Intelligent Design in Science Class

[Orogeny]

I believe what I’m saying is that Darwinian evolution is not a sufficient explanation for how an eye came to be.

What kind of eye? What is your basis for this claim other than your personal incredulity?

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Well, this is speculation

Please show me what is speculative about Lenski’s results in the complete mutation by mutation listing I linked to. That listing showed in extreme detail that it is possible for an Irreducibly Complex system to evolve. Professor Behe agrees that IC systems can evolve.

unless you can show empirically how an eye can evolve through a series of mutations.

You are moving the goalposts. In your post #98 you said: “I’ve already talked about complexity; so far, the data does not show how systems could have evolved into more complex beings.” I referenced Lenski’s complete mutation sequence to show precisely how an Irreducibly Complex system can evolve. You original question said nothing specifically about eyes, yet now you are demanding evidence about eyes. That is moving the goalposts. I have answered your question and shown that IC systems can evolve, giving a mutation by mutation sequence for the evolution of one such system. You have lost that point. It would be polite for you to acknowledge that you have lost this particular point before moving on to a different question.

unless you can show empirically how an eye can evolve through a series of mutations.

Read Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter Six. We have known how an eye can evolve for a long time.

Selective pressures aren’t necessarily looking for improvements, …

Selective pressures are looking for which mutations have the highest average number of fertile descendants. The more descendants a mutation has the more copies of that mutation get into the next generation.

… there must be something else that is.

No. That is all that there is. The number of fertile descendants directly impacts the number of copies of that mutation in future generations. It really is that simple.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Because inevitably you or others will demand that I corroborate my words with sources, so why not list them to begin with and not lose anything in translation?

That article clearly offers pathways by which the eye evolved, so I don’t understand why you cling to irreducible complexity.

Offers pathways is, once again, maybe it happened like this, maybe not.

First the eyeball, and another eyeball, set apart at a precise distance to offer binocular vision, then two optic nerves, flipping the upside down images, and now, the hard part, being able to interpret the images in a meaningful way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JJ59]

Hey I’m probably a little late in the discussion, but Intelligent Design has been a topic that’s interested me. Just recently I saw the video “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”. Good flick. (I’m Christian, BTW) I’m not sure if I’m hooked on ID, but they do put up some good points.

But one thing bothers me. The idea that we can recognize design was ‘proven’ by the comparison to Mt. Rushmore. We recognize that Mt. Rushmore had an Intelligent Designer, but we would not recognize design in ordinary clusters of stones. Therefore that we recognize design in our Earth, it must have been designed.

This all made sense, but then I thought about it. We recognize design because we can compare it to other designed things and un-designed things. If the whole universe is designed, then we couldn’t possibly have anything un-designed to compare it to! Therefore, the idea that we just recognize design as a part of how our brain functions falls flat.

Just wondering.

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Michaelo]

Offers pathways is, once again, maybe it happened like this, maybe not.

You’re unfairly understating the significance of a scientific theory.

If you’d like to propose a more scientifically substantiated explanation for this natural phenomena then feel free to do so.

 

[a_priori]

The *objective *fact remains that the eye is an irreducibly complex organ. There is no way of getting around this argument.

This is just not true. The eye can indeed be charted across evolutionary time and is not irreducibly complex. The concept of punctuated equilibrium from Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge works into this problem. This allows for rapid evolutionary leaps and accommodates the mammalian eye.

 

[edwest2]

“punctuated equillibrium”? Have you analyzed those two words?

I edit and write fiction for a living. If something is punctuated, what does that mean? And how does it attain a state of equillibrium? If evolution is change over time, then there is no equillibrium. I come up with plausible sounding ideas all the time. The imagination is a wonderful thing, but my point is, I don’t find punctuated equillibrium very convincing as an actual explanation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[M0nkey]

If you’d like to propose a more scientifically substantiated explanation for this natural phenomena then feel free to do so.

We have given you explanations, you simply refuse to look at the evidence.

Therefore, the idea that we just recognize design as a part of how our brain functions falls flat.

This idea of design goes back to even before ID came around. For example, how would we be able to discovery gravity if we didn’t know that there are intrinsic universal laws in the universe? If you really think about it, science has assumed causality for a long time. I think what ID does is simply point that out, and tries to find out the crux of the matter or the sources that are feeding in natural law.

Please show me what is speculative about Lenski’s results in the complete mutation by mutation listing I linked to.

On the fact that it deals merely on probabilities not empirical data. Like I said, the real life observation is lacking sufficient evidence for this. No one has been able to prove, through the lab or through observation how an eye came to be. You figure if the probabilities hold, this should have been seen in nature a long time ago.

You are moving the goalposts.

I don’t think this is ‘moving the goalposts’ if you look at my previous points, my main point goes back to the fact that there is no way of knowing for sure unless we have real observations to prove it. An equation on a piece of paper dealing with probable causes that take in a bunch of assumptions which sound more like science fiction simply won’t do.

Read Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter Six. We have known how an eye can evolve for a long time.

He also mentioned it would be absurd to believe that. And so far the real life data does not prove it.

Selective pressures are looking for which mutations have the highest average number of fertile descendants. The more descendants a mutation has the more copies of that mutation get into the next generation.

Now this is where you shoot yourself in the foot. If selective pressure are looking for ‘which mutations have the highest average number of fertile descendants’ then how do you explain the fact that single celled organism can reproduce asexually while more complex systems are restricted by a partner? Clearly if what you claim is true, then there is no need for complexity, so that theory flies on the face of logic. Not that I have something against you personally (I do have something against the theory though), but you must see the logical fallacy here.

 

[rossum]

On the fact that it deals merely on probabilities not empirical data.

Did you even bother to click on the link I gave? It has no probabilities at all and consists entirely of empirical data. Here is the link again: Line of Descent. Click on it, read it, and point out to me precisely where there is a probability and not empirical data.

Like I said, the real life observation is lacking sufficient evidence for this.

How can the evidence for the evolution of IC systems be lacking when I have showed you precisely where the evidence is to be found? How can the evidence be lacking when Professor Michael Behe agrees that IC systems can evolve, and has himself calculated how likely it is that a simple IC system can evolve? Take off your self-imposed blindfold and look!

No one has been able to prove, through the lab or through observation how an eye came to be. You figure if the probabilities hold, this should have been seen in nature a long time ago.

What are you asking here? We see eyes in nature from the early Cambrian, about 500 million years ago - look here. We have indications of eyespots in earlier organisms as well, though the evidence there is less obvious.

I don’t think this is ‘moving the goalposts’ if you look at my previous points, my main point goes back to the fact that there is no way of knowing for sure unless we have real observations to prove it.

You claimed that complexity could not evolve. I gave you a link to exactly how complexity could evolve in tedious mutation by mutation detail. Now you start talking about eyes rather than complexity. To me that is a shifting of the goalposts. First you need to acknowledge, as Behe has done, that IC systems can evolve.

He also mentioned it would be absurd to believe that.

I strongly suspect that you have not actually read Darwin, just a creationist quotemine of him. That creationist quotemine lied to you, just as much as an atheist website that claims that Bible says “There is no God” lies.

What I suspect that you saw in the quotemeine was this:To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. …
What that quotemine failed to show you was the next part of the very same paragraph:… Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Source: On the Origin of Species, Chapter Six
You were lied to by that creationist quotemine. Why do you trust a source that lies to you? Or do you really think that the Bible says “There is no God”, instead of “The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’”?

Darwin asked a rhetorical question and then immediately answered it. Your lying creationist quotemine gave you the question but omitted Darwin’s answer. You need to find a better source.

Now this is where you shoot yourself in the foot. If selective pressure are looking for ‘which mutations have the highest average number of fertile descendants’ then how do you explain the fact that single celled organism can reproduce asexually while more complex systems are restricted by a partner?

You are misinformed. There are complex organisms that are single sexed: some Rotifers and others, some complex organisms which have single-sex phases such as aphids and other complex organisms that are hermaphrodite: earthworms and many flowering plants.

The advantage of sexual reproduction is a facter evolutionary response to a changing environment because fo recombination. The advantage of single sex reproduction is a short term increase in offspring. Hence we often see parthenogenesis evolving in the short term in reasonably stable environments, however when the environment becomes less stable then the parthenogenic species tend to be the first to go extinct.

Clearly if what you claim is true, then there is no need for complexity, so that theory flies on the face of logic.

Increased complexity can allow organisms to exploit habitats that they would otherwise not be able to. Fish with gills cannot live for long outside water. Fish with gills and lungs, such as lungfish, can live for months outside water. Hence lungfish can outbreed ordinary fish in areas with temporary pools that dry up for part of the year.

rossum

 

[a_priori]

“punctuated equillibrium”? Have you analyzed those two words?

I edit and write fiction for a living. If something is punctuated, what does that mean? And how does it attain a state of equillibrium? If evolution is change over time, then there is no equillibrium. I come up with plausible sounding ideas all the time. The imagination is a wonderful thing, but my point is, I don’t find punctuated equillibrium very convincing as an actual explanation.

Peace,
Ed

Try this.

pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html

 

[M0nkey]

Did you even bother to click on the link I gave?

In fact I did, did you? These are not talking about specific species. You have to show more than a mere calculation how the eye has evolved. In fact, if it is so easy as you say, how come we can’t see it in other creatures as we speak? If the theory is correct, there should be so much evolution going on around us that all we have to do is look as species split and evolve into more complex beings. Except is not. Again, if you have that kind of evidence, show me how this is occurring in nature.

You claimed that complexity could not evolve. I gave you a link to exactly how complexity could evolve in tedious mutation by mutation detail. Now you start talking about eyes rather than complexity. To me that is a shifting of the goalposts. First you need to acknowledge, as Behe has done, that IC systems can evolve.

Eyes are complex organs. So it would be talking about the same thing. And I believe you keep bulldozing over Behe’s statement since he said they are unlikely to have evolved. Notice this is to a lesser degree from the notion that it can evolve, surely you are able to see that.

You were lied to by that creationist quotemine.

I believe Darwin’s rhetorical answer was not dogmatism as you would like to believe. If you use common sense, he even admitted to it being absurd.

Increased complexity can allow organisms to exploit habitats that they would otherwise not be able to.

Except bacteria can survive in just about any environment. Again, you keep digging yourself into a hole. Tell me exactly how a single celled organism could have evolved? So far your reasoning is really pulling the other way.

 

[Michaelo]

We have given you explanations, you simply refuse to look at the evidence.

But your arguments, which I might add are not scientifically positive, have been repeatedly refuted by rossum and others.

On the fact that it deals merely on probabilities not empirical data.

Despite the fact that this reveals a misunderstanding of rossum’s evidence, you criticize the use of probability to support an argument yet the major tenet of ID (irreducible complexity) relies heavily upon it. Again, you are being inconsistent.

 

[rossum]

In fact I did, did you?

I did. Thankyou for looking at the link. Did you see any probabilities there? I did not. All I saw there was empirical data. Earlier you claimed that, in your post #108, that the link “deals merely on probabilities not empirical data”. Do you now withdraw that statement? Alternatively can you point to anything in the linked web page that is not empirical data from Lenski’s experiment?

These are not talking about specific species.

Again with the moblie goalposts. Look back through this subthread of our discussion, all I have talked about is the obvious fact that IC can and does evolve. There has been nothing up until now about specific species. Before I am prepared to move on to discuss other questions I want you to acknowledge that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve, and that they have been shown to evolve. If Professor Behe can agree that they do evolve then surely you can. Once you have agreed that IC systems do evolve we can move on to look at how easy or difficult it is for them to do so.

You have to show more than a mere calculation how the eye has evolved.

Lenski’s experiment had nothing to do with the evolutin of the eye. You are bringing up an irrelevancy. We are discussing Irreducible Complexity in general here. That is what Lenski’s experiment was looking at: Lenski (2003) “The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features”.

In fact, if it is so easy as you say, how come we can’t see it in other creatures as we speak? If the theory is correct, there should be so much evolution going on around us that all we have to do is look as species split and evolve into more complex beings. Except is not.

Except is is. You cannot see what you close your eyes to. Read Observed Instances of Speciation, then read More observed examples of speciation. I suspect that those links are not to be found on the creatinist websites that you seem to be getting your information from.

I believe Darwin’s rhetorical answer was not dogmatism as you would like to believe. If you use common sense, he even admitted to it being absurd.

Darwin did no such thing. Read what he said again: “seems, I freely confess, absurd” (emphasis added). Darwin did not say that it was absurd, he said that it seems absurd. He then proceeded to show that, despite it seeming to be absurd, in fact it was not: “then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.” The seeming absurdity “can hardly be considered real”. Your creationist source is grossly misrepresenting Darwin. Again I would point out that you need to find a better source. Either that or you should accept that the Bible says that there is no God, because this creationist quotemine is at about the same level of absurdity and distortion.

Tell me exactly how a single celled organism could have evolved?

Abiogenesis is not evolution. How much chemistry do you know? I ask because abiogenesis involves a geeat deal of chemistry. I will initially point you to some recent research on the chemical origins of some of the buiding blocks of RNA: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

The first component of ID theory, a critique of evolutionary theory, should be taught in science classes. After that, the peer-reviewed ID papers and an ID bibliography should be mentioned as scientific sources for students to pursue.

 

[edwest2]

Try this.

pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html

Lots of change but little evidence. This is storytelling and conjecture, not science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

The first component of ID theory, a critique of evolutionary theory, should be taught in science classes. After that, the peer-reviewed ID papers and an ID bibliography should be mentioned as scientific sources for students to pursue.

But ID has consistently been shown to be religion pretending to be science. There are no credible critiques of evolution theory that oppose it. If there were, they certainly should be taught in science classes.

 

[reggieM]

But ID has consistently been shown to be religion pretending to be science. There are no credible critiques of evolution theory that oppose it.

Many scientists, who are more qualified than you are, disagree.

 

[Namesake]

Many scientists, who are more qualified than you are, disagree.

It’s not an issue of science. It’s a matter of law.

“Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes”
msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

 

[a_priori]

Lots of change but little evidence. This is storytelling and conjecture, not science.

I didn’t expect the scales to fall away from your eyes. I was merely providing a source to address the error in your post. Defend your turf. You owe it to yourself. But I think ascribing “storytelling” to the likes of Gould and Eldredge is a little, well, you know…:

 

[edwest2]

It’s not an issue of science. It’s a matter of law.

“Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes”
msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Big deal. I think the ideas of both irreducible complexity and design are valid.

Peace,
Ed