a good while with no effect on a population, then becomes beneficial much later when the environment finally changes.

    Have you ever played draw poker? In draw poker the cards you are dealt are random. You are 'natural selection' deciding which gets discarded (deleterious) and which get kept (neutral or beneficial). Any individual card is not 'good' or 'bad', It depends on the context of surrounding environment. A '2' can be a terrible draw card if you are holding A,K,Q,J. It's an excellent draw card if your other four cards are A,3,4,5.

    You are also seriously underestimating the power of cumulative selection. Suppose you walk in on a card game and see me holding a royal straight flush. You'd think it was quite improbable for me to have that hand with all the matching beneficial cards. Now suppose you found out that I was playing draw poker, keep what works, and the rules allowed for unlimited reshuffles of discards and redraws. Now the odds of me holding a royal straight flush are virtual certainty. Well, evolution has been drawing and keeping things that work for some 3.3 billion years. Any one generation doesn't need millions of beneficial mutations. It just needs a few to add on to the already existing pile of ones that work.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Well, evolution has been drawing and keeping things that work for some 3.3 billion years. Any one generation doesn't need millions of beneficial mutations. It just needs a few to add on to the already existing pile of ones that work. "

    And yet I was under the impression that most major changes in this theory happen within a comparatively short time span. 5-10 million for whales to develop from land is a far cry from saying 3.3 billion years.

    So what is a "few"?

    If whales had 500,000 generations how many mutations that turned out to be beneficial would be needed per generation to create the diversity we now have?

    And what is the total number of possible mutations for any type of species? Anyone know? For example, someone(maybe thornton) said on average humans have 175 mutations in their genome sequence from their parents I believe. 175 out of a possible how many? Do we know that for any species?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Fil said...

    And yet I was under the impression that most major changes in this theory happen within a comparatively short time span. 5-10 million for whales to develop from land is a far cry from saying 3.3 billion years.


    Whales didn't start from scratch 60 MYA. They started from fully developed mammals that only needed relatively minor modifications (compared to the overall body plan) to live in the ocean.

    If whales had 500,000 generations how many mutations that turned out to be beneficial would be needed per generation to create the diversity we now have?

    I did the calculations for you before on the other thread, remember? 500,000 generations produced hundreds of trillions of new mutations. That huge number also doesn't include the equally huge number of new genetic possibilities from sexual recombination - existing genes in the pool being mixed in new ways. There is no shortage of potential variation to draw from.

    I suggested to you to not get hung up on trying to calculate unknowable 'total numbers' but to look at functions that evolve in parallel. Looks like you still need to work on it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. David:

    ==========
    @Grant: Thanks for commenting. You have a great blog. I had no idea you were out there. Dr Hunter's open blog policy is allowing a lot of intelligent people to introduce themselves. Good work, Dr Hunter.
    ==========





    "Ugh... are you joking? I cannot possibly believe that someone who appears to devote this much time to pontificating on evolution has that ridiculous an understanding of how it works. First of all, evolution doesn't have "designs". It just has outcomes."

    So when evolutionist's use the term it is OK, but when skeptics it means they don't nderstand the vastly complex concept of evolution. This is a typical evolutionist canard: complain about uncontroversial terminology with great indignation.



    "Second of all, of course those outcomes aren't selected for IN ADVANCE based on fitness. That would require that mutations in the genome were being pre-determined by environmantal requirements, which is ridiculous. So of course having eyes in the back of your head being useful isn't going to somehow cause a random mutation that produces eyes in the back of your head.

    This in NO WAY WHATSOEVER conflicts with the evolutionary concept that selection based on fitness occurs. But selection acts on what happens to show up, it doesn't DETERMINE what shows up."

    Of course environmental pressures influence adaptive changes. It is "ridiculous" only to evolutionists who are driven by their own dogma rather than science. And of course selection doesn't determine what shows up, I never said otherwise.




    "Name one [strikingly similar designs, which could not be due to a common ancestor]"

    This is common. Evolution has so corrupted science that evolutionists boldly deny uncontroversial data.



    "I can't even decipher what argument you *think* you're making there."

    Try rereading the paragraph, it is obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Grant:

    "yet somehow he's apparently managed to avoid ever learning how natural selection works."

    So Grant, why don't you or one of the other believers here explain to us how natural selection *really* works. What's the magic ingredient we're missing?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Grant:

    "And I'm just going to skip over berating you for your 'I can't imagine this happening therefore it didn't' approach at the end there."

    So unlikely events are not a problem?


    "I did write a series of summary posts on the evidence for evolution last month back on my own blog however, you might consider clicking on my name, scrolling down to the blog link, and giving it a look. You appear to be someone who could benefit greatly from exposure to that information."

    That would be helpful. Can you list a couple of these evidences here, that could help us understand why evolution is fact?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Grant: First of all, evolution doesn't have "designs". It just has outcomes.

    Hunter: So when evolutionist's use the term it is OK, but when skeptics it means they don't nderstand the vastly complex concept of evolution. This is a typical evolutionist canard: complain about uncontroversial terminology with great indignation.

    Wikipedia: Literal and figurative language is a distinction in traditional systems for analyzing language. Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning. Figurative language refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words. Figurative language may involve analogy to similar concepts or other contexts, and may involve exaggerations. These alterations result in figures of speech.

    A figure of speech is a use of a word that diverges from its normal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it such as a metaphor, simile, or personification. Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation. A figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetoric or a locution.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "I did the calculations for you before on the other thread, remember?"

    I looked it up just before I posted that. You know, while 175 trillion is a lot, it still isn't to that much to me when you factor in what needs to happen to morph into a different form. I don't know what number would, but it would have to be exponentially higher than that.

    "I suggested to you to not get hung up on trying to calculate unknowable 'total numbers' but to look at functions that evolve in parallel. Looks like you still need to work on it. "

    "That evolve in parallel", that means I need to accept the judgment and assumptions (not necessarily evidence) of others found in their articles. I'm not prepared to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Fil:

    "That evolve in parallel", that means I need to accept the judgment and assumptions (not necessarily evidence) of others found in their articles. I'm not prepared to do that.

    Are you prepared to educate yourself about Population Genetics?

    http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=population+genetics

    ReplyDelete
  43. Fil: You know, while 175 trillion is a lot, it still isn't to that much to me when you factor in what needs to happen to morph into a different form.

    Those sorts of calculations have limited utility, but your objection has even less merit. The dolphin genome is only about three gigabytes, or a tiny percentage of the number of possible point mutations, so the entire genome could conceivably have been rewritten. The vast majority of possible genomes are never explored by evolutionary processes, but the types of incremental changes in the historical record are all examples of microevolution, which you indicated you can accept.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Fil said...

    "I did the calculations for you before on the other thread, remember?"

    I looked it up just before I posted that. You know, while 175 trillion is a lot, it still isn't to that much to me when you factor in what needs to happen to morph into a different form. I don't know what number would, but it would have to be exponentially higher than that.


    So you don't have the faintest clue what the actual number should be, just that it should be "exponentially higher' than 175 trillion.

    There's a word for statements like that. Do you know what it is?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Fil wrote:
    "You know, while 175 trillion is a lot, it still isn't to that much to me when you factor in what needs to happen to morph into a different form. I don't know what number would, but it would have to be exponentially higher than that."

    Please tell us what that factor is and what evidence (not opinion) you used to calculate it. Alternatively, how about answering some simple questions:

    1) How many genetic changes are required to get rid of a limb?
    2) How many genetic changes are required for a human to get an extra finger or toe?
    3) How many genetic changes are required for a human to have an extra vertebra? Vertebrae are extraordinarily complex structures, right?

    Your argument from incredulity is founded on willful ignorance of known developmental mechanisms.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cornelius:
    First, I have never said it was ok for anyone to use the term "design" when referring to evolution. I know some people who accept evolution use it as a shorthand reference to the outcomes of evolutionary development but it's inaccurate and confusing to laypeople who don't know they're not being literal and I'd prefer they exercise more care in their choice of terminology and use an accurate descriptor instead. And when it's used by ID people they have a tendency to either actually use it literally or to at least imply to the audience they are addressing that it should be taken literally which is much worse. Moving on...

    "Of course environmental pressures influence adaptive changes"

    That was not the point of contention. Please return the goalposts to where you found them. The issue was that environmental pressures do not somehow PRE-select the form of adaptations and it is not any kind of mystery or evolutionary conundrum why we don't have eyes in the backs of our heads just because you think it might be useful to put some there. Something being useful doesn't somehow make it happen in evolution.

    You seem to be trying to argue that the environment directs adaptations instead of simply applying biases for or against whatever variations happen to arise in a population.

    "This is common. Evolution has so corrupted science that evolutionists boldly deny uncontroversial data."

    I don't see you naming one in there anywhere. If the uncontroversial data on this exists as you say then it should be a simple matter for you to provide one single example of it that we can examine to determine the validity of your claim.

    "Can you list a couple of these evidences here, that could help us understand why evolution is fact?"

    Why evolution is a *fact*? For the same reason gravity is a fact, it's been objectively observed occurring. Don't make me send you to the observed instances of speciation FAQ at talk.origins.

    I think you meant to ask why the theory explaining that fact is sufficiently evidentially supported. Even in summary form that's a bit long for a comments section post, but you can start here:

    http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/05/proving-evolution-post-1-dating-methods.html

    ...and work your way through to post 7 to cover the basic overview. I tried to write that so that pretty much anyone could understand it so it's a little on the simple side, but I think I did a decent job of not oversimplifying to the point where vital information is lost.

    ReplyDelete
  47. (Character limits...)

    So Grant, why don't you or one of the other believers here explain to us how natural selection *really* works.

    If you insist...

    Beginning from the fact that DNA replication is an imperfect process we don't end up with each generation being just a bunch of perfect clones of its parents. So at any given time, in ANY given population of a species, you have a constantly shifting distribution of genetic traits. This is an incontrovertible fact.

    Fact number 2 is that these populations are environmentally constrained. There are limits on their resources, there are environmental hazards, there are basic limitations imposed on them by the physical laws of the universe... not all of these variants in the population are going to be equally well suited to dealing with those constraints.

    Fact number 3 is that what determines how those traits will be represented in subsequent generations is how successfully they are reproduced and passed on... so reproductive success is the ultimate determining factor in evolutionary fitness. Whichever genetic variants in a population result in the individuals carrying them being statistically biased in favor of higher reproductive success will be favored to have increased representation in subsequent generations.

    The act of these environmental constraints applying a statistical bias that results in some variants being favored for representation in the next generation over others, is natural "selection".

    Nowhere during this process is there any element that can somehow predetermine which variations will be introduced to that population in the first place. I am aware of environmental conditions that are mutagenic and can influence mutation rates... but none that can somehow specify mutation outcomes to conform with some kind of measure of how useful the change would be in the given environment.

    Or in other words, there is no "design" process occuring here. There is simply a population with random variation being forced to conform to shifting environmental conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Grant:

    "Why evolution is a *fact*? For the same reason gravity is a fact, it's been objectively observed occurring."

    I didn't know that. I will now publicly admit I have been wrong all along and agree that evolution is a fact. Oh, by the way, where can I find the data of this observation of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Cornelius: Please don't insult both our intelligences by pretending you didn't read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted in your comment. That's where, and I'm quite confident you are as aware of that as I am.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dr. Hunter, you wrote:
    "I didn't know that."

    Why do you blog daily about a subject you know so little about?

    "I will now publicly admit I have been wrong all along and agree that evolution is a fact."

    A good Christian would, but you won't.

    "Oh, by the way, where can I find the data of this observation of evolution?"

    Haven't you bothered to look? Try this one:

    Rolshausen, G., Segelbacher, G., Hobson, K. A., and Schaefer, H. M. (2009). Contemporary evolution of reproductive divergence in sympatry along a migratory divide. Current Biology 19:2097-2101.

    Oh, but I forgot…you're allergic to the the evidence in the primary scientific literature, aren't you? Only magazine articles that you can quote-mine to deceive others, right?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Grant:

    ====
    "Oh, by the way, where can I find the data of this observation of evolution?"

    Cornelius: Please don't insult both our intelligences by pretending you didn't read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted in your comment. That's where, and I'm quite confident you are as aware of that as I am.
    ====

    Translation: There, in fact, is no such data, so I'll play more games, sound confident, and pretend there is some obvious data somewhere.

    If there was such data, it would be in the research papers, textbooks, popular books, etc. I've looked through all these and have yet to find it. I'll bet Grant hasn't found it either. But if it is at a website, he can just show us where to look.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Grant:

    ====
    I am aware of environmental conditions that are mutagenic and can influence mutation rates... but none that can somehow specify mutation outcomes to conform with some kind of measure of how useful the change would be in the given environment.
    ====

    That's because you're an evolutionist. Try biology instead of evolution.


    ====
    Or in other words, there is no "design" process occuring here.
    ====

    Of course there is.


    ====
    There is simply a population with random variation being forced to conform to shifting environmental conditions.
    ====

    You are parroting evolutionary dogma, which has long since been falsified. But evolutionists will never question evolution. They simply add more layers of absurdity to their theory. See, the theory works!

    ReplyDelete
  53. CH: "Translation: There, in fact, is no such data, so I'll play more games, sound confident, and pretend there is some obvious data somewhere.

    If there was such data, it would be in the research papers, textbooks, popular books, etc. I've looked through all these and have yet to find it. I'll bet Grant hasn't found it either. But if it is at a website, he can just show us where to look."


    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
    The Scientific Case for Common Descent


    CH, do you have any idea how poorly you are representing Christians and how bad you are making yourself look with your frankly dishonest anti-science diatribes?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh for cripes sake..

    Translation: There, in fact, is no such data, so I'll play more games, sound confident, and pretend there is some obvious data somewhere.


    As I have called to your attention twice already, it's not "somewhere", it's right here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    And more...

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    There. I have now provided the link to the page I already told you the information was on, even though I have absolutely no doubt you were already aware of it's existence well before I mentioned it several posts ago.

    If there was such data, it would be in the research papers, textbooks, popular books, etc. I've looked through all these and have yet to find it. I'll bet Grant hasn't found it either.

    Was this a cash bet? Considering those links contains references to dozens of research papers in which the data in question is found when do I get paid?

    I am aware of environmental conditions that are mutagenic and can influence mutation rates... but none that can somehow specify mutation outcomes to conform with some kind of measure of how useful the change would be in the given environment.
    ====

    That's because you're an evolutionist. Try biology instead of evolution.


    In case you're keeping score... when you demand I provide you with examples of data I claim exist I tell you what it is and where to find it. When I point out data you are lacking you inevitably simply avoid answering. Instead of waving your hands around claiming these mutation specifying environmental factors exist, present one.

    And I'm STILL waiting for you to name one of those shared developmental traits common ancestry can't explain you claimed were ever so common while we're on the subject. This is request number three on that one. Whenever you're ready.

    Or in other words, there is no "design" process occuring here.
    ====

    Of course there is.


    Well gosh, there's just no rebutting that... unless I pull out my ace in the sleeve of course and really step up my game to your level here...

    No there isn't.

    Aha! Gotcha! Checkmate!

    You are parroting evolutionary dogma, which has long since been falsified.

    Here we go again...

    Show me where.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Grant,

    I think you must be delusional to argue the way you do. Especially in a discussion on someone else's blog. If insight into Dr. Hunter's point of view is your objective then your approach is certainly not conducive.

    If talkorigins is the sum of your reference material you can just as well do the rest of the research for yourself.

    Do some research to find the other side of the argument before you jump in and demand a customized responses to suite your level of insight. The research can start on this blog simply by reading previous posts... and you can visit other blogs (Uncommon Descent etc.). If you are really interested you can create your own custom research programme to get behind the arguments you want to attack. You are free to attack any aspect of the ID argument, but be informed before you start.

    You would be surprised how many critical arguments are there in the literature that you will never see on Talkorigins. But if one side of the argument is enough to maintain your view of reality then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Michael said...

    If talkorigins is the sum of your reference material you can just as well do the rest of the research for yourself.


    TalkOrigins is but one of many sites available on the web with good summaries of the available scientific evidence for ToE. Notice that virtually every TO article contains references and links to the primary scientific research and literature. Compare that to the IDCreationist apologist sites you get your BS from that only make empty claims and only incestuously reference each other as support.

    You are free to attack any aspect of the ID argument, but be informed before you start.

    Than why don't you inform us Michael? Every time you are asked a technical question on ID you flee in terror for the door.

    Here's the sum total of ID 'theory' to date:

    "An unknown Designer at an unknown place and unknown time using unknown materials with an unknown process and for unknown reasons manufactured something".

    Feel free to provide more details Michael, anytime.

    ReplyDelete
  57. BTW Michael, I am still waiting for you to explain this cryptic statement about ID you made

    Michael: Open your heart and you might meet HIM.

    Who's HIM Michael? And why should the scientific study of ID involve opening my heart to HIM?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Michael:
    Your opinion of my approach to the discussion is noted. I must indeed be delusional to expect someone with an open comment section on their blog to actually respond in a substantive manner to questions posed about the posts they put on it instead of just making unsubstantiated declarations then refusing to back them up with even simple examples instead of just telling anyone who disagrees with them to "learn biology".

    Of course, that assumes the people they're telling this to don't know the subject already, and that's the very reason they want certain claims about it substantiated.

    It would have taken Cornelius about the exact same amount of time to type out an example of one of these supposed common traits that is unexplainable by common descent as it took him to instead simply declare that I was "boldly denying uncontroversial data" while dodging saying exactly what that data was.

    I've asked him for an example of this data three times now... and nothing.

    I don't imagine it would have taken him a great deal more effort to list a single environmental pressure known to specify a mutation in the oprganism it was applied to than it took him to instead tell me to "try biology instead of evolution"... yet he decided the latter approach was apparently more suited to his purposes.

    And burning two entire posts just flat out pretending like I didn't say exactly where the data on observed speciation events was for him to view and acting like it didn't really exist, especially when I don;t belive for a second that he was unaware of that information long before it came up here? Give me a break. He has displayed an absolute aversion to dealing with actual data throughout this exchange.

    And I imagine we both know why that is the approach being employed Michael. So consider your opinion on my conversational style taken under advisement.

    ReplyDelete