Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig Falsifies Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Koln, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He is one of those old-school scientists who believes evidence matters even when it comes to questions of biological origins.

Charles Darwin famously offered the following suggestion as to how his theory could be falsified:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Dr. Loennig has repeatedly offered examples which defy a gradualist explanation, for example, listen to this
interview where he discusses carnivorous plants, whose complicated traps were clearly useless until almost perfect. (I have written on this topic myself, here. )

But Darwin offered other suggestions as to how his theory could be falsified, one of which was as follows: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Loennig has recently written an article which falsifies Darwinism on this criterion also, Plant Galls and Evolution.

The new paper is typical of Loennig’s writings, with abundance of details and references. As you listen to his Podcast on carnivorous plants, or read his new article on Plant Galls, I suggest the following exercise: try to imagine hypothetical species which would falsify Darwin, using his own criteria, in a more spectacular way.

If you want to see more of Loennig’s works, including his writings on the long-neck giraffe, go here .

Comments
@rvb8, even though a point may be tedious, that does not mean it is false nor irrelevant. A car can be careening towards a cliff, and one tedious guy keeps say "we need to turn around, this is the wrong way" while everyone else is busy trying to make the car go faster. From what I've researched, the inability of materialism to create information is a real and insoluble problem, and poses the interesting question: what can create information? where does information come from? Dembski et. al. use novel formulations for their theories and cast them in new light, but what they are saying repeats well established facts, such as algorithmic information, the data processing inequality, and Chaitin's incompleteness theorem.EricMH
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
mike1962 @89, your point is well made, and I accept it, not that you need my irrelevant confirmation of your valid observation. However, when a position relies on nothing but negative attacks on the position they deny (evolution), it becomes tedious, predictable, and indefensible. I have seen some very weak apologetics here, trying to push positive evidence for design, but it is nothing I have not seen since Dover. Evolution on the other hand is busily filling gaps, making new research proposals, and prodigiously publishing at such a rate, I for one am flabbergasted.rvb8
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
rvb8: That is, stop attacking evolution, and start experimentally supporting ID or Creation. Apparently, you don't understand how science works. Attacking prevailing theories is quite scientific, and is usually how major leaps in scientifically progress occurs.mike1962
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Thanks ET, good summation of ID as it currently stands. One question, any quotes beyond Behe?rvb8
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
EugeneS @ 68
Evolution of biosystems, whatever its actual capabilities, starts from a population of self-replicating heterogeneous autonomous systems with symbolic memory. What is absolutely needed is the first population that would come into being by substantially different means than those employed by evolutionary modelling of biosystems! And, to answer that question, one absolutely needs to address the following: How on earth did the first instruction appear? That is the real killer for all current naturalistic OOL models. Because there is no answer to it except via intelligence.
There is no satisfactory explanation of origins - from either side. Naturalistic science can offer explanations of what happened just after the Big Bang but it cannot say yet why it went "Bang!" or what - if anything - went before. But suggesting intelligence as the ultimate origin doesn't help either. We can always ask where this complex intelligence came from and what is the origin of the knowledge or information it possesses. There's still no escape from the two equally unsatisfactory alternatives - an inexplicable explanation or the eternal existence of something.
It is just a show to see how hard-line adherents to naturalism are not able to even understand that this problem exists.
We understand it very well. What you creationists seem to have a hard time grasping is that for us there is no compelling evidence for a Creator and that, as I wrote above, a Creator doesn't actually solve the problem anyway.Seversky
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
The positive case for ID, in summary:
 "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”- Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box
If we see that and there isn't a non-telic explanation we safely infer it was the product of intelligent design. Newton's rules for scientific investigation and Occam's razor come into play. Also from DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92:
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Shoot down any of the first three premises and ID falls. For example all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems and you take away the supporting evidence for ID. Dr Behe also wrote:
The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.
with the caveat from Behe:
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”
That means you cannot refute IC as evidence for ID by showing a three piece system can come into existence by necessary and chance events. That only takes care of three part systems and says nothing about systems requiring more parts. I bring that up because that is a favorite tactic of ID critics. For example Art Hunt uses it with his T-urf 13 IC argument. So Dr Behe provides the positive criteria and the way to falsify it as evidence for ID. And guess what? Peer review is loaded with articles describing biological structures, systems and subsystems that meet the criteria.ET
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
I agree with rvb8, ID needs to be a positive enterprise, not merely negative. One of the compelling reasons to pursue bad theories like Darwinism is we lack a non-naturalistic theory of causality. All of our scientific apparatus is based on chance and necessity mathematical models. What would an ID theory of biological history look like? What does ID say about physics and materialism in general? What kind of impact does agent causality have on our model of reality? ID has made interesting predictions that turn out to be true, most notably the ENCODE project discovering most "junk" DNA actually has functionality. If ID is true, it should revolutionize biology, in the same way that realizing a car is designed and not randomly assembled is a necessary condition to understand what a car is for and to use it effectively. If we thought cars were randomly assembled, we would probably use them for scrap, as we use much of creation today. This latter sort of thing is sorely in need of more investigation to help make the positive case for ID. Perhaps there are not the resources to spare at this point in time, but it should be on the back burner. Finally, if ID is true, it should make IDers very rich. IDers should focus on ways to make money with ID.EricMH
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
He/She seems incapable of anything save describing Evolution as, ‘blind mindless processes’, untestable ideas, hand waving, etc.
Evolutionary biologists describe evolution as proceeding via blind, mindless processes, so I don't understand your beef with me. As a matter of fact that is basically the debate- what can blind, mindless processes do vs what foresight and planning can do. So again I don't understand your beef. And if the ideas of the blind watchmaker could be tested we most likely wouldn't be having this discussion right now. So it seems that rvb8 is incapable of understanding what is being debated and it's everyone else's fault.ET
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
LoL! @ rvb8- all you have is your opinion and it appears to be an uneducated opinion at that. Natural selection, a result, has never been tested and shown to be the designer mimic it was made out to be. And sexual selection is a little problem for your position which cannot explain sexual reproduction. You want ID in a positive light? It is all over this and many other blogs and scientific papers. Start with ATP synthase- that meets Behe's positive ID criteria and your position doesn't have a mechanism that can produce one. So what would they be monitoring? My calling you on your bluffs and hissy fits? You are only good for demonstrating how desperate your position is.ET
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
kairos @77, I'm sorry, and I am not being facetious, but I have simply forgotten what your acronym FSCO/I means. The only thing I can reliably remember is that it is your contribution to Design Theory. Throughout this thread I have been accused of being a child, by UB @56 of being a nasty 'reckless teenager', and by ET as anything he sees fit to write. Now could the posters here fairly monitor the work of ET, please? He/She seems incapable of anything save describing Evolution as, 'blind mindless processes', untestable ideas, hand waving, etc. This, to describe the well tested mechanism of Natural, and Sexual Selection. His/Her posts are invariably a few lines of opinion. He/She makes no attempt to show ID in a positive light, to show its scientists doing anything, and just ladels on spoonful upon spoonful of conjecture and presumption. This is not a good look for an ID supporter, you might consider sanctioning him/her in some way.rvb8
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Origenes, Actually, as I was writing my comment, I looked at that thread of discussion you pointed to, and found that there gpuccio in fact said a similar thing to what I have just said (comment 107 there):
The pattern is encoded by the encoding of the individual behaviours and complex rules which will generate it.
Excellently put!EugeneS
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Origenes Thanks very much. Of course, bottom up is just unthinkable in practice. Top-down organization is the only way! I have recently discussed the information translation argument (let's call it like that) with a physicist. And I seem to have persuaded him. His main argument was that everything can be likened to the game of life whereby we have a state + the laws of motion, which gives us the next state etc. I argued that the initial state (in the case of information translation systems and hence all living systems) would necessitate symbolic boundary conditions infeasible without intelligence! He concurred ;) Anyhow, the reason why I remembered cellular automata is because apparently what seems like simple (bottom-up) rules gives rise to an explosion of complexity (von Neumann mentions it, btw). However, it seems to me that the automaton rules hold implicit complexity in themselves. The unfolding of events (evolution) is only a manifestation of the already present implicit complexity of the rules. And secondly, in the theory of cellular automata it is shown that some special automaton states exist that are unreachable by the evolution of the automaton over time. These states are called gardens of Eden. The only way an automaton can 'visit' a garden of Eden (if it exists) is to set the initial state of the automaton accordingly.EugeneS
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
EugeneS @78 Excellent quotes! Thank you. BTW I have argued elsewhere that homeostasis (or 'error correction system') is incompatible with naturalism.Origenes
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Origenes @76 The same argument was nicely put by a commenter here some time ago, which I liked very much: evolution = the error correction system emerging as a result of (carefully selected) errors ;) As David Abel puts it, evolution does not select for a future function, it only selects from among existing functions.EugeneS
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
RVB8, did or did you not design the text in your comments? Is that not yet another case among trillions that intelligently directed configuration per observation is the reliable source of FSCO/I? The evidence of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity being observed to so create FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits is: _______ . Correct answer, nil. Per inference to best explanation on observing reliable sign, FSCO/I is a reliable index of design as cause. Nowhere in this chain is there anything about "anti-Darwinism." The implication is actually per Newton's rules of inference: in explaining things we cannot directly inspect or observe, we must revert to traces and to causes known by observation to be capable of creating the like result. What happens is, blind watchmaker mechanisms cannot pass this test, and are typically inserted by the ideological backdoor. KFkairosfocus
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
And here is my personal favorite argument against evolution, from the article linked in the OP:
Finally, that natural selection seems even remotely plausible depends on the fact that while species are awaiting further improvements, their current complex structure is “locked in,” and passed on perfectly through many generations (in fact, errors are constantly corrected and damage is constantly repaired). This phenomenon is observed, but inexplicable — I don’t see any reason why all living organisms do not constantly decay into simpler components — as, in fact, they do as soon as they die. [Granville Sewell]
Origenes
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Good grief CR. You came here stating, among other claims, that knowledge is information that causes itself to be retained when embedded in a material medium. I responded directly to your claims. I asked you a very straightforward question: “What are the material conditions that enable this information to be instantiated in medium?” You refused to engage the issue. In fact, you seemed a little confused that there even were any material conditions, much less a uniquely definable organization. When pressed on the issue, you eventually stated that "a medium would have to undergo *transformations*," but then refused to say what those transformation are, or even explain their purpose in the system. When pressed further, you wrapped up by saying that the “laws of physics must allow it”. (facepalm) And then when pressed further still, you said “It’s not just that it is merely allowed by some abstract laws of physics, but which exactly regularities in nature defines information via a dichotomy of possible and impossible tasks that result in properties of being copyable, counterfactual, substrate independent, etc.” You even italicized the word “defines”, as if you felt like you had finally struck at the heart of the matter. As far as being an explanation for the material conditions of a medium, that is complete nonsense. It’s bafflegab. A medium is established by a representation and a constraint creating function within a system. That is how a thing becomes specified by a medium in our semantic-free physical universe (which is a necessary condition of your “knowledge”, so you might want to actually know what is physically necessary for it to exist). And this brings us to a second claim you’ve made – you believe that Darwinian evolution, which you idiosyncratically term “conjecture and criticism”, is the source of this system where “knowledge causes itself to be retained when embedded in a material medium.”. But you’ve already been shown that this is not physically possible. Darwinian evolution cannot function until a system exist that can specify objects among alternatives and encode those specifications in a material medium. If A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B. And what did you do with this information CR? I’ll tell you what you did, with the greatest effort possible, you ignored it completely. What is it in a medium that you say is “substrate independent” CR? Can you just post the irrelevant quotes of a fringe theory, or are you able to actually organize a coherent claim? What is required for your “knowledge is information retained in a medium” CR? How does “substrate independence” interact with dynamics?Upright BiPed
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
The second point is that natural selection, to get started, does not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators.
And we know this because there are just oh so many living examples that do not not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators. Miraculously, natural selection seems to be responsible for wiping out the evidence needed to support it.Mung
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
hgp @62
Even if these mechanism were modifications of some already existing different mechanism, there are several obvious questions: ......... Evolution can only be supported, if there are reasonable answers to those questions.
There are reasonable answers to those questions. Loennig thinks that he has evidence that disproves evolution. From the OP:
But Darwin offered other suggestions as to how his theory could be falsified, one of which was as follows: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Loennig has recently written an article which falsifies Darwinism on this criterion also, Plant Galls and Evolution.
From the piece he wrote that's linked above:
Hence, starting systematically with Malpighi 1679, for more than 330 years now, the basic results on plant gall formation “for the exclusive good of another species”, i. e. in favour of the parasites, have been strengthened, solidified and further expanded.
He assumes the plants are making the galls to help the insects and because they don't benefit the plant- and may hurt it- that disproves evolution. Everyone agrees that evolution could not produce such a relationship, so it must have been designed. There's a very obvious problem with this. Its the equivalent of saying that the reason we sneeze when we have the flu is to help aerosol the virus so it can spread. Its been known for a long time that a gall is a walled off region of the plant that the plant produces to prevent the spread of an infection or parasite. The galls don't harm the plant, they protect it from the infection. Insects exploit this to create a home for their larvae. Some insects merely irritate the leaf to get it to form a gall. Others have a more complex relationship (behavior/secretions?) to influence the shape, size and color of the gall. So the claim that this violates a fundamental requirement of evolution fails immediately and completely. You guys are not biologists. You have an excuse for not knowing this. But Loennig MUST know this.RodW
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
critical rationalist- There isn't a scientific theory of evolution and natural selection has proven to be impotent with respect to being a designer mimic. By the way, where did they get their replicator from, Walmart? Once a molecular replicator is found there is still Spiegelman's monster to contend with. But there is still the problem of that molecular replicator...ET
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
RodW @ 29:
Test/Observation: If the hypothesis is correct we could expect that the molecular mechanism the plant uses to produce the gall is an add-on module. Some tacked on set of instructions that can be activated by the insect that have no physiological role for the plant other than producing a gall. Evolution is supported if the mechanism for producing a gall is a modification of some already existing general mechanism which can have other functions.
Reuse is one of the primary practical principles of software engineering. Software engineering is often (if not always) intelligent design. This doesn't work.LocalMinimum
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
hgp @ 60 - so basically my answers to one question aren't good answers to a different question. I hope you don't mind me being utterly unsurprised and unconcerned at that.Bob O'H
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
@UB
What say you rv? Will you actually engage in earnest this time, or find a way not to?
Why should he bother, when you ignore responses and only engage what you find "interesting"? Again, this was addressed in the paper I referenced from the very beginning.
3.3 Natural selection is permitted under no-design laws These conclusions imply that an accurate self-reproducer - together with an accurate replicator - is permitted under no-design laws that allow for information media. So, under such laws, it can be constructed from generic resources only, given enough knowledge: it could continue to exist, say, had a chemical lab created it. However, one must also address the question: can accurate self-reproducers arise from generic resources only, under such laws? Note that what the prevailing conception would aim to prove is that the emergence of accurate self-reproducers follows (with some probability) given certain initial conditions and laws of motion. This approach, informing the search for viable models for the origin of life, [25], is suitable to solve scien- tific problems such as predicting the existence of life elsewhere in the uni- verse - e.g., by providing bounds to how probable the emergence of those self-reproducers is on an earth-like planet. Here I am addressing a differ- ent problem: whether accurate self-reproducers are possible under no-design laws. This is a theoretical (indeed, constructor-theoretic) question and can be addressed without resorting to predictions. Indeed, the theory of evolu- tion provides a positive answer to that question, provided that two further points are established. I shall argue for them in what follows. The first point is that the logic of evolution by natural selection is com- patible with no-design laws because - in short - selection and variation are non-specific to its end products. This can be seen by modeling the logic of natural selection as an approximate construction, whose substrates are populations of replicators and whose (highly approximate) constructor is the environment. This occurs over a much longer time-scale than that of self- reproduction, whereby replicators - constructors on the shorter scale - become now substrates. Evolution relies upon populations being changed by variation and selection over the time-scale spanning many generations. Crucially, the mutations in the replicators, caused by the environment, are non-specific, (as in section 3.1), to the “end product” of evolution (as Dawkins put it, not “systemati- cally directed to improvement” [27]). This constructor-theoretic characteri- sation of mutations replaces the less precise locution “random mutations” (as opposed to non-random selection, [5]). These mutations are all transmitted to the successfully created individuals of the next generation, by heredity - irrespective of their being harmful, neutral or beneficial in that particular environment. Selection emerges from the interaction between the replicators and the en- vironment with finite resources. It may lead to equilibrium, given enough time and energy. If so, the surviving replicators are near a local maximum of effectiveness at being replicated in that environment. Thus, the environment is passive and blind in this selection process. Since it retains its ability to cause non-specific variation and passive selection again, it qualifies as a naturally-occuring approximation to a constructor. Crucially, it is a crude approximation to a constructor: crude enough that it could have arisen by chance and requires no explanation. Its actions - variations and selection - require no design in laws of physics, as they proceed by non- specific, elementary steps. So the logic of evolution by natural selection is compatible with no-design laws of physics. The second point is that natural selection, to get started, does not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators. Indeed, the minimal requirement for natural selection is that each kind of replicator produce at least one viable offspring, on average, per lifetime - so that the different kinds of replicators last long enough to be “selected” by the environment. In challenging environments, a vehicle with many functionalities is needed to meet this requirement. But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchanging and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inaccurate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws - as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fi- delity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation - any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11) I conclude that the theory of evolution is compatible with no-design laws of physics, that allow, in addition to enough time and energy, information me- dia. These requirements do not contain the design of biological adaptations. Hence, under such laws, the theory of evolution fully explains the appearance of design in living organisms, without their being intentionally designed.
What say you, UB?critical rationalist
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Evolution of biosystems, whatever its actual capabilities, starts from a population of self-replicating heterogeneous autonomous systems with symbolic memory. What is absolutely needed is the first population that would come into being by substantially different means than those employed by evolutionary modelling of biosystems! And, to answer that question, one absolutely needs to address the following: How on earth did the first instruction appear? That is the real killer for all current naturalistic OOL models. Because there is no answer to it except via intelligence. What is more, deducing this single possible option has nothing to do with 'filling the gaps'. On the contrary, it is based on direct observations of how similar self-replicating heterogeneous autonomous systems with symbolic memory (such as malicious software) come into existence. I.e. via intelligence. It is just a show to see how hard-line adherents to naturalism are not able to even understand that this problem exists.EugeneS
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
RVB8 -- Could someone in creation science, or the ID movement please, instead of trying to falsify Darwin, bring one, just one piece of positive experimental evidence supporting design? RVB8, do accept that designed objects exist?tribune7
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
rvb, "another fine effort of ID posting. Clear, on topic, relevant, sustained argument, rigorously referenced," What a disgrace! Of all people here you seem to be the least interested in a scientific discussion. You cannot even see you are actually doing a disservice to opponents of ID.EugeneS
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
rvb8:
They also use evolution everyday in their planet hunting.
No one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. It is a useless heuristic.
They design experiments based upon what evolutionary predictions are made on earth...
What predictions? Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't predict anything beyond mere change or stasis. Clearly you are confusedET
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Seversky:
A rabbit in the Cambrian? Lots of modern rabbits fossilized in the Cambrian? Human fossils in the Cambrian?
Except yours doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing rabbits or humans, so that would be a problem. Given starting populations of prokaryotes yours doesn't have a mechanism of getting beyond more populations of prokaryotes.ET
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Folks, has anybody seen at least one example of macroevolutionary fulfillment of the fundamental evo-devo formulation? dev(d) = dev(a) + delta(a,d) Where 'd' is a descendent of its ancestor 'a'. dev(x) is the entire developmental process of a given biological system x delta(x,y) is the entire set of spatiotemporal changes in dev(x) required to obtain dev(y). They don't have even a clue. Just read their own literature. So what is it that y'all are discussing here? :)Dionisio
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
RodW @29
Evolution is supported if the mechanism for producing a gall is a modification of some already existing general mechanism which can have other functions.
I don't think it's that easy. First, we are not speaking about one mechanism, but about hundreds of mechanisms. Some plants have several different mechanisms for different insects. Even if these mechanism were modifications of some already existing different mechanism, there are several obvious questions: -Why does such a pre-existing mechanism have latent(!) abilities that the plant doesn't really need? How did evolution work here (not in one case but in hundreds of cases) to have an ability at hand that isnt necessary for the plant? -How did the insect find such a pre-existing ability? Before the insect found this ability it couldn't use it; so the insect at that point needed to have the necessary adaptation to take advantage of an plant ability it just discovered. So you not only need a pre-existing ability on the plant side but also a pre-existing adaptation to the unknown plant ability on the insect side. Where did that come from? How can such pre-existing abilities and adaptations exist in hundreds of cases just for the insects to be "discovered" and exploited? -Wouldn't it be much more probable for the insect to loose its ability to induce a yet not exploitable gall-inducing ability before it develops the necessary adaptations to exploit it? Evolution can only be supported, if there are reasonable answers to those questions.hgp
September 14, 2017
September
09
Sep
14
14
2017
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply