I’m all in favor of mocking stupidity, and here’s something definitely worth mocking.
In arguing for evolution, author Alan R. Rogers appeals to the Nilsson and Pelger paper on how simple it is to evolve an eye. He writes:
If eyes evolve, they must do so often and easily. Could it really be so easy?
Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger have answered this question. They constructed an evolutionary story much like the one that I told above.
– The Evidence for Evolution. p. 42.
And what did he write about the story that he told above?
This story is of course a fabrication. p. 40
I’m serious! Can it get any more stupid than that?
Do evolutionists believe fabrications? When it comes to how to evolve and eye it would certainly seem so.
What is the design rational for diversity if common design is reason for similarity?
Because I believe an eye of any creature is a physical form which is drawn from the same archetypal source which can be thought of as a dynamic field. The genome is not the source from which the form comes, it purely provides the material which enables the form to be established.
Remember the Face of a Frog. This is an indication that fields play an important role in the production of form.
See also here
By manipulating voltage potentials they were able to produce well-formed ectopic eyes in Xenopus laevis
newton, I don’t think I have ever argued for “common design” as an explanation.
LoL.
I like what John had to say the first time:
Do you disagree with KN?
Here I am showing folks here how to be a real skeptic, and do I get any thanks?
Ingrates.
CharlieM,
No, that certainly didn’t explain how convergent evolution occurs.
Given physical constraints, the real question would be how convergent evolution couldn’t occur by RM + NS (etc.).
Glen Davidson
newton,
I think there is a lot to learn in molecular biology and particle physics whether that leads to a better understanding of creation is unknown.
Mammals have two kinds of of color receptor, except when they don’t. Vertebrates have four kinds of of color receptor, except when they don’t. And this is evidence of common ancestry.
And we can make a tree out of the data! Therefore the eye evolved by natural selection and gradual changes. Maybe someone should ask which eye?
As we have discovered in our reading, closely related species will have similar eyes. Which explains why the Nautilus has a pinhole-eye and the Coleoidea has a complex lens eye.
Cephalopoda
Nautilus
Coleoidea
Closely related species will have similar eyes, unless they don’t.
LoL. Unless we’re talking about eyes! Now what was that author saying about similarities …
Given that all living things are made from carbon based molecules, with these constraints, WELL OF COURSE, anteaters will evolve multiple times. There are only so many ways to eat an ant.
phoodoo,
What is the true relationship between ants and anteaters? Did the designer design both at the same time? Did one come before the other?
Electromagnetic fields. It’s almost like the laws of physics apply to biological organisms also made of atoms. Who knew?
No need to thank me for correcting your typo. We all make mistakes.
Have you ever studied the anatomy of a camera eye? The required attributes of all the separate components such as the sclera, the cornea, the lens, the aqueous and vitreous humours, the ciliary body, the choroid layer, the muscles and tendons, and the retina? And you believe that it would be easy for Darwinian mechanisms to produce this multiple times? Your faith is strong.
Below is a simplified diagram of a portion of the retina taken from here (which is worth a read).
This is the annotation go with the image:
Why? I don’t see why we shouldn’t believe eyes can evolve multiple times. Or even why there can’t be convergence.
If the selective pressures in operation are similar, because the organisms live in similar environments, and they are so close related that they pretty much start from a common genetic background, why should we find convergence at all surprising?
Yeah it’s remarkable. But so what? You’re going to have to dig into the logic and produce some kind of argument rather than sorta wave your hands in the direction of something complex and merely declare that it is some sort of faith-position to believe it can evolve.
Try to say something that rationally indicates, as in it is strongly implies or deductively follows, that convergence should be surprising. So far all you have accomplished is to attach some sort of emotional statement to the idea.
Among you various ID supporters that seems to be the majority of your output. There are very few actual logical arguments. You mostly just produce statements to the effect that you find it all unbelievable.
I’m sorry but I don’t know how else to put it, but who gives a shit? The mere fact of your disbelief is not an argument either pro or con.
Of course they do. In a similar way that the laws of grammar apply to Shakespeare’s plays. But the essence of Hamlet does not lie in the rules of grammar but in how it is used. And the essence of living organisms do not lie in the laws of physics and chemistry. If it did then all your thoughts, beliefs and feelings that you express here are meaningless apart from these laws. Do you believe that this is the case?
Yes, in fact I do. I would make an even stronger statement: Regardless of where the “essence” of living organisms reside or whether there is such a thing, it would still not in any way entail (as in logically entail) that life had inherent meaning.
Telling me that something emotionally unpleasant follows from some of my beliefs does not in any way have a bearing on the truth-value of that which I believe. I’m not one of those people who believe things because of their emotional impact, I believe things on the basis of evidence and reason only.
The only meaning that exists is subjective and is different from person to person and often from one moment to another. It is an idea in our heads (and if we have a soul, then it only exists in our “minds” instead of in our brains), it is not somehow “infused” in objects.
No other position makes logical sense, or doesn’t beg the question. It is not logically possible to prove that an objective meaning exists.
Rumraket,
Don’t you find it strange that your unbelief you put down to healthy scepticism, but my unbelief becomes a sort of gullibility?
You seem to have an unshakeable faith in the gene and cannot see past it.
Not at all surprisingly, evolutionists don’t produce any logical arguments either. The common win-all answer is something like, “It’s science/facts, duh!” nevermind about the different ways the facts can be interpreted and contextualized. And of course, immaterial and supernatural, even conceptual aspects of reality are excluded presuppositionally, never examined logically.
For a relevant recent example, Joe Felsenstein threw out the concept of causality when he didn’t like the direction where the discussion was heading with it. But when there is no causality, then science cannot have any predictive value, because predicting something involves, first, acknowledging and, second, knowing about the causal mechanism for specific future outcomes. Doesn’t he see the fundamental philosophical problems involved for science when causality is denied? Perhaps you answer: Why would he know it, he’s a scientist, not a philosopher… So… Is he allowed to make this sort of arguments and everybody else should shut up insofar as he is the scientist and we are not?
I don’t find it strange because I actually believe I can rationally support my beliefs with evidence and reason. And I believe my beliefs can also be undermined with evidence and reason. This is why I’m asking you to do that, rather than just declare to us your unbelief.
I’m not here simply to state the fact that I happen to believe in evolution. I usually like to argue about the evidence for it and the logic of the reasoning that uses that evidence.
But I rarely see this from the “other side” in this debate. Mostly what we get is what you did, you merely state the fact of your unbelief. Great. We all already knew, from the past several years of interaction, that you don’t believe it. What’s missing is some supporting arguments and evidence.
For example, why should I come over to your side of things? What should rationally convince me to see things the way you do?
I obviously disagree entirely. But merely telling me that this is how it appears to you isn’t a persuasive argument.
You should be trying to make logical arguments, with premises and conclusions, which use evidence, instead of just telling me how things look from your perspective. Imagine if that was all we did the both of us. I could sit here and just declare the same things and we’d never get anywhere. We would just be taking turns stating how we see things to each other.
He has given you plenty of things to think about (as have I), but your steadfast religious beliefs prevent you from maintaining an unbiased mind.
Charlie’s reference to a bioelectric code is one great example. This is completely unpredicted, and unexplained by Darwinian evolution. But that doesn’t phase you one bit.
Oh, it’s complex.
Have you looked at how different the anatomy of the cephalopod camera eye is from the vertebrate camera eye?
Anyway, why is it that context means things can’t be chosen according to need, yet you try to pretend that somehow “convergent evolution” is required for what are really quite different eyes? There’s no reason why cephalopod eyes couldn’t derive in part from the nervous system, as do vertebrate eyes, yet of course they don’t. Nor do cephalopods get myelinization of nerves. Convenient for researchers who get to study the large nerves of cephalopods, not so helpful to cephalopods.
So why not convergent evolution there? Why not homologies in convergent evolution, rather than highly different sources producing somewhat similar structures?
You really haven’t done anything but appeal to the same tired old nonsense of ID, ooh, it’s so complex, without even showing actual comparisons. You really have no explanation for anything, just the boring, useless incredulity toward the science coupled with absolute credulity with respect to your own useless beliefs.
Glen Davidson
Nice try, but you fail. Here’s what you should have written:
Here I am showing folks here how to be a real septic, and do I get any tanks?
In case people were wondering what motivated the title of the OP.
Nah. Again you are showing your septical nature rather than you skeptical nature.
No, the problem is your religious biases make you so gullible you can’t help but latch on to any sensationalistic piece of news you think you can interpret to fit your preconceptions.
If there’s something new discovered we didn’t know before (and unfortunately lots of well-established science often gets reported in that way by incompetent science journalists), then this is immediately taken to imply everything else we already knew is now false or obsolete. I’m sorry to tell you this, but that’s not how it works.
There wasn’t anything in that article that somehow constitutes as much as an argument against a genetic basis for either evolution, development or instictive organismal behaviors.
I already told you that we still don’t know what the vast majority of known genes even do. Their functions and interactions have yet to be elucidated. Yet for completely inexplicable reasons you think the mere fact that a role for bioelectricity in mediating developmental signaling is somehow a refutation of evolution and development? If that is really your view, then all that does is it suffices to prove to me you don’t know the first thing about genetics.
Or maybe all you’re really saying is another reflection of your personal ignorance.
Rumraket,
Did you kneel while writing that?
I accept your tacit concession that ritualistic worship is irrational and should be frowned upon.
I was tempted to call my words prophetic, but then recalled the strong historical precedent so I can only repeat myself: Stop being an easy target for mockery of stupidity.
If an evolutionist says something stupid it’s Rumraket to the rescue!
Phoodoo has your back in that unique way of his, that should be a comfort
How does design explain it?
There are many eyes.
Therefore, eyes can evolve multiple times.
Easy Peasy!
Did you know that the pax6 proteins of mouse and human are identical?
Obviously mice and humans are very closely related.
Did you know that the pax6 proteins of mouse and fruit fly are very similar?
Obviously the mouse, human and fruit fly share a recent common ancestor and are all closely related.
Is it that “similar” and “closely related” are utterly subjective and can be as plastic as needed in order to make the evolutionary argument?
How closely related are all molluscs? Anyone?
I bet the author of the book that is currently being shredded in this thread feels the same way you do.
Do you believe that the author is correct about the eye and just did a miserable job of actually presenting the evidence for his beliefs?
You believe in evolution too!?
WTF does that even mean and why is it even relevant. Even Young Earth Creationists “believe in evolution.”
You don’t just believe in evolution, you believe in something else. It’s that “something else” you believe in where the argument and logic and evidence is missing.
Mung,
Is Rum claiming that similar DNA sequences that can create unique eye cells happened over and over again by random change and a few points of selection? Whats the chance of just getting to first level function once? Then second level function then third level function then a fully functioning eye. Lather rinse repeat 🙂
Waiting to see exactly which position he’s willing to take up and defend.
It’s easy to claim that eyes evolved by gradual changes each favored by natural selection. Far more difficult to actually make the case for it. Which is probably why Alan Rogers didn’t even try. Relying on he gullibility of the reader, no doubt.
Has anyone else noticed the tendency of evolutionists to try to get those of us on the ID side to engage in the same sort of story-telling that they engage in?
Why is that?
What similar DNA sequences are you referring to? What is “first level function”, “second level function”, etc.? What are you claiming?
He did? Link, please. I wasn’t aware of that dramatic development.
Guess what the very next words are, following “The few data that do exist are startling.” Give up?
Vision in vertebrate animals.
His Table 5.1 is Convergent evolution of identical nuclear DNA molecules coding for photosensitive opsin proteins.
I’m thinking that perhaps similarity of opsins isn’t the best way to prove that the eye evolved the way the author claims or is even a good argument for common descent. We are talking identical sequences in disparate lineages that are not even “closely related.”
Don’t be gullible.
You have a narrative ,it just isn’t explanatory. It consist mostly of semantic quibbles .
Funny that you view it as some kind of trick to be asked what the ID side consists of other than Darwin bad.
Yes, I suspected that you were not quite aware what you were saying. Still you said it. However, it was not in discussion with me, I had no reason to play keiths with your statement and unfortunately this site is not properly searchable. It was a month ago either with Mung or phoodoo or both, but this is not enough information to find the relevant post.
Will be happy to be shown myself inadvertently rejecting causation, but that rings no bell with me. Making sweeping generalizations about causation is not my style.
Joe Felsenstein,
Erik may be referring to this comment.
Alan Fox,
Thank you, Alan. Good job! I was wasting my time inefficiently for too long.
The relevant statement by JF is, “It’s totally irrelevant whether natural selection is a cause or an effect. It is a process which can be thought of as either. We do this all the time.”
ETA: I gave a response to that to which JF has further replied, “When discussing the outcome of genetic crosses, I use the phenomenon of Mendelian segregation. Of course someone might say that Mendelian segregation is an effect, not a cause…. Correct metaphysical understanding or no, you’re going to have to use it. Or get zero points on the test question.”
Similarly, you are going to have to distinguish cause and effect and action and reaction or get zero points on the test of whatever science that involves those. In every science (and in philosophy and logic) some things are prior to other things and nobody can say “it’s totally irrelevant”.
For example, I assume it would matter a lot to JF whether someone says, “Natural selection has brought about human species on planet Earth,” or the opposite, “Humans invented natural selection to explain their own origin.” How would it feel to say now, “It’s totally irrelevant whether natural selection is a cause or an effect. It is a process which can be thought of as either. We do this all the time.”
Things can be both a cause and an effect simultaneously, they’re not mutually exlusive.
Take dominoes tipping over and hitting another domino in some long chain. Any particular domino down the chain is caused to tip over by the one before it, as in it tipping over is the effect of the one before it. But it is also the cause of the tipping over of the next one in the line.
In the same way natural selection can be validly understood to constitute both an effect and a cause.
Not with regard to the same thing though. The egg is the cause for the chicken and the chicken for the egg, but the chicken is not the cause for the same egg which caused the chicken.
Anyway, the debate over there appeared to be over natural selection and differential reproduction. Are they the same thing or is one the cause of the other? This particular question may very well be a chicken-egg type of problem.