Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A year ago, Nature published an educational booklet with the title 15 Evolutionary gems (as a resource for the Darwin Bicentennial). Number 2 gem is Tiktaalik a well-preserved fish that has been widely acclaimed as documenting the transition from fish to tetrapod. Tiktaalik was an elpistostegalian fish: a large, shallow-water dwelling carnivore with tetrapod affinities yet possessing fins. Unfortunately, until Tiktaalik, most elpistostegids remains were poorly preserved fragments.

“In 2006, Edward Daeschler and his colleagues described spectacularly well preserved fossils of an elpistostegid known as Tiktaalik that allow us to build up a good picture of an aquatic predator with distinct similarities to tetrapods – from its flexible neck, to its very limb-like fin structure. The discovery and painstaking analysis of Tiktaalik illuminates the stage before tetrapods evolved, and shows how the fossil record throws up surprises, albeit ones that are entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking.”

Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported – throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: “can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years”. At a stroke, this rules out not only Tiktaalik as a tetrapod ancestor, but also all known representatives of the elpistostegids. The arrival of tetrapods is now considered to be 20 million years earlier than previously thought and these tetrapods must now be regarded as coexisting with the elpistostegids. Once again, the fossil record has thrown up a big surprise, but this one is not “entirely compatible with evolutionary thinking”. It is a find that was not predicted and it does not fit at all into the emerging consensus.

“Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into that picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachemie, Poland, that are unambiguously dated to the lowermost Eifelian (397 Myr ago). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.” (Janvier & Clement, 2010)

The Nature Editor’s summary explained: “The finds suggests that the elpistostegids that we know were late-surviving relics rather than direct transitional forms, and they highlight just how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates.” Henry Gee, one of the Nature editors, wrote in a blog:

“What does it all mean?
It means that the neatly gift-wrapped correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny, in which elpistostegids represent a transitional form in the swift evolution of tetrapods in the mid-Frasnian, is a cruel illusion. If – as the Polish footprints show – tetrapods already existed in the Eifelian, then an enormous evolutionary void has opened beneath our feet.”

For more, go here:
Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/01/09/lobbing_a_grenade_into_the_tetrapod_evol

Additional note: The Henry Gee quote is interesting for the words “elpistostegids represent a transitional form”. In some circles, transitional forms are ‘out’ because Darwinism presupposes gradualism and every form is no more and no less transitional than any other form. Gee reminds us that in the editorial office of Nature, it is still legitimate to refer to old-fashioned transitional forms!

Comments
Even Nick Matzke was trying to belittle biological information the other day like it is a nebulous concept.
Can you give me a value for the biological information in a Stoat? Jerry, can you provide a list of biological artifacts in order of their "biological complexity"?h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Joseph, Good catch. But while it lasted, it was good show prep. They are desperate. Even Nick Matzke was trying to belittle biological information the other day like it is a nebulous concept.jerry
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
That isn’t about disproving ID, my backwards me.
It is about finding which explanation best fits the body of evidence. If ID cannot be falsified in any way, shape, or form, it is indeed a poor candidate for a valid explanation, no matter how ramshackle the opposing explanation is.Leviathan
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
h.pesoj is a troll. h.pesoj is just my name spelled backwards. :cool: Could be a sock-puppet for Zachriel. But I will answer the backwards me:
Providing a detailed pathway such as you demand would not disprove ID in any meaningful way.
That isn't about disproving ID, my backwards me. That is about figuring out what is required. Once you determine what is required then you try to reduce that to cause-and-effect- what could cause X number of components to come together to produce this system (the effect)? But anyway- thanks for the laugh...Joseph
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
h. pesoj @ 108: As I expected, more misdirection. I asked for a Darwinian recipe for a complex organ or system. Instead of admitting: "I don't have an adequate Darwinian explanation for any complex organ or system, and I don't believe anyone else does, either", you turn around and ask me how ID explains such systems. That's a fair question -- but not as a means of dodging the question posed. Your other remarks show a confusion between Darwinian evolution and front-loaded evolution. Front-loaded evolution is compatible with ID; Darwinian evolution, strictly understood (i.e., as Darwin understood it, and as major disciples like Gaylord Simpson and Dawkins and Gould understood it) is not compatible with ID. A full Darwinian explanation for several major organs or systems would not "disprove" ID in the strict sense, but the greater the number of successful explanations, the more ID would become explanatorily redundant. Indeed, Darwin's purpose in writing was to make design explanatorily redundant. That is the purpose of Dawkins and Coyne today. At any rate, Darwinian theory is nowhere near success in that endeavour, as your silence regarding even one organ or system indicates. (By the way, the sketchy storytelling you gave about the flagellum -- without a list of hypothetical intermediate stages (there would have to be many, not just the TTSS), and without both the genomic transformations and the utility of those intermediate stages nailed down -- is worthless. Look at the model I provided. That's the gold standard. Your example doesn't even make the lead standard.) T.Timaeus
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
"I mean, did you never hear of “designed to evolve”? ID cannot be disproven in that way as it seems to retreat each time. Last resort is of course that the universe was designed" One of the hypothesis that I like to consider is that the current micro-evolutionary system is excellent design. The replication system and error correction process in the genome and the inheritance mechanism are such that it allows minor changes to genomes over time and then this allows organisms to adapt to new environments. Thus, one thing that makes sense is the idea "designed to evolve." However, this process is limited so it cannot explain everything. I have written a few long comments about ID and how it is distorted by those who argue against it. It is not the best prose in the world but it lays out the issues and tries to dispel any misconceptions. Since they are long and I understand time constraints, you may not read them but some of your objections are covered in these comments. Here they are if you or anyone else wants to comment on them. The links are to the specific comments and one of them is a series of three comments. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/november-apologetics-conference-we-need-more-than-good-arguments/#comment-296129 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-commenters-win-one-for-the-gipper/#comment-299358 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lenny-susskind-on-the-evolution-of-physicists/#comment-326046 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faq2-is-open-for-comment/#comment-304029jerry
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
"Can you tell me a single fact about how those pupils, either of them, came to be via your purported intelligent designer? I thought not." This is becoming silly. Haven't you heard about synthetic biology? My guess that in a couple thousand years they will catch up to the designer.jerry
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Lenski's work is considered good ID science. Behe when asked what should science do to support his thesis in the Edge of Evolution, he replied research like what Lenski is doing at Michigan State. So here we have a virulent anti ID scientists doing ID work and supporting basic ID propositions. Life is good.jerry
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
"Indeed, and it has been. But the “evidence” is of course the details that are far too tedious to include in any book. Lenski left alot of work out in his seminal paper on bacterial evolution, but the details are there if you care to look." We have asked biologist here and we have had evolutionary biologist here and none have been able to provide an explanation for the origin of complex novel capabilities. So what are we to think. Then along comes someone who says it all exists. Well show us poor rubes the truth. My guess you will slink off like the rest of them when your bluff is exposed. "I take it you’ve read Dawkin’s latest book then? What did you make of it? On what page was the first factual error" Parts of it. It is what he fails to do that is damning. We recently had a discussion on the eye and Dawkins was a no show on that topic. He does not discuss anything of relevance regarding the building of information in a genome. There are two big holes he danced around. So far I have not read anything relevant but I will continue on. Maybe you could suggest a chapter that would be worthy of discussion. You have to understand that ID accept evolution but just questions the mechanism for parts of it. So a recitation of the obvious is not going to cut it. You can pile fact on fact and we will just nod our heads in agreement but what will be carefully avoided is the origin of complex capabilities. I just pointed out two areas where Dawkins disappeared when he was needed.jerry
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
H.pesoj, what did you think of Neil Shubin's book Your Inner Fish? I found it to be a good read, despite it being simplified down alot for a lay audience.efren ts
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
h. pesoj @99: Your reply shows a lack of discipline. You do not stay on the point that is being argued. Instead of answering my utterly clear and precisely focused question, you change the subject to "which of us knows more about population genetics?". But population genetics is irrelevant to my question. My question was not about how alleles spread through populations. My question was about how radically new cellular machinery and radically new organs and systems are built. Either you have not understood what I am asking, or you are deliberately misdirecting the readers here, hoping to convince them that you must be right and I must be wrong if you know more about population genetics than I do. Such a tactic is intellectually shameless -- but that is nothing new for Darwinists. Misdirection doesn't work with me. I've been studying evolution for about 45 years now, am a former Darwinist myself, and know all the dodges and all the subterfuges. Can you produce an explanation of the sort I have asked for, or not? Do you have the slightest clue what parts of the genome would have to be altered to create an iris, a cornea, the various muscles and fluids, the biochemistry of the retina, etc.? Can you tell me, for example, which base pairs would have to be dropped, and which rearranged, to make it possible for a non-dilatable pupil to become dilatable? Can you tell me how the embryonic process that creates the octopus's eye differs from the embryonic process that creates the human eye, and pinpoint the sectors on the corresponding genomes that account for this difference? If you cannot do these things, how can you say with any certainty that Darwinian processes could have made the necessary alterations to produce the camera eye? It's of course antecedently very unlikely that you personally can provide what Dawkins, Gould, Orr, etc. cannot provide. If you could provide it, you wouldn't be wasting your time in an amateur forum like this; you'd be up on a stand accepting your Nobel Prize, along with a tenured position at the world-class university of your choice. But I'm willing to be proved wrong. Maybe you are a scientific genius ranking up there with Darwin and Newton. Or maybe you are aware of a book or article that has somehow escaped the notice of Dawkins, Coyne, Orr, Eugenie Scott, etc., which has the detailed explanation I have asked for. If so, name me the book or article that shows a full pathway. Your choice of system or organ. You have the floor, in an ID forum, and the opportunity to demolish ID once and for all. You can't ask for a more generous offer than that. T.Timaeus
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Jerry
Nonsense. If it exists then it could be put in a form accessible for the lay public. Darwin’s book was meant for the lay public and any assessment of current micro biology or genetics could also be made clear to this public.
Indeed, and it has been. But the "evidence" is of course the details that are far too tedious to include in any book. Lenski left alot of work out in his seminal paper on bacterial evolution, but the details are there if you care to look. I take it you've read Dawkin's latest book then? What did you make of it? On what page was the first factual error?h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Jerry, What are your answers to these questions then? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lobbing-a-grenade-into-the-tetrapod-evolution-picture/comment-page-2/#comment-345566h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
"Much of the evidence is very technicial and not suitable for a lay-audience." Nonsense. If it exists then it could be put in a form accessible for the lay public. Darwin's book was meant for the lay public and any assessment of current micro biology or genetics could also be made clear to this public. Your series of questions on genetics is irrelevant since we already have had evolutionary biologist tell us the answer is not in genetics which ID has no problem with but with the origin of variation. This a bogus explanation. As to enforcement, examine what happened to McWhorter when he strayed off the reservation and to Wright and his associate for allowing it. And to Behe, Minnich, Kenyon and Dembski and others. And to enforcement, examine what the climate gurus did to their colleagues who did not agree. So maybe you want to return to your community and tell everyone how dumb we are and continue on with your irrelevant explanations. Adios.jerry
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Upright, Presuming you address my questions, in order for your purchase to be worthwhile could you tell me exactly what "question" you want answering, in your own words. Many questions have been asked on this thread. Which one is it you want an answer to?h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Upright
Now that you have that of your chest, please post the relavent research links. I’ll be back later in the day to purchase the research.
Quid pro quo. I'll be happy to. Once you address my questions in post 95.h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
T, A question: A sociology professor has hypothesized that wearing baseball hats follows the dynamics of a single locus with two alleles. Out of 5000 undergraduates sampled the professor observed the following phenotypic classes: 2 students not wearing a baseball hat, 196 students wearing baseball hats with the visor pointing forward and 4802 students wearing baseball hats with the visor pointing backwards. Using your expertise in population genetics clearly show why you agree or disagree with the hypothesis. Basic stuff. What's your answer? Too simple? Here's another: 1. A researcher is interested in the inheritance of coat color in guinea pigs. A cross was conducted between a red female and white male to produce an F1 population all with intermediate coloration (medium pink). These F1s were then intercrossed to produce an F2 population. The F2s included white, red, and intermediate individuals in a ratio of approximately 1:2:1. These results would support which of the following: a) Mendelian Inheritance b) Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics c) Evolution by Random Mutation d) Blending Inheritance e) Catastrophism One more Regarding the phenomenon of ‘Multiple Hits’, which of the following is true in molecular phylogenetics: a) Uncorrected distance measures are likely to underestimate true distance b) Mutations will accumulate until taxa are 100% different c) Sequences of distantly related species will approach a maximum of 0.4 d) Uncorrected distance measures likely overestimate actual values e) The more distantly related two taxa are, the less likely that uncorrected genetic distance will be in error If you can answer these questions then I'll be happy to continue this conversation on the level you have set where you have sufficient understanding of evolutionary theory and of basic biology and biochemistry to tell whether or not a particular biological argument is in the right *form*.h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
T
And I have sufficient understanding of evolutionary theory and of basic biology and biochemistry to tell whether or not a particular biological argument is in the right *form* to be at least a *possible* answer my question.
100 years ago you may have had a point. However to obtain even a partial understanding of current theory requires considerably more then a "basic" understanding. I take it then you have no such relevant qualification. A pity, as the data really speaks for itself with no need for a narrative such as you demand. There may be such an example as you demand however, for the bac flag.
A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003). The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins). An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.
More detail required then that, presumably?
But I don’t expect it will get to that stage. I’ve been asking Ph.D.s in biology for about three years now to produce such an account, and they always either make excuses for why they can’t, or they change the subject.
Please provide links to examples, or I will suspect that you are simply bluffing. Or did it all happen "off-line" which would be terribly convenient. However, I would ask one question. Given that no such answer to your question is available, why do you suppose the majority of people working in the fields that could provide such an answer don't have the same disbelief that you have regarding evolution? What do you know that somebody with a degree or two does not? Can you share that?h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Yes, of course. Now that you have that of your chest, please post the relavent research links. I'll be back later in the day to purchase the research.Upright BiPed
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
h.pesoj @93: Your reference to qualifications is typical. All specialists, when they are bluffing, say: "You'll have to take my word for it, because you wouldn't understand the details." In fact, any literate scientist who desires to communicate rather than obfuscate can put the main outline of an argument in layman's language, before getting into all the technical details. And I have sufficient understanding of evolutionary theory and of basic biology and biochemistry to tell whether or not a particular biological argument is in the right *form* to be at least a *possible* answer my question. The *form* of answer I need to hear goes like this: "In order for a camera eye to evolve out of a sheet of light-sensitive tissue, 50 previously nonexistent parts, 400 new neuronic pathways, 18 new hormones and 450 brain modifications must be created or established. In the following 500 pages I will discuss the majority of these items, one by one, showing which sectors of the genome govern the necessary alterations (directly or in conjunction with epigenetic processes which I will specify). I will give an estimate of the number of mutations needed to produce each morphological change, specify the mutations needed, provide hard numbers for the probability of each mutation and a calculation for the probability of the entire set of mutations, and I will show how the dozens of hypothetical intermediate forms, where the new organ is as yet incapable of its ultimate function, provide survival advantages, or at least are not deleterious. All the hypothetical intermediate forms will be illustrated with diagrams, so that the physiologists and ecologists may inspect them for functionality and selection plausibility I will also estimate how many million years each step should be expected to take, and verify that there is enough time in the fossil record for the total process." If the explanation is set up along these lines, and carried out with the precision indicated, and seems plausible, I would be inclined to trust the specialist regarding most of the details. Do you know of any explanation set up in this form for any major organ, organelle, system, or organism? If you do, tell me where it is, and let me worry about my qualifications to understand it. I'll let you know if I need your help. But I don't expect it will get to that stage. I've been asking Ph.D.s in biology for about three years now to produce such an account, and they always either make excuses for why they can't, or they change the subject. T.Timaeus
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Upright
Since the mechanism is enforced as orthodoxy, wouldn’t the relavent research already be in the bag?
Enforced by who? I've asked friends who work in the field and they have never heard of any such enforcement. Nor have they ever come under pressure to supress or hide results because they point away from the "orthodoxy". Having said that, nobody I know who works in the biological sciences has claimed to have evidence for Intelligent Design, so perhaps that's the reason.
If the answers to these questions are forthcoming
Can you be more specific? What questions?
then it would follow that the hardened conclusions which have been unconditionally foistered on the public
Has it? Although I'm not a resident of the USA I believe more people believe that God created life then believe in Darwinism. So how does that equate with your statement? It might well be being foisted on the public but they are not believeing it!
could not have logically been based upon the evidence which has yet to appear
Much of the evidence is very technicial and not suitable for a lay-audience. What is your normal source of information? Are you subscibed to any research repositories? What journals do you typically read? Do you keep up with developments, if so, how? What are you qualifications that you can judge this? Do you work in the biological sciences?
Or, is this kind of simple observation just too obvious to be tolerated?
Tolerated? Do you mean tolerated by the same people enforcing the orthodoxy? Or some other group of people?h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Since the mechanism is enforced as orthodoxy, wouldn't the relavent research already be in the bag? If the answers to these questions are forthcoming, then it would follow that the hardened conclusions which have been unconditionally foistered on the public for the past number of generations, could not have logically been based upon the evidence which has yet to appear. Or, is this kind of simple observation just too obvious to be tolerated?Upright BiPed
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Timaeus
The exact pathway that was followed historically is not demanded — just a biochemically and developmentally possible pathway — but the details must be included, or no prizes will be awarded.
I believe much research is ongoing along these lines. I could point you towards some of it, but in order to judge the right level to pitch it at what qualifications do you have in the relevant field? Much of the information is impenetrable to the lay-person and this is perhaps where the confusion lies. It does exist, but perhaps you've just not looked at it, or looked at it and not understood it.h.pesoj
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
We therefore cannot estimate the probability that evolutionary change was accomplished by Darwinian means. We do not have enough knowledge of how the machinery works.
Any recent advances in estimating or maybe even calculating the probability of Intelligent Design? I find it rather bizarre how ID proponents require pathetic details of evolution while presenting no details whatsoever of ID. What about connecting some dots, like evolutionists do?Cabal
January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Neo-Darwinians, however, prefer discussion of “big concepts” (mutation, selection, bottlenecks, etc.) to discussions of mechanical details
Well, sure, but as big concepts go, you don't get much bigger than 'design.' Maybe the approach is, instead of arguing with Darwinists what evolution can or can't do, is to beat them at the game of providing mechanical details? Anyways, thanks for the tip about the website Zachriel is at. FWIW, I like the guy and will go check it out.efren ts
January 15, 2010
January
01
Jan
15
15
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
efren ts @89: Zachriel posted something at antievolution.org, but it was not an explanation of how Darwinian evolution can generate complex organs and systems. It was merely a note indicating his banishment from this site. So my challenge remains unmet. No neo-Darwinian can give anything close to a detailed pathway. The exact pathway that was followed historically is not demanded -- just a biochemically and developmentally possible pathway -- but the details must be included, or no prizes will be awarded. Neo-Darwinians, however, prefer discussion of "big concepts" (mutation, selection, bottlenecks, etc.) to discussions of mechanical details -- a preference which is typical of sciences which have not achieved exactness and precision and are more like philosophical than scientific accounts. I can explain the evolution of every single living creature on earth with grand concepts like selection, mutation, drift and so on; but precisely because these big concepts, combined in proportion according to the taste of the evolutionary theorist, unrestrained by hard numbers or molecular realities of any kind, can account for *any* imaginable evolutionary result, they account for none at all. The only *testable* evolutionary theory is the one that has the intellectual spine to commit itself to particular proposals for the nitty-gritty mechanical details; e.g., how does one get from a hippo to a whale? What has to change, and in what order, and how many years will each change take, and is there enough time in the fossil record for the total set of changes, and even if there is, what guarantees that all the intermediate stages will be viable? (A very tricky question when it comes to the transition to marine lactation, for example.) Absent such a commitment to detail, Darwinian theory is untestable story-telling, and has no claim to be taken seriously as rigorous science. T.Timaeus
January 15, 2010
January
01
Jan
15
15
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
T:
As for Zachriel, he is free to publish, on any web-site he likes, .......If he does so, and you alert me to the place, I will go to that site and read his description.
Actually, there was a comment here the other day pointing to a site he was commenting at subsequent to his banning. But, it appears to have disappeared and I didn't bookmark the link. Did anyone else catch it?efren ts
January 15, 2010
January
01
Jan
15
15
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Cabal @87: I would have thought my meaning was plain to any speaker of English. No biologist can give a step-by-step account of exactly how the human body (or any body of any higher animal) is formed, at the cellular and molecular level -- all the divisions, all the specializations, all the molecular triggers, all the relations between genetic and epigenetic factors, etc. And of course, without such knowledge, we cannot specify what alterations would need to be made to the genome of a shrew to produce a bat. We therefore cannot estimate the probability that evolutionary change was accomplished by Darwinian means. We do not have enough knowledge of how the machinery works. As for Zachriel, he is free to publish, on any web-site he likes, the genetic and developmental steps necessary to take a clump of light-sensitive issue in some primitive worm and turn it into a camera eye, and show that these steps could plausibly occur, without any guidance, in a sequence compatible with natural selection and in the amount of time allowed by the fossil record. If he does so, and you alert me to the place, I will go to that site and read his description. But if he can do that, he should not be publishing it on some hobbyist's web site. He should be publishing it in a book or refereed scientific journal, because it will confirm the truth of Darwinian evolution and win him a Nobel Prize in chemistry or physiology. T.Timaeus
January 15, 2010
January
01
Jan
15
15
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Timaeus,
We are nowhere near a full explanation of how a human body is formed, from fertilized egg to newborn
Meaning? WRT Zachriel, you know he is available if you want to learn more about what he might have to say to you?Cabal
January 15, 2010
January
01
Jan
15
15
2010
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Lenoxus: Thanks for your gracious comments in the previous post. Yes, Behe's point is that Darwinian mechanisms -- as far as the empirical data shows -- haven't proved capable of generating complex new cellular machinery, organs, systems, etc. He does not deny that Darwinian mechanisms can do *some* things -- they can provide antibiotic resistance, for example. But they don't seem to be a credible explanation for the sort of large-scale structural changes that macroevolution requires. Of course, one could still hold out on general theoretical grounds for the possibility that Darwinian mechanisms could do the trick, but Behe's point is that our extrapolations about the past must be based on what we can observe in the present, and what we can observe in the present doesn't suggest that Darwinian mechanisms can do all that much. It is a cautious empiricism, not a religious dogmatism, which undergirds Behe's argument here. Yet Behe believes in macroevolution. So, then, if Darwinian and kindred mechanisms are nowhere near adequate, what is driving macroevolution? Behe does not claim to know. He does say, however, that he thinks design was somehow involved. He has also said in the past that such involvement might not require miracles; design might be built-in somehow, so that new forms "unfold" from the old, according to some pre-arranged scheme, rather than emerge by chance. He throws out possibilities such as this, but doesn't dogmatize about them one way or the other. His point is only to establish the very great unlikelihood of chance and the very high probability of design. Yet for this, he has been called every name in the book, by professors who should show more open-mindedness to new ideas, and more personal class in debate. Regarding the "ID worldview", I wouldn't say there is any one single ID view of things. Some ID supporters accept macroevolution from molecules to man; others accept only limited macroevolution, mixed in with supplementary miracles; others reject macroevolution entirely. Some ID supporters allow a limited role for Darwinian processes. Some ID supporters are young earth creationists. Some are old earth creationists. Some are Jewish, some Muslim, some Catholic, some Protestant. Some are even agnostic. Rather than a world-view, what links ID supporters together is a skepticism about the creative powers attributed to chance by most evolutionary biologists, and a sort of engineer's or architect's instinct about the significance of what we see in nature. Of course, most ID supporters believe in a creator God, and don't conceal this fact, but they strive not to make their argument for design depend on a prior personal belief in such a God. They believe that nature, as it were, points beyond itself to God, or something like God. I don't see this as a world-view, but as an inference, though of course the inference can be used to support various world-views, including a Christian one. Regarding physics, you seem to be talking primarily about things at the outer edge of theoretical physics. I have in mind basic physics, basic electromagnetic theory, basic gravitational theory, basic atomic theory, etc. These things are all pretty well nailed down, even if their deeper implications are still up for grabs. We know from our technological applications in these fields that we have got things pretty well right. If we were completely wrong about the existence of atoms, for example, or about the relationship between electricity and magnetism, or about gravity, modern science and engineering would fall apart. But we aren't wrong -- we know what we are doing, in a lot of areas. When you start talking about grand unified theories, cosmology, string theory, multiverses, singularities -- OK, I grant you that there is much that is still up for grabs here. The comparison I was making with biology is this: we know the laws of gravity and motion well enough to land a spacecraft on Mars within a few yards of the target. We *don't* know what functions the vast majority of base pairs in the genome perform. We are nowhere near a full explanation of how a human body is formed, from fertilized egg to newborn. Etc. So what are we doing speculating about whether a shrew could have turned into a bat within ten million years, when we don't have any DNA for the hypothetical primitive shrew, and wouldn't know how to interpret it if we did, and when we can't explain in detail how either a bat *or* a shrew forms in the womb today? How can we say what subtle changes would be needed to make the macroevolutionary transitions between hypothetical past animals, when we don't understand the biology of the creatures that are right in front of us? That would be like saying that we could explain the evolution of the current internal combustion motor, if all we had were three or four stages of that motor out of the dozens that actually existed, and didn't understand what half of the parts in the current motor were for, or how any of the earlier motors worked? How could we speak of the engineering changes that were made to the motor at each phase, when we don't know how any of the blasted machines worked? Yet evolutionary biology engages in these speculations daily. Why not put evolutionary theory on hold, and devote the next 50 years to basic biology -- discovering the complete account of every part of the genome and every part of the developmental process, and then turn back to the question of how these systems might have evolved? I do think that biology is even more ripe for a design inference now than it was in the time of Paley. However, the main point for me is that, in the absence of a full account of how inheritance works, how the body parts of creatures are altered in processes like metamorphosis and embryonic development, Darwinian sorts of accounts can never be more than speculative. The only way proving that what looks pretty obviously like design is not design, is to show how genetic and embryonic processes could have produced the apparent design through chance and natural laws, without intelligence. Darwinians assert that this has happened, but won't say how. So why should we believe them? Why shouldn't we believe that design was involved, until someone can come along with an exhaustive account that shows that no design was necessary? That was what I was asking Zachriel: where is this exhaustive account, which proves that a hippo can become a whale, or a fish an amphibian, without need for design? And, even before he was banned, he couldn't come up with one. And on web site after web site, the Darwinians, even those with Ph.D.s in biology, fail, when I ask, to come up with such an account. If Darwinism is as solid an accomplishment as Newtonian physics or atomic theory (as the Darwinians repeatedly claim), such an account should be very nearly available. So where is it? T.Timaeus
January 14, 2010
January
01
Jan
14
14
2010
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13 14

Leave a Reply