Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Bogey Moment with PZ Myers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It is interesting to see how evolutionists respond to failures of their theory. For all their talk of following the evidence and adjusting to new data, evolutionists find all kinds of ways to resist learning from their failures. Consider one of the major failures of evolution, its view of the very nature of biological change. Twentieth century evolutionary theory held that biological change is a rather simple process that is blind to the needs of the organism. As Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin confidant T. H. Huxley, put it, mutations “occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses.”   Read more

Comments
The answer is simply this. ID determines that a given thing could not have come about without deliberate, designing intelligence. (While I'll assume that nipples were designed, I'm not aware that nipples have been specifically studied through the ID lens.) Why men have nipples is not a question ID addresses or answers. ID is a test, not an umbrella theory that encompasses all the ways or reasons a thing could have been designed. Some seize upon that as a shortcoming while failing to explain why the core test of ID is invalid. IOW - Thermometers are wrong because they don't explain how the heat was generated. But does that mean that they are reporting the temperature inaccurately?ScottAndrews
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
hahahahahaha Shall we have a "Google off"? :-) We both ask each other things we could find on our own!! :-) I'll do my best after I get the family down for the night!! :-) But I am still inerested in the ID paradigm about men's nipples. What is the hypothesised guiding principle? That can be answered without waiting for the contrary view. Surely. Someone has thought about it . . . Surely.ellazimm
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
ellazimm: Thanks for the cheerful talk, but ID isn't that much of a big deal to me, just something interesting to talk about. But I would love to hear an evolutionary explanation of how men or nipples evolved. With specifics, though. No 'it evolved' or 'it mutated.' What were the series of mutations, and how or why did each one get fixed? If there is no explanation at this time, I would settle for a similar step-by-step explanation of some other evolution, and we could infer that nipples occurred in some similar fashion. That's reasonable.ScottAndrews
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Dinner time here in the UK. Apologies if I don't respond immediately!ellazimm
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Scott, I think evolution does have an answer to some of those questions!! That's why I'm asking here!! I WANT to know what the alternative explanations are!! What do YOU think? You must have wondered? You must have. You've got . . . what . . 60% of the American public behind you. Ask for funding, do the research!! Go ahead!! What are you waiting for? Ask for help!!! You don't need to find a foothold!! You just need to tap into your support base!! Do it!!ellazimm
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, I understand where you're coming from, and I agree. But this particular question has been answered before. And it's not an in-depth question. It involves a surface-level understanding of the premise of ID. That can't be too much to ask of someone who wants to debate the subject, even if they disagree with that premise. (As you stated in your post, you understand it, whether or not you agree with it.) As for the other questions, I can understand some frustration that ID offers not a single answer. But it's a new theory. Everything takes time. Right now it faces an uphill battle to get a foothold in science against those who oppose it for purely ideological reasons. Keep in mind that Darwinism offers no explanations either, as to why there are men, nipples, snakes, whales, legs, or marsupials.ScottAndrews
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Scott, Obviously you're under no obligation to reply but there are folks who come on here and try and explain aspects of evolution even though there are plenty of books and websites. I ask questions because I'd like to hear what people think not just what someone else wrote in the FAQ. Plus, I do try and ask questions I haven't heard answered before OR I have heard differing answers. :-) I understand that ID says that some aspects of biological . . . . development are better explain by the intervention of an intelligent designer as opposed to RM+NS+other processes. But I still think there are lots of unanswered questions that I would think the ID supporters would be interested in examining. Like, why do men have nipples? And, why do snakes and whales have vestigal legs? Or why is Australia primarily populated by marsupials?ellazimm
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, I don't understand how you propose to argue against something without first taking steps to understand it. Your question suggests that you don't understand, on a fundamental level, what ID is. Why is it up to me to explain that? Read the FAQ.ScottAndrews
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
I was wondering . . . if one of those mutations that Dr Behe talks about as being extremely improbable occurred would you think that there was no edge of evolution OR would you think that maybe the intelligent designer had intervened? Actually, now that I think about it . . . . how can you tell the difference? How do you know that lots and lots of "beneficial" mutations aren't the intelligent designer tweaking things here or there? Why not? 'Cause if (s)he/they were doing it fairly often then the statistics about mutation frequency would be skewed by the interventions . . . wouldn't they? Maybe skewed isn't the right word . . . biased? Sorry, I like to ask questions. :-)ellazimm
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
#41 Scottandrews I am bored so we might as well go round this again .... "ID doesn’t argue that RM+NS can’t, it argues that, as far as our observations indicate, only intelligence can." And how does it set about proving this? By attempting to show that life is vastly improbable given RM+NS. Point me to any other argument for ID. To put it another way - if it were shown beyond all reasonable doubt that RM+NS can create life would there be any other reason for supposing ID to be true?Mark Frank
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Upright . . . I DON'T REMEMBER!! :-) Give me the link again and I'll look right now! :-)ellazimm
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
ellazim, So what did you make of the Abel paper?Upright BiPed
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
ellazimm, So . . . RM+NS could? Yeah? Just trying to make sure I’m clear here. Read the FAQ. Then the discussion will make more sense. Pretty clearly organisms that can change how some of their genes are expressed are better suited to survive changes in their environment. Makes sense. Now we're describing a rather complicated behavior. Which is more difficult - planning or constructing a spiderweb, or determining which morphological changes are possible considering ones own genome, which ones would be beneficial in one's environment, and then editing one's own DNA accordingly? I'm not ruling out the possibility that living creatures do it, but the behavior still requires one heck of an evolutionary explanation. Let me guess - RM+NS? Welcome back to square one.ScottAndrews
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Scot, #41 "ID doesn’t argue that RM+NS can’t, it argues that, as far as our observations indicate, only intelligence can." So . . . RM+NS could? Yeah? Just trying to make sure I'm clear here. "What caused epigenetic inheritance?" Pretty clearly organisms that can change how some of their genes are expressed are better suited to survive changes in their environment. Is that what you mean? I don't think so but I don't want to put words in your mouth. :-)ellazimm
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
ID argues that current MET=RM+NS and RM+NS cannot account for certain aspects of life therefore life must have been designed. Epigenetics presents a non-designed extension to RM+NS. So this undermines the whole argument. ID doesn't argue that RM+NS can't, it argues that, as far as our observations indicate, only intelligence can. If epigenetics modifies living things according to their environment and needs, then it is simply another feature that requires explanation. What caused epigenetic inheritance? RM+NS? The questions are unchanged.ScottAndrews
October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Re #36 Thanks for the two links. Unfortunately they lead to different definitions of epigenetics - so I am none the wiser! The quarterly review of biology article conveniently devotes a lot of space to defining epigenetics and while it is full of detail it is in line with how I understand it - inheritance through methods other modification of the DNA. A key quote is: Epigenetic inheritance is a component of epigenetics. It occurs when phenotypic variations that do not stem from variations in DNA base sequences are transmitted to subsequent generations of cells or organisms The second link is, of course, written by yourself. You don't actually define epigenetics but under that heading you write: In fact, for years evidence has been growing that species have sophisticated adaptation mechanisms to respond to immediate needs, and that they pass on their adaptation information to their offspring. which is a sort of Larmarckism (hdx has rightly pointed out above that Larmarck's own theory was different). So maybe you define epigenetics as Lamarckism? That would explain your disagreement with PZ Myers and most biologists as you appear to have a different definition. But rather than get bogged down in definitions it might be more fruitful to considering the consequences of inheritance by methods other than modification of the DNA (let's call this epigenetics) for modern evolutionary theory (MET) and ID. As far as MET is concerned epigenetics is a scientific extension and potential revision of some of the theory. The observations are made, the experiments are done. At first there is scepticism but if the data continues to show that epigenetics is important then eventually MET will be modified in the light of the data. This is science as usual. ID argues that current MET=RM+NS and RM+NS cannot account for certain aspects of life therefore life must have been designed. Epigenetics presents a non-designed extension to RM+NS. So this undermines the whole argument.Mark Frank
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
#38
Not much sign of religion in Darwin’s work, either.
It is remarkable that evolutionists declare truths about god and then deny it. Darwin's work was full of religion. I discuss it in *Science's Blind Spot.*Cornelius Hunter
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
Not Lamarckism? Unbelievable. And I suppose Darwin didn't use any religious arguments either.
This was bound to lead back to religion sooner or later. You were right not to disappoint your audience. Yet, in spite of all this fuss, we still do not see - to quote an old example - the children of blacksmith inevitably born with unusually brawny arms. We do not see 100 m sprinters regularly siring children who can get closer to 9.5 seconds than their parents. The offspring of great musicians cannot be relied upon to surpass the talent of their mothers or fathers. Still not much sign of Lamarckism it would seem. Not much sign of religion in Darwin's work , either.Seversky
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
#32
You say that Lamarck is inheritance of acquired traits [but this is] incorrect. As I have shown in several posts Lamarck is inheritance of acquired traits through use and disuse ...
So it isn't, but it is, but it isn't, but ... Bottom line: if you won't accept that Lamarckism entails the inheritance of acquired traits, then for you epigenetics is not a type of Lamarkism.Cornelius Hunter
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
#30: In the post I referenced a good recent review: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/598822 You can also see this overview and its citations: http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variationCornelius Hunter
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
MaxAug@33 - I think your #1 point might be directed at my post (#9). Just as explanation, I did not provide the full quote to say the quote used by Dr. Hunter was out of context. Nevertheless, I think that Dr. Myers's points are fair, reasonable. To me, they express something like exasperation and not defensive maneuvering. Indeed, I am struck by Myers' apparent openness to any hypothesis, so long as the requirement for "rigor" is met. Is this a fair requirement?Larry Tanner
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Three brief comments: 1. Quotation was in context. 2. This reminds me of those "OH, but you stupid creationists are speaking of darwinism, this is outdated, today we have neo-darwinism". 3. I made a presentation about epigenetics last semester (for a genetics class) and IMO, it is fair to call this whole thing "neo lamarckism". Though we should keep in mind the fact that to atheists it doesnt matter the mechanism or such names, as long as it remains a materialism only approach to empirical research.MaxAug
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Cornelius, Saying Lamarckism is "inheritance of acquired characteristics" is like saying Darwinian evolution is "survival of the fittest." They are both pop culture catch phrases that have little to do with the actual ideas. look at the text you didn't quote from post 10. does that really sound like, for example, feeding mice folic acid and turning their offspring brown? how are the mice responding to an inner "need"?Khan
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
@28
The point is that epigenetic mechanisms make for the inheritance of acquired traits — sorry but that’s Lamarckian.
No its not. No matter how many times you repeat it. I bring out a number of excerpts from Lamarck which refute the fact that his writing have nothing to do with epigenetics. You say that Lamarck is inheritance of acquired traits and that inheritance of acquired traits is epigenetics. Both of these are incorrect. As I have shown in several posts Lamarck is inheritance of acquired traits through use and disuse based on wants and feelings. Epigenetics may include inheritance of acquired traits, but it does not necessarily have to be (ie the calico cat is not necessarily an acquired trait).hdx
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
More on Lamarck's wacky theory.
We shall see presently by the citation of known facts which prove it, on one side that the new wants, having rendered such a part necessary, have really by the result of efforts give origin to this part, and that as the result of its sustained use it has gradually strengthened it, developed, and has ended in considerably increasing its size; on the other side we shall see that, in certain cases, the new circumstances and new wants having rendered such a part wholly useless, the total lack of use of this part has led to the result that it has gradually ceased to receive the developement which the other parts of the animal obtain; that it gradually becomes emaciated and thin ; and that finally, when this lack of use has been total during a long time, the part in question ends in disappearing.
And just before his quote (my post 10) on acquired characteristics.
Now, the true order of things necessary t consider in all this consists in recognizing: 1. That every slight change maintained under the circumstances where occur each race of animals, brings about in them a real change in their wants. 2. That every change in the wants of animals necessitates in them other movements (actions) to satisfy the new needs, and consequently other habits. 3. That every new want necessitating new actions to satisfy it, demands of the animal which feels it both the more frequent use of such of its parts of which before it made less use, which develops and considerably enlarges them, and the use of new parts which necessity has cause to insensibly develop in it by the effects of its inner feeling which I shall constantly prove by known facts.
epigenetics has nothing to do with 'inner feeling'. These excerpts have been taken from the book Lamarck, the founder of evolution, downloadable from Google books.hdx
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
#28 "Agreed, but keep in mind that there is a broad set of mechanisms and there is some variance in how the terms are used." I am still intrigued to know how you define epigenetics and where you got the definition from.Mark Frank
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
#27:
Let’s just make sure we are all using the same terms.
Agreed, but keep in mind that there is a broad set of mechanisms and there is some variance in how the terms are used.Cornelius Hunter
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
#22:
The idea of inheritance of acquired traits has been around long before Lamarck, and even Darwin believed a little in the inheritance of acquired traits (and hence his incorrect pangenesis theory to explain it).
Of course, but that doesn't mean Lamarck did not hypothesize the inheritance of acquired traits. Of course not everything that Lamarck hypothesized fits with epigenetics. The point is that epigenetic mechanisms make for the inheritance of acquired traits -- sorry but that's Lamarckian.Cornelius Hunter
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Dr Hunter, And you should say that epigenetics does NOT involve modification of the DNA. It is just a matter of definition of the terms. There is research being done all around these effects and it is important to get the vocabulary down so that everyone is referring to the same phenomena. :-) No one is denying that new mechanisms are being analyzed and understood. That's science. Let's just make sure we are all using the same terms.ellazimm
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
#20 Yes, good point. I take that back--adaptive mutations are often not considered to be part of epigenetics. What I should have said is that the inheritance of acquired traits can occur both ways (ie, without and with DNA modifications).Cornelius Hunter
September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply