Eye evolution

[chestertonrules]

So gravity has been explained?

It has been described, no one knows how it works.

 

[Mallon]

So gravity has been explained?

It has been described, no one knows how it works.

Indeed. And unlike the theory of evolution, no Christian sects are pushing to have gravity removed from the textbooks or have an alternative theistic version taught alongside it in the science classroom.
Regardless, we know what gravity is not: an immeasurable force attributable solely to divine intervention.

Here's a question for you: How to we distinguish between the limits of our own ignorance and divine intervention? That is, in trying to describe some feature of the universe, at what point should we decide to stop trying to find a natural explanation and just chalk it up to a miracle of God? How can we ever know when to just give up?

And should we?

 

[chestertonrules]

(This sounds mighty close to an admission of evolutionary creationism. Except you keep using that word "useless" even after all that has been tediously explained to you these last several pages...
)

Nothing has been explained, you simply ignored the implications.

You point to the developmental improvement of the ear, not the creation, as evidence that all the steps needed for hearing are beneficial.

You are intentionally avoiding the central issue.

Do you agree that design is evident in creation?

 

[chestertonrules]

(Regardless, we know what gravity is not: an immeasurable force attributable solely to divine intervention.)

It is measurable, but we don't know what to attribute it to.

It is a necessary component for the universe. If the unviverse is a creation, then clearly it was part of divine interevention.

How is it that gravity's force can be instantaneous?

Does this fit any pattern of physical behavior we can observe, or is it a freakish fact that we just have to deal with?

 

[Molal]

(Regardless, we know what gravity is not: an immeasurable force attributable solely to divine intervention.)

It is measurable, but we don't know what to attribute it to.

It is a necessary component for the universe. If the unviverse is a creation, then clearly it was part of divine interevention.

How is it that gravity's force can be instantaneous?

Does this fit any pattern of physical behavior we can observe, or is it a freakish fact that we just have to deal with?

Gravity is not instantaneous. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Mallon]

Do you agree that design is evident in creation?

Yes, I agree that design is evident in creation. The difference in our positions is that I see design in what we can understand about God's creation, whereas you appear to see design in what we can't understand. Your version of design appeals to gaps in our knowledge about the creation, and you fill in those gaps, not by careful study of the natural laws God created, but by simply appealing to a miracle.
The evolutionary creationist concept of design is ellucidated here by theologian Denis Lamoureux:

Evolutionary creationists are also quick to point out to fellow conservative Christians that their view of origins offers an expanded and more robust understanding of intelligent design in nature. This version of the design argument for God's existence appeals to more physical evidence than that proposed by young earth creation or progressive creation. At one level, evolutionary creation is in full agreement with these two anti-evolutionary positions in that there is a traditional intelligent design argument which points to the design evident in nature's current structures and operations. This classic approach argues that the incredible beauty and complexity in the organization and function of the creation presently before us reflects the mind of an Intelligent Being. For example, consider the most complex structure known-the human brain. This organ is an electrical circuitry marvel with trillions of synaptic connections, and incredibly most of it develops in the womb beginning from only one fertilized egg. The structure, function and embryological development of the brain offers a breath-taking level of elegant complexity which few deny reflects the work of an Intelligent Designer.
At another level, evolutionary creation moves beyond the anti-evolutionary positions and argues that intelligent design is also expressed in the processes and mechanisms of evolution. The evolutionary intelligent design argument underlines the foresight, majesty and rationality mirrored in the natural processes which created the universe and life across the eons of time. According to this position, the declaration of God's glory in the creation extends beyond the present manifestations to include the self-assembling character of the natural world in the distant past. More specifically, design is evident in the finely-tuned physical laws and initial conditions necessary for the evolution of the cosmos through the Big Bang, and design is also apparent in the biological processes necessary for life to evolve, including humans with their incredible brains. Therefore, evolutionary creation offers a wider and stronger design argument than the traditional formulation presented in young earth creation and progressive creation by having an evolutionary component. This position also predicts that as the evolutionary sciences advance, research will reveal a Creator with unimaginably more planning, splendor and power than previously believed in earlier generations. To the surprise of many, evolutionary creationists enjoy a more powerful intelligent design argument for God's existence than their anti-evolutionist Christian brothers and sisters.

Now, can you please answer the question I posed to you in my last post? I'll phrase it again for you: How do you know that the apparent irreducible complexity of, say, the bacterial flagellum isn't simply attributable to our incomplete knowledge of its mechanics and evolution, rather than to miraculous intervention? How do you distinguish between the two scenarios?

 

[chestertonrules]

Maybe not. We don't really know:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

I'll quote a bit of the article to try and induce more people to read the original in its entirety.


To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory--the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations.

In the simple Newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, Newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into Newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from Newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of Newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.

This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations. Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.

Since this point can be confusing, it's worth exploring a little further, in a slightly more technical manner.


To put it more simply, when you measure the speed of light, you measure the speed of propagation of a wave. Applying the same definition, the speed of gravity is the speed of gravitational radiation, which is expected to be the same as the speed of light, but has not been measured (yet).

Looking at the direction of the force from a "point mass" or a "point charge" leads people to misleading ideas about the "speed" of both electromagnetism and gravity - the direction of the force does not actually tell one anything about the speed.

Asking what happens when a mass or charge "disappears" is also a dead end. When one does the math, one finds that charges don't disappear and neither do masses. This non-disappearance is built directly into the appropriate equations (Maxwell's equations for E&M, Einstein's field equations for gravity). Therefore one cannot solve these equations for what happens when mass/charge disappears, the equations assume that mass and charge cannot disappear.

 

[chestertonrules]

Now, can you please answer the question I posed to you in my last post? I'll phrase it again for you: How do you know that the apparent irreducible complexity of, say, the bacterial flagellum isn't simply attributable to our incomplete knowledge of its mechanics and evolution, rather than to miraculous intervention? How do you distinguish between the two scenarios?[/quote]


I don't know.

My point is, these complex systems are not explained by Darwinism.

I never used the world miraculous, I used the word intelligence to describe the development of these systems.

 

[Mallon]

My point is, these complex systems are not explained by Darwinism.

They are explained by evolution (not "Darwinism"). Sure, evolution may not yet be able to explain every sequential step it took to build the flagellum, but this shortcoming cannot be used to say evolution wasn't involved (that's a logical fallacy). It is simply a reflection of our limited knowledge. The fact is that, while the evolutionary history of the flagellum may not be well understood, the evolutionary mechanics are well understood, and can be invoked to describe the evolution of the flagellum on that basis.
Certainly, this is a much more satisfying and robust explanation than "God magically poofed the flagellum into existence."

I never used the world miraculous, I used the word intelligence to describe the development of these systems.

Evolutionary creationists use the word intelligent to describe these systems, too (see above).
So what is the difference between our positions? If you don't think they were evolved, how do you think they came to be?

 

[chestertonrules]

They are explained by evolution (not "Darwinism"). Sure, evolution may not yet be able to explain every sequential step it took to build the flagellum, but this shortcoming cannot be used to say evolution wasn't involved (that's a logical fallacy). It is simply a reflection of our limited knowledge. The fact is that, while the evolutionary history of the flagellum may not be well understood, the evolutionary mechanics are well understood, and can be invoked to describe the evolution of the flagellum on that basis.
Certainly, this is a much more satisfying and robust explanation than "God magically poofed the flagellum into existence."


Evolutionary creationists use the word intelligent to describe these systems, too (see above).
So what is the difference between our positions? If you don't think they were evolved, how do you think they came to be?

My argument is with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Irreducibly complex systems are not explained by Darwin's theory.

Darwin's theory applies to beneficial mutations.

Our opinions aren't very different. I believe that most evolutionary theorists hold the position that life is a random accident.

I understand that you don't hold that position.

 

[Molal]

Maybe not. We don't really know:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

I'll quote a bit of the article to try and induce more people to read the original in its entirety.


To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory--the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations.

In the simple Newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, Newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into Newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from Newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of Newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.

This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations. Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.

Since this point can be confusing, it's worth exploring a little further, in a slightly more technical manner.


To put it more simply, when you measure the speed of light, you measure the speed of propagation of a wave. Applying the same definition, the speed of gravity is the speed of gravitational radiation, which is expected to be the same as the speed of light, but has not been measured (yet).

Looking at the direction of the force from a "point mass" or a "point charge" leads people to misleading ideas about the "speed" of both electromagnetism and gravity - the direction of the force does not actually tell one anything about the speed.

Asking what happens when a mass or charge "disappears" is also a dead end. When one does the math, one finds that charges don't disappear and neither do masses. This non-disappearance is built directly into the appropriate equations (Maxwell's equations for E&M, Einstein's field equations for gravity). Therefore one cannot solve these equations for what happens when mass/charge disappears, the equations assume that mass and charge cannot disappear.

And so you can see from what you have wrote, gravity is not instantaneous.

Well done.

 

[Mallon]

My argument is with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Irreducibly complex systems are not explained by Darwin's theory.

How can you say that irreducibly complex systems are not explained by Darwin's theory right after you admitted that you cannot distinguish between IC systems and the simple limitations of human ignorance?
You're completely contradicting yourself on this point.

Our opinions aren't very different. I believe that most evolutionary theorists hold the position that life is a random accident.

Some certainly believe that. Others don't. The position as to whether or not life evolved by accident is a philosophy unrelated to the science of evolution. To wit, some Christians believe that the world is flat. But we don't reject Christianity on the basis of their misconceptions. Christianity rises or falls on the basis of what it professes to teach. Ditto for the thoery of evolution.

 

[chestertonrules]

I concede.

 

[chestertonrules]

((How can you say that irreducibly complex systems are not explained by Darwin's theory right after you admitted that you cannot distinguish between IC systems and the simple limitations of human ignorance?
))


Darwin's theory posits that improvements are kept.

Changes, or mutations, that are not improvements are not kept.

Multiple changes that offer not competitive advantage are exceptions to Darwin's theory.

What is your difficulty with this point?

 

[Mallon]

Darwin's theory posits that improvements are kept.

Changes, or mutations, that are not improvements are not kept.

Multiple changes that offer not competitive advantage are exceptions to Darwin's theory.

What is your difficulty with this point?

You have not demonstrated that the system components do not offer any competitve advantage over evolutionary time. If you want to overthrow evolution, you need to positively demonstrate its shortcomings (which you admit you haven't done) and propose a new theory that explains more than evolution (which ID's own proponents admit it cannot do).