Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
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.