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.
I’m getting a feeling of déjà-vu here. I think the idea of determinism and strict lines of causality cascading away from the first cause is somewhat outdated, post Heisenberg.
It would appear that pax6 is used in squid, mice and humans but not in octopuses.
Here is an interesting snippet about photoreceptor cells and also pax6 from Richard Norman at Talk Origins,
The mammalian and octopus camera eye – common design? – evolutionary mess?
Well I too believe in evolution. Only I do not believe that genes are the instigators of evolutionary change. I believe that genes are used by organisms in order to develop in conformity with their environment.
Yes, and the similarities.
As in here
The fact that eyes can develop from different tissue layers in separate phyla is no surprise to me considering I have already linked to an article that demonstrates ectopic eyes can be produced by manipulating voltage potentials. This shows that it is not that the cause lies not in the physical substance but in the field surrounding it.
Oh, that. Yes, I made those statements (and stand by them). They are not some general statement about the epistemological status of Causation. Nor are they a contribution to the chicken-egg problem, which to me seems a useless exercise.
They were a response to our creationist and ID-advocate commenters saying that natural selection was not a cause but was instead an effect.
I was pointing out that we use such intermediate-level “forces” all the time. Such as Mendelian segregation, genetic drift, Brownian Motion, landslides, and erosion. They may themselves be caused by molecular interactions and motions at a lower level. All the way down to quarks, I suppose.
In that thread Mung was asking whether we could distinguish between natural selection as a cause and natural selection as an effect. My reply was that it didn’t matter to the discussion of genetic changes in populations — it is useful to say that natural selection has caused this or that. Just as we say that erosion ate away at a river bank, or that Mendelian segregation caused the pattern of genotypes in the offspring of a genetic cross, or that Brownian motion caused the spread of ink when a drop of ink is placed in a glass of water, or that the shedding of pollen by trees caused my car to need washing. Each of those can be declared to not really be a “cause” but instead an effect. But it is useful in life and in science to consider them causes. And it is not useful the explain the need to wash my car by discussing molecules, atoms, or elementary particles.
I’ve brought up this point a number of times before. When I do, the creationist/ID side yammers on about how there really isn’t any “force” such as natural selection — but they are silent about the need to discard concepts such as Brownian motion, erosion, or Mendelian segregation.
And oh yes, the chicken-egg problem.
Actually there were eggs long before there were chickens. Dinosaur eggs, for one.
What does that mean? I, for one, have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Joe Felsenstein,
Come on Joe! Next you’ll be saying the first chicken hatched from a dinosaur egg.
Oh wait…
The evolution of the eye is not just a case of progression from the simple to the complex as this demonstrates
Notice they remark on how the eye “must have evolved through small step-by-step changes”. No other options may even be considered.
What other options are there for consideration?
Alan Fox,
Actually I should say that chickens are dinosaurs. Our next-door neighbors have four dinosaurs in their back yard, and just gave us a dozen dinosaur eggs, some of which I ate.
You could scan through this from Stephen Talbott, or just read this concluding piece.
This might give you an idea of what I mean.
If you saw the drawing of the buttercup leaves that I posted, you will see that they share a common theme but none of them have originated by a series of small incremental steps one from the other.
Each is a relatively static physical expression of an overarching dynamic form. This is similar to how the physical features of the frog are an expression of the form of the field which oversees it.
Joe Felsenstein,
Snap, though my wife gives next-doors daughter English lessons in return for the eggs!
CharlieM,
Charlie, with respect, that is not answering my question. Telling me evolution is a poor explanation for some observed feature of living organisms is not telling me anything other than I already know.
What alternative explanations are there that can better account for the structure of buttercup flowers?
Must have been phoodoo that you were talking to.
So now that we’ve seen that these anatomical details can be preserved in fossils, has the judgment that “these are not recorded in living animals” become irrelevant because these anatomical details are recorded in fossils? Or are they not recorded in fossils either. What’s an eyevolutionist to do.
Because jumps would be indistinguishable from magic. And magic is unscientific. Therefore small gradual steps is the only way to go. Even if it’s illogical. Because while science cannot accept magic, it can accept illogical reasoning just fine.
big changes. jumps.
Why is it that evolutionists can accept entire genome duplication while at the same time claiming to having an aversion to big changes? It’s illogical.
No, it was this comment, which is by Mung,.
I don’t think it did. I suspect that the authors of that piece are speaking metaphorically while you are not. They aren’t talking about some deliberate agency of animals in their own evolution, while I suspect you are.
You work with the data you have. If all the fossils collected at some point in history don’t show any preservation of the anatomical details of eyes, then you tentatively conclude that they probably can’t be preserved in fossils. So you just work with the fossils you have and the diversity of life that presently exists and you try to make your inferences from this set of evidence.
Then when a fossil turns up where detailed eye anatomy is preserved, then you change your mind because now you have concrete evidence that shows that, at least under some circumstances, they do preserve. And that’s nice because now you can test hypotheses you made based on the previous data you had, against the new data you get from the newly discovered fossil.
You go with the evidence.
It has nothing to do with whether it “looks like magic”, it has to do with basic probability theory and it has to do with observation. Preferrably work by positing causes seen operating in the here and now, and smaller steps requiring fewer genetic changes are generally more likely.
But there isn’t any illogical reasoning involved. You are just making silly and simplistic strawmen of how the actual reasoning and logic goes.
Because you have to look at the detail. Whole genome duplication leaves evidence behind.
We might have a methodological preference for simpler and more likely explanations, but evidence can overrule that preference. Whole genome duplication leaves some very unambigous evidence behind: The whole genome exists twice. And when we compare multiple descendants from that putative ancestral whole genome duplication, we can even see how many of the extra genes are lost and degrade over time.
So it isn’t illogical, it’s perfectly sensible. Your portrayal of it is just too superficial and simplistic. As usual.
But Joe, there is nothing in that comment resembling the assertion that natural selection [is] not a cause but [is] instead an effect. Did you perhaps misrepresent what I actually wrote?
And you missed the point entirely. Whoosh! Does that take effort on your part or does it come naturally? The missing evidence is still missing.
Are they recorded, perhaps, in fossils? No?
So zero anatomical evidence that the eye evolved in the way Rogers claims. ZEE ROH!
So does magic.
Still mad as fuck I see. Oh well…
If you don’t have an argument why not just shut up?
There’s nothing at all supernatural about saltations. Nothing. But for some reason your theory can’t abide them. Except for the cases where it does. Utterly schizoid.
It’s like this book I’ve been posting about. Similarity indicates relatedness and is an argument for common descent. Of course, some times, as we have seen, similarity can exist even in organisms are not closely related. So then we look at the regions of DNA which surround the similar regions, and those are different. And that too is seen as proof argument of common descent.
If it’s the same, it’s evidence for common descent. If it’s different, it’s evidence for common descent. Given those parameters, what wouldn’t be evidence for common descent?
Why would anyone believe that nonsense?
Oh, so you’re OK with someone saying that natural selection causes this or causes that?
As you would be if someone said Brownian Motion causes ink from an inkdrop to diffuse outwards?
I would have a problem with that because it’s too vague to be meaningful. Unlike your brownian motion example, where you say exactly what it is that you think brownian motion causes.
Would you be OK with someone saying that brownian motion cases this or that without saying what brownian motion cases?
in one case you give a specific example, and in the other you are intentional vague.
Why not take a shot at something that natural selection actually causes? Does it cause finch beaks to get longer? Does it cause differential reproduction?
ETA: Joe, do you think genetic drift causes genetic drift?
Alan Fox: What other options are there for consideration?
hahahahaha!
And if we find out they actually could be preserved in fossils, then you tentatively conclude that a group of creationists with bad intentions must have found all the fossil evidence and hid it from the evolutionists.
Its all just going with the data in Rumrakets head.
This is a substantiveless post Alan. You better take the hint.
Are you talking about Goldschmidt and his hopeful monsters? Saltationism? Mutationism?
Why is it illogical? Polyploidy is quite common in plants.
phoodoo,
It might be considered off-topic. There’s no rule regarding off-topic comments.
But there is a rule that moderation issues should be discussed in the appropriate thread.
Would you say that polyploidy is a small change, a big change, somewhere in between, or that it’s meaningless to speak of “the size” of a genetic change?
Why does evolutionary theory require “small changes”? Hint: It doesn’t.
If off topic comments are not against the rules, why did you warn me?
Escargot!
brownian motion – the erratic random movement of microscopic particles in a fluid, as a result of continuous bombardment from molecules of the surrounding medium.
I would say that it is continuous bombardment from molecules of the surrounding medium that causes brownian motion. I certainly wouldn’t say that brownian motion causes browning motion.
But people seem to have no problem saying natural selection causes natural selection.
Utter nonsense. People (other than you) say that differences in genotypes, leading to differences in phenotypes, leading to differences in viability and fertility, are the sources of natural selection. Or they can say that they *are* natural selection, which does not cause any confusion.
But making it sound to the unwary reader that natural selection is a mysterious circular concept, as you are doing is purely misleading.
What does it mean to say those are the sources of natural selection? Do you mean they are the causes of natural selection? What else could it mean to say they are “the sources of natural selection”?
I merely inquired as to whether natural selection is a cause or an effect.
Your own usage appears to waffle back and forth, as if you are really rather uncertain. Perhaps an “I don’t know” is in order.
On the contrary. You have missed the point. As usual.
Are you kidding me? We’re supposed to accept that the obvious explanation for why the eyes of snails are so different is because the common ancestor of snails had no eyes? What utter crap. Talk about an argument from ignorance.
Evolutionary arguments in action, and they absolutely suck. If you want me to join the evolutionist camp you’d better come up with better arguments.
Why shouldn’t snails have such a diversity of eyes? After all, the author had written just sentences before that “We should find traces of common descent only among closely related animals.” (p. 46)
Yeah, he actually wrote that. Can it get any better?
I am going to forgive Rumraket for accusing me of misrepresenting the author, because he didn’t have access to the relevant material. Next time perhaps he’ll think twice.
The author isn’t just claiming similarity for closely related species, such as the heteropod sea snail, like Rumraket claimed, but to major groups.
And we know that’s false. And the author knows it’s false.
You can’t get through even one chapter of an evolutionist book without finding it full of misrepresentation, falsehoods, misleading statements, and downright fallacious reasoning. If that is what it takes to present “The Evidence for Evolution” I have to say no thank you.
Can’t evolutionists do better?
Mere assertion, no argument or explanation. Same shit every time.
The only other alternatives are that the common ancestor had eyes, then most subsequent snail descendants lost them leaving only one lineage with the “original” set of eyes, then the other descendants regained them in totally
different ways.
Or that the common ancestor had eyes, but they were lost, and then they all evolved eyes anew.
Which brings us right back to Occams razor. The simplest explanation for the pattern is the one he gives.
Do you have a simpler alternative? Then let’s hear it.
The full quote is:
“If this common ancestor lacked a lens, then its eye must have been very simple. It probably didn’t have an iris or conea or any of the other anatomy that we see in the eye of another human, or for that matter in that of an insect. If lens proteins evolved late, then this visible anatomy must have evolved late too. We should find traces of common descent only among closely related animals. Let us test this hypothesis by examining different kinds of animals.” – The Evidence for Evolution (p. 46)
As I wrote back on page 2, you have a proven history of deceptive quotation.
Ahahaha good one, coming from a provenly persistent quoteminer.
I don’t have access to those pages, so the context is missing. Nobody should take your word for anything. You have no compunction lying by omission.
Mung,
If the arguments for evolution are so poor then presumably the arguments for whatever you are now were more persuasive then those poor arguments.
What are you and what was the argument that persuaded you?
I’m curious about (preferably scientific) alternatives, too. I’d hope there were more than just an aversion to ToE.
I’d be less inclined to dismiss this hyperbole if you were able to give us an example or two.
Mung could start by listing all the falsehoods in Larry Moran’s text on evolution.
Yes, I often ask for the first error to be quoted in some disputed text so it can be discussed and the evidence for and against it brought to bear.
As yet, over multiple years, nobody has ever done that. Mung, care to give it a go?