“No Major Conceptual Leaps”

_{William Dembski

March 26, 2009

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I periodically get emails from individuals who are sympathetic to ID but then read Francis Collins’ THE LANGUAGE OF GOD and find themselves wondering what to think. Thus I recently received the following email:

Dear Dr. Dembski,

I … have read, I think, three of your books — the most recent “The Design Revolution”. I have been thoroughly convinced of your position in these books.

I was encouraged by a friend of many years, who was Professor of Science at … for 40 years … to consider the book by Francis S. Collins — “The Language of God”, which I have just read. This was in exchange for his reading “The Design Revolution.” I’ve not heard from him after reading it.

In “The Language of God”, there is this statement on pp 191-192:

“A particularly damaging crack in the foundation of Intelligent Design theory, arises from recent revelations about the poster child of ID, the bacterial flagellum. The argument that it is irreducibly complex rests upon the presumption that the individual subunits of the flagellum could have had no prior useful function of some other sort, and therefore the motor could not have been assembled by recruiting such components in a step-wise fashion, driven by the forces of natural selection. Recent research has fundamentally undercut this position.”

Assuming that you have read this statement, I’m sure you have a ready answer.

What would be your response to thiis?

Thank you.

I replied to him that Collins makes this statement without citation, and that Collins can’t justify it — that he’s “bluffing.” I suggested that he contact Collins himself and also look at the following piece that I posted here at UD some time back: response to Philip Klebba.

This person then did go ahead and contact Collins. Collins responded by sending him the Pallen-Matzke review article on the flagellum (Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, “From The Origin of Species to the Origin of Bacterial Flagella,” NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY 4 (Oct 2006): 784-790.

This paper is remarkable for what it demands (or fails to demand) of evolutionary theory. The key passage is this: “designing an evolutionary model to account for the origin of the ancestral flagellum requires no great conceptual leap.” Of course it doesn’t — one can always imagine some way that natural selection might have brought about the system in question. In the Origin of Species, Darwin played the same game: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” To this Darwin immediately added: “But I can find out no such case.”

Requiring no great conceptual leaps or being unable to find a case where Darwin’s theory could not possibly apply is not the same thing as providing evidence. Sure, the proteins in the flagellum may have homologues that serve functions in other systems. And we can imagine that the parts were co-opted over time by selection to produce the flagellum. But so what? We can imagine lots of things. Where’s the evidence that it happened that way? And why isn’t the exquisite engineering that we observe in the flagellum evidence for ID?

Collins, Pallen, Matzke and all other evolutionists who hold that a Darwinian explanation of the bacterial flagellum has been adequately confirmed are bluffing.

Comments

Skeech says:
As feebish pointed out, structures don’t come for free. An organism pays a cost to produce them, putting that individual at a disadvantage. Useless eyes, noses and ears would not be selectively neutral.
What is the cost to produce them?
Also, how successful would you expect to be at attracting mates if you had an extra, nonfunctional nose?
Obviously if any one individual was born with a random body part that was out of the norm, then that individual would probably have a hard time finding a mate due to that individual being perceived as different in an unhealthy way. My point again is why is the end product of evolution on a grand scale always functional. What is the cost of creating nonfunctional structures? You asked why did God create in a manner that is consistent with common descent. Why does evolution create in a manner consistent with design? Why didnt evolution create creatures with a two noses and one eye or noses where ears currently are and an ear where the nose is? Why does evolution create as if by design? Why didnt evolution create our eyebrows under our eyes instead of above them? Why do we have fingerprints (that aid in gripping) on the side of our hands we use the most instead of on the backs of our hands. Why do mutations not create light sensing rods and cones in our ears instead of in our eyes? Why do mutations create light and color detecting rods and cones at all? Why are the proteins in the electron transport chain embedded in the membranes of mitochondria in order of ascending electronegativity? Why are electron transport chains right next to ATP Synthase proteins. Why did random mutations create ATP Synthase molecules in the first place? Why do random mutations create structures that can detect smells? Why did random mutations place the smell detecting structures in the nose instead of on our tongue? Why didnt tastebuds evolve in our ears? Why is it that we eat with our mouths so proteins that detect taste evolved in the mouth, we see with our eyes so proteins that detect light and color evolved in our eyes, we smell by inhaling so proteins that detect smell evolved in our noses? How do completely random mutations just happen to get it right all the time. What would the cost be of tastebuds in ears instead of in the mouth or rhodopsin molecules up our noses instead of in our eyes. What is this cost you speak of that prevents random mutations from creating useless structures? What was the cost of creating eyebrows under our eyes that made them evolve over our eyes instead of beneath them? Random mutations should be able to create absolutely nothing but instead all it does is create beautifully and intricately designed organisms. Why? Why did random mutations create the proteins of the electron transport chain? Why did random mutations create enzymes that speed up reactions required for life to exist? Why did random mutations create rough ER and smooth ER and the golgi apparatus and lysosomes and microtubules and peroxisomes and centrioles and ribosomes? Why did random mutations create motor proteins like kinesin that carry transport vesicles along microtubules to various parts of the cell? Why did random mutations create motor proteins like myosin that work with actin filaments (why did random mutations create actin filaments) to bring about cell division? Im starting to rant so Ill just end this here. The answer to all of these questions is that random mutations can not and do not do these things. Random mutation does not have the creative capacity to produce the incredibly intricate and sophisticated level of DESIGN that we find in nature. Random mutations could not create an eye or a flagellum in a trillion quadrillion times infinity years (notwithstanding what Dawkins or anyone else says). Random mutations accounting for an eye or a flagellum would be like a three year old typing the entire bible blindfolded. Given enough time, the impossible remains impossible. Life was designed, random mutations had nothing to do with it. Deal with it.Mack G._{March 31, 2009
March
03
Mar
31
31
2009
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PST}

skeech plus Wishful thinking with ignorance of near neutral mutations overwhelming any hope of "weeding harmful mutations out". See mutations causing cancers. Read Sanford's Genetic Entropy review of population models. See Simulation Wars MendalsAccountantDLH_{March 31, 2009
March
03
Mar
31
31
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PST}

Testing to see if 'skeech plus' is out of moderation, plus a response to DLH. DLH:Mutation will stochastically impact the entire organism. If it obliterates those features without strong selection pressure, it will obliterate everything else.
DLH, What you’re missing is that natural selection will weed harmful mutations out of the population, but not neutral mutations. Perhaps a concrete example will help you understand. Humans have an inactivated gene (a “pseudogene”) that enabled one of the stages of vitamin C synthesis in our distant ancestors. Because this gene is inactivated, our bodies cannot synthesize vitamin C, which is why we require it in our diets. Now imagine a mutation to the coding region of this vitamin C pseudogene. The gene isn’t expressed, so the mutation makes absolutely no difference to the ability of its possessors to survive and reproduce. They produce just as many offspring as they would have otherwise, and so the mutation is not filtered out of the population. It may happen to disappear due to genetic drift, but natural selection does not eliminate it. Now consider a second mutation, in a blood-clotting gene — a mutation that causes hemophilia. Hemophiliacs are more likely to die before they reproduce, for obvious reasons. Unlike the mutation to the vitamin C pseudogene, mutations to the blood-clotting gene will therefore tend to be weeded out of the population. Even if the mutation rates are exactly the same in those two regions of the genome, neutral mutations will accumulate faster in the vitamin C pseudogene than deleterious mutations will accumulate in the blood-clotting gene. To use the jargon, the blood-clotting gene is a “conserved region”. The vitamin C pseudogene is not.skeech plus_{March 30, 2009
March
03
Mar
30
30
2009
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST}

skeech at 71
Natural selection won’t cull it, but mutation will obliterate it, and quickly. Why? Because there is no selective pressure to preserve genes that code for useless traits.
Illogical. Mutation will stochastically impact the entire organism. If it obliterates those features without strong selection pressure, it will obliterate everything else. Considering some 100 mutations per person per generation, there is no way to select out and eliminate one of those. Come back after you read and understood all the models proposed by evolutionists cited by John Sanford in "Genomic Entropy".DLH_{March 28, 2009
March
03
Mar
28
28
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PST}

PaulN, You do have a point---I got ahead of myself a bit in the last post, so let me retract the implication I made regarding whether the quote is fact or fiction. My main aim was just to question the wisdom of quoting people such as Yahya and Fix, given the baggage that they come with, and of course the fact that the Fix quote is 25 years old. Surely there are better, more current sources available? As to whether the issue Fix raises is actually a threat to evolution, I would start by citing PZ Myers on the Fix quote:
We do see molecular novelties, of course, but they do not change the fact that structures like the tetrapod limb are built using similar transcription factors, signalling molecules, and receptors. The message of modern developmental biology and molecular genetics is that the similarities at the level of DNA are surprisingly great.
So he claims that homology in tetrapod limbs is actually supported by the evidence, and that there is no breakdown as Fix said.madsen_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PST}

Madsen, While you have explained in further detail what has led you to come to this conclusion, I have to point out that you're still committing to exactly the same crime, only with more words and attempts to justify it. Yahya simply appears to be very bad at separating truth from fiction. Here's where we make progress toward what I'm getting at. What exactly is it that empirically proves the quoted citation to be fiction? I ask this because nothing of your previous statements and judgements logically concludes this.PaulN_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PST}

PaulN, I actually do agree with you that racist and "eccentric" people are still capable of using correct logic and arriving at correct conclusions. Let's look a bit more closely at the quote of DLH's---it seems to me as if the quote presented by Yahya is actually that of William Fix (not William Denton), who, although he is referred to as an "evolutionary biologist" on the Yahya website, actually has an M.A. in "behavioral science", as far as I can tell. I don't have his book The Bone Peddlers, but based on some googling it appears he uses it to present his theory of "psychogenesis", which involves a "celestial" origin of humans. Apparently the known fraud Uri Geller is mentioned to support the case for psychic powers. It seems Fix has also solved the "mysteries" of the pyramids. M'kay. I therefore propose that what we are seeing with the Fix quote is likely the same thing that led Yahya to uncritically accept conspiracy theories concerning Jews, Freemasons, and the Holocaust. It's not his racism or eccentricity per se that are the problem. Yahya simply appears to be very bad at separating truth from fiction.madsen_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PST}

The link didn't work. My comment to mynym is number 45 in this thread.skeech_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PST}

DLH writes:
The pentadactyl structure provides an efficient method of common design with compact genomic coding of “hands” and “feet” with their very complex structure.
What's efficient about a whale producing useless hind limbs? And if common design is so important, why don't all of the other aquatic animals share the pentadactyl blueprint? A designer who produces designs ranging from prokaryotes to blue whales Most tellingly, why would a designer specifically choose -- out of all of the possible ways of employing common design -- the one method that would make common descent appear to be true? See my comment to mynym here.
Muscles giving “goose bumps” result in hair standing up which reduces convective heat loss.
In bears, yes. In humans, no, unless you're a lot hairier than I am.skeech_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST}

Mack, I answered the question that you asked. If you're unhappy with that, then rephrase your question.
Why dont we have eye, ear, and nose like structures that do absolutely nothing and have never done anything?
As feebish pointed out, structures don't come for free. An organism pays a cost to produce them, putting that individual at a disadvantage. Useless eyes, noses and ears would not be selectively neutral. Also, how successful would you expect to be at attracting mates if you had an extra, nonfunctional nose?
As long as the trait or structure doesnt detract from reproductive fitness, ns will not cull it from the population.
Natural selection won't cull it, but mutation will obliterate it, and quickly. Why? Because there is no selective pressure to preserve genes that code for useless traits.skeech_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST}

Madsen:
Behe himself presumably accepts that whales descended from terrestrial mammals, as he accepts common descent.
While Behe holds to common descent, therefore that whales evolved from terrestrials, he does not imply that they did so without assistance. In the CD/ID (IDers who hold to common descent) there are two general theories: that patterns were encoded into early life that support exhautic development (front-loading), and that there is a cosmic genetic engineero out there (agency). In either case, non-foresighted mutation + natural selection does not provide the explanation. In the front-loaded model, incredible foresight combines with natural circomstances to bring out characteristics, and in the agency model numerous foresighted genetic manipulations are involved.
That’s apparently Denton’s current position, as he no longer holds the same views he published in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
If you read Denton's chapter in "Uncommon Dissent", written after "Nature's Destiny", you will find that he retracts virtually nothing from "Evidence..." Rather, "Nature's Destiny" is the result of looking at the situation from a different philosophical angle altogether. In Destiny, Denton brings the concept of the strong anthropic principle deep into the territory of biology. (In truth I believe that he over-reaches, but most of his findings I find sensible.) Bringing the strong anthropic principle deep into the territory of biology, however, does not preclude the possibilities of either front-loading or agency.bFast_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PST}

Madsen, Unlike you, I see a person's historical and/or religious beliefs to be irrelevant to the logic and reason found in their ideas. We should judge ideas with logic, not by looking up a person's past and smearing them. What DLH cited made sense, and was logical, and had nothing to do with Jewish and Freemason conspiracies. Could you say this person has eccentric beliefs outside of his scientific observations? Sure, but that has no logical impact on the scientific observations themselves. In fact I'd argue that sometimes it requires eccentric beliefs to discover new and in some cases groundbreaking scientific discoveries; simply conforming to the mentality of a particular hive mind only bears science that continues to propagate like-minded discoveries.
Interestingly, his website also claims that: “Intelligent Design” Is Another of Satan’s Distractions which you will find here: http://www.harunyahya.com/new_.....design.php So I’m very surprised to see his name cited approvingly here at UD.
From a simple first glance at his rant it's easy to see that he's expressing disproval solely because Intelligent Design isn't identifying or specifying "Allah" as the creator, not so much because he's dissatisfied with the scientific credibility such a pursuit. But again, this holds no bearing on whether or not DLH's citations make sense.PaulN_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST}

Hi PaulN,
Wow. Show me the evidence for this [my statement that Harun Yahya is either a con man or nuts]
From wikipedia:
In 1986, Adnan Oktar published the book, Judaism and Freemasonry. The book suggests that the principal mission of Jews and Freemasons in Turkey was to erode the spiritual, religious, and moral values of the Turkish people and, thus, make them like animals, as stated in what Oktar refers to as the "Distorted Torah." Oktar asserts that "the materialist standpoint, evolution theory, anti-religious and immoral lifestyles were indoctrinated to the society as a whole" by Jews and Freemasons.
His organization, the Scientific Research Foundation, also published a book called The Holocaust Lie in 1996. Interestingly, his website also claims that:
"Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions
which you will find here: http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php So I'm very surprised to see his name cited approvingly here at UD.madsen_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST}

Harun Yahya is really Adnan Oktar. And Adnan Oktar: Authored a book denying the holocaust. Says ID is a tool of Satan. Convicted of criminal threats and creating an organization with intent to commit crimes.
According to the indictment of the prosecutor’s office, cited by the daily Cumhuriyet, Oktar's organisation used its female members to attract young scholars from rich families, with the promise of sex in exchange for attending events. Should one of these female members attempt to leave the group, they were threatened with the release of the tapes.
Is he really someone to cite?David Kellogg_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PST}

Madsen, anyone can dismiss their own logic and critical thinking under the pressure of an authoritative party line. But in matters of truth, no amount of authoritative or dismissive statements will drown out sound logic. Berlinksi calculated a minimum of 50,000 adaptive, complex morphological changes required for a terrestrial animal to transition into an aquatic creature. We have trouble experimentally observing anything that would constitute one of those changes. As for Harun Yahya, he’s clearly a con man and/or nuts. Wow. Show me the evidence for this.PaulN_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PST}

DLH,
I believe the structure of a bear cannot even scale to the size of a whale without having aquatic support. That in turn requires all the rest of the whale’s novel functions.
I don't see how it requires baleen (which not all whales have), echolocation, or whale song. And I still don't see anything wrong with Darwin's statement. In any case, the sources you have quoted are all over the map. Behe himself presumably accepts that whales descended from terrestrial mammals, as he accepts common descent. That's apparently Denton's current position, as he no longer holds the same views he published in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. As for Harun Yahya, he's clearly a con man and/or nuts.madsen_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

