Evolution Professor: I Was Not Talking About Teleology

_{Cornelius Hunter

May 27, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Evolution is interesting because while it is based on religious beliefs, evolutionists insist it is all about science. Consider, for example, PZ Myers as he writes in the Los Angeles Times that God would not have created this world, while nonetheless claiming that he’s just following the scientific evidence. Or consider Jerry Coyne who goes into great detail about how this world would not have been intended by a creator, and in the next moment claims that these are scientific results. This sort of thinking goes back to Darwin and before, and it is foundational to evolutionary thought. It runs all through the evolution literature, but it doesn’t work. You can’t claim the high ground of scientific empiricism while relying on metaphysics to make your case. Read more

Comments

p.s. How is an infant with a well-formed tail evidence for bad design?Mung_{June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Just what are the requirements to be a Christian Darwinist anyways? THEN: “I was not trying to rule out design or talk about teleology at all.” AND NOW: "I gave some examples of bad design and showed a picture of an infant with a well-formed tail to illustrate one example." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/on_human_tails_086241.htmlMung_{June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, This is completely off topic, but I want to know your opinion. Please do me a favor, would you mind taking a quick look at the last few comments in the below link? Thank you! https://uncommondescent.com/genomics/central-dogma-missing-and-presumed-dead/#comment-502637Dionisio_{June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Hi Acartia_bogart and Barb, The ICR article by biologist Frank Sherwin made for interesting reading. FYI, here's a post I wrote in 2012 about whale evolution: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinians-concoct-a-whale-of-a-tale-about-the-evolution-of-the-ear/vjtorley_{June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Counterpoint, Acartia: http://www.icr.org/article/scientific-roadblocks-whale-evolution/Barb_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Comparative anatomy of fossils such as Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon and others. Add to this stable isotope ratios of fossils that help identify the environments that each of these fossils lived in, comparative molecular biology of extant mammals to show the most likely relationships and whale embryology. These provide multiple lines of evidence for the land origin of whales.Acartia_bogart_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

"How do you explain the very good fossil record for whales doing just that?" Care to show us the evidence A_B?PeterJ_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

@Barb: "Evolution also doesn’t run backwards. If the fittest are to reproduce and survive, they can’t devolve into what they were before. Fish are said to have grown legs and left the ocean; did they also devolve legs, regain their fins, and resume swimming? Because that makes absolutely no sense." Yes. How do you explain the very good fossil record for whales doing just that?Acartia_bogart_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Mung knows the evo propaganda a bit too well. Could it be that Mung is an.... :)Joe_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Joe:
Heck we can’t even test the claim that stochastic processes produced eukaryotes from prokaryotes.
Sure we can. That's how we know that prokaryotes actually evolved from eukaryotes. By stochastic processes, of course.Mung_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Unfortunately for evos there isn't any way to test the claim that stochastic processes produced vision systems. Heck we can't even test the claim that stochastic processes produced eukaryotes from prokaryotes.Joe_{May 30, 2014
May
05
May
30
30
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Poitr @ 33:
Numerous lineages of terrestrial vertebrates (e.g. ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, sea turtles, mosasaurs, cetaceans, sirenians, pinnipeds), have returned to the sea, developing new fins/flippers and flukes/tailfins. Modern cetaceans have lost their hind legs. Of course they haven’t evolved back into fish, but their general body plan is superficially fish-like.
Unfortunately, I think you’ve swallowed a fish tale. New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.” [New Scientist, February 4, 1982, p. 320.] A geneticist writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.” [Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 147.] “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.” [The New Evolutionary Timetable, p. 95.]Barb_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Querius @ 34:
Evolution can run backwards, forwards, and sideways. It can make huge jumps in no time at all, or stop completely for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution can make species diverge, converge, and merge. Specific features can evolve, devolve, and drift independently many times over in billions of years. It explains everything and successfully predicts nothing.
Does it make julienne fries as well?Barb_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Barb @ 32 noted
Evolution also doesn’t run backwards. If the fittest are to reproduce and survive, they can’t devolve into what they were before. Fish are said to have grown legs and left the ocean; did they also devolve legs, regain their fins, and resume swimming?
Evolution can run backwards, forwards, and sideways. It can make huge jumps in no time at all, or stop completely for hundreds of millions of years. Evolution can make species diverge, converge, and merge. Specific features can evolve, devolve, and drift independently many times over in billions of years. It explains everything and successfully predicts nothing.
Because that makes absolutely no sense.
Of course it doesn't, but we're told that it's the only game in town. What you need to do is watch 2001: A Space Odyssey a few hundred times. ;-) -QQuerius_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Evolution also doesn’t run backwards. If the fittest are to reproduce and survive, they can’t devolve into what they were before.
Sometimes fitter = smaller and simpler. Even if evolution isn't likely to retrace its steps, it can result in reduction, simplification and loss of traits.
Fish are said to have grown legs and left the ocean; did they also devolve legs, regain their fins, and resume swimming? Because that makes absolutely no sense.
Numerous lineages of terrestrial vertebrates (e.g. ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, sea turtles, mosasaurs, cetaceans, sirenians, pinnipeds), have returned to the sea, developing new fins/flippers and flukes/tailfins. Modern cetaceans have lost their hind legs. Of course they haven't evolved back into fish, but their general body plan is superficially fish-like.Piotr_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Acartia,
Barb, there can be changes without adaptive advantage (eg., drift) but that is a different story. A mutation may occur that results in change that is neither good nor bad. It may hang around in the population for generations at low numbers simply because it is not selected against. I don’t think that anybody would call it an improvement; it is just part of the variation amongst the population. However, the environment may change in such a way that this trait now providesan advantage to those who have it relative to the rest of the population and it comes to dominate.
Hence, an improvement. While I completely disagree with the evolutionary icon of quadrupedal apelike creatures going to bipedal humans, that’s what’s being taught in schools everywhere as evidence for evolutionary theory. Man is an improving animal. If that’s not entirely correct, then do away with it altogether or modify it so that it better represents evolutionary progress. Because that’s what evolution teaches: progression by natural selection acting on mutations.
That is why it is wrong to look at evolution as something that is constantly improving the organism. In fact, it could result in changes that ultimately lead to extinction, and nobody would consider this an improvement.
Evolution also doesn’t run backwards. If the fittest are to reproduce and survive, they can’t devolve into what they were before. Fish are said to have grown legs and left the ocean; did they also devolve legs, regain their fins, and resume swimming? Because that makes absolutely no sense.Barb_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Barb, there can be changes without adaptive advantage (eg., drift) but that is a different story. A mutation may occur that results in change that is neither good nor bad. It may hang around in the population for generations at low numbers simply because it is not selected against. I don't think that anybody would call it an improvement; it is just part of the variation amongst the population. However, the environment may change in such a way that this trait now provides an advantage to those who have it relative to the rest of the population and it comes to dominate. That is why it is wrong to look at evolution as something that is constantly improving the organism. In fact, it could result in changes that ultimately lead to extinction, and nobody would consider this an improvement.Acartia_bogart_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Acartia,
What evolutionary biologist stated that evolution presents modern man as an improving animal?
The goal of evolution is reproduction and survival. Improvements such as beneficial mutations and natural selection acting on said mutations would result in an improved animal.
The only thing that evolution does is result in a changing animal.
Again, beneficial mutations would be considered changes; they could also be considered improvements.
This misconception probably arose as a result of that iconic (and inaccurate) graphic of a series of figures, starting with an ape-like animal on the left and a modern human on the right.</blockquote. Oh, the one that Jonathan Wells completely demolished in his book Icons of Evolution?
Because we view it from an anthropocentric perspective, our emotions direct us to assume that the human on the right is an improvement on any of the others in the series. In fact, the change could just as easily have gone in the other direction, from an upright bi-ped to a four footed quadruped. And may yet.
So, if humans=bad, then ape-like creatures with little intelligence and capacity for rational thought=better? Seriously?
Obviously there is a huge adaptive advantage to having a large brain. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Bigger brains don’t mean greater intelligence Also see here
Barb_{May 29, 2014
May
05
May
29
29
2014
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Which one is more likely to falsify evolution, good design or bad design? Or do you get to have it both ways?
Good design is exactly what we would expect if evolution is true. So is bad design. After all, Darwin's theory is supposed to give us design without a designer. Good design. Bad design. Perfect design. imperfect design. It's never been all that clear to me just what this magical theory of design consists of beyond the claim of no designer. Do they have an actual theory of design?Mung_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

@Barb: "That is only one of the differences, depending on your viewpoint: evolution presents modern man as an improving animal." What evolutionary biologist stated that evolution presents modern man as an improving animal? The only thing that evolution does is result in a changing animal. This misconception probably arose as a result of that iconic (and inaccurate) graphic of a series of figures, starting with an ape-like animal on the left and a modern human on the right. Because we view it from an anthropocentric perspective, our emotions direct us to assume that the human on the right is an improvement on any of the others in the series. In fact, the change could just as easily have gone in the other direction, from an upright bi-ped to a four footed quadruped. And may yet. Obviously there is a huge adaptive advantage to having a large brain. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.Acartia_bogart_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

the inverted retina, which evolutionists insist is "bad design", is now found to be a 'optimal design: "Evolution" gave flawed eye better vision Excerpt: IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. ,,, Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages. At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and "noise" that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157 Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021 Light propagation explains our inverted retina - A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak http://spie.org/documents/Newsroom/Imported/003189/003189_10.pdf Eye Cells as Light Pipes - article accompanied by video and graph http://physics.aps.org/story/v25/st15 Eyeballing Design by Casey Luskin - December 2011 Excerpt:,,, the team of scientists who determined the function of glial cells concluded that the "retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images." http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo19/19luskin.php moreover: If Odd Arrangements and Funny Solutions are the Proof of Evolution, Then What About These Optimized Designs? - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012 Excerpt: Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-odd-arrangements-and-funny-solutions.htmlbornagain77_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart: Oh, look. It’s this argument again.
You suffer from the same misconception that many people who don’t understand the process do. Natural selection has never been about perfection. It can only work with the materials at hand. There is no pre-conceived plan.
That is only one of the differences, depending on your viewpoint: evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible, on the other hand, presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man.
By any standard, the octopus eye is a much better design than the human eye. Surely, an intelligent designer, who must be orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, would not place all of the connective tissue in from of the light receptors and then run a huge nerve through the very centre of it.
So, the issue is that in the human eye, the retina of vertebrates is inverted, placing the photoreceptors at the back of the retina. To reach them, light must pass through several layers of cells. Now, the claim evolutionists make is that the inverted retina is evidence of poor design—really, no design. One scientist even described it as a “functionally stupid upside-down orientation.” However, further research reveals that the photoreceptors of the inverted retina are ideally placed next to the pigment epithelium—a cell layer that provides oxygen and nutrients vital to keen sight. “If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised,” wrote biologist Jerry Bergman and ophthalmologist Joseph Calkins. Additionally, with the nerve cells of the retina tightly packed and close to the photoreceptors, analysis of visual information is fast and reliable. The inverted retina is especially advantageous for vertebrates with small eyes. Says professor Ronald Kröger, of the University of Lund, Sweden: “Between the lens of the eye and the photoreceptors, there must be a certain distance to get a sharp image. Having this space filled with nerve cells means an important saving of space for the vertebrates.” See also Dr. Michael Denton’s article here: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm And: http://www.catalase.com/retina.htm See the bolded word? That’s a doctor who studies eyes and their functions. I’ll take his word over your argument any day of the week. He knows what he’s talking about.Barb_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Did I actually see someone use the "god of the gaps" argument? The only gap that I am aware of has increased since Charlie wrote his tome back in the day, and that is the gap between fantasy and reality as it concerns what evolutionists believe and what we know about life.OldArmy94_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

@Oldarmy: "What amazes me is that these same evolutionists who have posited that the vertebral eye has evolved some 50 times and the brain twice, fail to explain why this wondrous, mighty force is unable to redirect this nerve. We aren’t asking for much, after all. Could it be that such a design is not so sub-optimal after all; if it were, certainly evolution would’ve done its magic." You suffer from the same misconception that many people who don't understand the process do. Natural selection has never been about perfection. It can only work with the materials at hand. There is no pre-conceived plan. By any standard, the octopus eye is a much better design than the human eye. Surely, an intelligent designer, who must be orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, would not place all of the connective tissue in from of the light receptors and then run a huge nerve through the very centre of it.Acartia_bogart_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

What KF said ^ :)humbled_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

wd400 has anything changed since Crick made his infamous appeal to UFO's so as to explain life's origin??? Aparently not: Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began By John Horgan | February 28, 2011 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/02/28/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/bornagain77_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

PS: Just for the first plausible cell's DNA, we are looking at 100 - 1,000 kbases, or about as many bits. That is 100 to 1,000 times the 1,000 bit threshold, where the config space for a bit string goes as 2^n, i.e. doubles for each additional bit. 2^1,000 ~ 1.07 * 10^301.kairosfocus_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

WD400: Have you demonstrated empirically that FSCO/I as just discussed, can come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity? Specifically, for 1,000 bits of FSCO/I, the atomic resources of the observed cosmos, for its lifespan, and using the Planck time as a clock-tick, could not sample 1 in 10^ 150 of the possibilities. In effect use every atom in the observed cosmos -- all the cosmos we ACTUALLY have observed -- for 10^17 or so s, all 10^80, and give each a tray of 1,000 coins. Every 10^-45 s, toss and read, feeding a detection mechanism as appropriate. In 10^17 s, you will not be able to pick a sample as much as a straw to a haystack much larger than the observed cosmos. The search by blind chance and mechanical necessity is empirically maximally implausible. That is why OOL is the first fatal flaw in evolutionary materialism. KFkairosfocus_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

PS: Not to mention, jumping to the conclusion -- or is that imposing the assumption -- that blind chance and mechanical necessity can create such FSCO/I, never mind not having actually shown such. But, smuggle in a priori materialism by the back door, lock out anything else by improperly redefining science and hey presto, dubious speculation becomes as certain as the roundness of the earth or the like.kairosfocus_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

wd400, Which one is more likely to falsify evolution, good design or bad design? Or do you get to have it both ways?phoodoo_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply