IC All The Way Down, The Grand Human Evolutionary Discontinuity, And Probabilistic Resources

_{Gil Dodgen

November 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

The more we learn the more it appears that almost everything of any significance in living systems is irreducibly complex. Multiple systems must almost always be simultaneously modified to proceed to the next island of function. Every software engineer knows this, and living things are fundamentally based on software.

Evolution in the fossil record is consistently characterized by major discontinuities — as my thesis about IC being a virtually universal rule at all levels, from the cell to human cognition and language, would suggest — and the discontinuity between humans and all other living things is the most profound of all. Morphological similarities are utterly swamped by the profound differences exhibited by human language, math, art, engineering, ethics, and much more.

Yes, chimps have been shown to use tools: They can pick up ants with a stick in order to eat them. But there is a big difference between this and designing and building a Cray supercomputer or an F-35 fighter aircraft. To the best of my knowledge our primitive simian ancestors did not advance beyond ant-stick technology.

I continue to be bewildered by the fact that proponents of human evolution by Darwinian mechanisms (i.e., random errors filtered by natural selection) don’t do some simple math to see that the probabilistic resources are hopelessly inadequate, even when the most optimistic assumptions are made.

Unrealistically and optimistically assume the following base-ten orders of magnitude: an average generation time of 10^1 years; an average population of 10^8; and a time frame of 10^7 years.

Do the math. With these probabilistic resources it is assumed by Darwinian theorists that their mechanism produced the most profound and stunning of all evolutionary discontinuities.

I believe that our ancient ancestors were just as smart as we are. They figured out, in their time and with what they had access to, how to make fire, bows and arrows, art, and much more. If I were to be transported back to those times, and be stripped of my current knowledge, I would probably be considered an idiot by the dudes who figured out fire and arrows.

Chimps are still picking up ants with sticks.

Something very profound happened, very suddenly, and Darwinian theory clearly does not explain it.

Comments

Voice Coil:
What I state above is that by the criteria Joseph uses to conclude that gaur and cow are the same species as one another, we must also conclude that Home habilis and Homo sapiens are the same species as one another. Habilis and sapiens are certainly as similar in light of Joeph’s criteria as are gaur and cow.
The criteria I use is observations of LIVING organisms. The fact that they can succesfully interbreed- gaurs and domy cows- is an OBSERVATION and can be repeated. Also: Homo Habilis:
The classification of H. habilis into the Homo genus is controversial. Like Homo rudolfensis, H. habilis lacked many of the things that were unique to later hominins such as slim hips for walking long distances, a sophisticated sweating system, narrow birth canal, and legs longer than arms. Such traits as noticeable whites in the eyes, smaller hairs resulting in exposed skin, and a naked appearance remain theoretical. Imagine that! Just as I have been saying since VC introduced this nonsense.
Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Kontinental, I am not using body plan to decide anything. However it is obvious that a gaur resembles a cow- and the two can succesfully interbreed. The gaur has the same body plan as a cow so I wouldn't doubt that a gaur would form when gaur DNA is placed inside of an egg of a cow. However if one puts gaur DNA inside of a rabit, I doubt a gaur would form, even though they are both mammals. Nakashima:
Tell them that frogs and rabbits have freakin’ virtually the same type of body plan, so our species concept is ambigous.
Only an ignorant person would say that rabbits and frogs have virtually the same body plan. IOW Nak you would be telling people that, not I. I take it you don't know very much about biology and you think that is my fault...Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, If gaurs and cows are different species so to are caucasians, africans and asians. I say that because there are more differences observed between caucasians and africans then there are between domesticated cows and gaurs. If you do the research you will find out that the two can breed succesfully. As for Dr Wells I provided the evidence: Scientists have taken the DNA of one species and placed it into an egg of a species that isn't related. It resulted in the death of the embryo. Ya see the DNA is NOT an independent entity. It is not even a self-replicator. DNA replicates along with the cell. The CELL Nakashima is more important to the contribution of body plan than the DNA. THAT is what embryology is telling us.Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil, When I have a complete and working Homo halibis to examine I will give you my answer. Until then anyone and everyone is just guessing as to what "species" it is.Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
I believe there are differences between humans and cows that have to do with bodily functions and parts. People are playing games with this discussion. There is no attempt to get to a reasoned dialogue. It is the typical form of gotcha confined to meaningless distinctions. This is not new for what goes on here from those who oppose ID.
Assuming that you are responding to my post, you misread my intended meaning. If I was unclear above then I apologize. What I state above is that by the criteria Joseph uses to conclude that gaur and cow are the same species as one another, we must also conclude that Home habilis and Homo sapiens are the same species as one another. Habilis and sapiens are certainly as similar in light of Joeph's criteria as are gaur and cow. No one is asserting that Homo sapiens and cows are the same species, by any standard.Voice Coil_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, My point is and has always been that DNA does NOT determine form. Using strictly Dentonian terms, I agree. DNA influences form, because it is the formal cause of the form. However, if you use the word more casually (and your language during this discussion has been casual at times) I would disagree.Nakashima_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, I strongly agree with you that cows and humans are separate species. I would love to have a reasoned dialogue about the scientific evidence for Mr Joseph's positions, sadly it has not been forthcoming. If you have either Design of Life or the other book that was cited, and can find a place where Dr Wells presents evidence that supports Mr Joseph's view, please help move the dialogue forward. Thank you.Nakashima_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

I believe there are differences between humans and cows that have to do with bodily functions and parts. People are playing games with this discussion. There is no attempt to get to a reasoned dialogue. It is the typical form of gotcha confined to meaningless distinctions. This is not new for what goes on here from those who oppose ID.jerry_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I appreciate your comments because you are never afraid to speak your opinion. However, as Voice Coil has pointed out, we need to draw a line between species: If you refer to the body plan as sufficient to decide it's the same kind, not only there is not difference between us and homo habilis - we are not even different from e.g. pan troglodytes.Kontinental_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
Again a gaur and cow have the SAME body plan and same body parts.
As do Homo habilis and Homo sapiens. Same body plan and same body parts, with differences almost entirely confined to differences of proportion. Indeed, the similarity is greater than between gaur and domestic cattle. By your "criteria," habilis and sapiens are the same species. So where are the fundamental discontinuities that concern the OP?Voice Coil_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Go to the Bronx Zoo. Stand in front of the gaur enclosure and inform passing tourists that the animals in the enclosure are the same species as cows, and are therefore not endangered. When the park staff arrive, engage them in the same discussion. Tell me how many you convince. Tell them that species means "freakin' virtually the same type of body plan". Tell them that frogs and rabbits have freakin' virtually the same type of body plan, so our species concept is ambigous. Then show them your reference from the peer reviewed scientific literature that back up your claim about interspecies SCNT. Or stay home and don't embarass yourself, because none of that is true, and you don't have a paper to back up your claim. Do you?Nakashima_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Nakashima:
we should not lose sight of the fact that you have put forward a claim that even close species should resemble the egg.
I never put forward that claim for the simple reason that closely related species already resemble each other! Duh. And as far as we know what we call "closely related species" are most likely the same species. So yes if we take the DNA from one organism and put it into the egg of another that has the SAME body plan and uses the SAME body parts, I wouldn't expect anything but a normal birth. My point is and has always been that DNA does NOT determine form. If it did we should be able to take DNA from one organism and put it into an egg of another- one that has a different body plan- and the result should be that of the DNA donor. Yet scientists have done such a thing and that did NOT happen.Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

oops- ambiguous The point being is if gaur and domesticated cows are a different species then so are Asians and Africans.Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

But I do thank you for proving that our "species" concept is ambiguis at best and most likely wrong.Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil, Again a gaur and cow have the SAME body plan and same body parts. And as I said all the gaur/ cow thing does is call into question OUR classification techniques. That you can't understand that says quite a bit about your agenda.Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, once again- My argument HAS ALWAYS BEEN about body form and TYPE of body parts- ALWAYS. Just because you are incapable of understanding what I said doesn't mean anyuthing to me. A cow and a gaur have the SAME body plan and the SAME types of body parts. That said scientists have conducted the tests- they have put totally different species together in the same egg- DNA from one into an egg of another. Nothing developed- fully.Joseph_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
The body plan for a freakin’ gaur is the SAME as a cow. The eye of a gaur is the same as a freakin’ cow. Both are the same Genus... Ya see this gets to the heart of the problem- classification.
That would be your only move - invoke a private language, in which "species" means "genus" or has some other private meaning. It is your only move because:
We also know that if we take the DNA of one species put it into an egg of another, if anything develops it will resemble the species of the EGG.
Is false. It is false because: - Gaur vs. domestic cow = different species. - Gaur nuclei -> domestic cow oocyte = live gaur.
It would be like taking the DNA from an Asian and sticking it into an African woman’s egg.
Also inapt, because: - Gaur vs. domestic cow = different species. - Asian person vs. African person = same species. So it would not be like that.Voice Coil_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Now if you were to find to very different types- ya know with different body plans- of organisms and do this experiment and the result resembled the DNA donor, you would have a point. The scientific world may some day get around to helping frogs give brith to lobsters, but in the mean time, we should not lose sight of the fact that you have put forward a claim that even close species should resemble the egg. A claim ou have not yet substantiated in any way. A claim controverted by exiating live births and embryo studies. While I'm sure that "Freakin' virtually the same type" will eventually overtake "species" as an unambiguous way to distinguish populations, your claim does refer to species.Nakashima_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Voice Coil:
And, by your metric, Homo habilis was just another freakin type of person, virtually the same thing.
Not really. Ya see this gets to the heart of the problem- classification.Joseph_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, I didn't shift nor move anything. I stated right from the start what my position is. That you couldn't understand it is your problem not mine. The body plan for a freakin' gaur is the SAME as a cow. The eye of a gaur is the same as a freakin' cow. Both are the same Genus. It would be like taking the DNA from an Asian and sticking it into an African woman's egg. Now if you were to find to very different types- ya know with different body plans- of organisms and do this experiment and the result resembled the DNA donor, you would have a point. Yet to date that has not been accomplished, yet it has been tried.Joseph_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Thank you for clarifying your claim. Shift of goalposts duly noted. Since "we know" still applies to this claim, what is your reference to this now clarified claim? Does Dr Wells have a reference in the peer reviewed scientific literature that backs up this statement? A result that shows that all live birth interspecies SNCT resemble the mother's species? Such a result must of course use a definition of species and test for species difference that you and Dr Wells both accept as definitive. My context has ALWAYS been with the TYPE of organism and the TYPE of eye. The type of the organism can be determined well before birth, as the tests I listed for you show. These tests clearly differentiate between human and rabbit in the paper I referenced for you. A gaur is a freakin type of cow. They are virtually the same thing Since we can distinguish the type of cow between a gaur and a regular domestic cow, I'm sure your concern noted above: My context has ALWAYS been with the TYPE of organism and the TYPE of eye. Is satisfied by these results. And as noted previously, they are different enough that scientists are willing to go to these extraordinary lengths to get them. For a purpose of getting a guar, simply crossbreeding with a cow is not enough, the reult would not be a guar. And the reult of this process is not a cow, otherwise why bother?Nakashima_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Joseph in 222:
A gaur is a freakin type of cow. They are virtually the same thing.
And, by your metric, Homo habilis was just another freakin type of person, virtually the same thing. No different: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_habilis-cropped.jpgVoice Coil_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, My context has ALWAYS been with the TYPE of organism and the TYPE of eye. We do NOT know where that information resides. The "Altenberg 16" confirms that.Joseph_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Voice Coil, All your posts tell me is that there is a lot of ambiguity in our classification system.Joseph_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, When I said
We also know that if we take the DNA of one species and put it into an egg of another, if anything develops it will resemble the species of the EGG.
It means FULLY DEVELOP. A gaur is a freakin type of cow. They are virtually the same thingJoseph_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Josph:
Fully develop…
As of the 2006 review cited above there were five instances of interspecies nuclear transfer resulting in live births (read, "fully developed"). All such cross species transfers occurred within the same genus. All resulted in animals of the species donating the nuclei. Therefore these within genus differences are determined by DNA. This has clear bearing upon the OP, because Homo habilis (at the outset of human evolution) and Homo sapiens (the present day) are both members of the genus Homo. Successful interspecies, within genus transfers support the argument that evolutionary changes of that magnitude are determined by changes within DNA.Voice Coil_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Joseph, get well soon!Kontinental_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Yes, I understood that the embryo did not fully develop. I also understood that this did not prevent the researchers from testing the embryo in a variety of ways, all of which showed that the cells of the embryo tested human, not rabbit. Of course "fully develop" is just another move of the goalposts. Your original claim: We also know that if we take the DNA of one species and put it into an egg of another, if anything develops it will resemble the species of the EGG. Since you claim "anything" that includes embryos, and asking now for "fully develop" shifts the goalposts. Even so, that only is an objection to the study I referenced. Other posters have cited studies that include live birth. Think about it. Researchers using these techniques to preserve an endangered species: gaur nucleus into cow egg born via cow. You claim the result is a cow. There are cheaper ways of making cows.Nakashima_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Goldfish are carp, but they are not common carp, which is the subject of the paper. The two species are in different genera. Sun et al., Cytoplasmic Impact on Cross-Genus Cloned Fish Derived from Transgenic Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Nuclei and Goldfish (Carassius auratus) Enucleated Eggs, Biology of Reproduction 2005. This is an unsupported and false statement that needs to be retracted.
We also know that if we take the DNA of one species and put it into an egg of another, if anything develops it will resemble the species of the EGG.
As Intelligent Design is not contrained by evidence, it means the ID Community will raise no objection to such statements, even with regards to fundamental biological patterns such as Common Descent. And that's why ID is intellectually vacuous and scientifically sterile. There is no there there.Zachriel_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, Yes it was Jonathan Wells- once in his chapter in "Signs of Intelligence" and also in "Design of Life". If I have time I will do more research today.Joseph_{December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply