It adds nothing.
It takes away a great deal.
And as I said, actively removing God from the equation leaves one with the theory of evolution and not much else as an alternative.
- Status
It takes away a great deal.
And as I said, actively removing God from the equation leaves one with the theory of evolution and not much else as an alternative.
T
tjm190
Guest
Agreed.
Again, I can connect anything to anything else. The fact that Christianity has been connected to war does not make it a violent faith.
There is an ongoing conflict between mainstream religion and athiests, in which both sides seek to marginalize the other. Marginalizing psychics does no good- they’re about as far off as you can get.
They’re probably tired of you reusing debunked arguments over and over again.
Peace,
Ed
T
tjm190
Guest
Actively removing God? Scientists look at the natural world and draw conclusions based on what is found.
T
tjm190
Guest
That’s fine, but none of the concerns seem to be legitimate or substantial- perhaps it’s the other side that should be searching for a priori bias.
I
ipwnuathalo
Guest
What a fun time everyone appears to have had in this thread.
I have read as extensively as my admittedly modest level of education has allowed me to on the issue of biogenesis and the early Earth. People on both sides of the debate are guilty of haphazardly applying faith in the absence of testable data to the question “how likely is the series of supposed processes which trasnforms pre-biotic molecules into operating cells taken against the organizational minimum and the time available”.
Someone like Michael Behe and someone like Richard Dawkins are both arguing from a lack of information on this question. Behe is good at articulating the necessary level of complexity that accompanies life processes on the cellular level, and Dawkins is good at proposing ideas for non-biotic processes that might introduce structural order onto disorganized pre-biotic chemicals. However, this is, without probabilities indexed to time, not very useful. I am not a microbiologist, I can make no more headway in examining the merits of the arguments.
So, I don’t dwell on that.
I design things for a living, machines, and they happen to fly. So, I have an interest, and experience, in mechanical flight. This I can dig into. We do know how a bumblebee flies - or at least we’ve made some more strides in the field of turbulent lift since the famous “the bumblebee shouldn’t fly” headlines. What we know is that flight is very, very complex. There are two basic components to flight - structure and behavior. In each there are many subcomponents.
For a flying thing to work, both components must function. First, the structure: The wing surfaces must be matched in size to the force of the muscles attached to them and the weight of the payload. The cycle speed of the power system must be correct within a range to develop lift and control with a given wing size and shape. Insertion points of adequate strength must be provided for the muscles. Pivot points of adequate travel must be provide for the wings to articulate. The biochemistry of the muscles must the matched to the duration of the powered portion of the flight profile. For many flight systems (see the bee) the stiffness of the wing surface must be within a narrow range to allow the lifting surface to passively change shape during the stroke. The remaining support systems (fuel storage, guidance and nav, landing gear) have a maximum weight value which requires specific structures, or else the load is too great for the flight system to lift.
Then, the behaviors: On some systems, the angle of attack of the lifting surface must be varied actively during the stroke, and error in the angle or attack is not allowed outside a range of only a few degrees. Wings do not “flap”, they describe a complex curve and this travel path must be observed without significant variation. On all systems, the differential lift vectors supplied by two or more lifting surfaces must be managed to supply climbing, turning, banking and other desired maneuvers. On some systems, an articulated tail surface is added and the angle of attack of this aurface must be actively maintained in three dimensions. Recovery behaviors to manage wind gusts and upsets must exist. Takeoff and landing routines are required.
On these systems, large errors cannot be tolerated. Make a change to a flight surface, the system does not function. Make a small change to the musculature of the flying animal, it cannot fly. Take away part of the “flapping” stroke. No flight. Remove only one axis of control on the surfaces, no flight.
Flying animals are very precise solutions to particular engineering problems. This type of solution is called a “mountain top” solution because all of the adjacent data sets do not provide other comparable solutions, but instead are very deficient. Each solution, or particular set of values, exists like a steep mountain on the graph of possible solutions. You cannot iterate to a mountaintop solution.
Every aspect of biology, to hear the experts talk about their own fields, has mountaintop solutions like these. It’s impossible to iterate to these solutions, because any deficiencies (like the ones envisioned by ANY evolutionary scheme in a trasitional form) render the system not just sub-optimal, but profoundly non-functioning.
Anytime complex, complementary structures exist in life-forms, they potentially represent mountaintops. In the case of multiple, complementary, complex structures with necessary, instinctive, highly complex associated behaviors, iteration is not possible and the question of time is rendered moot. Impossible events remain impossible over any time span.
Now, I realize that, as a Catholic, I am allowed to “believe in evolution” with wide latitude, and at one time I did. However, I no longer think mutation+selection represents real possible explanations for organisms. I don’t see any reason why this means the only other possible explanations are supernatural, and if the Church was allowing us to accept Darwinism when it was the best candidate, I don’t see why the Church would seek to prevent us from accepting whatever the next approximation is. But, and I see no alternative to this, there will be a next approximation, and it will have to address the actual level of complentary complexity of structure and behavior in real organisms.
I have read as extensively as my admittedly modest level of education has allowed me to on the issue of biogenesis and the early Earth. People on both sides of the debate are guilty of haphazardly applying faith in the absence of testable data to the question “how likely is the series of supposed processes which trasnforms pre-biotic molecules into operating cells taken against the organizational minimum and the time available”.
Someone like Michael Behe and someone like Richard Dawkins are both arguing from a lack of information on this question. Behe is good at articulating the necessary level of complexity that accompanies life processes on the cellular level, and Dawkins is good at proposing ideas for non-biotic processes that might introduce structural order onto disorganized pre-biotic chemicals. However, this is, without probabilities indexed to time, not very useful. I am not a microbiologist, I can make no more headway in examining the merits of the arguments.
So, I don’t dwell on that.
I design things for a living, machines, and they happen to fly. So, I have an interest, and experience, in mechanical flight. This I can dig into. We do know how a bumblebee flies - or at least we’ve made some more strides in the field of turbulent lift since the famous “the bumblebee shouldn’t fly” headlines. What we know is that flight is very, very complex. There are two basic components to flight - structure and behavior. In each there are many subcomponents.
For a flying thing to work, both components must function. First, the structure: The wing surfaces must be matched in size to the force of the muscles attached to them and the weight of the payload. The cycle speed of the power system must be correct within a range to develop lift and control with a given wing size and shape. Insertion points of adequate strength must be provided for the muscles. Pivot points of adequate travel must be provide for the wings to articulate. The biochemistry of the muscles must the matched to the duration of the powered portion of the flight profile. For many flight systems (see the bee) the stiffness of the wing surface must be within a narrow range to allow the lifting surface to passively change shape during the stroke. The remaining support systems (fuel storage, guidance and nav, landing gear) have a maximum weight value which requires specific structures, or else the load is too great for the flight system to lift.
Then, the behaviors: On some systems, the angle of attack of the lifting surface must be varied actively during the stroke, and error in the angle or attack is not allowed outside a range of only a few degrees. Wings do not “flap”, they describe a complex curve and this travel path must be observed without significant variation. On all systems, the differential lift vectors supplied by two or more lifting surfaces must be managed to supply climbing, turning, banking and other desired maneuvers. On some systems, an articulated tail surface is added and the angle of attack of this aurface must be actively maintained in three dimensions. Recovery behaviors to manage wind gusts and upsets must exist. Takeoff and landing routines are required.
On these systems, large errors cannot be tolerated. Make a change to a flight surface, the system does not function. Make a small change to the musculature of the flying animal, it cannot fly. Take away part of the “flapping” stroke. No flight. Remove only one axis of control on the surfaces, no flight.
Flying animals are very precise solutions to particular engineering problems. This type of solution is called a “mountain top” solution because all of the adjacent data sets do not provide other comparable solutions, but instead are very deficient. Each solution, or particular set of values, exists like a steep mountain on the graph of possible solutions. You cannot iterate to a mountaintop solution.
Every aspect of biology, to hear the experts talk about their own fields, has mountaintop solutions like these. It’s impossible to iterate to these solutions, because any deficiencies (like the ones envisioned by ANY evolutionary scheme in a trasitional form) render the system not just sub-optimal, but profoundly non-functioning.
Anytime complex, complementary structures exist in life-forms, they potentially represent mountaintops. In the case of multiple, complementary, complex structures with necessary, instinctive, highly complex associated behaviors, iteration is not possible and the question of time is rendered moot. Impossible events remain impossible over any time span.
Now, I realize that, as a Catholic, I am allowed to “believe in evolution” with wide latitude, and at one time I did. However, I no longer think mutation+selection represents real possible explanations for organisms. I don’t see any reason why this means the only other possible explanations are supernatural, and if the Church was allowing us to accept Darwinism when it was the best candidate, I don’t see why the Church would seek to prevent us from accepting whatever the next approximation is. But, and I see no alternative to this, there will be a next approximation, and it will have to address the actual level of complentary complexity of structure and behavior in real organisms.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So what you are saying is, birds would be “Sitting Ducks” to other predators while they waited around to evolve winds ?
Apologies, I misread the post to say atheist, not a theist.
But the question did not address scientists at all.
If you wish to indict me based on what scientists do or do not do, you may want to actually ask a pertinent question.
Given the faithfulness to a Godless universe that I have experienced many atheists to have, it would seem a reasonable precaution to insure that the faith is not swaying the research.
R
redneck22
Guest
Welcome to the fray…how’s Halo been playing?
Good post, it reminds me of when we try to imitate what has been created and designed in nature to function with purpose within its environment. Biomimetics holds far reaching promises for future benefits.
In terms of alternatives to evolution, I would say that if all the natural options are exhuasted, tested and found to fail, then the supernatural would be a logical and scientifically valid option. Todays science is not a search for the truth but a search for natural explanations only, no matter how ridiculous the explanations become.
R
reggieM
Guest
Thanks for an excellent post – very clear, knowledgeable and detailed.
I find what you said to be irrefutable – or at least, I’ve never seen any counter-argument that is plausible.
I find it interesting that those, like yourself, who are involved in engineering sciences very often can easily see the impossibility in building structurally complex biological functions through an iterative process. Add to that gradual-process the need for random-mutations which can easily fall outside of the necessary tolerance levels for any of these structures and it gets much worse.
Scientists trained in zoology, however for example, might not understand the engineeering requirements needed to produce these precise, interrelated functions.
As you said, we can see these mountaintop-structures everywhere in biology. Call them irreducibly complex or multiple, complex, interrelated structures – or any other terms for that - but the parts work together as a whole only through dependency on other related parts.
Darwinian-evolutionary paths for these structures have to explain a gradual change by mutations with each step providing a functional advantage over the previous step. More importantly, it’s a trial-and-error approach with the danger having errors completely destroy forever any of the improbable structures that might have accidentally formed.
Add to that, even in the absurdly improbable case where a single structure formed – that structure has to operate correctly within the rest of the organism, and to continue to function correctly, it has to fix bugs that creep in through harmful mutations.
So, the system has to evolve error-correction devices and redundancy as system-backups.
In a designed-model, this is easy because the designer sees the future and goal and therefore plans for problems and builds error-detection, correction and redundancy.
In a system that is blind to the future, there is no reason to preserve the current-state and no way to decide to build error-correction. The system arose through the very errors (mutations) that the system would then try to prevent (thus killing off it’s own evolutionary potential).
All of these things are earmarks of deliberately, consciously designed systems.
It’s true that just because the evidence shows that it is impossible for Darwinian processes to produce these kinds of structures, it doesn’t mean that an Intelligent Designer necessarily did.
But without an alternative, it does mean that “we don’t know” is the most certain answer.
The fact also that we do know that biological systems show the very same characteristics as humanly-designed systems show – that the influence of some kind of intelligence in the biological system is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.
E
edwest2
Guest
I want to thank the poster who provided the engineering example.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
T
Techno2000
Guest
I mean evolve WINGS… there must have not been too many cats around .
I
ipwnuathalo
Guest
Meh, you can dumb it down like that if it helps someone understand. Loses a lot in the process, though.
In my opinion, and like I said I’m sticking to an area where I can actually contribute, the idea of iteration by mutation and selection does not provide anything like a coherent explanation of systems with multiple complementary, necessary structures AND complex instinctive behaviors absolutely necesary to utilize those parts. You can posit one of Gould’s hopeful monsters for the sake of debate, and no matter how fortuitously the monster happens to be shaped and covered, it does possess the requisite behaviors to fly. When biologists discuss the evolution of flight, they are in fact discussing the evolution of gliding. I have absolutely no problem with the evolution of the flying squirrel, I find it quite likely. It is a single-structure mutation with very limited behavioral modification from its likely predecessor.
The fly, the bee, legitimate birds with breastbones and hollow wing bones…these creatures possess multiple structures which only in concert provide lift and control, and any one of these examples is much less inherently stable than the structures men build to fly in. The necessary sensory capability, processing capability, and actuating capability of a bird boggles my mind. That’s the primary reason it represents a mountaintop solution.
That’s my contribution. I can testify that when people espousing strict Darwinist or NeoDarwinist biology talk about the evolution of flight, they are off of the actual levels of complexity (and therefore improbability) by multiple orders of magnitude.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Can you explain" mountaintop solution" please.
J
jackfrost10
Guest
Your analogy is irrelevant, as buildings, planes, etc do not reproduce with variation. Its much like Kent hovinds bridge analogy. In the video below you can find it being throughly debunked.
The problem is you are looking at evolution from an engineers point of view. You need to understand that creatures have been evolving for 4.5 billion years, your looking at it as if a creature has been produced with a specific purpose, the evidence does not support this hypothesis.
The evolution of stuctures like wings, eyes, etc are clearly documented.
part 1 youtube.com/watch?v=CGfhAevhy_0
part 2 youtube.com/watch?v=lekYXLgTZeU
part 3 youtube.com/watch?v=wvkHoMXAc7M
I
ipwnuathalo
Guest
Jack, that’s sort of a throwaway post you just made.
I have no interest in defending someone else named Kent Hovind. I’ll gladly defend myself if you want to take issue with something I posted. However, considering that the debate over the possible mechanisms which might produce complex complimentary structures and behaviors which do not admit of functioning intermediary forms is a lively one, I’ll file your pronouncement that it’s already over in the round file. I’ve been told the debate is over many, many times and if it were over, then it would, in fact be over.
I have no problems, as I posted above, with purely natural processes of development and speciation (and I’m in no trouble with the Catholic Church for believing them if convinced). In point of fact, I don’t really have an ideological dog in this fight. Whatever the real process by which a given individual organism came to have all of the requisite structures and behaviors to achieve flight, I’ll be glad to accept it. However, until you do in fact posit a process by which an organism came to possess the mulitiude of very specific physical characteristics and also the very unique instinctive behaviors necessary to operate them while existing in a hereditary line of organisms required to express a competitive form very closely in order to compete…until then you haven’t engaged me.
Welcome to teh interwebs.
I think that, unless you are very ignorant on this subject, you know very well that changes over time in structures like these are well documented, but that the mental leap to say that Darwinian evolution of these structures (and behaviors, never forget) has been documented is not warranted.
I have no interest in defending someone else named Kent Hovind. I’ll gladly defend myself if you want to take issue with something I posted. However, considering that the debate over the possible mechanisms which might produce complex complimentary structures and behaviors which do not admit of functioning intermediary forms is a lively one, I’ll file your pronouncement that it’s already over in the round file. I’ve been told the debate is over many, many times and if it were over, then it would, in fact be over.
I have no problems, as I posted above, with purely natural processes of development and speciation (and I’m in no trouble with the Catholic Church for believing them if convinced). In point of fact, I don’t really have an ideological dog in this fight. Whatever the real process by which a given individual organism came to have all of the requisite structures and behaviors to achieve flight, I’ll be glad to accept it. However, until you do in fact posit a process by which an organism came to possess the mulitiude of very specific physical characteristics and also the very unique instinctive behaviors necessary to operate them while existing in a hereditary line of organisms required to express a competitive form very closely in order to compete…until then you haven’t engaged me.
Welcome to teh interwebs.
R
rossum
Guest
Your opinion is incorrect. When Professor Behe came up with his concept of Irreducible Complexity it triggered a lot of research - his question was a very good one.
We now have a much better idea of just how IC systems can and do evolve. We have mutation by mutation lists of IC systems evolving. We have bacterial cultures that have evolved IC enzyme systems. There is so much evidence for the evolution of IC systems that Professor Behe has now conceded that IC systems can evolve. He is corrently working on showing just how difficult (or easy) it is for such systems to evolve. He published a paper in 2004, Behe and Snoke Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, which shows that a small population of bacteria can evolve a simple IC system in about 20,000 years.
You have misunderstood Gould here. The “hopeful monsters” were proposed by Goldschmidt; Gould was against them and criticised Goldschmidt’s idea.
You are overspecifying the complexity of the solution. Bees and flies do not possess a breastbone, so a breastbone is not required. Bats do not have hollow bones, so hollow bones are not required. You have accepted the evolution of gliding, which means that you must also accept the evolution of a certain element of attitude control - flying squirrels can steer their glide towards a distant tree and can change their body attitude from horizontal to vertical as they approach their target tree trunk. See youtube.com/watch?v=UCSf5_894B4. Given that flight has evolved at least four times, in insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats it cannot be that difficult. Note that in each case evolution has come up with a different solution; we do not know how many other possible solutions there are that evolution has not tried yet.
Evolution is not limited by the thoughts of any single human mind.
rossum
J
jackfrost10
Guest
I posted the video because kent hovid make a similar point to yours which is throughly debunked. You have already openly admitted you have a limited knowledge of biology and your objections are form an engineers point of view, my i suggest you read up on the science and you will find your objections are totally unfounded.
Also you i think you will find there is no debate regarding evolution among biological scientists.
A question, if a biologist started raising unfounded objected on an engineering project, would you not suggest they learn something about engineering first? Do you not feel you should give biologists the same courtesy?
I
ipwnuathalo
Guest
- Given that flight has evolved at least four times, in insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats it cannot be that difficult. Note that in each case evolution has come up with a different solution; we do not know how many other possible solutions there are that evolution has not tried yet.*
However, flight is exactly that difficult. This is where the debate turns subjective. “It has happened 4 times, ergo it can’t be difficult, ergo there is no special explanation required to fit it into a Darwinian framework”. That’s not a chain of reasoning at all.
Flight is exceedingly difficult, exacting and complex. I would like to for someone to engage the issue of how an organism mutates to a system with fine specifications that must be met to function even minimally without posting a youtube video. I’m happy to engage.
Now, as to the article you posted, I am aware of this, and I’m aware of Behe’s continuing career. I will quote him:
I will gladly submit to this, and wonder how we can extrapolate this to instead reference number of loci (?) responsible for all of the flight characteristics I have mentioned AND the behaviors and the generational cycle time of the species I’m talking about. THAT would be useful. That could very possible free me from having to explain the absolute necessaity of coupling all of these characteristics together in any engineering sense whatsoever. The avian question alone (and feel free to take issue with this, it’s why I’m here) will involve many more pieces of genetic information than the protein example in the Behe quote, and the logisitical problem with 10^8 bird generations settles the question firmly.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Jack:
Just for my own personal erudition, what “creatures have been evolving for 4.5 billion years?” A couple of examples would be great.
jd
- Status