Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dragonfly both perfect at first AND “the perfected result” of 300 mya of evolution?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Philosopher Laszlo Bencze reflects on a recent National Geographic program on dragonflies:

First I hear, “The dragonfly, the perfected result of 300 million years of evolution.’’ Then a few minutes later I hear, “The dragonfly was perfect when it first appeared 300 million years ago.” I guess the producers of these shows don’t bother listening to what they’re saying as long as they are saying something about evolution and how wonderful it is. Oh, and there’s not a word about how the imperfections of the dragonfly might reveal the random meanderings of an evolutionary process. Nope, it’s the perfection of the dang thing that tells us evolution is responsible even though it doesn’t change a bit after it first appears.

Actually, Laszlo, Darwinspeak is so much a part of the landscape that few viewers likely noticed the contradiction. They hear this stuff all the time, and it doesn’t need to hang together as long as it all conforms to a certain type of correctness: Darwinian evolution is true, no matter what the evidence.

In any event, it would be career incorrect to be seen raising any questions about it. Even knowing that there is a contradiction flags one as a suspicious person, who may actually doubt.

Darwin doubted, at times. His followers do not. They run things; he’s dead.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Silver Asiatic wrote:
thus the multiverse which is an attempt to deal with the problem of randomness.
Exactly. If the challenges of combining probabilities could be adequately answered, Stephen Hawking certainly would not see a need to promote the extremely weak and unsatisfying idea of a multiverse. Unlike some people here, Hawking understood the math. -QQuerius
August 31, 2014
August
08
Aug
31
31
2014
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
A claim was made that the world is random when it suited us (evolutionist) and not random when it didn’t. I honestly don’t know what Mung was referring to so I asked for some examples.
In a discussion of origins, non-random = designed. In a materialist viewpoint, the world has a random origin. The origin of life or earth is random. The origin of the species is also random. There are some law-like characteristics to evolution (where did these law-like characteristics come from?) but they're all affected by random variables. So, you might say there are some 'non-random' aspects but ultimately it's a random output. The claim that materialistic-origins are non-random was a defense against the mathematical problems that a random origin obviously has. This is especially true in cosmology - thus the multiverse which is an attempt to deal with the problem of randomness.Silver Asiatic
August 31, 2014
August
08
Aug
31
31
2014
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Querius, now who is rambling. A claim was made that the world is random when it suited us (evolutionist) and not random when it didn't. I honestly don't know what Mung was referring to so I asked for some examples. If he, or you, can't provide any, that is fine. I will simply ignore Mung's out of thin air claim.Acartia_bogart
August 31, 2014
August
08
Aug
31
31
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Yes, Andre. We demand examples of laugh, cry, designer, lesson, random, and chance. And if you cannot come up with examples that are not satisfactory in My estimation, then you must be rambling. Oh and we need examples of rambling, too. ;-) -QQuerius
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Mung:
It’s random when it suits you, and it’s not random when it doesn’t suit you. And you call that science?
Could you please provide me with some examples of your claim? Or are you just rambling?Acartia_bogart
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
AB I don't know if I should laugh or cry..... Here is what I read in your posts.... You hope there is no designer, but you know there is one..... A little lesson for you.... If its not random its not by chance......Andre
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Yes exactly, Mung. And after denigrating Michael Behe's "voodoo" math, A-B gets a simple problem in probability wrong, and then claims it was a typo! Priceless! ;-) -QQuerius
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Arcatia_bogart:
Who said it was a random world. Certainly not myself or any evolutionary biologist.
It's random when it suits you, and it's not random when it doesn't suit you. And you call that science?Mung
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Andre #31
Have you ever put in thought into how sexual reproductive systems came about in this random world of yours? I guess not…..
Who said it was a random world. Certainly not myself or any evolutionary biologist.Acartia_bogart
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
On the lighter side... 12 Animals You’re Glad Are Extinct – Aug. 2014 1. Giant crocodiles (13 m. long) 2. Three-foot-long scorpions 3. Massive millipedes 4. Spiders with sting(er)s like scorpions 5. Megasharks (50 ft. long) 6. Weird gigantic hybrids of scorpions and millipedes that lived in water (2.5m long) 7. Giant piranhas (1m long) 8. The largest species of snake ever (13m long, weighed 1 ton) 9. Huge dragonflies (70cm) 10. Big scary mash-ups of prawns and squid with more teeth (540 million year old Anomalcaris) 11. Ginormous shelled squid (9m) 12. Penguins as tall as humans Regarding huge dragonflies, I'm all for them if they ate huge mosquitoes!anthropic
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
If stasis disproves Darwinism why doesn't it likewise disprove genetic entropy? I just want to know why people who doubt Darwinism and believe in genetic entropy think they can have it both ways.Mung
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Anthropic says:
As I recall, Creationists jumped at punk eek not because they thought that Gould had become a creationist, but because he admitted something that Darwinists had denied for decades: the fossil record does not match evolutionary predictions. Abrupt appearance followed by long stasis with minor variations was the rule, rather than the neo-Darwinian expected gradual change over time. Gould had the integrity to admit it and tried to find a naturalistic theory that explained the data.
Acartia_bogart replies:
Anthropic, no, Gould demonstrated that large populations tend to remain ‘stable’ for long periods of time....
A_b, I'm rather tired of watching evolutionists deflect and tip-toe around the fundamental reasons behind the origin of punctuated equilibrium hypotheses. You say "no" to Anthropic and then go on to support exactly what he said, that Gould believed the fossil record primarily exhibits a pattern of stasis. So what are you contradicting? What exactly are you disagreeing with in Anthropic's post? Or did you just think writing "no" would give the illusion of a refutation? Do you deny that Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium was formulated as a result of the fossil record not meeting conventional darwinian expectations of gradualism?lifepsy
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
semi OT: Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k Here is Meyer discussing very accessibly why the use of cladistic analysis -- stem groups, crown groups, cladograms, ghost lineages -- fails to satisfy. "In order to compensate for missing fossils, we have to postulate more missing fossils. So I don't think that this really solves the problem of the missing fossils. I think it actually accentuates it."bornagain77
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
jerry @ #32
After all it is 100% ideological what they believe and not rational.
Gould showed a good example of that himself. He changed his ideas about P.E. several times because of criticism and in the end claimed it was perfectly compatible with gradualism (as A_B indicates). But anthropic's comment #27 remains correct. There would be no need for the idea if the fossil record matched the prediction. Gould did believe that there was rapid change, and he gave private support to the idea of 'hopeful monsters'. Of course, when you can use an ambiguous term like "selection pressure" which mysteriously changes the rate of evolution (or not), then it's easy to reconcile stasis and rapid change. What remained unexplained and illogical was that species would be in stasis for millions of years, supposedly facing no significant selection pressure. Massive changes in climate, food supply, disease, competitors ... none of this was enough pressure to cause speciation. No one has a clue about what "selection pressures" actually existed or what they caused. It's all guesswork - and untestable. No one can predict what selection pressures are today and what they will cause. So, yes, it's not rational and everything in evolutionary ideology is driven to create a myth, and then later to cover-up all of its absurdities.Silver Asiatic
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
This is amusing: AB@23:
Barry, are you seriously suggesting that NG is a science journal, or a spokesperson for science?
I assume that is a rhetorical question, and you are saying that NG is not a spokesperson for science.
NG plays an important role in making science accessible to the general public, and stimulating interest in science amongst the young.
In other words, it is a spokesman for science at the popular level and to the young. Contradict yourself much? Now, I will ask the question again. Do you have anything useful to say about the point of the OP, which is that NG – an organization you admit is a spokesman for science at the popular level and to the young – was caught in an obvious contradiction? I would be careful about characterizing others as “drooling idiots” in the same combox in which you’ve made yourself look like a fool.Barry Arrington
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
But Gould also realized that selective pressures are more pronounced in small isolated populations. Again, not a new thought.
If this is how evolution happened, it should be readily apparent in the genomes of the various organisms. In about 10 to 20 years all this will be known not only as to feasibility but whether it actually happened. Coding region after coding region and regulatory region after regulatory region will be assessed. Maybe then the believers in natural evolution may have their day but my guess is that the evidence will not be there and they will be appealing to some other scenario. After all it is 100% ideological what they believe and not rational.jerry
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
AB
Which is not surprising if mating is essentially random and there are no large selective pressures.
Have you ever put in thought into how sexual reproductive systems came about in this random world of yours? I guess not.....Andre
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
AB.... Just a question? Why do you find that you could have been designed so repulsive? Just wondering......Andre
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
bornagain77, Thanks for posting the video interview of Dr. Carl Werner in 21. His evidence pretty much falsifies evolutionary change in the fossil record. The evidence to the contrary seems to be zilch. Dr. Werner's research should be convincing proof to almost anyone with an open mind, even those who can't figure out how to calculate probabilities. -QQuerius
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
Anthropic, no, Gould demonstrated that large populations tend to remain 'stable' for long periods of time. Which is not surprising if mating is essentially random and there are no large selective pressures. And is supported by population genetics. But Gould also realized that selective pressures are more pronounced in small isolated populations. Again, not a new thought. And, small isolated populations are less likely to be represented in the fossil record than the larger, distributed population. Again, not a new thought. So the rapid appearance of new body forms in the fossil record has more to do with the rapid expansion of adaptive phenotypes from isolated populations to a broader distribution than it does with an actual "sudden" appearance. And Gould understood this. He was never arguing for a "sudden" appearance of new species. He was arguing why this appears to be the case from the fossil record. The "sudden" appearance was still not very sudden from a generational perspective. He was never suggesting that the offspring of two sheep may have been a goat.Acartia_bogart
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
As I recall, Creationists jumped at punk eek not because they thought that Gould had become a creationist, but because he admitted something that Darwinists had denied for decades: the fossil record does not match evolutionary predictions. Abrupt appearance followed by long stasis with minor variations was the rule, rather than the neo-Darwinian expected gradual change over time. Gould had the integrity to admit it and tried to find a naturalistic theory that explained the data. He failed for a number of reasons Stephen Meyer details in Darwin's Doubt. But the admission that paleontology generally contradicted standard evolutionary expectations was big news among Darwin skeptics.anthropic
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Tjguy, you accuse evolutionary theory of being nothing more than a bunch of untestable and unobserved 'just-so' stories. And you would have a point if you were right. But you are not. But let's assume that you are correct. Your alternate proposal is that life (including us) was the result of an untestable, unknowable, uncompehendible supernatural intelligence. And you think that is much more reasonable? No wonder you are having a hard time convincing people of this "TRUTH".Acartia_bogart
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
AB says:
Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium. And creationists have jumped all over it like drooling idiots. But they conveniently ignore the fact that Gould thought that it was part if a naturalistic evolutionary process.
Congratulations to Gould for coming up with a new story. Is it accurate? Who knows? If small step by step type of change is difficult, imagine how difficult it would be to come up with large changes by chance mutation! Seriously, AB! Creationists know very well that he believes that Gould was a thorough evolutionist and fully understand that he believed that his Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis was a part of a naturalistic evolutionary process. But he can believe whatever he wants. It's nonsense. No one can explain how it is possible. No one has seen it happen. It is a just so story that cannot be tested. Or at least has so far come up empty because we have never seen such a thing happen. Are you seriously proposing this as the right answer to mystery of stasis? Sure, it partially fits the evidence, but that doesn't make it true. There are other stories that also fit the evidence. Another possible explanation for the evidence is that there was no evolution - meaning 'molecules to man' type of evolution. That is another possible interpretation of the fossil record. I don't get your point here. Creationists jump all over this because the mechanism for this large scale relatively quick change is unknown and seemingly improbable. (but since when did high improbability keep a Darwinist from believing his version of events?) They will believe anything to save the paradigm!tjguy
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Tjguy: "So we are told that evolution is change over time – except when it isn’t. So whether you have change or stasis, it’s all evidence for evolution. It’s the old ‘heads I win; tails you lose’ thing." Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium. And creationists have jumped all over it like drooling idiots. But they conveniently ignore the fact that Gould thought that it was part if a naturalistic evolutionary process.Acartia_bogart
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Barry, are you seriously suggesting that NG is a science journal, or a spokesperson for science? I have much respect for NG, but it is the Sesame Street version of science. And I do not intend disrespect to either. NG plays an important role in making science accessible to the general public, and stimulating interest in science amongst the young.Acartia_bogart
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Ho hum. Nothing more than ANOTHER example of stasis in the fossil record. They are a dime a dozen, the rule rather than the exception. Nothing to get excited about. So we are told that evolution is change over time - except when it isn't. So whether you have change or stasis, it's all evidence for evolution. It's the old 'heads I win; tails you lose' thing.tjguy
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Living Fossils Interview with Dr. Carl Werner – video (4:33 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y6LmWznY4Ys#t=273bornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
"Genetic entropy seems to have passed by the dragonfly." actually maybe not,,, 12 Animals You’re Glad Are Extinct - Aug. 2014 1. Giant crocodiles (13 m. long) 2. Three-foot-long scorpions 3. Massive millipedes 4. Spiders with sting(er)s like scorpions 5. Megasharks (50 ft. long) 6. Weird gigantic hybrids of scorpions and millipedes that lived in water (2.5m long) 7. Giant piranhas (1m long) 8. The largest species of snake ever (13m long, weighed 1 ton) 9. Huge dragonflies (70cm) 10. Big scary mash-ups of prawns and squid with more teeth (540 million year old Anomalcaris) 11. Ginormous shelled squid (9m) 12. Penguins as tall as humans http://www.buzzfeed.com/floperry/animals-youre-glad-are-extinct#2mu16hlbornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Genetic entropy seems to have passed by the dragonfly.Mung
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
leodp
...and dragonfly’s ‘just appeared’. They ‘formed’
Of course! why not? how else could it happen? there aren't other choices, are they? ;-) The problem is that we don't know how exactly that happened, but supposedly someday, somehow, fast advancing science research will gradually bring us closer to finding more missing pieces of the biological puzzle. As more discoveries reveal new details, the big picture should get clearer to us. That's why we look forward, with much anticipation, to reading new research reports that could shed light on the amazing things we observe in the biological systems. That's also why we should encourage many youngsters, who seem attracted to science, so they pursue serious biology research careers. True wonders await to be discovered beyond the horizon. Unending revelation of the ultimate reality. Those of us who believe that in the beginning was the Logos, live in permanent awe, while contemplating the amazing biological systems, hence we are not surprised by the so called "unexpected discoveries" we read in the science literature so often these days. The party is just starting. The fun part is still ahead. In the meantime let's sing hallelujah and rejoice! :)Dionisio
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply