Eye evolution

[chestertonrules]

You have not offered an explanation, but an unsubstantiated opinion.

Please tell me what use stereocilia serve without an ear canal, or what good a pupil would serve without an optic nerve.

 

[Mallon]

Please tell me what use stereocilia serve without an ear canal, or what good a pupil would serve without an optic nerve.

You're ragging on strawmen again. Doing some research on the evolution of the ear and eye should alleviate that.
Stereocillia evolved in conjunction with the ear canal. In fact, the ear canal evolved long before stereocillia ever did.
And the optic nerve evolved long before the pupil ever did.

 

[chestertonrules]

Your comment is not relevant to quote you provided.

I wonder why?

The explanation I'm seeking is:

How do you explain, using the theory of evolution, a series of useless mutations surviving and then at some future time combining to form something useful.

This doesn't fit the theory.

Your answer is that we know this happened.

No kidding.

However, the most rational explanation is that this a designed process.

You apparently have no explanation.

 

[Mallon]

Your comment is not relevant to quote you provided.

I wonder why?

The explanation I'm seeking is:

How do you explain, using the theory of evolution, a series of useless mutations surviving and then at some future time combining to form something useful.

Am I talking to a brick wall? Because I keep telling you that your so-called "series of useless mutations" are not useless at all. This idea that you share with other ID proponents that transitional components of a system must always maintain the same function to be useful is demonstrably wrong. Read the scientific response to ID to see why (I recommend starting with Miller's Finding Darwin's God). Read about exaptation.
You can keep deriding the theory of evolution until you're blue in the face, but truth be told, the onus isn't on me to make a case for evolution. The onus is on those who would have something else taught in its place. And ID has a looooong way to go before that ever happens (even Philip Johnson admits as much). Especially if its proponents continue to mischaracterize the position they wish to overthrow, as you are doing.

 

[gluadys]

However, the most rational explanation is that this a designed process.

Yes. A designed process we call evolution. Not an organ designed apart from evolution.

 

[chestertonrules]

Am I talking to a brick wall? Because I keep telling you that your so-called "series of useless mutations" are not useless at all. This idea that you share with other ID proponents that transitional components of a system must always maintain the same function to be useful is demonstrably wrong. Read the scientific response to ID to see why (I recommend starting with Miller's Finding Darwin's God). Read about exaptation.
You can keep deriding the theory of evolution until you're blue in the face, but truth be told, the onus isn't on me to make a case for evolution. The onus is on those who would have something else taught in its place. And ID has a looooong way to go before that ever happens (even Philip Johnson admits as much). Especially if its proponents continue to mischaracterize the position they wish to overthrow, as you are doing.

You are hopeless.

Evolution explains much.

It doesn't explain more.

You can't answer my question so you repeat your same diatribe.

Please explain what the function of the components of the complex biological tool infigure two perform.

If they perform no function, then their survival cannot be explained by Darwinism.

 

[chestertonrules]

Another transitional fossil was just described recently, filling another gap concerning the evolution of the vertebrate eye. The technical paper can be read here:
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/567m1711432025rn/
A summary of the findings can be found here, along with a commentary on how this find relates to Intelligent Design:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/one-in-the-eye.html

Figure two here:

http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm

 

[chestertonrules]

Yes. A designed process we call evolution. Not an organ designed apart from evolution.

Evolution is a theory and a process.

As a theory, it explains some things, but not all things related to the development of life on earth.

That is my point.

There are areas of development that don't fit the model.

 

[Mallon]

Figure two here:

http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm

The "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum has been accounted for by evolutionary science, too:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

[Mallon]

You can't answer my question so you repeat your same diatribe.

You're right. I can't answer your question. Because, as phrased, it is wrong. You had might as well be asking me how long it takes a horse to fly from Vancouver to Hong Kong.

 

[chestertonrules]

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm


Please take your time and give me an honest assessment.

I know this can't happen tonight.

 

[gluadys]

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm


Please take your time and give me an honest assessment.

I know this can't happen tonight.

All quotes below are from the Dembski article in the link.

I've read a fair bit of Dembski, including No Free Lunch, and some other ID writings, and I always come away thinking that I have had a sojourn in some ivory tower well removed from an empirical world. I just do not see how ID fits into anything other than abstract thought games.

Anyway, here are my reactions:

It would suffice simply to provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose by Darwinian means.

This totally ignores that when it comes to specific features, we are no longer dealing only with evolutionary process, we are dealing with the historical pathways evolution took in the real world. These, of course, are a miniscule fraction of all possible evolutionary pathways. It would not be impossible to draw up various speculative scenarios, but these would still have to be presented as testable hypotheses and evidence gathered to support or refute them. A possible pathway, even if unproven, is enough to indicate that ID is not the only option. But if the response then is, "but is that the one actually used" then we have to look at historical evidence which may no longer be available.

I am not a scientist, certainly not a microbiologist. I expect there are many things biologists have learned about the bacterial flagellum I can't even dream of. But I do know that it is difficult to trace an actual historic pathway as opposed to a possible and plausible pathway. And I do know that a failure of evidence about an actual historical pathway is not evidence of no pathway.

For my part, I wonder if ID can meet its own challenge. Can it provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose in the context of ID? And I don't mean some vague theorizing about detecting design. I mean a plausible empirical scenario of how the bacterial flagellum (or any other suitable example) appeared in a living organism without resorting to the material mechanisms of evolution.

See more on this below.

The issue is whether design does have a clue about the flagellum.

Exactly. From what I have seen so far, the answer is "no". If I am wrong, please point me to that clue.

Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence.

This would be a surprise to many of the creationists who adopt ID arguments. But please provide a plausible scenario of the gradual emergence of a new species that does not require evolutionary mechanisms.

Naturalistic evolution holds that material mechanisms alone are responsible for evolution (the chief of these being the Darwinian mechanism of random variation and natural selection). Intelligent design, by contrast, holds that material mechanisms are capable of only limited evolutionary change and that any substantial evolutionary change would require input from a designing intelligence.

I don't think any TE has a problem with the concept of a designing intelligence. Where I keep coming up against a brick wall is at the interface where design ceases to be a matter of thought and imagination and is implemented in the material world. Does ID offer any clue as to how the creator's (sorry, "designer's") thought appears materially in nature?

Moreover, intelligent design maintains that the input of intelligence into biological systems is empirically detectable, that is, it is detectable by observation through the methods of science.

That I have yet to see.

For intelligent design the crucial question therefore is not whether organisms emerged through an evolutionary process or suddenly from scratch, but whether a designing intelligence made a discernible difference regardless how organisms emerged.

This sounds like he is basically agreeing that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. If that is the case, why the hoopla about ID? What is he saying different than Miller who speaks of how the creator could intervene in ways that are scientifically undetectable?

 

[Mallon]

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm


Please take your time and give me an honest assessment.

I know this can't happen tonight.

Honestly, I would be wary of anything Dembski says. He's earned himself a reputation for speaking before thinking.
Case in point: in the article you linked to, Dembski criticizes evolutionary theory for not yet being able to explain every minute step evolution took to build the bacterial flagellum (gluadys' response to this is sufficient). Yet, when asked to propose a model for the origin of an IC system through intelligent design, he replied with this:

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Ultimately, ID's battle with evolution will come down to this: The better explanation will win. If ID is as useful and as powerful an explanation as its proponents claim, then it will only be a matter of time before it is being practiced in labs and taught in classrooms around the world. Miller's current textbook will be pulled from the shelves and replaced with Dembski's writings. Until then, here's what Philip Johnson has to say about his prize horse, Intelligent Design:

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.

 

[chestertonrules]

))The better explanation will win. If ID is as useful and as powerful an explanation as its proponents claim, then it will only be a matter of time before it is being practiced in labs and taught in classrooms around the world.))


True enough.

The point of ID is that intelligence is present in our universes structure. Explaining what happened won't destroy this point. Finding advances in life that can't be explained by darwinian evolution supports ID.

Miller has failed to do this with regard to the flagellum.

Dembski has no such obligation. His point is that intelligent design is the best explanation.

I think he is right.

 

[chestertonrules]

(I am not a scientist, certainly not a microbiologist. I expect there are many things biologists have learned about the bacterial flagellum I can't even dream of. But I do know that it is difficult to trace an actual historic pathway as opposed to a possible and plausible pathway. And I do know that a failure of evidence about an actual historical pathway is not evidence of no pathway.

For my part, I wonder if ID can meet its own challenge. Can it provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose in the context of ID?_))


Here's the key point you are missing.

ID proponents don't dispute that this system and others were evolved.

We do dispute that this evolution fits the Darwinian model.

It doesn't fit the theory. Useless mutations kept for millions of years later assembled into vital components.

This is an INDICATOR, not proof, that design plays a part in the existence of life on earth.

 

[gluadys]

(I
Here's the key point you are missing.

ID proponents don't dispute that this system and others were evolved.

We do dispute that this evolution fits the Darwinian model.

I don't think I am missing it. I am asking for the alternate model. If the system evolved, but not via the Darwinian model, how does it differ from the Darwinian model? How do you explain its evolution in other terms?

(I am assuming you will not use the creationist ploy of a miracle, but actually describe a non-Darwinian process of evolution.)

Useless mutations kept for millions of years later assembled into vital components.

So tell me what, empirically, happens to a gene in which such a mutation occurs when the host organism reproduces?

This is an INDICATOR, not proof, that design plays a part in the existence of life on earth.

Not asking for proof. The problem is that I haven't seen any indicator yet. You keep pointing to the bacterial flagellum but I don't see anything about it that indicates a failure of evolution---especially when you then turn around and say that it DID evolve.

I say: show me your evolutionary process without recourse to Darwinian mechanisms.

 

[Molal]

Here's the key point you are missing.

ID proponents don't dispute that this system and others were evolved.

We do dispute that this evolution fits the Darwinian model.

It doesn't fit the theory. Useless mutations kept for millions of years later assembled into vital components.

This is an INDICATOR, not proof, that design plays a part in the existence of life on earth.

It appears, from your statement above that you yourself do not understand ID. ID does indeed challenge the empirical evidence that evolution occurs. It challenges the evolutionary theory.

Please remember that the evolutionary theory today is different to what you call the darwinian model.

I also doubt you understand the theory of evolution given your statement

"Useless mutations kept for millions of years later assembled into vital components"

This is a fundamentally incorrect statement of evolution. To enhance your understanding and prevent future erroneous statements I recommend you read the following website:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[Mallon]

The point of ID is that intelligence is present in our universes structure. Explaining what happened won't destroy this point. Finding advances in life that can't be explained by darwinian evolution supports ID.

I really don't see how. The alleged failure of evolution in no way supports Intelligent Design. Saying, "I don't understand how this might have evolved, therefore God" is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. Intelligent Design requires positive evidence in its favour if it is ever to be taken seriously. Otherwise, your explanation is no more useful or valid than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the universe has a design to it, implying a desiger. And I agree that God is that designer. But a design, like a blueprint, tells us nothing about how the design was executed. Evolution offers us that explanation, and we should be thankful that God crafted a world so consistent, so estimable, that we can come to understand how He made it. For that, He is worthy of praise.

 

[chestertonrules]

I really don't see how. The alleged failure of evolution in no way supports Intelligent Design. Saying, "I don't understand how this might have evolved, therefore God" is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. Intelligent Design requires positive evidence in its favour if it is ever to be taken seriously. Otherwise, your explanation is no more useful or valid than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the universe has a design to it, implying a desiger. And I agree that God is that designer. But a design, like a blueprint, tells us nothing about how the design was executed. Evolution offers us that explanation, and we should be thankful that God crafted a world so consistent, so estimable, that we can come to understand how He made it. For that, He is worthy of praise.

(I really don't see how. The alleged failure of evolution in no way supports Intelligent Design. Saying, "I don't understand how this might have evolved, therefore God" is an argument from ignorance.)

Wrong.

If we can show design in nature, we have found indicators of a designer.

Finding what happened has no relevance to the question.

Finding that what happened is virtually impossible statistically is an indicator. Random useless mutations coming together after millions of years to create a complex machine is an indicator of intelligence at work.

 

[Mallon]

If we can show design in nature, we have found indicators of a designer.

Once upon a time, we had no idea how the planets stayed in orbit. It appeared that some mysterious force held them in place, and the church attributed it to a miracle of God. Now, though the wonders of science, we have come to recognize this force as gravity.
What lesson should we take from this bit of history? Should we be so quick to explain away what we don't yet understand as a miracle of God? Or should we expect to find an explanation consistent with the very laws of nature God instated from the beginning?
Either way, we can be confident that God is the designer, no matter how life came about. In that we have faith, not scientific proof. But you don't have to take my word for it. Even the Bible says there is no proof to be had of God's design (Hebrews 11:3).

Random useless mutations coming together after millions of years to create a complex machine is an indicator of intelligence at work.

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...



So... how's it going?