nullasalus Makes a Point

_{Barry Arrington

February 18, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Nullasalus writes here:

By the way – does anyone else notice that when it comes to evolution, disagreement is always translated as ‘You don’t understand evolution!’?

Larry Moran plays the card in the link I give. Everyone’s playing the card with Kaz. Dawkins and company played the card with EO Wilson. EO Wilson arguably played it right back. Jerry Fodor got the same treatment for writing What Darwin Got Wrong. Thomas Nagel got the same.

It’s as if disagreement is literally unthinkable. You’re either all on the same page or you just don’t get evolution fundamentally.

That seems about right based on my experience.

Comments

wd400 continues:
You seem to be confused, both about profiling and what it means to disparage someone.
No, I'm not confused. Your comments are an example of racial stereotyping not profiling, which is a different matter entirely.
Why would you think describing someone as not very Darwinian was to disparage them?
Because you were distancing yourself from Ohno's work and what you apparently consider the views of most Japanese geneticists.
I think Ohno,Ohta Kimura and Nei are among the 20th century’s greatest population geneticists. The theory the heroes develop just isn’t very Darwinian.
Well, that's a start, although you're still thinking of people in racial categories. An apology would be in order when you're ready to provide one. You might also have a conversation with a "fair minded" administrator or human resources specialist about your racial comments.
If you haven’t worked out that I think ohno was right about junk DNA after last time we spoke about this topic I can’t see any point in carrying on.
Yes, I see. In other words, you're preparing for a full retreat. ;-) In Dr. Ohno's paper, which is available for review online, Dr. Ohno proposes that "junk" DNA records the remains of Darwinian evolution, and is the genetic equivalent of fossil remains. This is very Darwinian and has nothing to do with his being Japanese. But Dr. Ohno wasn't right, as is becoming apparent from recent studies involving non-coding DNA, and as most researchers in the field and other well-informed individuals now have recognized. - QQuerius_{February 22, 2014
February
02
Feb
22
22
2014
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

wd400:
I think Ohno,Ohta Kimura and Nei are among the 20th century’s greatest population geneticists.
And what has population genetics done for us? Or do these guys rank up there with te greatest astrologers?Joe_{February 22, 2014
February
02
Feb
22
22
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

wd400:
Every time we go down this road you propose a version of ID that sounds completely unfalsafiable to me.
You must be thinking of blind watchamker evolution as I have exactly how to test and falsify ID. Perhaps you should read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner- just sayin'Joe_{February 22, 2014
February
02
Feb
22
22
2014
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

You seem to be confused, both about profiling and what it means to disparage someone. Why would you think describing someone as not very Darwinian was to disparage them? I think Ohno,Ohta Kimura and Nei are among the 20th century's greatest population geneticists. The theory the heroes develop just isn't very Darwinian. If you haven't worked out that I think ohno was right about junk DNA after last time we spoke about this topic I can't see any point in carrying on.wd400_{February 22, 2014
February
02
Feb
22
22
2014
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

wd400 claimed
I’ve wasted far too much time on this topic with you already. I’m happy that no fair-minded person could read my comment as “racial profiling”. All I would suggest is that find out what the term darwinism means, and recall that Ohno himself argued that some non-coding DNA was functional.
Disparaging the views of geneticists as you did simply because they are Japanese is racial stereotyping. You should be ashamed of yourself! Look at your exact statement again:
Ohno wasn’t very Darwinian (like most Japanese population geneticists) and his argument for junk DNA is quite un-Darwinian.
Oh really? Are there other things that you would characterize about "most Japanese geneticists"? Try running this by a "fair minded" university administrator or human resources specialist for their opinion and please let us know what they say. I'm sure you won't though.Querius_{February 21, 2014
February
02
Feb
21
21
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

@wd400, Evolution postulates that the History of Life is due to gradual evolution of form generating novel features and functions, which has been a result of strictly naturalistic random mutations and variations of genetic material. This cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory. This cannot be illustrated from fossils in the fossil record. This cannot be proven false. Proving me wrong should be a simple exercise. Simply point to a single experiment, performed over the last 150 years of evolutionary experimentation and investigation, that shows random unguided mutation resulting in a completely novel function (e.g. a rat growing wings, a fruit fly that can spin webs, e.coli. becoming not e.coli.). Your response will no doubt take the form of "there isn't enough time to perform such an experiment", or "we don't know the right conditions or causes of such mutations that would result in the generation of novel features". And these are, as far as they go, possibly valid explanations. However, the end result is the same - RM Gradualism cannot be demonstrated, experimented, or empirically illustrated in a lab or in the fossils. In fact, every experiment attempted to provide evidence for it has instead shown that random mutations accumulate to destroy life, not provide new function. Since you don't like "grecian science", perhaps a better way of putting it is Plato as opposed to Aristotle. Reason over empiricism. If you don't feel empirical evidence is required for us to accept Evolution, I would refer you to the pre-modern "sciences" of aether and spontaneous generation.drc466_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

wd400 claims: "but to discard evolution biology as story telling or “grecian science” without empirical grounding is just wrong." But wd400 you have no empirical nor mathematical warrant! That is the whole point. When asked for evidence you point to papers that are full of phrases such as 'could have', 'highly speculative', 'may have', with never a empirical demonstration that what you claim for the undirected processes of Darwinian evolution is remotely feasible in reality. You claim that other people just don't understand evolution but the fact of the matter is that you do not understand science in the first place since you think unsubstantiated conjecture can take the place of empirical and mathematical warrant!bornagain77_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

WD400: I have searched pubMed for anyone speculating on how the tracheal cilia massively integrated system could possibly have come about by stepwise, non-correlated events. It's not there, as is not likely the interest in showing off to the public the so-called most well established theory ever conceived working on this one. I think the reason is this: a kid can see easily how little structures can move wads up the pipe when they act in concert. A kid would also understand the mind-boggling impossibility of putting together a communication system interconnecting all these billions and billions of parts, strictly by accident with a search space easily 10^1000 trials. No need here to study the parts of flagella to get the point; the bulls___ detector could work in high fashion for a kid here. If I'm wrong about nobody working on/answering this one, I would like to know, seriously. I have posed this on other threads. And I will pose this one on UD until I get an answer, hoping I won't seem like a broken record.groovamos_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

". . . in fact, you set the bar so [high] . . ." The bar has not been set high. No-one is asking for an account of how all of biology actually came about (even though that is what the theory loudly claims to be able to explain). Most of us aren't even asking for an account of how a complete organism came about. Shoot, the bar has been set so low that most of us would be impressed if the theory could explain a single system, or a single organ, or a single protein complex. Most of us would be impressed if the theory could explain just a fraction of the functional, digitally-specified information that resides in cells. It can't do any of this, and yet we're told we must believe the theory anyway, even the grander claims. The bar has been set so low as to be almost embarrassing. It is like being at a track meet and watching all the high jumpers repeatedly fail to clear the bar. The crowd shifts nervously in their seats and glances down uncomfortably at their feet as the meet officials -- in a desperate attempt to get someone, anyone, to win the event -- keep dropping the bar lower and lower. Yet, the theory can't seem able to clear the bar.Eric Anderson_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Phoodoo, I agree with much of what you say, and am always distressed to see evolutionary biology used as a shiboleth in someone's culture war (which is how most internet athiests and creatinists see it). But I don't think it's true (at all) that we don't know how evolution proceeds. We understand speciation, we understand selection and development and molecuar evolution. There are still questions (otherwise evolutionary biology would be finished!) of course, but to discard evolution biology as story telling or "grecian science" without empirical grounding is just wrong. groovamos, I don't know what you engineering background has to do with biology, all I would say is that blindly taking engineering methaphors across to biology is usually a bad idea. For isntance, organisms aren't built, they develop. I don't know anything about the specific case of mammlllian tracheal cillia, but in general, a single change in a cis-reulatory element or the transcirption factor it cntrolls can be enough to allow a cell type to express a particular phenotype. Many cells have primrary cillia, epitheal cells simply have more. There's no one "hooking them up" and no reason to start with one or two cells. Querius, I've wasted far too much time on this topic with you already. I'm happy that no fair-minded person could read my comment as "racial profiling". All I would suggest is that find out what the term darwinism means, and recall that Ohno himself argued that some non-coding DNA was functional. Joe, Every time we go down this road you propose a version of ID that sounds completely unfalsafiable to me. You are welcome to hold that view, but I don't think there is anything to be gained by our discussin it.wd400_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

wd400:
My point is that reconstructed specific histories is hard for the reasons you describe, it’s still possible to learn generally about evolutionary forces and how they shape genomes, organisms and ecosystems.
The question is which evolutionsry forces are blind watchmaker forces and which are intelligently designed. Or don't you understand the debate?Joe_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Greetings. Querius at 37.
Oh really? So you’re saying that the 97-98% of our genome comprising non-coding DNA is junk? Or just some of it?
Querius, and/or anyone, go to comment 40 to read wd400's position on why (s)he says that. It was in reply to sixthbook's question (comment 38), though SteRusJon had asked it earlier (comment 27). But before going there, I advise you to read his comments before that to prevent any possible misunderstanding. Below is the link: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-evolutionary-theory-really-help-scientists/seventrees_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

wd400: If you want simple then biology is probably not the science for you. My field, electrical engineering, is not at all simple, and it is vast, with many, many sub-fields of specialization. But it is simple in one regard: go down and buy a 50 inch flat screen and plug it in, the results speak for themselves. There is nothing in biology that employs RM/NS in macroevolutionary fashion in any practical application, that so speaks for the revered 19th century wealthy ideological atheist. Here is simple for you: A mammal or some other animal needs scores of billions of cilia waving in concert to move out phlegm. Did some animal somewhere start out with one cilium for this? Many cilia for this? Somewhere in between? Did some random process get off its butt and decide "It's time to hook up all these cilia" so that they can move in concert, all up and down the trachea? What if the animal say has 1/10 the number of cilia modern animals have, would the phlegm move out? How does each cilium generated by RMNS confer selective advantage by itself, multiplied 89 billion times and certainly causing an offspring to have the same additional cilium in the right place? I'm a simple man wanting a simple answer, but will take a complicated one.groovamos_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

wd400:
No.
So, my point remains valid: "I find rather useless developing hypothetical fancy models for complex organs, when you cannot even explain a single protein."gpuccio_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

WD400 @34 announced
Ohno wasn’t very Darwinian (like most Japanese population geneticists) and his argument for junk DNA is quite un-Darwinian.
Both your characterization of Dr. Ohno and your racial stereotyping are utterly false! Anyone who reads Dr. Ohno's paper would disagree with your baseless assertion. But I'm not surprised. I guess it's easier to throw Dr. Ohno under the bus than a 19th century dead parrot. Oops, I mean hypothesis.
It’s not true to say ” it turned out that this DNA wasn’t junk after all”.
Oh really? So you're saying that the 97-98% of our genome comprising non-coding DNA is junk? Or just some of it? Haven't you read about the regulatory elements recently found in "junk" DNA? The elements that have to do with type 2 diabetes, cancer, embryonic development, and gene regulation? Would you also throw these studies under the bus along with all the medical advances that could come from them just to try to convince us that this dead parrot is alive? Apparently so, but it still won't fly. -QQuerius_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

wd400, Ok, we can agree that its hard business, finding out the details of evolution. We can agree its messy, speculative, not likely to ever be fully explainable, or demonstrable or mathematically supported. We all know this (btw, I think one has to be somewhat impressed by the depth of smart people discussing this topic on this thread, yourself included, by many of the posters here as well). But wd400, we also know that throughout the entire internet sphere, as well as in all popular science media, the mantra is "Darwinian evolution is as good as a proven theory. More evidenced than gravity. It's beyond reproach. There is a complete scientific census." Now you know this is not true, we know this is not true. Its an idea for which evidencing it is messy, unattainable. Are you prepared to state right here, right now, that that mantra from the evolutionists is just propaganda nonsense, and be honest about that from now on? Wouldn't that make for much better discussions in science, if everyone would be more honest about admitting this? The evidence the science world does have relates to common ancestry or common design-this we agree. The evidence for how it happened, no that doesn't exist. That requires speculation, or whoever can make the best story. We are all smart here, we all see this, and we just expect equal acknowledgment of this from both sides.phoodoo_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

wd400,
My point is that reconstructed specific histories is hard for the reasons you describe, it’s still possible to learn generally about evolutionary forces and how they shape genomes, organisms and ecosystems.
Sure. The problem is what we can learn, what we can observe and reasonably extrapolate, is altogether meager, and leaves untouched the questions we're actually focusing on. Just because you can use evolutionary models to describe what happened to the cavefish doesn't mean that you've therefore explained the origin of novelty. The evolutionary forces we can actually observe and reasonably talk about and have knowledge of are great. They're just not what animates much of anyone. It's those undemonstrable, never-saw-it, never-will aspects of evolution which are of interest and discussion, and that turns into someone arguing that because we see loss of function observed in the laboratory this is somehow sufficient to extrapolate to a claim like 'the circulatory system came about completely by these evolutionary processes that we don't see doing terribly much other THAN losing function in one way or another.' And as others have noted - they're not even asking for reconstructed specific histories. Give one realistic pathway out of all the possibilities, in detail. But even THAT doesn't get done. And we get back to 'Well it's too hard to do that' -> 'That's why you should accept it anyway.'nullasalus_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

That would be an example of explanation of the appearance of a new protein domain/superfamily? No. Querius, Ohno wasn't very Darwinian (like most Japanese population geneticists) and his argument for junk DNA is quite un-Darwinian. It's not true to say " it turned out that this DNA wasn’t junk after all". nullasalus, It's not for me or anyone else to tell you what to belive. My point is that reconstructed specific histories is hard for the reasons you describe, it's still possible to learn generally about evolutionary forces and how they shape genomes, organisms and ecosystems.wd400_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Based on Darwinian evolution, Dr. Susumu Ohno explained in his famous paper (which I've read many times, thank you) that the preponderance of non-coding DNA in the human genome was "junk" to be consistent with the expected evolutionary remains of "fossil" genes. I'm not sure whether Dr. Ohno actually predicted these findings beforehand, but let's not quibble. It was considered a triumph, a solid, long-standing hypothesis that was considered to provide evidence for Darwinian evolution. A smoking gun. Proof positive. Taught in school. Except it turned out that this DNA wasn't junk after all, falsifying Darwinian evolution. Thus, this quaint, 19th century theory is dead. Not "mostly dead" (as in The Princess Bride), but "dead" dead as in Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 Incidentally, the skit reminds me of a lot of what it's like arguing with Darwinists. -QQuerius_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

wd400: "However, gene duplications repeatedly spawned daughter genes in which mutations optimized either isomaltase or maltase activity." ????? That would be an example of explanation of the appearance of a new protein domain/superfamily? You really don't know what you are talking about...gpuccio_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

wd400,
If you want simple then biology is probably not the science for you.
Simple isn't the problem here. It's 'thorough'. And what's being asked here seems to boil down specifically to 'How can you demonstrate that the processes you are referring to are capable of producing these complicated organs and biological structures, etc?' But that's exactly what is missing. Wonderful, you can make inferences about descent lineages. Great, you can examine current structures and get an idea of what can and can't be substituted, what the functions are, whether you think there is a function, etc. Great and granted. But it doesn't answer the question.
I don’t link these articles because I think they provide the complete step-by-step case for how organs and cell-types evoloved. If that’s the evidence you need then you will always be dissapointed and, in fact, you set the bar so I doubt any data will ever change your mind.
You know, this is the stock response of ID critics on this question. 'Look, evolution is real complicated and contingent, it takes place over long periods of time. We don't have demonstrations of what you're asking for, and it's unreasonable to expect that we'd have them.' The problem is, you then go on to say - often leaving this part unstated - 'But you should accept it as truth anyway.' Which is bizarre. You're arguing that a given claim for which it is practically impossible, by your measure, to demonstrate the truth of means that we should just accept it precisely BECAUSE you judge it as extremely difficult to demonstrate. Why is that the default? Why shouldn't people remain agnostic? In the ID case, why not infer that it's reasonable to believe that there was guidance - since we actually -can- demonstrate guidance in principle and in fact?nullasalus_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

wd400:('literature bluff' and ‘stronghold is the title’ business).
Because it's what you do. Whose fault is that?
When you are talking about something about the evolution of a new organ or differntiated cell type the problem get’s much larger and much messier.
And undemonstrated. Why not man up and just admin it's a crappy theory that nobody would trust if their life actually depended on it.
I don’t link these articles because I think they provide the complete step-by-step case for how organs and cell-types evoloved. If that’s the evidence you need then you will always be dissapointed
Bingo. Now you're starting to catch on.
in fact, you set the bar so [high] I doubt any data will ever change your mind.
The "bar" is merely an empirical demonstration that modern evolutionary synthesis describes processes that can account for all of biological life. So far, it has no even come within a dozen light years. So what are we to do, take it on blind faith? The equations of gravity, Quantum Mechanics, aerodynamics, are superb. Given what we know about the origin of all the tissue type, cell type, organs and body plans, would you bet your life that the the modern evolutionary synthesis is an accurate model? I sure as hell wouldn't.CentralScrutinizer_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

I don't know what people hope to achieve by assuming bad faith and insults (all this 'literature bluff' and 'stronghold is the title' business). It makes it very hard to progress. Very briefly, in reply to comments above. If you want simple then biology is probably not the science for you. At the level of a single protein we can investigate evolutionary history, reconstruct intermediates and see how different subsitions effect phenotype (one such exmaple http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001446). Sometimes, it's even possible to link chemical informatio about proteins to life history traits in their owns, as in this paper: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6138/1234192.full When you are talking about something about the evolution of a new organ or differntiated cell type the problem get's much larger and much messier. EvoDevo (a field far removed form my own) can show us how shared gene-regulatory networkds give rise to different phenotypes, and we can eve reonstruct anecestral regulatory networks and investigate their biology in modern species http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/05/molbev.msu042.short I don't link these articles because I think they provide the complete step-by-step case for how organs and cell-types evoloved. If that's the evidence you need then you will always be dissapointed and, in fact, you set the bar so I doubt any data will ever change your mind. The point, I hope, is you read them you might find evolutionary biology is a profitable approach to understanding the biological world, that can generate and test hypotheses and that can take advantage of many sources of data. To dismiss is as 'grecian science', or demand a mutation-by-mutatoin story is just a bit silly.wd400_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

wd400: "I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “detailed account” – surely not a mutation by mutation account?" Well, that is what the theory claims happened in essence, right? So if such an account is not forthcoming, then let's all at least admit that we don't have any idea whether such a thing could actually take place. And as a result, the theory may be completely off. That would be a start. I don't think anyone is demanding to see the actual account that occurred. Just a potential pathway. Even something that is reasonably detailed. Even something that is reasonably plausible. Even something that passes the laugh test.Eric Anderson_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

CS: Damand they give you a detailed account of how RV+NS produced any cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan wd400: I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “deatailed account” – surely not a mutation by mutation account?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. As an engineer I want a gap free account. Can you provide one? No. Can you provide anything close to one. No. Can you whine because we demand a gap free account? Yes. You guys are like someone who claims that "buildings make airplanes." Parts and materials and people go into the building, and airplanes come out. Well excuse me if I want an account of exactly what's going on inside the building. You don't even have to give us the actual account of how, say, a particular neuron came to exist. Just give us a gap free account of how it might have come to exist. That would be enough to proof your concept.
If you want an in-depth look at what we know about the evolution of one system of cell-types and tissue, approached from a range of angles, there is this issue of Transactions of the Royal Society B.
I encourage anyone interested in the subject to read that and see if my point stands.
I would also point out cancer is precisely the evolution of a different cell and tissue type, and is also the result of random variation and natural selection. With transmissable cancers these cells can even esapce and out live their host!
Nicely supporting my assertion that the only type of "novel cell type" you can point to is a degenerated one: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/microbiologist-admits-darwinisms-shortcomings-says-we-should-stick-with-it-for-now-because/#comment-490762CentralScrutinizer_{February 19, 2014
February
02
Feb
19
19
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

wd400:
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “deatailed account” – surely not a mutation by mutation account?
Why not? But obviously, a specific detailed neo darwinian pathway to a functional new basic protein, where the NS steps are based on empirical evidence, would be appreciated. I find rather useless developing hypothetical fancy models for complex organs, when you cannot even explain a single protein.
I would also point out cancer is precisely the evolution of a different cell and tissue type, and is also the result of random variation and natural selection. With transmissable cancers these cells can even esapce and out live their host!
Cancer is many things, but it is often the simple degradation of complex cell cycle control due to simple mutations which derange a complex functional system. Is that your model of neo darwinian evolution? OK, I will concede that to you: neo darwinian mechanisms can explain cancer. And simple antibiotic resistance scenarios. And the conservation of some diseases in particular conditions. It is called microevolution, and as you can see from your example itself, it is simply loss of functional information. In Behe's words, "burning the bridges" (well, in the case of cancer, it is not even that).
Though I increasingly think there is no point inmy posting here.
Well, maybe we agree on something, after all. Or, simply, you do not really understand evolution! :)gpuccio_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

drc466 @ 20 Very perceptive - well put!Optimus_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Great, so it was another literature bluff . . . Another similarity to Matzke. He is the master of the literature bluff. :)Eric Anderson_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

drc466, Indeed, my point exactly. The paper is nothing more than observing loads of similarities in structure of cells and photo-receptors, and using this as a basis for concluding how evolution must have worked. It is so far from approaching a step by step explanation for how evolution occurred, that it becomes a perfect deflection for wd400 to use. Because it is long, full of varying descriptions of biological features, and doesn't have a specific point, wd400 can claim it means anything he says it does, without having to specifically say what. "Until quite recently, it had generally been thought that the photoreceptor cells of most invertebrates (protostomes) were rhabdomeric, whereas the photoreceptor cells of vertebrates were ciliary (see Eakin 1965). However, over the last decade it has become clear that there are numerous examples where a given vertebrate or invertebrate species may contain both ciliary and rhabdomeric photoreceptors" Perhaps this was the salinet point in the article wd400 wanted to highlight? We used to think that invertebrates had only one type of cell but now we know they possess two? Who knows, because the title is his stronghold, so he needs no further evidence. "Quick, google a science article with the word evolution, that should throw them off my trail"! The most telling line in the paper is this: "It must be emphasized, though, that uncertainties abound, and that a good deal of speculation is involved" Indeed, quite a good deal.phoodoo_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

wd400- Thank you for the link to that paper. I have read it all but it is getting late and I will definitely get back to it tomorrow. I will say that so far it really puts into perspective what the blind watchmaker was up against.Joe_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply