In a recent thread here at TSZ the question was raised as to whether naturalism is comfortable with highly typical events. My answer to that question was quite so. Exhibit: the appendix.
Although it is widely viewed as a vestigial organ with little known function, recent research suggests that the appendix may serve an important purpose. In particular, it may serve as a reservoir for beneficial gut bacteria. Several other mammal species also have an appendix, and studying how it evolved and functions in these species may shed light on this mysterious organ in humans.
But wait. There’s more…
Heather F. Smith, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, is currently studying the evolution of the appendix across mammals. Dr. Smith’s international research team gathered data on the presence or absence of the appendix and other gastrointestinal and environmental traits for 533 mammal species. They mapped the data onto a phylogeny (genetic tree) to track how the appendix has evolved through mammalian evolution, and to try to determine why some species have an appendix while others don’t.
They discovered that the appendix has evolved independently in several mammal lineages, over 30 separate times, and almost never disappears from a lineage once it has appeared.
Evolved independently over 30 separate times! Now that’s right up there in miracle territory if you ask me. I mean, what are the odds!?
For those who have access to this paper, do they really explain how the appendix evolved 30 or more times?
Of course, I’d also love to hear from all the fans of the miraculous powers of evolution just how they think it came to pass that the appendix evolved 30 independent times.
Source:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm
That is a big so what? Changing allele frequencies isn’t enough to build protein machines nor create new body plans. Mayr would have understood that. You don’t seem to be able to, though.
And again, Mayr supports my claim with respect to selection vs elimination. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that either even though I spelled it out for you
Try understanding him instead.
Try making a case, OM. What’s that? You can’t- no surprise there
From the “paper discussed in the previous link to Pharyngula:
They are actually suggesting that the variation is not due to the genes! This leads to the question; if not the genes, what then? For someone who believes that genes plus environment account for all variation, what would they say might explain this variation?
Its a very good question, one for which you are unlikely to get a decent answer for here, but I would go further in saying you can’t include the environment as a separate role in variation if ultimately all the environment can do is affect the genes. So the claim can only still be that it is genes, and only genes which account for all variation.
Which is of course bunk, but that is the evolutionist claim, if only for the fact that if they admit it is anything else, they have no explanation as to why (but they could probably spin a tale) .
Shall we duel quotes?
You make your case using the words of people who fundamentally disagree with you. In response to that nothing needs to be said at all.
OK OM- I understand Mayr, evolution, ID and science better than you ever will. And nothing you can say will ever change that fact. I am OK with that
The authors (and by extension, you) are wrong that there is no genetic or environmentadifferences that can account for these variations. You simply aren’t looking at this in enough detail.
First of all, just because the population is inbread, doesn’t make individuals genetically identical. Only clones and one-egged twins are genetically identical(and neither one-egged twins or clones are somatically identical, since at every cell division during development of the embry, new mutations will get independently introduced in the developing and diverging cell-lines). So there’s definitely a rather large genetic variability component at work there, but foremost of all from homologous recombination during the stages of meiosis (not so much somatic mutations).
Secondly, we know of variability even between clones that is due to local environmental variability. For example fingerprints vary between identical twins.
I don’t remember which, but some species of cow was cloned and the cow used as surrogate mother gave birth to identical twins. Nevertheless, the fur color spots on the two newborn cattle were different. They did not have the same size or shade spots and the spots were not found in the same location on the body.
The local differences in temperature in the uterus is what regulates the expression of skin and hair pigment genes in the developing cow embryos. So even though we might superficially say the cows developed in the same environment (in this case the very same uterus, at the same time, right next to each other), what side they lay on, and how they were arranged, turned out to have significant contribution to their development.
Basically the answer to your conondrum amounts to something known from chaos theory. It’ about tiiiiny variations in initial conditions. Genetic programs can be remarkably sensitive to initial conditions. Tiny differences in temperature in different areas of the uterus can radically alter gene expression patterns. In this case, the expression of skin pigments that cause the patterns and shade of the spots in the cow’s fur.
So with regards to the mice with large variations in appendix morphology. They weren’t clones, and they emphatically didn’t develop under the exact same conditions.
And comes last it seems as well. Again you demand evolution provide a mechanism of implemention, you have admitted to have none. Every criticism you use applies to your position. Old news.
Implies intelligence or proves intelligence?
Neither is design without some way of implementing the design. Mayr would have understood that as well.
See, that’s the problem, they weren’t in the uterus, they were in bread.
Environment!
Wow- evolution makes the claim to have a mechanism of numerous slight modifications- It is supposed to be a mechanistic theory. ID is not a mechanistic theory. How the design was implemented is a separate question from whether or not it was designed.
Only if you don’t know what each position claims.
How many times do we have to go over this?
Science is not in the proving business.
Mayr would be smart enough to understand ID is not a mechanistic theory. He would not say Nan Madol is not artificial just because we don’t know how it was made.
Well there is yeast in bread…