Steveo @44,
A note on “Dollo’s Law”: once a trait is lost through degradation of the genes required, the sequence of mutations required to bring it back into existence is too improbable to occur. “Can Evolution Reverse Itself?” http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547686/
Thanks for the reference! I wasn't aware there was a law that further explained the limits on evolutionary change. If anything this shows not only limitations on evolutionary possibilities, but limitations on the overall testability of Darwinian mechanisms that supposedly increase novel functional complexity as well, in fact to the point to where you're now reduced to a one-way evolutionary road: You're basically forced to test them via linear brute-force methods such as the fruit fly and E. coli experiments, neither of which showed any novel increases in functional complexity. The most we could observe from the fruit flies were an over-hyped extra pair of wings that did not function at all, and in fact terminated the fly's ability to.. fly- and consequently reproduce for that matter. Following Behe's observations on Lenski's experiments, it was more likely that the generation of E. coli that was able to digest citrate in aerobic environments either already had the existing equipment to do so, or that the generation was one of the expressed strains of E. coli found in the wild that can already digest citrate (as was the case in experiments preceding Lenski's). So since we're reduced to such a narrow method of testing change(according to Dollo's Law) via RM+NS, and don't have much to show for the tests that have already been conducted, at what point is the Darwin party going to appeal to a reasonable conclusion based off of what experiments have shown? What is it really going to take for Darwinists to consider their mechanism of change to be falsified in accordance to real observations?PaulN_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

madsen at 51
"Darwin quote says nothing about bears turning into whales (with baleen, blubber, echo location, etc) specifically: I can see no difficulty in a race of bears . . .till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
As a point of symantics yes. As to function no. Bones must scale differently than mass. See: Scaling of the limb long bones to body mass in terrestrial mammals. P. Christiansen, J Morphol. 1999 Feb;239(2):167-90.
Differential scaling is present, and large mammals on average scale with lower regression slopes than small mammals. Large mammals tend to reduce bending stress during locomotion by having shorter limb bones than predicted rather than by having very thick diaphyses, as is usually assumed. The choice of regression model used to describe data samples in analyses of scaling becomes increasingly important as correlation coefficients decrease, and theoretical models supported by one analysis may not be supported when applying another statistical model to the same data. Differences in limb posture and locomotor performance have profound influence on the amount of stress set up in the appendicular bones during rigorous physical activity and make it unlikely that scaling of long bones across a large size range of terrestrial mammals can be satisfactorily explained by any one power function.
I believe the structure of a bear cannot even scale to the size of a whale without having aquatic support. That in turn requires all the rest of the whale's novel functions.DLH_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PST}

skeech at 53
Re Mack G's why dont we find numerous species with traits that are completely useless but in no way detrimental to fitness We do. Here are just three examples:. . . 2. Hind limbs in whales. 3. The tiny muscle fibers that give us goose bumps.
Ignorance of design and function does not constitute evidence for lack of design. Regarding #2 & #3: 2: The pentadactyl structure provides an efficient method of common design with compact genomic coding of "hands" and "feet" with their very complex structure. Yet this design is readily configured for very wide range of application with corresponding genes to control symmetric mirror and proportional growth along growth paths to final configurations that are well maintained for that species. See further argument by Harun Yahya: The Fall of the Homology in Tetrapod Limbs He quotes:
The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' [five bone] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down.291
"291 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MA, 1985, pp. 151, 154. (emphasis added)" 3. Muscles giving "goose bumps" result in hair standing up which reduces convective heat loss.DLH_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PST}

madsen (#46): "Couldn’t the fact that several different types of flagella exist be used to argue for the opposite conclusion?" I don't think so. Convergent evolution is indeed a very strong argument in favour of ID. The reasoning is simple: if a strucutre is extremely complex (in the sense of unlikely), then it is already practically impossible that it originates by chance: its originating many times indipendently is therefore "super-impossible". You may say: but the fact itself that the same function can be achieved by different structures should make it more likely. The answer is yes and not. We know well that the target set of any function is not represented by a single solution. That is one important problem in the computation of FSCI for single proteins, and it becomes an even more difficult problem for multi-protein functional systems like the flagellum. But the point is, how much do you reasonably expect the functional set to be big, in situations where the search space is at least of the order of 10^1000 or more? (I am referring to multi-protein systems here). With Dembski's UPB set at 10^150, that means that you would need at least 10^850 dfferent functional structures to just start discussing a possible successful search using all the resources in the universe! Therefore, I maintain that convergent evolution is evidence of design. And don't forget that we have a growing number of well documented examples of convergent evolution, not only for "simpler" structures like the flagellum, but even for extremely complex functions, like flight.gpuccio_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PST}

iconofid: the contact system is exactly the "second" function I spoke of. "First of all, you have to consider that mammals blood clotting is formed by two different systems: the tissue (extrinsic) system, which was certainly the oldest one, and the contact (intrinsic) system, which appeared later. If I rememebr well, Behe speaks of the first, and not of the second." In other words, the two systems are two different functions, even if they converge in the final steps. More generally, I understand your general arguments, but I don't find it pertinent to the definition of IC. IOW, we can have different coltting systems in different species, and they can differ as to the number of components, but that does not mean that each is not IC. Let's put it this way: a clotting system is a cascade. You design it as a cascade for various functional reasons, and not only to show that you are a clever designer. So, the cascade allows incremental amplification of the signal, and above all different potential levels of control and feedback. Now, you can realize a cascade with 5 components or one with 8 components, and the final effect can be the same. But the reaosns why one is designed one way, and the other another way, and the interactions of the two systems with their general biological environment are completely different. In other words, the two systems are different, because they have been designed differently for different contexts. And both are IC: you cannot subtract a component to a cascade, and still have the function. It doesn't matter that one system is of 5 components, and the other of 8, and that some components can be similar: both are IC, both would lose their function if any component is subtracted. And even if they share some components, that does not mean that one is derived from the other. That's the concept of IC in ID: flagella abd clotting cascades are good examples of that concept. And darwinists have never produce any credible alternative models which can explain those structures.gpuccio_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PST}

gpuccio: I am no expert of fish blood clotting, but I do know the human... ...It looks IC to me.... Thanks for the quotes. I'm no expert either, but if that's the paper I think it is, then you will find that the puffer fish are missing a contact system that we have somewhere in that paper. Elsewhere, from memory, lamphreys are missing two components that cause serious problems, like hemophilia, for us. My point is that what's IC in us does not have to be in our ancestors, meaning that step by step evolution of such systems can happen. I'm not attempting to prove that they did evolve, merely showing that "IC" arguments do not work to show that they cannot evolve.iconofid_{March 27, 2009
March
03
Mar
27
27
2009
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PST}

Mack, it seems to me that you are asking why we don't find numerous species with traits that aren't useful but also not detrimental. Is that correct? I don't think skeech is trying to be obtuse - if you drink the koolaid that he's drinking, you think a so-called neutral change in amino acid sequence of a protein is an example of what you are talking about. But you're talking about eyeballs that don't work, right? And not vestigial eyeballs that don't work, but perfectly good eyeballs that don't work, maybe because they are in the wrong place or something, and I don't think the evolutionist can fully answer you on that one. They might try to say that there is a cost to carrying around good eyeballs that don't work, just the energy to make them I suppose, if I understand the theory correctly, and so you wouldn't get something that elaborate if it didn't do something. But then they'd go ahead and say, yes, maybe you WOULD get that kind of thing if it was sexually selected. If chicks dig it, as I like to say. So maybe like a peacock's feathers? I don't think that's the answer to your question, though, because you are asking why we don't find numerous species with traits that aren't useful but also not detrimental, and I guess the peacock's tail would be useful if chicks dig it. So I think you must be right.feebish_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PST}

Thats not what I asked. I asked why dont we find numerous species with traits that are completely useless but in no way detrimental to fitness? Vestigial characteristics are traits that have lost the purpose they once served. So I dont see how you could possibly have thought that vestigial structures would cover that. Clearly vestigial traits once served a purpose and clearly my post was about characteristics arising that never served a purpose. I wouldnt think I would have to spell it out for you. Secondly your claim that it is very common for mutations to affect the amino acid sequence of proteins without altering their function also doesnt address my question which is why dont we find numerous species with traits that arent useful but also not detrimental. If random mutations are the source of new information for characteristic building proteins and these mutations occur with no respect to fitness then why dont these mutations ever bring about the manifestation of completely novel but useless but nondetrimental traits? Why dont we have eye, ear, and nose like structures that do absolutely nothing and have never done anything? Why doesnt evolution create structures that do nothing in places where they are useless? As long as the trait or structure doesnt detract from reproductive fitness, ns will not cull it from the population. If random mutations occurs with no input then they should just as likely create many things that are totally useless as they should something functional should they not? If I gave you a typewriter or a computer and blindfolded you and told you to use one finger and press the keys on the keyboard and when done I would edit out all profanities, would you expect at the end to have a legible page or a page of gobblety-gook? If random mutations simply make random changes and ns edits out whatever is harmful shouldnt we expect to see innumerable useless structures that have arisen along with all the useful and purposeful traits that have arisen?Mack G._{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PST}

I have a question about homology... Doesn't the issue of homology really exist at the gentic level? I have heard Ken Miller's attempt to debunk IC on homology grounds, but it is as though he implies that the proteins themselves are conserved. But obviously, it is the genetics that would be conserved. And the function would follow. Are the differences in genetic sequencing between so-called homologies significant enough to pose a challenge? It is my understanding they do... These information systems eschew copy errors, so it seems obvious that the issue of homology ignores the difficulties in explaining thechange in information not just for each protein, but the hierarchy of total system information.Lock_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PST}

Yes, they are vestigial. Your question was:
why dont we find numerous species with traits that are completely useless but in no way detrimental to fitness?
The vestigial traits that I mentioned fit that description. If your question is about traits that, unlike vestigial traits, are always "useless", then yes, there are plenty of those as well. For example, it is very common for mutations to affect the amino acid sequence of proteins without altering their function.skeech_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PST}

I thought those were vestigial traits that once served a purpose and no longer do. Is this no longer the case?Mack G._{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PST}

Mack G. asks:
why dont we find numerous species with traits that are completely useless but in no way detrimental to fitness
We do. Here are just three examples: 1. The coat of hair that human embryos grow in the womb and then shed before birth. 2. Hind limbs in whales. 3. The tiny muscle fibers that give us goose bumps.skeech_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PST}

given that mutations supposedly happen with no respect for fitness and natural selection is supposed to cull only those organisms that have characteristics that detract from fitness, why dont we find numerous species with traits that are completely useless but in no way detrimental to fitness? In other words, if random mutation can produce new traits and structures, why doesnt it ever produce traits and structures that are useless but not harmful. I think that would be great evidence for a truly stochastic process. Its like trying to argue that the words in a book arrive there by a completely random process and this random process adds the letters completely randomly with no intelligent input whatsoever but another process culls all profanities that may arise (by accident of course). We should expect such a book to be filled with indecipherable gobblety-gook but imagine our surprise when the final product is decipherable words, sentences, and paragraphs all fitting together to make an understandable book. That's not at all what one would expect from a process that added letters randomly to a page. So it is with life that if it arose and adapted by a stochastic process with natural selection only culling that which was bad, we would expect life to be filled with gobblety-gook. If evolution is driven by stochastic mutations that can just make proteins willy-nilly with natural selection only cleaning up the bad, why do evolutionists not expect life to be full of useless but benign adaptations and traits? Comparing life to a book leads us to conclude that life most likely would never have arisen by any chance driven process but giving advocates of a chance driven origin of life the benefit of the doubt, they must now explain why a process of pure chance hasnt created a world of life filled with useless but benign features?Mack G._{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PST}

Furthermore, the Darwin quote says nothing about bears turning into whales (with baleen, blubber, echo location, etc) specifically:
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
madsen_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply