Eye evolution

[Mallon]

I claim that this fact makes it clear to rational thinkers that we are the product of design, not random mud flinging.

But evolution isn't random mud-flinging. That's a strawman. So your rejection of evolution on that basis, and your subsequent acceptance of ID, is under false pretenses.

 

[chestertonrules]

You misread my post, apparently.

You write:

(So, something that was never the case, makes it clear to rational thinkers (cough cough) that we are the product of design?)

My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that an eardrum and anvil are both necessary, along with many other components, in order for us to hear.

Given that evolutionary theory states that beneficial mutations are kept, while wasteful mutations are discarded, it makes no sense that either an anvil, eardrum, etc. would have been created as a mutation and then kept. These multiple components can only be beneficial if they operate as a group, ie. a multi component tool engineered for a specific purpose.

 

[gluadys]

You
My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that an eardrum and anvil are both necessary, along with many other components, in order for us to hear.

Given that evolutionary theory states that beneficial mutations are kept, while wasteful mutations are discarded, it makes no sense that either an anvil, eardrum, etc. would have been created as a mutation and then kept. These multiple components can only be beneficial if they operate as a group, ie. a multi component tool engineered for a specific purpose.

What would make you think that a bone or an eardrum would be "created by a mutation"?

Mutations don't create things; they modify what already exists. The modification of reptilian jawbones into mammalian earbones is well-represented in the fossil record.

Furthermore, you are making a judgment call on "wasteful" mutations. I think you are referring to neutral mutations, ones that have no significant harmful or beneficial effect. These are quite common and do persist in a population as variations in traits.

So it is quite possible for the eardrum and anvil to evolve together into functional ear components.

 

[chestertonrules]

Thanks for your response.

You write:

(Furthermore, you are making a judgment call on "wasteful" mutations. I think you are referring to neutral mutations, ones that have no significant harmful or beneficial effect.)

Not accurate. Any growth requires blood, oxygen, and energy. If this growth serves no purpose, it is not neutral, but negative, if only slightly.

(
So it is quite possible for the eardrum and anvil to evolve together into functional ear components.)

I suppose anything is possible.

However, it is statistically "impossible" for multiple component biological systems to have come into existence through random mutation or evolution.

Please keep in mind that an perfectly functioning anvil and eardrum are useless for hearing without man other components.

At what point would you concede that design is the more likely explanation for these complex functions?

 

[chestertonrules]

(But evolution isn't random mud-flinging. That's a strawman. So your rejection of evolution on that basis, and your subsequent acceptance of ID, is under false pretenses.)

Mutations are random.

 

[shernren]

You misread my post, apparently.

You write:

(So, something that was never the case, makes it clear to rational thinkers (cough cough) that we are the product of design?)

My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that an eardrum and anvil are both necessary, along with many other components, in order for us to hear.

Given that evolutionary theory states that beneficial mutations are kept, while wasteful mutations are discarded, it makes no sense that either an anvil, eardrum, etc. would have been created as a mutation and then kept. These multiple components can only be beneficial if they operate as a group, ie. a multi component tool engineered for a specific purpose.

Surprise, surprise:

The answer is that they evolved simultaneously.

 

[chestertonrules]

What is the relevant point?

 

[Mallon]

(But evolution isn't random mud-flinging. That's a strawman. So your rejection of evolution on that basis, and your subsequent acceptance of ID, is under false pretenses.)

Mutations are random.

Yes, mutations are random, but they are acted upon by a non-random agent that is natural selection. That is to say, evolution works by non-randomly weeding out randomly-generated mutations. So, again, evolution is not random despite the fact that it works with randomly-generated building material. Please let go of that tired YEC strawman.

(Furthermore, you might want to rethink your position that randomness equates with godlessness. The Bible describes even the random casting of lots as under the governance of God [see Prov 16:33]. So just because something like genetic mutation appears random to us doesn't make it godless.)

 

[chestertonrules]

((Yes, mutations are random, but they are acted upon by a non-random agent that is natural selection. That is to say, evolution works by non-randomly weeding out randomly-generated mutations. So, again, evolution is not random despite the fact that it works with randomly-generated building material. Please let go of that tired YEC strawman.

(Furthermore, you might want to rethink your position that randomness equates with godlessness.))


I'm glad you now concede that mutations are random.

Now, given that mutations are random, and natural selection weeds out useless mutations, how do you explain multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations?

Does this not indicate design?

 

[Mallon]

I'm glad you now concede that mutations are random.

I never said they weren't. What I said was that evolution (which is not the same thing as mutation) is not random. Please don't misrepresent me.

Now, given that mutations are random, and natural selection weeds out useless mutations, how do you explain multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations?

I don't understand what you mean by this. Perhaps you can rephrase. Are you implying that natural selection doesn't happen?

 

[chestertonrules]

(I never said they weren't. What I said was that evolution (which is not the same thing as mutation) is not random. Please don't misrepresent me.))

You misrepresented me. I think I made my point clearly enough. My mud flinging analogy applied to mutations, you assumed I was referring to evolution.

(
Quote:
Now, given that mutations are random, and natural selection weeds out useless mutations, how do you explain multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations?
I don't understand what you mean by this. Perhaps you can rephrase. Are you implying that natural selection doesn't happen?)


No. I think natural selection can be well demonstrated in many cases. However, it cannot explain the development of many complex systems.

Therefore, Darwinism alone is insufficient.

Read this question again and see if you have an answer, please:

Now, given that mutations are random, and natural selection weeds out useless mutations, how do you explain multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations?

 

[chestertonrules]

A nice summary on what we know about the evolution of vertebrate eyes here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php

Yes, very nice.

However, this doesn't answer the question of why so many useless intermediary steps survived.

 

[Mallon]

You misrepresented me. I think I made my point clearly enough. My mud flinging analogy applied to mutations, you assumed I was referring to evolution.

I assumed you were referring to evolution because when you made your "mud-flinging" analogy, you quoted my post discussing evolution (no mention of mutation). Moreover, saying we are (or are not) a product of mutation alone (rather than evolution or natural selection) makes no sense whatsoever. No scientist would ever say that. So please forgive me for not reading your mind.

No. I think natural selection can be well demonstrated in many cases. However, it cannot explain the development of many complex systems.

Michael Behe -- a leading proponent of ID -- seems to think so. He has no problem accepting the fossil and genetic evidence for common ancestry.
Regardless, we can see the evolution of the mammalian ear in the fossil record. See the diagram shernren posted earlier. You're welcome to believe that God created each of those jaw systems independently, and in such an order as to just coincidentally appear like gradual evolution. But please don't promote such an ad hoc argument as being more scientifically sound than evolutionary theory. Scientists have dealt with the notion of irreducible complexity and moved on (summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community).

Now, given that mutations are random, and natural selection weeds out useless mutations, how do you explain multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations?

I asked you to rephrase yourself and you just spat the same thing back out to me.
What do you mean by "multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations"? In what way do you think, say, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear requires "useless mutations"?

 

[Mallon]

Yes, very nice.

However, this doesn't answer the question of why so many useless intermediary steps survived.

Ah. Now I understand what you're talking about when you say "useless intermediary steps." You assume that intermediate component parts maintain the same function throughout their evolution (i.e. "What good is half a wing?). This assumption is wrong.
Take a bird's wing, for example. Most living birds use their wings to fly. But this wasn't always the case. It was recently shown that even rudimentary wings serve some selective advantage by enabling birds (and likely theropod dinosaurs) to run up vertical obstacles (called wing-assisted incline running). And prior to that, it is likely that plumage on the arms aided in thermoregulation. So those intermediary steps aren't as useless as you think. Therefore, in answer to your question about how to explain "multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations", the answer is: the intermediary steps are not useless.

 

[chestertonrules]

I assumed you were referring to evolution because when you made your "mud-flinging" analogy, you quoted my post discussing evolution (no mention of mutation). Moreover, saying we are (or are not) a product of mutation alone (rather than evolution or natural selection) makes no sense whatsoever. No scientist would ever say that. So please forgive me for not reading your mind.


Michael Behe -- a leading proponent of ID -- seems to think so. He has no problem accepting the fossil and genetic evidence for common ancestry.
Regardless, we can see the evolution of the mammalian ear in the fossil record. See the diagram shernren posted earlier. You're welcome to believe that God created each of those jaw systems independently, and in such an order as to just coincidentally appear like gradual evolution. But please don't promote such an ad hoc argument as being more scientifically sound than evolutionary theory. Scientists have dealt with the notion of irreducible complexity and moved on (summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community).


I asked you to rephrase yourself and you just spat the same thing back out to me.
What do you mean by "multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations"? In what way do you think, say, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear requires "useless mutations"?

YOu post:

Regardless, we can see the evolution of the mammalian ear in the fossil record.


Are you saying that early mammals could not hear?(I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to understand your point)

 

[chestertonrules]

YOu post:

Regardless, we can see the evolution of the mammalian ear in the fossil record.


Are you saying that early mammals could not hear?(I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to understand your point)

((What do you mean by "multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations"? ))

I don't know a more simple way to phrase it.

If a function, for example, hearing, requires 25 unique components, how can you explain the survival of the original mutations in steps 1-24 that served no purpose?

 

[Mallon]

Are you saying that early mammals could not hear?(I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to understand your point)

No. The derived mammalian ear is simply better at trasmitting sound than the reptilian condition (the latter rely, at least in part, on detecting vibrations in the ground).

 

[chestertonrules]

No. The derived mammalian ear is simply better at trasmitting sound than the reptilian condition (the latter rely, at least in part, on detecting vibrations in the ground).

Fine.

I don't dispute the role of evolution in improving existing systems.

I find that it does not explain multiple useless mutations that end with the construction of something useful.

I believe this is most plausibly explained as the product of design.

 

[gluadys]

You write:

(Furthermore, you are making a judgment call on "wasteful" mutations. I think you are referring to neutral mutations, ones that have no significant harmful or beneficial effect.)

Not accurate. Any growth requires blood, oxygen, and energy. If this growth serves no purpose, it is not neutral, but negative, if only slightly.

Is it growth? If you look at those drawings of the changes in the bone structure, what you actually see are fairly large reptilian jawbones becoming smaller, so how is that using more blood, oxygen, energy?

However, it is statistically "impossible" for multiple component biological systems to have come into existence through random mutation or evolution.

And as you are well aware, the statistical probability of what has already happened is 1.0 No matter how improbable an event is, if it has happened, it has happened.

Please keep in mind that an perfectly functioning anvil and eardrum are useless for hearing without man other components.

I don't need to keep that in mind because it is not necessarily true. Hearing may be sub-optimum in a transitional stage, but that doesn't make the components altogether useless.

We haven't been mentioning the other bones of the middle ear. I believe the first one to be in place was the stapes and it did function at some level before the others were fully incorporated into the hearing apparatus. Also, even when the bones were still primarily jaw bones, they could be used to perceive sound vibrations as vibrations if not as sound: much as deaf people are able to respond to music they cannot hear through the vibrations made by the instruments.

So, no, we do not need to assume uselessness. Just a gradual improvement in the perception of sound vibrations.

At what point would you concede that design is the more likely explanation for these complex functions?

I am a theist. I believe evolution IS design. Why would God create a process of design incapable of producing design?

 

[Mallon]

I find that it does not explain multiple useless mutations that end with the construction of something useful.

As I've explained above (post #34), the intermediary stages (what you call "useless mutations") are not useless at all. This assumption is demonstrably false. So I would caution against rejecting evolution on that basis.