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}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

CLAVDIVS replied to Querius with
Do you understand that, according to Darwin, a vestigial organ can have still have “a significant role”?
Yes, I do understand! Darwinistic evolution requires that each evolutionary step is tiny, a small adaptation to the environment, and that this process has continued operating since the OOL. The inescapable conclusion is that, without exception, every structure in any organism is a vestige of an earlier one, which has been adapted to a modern environment. All life on earth consists of collections of vestigial organs because they all evolved from earlier structures. The whole concept of vestigial has become so useful, because it applies to every living thing, past present and future! And what a clever shift away from the deeply embarrassing position where every few years, a function was being discovered for some previously claimed useless leftover from evolution (by the old definition of vestigial)! LOL -QQuerius_{September 26, 2014
September
09
Sep
26
26
2014
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

I've been commenting about this on PZ's blog, my posts are not being published and all I've done is show all the links from Talk Origins, Jerry Coyne and Live sciences showing that vestigial means non-functional. O and I called Nick Matzke a bully so maybe that's why! I told him to go bully all the dictionaries to go and change their definitions because they don't conform to his view of vestigial! I guess nobody likes it when you challenge their religion on matters!Andre_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

#115 william spearshake You wrote:
I don’t really disagree with you. We spend far too much energy on nonsense,...
Since you wrote 'we' I assume you include yourself in that group, right? Do you mean that OOL and other philosophical discussions are nonsense? You also wrote:
when I hear an ID proponent say that the designer is beyond our comprehension, I just hear “cop-out”.
You should know by now that what you call "an ID proponent" could be associated with a wide spectrum of philosophical/theological beliefs: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, agnosticism, Christianity, JW, Mormonism, and perhaps even some atheists. What seems to unify them is the presence of functional complex specified information in the biological systems. Their philosophical and theological references vary substantially and are obviously outside science. I suggest you read some of gpuccio's and kf's posts for more details on the subject.
If ID is serious about being a science (which I think it can be) it has to acknowledge that the nature of the designer is open for investigation.
Who said it's not open to scrutiny? Of course, it is!Dionisio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

drc466 @ 109 Hi again drc466
1)Are the (non-functional) eyes of a blind cave fish “vestigial”? YES (woot, bells and whistles) 2) Are they evidence of common descent between some species of sighted and blind fish? YES
This is what I've been saying all along, so it appears we're substantially in agreement. I'm not trying to extrapolate from this example of vetigiality to the idea that all life shares common ancestry. Vestigiality is just one piece of a large puzzle, if I can put it like that.
And yes, any attempt to show common ancestry for bats can be easily shot down – don’t you ever wonder why?
The answer is simple - bats typically live in forests, where fossilisation is rare, and they are small delicate creatures and thus not easily preserved. We know quite a lot about bat evolution over the past 50m years, but prior to that evidence is difficult to find.
“IF ANY, THEN ALL” is a logically fallacious argument for common ancestry. Ponder it.
There are probably more than 2 million species extant, and perhaps hundreds of millions have existed since life began. 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. What we actually observe, across a very good statistical sample of genetic and fossil evidence, is an extremely strong mathematical signal in the patterns of similarities and differences between organisms; namely, a branching pattern over time that confirms Darwin's idea of descent with modification. This is well-established science. ID proponents who deny this do so at their peril.CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Dionisio, I don't really disagree with you. We spend far too much energy on nonsense, but when I hear an ID proponent say that the designer is beyond our comprehension, I just hear "cop-out". If ID is serious about being a science (which I think it can be) it has to acknowledge that the nature of the designer is open for investigation. If not, it is no more valid than Santa Clause.william spearshake_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

#111 william spearshake Here's a link to the thread I mentioned in #113: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-516002Dionisio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

#111 william spearshake Many serious scientists are busy working on difficult issues, with many outstanding and newer questions resulting from the data avalanche coming out of research. Their main focus is the unbiased studying of the observed natural processes. OOL and other philosophical discussions are distractions that don't seem to help resolve the highly complex biological puzzle. In another thread started by News in this site, I have posted over 400 links to examples of serious scientific research. Very few folks have dared to write comments in that thread. Most people would rather do philosophical chatting than scientific analysis. Any idea why?Dionisio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: Mio caro amico, I perfectly agree with you! "However, most people stay away from discussing the detailed functioning of biological systems. Perhaps in part because it gets quite complicated as we dig deeper into the subject and questions turn more specific. " How true, how true! :)gpuccio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

tjguy:
You know that most IDers believe the Designer to be supernatural and therefore the Designer is by definition outside of “science”."
Well, that certainly is convenient. I propose that all life is designed, and that I come to this conclusion based on science, but don't ask about the designer because, by definition, he is beyond science.william spearshake_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

gpuccio Mio caro amico! Glad to read your insightful posts again! Here are some interesting references you made, which I have quoted out of context:
#89 gpuccio ...functional information in protein and in other biological structures. #95 gpuccio ...ID is about functional information in biology. It is a true and realistic approach to data. ...explain the huge quantity of functional information in biological objects.
I agree that the concept of functional information is at the core of any serious scientific paradigm for the explanation of the observed biological systems. Limiting the discussion to just this exciting subject could keep us all busy for a very long time. Perhaps scientists would make more progress if they approach their biological research from the perspective of this paradigm. However, most people stay away from discussing the detailed functioning of biological systems. Perhaps in part because it gets quite complicated as we dig deeper into the subject and questions turn more specific. Anyone could get into it, but a very strong desire to understand it is required. Apparently not many have that desire. Now, on the side, the careful study of an object might tell us much about its structure, how it functions and what it does, but it may not reveal the exact intention of the designer. Someone could design something a certain way with a particular purpose in mind, but only the designer can answer the question "why?" it was done that way.Dionisio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS @102, I'm having a hard time determining whether you honestly don't understand that there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between degeneration within a species and (speculative) loss of function cross-species, or are just being obtuse and argumentative. 1) Are the (non-functional) eyes of a blind cave fish "vestigial"? YES (woot, bells and whistles) 2) Are they evidence of common descent between some species of sighted and blind fish? YES, BUT NO MORE SO THAN ALL THE OTHER PARTS OF THE FISH THAT ARE IN COMMON BETWEEN SIGHTED/BLIND (Um, close enough, we'll still call that agreement) 3) Is every organ that we don't know the function of "vestigial"? NO (uh oh, warning signs, we're coming to a point of disagreement here!) 4) Can we extrapolate from LOSS OF KNOWN FUNCTION WITHIN A SPECIES OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME (e.g. blind cave fish) to POTENTIAL LOSS OF UNKNOWN FUNCTION CROSS-SPECIES OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WITH UNKNOWN INTERMEDIATES (e.g. appendix in man from unknown ancestor with functional appendix) as both examples of evidence for common ancestry? NO (CLAVDIVS' head explodes) As for the bat/rodent example - I could have picked far worse. Sexual/asexual, vertebrate/invertebrate, single/multi-cellular, etc. Your problem is that you want to pick an uncontroversial example (wolf-->dog,flying-->flightless bird,sighted-->sightless fish), or in your words "the strongest example for common ancestry", and say that proves all cases, including bats, etc. And yes, any attempt to show common ancestry for bats can be easily shot down - don't you ever wonder why? "IF ANY, THEN ALL" is a logically fallacious argument for common ancestry. Ponder it.drc466_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

BA: You say: "i.e. Top down design rules!,,, Bottom up, whether unguided or unguided, is false!" Just to clarify, I don't believe that common descent implies bottom up design (although it does not exclude it). CD and top down design are perfectly compatible. Like you, I believe that design is mainly top down in biology.gpuccio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS: In brief: a) "Your designer is not all-powerful, then." No. He is a designer, not a creator. b) "Your designer’s not omniscient, then, either." Same answer. Beware, I am not speaking of "my designer", but simply of the designer that need be inferred from facts, by the ID theory of design detection. The only requisites of such a designer are: being an intelligent, conscious being, able to output purposefully functional information into objects through some interface. To my religious friends here: I am not excluding that the designer could be omnipotent or omniscient: that is simply not required, cannot in any way be inferred from observations, and anyway would not explain the contraints in biological design (but, obviously, there are constraint also in the design of a whole universe, so I don't believe that the idea of omnipotence is incompatible with constraints in the phenomenologic realm, even for a divine concept. But that's another story). c) "Which is basically Darwin’s idea of descent with gradual modification, is it not? How could we tell the difference between your idea and Darwin’s?" I am surprised that you say that. Do you know ID theory? Obviously, the whole problem is in functional information. The neo darwinian model explains the complex functional information we observe by RV + NS. That is simply impossible. It is a scientific fraud. ID explains complex functional information as the output of conscious intelligent beings. In accord with what we can observe. They are two completely different theories, with very different explanatory power and empirical support. d) "How much time? How many resources? If you don’t specify you cannot test the idea." "Sorry, gpuccio, but you’ll have to explain how this can be a constraint without any quantification of efficiency, perfection etc. You can’t test an idea that has endless wiggle room." "Very sensible; but of course, this is yet another unconstrained area." "To me, a paradigm is not an hypothesis or a theory; its an interpretive framework that might guide research. I agree it is not unreasonable to interpret biology as the outcome of conscious design. I don’t agree, at this stage, that this interpretation has given rise to any scientifically testable theory. You would need far more rigorous constraints on the designer concept than you have given above before it could be empirically tested." I will comment all those statements together. It's simple: ID theory analyzes functional information and its complexity, tests the presence of complex functional information in biology, and clearly shows all the many examples where design is the only eùavailable explanation. ID theory does not assume specific constraints of the designer "a priori". It's the other way round. Once we have inferred that a designer is the best explanation for the observed functional information, then we can try to infer properties and constraints of the designer and the design process from observed facts. It's very simple scientific methodology. On the contrary, the neo darwinian theory affirm an explanation which is neither consistent nor supported by any facts, and strictly avoid any verification of its assumptions, and ignores the obvious falsifications that are already available from observed facts. That's very wrong scientific methodology. It's as simple as that.gpuccio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

spearshake @99
For ID to obtain any credibility, and to be able to be treated as a science, it must clearly hypothesize the nature of the designer and then test for it. If the tests are not consistent with that hypothesized designer, there is nothing wrong with adjusting the hypothesis, or discarding parts of it.
Clever strategy. You know that most IDers believe the Designer to be supernatural and therefore the Designer is by definition outside of "science". Tell you what. First, why don't you design an experiment that shows how prokaryotes could evolve into eukaryotes or how chemicals could evolve into a living creature. Or, better yet, show us a way to test your belief that a remarkable single-celled organism, Oxytricha trifallax (that has two nucleus’ and 16,000 chromosomes (recall that humans have 46). The organism uses one nucleus to store its active DNA and the other nucleus to store an archive of the genome) evolved the amazing ability to disassemble the archived copy into a quarter-million pieces and then rapidly reassembles them into a new and improved version. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-pond-dwelling-single-celled-organism-does-amazing-genetic-engineering/ I will end with this: For darwinism to obtain any credibility, and to be able to be treated as real science, it must clearly hypothesize the nature of the mechanism of change that is responsible for the new body plans of the Cambrian, the new genes that code for new body organs, etc. and then test for it, test for it, and test for it again! You know, use the good ole scientific method! If the tests are not consistent with their hypothesized mechanism for change, meaning they are unable to demonstrate that their mechanism for change is actually able to do what they believe it did, then there is nothing wrong with adjusting the hypothesis, discarding parts of it, or even coming up with a totally new answer to the question. I'm speaking for myself here, but there have a lot of reasons I have to postulate a Creator. The Bible is one. God is praised throughout the Bible as Creator. Science is another - problems with evolution theory as well as clear evidence of design. Changed lives of believers all over the world even today is another. Eyewitness testimony of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection and the ensuing change of the disciples and their costly commitment and sacrifice to spread the gospel throughout the world and the actual establishment of the Church is another. Personal experience is another. Whether or not you accept those things as evidence is your choice, but that is my rationale for believing in a Creator.tjguy_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Clavdivs, I have read Gpuccio's posts. And I agree that he is at least making an attempt. But ID (and UD) in general, go out of their way to not propose the nature of the designer.william spearshake_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

As to falsifiability, Darwinists have scant room to talk. ID can be easily falsified by producing one molecular machine by unguided Darwinian processes:
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
In fact, there is a null hypothesis, as to information generation, in place that would falsify ID
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work
In fact, a single novel functional protein of more than 500 bits of functional information, generated by unguided processes, would falsify ID. (See K. Durston and our own gppucio as to specifics) along that line,,,
This short sentence, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity - Winston Ewert - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU
Whereas neo-Darwinism simply has no such rigid falsification criteria in place, as ID does, that would allow it to be, potentially, falsified. As I've said before, then only thing that I have ever seen evidence for unlimited plasticity in, i.e. evidence for 'macro'-evolution in, is in the theory of Darwinian evolution itself. Darwinian theory is forever morphing into new shapes to accomodate whatever disconfirming evidence comes along. There is simply nothing rigid within Darwinian evolution that would allow one to classify it as a proper science instead of the pseudo-science that it actually is.
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science: Excerpt: “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
bornagain77_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

william spearshake @ 99 Hi william - Have a look at gpuccio's posts. He hypothesises possibly multiple, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, imperfect designer/s that can only gradually tweak existing designs. Still too unconstrained for scientific testing, but its a step in the right direction. Definitely not the Biblical God, though.CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

drc466 @ 96
Every theory of (YE) special creation I know of currently postulates that today’s forms are degenerative/differently-expressed forms of species created less than 10Kyrs ago.
You're telling me that special creationists accept that blind fish species are descended from sighted fish species, which means they accept common ancestry of blind and sighted fish as clearly indicated by evidence like vestigial eyes. Well good - what are we disagreeing about then? And why don't you let BA77 know? He doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.
Your view of what Creationism would allow a Creator doesn’t match any current type of Creationism I know. If it did, creationist responses to supposedly vestigial organs would be along the lines of “yeah, that’s how God intended it”, not “you’re incorrect – that organ is in fact not vestigial”.
You just got through telling me that creationists accept that the rudimentary eyes of blind fish are the result of degeneration from an earlier, sighted form - i.e. the very definition of vestigial. Now you're telling me the creationist argument is that they're not vestigial (?!?) You can't have it both ways.
Tell you what – show me physical evidence (from fossils) or reproducible experimentation (from the lab) of how a bat “common-ancestor”ed its way from a flightless, sonar-less rodent, and I’ll grant you your seamless extrapolation.
First you tell me: Why bats? Do you want to learn about the strongest case for common ancestry? Or do you just want something that you think you can easily shoot down?CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

whether unguided or guidedbornagain77_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

gppucio, I amicably hold your position to be the weaker position, although your position is still vastly better than the Darwinists position. i.e. Top down design rules!,,, Bottom up, whether unguided or unguided, is false!bornagain77_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Joe @92
Special creation is OK with organisms losing parts or losing the use of parts. Special creation is not about the fixity of species. And special creation accepts descent with modification.
I think that is the point that Clavdivs was making. ID is consistent with everything because there is nothing that an hypothesized omnipotent designer (preferably a christian one) cannot do. ID accepts almost everything under its umbrella. Everything from a designer who only set the conditions for things to get started and then left everything alone, to a designer that intervenes at every step. Everything from a 6000 year old earth to a 4 billion year old earth. Everything from common descent to specific creation. For ID to obtain any credibility, and to be able to be treated as a science, it must clearly hypothesize the nature of the designer and then test for it. If the tests are not consistent with that hypothesized designer, there is nothing wrong with adjusting the hypothesis, or discarding parts of it.william spearshake_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 95
b) ID is, for me, a very good scientific theory. One that is sorely needed to understand something of biology. ... it cannot be “dwindling in significance” because some IDists have specific beliefs (like denial of CD) which are not in themselves part of ID theory.
Whilst I support the concept of intelligent design (and have done since long before the term ID came along), in my view its not science yet it is a metaphysical view with some evidential support. "Dwindling in significance" was a poor choice of words by me; I mean after a brief spark it has declined to a marginalised and fringe concept, IMO because its support community is salted with extreme anti-science denialists.
c) The context is the physical universe, first of all, and its laws. Biological design, as far as we can see, needs not violate any physical or biochemical laws, and therefore is constrained by them.
Your designer is not all-powerful, then.
Another context is the gradual development of an engineering plan. Like in most designs, it appears that in biological design functional implementations need to be realized gradually, and building on the results already obtained.
Which is basically Darwin's idea of descent with gradual modification, is it not? How could we tell the difference between your idea and Darwin's?
Another context are the informational laws, including the inevitable errors implied in all complex systems, the limitations in the physical conservation of information and in its physical development.
Your designer's not omniscient, then, either.
1) The designer cannot do everything he likes. He need time, he needs resources.
How much time? How many resources? If you don't specify you cannot test the idea.
2) While the design implementation is certainly extremely efficient ... it is not necessarily perfect. It can well include errors, limited results, and allow room for perfectioning.
Sorry, gpuccio, but you'll have to explain how this can be a constraint without any quantification of efficiency, perfection etc. You can't test an idea that has endless wiggle room.
3) It is absolutely possible that more than one designer is responsible for what we observe.
Very sensible; but of course, this is yet another unconstrained area.
These are only a few hints. My simple point is: ID is a scientific paradigm to explain the huge quantity of functional information in biological objects, interpreting it as the input of some conscious designer.
To me, a paradigm is not an hypothesis or a theory; its an interpretive framework that might guide research. I agree it is not unreasonable to interpret biology as the outcome of conscious design. I don't agree, at this stage, that this interpretation has given rise to any scientifically testable theory. You would need far more rigorous constraints on the designer concept than you have given above before it could be empirically tested. If ID is to progress, it needs to break with old-time creationism, stop attacking well-established science and start tackling the naive reductive-materialism that appears to have become entrenched in modern science. Anyway, thank you for your thoughts, it has been a refreshing exchange.CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

BA: As I have said many times, common descent in no way means that new species, phyla or you name it appear, even rather suddenly. There are in natural history many sudden implementations of new designs, OOL and the Cambrian being the best examples. I agree with you on that. I disagree on the fact that the implementation needs to be "from scratch": facts tell us the the new design reuses what already exists, or changes it. Take the origin of eukaryotes, for example. I do think that bacteria or cyanobacteria were used to build mytocondria or plastids. Many evidences point to that. In no way, however, that explains the origin of eukaryotes. The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is one of the most impressing jumps in natural history: hundreds of new genes, of new structures, of new regulations. The beginning of a completely new complexity which builds the foundation for the successive development of metazoa. It's new design from all points of view. But one of the basic characteristics of the new plan is the separation of energy methabolism from other more specific cell functions: IOWs, the use of mytochondria and plastids as a separate organelle, the compartmentalization of DNA in the nucleus, and so on. The reuse of some basic prokaryotic structures in the energy processing organelles is a brilliant part of that plan. And the point is: what would a good designer do in that case? The answer is simple: he works on what already is there (the prokaryote), remodeling it for the new specialized function, integrating its components in the new, more complex scenario. That is both design and common descent. There is no contradiction in that. Proteins and structure bear testimony of their old story, and at the same time of all the design innovations which were implemented in them.gpuccio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS @84 I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Eyeless fish etc. support descent with modification (common ancestry) over special creation, as noted by Darwin (and me @ 34 & 39).
See Joe @92. Every theory of (YE) special creation I know of currently postulates that today's forms are degenerative/differently-expressed forms of species created less than 10Kyrs ago. Eyeless fish would certainly qualify.
This is not ridiculous, it is just logic: An all-powerful creator with inscrutable motives could create absolutely anything logically possible, and therefore is consistent with absolutely any evidence or state of affairs – including scenarios that meet your two criteria.
See gpuccio @ 87. Your view of what Creationism would allow a Creator doesn't match any current type of Creationism I know. If it did, creationist responses to supposedly vestigial organs would be along the lines of "yeah, that's how God intended it", not "you're incorrect - that organ is in fact not vestigial". Finally - if you insist on being allowed to seamlessly extrapolate "parent-child" genetic relationships to "human-chimp" genetic relationships, then of course Evolution and common ancestry is correct. That seamless extrapolation is what is at the heart of the Evolution v ID v Creation conflict. You will get all three groups to agree to the first - only Evolutionists believe the second. Tell you what - show me physical evidence (from fossils) or reproducible experimentation (from the lab) of how a bat "common-ancestor"ed its way from a flightless, sonar-less rodent, and I'll grant you your seamless extrapolation. Until then, you're just assuming what you are claiming to prove.drc466_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS: In brief: a) I have had my debates with BA on that point, and we friendly (I hope) disagree. b) ID is, for me, a very good scientific theory. One that is sorely needed to understand something of biology. It is not a political party, or a football team. Therefore, it cannot be "dwindling in significance" because some IDists have specific beliefs (like denial of CD) which are not in themselves part of ID theory. ID is about functional information in biology. It is a true and realistic approach to data. It can never "dwindle in significance". c) The context is the physical universe, first of all, and its laws. Biological design, as far as we can see, needs not violate any physical or biochemical laws, and therefore is constrained by them. Another context is the gradual development of an engineering plan. Like in most designs, it appears that in biological design functional implementations need to be realized gradually, and building on the results already obtained. Another context are the informational laws, including the inevitable errors implied in all complex systems, the limitations in the physical conservation of information and in its physical development. Finally, an important context/restraint is certainly the interface between the designer's mind and biological reality. We know very little about that, except for what can be inferred by the scenario of biological evolution. A few obvious restraints are: 1) The designer cannot do everything he likes. He need time, he needs resources. 2) While the design implementation is certainly extremely efficient, practically optimal under many aspects, especially if compared to our human standards, it is not necessarily perfect. It can well include errors, limited results, and allow room for perfectioning. 3) It is absolutely possible that more than one designer is responsible for what we observe. Therefore, the methods, purposes and styles of biological design may well vary from case to case. Only empirical observation can help us understand better those points. These are only a few hints. My simple point is: ID is a scientific paradigm to explain the huge quantity of functional information in biological objects, interpreting it as the input of some conscious designer. That's all. It is not a religion, it is not a belief, it is not a political movement. It is science. Of course, as science is never isolated from the human context, religions, ideologies, political ideas, and specific groups of people are interested in ID, in one way or another, and develop strong tendencies in favor of it or against it. Frankly, I am not really interested in those aspects. ID is the best scientific paradigm of our times: it will triumph, sooner or later. It is the responsibility of all reasonable people to understand its importance and scope.gpuccio_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

gpuccio at 89, let's just say that I have a severe doubt, (i.e. 'Darwin's Doubt'), that the empirical evidence for common ancestry is as strong as you have imagined it to be:
A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes - David Berlinski July 9, 2013 Excerpt: Representatives of twenty-three of the roughly twenty-seven fossilized animal phyla, and the roughly thirty-six animal phyla overall, are present in the Cambrian fossil record. Twenty of these twenty-three major groups make their appearance with no discernible ancestral forms in either earlier Cambrian or Precambrian strata. Representatives of the remaining three or so animal phyla originate in the late Precambrian, but they do so as abruptly as the animals that appeared first in Cambrian. Moreover, these late Precambrian animals lack clear affinities with the representatives of the twenty or so phyla that first appear in the Cambrian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html "Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70) Socrates in the City - "Darwin's Doubt" Eric Metaxas with Stephen Meyer - video https://vimeo.com/81215936 Darwin's Doubt - Paul Giem - video playlist http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg
Verse:
Genesis 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,",,,
bornagain77_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
This paper completely contradicts your claim that “genetics does not provide evidence for common ancestry”, because the authors in fact use genetics to show common ancestry over at least hundreds, if not thousands, of generations.
Humans evolving into humans. Not quite what common ancestry requires...Joe_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Until we know what makes an organism what it is universal common descent will not be science.
Eyeless fish etc. support descent with modification (common ancestry) over special creation, as noted by Darwin (and me @ 34 & 39).
That is incorrect. Special creation is OK with organisms losing parts or losing the use of parts. Special creation is not about the fixity of species. And special creation accepts descent with modification.Joe_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 88 Thank you for the substance-free, sarcastic rant that utterly fails to address my argument @ 86. It serves rather well to illustrate for any interested onlookers that your position is driven by the drumbeat of dogma, rather than a humble truth-seeking attitude of following of the evidence where it leads.CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 87 & 89
I accept common descent because it is the best empirical explanation for many of the facts we observe. Moreover, I am deeply convinced that common descent is necessary to ID theory of biological information.
Of course, I agree. Why don't you try explaining this to BA77, and see whether you receive a kindergarten-level tantrum in response like I did. Regrettably ID appears to be dwindling in significance because it has been unable to disentangle itself from this sort of dogmatic denialism. If ID is to succeed it must, as you perceive, work with well-established facts of science.
(@ 87) “One (or more) conscious intelligent designer who works in a definite context and with all the constraints implied by the context..."
What is the context and what are the constraints implied by the context?CLAVDIVS_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply