Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed

"Of the fossil record, Gould himself said:

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'""

Yes, relatively sudden. These quick periods of Punctuated Equilibrium last millions for years, but are sudden in comparison.

Also, do you not remember that the simulation in that video displayed PE when it had no such guidance?

"Even Gould admits that there is no evidence for building."

Actually we do see examples of transitionals within periods of PE. One example is lodopods (kinda like worms with legs).

"Things appear suddenly and fully formed, just the way they would if a Creator spoke them into existence."

So a creator just put them there, and then killed them off, and then replaced them? The problem with trying to fit the fossil record with ID is that all throughout the fossil record you'd find what would be the creator's mistakes.

Please define "fully formed" as you used it in that sentence.

And Punctuated Equilibrium, a process observed in both computer simulations and reality, fits this perfectly. These periods of PE are millions of years long. Seems like an awful long time for a creator to just poof them into existence.

"Moreover, many organs are irreducibly complex, and could not have formed in unrelated parts, as in a building process."

Any evidence to support this claim? Did you read the numerous papers on the evolution of different organs and body systems? No? I thought not. This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. "I can't imagine how it evolved. Therefore, God did it." I find it ironic that you are using Michael Behe's arguments when Behe himself admits that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

"Your argument ignores the evidence and is void of all logic, but somehow I have the feeling that won't stop you."

YOu don't even seem to know what evidence I'm ignoring. Do yourself a favor and read up on the subject instead of simply saying something can't happen because you can't imagine it.

"Probably won't even slow you down, because you are a true believer in "It Could Have Happened."

And that is good enough for you."

Interesting. That's what I hear Creationists say regularly when they are presented with evidence that they can't explain. "God works in mysterious ways. He could've done it."

Why do you still refrane from acknowledging ERVs, chromosone #2, Luce- Ya know what? I'm getting sick of typing the same bits of evidence over and over for you. I've written them enough. You should be able to remember them. NOw please address them. These are bits of evidence that you haven't even mentioned, and yet here you are saying we're ignoring evidence. The irony is delicious.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You say:

"In other words "It's complex, so it must be designed." Crystals are complex. Do they have designers? DNA could've evolved as well. The most likely candidate is RNA, which is much simpler. RNA could've evolved from an even simpler code. YOu fail to see how complexity builds. Creationists like to take everything as is and point out how complex it is. They fail to realize that things build."

Of the fossil record, Gould himself said:

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

-ibid, page 182

Even Gould admits that there is no evidence for building. Things appear suddenly and fully formed, just the way they would if a Creator spoke them into existence. Moreover, many organs are irreducibly complex, and could not have formed in unrelated parts, as in a building process.

Your argument ignores the evidence and is void of all logic, but somehow I have the feeling that won't stop you. Probably won't even slow you down, because you are a true believer in "It Could Have Happened."

And that is good enough for you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Let's start with your admission that Gould said what he said, which proves I took nothing out of context. I presented it exactly as he said it, and it IS a blow toward Darwinian evolution, which is why he came up with PE."

Theories change all the time with an increased understanding. Why were Einstein physics not considered a "blow" to Newton physics?

"As for the video, I did watch it, and since it purports to "prove" the viability of the randomness of evolution, I suggest that everyone on this board watch it. It is priceless. There are so many mistakes in his premise it is ridiculous. The most glaring is the fact that he wrote a complicated program to "prove" his premise, therefore HE was the designer in this case."

Uh huh. That response was expected. Other than including what in beneficial and what is deleterious, and giving each individual peice some qualities (where they attach, gears have teeth, etc), he did nothing. There was no set outcome at all. And yet we get the same results (but a differently built watch) each time. You make it seem like he put it together on purpose when the process was guided only by natural selection. It is a perfect example of how evolution works.

"Moreover, he used a computer, which is the end product of thousands of years of human discovery and painstaking advancements in design after design after design."

What's your point? He needed something to simulate evolution. You're going to have to explain how this is a problem.

"There is NOTHING random about either a computer or a code."

Umm... The mutations. Think of the computer as the environment in which we all live. A digital replacement for our planet earth. The code is the natural laws to which we all must abide by. It's a simulation of nature.

The mutations were completely random. They were filtered out by natural selection.

"Living things are composed first of DNA, an incredibly complex set of codes that are the blueprints for all of life. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a code has a designer"

In other words "It's complex, so it must be designed." Crystals are complex. Do they have designers? DNA could've evolved as well. The most likely candidate is RNA, which is much simpler. RNA could've evolved from an even simpler code. YOu fail to see how complexity builds. Creationists like to take everything as is and point out how complex it is. They fail to realize that things build.

"Yes, it is reasonable."

NOt without evidence of a designer.

"To believe otherwise, especially without evidence, is not only unreasonable, but perversely so."

Great. But we have evidence, and you haven't been replying to it. ERVs, chromsome #2, Lucy, Archaeoperyx, the rest of the fossils, hox genes, etc.

"But I do agree that he has built, not a watch, but a clock--a CUCKOO CLOCK!"

Argument from ridicule. And a really crappy joke.

"This is insanity, and it proves that people who will not believe the simple truth, will in their delusion believe anything, and I do mean ANYTHING!"

It proves that you will pluck st straws. Didn't he explain in the begining of the video how him designing the code doesn't equal him designing the watch? Or did you chose to ignore that because it goes against your strawman?

"Save yourselves from this lost, perverse generation while you still can. "

We're trying, but you won't listen to reason.

As for your video, it should be titled "Dodos Over the Cliff." Just madness."

Madness?

This. Is. SCIENCE!

"And very funny, if it were not so sad."

Yes, it is sad how you pluck at straws and fail to realize that in a simulation, it is impossible to use the real thing, or else it isn't a simulation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let's start with your admission that Gould said what he said, which proves I took nothing out of context. I presented it exactly as he said it, and it IS a blow toward Darwinian evolution, which is why he came up with PE.

Again, you seem to be unable to understand the implications of your own argument.

As for the video, I did watch it, and since it purports to "prove" the viability of the randomness of evolution, I suggest that everyone on this board watch it. It is priceless. There are so many mistakes in his premise it is ridiculous. The most glaring is the fact that he wrote a complicated program to "prove" his premise, therefore HE was the designer in this case. Moreover, he used a computer, which is the end product of thousands of years of human discovery and painstaking advancements in design after design after design. There is NOTHING random about either a computer or a code.

Living things are composed first of DNA, an incredibly complex set of codes that are the blueprints for all of life. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a code has a designer? Yes, it is reasonable. To believe otherwise, especially without evidence, is not only unreasonable, but perversely so.

But I do agree that he has built, not a watch, but a clock--a CUCKOO CLOCK!

This is insanity, and it proves that people who will not believe the simple truth, will in their delusion believe anything, and I do mean ANYTHING!

Save yourselves from this lost, perverse generation while you still can.

As for your video, it should be titled "Dodos Over the Cliff." Just madness. And very funny, if it were not so sad.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!"

If clocks were alive, yes. Did you even watch that video I linked you to? It's not even ten minutes long. I'm sure you can spare that.

""Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please."

That is what he said, but you presented it as if it were a blow toward evolution.

"And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!"

I'm glad you thought it was so funny that you didn't even watch the video that would've shown you how it works. Apparently evidence means nothing to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!

And you did not answer my question:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please.

And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?"

You make it seem like this is a problem for evolution. Those quotes where used to defend Punctuated Equilibrium. Gradualism is out-dated, and disprovong that is simple.

"And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more."

Darwin came up with natural selection. Then mutation, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

Excuse? It is by Punctuated Equilibrium that we see new species originate. We don't see it happening at a steady pace but instead in quick bursts (relative to their time in stasis). Computer simulations of evolution also show Punctuated Equilibrium. Here's a video not only showing how evolution can build a watch, but also showing that with no guided forced, we see punctuated Equilibrium. I suggest you watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

"Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway."

Thanks for the tip. I realize I come off hasty and angry. I apologize.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?

And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more.

Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.""

This is a quote Gould uses when defending Punctuated Equilibrium; a mechanism he developed. Clearly taken out of context.

"And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181."

Which is why Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.

"By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless."

False. Where the fossil record has holes genetics fills them in. And you clearly took Gould's quote out of context.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ask a good question about what constitutes a species, Brian. As you probably know, the answer varies according to the purpose of the proposal or question being asked:

"In their 2004 book "Speciation," evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr point out that there are more than twenty-five definitions of 'species.' How can we choose among them?"

-Wells, Darwinism and Intelligent Design, page 52

Some definitions are highly esoteric, but for my purposes, I am speaking of the general term, which is individuals that resemble each other and are able to breed among themselves.

My point is that observed speciation is only known to occur that produces minor changes in individuals, and a change from a species to a subspecies does not constitute a change in body plan, or kind, which is what Darwin proposed and which his followers have been trying to prove for the last 150 years:

"In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: 'A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,' and 'the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.'"

-ibid, page 50

The question being asked by some on this board is "Where is the evidence of limits on body plans/genetics?"

But the correct question is: "Where is the evidence that body plans/genetics have ever been exceeded?"

Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181.

By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your argument seems pretty good, John, but you are ignoring the fact that it is PEOPLE who decide whether a breed is a new species or not. This is a tricky business, far less cut and dry than you would have us believe.

You say that wolves and pugs are the same species. How about wolves and coyotes? Wolves and jackels? What about a purple finch and a house finch?

How exactly do people decide if two animals that are physically similar are in fact different species? I'm particularly interested in your answer to this last question.

*For those of you who don't want to look it up, wolves and coyotes are different species. Wolves and jackels are different species. And purple finches and house finches are different species.

Re: Re: Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed

Well, my thread simply asking for a barrier was deleted. I guess that means that there is no proposed barrier, nor any evidence of one. Cool.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Of the fossil record, Gould himself said:

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'""

Yes, relatively sudden. These quick periods of Punctuated Equilibrium last millions for years, but are sudden in comparison.

Also, do you not remember that the simulation in that video displayed PE when it had no such guidance?

"Even Gould admits that there is no evidence for building."

Actually we do see examples of transitionals within periods of PE. One example is lodopods (kinda like worms with legs).

"Things appear suddenly and fully formed, just the way they would if a Creator spoke them into existence."

So a creator just put them there, and then killed them off, and then replaced them? The problem with trying to fit the fossil record with ID is that all throughout the fossil record you'd find what would be the creator's mistakes.

Please define "fully formed" as you used it in that sentence.

And Punctuated Equilibrium, a process observed in both computer simulations and reality, fits this perfectly. These periods of PE are millions of years long. Seems like an awful long time for a creator to just poof them into existence.

"Moreover, many organs are irreducibly complex, and could not have formed in unrelated parts, as in a building process."

Any evidence to support this claim? Did you read the numerous papers on the evolution of different organs and body systems? No? I thought not. This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. "I can't imagine how it evolved. Therefore, God did it." I find it ironic that you are using Michael Behe's arguments when Behe himself admits that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

"Your argument ignores the evidence and is void of all logic, but somehow I have the feeling that won't stop you."

YOu don't even seem to know what evidence I'm ignoring. Do yourself a favor and read up on the subject instead of simply saying something can't happen because you can't imagine it.

"Probably won't even slow you down, because you are a true believer in "It Could Have Happened."

And that is good enough for you."

Interesting. That's what I hear Creationists say regularly when they are presented with evidence that they can't explain. "God works in mysterious ways. He could've done it."

Why do you still refrane from acknowledging ERVs, chromosone #2, Luce- Ya know what? I'm getting sick of typing the same bits of evidence over and over for you. I've written them enough. You should be able to remember them. NOw please address them. These are bits of evidence that you haven't even mentioned, and yet here you are saying we're ignoring evidence. The irony is delicious.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You say:

"In other words "It's complex, so it must be designed." Crystals are complex. Do they have designers? DNA could've evolved as well. The most likely candidate is RNA, which is much simpler. RNA could've evolved from an even simpler code. YOu fail to see how complexity builds. Creationists like to take everything as is and point out how complex it is. They fail to realize that things build."

Of the fossil record, Gould himself said:

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

-ibid, page 182

Even Gould admits that there is no evidence for building. Things appear suddenly and fully formed, just the way they would if a Creator spoke them into existence. Moreover, many organs are irreducibly complex, and could not have formed in unrelated parts, as in a building process.

Your argument ignores the evidence and is void of all logic, but somehow I have the feeling that won't stop you. Probably won't even slow you down, because you are a true believer in "It Could Have Happened."

And that is good enough for you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Let's start with your admission that Gould said what he said, which proves I took nothing out of context. I presented it exactly as he said it, and it IS a blow toward Darwinian evolution, which is why he came up with PE."

Theories change all the time with an increased understanding. Why were Einstein physics not considered a "blow" to Newton physics?

"As for the video, I did watch it, and since it purports to "prove" the viability of the randomness of evolution, I suggest that everyone on this board watch it. It is priceless. There are so many mistakes in his premise it is ridiculous. The most glaring is the fact that he wrote a complicated program to "prove" his premise, therefore HE was the designer in this case."

Uh huh. That response was expected. Other than including what in beneficial and what is deleterious, and giving each individual peice some qualities (where they attach, gears have teeth, etc), he did nothing. There was no set outcome at all. And yet we get the same results (but a differently built watch) each time. You make it seem like he put it together on purpose when the process was guided only by natural selection. It is a perfect example of how evolution works.

"Moreover, he used a computer, which is the end product of thousands of years of human discovery and painstaking advancements in design after design after design."

What's your point? He needed something to simulate evolution. You're going to have to explain how this is a problem.

"There is NOTHING random about either a computer or a code."

Umm... The mutations. Think of the computer as the environment in which we all live. A digital replacement for our planet earth. The code is the natural laws to which we all must abide by. It's a simulation of nature.

The mutations were completely random. They were filtered out by natural selection.

"Living things are composed first of DNA, an incredibly complex set of codes that are the blueprints for all of life. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a code has a designer"

In other words "It's complex, so it must be designed." Crystals are complex. Do they have designers? DNA could've evolved as well. The most likely candidate is RNA, which is much simpler. RNA could've evolved from an even simpler code. YOu fail to see how complexity builds. Creationists like to take everything as is and point out how complex it is. They fail to realize that things build.

"Yes, it is reasonable."

NOt without evidence of a designer.

"To believe otherwise, especially without evidence, is not only unreasonable, but perversely so."

Great. But we have evidence, and you haven't been replying to it. ERVs, chromsome #2, Lucy, Archaeoperyx, the rest of the fossils, hox genes, etc.

"But I do agree that he has built, not a watch, but a clock--a CUCKOO CLOCK!"

Argument from ridicule. And a really crappy joke.

"This is insanity, and it proves that people who will not believe the simple truth, will in their delusion believe anything, and I do mean ANYTHING!"

It proves that you will pluck st straws. Didn't he explain in the begining of the video how him designing the code doesn't equal him designing the watch? Or did you chose to ignore that because it goes against your strawman?

"Save yourselves from this lost, perverse generation while you still can. "

We're trying, but you won't listen to reason.

As for your video, it should be titled "Dodos Over the Cliff." Just madness."

Madness?

This. Is. SCIENCE!

"And very funny, if it were not so sad."

Yes, it is sad how you pluck at straws and fail to realize that in a simulation, it is impossible to use the real thing, or else it isn't a simulation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let's start with your admission that Gould said what he said, which proves I took nothing out of context. I presented it exactly as he said it, and it IS a blow toward Darwinian evolution, which is why he came up with PE.

Again, you seem to be unable to understand the implications of your own argument.

As for the video, I did watch it, and since it purports to "prove" the viability of the randomness of evolution, I suggest that everyone on this board watch it. It is priceless. There are so many mistakes in his premise it is ridiculous. The most glaring is the fact that he wrote a complicated program to "prove" his premise, therefore HE was the designer in this case. Moreover, he used a computer, which is the end product of thousands of years of human discovery and painstaking advancements in design after design after design. There is NOTHING random about either a computer or a code.

Living things are composed first of DNA, an incredibly complex set of codes that are the blueprints for all of life. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a code has a designer? Yes, it is reasonable. To believe otherwise, especially without evidence, is not only unreasonable, but perversely so.

But I do agree that he has built, not a watch, but a clock--a CUCKOO CLOCK!

This is insanity, and it proves that people who will not believe the simple truth, will in their delusion believe anything, and I do mean ANYTHING!

Save yourselves from this lost, perverse generation while you still can.

As for your video, it should be titled "Dodos Over the Cliff." Just madness. And very funny, if it were not so sad.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!"

If clocks were alive, yes. Did you even watch that video I linked you to? It's not even ten minutes long. I'm sure you can spare that.

""Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please."

That is what he said, but you presented it as if it were a blow toward evolution.

"And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!"

I'm glad you thought it was so funny that you didn't even watch the video that would've shown you how it works. Apparently evidence means nothing to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!

And you did not answer my question:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please.

And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?"

You make it seem like this is a problem for evolution. Those quotes where used to defend Punctuated Equilibrium. Gradualism is out-dated, and disprovong that is simple.

"And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more."

Darwin came up with natural selection. Then mutation, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

Excuse? It is by Punctuated Equilibrium that we see new species originate. We don't see it happening at a steady pace but instead in quick bursts (relative to their time in stasis). Computer simulations of evolution also show Punctuated Equilibrium. Here's a video not only showing how evolution can build a watch, but also showing that with no guided forced, we see punctuated Equilibrium. I suggest you watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

"Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway."

Thanks for the tip. I realize I come off hasty and angry. I apologize.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?

And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more.

Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.""

This is a quote Gould uses when defending Punctuated Equilibrium; a mechanism he developed. Clearly taken out of context.

"And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181."

Which is why Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.

"By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless."

False. Where the fossil record has holes genetics fills them in. And you clearly took Gould's quote out of context.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ask a good question about what constitutes a species, Brian. As you probably know, the answer varies according to the purpose of the proposal or question being asked:

"In their 2004 book "Speciation," evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr point out that there are more than twenty-five definitions of 'species.' How can we choose among them?"

-Wells, Darwinism and Intelligent Design, page 52

Some definitions are highly esoteric, but for my purposes, I am speaking of the general term, which is individuals that resemble each other and are able to breed among themselves.

My point is that observed speciation is only known to occur that produces minor changes in individuals, and a change from a species to a subspecies does not constitute a change in body plan, or kind, which is what Darwin proposed and which his followers have been trying to prove for the last 150 years:

"In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: 'A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,' and 'the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.'"

-ibid, page 50

The question being asked by some on this board is "Where is the evidence of limits on body plans/genetics?"

But the correct question is: "Where is the evidence that body plans/genetics have ever been exceeded?"

Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181.

By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your argument seems pretty good, John, but you are ignoring the fact that it is PEOPLE who decide whether a breed is a new species or not. This is a tricky business, far less cut and dry than you would have us believe.

You say that wolves and pugs are the same species. How about wolves and coyotes? Wolves and jackels? What about a purple finch and a house finch?

How exactly do people decide if two animals that are physically similar are in fact different species? I'm particularly interested in your answer to this last question.

*For those of you who don't want to look it up, wolves and coyotes are different species. Wolves and jackels are different species. And purple finches and house finches are different species.

Re: Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Fully formed ... and interdependent?

Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The mouth or tongue?
The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Re: Fully formed ... and interdependent?

I know little about the anatomy/physiology/morphology of any of these. But, given my last post, I guess you are implying that each of these organ pairs is irreducibly complex? Really? You think a mouth isn't useful without a tongue? Am I missing something?

Also, natural selection WOULD NOT preserve any beginnings that are not functional.

Give it a shot

In regard to your comment:

"Also, natural selection WOULD NOT preserve any beginnings that are not functional."


1. How, then, do you explain the evolution of a new organ?


2. Please provide the detailed description of the first 3 mutations that create an ovary - and explain why they would be instantly functional.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I know little about the anatomy/physiology/morphology of any of these. But, given my last post, I guess you are implying that each of these organ pairs is irreducibly complex? Really? You think a mouth isn't useful without a tongue? Am I missing something?

Also, natural selection WOULD NOT preserve any beginnings that are not functional.

Re: Give it a shot

Re: evolution of a new organ, I already provided a scenario for the evolution of the ear.

As for your second question, give us all a break, the human genome project was completed all of 2 years ago. Do you think you're being clever somehow in pointing out that the function of each piece of DNA is not yet know? Exactly which part of the theory of evolution leads you to believe that a genetic road map exists for, not just humans, but for each of our ancestors over the last 3.5 billion years?

Re: Fully formed ... and interdependent?

watvh as this argument is destroyed easily. No where in evolution does it state that only one organ or system can evolve at a time. These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task.

Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The mouth or tongue?
The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

More From the Religion of "It Could Have Happened."

Are you completely unfamiliar with the argument of irreducible complexity?:

1) In order for co-option to produce a bacterial flagellum (for example) all of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place, and all of them must have had other naturally-selectable, useful functions. There is no evidence whatsoever that this ever was the case, or that it ever even could have been the case.

2) The components would have to have been compatible with each other functionally. A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener. There is absolutely no evidence that this interface compatibility ever existed (between all those imaginary co-opted component parts), or that it even could have existed.

3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one cannot just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out. An assembly mechanism is required, and that mechanism must be complete in every detail, otherwise incomplete or improper assembly will result, and no naturally-selectable function will be produced. The assembly mechanism thus represents yet another irreducibly complex hurdle.

4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.

Co-option is a demonstrably fantastic story made up out of whole cloth, with absolutely no basis in evidence. And it doesn't withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. There is not a shred of evidence that this process ever took place, or that it even could have taken place. Worst of all, it requires blind acceptance of the clearly miraculous.

There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science,” while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse.

-from uncommondescent, under irreducible complexity, co-option

Just because highly intricate organ component parts "could've" evolved simultaneously, does not mean they did, and this is ESPECIALLY TRUE in light of the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that demonstrates such a thing ever happened.

The only place this argument is "destroyed easily" is in your mind, which also apparently lacks the critical ingredient of reality. To believe that complex organs, like an eye for instance, can self-assemble using simultaneously-evolved parts, with no assembly mechanism and no intelligent direction, requires the blind acceptance (pun intended) of the clearly miraculous.

You have zero evidence, merely an assertion, and that is not good enough. The original assertion is yours, therefore the onus is on you to provide your EVIDENCE, but we dare not hold breath, because you have NONE.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

watvh as this argument is destroyed easily. No where in evolution does it state that only one organ or system can evolve at a time. These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task.

Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The mouth or tongue?
The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Correction to Text; Getting Real

In the above post, part of the quote in the last paragraph contained some added computer-generated letters and symbols which made the closing statement somewhat unclear. For crystal clarity here is how it should read:

"There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science," while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse."

Please observe as an aside how the real pseudoscientists always insist on a counter-intuitive explanation, even when a "straightforward and reasonable inference" will better fit the given rationale, and that is because they want to blind us to simple reality with "scientific" double talk. Note to careful readers: Use common sense where called for, and the truth will start to open up for you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Are you completely unfamiliar with the argument of irreducible complexity?:

1) In order for co-option to produce a bacterial flagellum (for example) all of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place, and all of them must have had other naturally-selectable, useful functions. There is no evidence whatsoever that this ever was the case, or that it ever even could have been the case.

2) The components would have to have been compatible with each other functionally. A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener. There is absolutely no evidence that this interface compatibility ever existed (between all those imaginary co-opted component parts), or that it even could have existed.

3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one cannot just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out. An assembly mechanism is required, and that mechanism must be complete in every detail, otherwise incomplete or improper assembly will result, and no naturally-selectable function will be produced. The assembly mechanism thus represents yet another irreducibly complex hurdle.

4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.

Co-option is a demonstrably fantastic story made up out of whole cloth, with absolutely no basis in evidence. And it doesn't withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. There is not a shred of evidence that this process ever took place, or that it even could have taken place. Worst of all, it requires blind acceptance of the clearly miraculous.

There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science,” while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse.

-from uncommondescent, under irreducible complexity, co-option

Just because highly intricate organ component parts "could've" evolved simultaneously, does not mean they did, and this is ESPECIALLY TRUE in light of the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that demonstrates such a thing ever happened.

The only place this argument is "destroyed easily" is in your mind, which also apparently lacks the critical ingredient of reality. To believe that complex organs, like an eye for instance, can self-assemble using simultaneously-evolved parts, with no assembly mechanism and no intelligent direction, requires the blind acceptance (pun intended) of the clearly miraculous.

You have zero evidence, merely an assertion, and that is not good enough. The original assertion is yours, therefore the onus is on you to provide your EVIDENCE, but we dare not hold breath, because you have NONE.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

watvh as this argument is destroyed easily. No where in evolution does it state that only one organ or system can evolve at a time. These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task.

Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The mouth or tongue?
The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Re: Correction to Text; Getting Real

"Common sense" is often wrong. Reality is often counter-intuitive. That the earth is round and yet people can stand at any position on the globe without falling into space is counter-intuitive... but reality nevertheless. It turns out that in areas where science contradicts traditional knowledge or common sense, people are resistant to accepting science. And this seems to be innate - children cannot fully understand the round earth problem that I described above until they are about 8 years old, according to a recent study published in the journal SCIENCE.

Evolution isn't even counterintuitive, but it does contradict the information that many have been spoon-fed by supposed 'authorities' throughout their early development. I guess that's why some of those among us have such a hard time accepting it.

Give it a whirl!

1. In regard to your comment:

"These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task."


You probably didn't notice that I gave you that option of explaining them evolving simultaneously:

My challenge from original posting:
Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

Why don't you give it a whirl and let us know how they start out?

2. In regard to your comment:

"Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk."

Why is it that you guys get so confused?

Unless you can PROVE that mutations and natural selection can create new organs, it's your faith, not science.

Again, why don't you give it a whirl? Keep in mind that you don't even have to prove it ever occurred - It's total fantasy within biological limits!

Don't any of you guys want to prove us wrong?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

watvh as this argument is destroyed easily. No where in evolution does it state that only one organ or system can evolve at a time. These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task.

Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The mouth or tongue?
The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Brian, Please Explain

You ask:

"Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution."

Please explain which version of evolution you are referring to. Gould was searching for evidence of the "steady transformation of its ancestors" because that is what Darwin specified many times in his theory.

Kindly clarify what you meant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Re: Brian, Please Explain

In a sentence, punctuated equilibrium vs. steady rate evolution. I haven't read every edition of the Origin of Species, so I'm not sure if Darwin specified PE in his original theory, but it's my understanding that pretty much all current supporters of the theory of evolution (myself included) support the idea that evolution occurs in rapid bursts followed by long periods of stasis. (I have read also that Darwin made the idea of PE pretty clear, but again, I have not read that myself in his writing, and I don't want to cite a second hand source. It's immaterial anyway.)

This model makes sense to me since evolution is driven by changes in environment, which (often) occur rapidly (on the geological timescale). With that model in mind, what would we expect to see in the fossil record? Well, exactly what we do see.

It's a nice premise. Where's the proof?

We have no problem you believing it as freedom of religion is your rite.

It may be true, but there is NO evidence of it ever occurring in the past and NO observation of it occuring presently.

So, again, where is your evidence that PE is factual and should be considered science, instead of just your faith in it?

Re: It's a nice premise. Where's the proof?

The evidence for PE is the fact that a large number of fossils exist with distinctive, "fully formed" features, while a very small number of fossils exist in which features are intermediate between an ancestor and its progeny.

Where is your proof?

In regard to your comment:

"The evidence for PE is the fact that a large number of fossils exist with distinctive, "fully formed" features, while a very small number of fossils exist in which features are intermediate between an ancestor and its progeny."


Provide ONE example of an intermediate with "partially formed" features or explain in detail why they don't exist.

How nice that at least SOME TRUTH is getting to students:

“Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’ in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago...The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."

Richard S K Barnes, Peter Calow, Peter J. W. Olive, David W. Golding and John Spicer, ‘The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis’ (textbook), Updated 2000, Blackwell Publishing

Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins

Gradualism, as Gould suggested, "is more a product of Western thought than a fact if nature..." (the Panda's Thumb, page 184), but Richard Dawkins said: "If you throw out gradualism, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation," (as quoted in Evolution and Other Fairy Tales, by Larry Azar, 2005).

Gould came up with PE because the evidence of gradualism did not show up in his investigations:

"I wish only to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks." -ibid, page 181.

Do you therefore accept the defects in Darwin's original premise, and if so, what do you do with poor Mr. Dawkins?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

In a sentence, punctuated equilibrium vs. steady rate evolution. I haven't read every edition of the Origin of Species, so I'm not sure if Darwin specified PE in his original theory, but it's my understanding that pretty much all current supporters of the theory of evolution (myself included) support the idea that evolution occurs in rapid bursts followed by long periods of stasis. (I have read also that Darwin made the idea of PE pretty clear, but again, I have not read that myself in his writing, and I don't want to cite a second hand source. It's immaterial anyway.)

This model makes sense to me since evolution is driven by changes in environment, which (often) occur rapidly (on the geological timescale). With that model in mind, what would we expect to see in the fossil record? Well, exactly what we do see.

Re: Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins

John,
That quote of Dawkins' is taken so far out of context that I won't dignify it with a response. I strongly suggest you carefully question everything that you read in the Azar book. I also suggest you find that quote (I believe it's from The Blind Watchmaker), read it in context, and then decide if you trust Larry Azar.

Finally, I accept that there are parts of Darwin's original theory that have required modification to better fit the last 150 years of observation. These aspects are minor and do not change the fundamental tenets of the theory. Modification of this type is ubiquitous is science and has occurred for EVERY theory that has ever been proposed.

You May be Right

Brian:

You may be right about Darwin's quote. I will check it out this weekend and get back to you. If it is taken far out of context it is a disservice. If not, it is pertinent. I do know that assertions that Gould's Panda quotes are taken out of context are baseless, at least as far as the quotes I have used are concerned, because I have the book. May I suggest you get a copy of The Panda's Thumb? You can get it used on Amazon for .99 cents (or new in the store for $16.00), and everyone who cares about the subject should have a copy. He brings up PE in the chapter I often quote from.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John,
That quote of Dawkins' is taken so far out of context that I won't dignify it with a response. I strongly suggest you carefully question everything that you read in the Azar book. I also suggest you find that quote (I believe it's from The Blind Watchmaker), read it in context, and then decide if you trust Larry Azar.

Finally, I accept that there are parts of Darwin's original theory that have required modification to better fit the last 150 years of observation. These aspects are minor and do not change the fundamental tenets of the theory. Modification of this type is ubiquitous is science and has occurred for EVERY theory that has ever been proposed.

Brian, Please Explain THIS Richard Dawkins Quote

Here is a quote from his Watchmaker book, as provided by a reputable online bookseller:

Chapter 3 - Accumulating small change

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.

This does not suggest to me that he is willing to throw out Darwinian gradualism, and the essence of the quote by Azar is very close to this one. Compare:

"If you throw out gradualism, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation."

PE is sudden, sequestered change, and Gould came up with it because gradualism did not fit the evidence:

"The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."

Panda, page 182.

It seems to me that Gould is engaging in double talk somewhat, because he wants to have it both ways, since Darwin is FAMOUS for gradualism, as Dawkin's affirms. But is is also plain to see that he is chucking out gradualism as unworkable re the evidence, which Dawkin's clearly does not want to do.

I would have to say, that the known paragraph and Azar's sentence are congruent. If Dawkin's did not say exactly that, he said something very much like it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

John,
That quote of Dawkins' is taken so far out of context that I won't dignify it with a response. I strongly suggest you carefully question everything that you read in the Azar book. I also suggest you find that quote (I believe it's from The Blind Watchmaker), read it in context, and then decide if you trust Larry Azar.

Finally, I accept that there are parts of Darwin's original theory that have required modification to better fit the last 150 years of observation. These aspects are minor and do not change the fundamental tenets of the theory. Modification of this type is ubiquitous is science and has occurred for EVERY theory that has ever been proposed.

Re: Brian, Please Explain THIS Richard Dawkins Quote

The quotes are totally unrelated. The first, from Azar's book, says that evolution is not tenable without gradualism. Dawkins neither believes this nor writes this. The quote is out of context.

The second quote says that complex organisms cannot arise by chance. This is true. "The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival."

Again, they are not related. And the quote that Azar has chosen is a great example of Azar's dishonesty.

Re: Re: Brian, Please Explain THIS Richard Dawkins Quote

The quotes are closely related, and if Azar is so far off, show the Dawkins' quote in context and show us how your accusation has any foundation. I bet you can't.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The quotes are totally unrelated. The first, from Azar's book, says that evolution is not tenable without gradualism. Dawkins neither believes this nor writes this. The quote is out of context.

The second quote says that complex organisms cannot arise by chance. This is true. "The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival."

Again, they are not related. And the quote that Azar has chosen is a great example of Azar's dishonesty.