PZ Myers: Vestigial means “reduced in size or utility compared to homologous organs in other animals” Huh?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 23, 2014

Darwinism, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Darwinism
Intelligent Design}

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

Here, in “VESTIGIAL: Learn what it means!” (Pharyngula, Scienceblogs)

The appendix in humans, for instance, is a vestigial organ, despite all the insistence by creationists and less-informed scientists that finding expanded local elements of the immune system means it isn’t. An organ is vestigial if it is reduced in size or utility compared to homologous organs in other animals, and another piece of evidence is if it exhibits a wide range of variation that suggests that those differences have no selective component. That you can artificially reduce the size of an appendix by literally cutting it out, with no effect on the individual (other than that they survive a potentially acute and dangerous inflammation) tells us that these are vestigial. More.

But wouldn’t his definition make all kinds of organs and limbs vestigial in most life forms?

Also:

That you can artificially reduce the size of an appendix by literally cutting it out, with no effect on the individual (other than that they survive a potentially acute and dangerous inflammation) tells us that these are vestigial.

But this makes no sense. A doctor can remove a man’s gangrenous leg without anyone getting the idea that the leg was vestigial.

Readers, isn’t the whole concept of “vestigial” organs as evidence for the evolution of life forms a bad idea?

No sooner is a can of worms opened than the worms form an escort party and lead us to a bigger one.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Evolve:
That the human coccyx is a vestigial tail,
That is an opinion.
and the whale pelvis is a vestigial structure, are NOT based on any assumptions,
Yes, they are assumptions.Joe_{September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

As to reproductive isolation in fruit flies, the late Lynn Margulis was not impressed,,,
"The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis.
In fact, extensive experiments done on fruit flies are excellent in their support AGAINST Darwinian claims for macro-evolution,,
Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies
As to dog breeding,,, Dog breeds are the result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain,
Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record. http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00
As well, crop varieties are the result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain,,,
Children of the Corn: A Reader Objects - April 2012 Excerpt: As John Doebley put the point in 2004, "The critical genetic variants involved in maize evolution were pre-existing in teosinte populations" (p. 46). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/children_of_the058251.html Supergerms—do they prove evolution? by Rev. Roger Kovaciny Excerpt: Supergerms are not supergerms any more than hybrid corn is supercorn—today’s (corn) hybrids are so delicate that they can’t even sprout unless they are planted underground. They can’t even grow effectively unless the ground is weeded. They can’t even reproduce unless technicians at seed-houses mate them artificially and with great effort. http://creation.com/supergerms-do-they-prove-evolution also see plant geneticist John Sanford's book Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome
Male nipples forming a teat pattern, seem to be evidence along the lines of the 'human tail' that Darwinists are so fond of citing, and are thus (more than likely) evidence of a detrimental mutation(s) during embryological development. As to the supposed vestigial organs, this former atheist thinks the trend in evidence for supposed vestigial organs is actually a powerful evidence against Darwinian claims,,,
“The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff “There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.” -evidence submitted to the Scopes trial
Moreover, vestigial organs, like the appendix, are far more important than Darwinists prefer for people to believe
Surgical removal of the tonsils and appendix associated with risk of early heart attack - June 2011 Excerpt: The surgical removal of the appendix and tonsils before the age of 20 was associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack in a large population study performed in Sweden. Tonsillectomy increased the risk by 44% (hazard ratio 1.44) and appendectomy by 33% (HR 1.33). The risk increases were just statistically significant, and were even higher when the tonsils and appendix were both removed. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-surgical-tonsils-appendix-early-heart.html#share
As well, the appendix refuses to cooperate with any Darwinian scenario for its origination,,
Evolutionists Multiply Miracles - February 12, 2013 Excerpt: William Parker, a surgeon,,, says it has the strongest evidence yet that the appendix serves a purpose. In a new study, published online this month in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. Randolph Nesse (U of Michigan) had an interesting take on this conclusion. “The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing,” he said. “I do find their argument for the positive correlation of appendix and cecum sizes to be a convincing refutation of Darwin’s hypothesis” (about the appendix being vestigial).,,, per crevinfo
Thus, despite Evolve's blind faith in Darwinism, the fact of the matter is that Darwinism IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to being 'the best supported theory in all of science' as Evolve has claimed.bornagain77_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Evolve claims
"Evolution is arguably the best supported theory in all of science, not just in biology."
Yet neo-Darwinian evolution, contrary to what Evolve wants so desparately to believe, is not even a science in the first place but is actually a full fledged pseudo-science,,
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science: Excerpt: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 etc..etc..etc.. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
Evolve goes on to cite Lenski's LTEE, Talk Origins speciation site, Lizard cecal valves, Sea Stars, Reproductive Isolation in Fruit Flies, Varieties of dog breeds and crop strains, Male nipples, and the appendix as proof that neo-Darwinism is 'the best supported theory in all of science'. Call me less than impressed with his evidence for 'the best supported theory in all of science'.,,, First, Lenski's LTEE is proof AGAINST Darwinian claims for macro-evolution, not for it,,,
Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE): 25 Years and Counting - Michael Behe - November 21, 2013 Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture -- a cumulative total of trillions of cells -- has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that's equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans.,,, ,,,its mutation rate has increased some 150-fold. As Lenski's work showed, that's due to a mutation (dubbed mutT) that degrades an enzyme that rids the cell of damaged guanine nucleotides, preventing their misincorporation into DNA. Loss of function of a second enzyme (MutY), which removes mispaired bases from DNA, also increases the mutation rate when it occurs by itself. However, when the two mutations, mutT and mutY, occur together, the mutation rate decreases by half of what it is in the presence of mutT alone -- that is, it is 75-fold greater than the unmutated case. Lenski is an optimistic man, and always accentuates the positive. In the paper on mutT and mutY, the stress is on how the bacterium has improved with the second mutation. Heavily unemphasized is the ominous fact that one loss of function mutation is "improved" by another loss of function mutation -- by degrading a second gene. Anyone who is interested in long-term evolution should see this as a baleful portent for any theory of evolution that relies exclusively on blind, undirected processes. ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html
Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);
Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012 - article http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin's speciation FAQ as a 'literature bluff' Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00 Related notes: A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
Lizard Cecal valves, instead of being evidence for Darwinian evolution, are actually evidence against it, in that the adaptation is found to be a rapid epigenetic modification that is cyclical in its nature,, (much like cyclical finch beak variation)
Phenotypic Plasticity - Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA Lizard Plasticity - March 2013 Excerpt: So in this study, plasticity experiments were conducted. When the lizards were taken off a plant diet and returned to their native insect diet, the cecal valves in their stomachs began to revert within weeks. As the authors conclude, this pointed heavily to plasticity as a cause. We can infer that the this gut morphology likewise arose in similar fashion when coming into contact with the plant diet. http://biota-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/lizard-plasticity.html
As to Evolve's sea star citation, the paper itself states the supposed speciation event was accomplished via a loss, not a gain, of function,,
,,,sea stars evolved only 6,000 years ago, during a period of rapid environmental alteration,,, The new species, Cryptasterina hystera, lost the planktonic larval stage all together, http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=5202
bornagain77_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Dr. JDD @ 57, ///After all, why should it matter to you what I believe?/// You're free to believe whatever you want, I don't care. I only step in and say "Hello, excuse me" when I see you disregarding the evidence, misinterpreting data and getting facts wrong. In this case, it is your take on vestigial organs. ///I was referring to organs/appendages such as coccyx which are assumed to originate from an ancestral tail. You are also surely not naive to know that if you do not assume the whale had a common ancestor that walked the land, or even if it did, that you cannot know the original function of the bone described as the pelvis – it is an assumption based on your own extrapolation. /// That the human coccyx is a vestigial tail, and the whale pelvis is a vestigial structure, are NOT based on any assumptions, they’re based on OBSERVATIONS. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat such a basic concept. You’re so adamantly refusing to see facts as they are. You’ll never get to grips with the truth unless you shed your personal bias and embrace the evidence with an open mind, JDD. ///Further, from molecular evidence we see that many structures had to convergently evolve/// So what? Some structures evolve convergently when different species adapt to similar environments. We’ve had a good handle on such cases for quite some time; for instance whale flippers and shark flippers or bat wings and bird wings. But, a few such examples don’t mean that every bit of similarity you find between species is a result of convergent evolution. We can tease homology apart from convergent evolution by detailed studies of anatomy, embryology and genetics. In the case of the whale pelvis, it is unambiguously clear that it is a vestige of the pelvis found in land mammals. ///common ancestry emerges as the best-supported explanation of the data. Only because you refuse to accept a Design argument because you label it as unscientific due to it being untestable./// Of course anything untestable is not science. I can claim that Santa Claus is real and nobody would be able to disprove me since there’s no way to test my claim. Likewise, you can always claim that a designer fiddled with life, but unless you can propose a hypothesis regarding who the designer is, what exactly he did, where and how, the whole claim is untestable, meaningless and doesn’t help explain any phenomena. In addition, the available evidence strongly suggests that life evolved naturally since predictions made by evolutionary theory has been confirmed by multiple scientific disciplines. Evolution is arguably the best supported theory in all of science, not just in biology. ///So how is that abiogenesis working out for you? Still a man of faith (like all materialists are) I guess. How about the multiverse? Really testable theories those./// No, you’re wrong again. Those are not theories, those are hypotheses - proposed explanations which make some testable predictions. ///Do we get new speciation? Or how about a real testable theory. Take an organism with a short doubling time and expose it for long periods to agents that enhance mutation////// Flawed understanding of evolution. High rates of mutation alone won’t necessarily result in new species. There has to be some selection pressure. Indeed, when such selection pressure is applied, new traits have been observed to evolve: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VCbmhCmSyLc Now even if there’s selection pressure, several constraints may prevent changes. Nature is a lot more complicated than you imagine. Nonetheless, there are many observed relatively quick evolutionary changes and speciation events: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=5202 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-08/uor-amo082014.php Even the variety of dog breeds and crop strains produced by artificial selection over a short period of time shows how quickly big changes can happen. Since you mentioned Drosophila, here’s a documented case of rapid speciation event in Drosophila: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm ///Just because you do not fully understand the design of some structure now does not mean it has no design/// Such an evasive statement is not enough. You got to show that this is the case. It is very easy to make any claim you want if you don’t have to produce evidence for it. And once again, let me repeat that showing one organ has some function DOES NOT INVALIDATE its vestigial status with respect to another function. The human appendix is a vestige of the caecum, no matter what other function it is performing. The whale pelvis is a vestige of the mammalian pelvis, regardless of what other function it has. Your proposed explanation must be able to account for the reduction in size and function of the vestigial organ in question. And creationism clearly fails at that. ///So when did the separation of male and female take place that coincided with mammary gland development? Remembering the fact that mammary development does not occur in embryogenesis but later on in life? Also, why does a man have a nipple but not a mouse if we share a common ancestor? They lost it but we couldn’t? why is it hard to accept or understand that nipples are also sexual organs of sensitivity that heighten the experience of sex?/// You’re totally wrong and all at sea here. Mammary gland development begins in the embryo even before the embryo’s sex is established! And of course, it’s not just human males that have vestigial nipples, other male mammals do too: Nipples in male elephant: http://cherylmerrill.com/tag/mammals/ Nipples in male bear: http://larrywbrown.blogspot.de/2009/10/difference-between-male-and-female.html In male mice, the rudimentary nipples regress during development. They are the exceptions among mammals in not having vestigial nipples. So there goes your nipples-are-for-pleasure explanation. Female elephants and bears don’t stimulate their mate’s nipples during intercourse! At least we haven’t seen them do that! The only logical explanation here is that these are vestigial structures atrophied in male mammals. What's more, males can also develop breast cancer, because they have underlying breast tissue, not just superficial nipples. There’s more. Mammals actually develop several nipples along two parallel lines running from the armpit to the groin (called milk lines). This is because every litter typically has many offspring. In humans, however, only two of these actually develop since our litter size has shrunk to 1 or 2 offspring at a time. But in some people, extra nipples develop along those milk lines - these are called supernumerary nipples - another clear case of vestigial structures. And guess what, even men have such supernumerary nipples! See this: http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2012;volume=18;issue=3;spage=373;epage=375;aulast=Goyal ///FACT: Evolutionists have long taught that vestigial organs that have lost function are good evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor/// This still holds true as myself and others have made very clear here and elsewhere so many times. The appendix was known to be a vestigial caecum right from the beginning. Now even if new functions (such as a role in immunity) are discovered, that doesn’t invalidate the conclusion that it is a vestigial structure with respect to the function performed by the caecum. It’s that simple.Evolve_{September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS claims
We assume there are no gods influencing the results, but this is just an assumption that cannot be checked scientifically.
Really??? So since we are not, according to CLAVDIVS, ever allowed to invoke God as a cause in science, how does he explain Leggett's Inequality?
Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf
The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:
Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449
The implications are discussed here by Richard Conn Henry who is a Physics Professor at John Hopkins University
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Verified, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
Thus if CLAVDIVS follows his own rule with Leggett's Inequality, then CLAVDIVS, instead of following the evidence where it leads, is forced to adopt solipsism.
Solipsist Humor from Plantinga ,,,At a recent Lecture I attended by Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, he warmed up the crowd with a few solipsist jokes.,,, FYI, solipsism is the rather odd idea that there is only one individual in the universe and that you are it. Everyone else is just a figment of your imagination. 1. British philosopher Bertrand Russell was a solipsist for a time (why does that not surprise me?), and he once received a letter from a woman who found his arguments very convincing. Well, I suppose it’s not so hard to convince a figment of your imagination that your arguments are brilliant. Anyway, the woman commented in her letter that his description of solipsism made a lot of sense and that, “I’m surprised there aren't more of us.” 2. Plantinga also told of an accomplished academic who was a well-known solipsist (I forget the guys name). And Plantinga thought it would be fun to meet a real life solipsist, so he went to visit him. He was treated fairly well considering he was only figment. I mean, it’s not a given that a solipsist would feel the need to be polite to his imaginary friends. After a brief conversation, Plantinga left and on the way out one of the man’s assistants said, “We take good care of the professor because when he goes we all go.” http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2011/05/13/solipsist-humor-from-plantinga/
Verse
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.,,,
bornagain77_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS- The question science asks is not if we can rule out any intelligent designer. Science asks if there is evidence to put one in.Joe_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS #170: Humans cannot test *purely* materialistic processes. We assume there are no gods influencing the results, but this is just an assumption that cannot be checked scientifically. If someone wants to claim apples fall from trees, not due to an impersonal gravitational force but because Scientology thetans are willing it, this claim cannot be scientifically tested or falsified.
Thank you for the explanation. I fully agree. Some metaphysics are beyond the grasp of scientific testing.
CLAVDIVS #170: In like manner, if one claims the branching pattern of life is not due to descent with modification driven by genetic drift, selection etc, but instead is due to a deity that undetectably meddles with nucleotides, this claim cannot be scientifically tested or falsified either. Such a claim would need to be defended on non-empirical grounds.
This is not a valid comparison IMHO. ID theory is not proposing an untestable unknown cause for the accumulation of information in life – e.g. Thetans. ID theory offers a familiar cause, namely intelligence – please note: NOT a deity.Box_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
Humans cannot test *purely* materialistic processes.
And yet we do to the satisfaction of billions of people.Joe_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
If someone wants to claim apples fall from trees, not due to an impersonal gravitational force but because Scientology thetans are willing it, this claim cannot be scientifically tested or falsified.
It will be scientifically ignored.
In like manner, if one claims the branching pattern of life is not due to descent with modification driven by genetic drift, selection etc, but instead is due to a deity that undetectably meddles with nucleotides, this claim cannot be scientifically tested or falsified either.
If one claims that there is common ancestry then one needs to be able to show it. If one claims there is a branching pattern then one needs to support the claim that it is real and only one mechanism can produce it. Why can't it be that organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design meaning that drift, selection, etc., are as impotent as science has uncovered? Also what is the evidence that changes to genomes can produce the alleged branching pattern? Do tellJoe_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Box @ 166 I meant what I said. Humans cannot test *purely* materialistic processes. We assume there are no gods influencing the results, but this is just an assumption that cannot be checked scientifically. If someone wants to claim apples fall from trees, not due to an impersonal gravitational force but because Scientology thetans are willing it, this claim cannot be scientifically tested or falsified. In like manner, if one claims the branching pattern of life is not due to descent with modification driven by genetic drift, selection etc, but instead is due to a deity that undetectably meddles with nucleotides, this claim cannot be scientifically tested or falsified either. Such a claim would need to be defended on non-empirical grounds.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS: I must say hat your boring arguments remind me of someone else. Maybe memes are real, after all :) You ask for something that "my" designer cannot do. It's easy enough. "My" biological designer cannot violate the laws of physics and biochemistry, anymore than we can do. Are you happy now?gpuccio_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Moreover, as if 'annihilating Darwin's tree of life' were not bad enough for the dogmatic Darwinist, 'form', i.e. body plans, are not reducible to the sequences in DNA as is presupposed in Neo-Darwinism: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/this-study-says-it-explains-our-high-facial-variability-but-it-is-a-tautology/#comment-515498bornagain77_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

in post 138, Clav tried to claim genetics supports common ancestry. Whether intentionally misleading or not, That claim is simply false: Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php podcast - Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on (Darwin's) Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - March 2014 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-14T16_17_31-07_00bornagain77_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS #158: It is not within the power of human beings to test whether purely materialistic processes can account for anything.
Huh? Are you sure? That would be an absolute science stopper. Or did you mean to say: "It is not within the power of human beings to test whether purely materialistic processes can NOT account for anything"? If so, and if indeed there are no boundaries to what purely materialistic processes can do, than your objection to the designer ...
CLAVDIVS #141: If you can’t tell me anything that’s impossible for the designer, I will assume nothing is, and therefore the designer concept is not scientifically testable
.. also applies to purely materialistic processes.Box_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
I’m just amazed to see how incredibly easy it is to scratch the surface of ID as it is represented here, and see the dogmatic science denialism come bubbling out, like rejection of common ancestry.
There isn't any science to deny wrt common ancestry. I have told you why and you have ignored it. And that is very telling.Joe_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
It is not within the power of human beings to test whether purely materialistic processes can account for anything.
Then there isn't any science and we should stop with the pretense. But I digress. We sure as hell can tell an artifact from a rock. We sure as hell can tell a crime from an act of nature. That would mean we humans have some ability to differentiate between purely materialistic processes and when an intelligent agency acted. You don't know what you are talking about.
How would you prove God was excluded from the process?
You don't need to.
You’re sure representative of the community that supports ID, Joe, I’m sad to say.
Whatever, CLAVDIVS. At least I know what science is and what we mere humans can do with our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.Joe_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @ 161 Hope you have a good day. Regards CLAVDIVSCLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @ 159 Perhaps a slight topic-fork would be refreshing ...
Some nice guys here have almost persuaded me to accept that some commenters are allowed for the sake of keeping the discussions a little heated and spicy, kind of for entertainment? But mainly for our own benefit, because they force us to learn more and sharpen our arguments ...
We learn to walk by falling over a thousand times. And we sharpen our ideas by subjecting them to criticism, discarding what is unsupported and weak, retaining and building upon what remains resistant to the strongest objections. There are hardly any critics left any more at UD. Thus it has become boring, and IMO the collective viewpoint of ID supporters here appears to be gravitating towards a monolithic, dogmatic anti-science attitude. This is not a good thing for ID. I expect to be banned soon too, simply because I have observed so many posters banned without clear explanation, and the only pattern that appears to hold is that they were all critics. I'm actually an ID supporter. I have been for a long time. However I also support good science, which makes me a pariah here.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

#159 addendum Please add references to posts 156, 157 and 158 too. Really pathetic. What a shame. What a waste of precious time. I guess this is a clear sign for me to take a break and get out of here for a while. Time to get back to work. auf wiedersehen!Dionisio_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 149
I am ID! :) Or at least CLAVDIVS seems to think so.
You're sure representative of the community that supports ID, Joe, I'm sad to say.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Posts 140, 141, 146, 147, 154, among many others, confirm my old suspicion that really there doesn't seem to be any noticeable censorship in this site, as some folks claim. This seems to be one of the most open and flexible discussion forums I've seen or heard of. I would have screened out a few more 'commenters' by now. But that's fine. Gotta learn to ignore them. :( Some nice guys here have almost persuaded me to accept that some commenters are allowed for the sake of keeping the discussions a little heated and spicy, kind of for entertainment? But mainly for our own benefit, because they force us to learn more and sharpen our arguments, and also for the benefit of the lurkers, because it makes us to write messages over and over again, under the excuse that some interlocutors don't quite get it the first time, though we know they won't get it the next times either, unless they change their minds and suddenly want to understand. Oh, well.Dionisio_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 144
... if purely materialistic processes can account for something we don’t consider the design inference
It is not within the power of human beings to test whether purely materialistic processes can account for anything. How would you prove God was excluded from the process? You can't. So your proposed test for ID is impossible. Which makes ID untestable.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

drc466 @ 150 Please read my post to Dionisio @ 156, and ponder it.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @ 146 Spare me your sarcasm Dionisio. Not interested. I'm just amazed to see how incredibly easy it is to scratch the surface of ID as it is represented here, and see the dogmatic science denialism come bubbling out, like rejection of common ancestry. This is why ID is now relegated to fringe status. It had a chance to break into the mainstream, and it was most regrettable to see ID dragged off into the mire because too many of its supporters exhibited blind, anti-intellectual, anti-evolution, anti-science extremism. No intellectual movement can succeed unless it builds upon well established knowledge about the world, including scientific knowledge about biology. I've watched UD for some time now, wondering if the needed change would come about. It didn't, not yet. Maybe not ever. ID must break from old-time creationism, or perish.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS- The design inference is scientifically testable and Newton has told us how to proceed. And IDists have said exactly how to test and potentially falsify ID. Simple as that, indeed.Joe_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 144 Still waiting to hear what is impossible for the designer of ID. If nothing is, then ID is not scientifically testable. Simple as that.CLAVDIVS_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

#150 drc466 #152 bornagain77 Your comments were incomplete, because you did not mention the goldendoodles. Was that intentional or you simply forgot it? ;-)Dionisio_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

drc466, very well put! :)bornagain77_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

#149 Joe Wow! So that means I got it right and understood it well this time! :) BTW, I thought this ID was not equivalent to one person. Maybe I didn't get the memo.Dionisio_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS @116,@135
This is what I’ve been saying all along, so it appears we’re substantially in agreement.
On dogbreeding, yes. On apes evolving into men, don't be ridiculous.
We know quite a lot about bat evolution over the past 50m years, but prior to that evidence is difficult to find.
In other words, we know about ~~dog~~batbreeding, but there isn't a shred of evidence that bats have ever been anything but bats.
It is unreasonable to hold the position that common ancestry of life cannot be demonstrated unless the full history of every species is worked out in detail
And.....up pops the strawman! It is not ridiculous to hold the position that common ancestry of life cannot be demonstrated if you cannot even construct reasonable intermediates in your imagination for the majority of transitions (asexual/sexual, single/multi-cell, reptile/bird) that you claim must have happened.
ID proponents who deny this do so at their peril.
No, we do so with great relish! Hence, the millions of pages written on the problems with Darwin's idea!
do you agree with gpuccio and drc466 that Darwin’s original chapter on rudimentary organs, like blind eyes and flightless wings, supports his theory of descent with modification i.e. common ancestry and is difficult to explain by special creation.
Once again, you're conflating dogbreeding with molecules-to-man evolution. Is a chihuahua a "descent with modification" from some earlier non-chihuahua-ish dog? Sure. Can you breed a dog into a cat? Don't be ridiculous (again!). Darwin's "theory of descent with modification" was about breeding cats from dogs, not black labs from some base labrador breed. Clearly you didn't ponder enough.drc466_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply