Does science actually admit "design"?

[Speedwell]

So If I left the faith I would automatically cleave to evolution? I didn't believe it before I was converted and I won't believe it if (God forbid) I ever unconvert.

Not necessarily, any more than if I "left evolution" I would necessarily abandon my faith for your right-wing Protestant fundamentalism. There are many more than just two options.

 

[bhsmte]

So If I left the faith I would automatically cleave to evolution? I didn't believe it before I was converted and I won't believe it if (God forbid) I ever unconvert.

You are describing; "black and white thinking", which is not unusual for folks who cling to biblical creation.

There are countless options.

 

[PsychoSarah]

if it doesnt make any problem to vision then how you can call it "bad design"?

-_- it creates tons of visual problems, actually. Why do you think optical illusions are a thing? The image the eye processes is so flawed that the brain has to fill in the gaps with what it thinks belongs there. That's why our occipital lobe has to be so large.

on the other hand: are you smart enough to make an eye?

-_- would you not consider a camera the technological equivalent?

 

[tas8831]

It does - it feeds back information to the brain on blood pressure and chemistry via the vagus nerve, and from pain sensors via sympathetic nerves routed through the upper thoracic spinal cord.

That's about all - how the CNS responds to that information is a different story.

Indeed - but this is not the context in which OWG means it. He is talking about motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN:


"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? Or that the throat tightens and the voice becomes weak under certain stressful situations. This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."









He is attempting to gloss that over by doing keyword searches and posting whatever he hopes will stick, such as the feedback stuff he recently linked to.

Don't be taken in by his schtick!

 

[tas8831]

And he never did. Creationism is thus disproved.

OK. I don't have to know how evolution works.

Now we are on a level playing field, and the only thing we can now do is present our evidence.

Here is but a taste of mine:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

Your turn.


And please don't reply with something stupid like 'are we related to mice?' or 'the mice are still mice' or some other statement of your ignorance of the subject coupled with a desire to rescue creationism - just present your positive, supporting evidence.

Like I did.

 

[tas8831]

If man and apes are so closely 'related' we should be able to tweak the genome of apes and produce humans from their species, and vice versa.

Flailing.

And failing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Indeed - but this is not the context in which OWG means it. He is talking about motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN:

"How do you think unconscious vocal signals get to the brain so fast when a person, or a giraffe, is suddenly surprised or frightened? Or that the throat tightens and the voice becomes weak under certain stressful situations. This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."

He is attempting to gloss that over by doing keyword searches and posting whatever he hopes will stick, such as the feedback stuff he recently linked to.

Don't be taken in by his schtick!

I'm just trying to ensure the science is reasonably accurate; you're right in saying there's no direct motor control of throat or larynx from the heart; signals from the heart are just sensory feedback to the CNS.

The changes and effects he's talking about are all CNS mediated.

 

[pitabread]

Faith-based thinking provides certainty. Mankind can use more of it.

Interestingly enough, I've noticed that there are people who have what I call a higher degree of "uncertainty intolerance". And probably not coincidentally, those who are intolerant of uncertainty seem to be more likely to hold dogmatic religious beliefs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Interestingly enough, I've noticed that there are people who have what I call a higher degree of "uncertainty intolerance". And probably not coincidentally, those who are intolerant of uncertainty seem to be more likely to hold dogmatic religious beliefs.

I tolerate uncertainty in others. My faith opens the door to certainty in the most important areas of (my) life. And it works well for me. If uncertainty is comfortable for others I have no problem with that, although I am certainly negatively affected by it.

Just out of curiosity what do you consider "dogmatic religious beliefs"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are describing; "black and white thinking", which is not unusual for folks who cling to biblical creation.

There are countless options.

The other options are just watered down black and white options.

 

[tas8831]

Faith-based thinking provides certainty. Mankind can use more of it.

Oh yes - better to be wrong but certain than to be correct but uncertain. We TOTALLY need more of that....

 

[tas8831]

I tolerate uncertainty in others. My faith opens the door to certainty in the most important areas of (my) life. And it works well for me. If uncertainty is comfortable for others I have no problem with that, although I am certainly negatively affected by it.

Just out of curiosity what do you consider "dogmatic religious beliefs"?

Just like you are certain that the sensory feedback from the heart somehow will convert to motor impulses and go directly to the larynx via the RLN?

Just like you are certain that one needs "near perfect peripheral vision" to 'see' the blind spot?



I think the pseudocertainty you enjoy - and exhibit - so frequently is a bad thing.

 

[tas8831]

Really? Read my link.



Yours aren't germane to the topic. I like this one better.

Chapter 01: Heart-Brain Communication - HeartMath Institute



Are you afraid to learn something new that might support my theory, or are you too 'entrenched' in traditional knowledge?

"Their insight, rigorous experimentation and courage to follow where the data led them, even though it did not fit the well-entrenched beliefs of the scientific community of their day, were pivotal in the understanding of the heart-brain connection."

I'm certain that the left RLN will be shown to be involved in this phenomenon sooner or later. Are you certain that it will not?

So - you were certain that your link supported your 'brainstorming for creation' notion that the aorta sends motor input directly to the larynx via the RLN?

Because it didn't - not even remotely close.

See what I mean?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- it creates tons of visual problems, actually. Why do you think optical illusions are a thing? The image the eye processes is so flawed that the brain has to fill in the gaps with what it thinks belongs there. That's why our occipital lobe has to be so large.

Optical illusions are more a brain thing than an eye thing.

-_- would you not consider a camera the technological equivalent?

The best cameras are designed after the human eye, which is the finest optical 'instrument' known to date.

The supposed shortcomings of the human eye are purposeful limitations. We are not designed to see infrared, ultraviolet, or have telescopic vision. And the brain compensates for the rather insignificant blind spot very well.

We also can't run like a gazelle, crush bones with our teeth like a lion, or lift ten times our weight, as animals can. We were created much lower than the angels, for the purpose of suffering and death, and our bodies reflect that in our design.

 

[xianghua]

It makes extra work for the brain to compensate for it.

so what? its still work great.

I am smart enough to see a better way to make it.

and yet you cant even make a simple eye. as you admit: "Of course, I do not pretend to be able to do so"

so maybe, just maybe, the designer is smarter then you?.

 

[xianghua]

True. For nearly 6000 years millions (if not billions) of people were blissfully unaware of this horrible visual impairment.

the "billions years" was the funny part .

 

[tas8831]

It makes extra work for the brain to compensate for it.

so what? its still work great.

So you have just negated the whole 'perfect' design thing.

Thanks!

and yet you cant even make a simple eye. as you admit: "Of course, I do not pretend to be able to do so"

so maybe, just maybe, the designer is smarter then you?.

Or, maybe the person that compiled lists of fallacious arguments had you in mind?


Waiting for you to make your self-replicating robot penguin. Maybe you are just not smart enough?

 

[tas8831]

The supposed shortcomings of the human eye are purposeful limitations.

You cannot possibly know this - besides, it is all question begging.


Still waiting for you to define "near perfect peripheral vision" and from what YEC website you copied that from, and where it was declared that such was needed to 'see' the blind spot.

 

[bhsmte]

The other options are just watered down black and white options.

And you have displayed, more black and white thinking.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Optical illusions are more a brain thing than an eye thing.

Did I not just describe that the brain thing exists because the eyes are inadequate? If there were no gaps in our vision to fill, our brains wouldn't be doing it and thus resulting in many optical illusions.

The best cameras are designed after the human eye, which is the finest optical 'instrument' known to date.

Humans don't even have close to the best vision among animals, and the best cameras have far better resolution than the human eye does. You just can't tell unless people are zooming into the picture so that you can personally perceive the extra detail. Think about it this way; if I produced an image with more detail than the human eye can generate, you wouldn't be able to tell, because your eyes are human, so you can't see any better than that. "But Sarah, the backgrounds are never as detailed as what I see". Sure they are, you just can't shift your focus to make out more detail in a still picture. But if you were looking through the high-end camera and adjusted it along with your own vision, you wouldn't see much of a difference. Cameras all process color slightly differently than each other, but the same actually goes for human eyes, so I don't view that as relevant.

Aside from the fact that cameras use lenses for focusing (lenses not made of the same material as that in human eyes), there's not much in common between them and human eyes. The only camera I know of that is literally designed after a human eye is one in development that is intended to be a replacement eye.

The supposed shortcomings of the human eye are purposeful limitations. We are not designed to see infrared, ultraviolet, or have telescopic vision.

These limitations have nothing to do with the blind spot, and would still be present if we didn't have it. I am not suggesting that having a limited visual spectrum is a flaw, I am saying that having blind spots in our field of vision that have to be filled in by the brain is demonstrably a flaw. After all, we could just have eyes "designed" similarly to a mantis shrimp. Oh, what do you know, it's possible to have color vision without a blind spot while also not having the retina towards the front.

And the brain compensates for the rather insignificant blind spot very well.

-_- irrelevant, having a mechanism to compensate acceptably for an unnecessary "design" flaw doesn't make it cease to be a flaw. And it does impact our vision; there are patterns which cause eye strain and confusion as a result of this.

And considering that you think the human brain compensates for it so well, wouldn't that discredit your claim that it is a purposeful limitation? Limitations set in place on purpose generally aren't combined with conditions which work around that limitation as to make said limitation almost imperceptible. For the majority of human existence, we weren't even aware of it, and yet you think this warrants enough of an impact that it was set in place on purpose?

We also can't run like a gazelle, crush bones with our teeth like a lion, or lift ten times our weight, as animals can.

It's not about what humans aren't capable of doing and other animals are. Obviously, we can't breathe underwater, but I'd never claim that the human lungs were flawed because of that. I'm not going to criticize what isn't there, only what is.You think all of this crap has the same designer, so why do some "designs" have flaws absent in others? Both ostriches and humans are bipedal, so why are humans stuck with all these bones in the feet that make the arches wear down, but ostriches don't? Why can geckos regrow lost tails but my bearded dragons can't (both being small lizards often preyed upon by large animals)? Evolution can explain this easily, since the same adaptations are not guaranteed to result just because of similar niche, and humans haven't experienced enough time to be as specialized in bipedal movement as ostriches. But the designer you believe in doesn't have the limitations of biological evolution, and thus has no excuse.

It's not like humans having fewer bones in their feet would affect intelligence, etc.

We were created much lower than the angels, for the purpose of suffering and death, and our bodies reflect that in our design.

Most Christians wouldn't say humans were made for suffering, but rather disobedience made it so we have to. But suffering is far from exclusive to humans, and is often entirely pointless and unrelated to human activities. Why do snakes have traits that prevent them from suffocating when they are swallowing large food items and soft shelled turtles don't when both animals swallow food whole? Do the turtles deserve to be more prone to choking or restricted to eating smaller prey items than snakes?

Heck, consider your gazelle example: why does the gazelle have the ability to run fast? To escape predators. Why does the cheetah have the ability to run even faster? To catch fast prey like the gazelle.

You might not see anything wrong with this, but I see no reason why both animals couldn't have been designed to be slow. Their only reason for being fast is because of the predator/prey relationship; it is not necessary for reproduction, etc. If the prey was slow, there'd be no reason for the cheetah to be fast. It is far more energy conserving for both animals to be slower, so why aren't they? From an evolution perspective, it makes sense that these animals would end up being fast, because natural selection favored gazelle that could get away from predators quickly, as well as cheetahs that were fast enough to catch fast prey. But from a design perspective, there isn't any point to it.