So, there's no question about the science of it.

[shernren]

Remus, seeing your responses I can see that you have put a lot of thought into this. Just curious though, what do you think about the online pro-evolution sources such as talk.origins and Don Lindsay Archives?

How can you say "WILL get complexity eventually"? Has this ever been established scientifically?

Well, no.

But from what I understand of the evolutionist viewpoint (since I'm new to it also) it seems something like this:

Taking your example of the eye. We have rudimentary photosensitivity in microorganisms that exhibit response to bright light. We have light-spots on planarians that show them where is bright and where is dark. and so on, and so forth, until we come to advanced eyes - arthropod eyes, cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes ...

Well some scientists decided that all these eye designs, if you could plot them (on complexity vs. evolutionary sequence, say, though there's no rigorous way to do this I would imagine ), would fall on a line. (Actually, several, but the point is that there seems to be a trend.) So some people interpret this trend as being evolutionary in nature, i.e. that the simpler forms developed into the more complex forms.

I admit that this is a presupposition. But it does fit with the timescales of the earth's age, whereas scientific creationism doesn't. I'm not really as concerned with evolution as with the issue of the earth's age. For me the line is quite blurred, especially since I don't believe in abiogenesis (but rather that God created the first lifeform(s?) ) and I believe in (probably) a literal Adam, Eve, and Fall.

 

[Remus]

OK, I accept your answers. Have you really done a lot of reading on evolution, though, from non-Creationist sources? Just curious.

Yes, I try to read from unbiased sources. When that's not possible, then I try to read from both sides.

As for knowing that we would get complexity, it is just math. You take some organisms that reproduce with variation, given them an environment in which there is a benefit to slightly more complex morphology, and those variations which lead toward complexity will be selected and eventually bring about the complexity. Now, it is true that this is not completely a given because you also have to factor in the race against time. It is possible that there may not be enough, or the right type, of variations to lead to the complexity before extinction occurs (which is what happens to most species, they die out before they can adapt to a new environmental pressure). My statement was more in the line of the infinite monkeys and typewriters variety.

Sounds very Socratic to me

 

[Remus]

Then why are you unable to define in what way the ToE is lacking?

Because I lacked the time to spend on this. But I made the time just for you.

out of order

And what is wrong with the Darwinian scenario. (I take it you have actually read Origin of Species. Or the Nilsson and Pelger model?

I'll get to this in a sec.

Be more specific about how evolution fails to account for complexity. Where do the mechanisms of evolution fail to produce complexity? It is not enough just to say: "complexity" as if I knew what you meant by just that one word.

Emphasis added

Are you actually asking, in the infancy of studying the origin of genetic sequences, for a mutation by mutation account of the evolution of something as complex as the eye? And let's not forget that the eye likely originated independently some 40 times, so that is 40 starting points to find, and millions of specific pathways dealing with dozens of specific features. Do you have the vaguest idea how much computer time it will take to get that specific?

Emphasis added
Looks like you do know what I meant by "complex" after all.

Meanwhile, we do have existing models of vision systems ranging from simple photoreceptor cells to complex eyes of many forms. And we find them in the bodies of animals whose complexity tends to match that of the eye: simple photoreceptor cells in simple unicellular organisms and complex eyes in complex animals. And finally, we have evidence that the complex life forms are descendants of simple life forms. So why is it such a big stretch to conclude that the complexity of the eye developed along with the overall complexity of the body?

See below.

Pinpointing the eye in particular does not make a convincing case for rejecting the evolution of complexity. It is simply one example of the general trend from simple to complex that we see in the history of biology.

And that would be the reason that I stated other issues. It's not like this is the only one.

So lets zero in on the real issue: is evolution totally incapable of producing any complexity at all? Is it incapable, for example, of producing a photosynthesizing bacterium from a non-photosynthetic predecessor? If so, why?

I don't know. I don't know what changes in complexity on a small scale would be. I think it would have to be realized over many changes.

So answering a question about your "scientific" rejection of complexity with a statement of faith was most unsatisfactory. I want your scientific objections to the concept that complexity can evolve.

You ask me for a "scientific" rejection? Can you give me a "scientific" explanation of how the lens of the eye evolved? Wait for my next post though, because I have some interesting information.

I want to contrast my next post with the "eye sequence" link off of the link you gave:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_stages.html

The eye above is a perfect "pinhole camera". It can only be improved by adding a lens.

To get a lens, one mutation is needed. The pit must be roofed over with a transparent layer. This mutation is not that strange. First, it could have happened at any time before this stage. (The original eye spot might have been covered.) Second, the transparent layer is useful, to keep a lensless eye from damage. And third, transparent materials are not hard to come by. (The human cornea is made from a protein which is also used elsewhere in the human body.)

So, the next step is the transparent layer becoming a little thicker in the center. Suddenly it isn't just a layer. It is a lens.

It all sounds so simple doesn't it? Bonus points for anyone who can tell me which step this is in the scientific method.

Okay, please wait for my next post.

 

[Remus]

As we saw in my last post, according to Lindsay's website

So, the next step is the transparent layer becoming a little thicker in the center. Suddenly it isn't just a layer. It is a lens.

Let's take a closer look at the lens of the eye.

The following is from the Oct 2004 edition of Scientific American (with the exception of any typos). The article is called Dying to See and was writen by Ralf Dahm. Get this issue, it has several interesting articles.

The eye’s lens is a biological marvel, being at once dense, flexible and clear. If it bore the slightest obscurities, our visual world would be a fun house of warped and blurred images and glare. And if the lens had any hint of color, it would absorb light, preventing us from seeing certain shades.

Many animals possess translucent parts, such as insect wings, but truly transparent tissue in nature is rare and difficult to achieve. In humans the cornea is clear, but it is more a thin, gelatinous layer of proteins and sugars than true cellular tissue. The lens comprises about 1,000 layers of perfectly clear, living cells. Other than vision, the only significant exploitation of transparency in the natural world occurs among certain ocean and freshwater creatures, which use this trait to blend into the open water and hide from predators. Yet almost all these animals, such as jellyfish, qualify only as “very translucent,” not totally see-through.

This sounds a little more complex than "becoming a little thicker in the center" doesn't it?

The lens has no melanins and no blood supply. Yet that alone is not enough for transparency. Cartilage has no melanins or blood supply and is colorless, but it is at best translucent. That is because in virtually all tissues, cells or fibers are oriented at various angles, creating different refractive indices that scatter light as it passes through. The lens is composed of only one cell type, and the cells are precisely aligned.

Like all cells, lens cells that arise from stem cells during early fetal development contain organelles. But as they differentiate, they demolish their organelles – and the rubble that remains – to become transparent. This may not seem problematic at first, but consider what happens when other cells encounter so much as a little damage to their DNA: they embark on an irreversible process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. Destructive proteins released inside a cell chop up its DNA and key proteins, and the mitochondria shut down, depriving the cell of its energy source. The tattered cell breaks apart and dissolves. Ordinarily, damaged cells commit suicide to make room for new healthy cells – otherwise an organ with an accumulating number of damaged cells would not be able to function. In some cases, damaged cells kill themselves so they do not start proliferating and turn cancerous. Lens cells destroy the nucleus and every other organelle yet halt the process just before demolition is complete, leaving an intact outer membrane, an inner cytoskeleton of proteins and a thick crystalline plasma.

I do hope ya'll can forgive me if I find 'poof! it's a lens' a pathetic explanation for the lens of the eye.

Do we need to move on to the retina?

 

[Remus]

Remus, seeing your responses I can see that you have put a lot of thought into this. Just curious though, what do you think about the online pro-evolution sources such as talk.origins and Don Lindsay Archives?

Thank you for your kind words shernren. I think TO is biased. Lindsay, to be honest, I don't recall ever seeing his site until this thread. You can see from my previous post how his site glosses over a lot.

Well, no.

But from what I understand of the evolutionist viewpoint (since I'm new to it also) it seems something like this:

Taking your example of the eye. We have rudimentary photosensitivity in microorganisms that exhibit response to bright light. We have light-spots on planarians that show them where is bright and where is dark. and so on, and so forth, until we come to advanced eyes - arthropod eyes, cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes ...

Well some scientists decided that all these eye designs, if you could plot them (on complexity vs. evolutionary sequence, say, though there's no rigorous way to do this I would imagine ), would fall on a line. (Actually, several, but the point is that there seems to be a trend.) So some people interpret this trend as being evolutionary in nature, i.e. that the simpler forms developed into the more complex forms.

I can understand that. It all looks good on the surface.

I'm not really as concerned with evolution as with the issue of the earth's age.

I’m just the opposite; I’m not really concerned about the age of the earth, just evolution.

 

[Remus]

And for your viewing pleasure (audio is bad):
http://www.efootage.com/play_clip.php?clip_id=17963
Wait for the part right after the guy is talking.

 

[gluadys]

Because I lacked the time to spend on this. But I made the time just for you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Looks like you do know what I meant by "complex" after all.

Sure I know what "complex" means. What I am looking for is why you have concluded that complexity cannot evolve.

And that would be the reason that I stated other issues. It's not like this is the only one.

Right. If we continue the conversation, we can get to some of those too.

I don't know. I don't know what changes in complexity on a small scale would be. I think it would have to be realized over many changes.

Well, with photosynthesis, I don't think it would take all that many changes. It depends on absorbing matter which is photosensitive and using the energy generated. All very chemical really.

But if something a little more complex can be initiated through a few basic changes, what prevents something much more complex coming into being through more changes?

You ask me for a "scientific" rejection? Can you give me a "scientific" explanation of how the lens of the eye evolved? Wait for my next post though, because I have some interesting information.

Deferred, as requested, to next post.

It all sounds so simple doesn't it? Bonus points for anyone who can tell me which step this is in the scientific method.

Modelling the answer to a question. Often the initial step in setting up a hypothesis.

 

[gluadys]

As we saw in my last post, according to Lindsay's website


Let's take a closer look at the lens of the eye.

The following is from the Oct 2004 edition of Scientific American (with the exception of any typos). The article is called Dying to See and was writen by Ralf Dahm. Get this issue, it has several interesting articles.


This sounds a little more complex than "becoming a little thicker in the center" doesn't it?

Quotes from articles:
So, the next step is the transparent layer becoming a little thicker in the center. Suddenly it isn't just a layer. It is a lens.

Many animals possess translucent parts, such as insect wings, but truly transparent tissue in nature is rare and difficult to achieve. In humans the cornea is clear, but it is more a thin, gelatinous layer of proteins and sugars than true cellular tissue. The lens comprises about 1,000 layers of perfectly clear, living cells. Other than vision, the only significant exploitation of transparency in the natural world occurs among certain ocean and freshwater creatures, which use this trait to blend into the open water and hide from predators. Yet almost all these animals, such as jellyfish, qualify only as “very translucent,” not totally see-through.

The lens has no melanins and no blood supply. Yet that alone is not enough for transparency. Cartilage has no melanins or blood supply and is colorless, but it is at best translucent. That is because in virtually all tissues, cells or fibers are oriented at various angles, creating different refractive indices that scatter light as it passes through. The lens is composed of only one cell type, and the cells are precisely aligned.


Like all cells, lens cells that arise from stem cells during early fetal development contain organelles. But as they differentiate, they demolish their organelles – and the rubble that remains – to become transparent. This may not seem problematic at first, but consider what happens when other cells encounter so much as a little damage to their DNA: they embark on an irreversible process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. Destructive proteins released inside a cell chop up its DNA and key proteins, and the mitochondria shut down, depriving the cell of its energy source. The tattered cell breaks apart and dissolves.

I do hope ya'll can forgive me if I find 'poof! it's a lens' a pathetic explanation for the lens of the eye.

Now wait a minute. Do you think that when Lindsay (or Nilsson and Pelger) say it takes only one mutation to get a covering over the eye-cup that they mean we get a complete, transparent lens with just that one mutation? Do you think they mean that the mutation which first thickened the centre of the translucent covering was the only one needed to develop true transparency, refractive indices, and just the right amount of apoptosis?

Surely it is evident that all of this would take many mutations over many generations. But if you get even one mutation generating nothing but a bit of thickness at the centre of the protective covering, do you or do you not have a simple lens? Not a lens with all the bells and whistles described in the article, but just a lens.

And once that simple lens exists, why is it so incredible that additional mutations would improve it?

Here is a question for you:

How many genes affect the development of the lens of the eye in human beings?

 

[Remus]

Now wait a minute. Do you think that when Lindsay (or Nilsson and Pelger) say it takes only one mutation to get a covering over the eye-cup that they mean we get a complete, transparent lens with just that one mutation? Do you think they mean that the mutation which first thickened the centre of the translucent covering was the only one needed to develop true transparency, refractive indices, and just the right amount of apoptosis?

Oh good grief, of course not. I was using an exaggeration to illustrate how the overly simplified the description of the change is. Is this what I get for spending time on this with you? Is it impossible for you to give anyone that doesn’t agree with you some credit?

Surely it is evident that all of this would take many mutations over many generations. But if you get even one mutation generating nothing but a bit of thickness at the centre of the protective covering, do you or do you not have a simple lens? Not a lens with all the bells and whistles described in the article, but just a lens.

No, you don't get "a simple lens". You get a translucent layer that blocks light.

And once that simple lens exists, why is it so incredible that additional mutations would improve it?

You do realize that your argument is still "it could happen" don't you? I'm still waiting for the science to begin, so whenever you're ready.

Here is a question for you:

How many genes affect the development of the lens of the eye in human beings?

Are you trying to change the subject? I honestly don’t know how many. Are you going to claim that you do know while we are “in the infancy of studying the origin of genetic sequences”?

 

[Vance]

Remus, again (and I am patient and stubborn enough to say this as often as needed), the entire point of this discussion is to show that how it could have happened. Creationists claim that evolution can't explain how the eye could have formed, and the proper response is "yes, there is an explanation how it could have happened via evolution." There is no way to show how it actually did happen because this type of tissue does not fossilize. What we have to go on is analogies to the stages of development we see in existing creatures, which of course, is not all the possibilities. As with all theories about what has happened in the past, the best we can do is show how things could have happened based on the evidence we have, and then determine how likely it is that this possibility is the way it happened. Now, if you want to say that it is not sufficiently plausible, based on the evidence we have, that is fine. But you can't counter with "well, that is just explaining how it could have happened, not how it did happen", since that is never on the table anyway.

The question always comes down to how well the theory is supported by the evidence, how likely it is, etc. And one factor in deciding whether it happened in a given instance is the evidence that we have that it has happened for so many other things. If we have extremely solid data and clear links showing how items 1 through 9 evolved through evolutionary processes, then this should be factored into whether that process also brought about number 10 as well, even if the exact path of development is more speculative.

 

[Remus]

Remus, again (and I am patient and stubborn enough to say this as often as needed), the entire point of this discussion is to show that how it could have happened. Creationists claim that evolution can't explain how the eye could have formed, and the proper response is "yes, there is an explanation how it could have happened via evolution." There is no way to show how it actually did happen because this type of tissue does not fossilize. What we have to go on is analogies to the stages of development we see in existing creatures, which of course, is not all the possibilities. As with all theories about what has happened in the past, the best we can do is show how things could have happened based on the evidence we have, and then determine how likely it is that this possibility is the way it happened. Now, if you want to say that it is not sufficiently plausible, based on the evidence we have, that is fine. But you can't counter with "well, that is just explaining how it could have happened, not how it did happen", since that is never on the table anyway.

I can accept that, but if someone is going to hold me to a certain standard, then I expect them to meet that same standard. gluadys challenged me with the task of showing "scientifically" how it could not happen. I in turn asked her to show me "scientifically" how it did. At least you and shernren are willing to admit that you can't and that's fine. I don't expect all the answers, but in the absence of some of these fundamental answers, it should be apparent that it's possible for someone to have issues with ToE.

If we have extremely solid data and clear links showing how items 1 through 9 evolved through evolutionary processes, then this should be factored into whether that process also brought about number 10 as well, even if the exact path of development is more speculative.

But what you say isn't accurate. What you describe as "1 through 9" is more like 100, 200, 300, 400... 900; and even that is overly simplified. It's a huge leap just between each step as I've shown in this thread. This is not science.

 

[Vance]

No, I think what Gluadys is trying to show you is how it could happen scientifically. If you say it could not happen scientifically, then you should show, scientifically, why it could not happen. If Gluadys says it could happen, then she should show scientifically how it could happen. And that is what she is doing.

And I think you misunderstood my number analogy. I am not talking about the sequence of a given evolutionary development, but the idea of one developmental feature compared to the plethora of other developed features. If evolution provides an explanation for the development of a dozen different things, and you accept that it does provide an adequate explanation for all of those things, then this fact must be taken into consideration when determining its likelihoood of being the correct explanation of one more thing.

 

[gluadys]

Oh good grief, of course not. I was using an exaggeration to illustrate how the overly simplified the description of the change is. Is this what I get for spending time on this with you? Is it impossible for you to give anyone that doesn’t agree with you some credit?

Sorry about that. Its just that one meets people that do think that way too often.

No, you don't get "a simple lens". You get a translucent layer that blocks light.

A translucent layer doesn't block light per se. It blocks images. All one can see is light and shadow.

You do realize that your argument is still "it could happen" don't you? I'm still waiting for the science to begin, so whenever you're ready.

Determining whether it could happen is a legitimate scientific project in itself. It tells us whether it is worth the effort to find out how it happened. If we discover that the mechanism we think capable of producing complexity is, in fact, not capable of producing complexity, we know there is no point in following that line of research any further. If it can't happen by evolution, we know it did not happen by evolution. But if it can happen by evolution, it may be worth the effort to figure out how it evolved.

My impression is that you have concluded not just that complex features did not evolve, but that that they can't evolve, so that is the issue. How did you come to the conclusion that evolution is incapable of producing complexity? Not this one instance or that other instance of complexity, but any complexity.

After all, if evolution is capable of producing any complexity at all, then it is capable of producing any one instance of complexity whether or not we know exactly how it did in any one case.

Are you trying to change the subject? I honestly don’t know how many. Are you going to claim that you do know while we are “in the infancy of studying the origin of genetic sequences”?

No and yes. Still the same subject. The point is that scientists probably don't know yet either. A ball park guess might be anywhere from a few dozen to several hundred. And we are not even talking about the origin of genetic sequences. We are just talking about finding out what existing genetic sequences do.

It is only recently that the human genome has been sequenced. Finding out what each gene in that sequence does (if it does anything) will be an enormous task that will keep geneticists busy for decades to come. And that is just the human genome. There are millions of other genomes waiting to be sequenced. And a good many of them may also be relevant to the evoluton of human genes.

Furthermore, in the case of the lens of the eye, even when a sequence is identified as regulating the formation of the lens, the actual impact has to be determined. And the extent of the impact of that gene relative to other genes which also impact the formation of the lens. Does a particular gene work with others to give an additive effect? How much of the effect is due to the contribution of this gene? 1%, 10%, 0.1% ? And what are the parameters under which the gene is expressed? For many genes these are all questions still to be answered.

So, it is very much premature to get an exact history of each gene so that the exact evolutionary pathway of the lens of the eye can be traced.

On the other hand, what do we know already?

We know that everything in the body is regulated by genes.
We know that genes mutate.
We know that some genetic changes are reflected in phenotypic changes.
We know that some phenotypic changes stay in the genome and become fixed in the species.

We also know that the relationship between gene and phenotype is complex even when we are dealing with a scenario of one gene->one characteristic.
The gene/phenotype relationship is even more complex when you have varying instances of many genes->one characteristic or one gene->many characteristics.
We know that environmental factors, mating choices, gene flow and genetic drift also affect the survival of specific phenotypes (and therefore of the genes that yield those phenotypes.)

So when we have a complex feature, we also know that there is a lot of complex behaviour at the genetic level that affects it. Is this not the science needed to determine if the mechanism is adequate? to determine if it could happen?

It seems to me that what you are saying is that unless we can show the exact evolutionary pathway of every gene that regulates the development of the lens of the eye (or any other complex feature), we have no way of judging whether the mechanism can function at all. Is that indeed your position? Why do you take that position?

We know the mechanism can function. We know that genes mutate. We know that genetic innovation is the basis of phenotypic variation. We know that natural selection functions to drive populations toward a form, physiology or behaviour that is better adapted to the current environment.

So why, with all the evidence we have about the capability of the mechanisms of evolution, would we assume it cannot meet the challenge of evolving a complex form without a logical or evidential reason to do so? Given that there are probably at least a dozen, and possibly hundreds of genes (not yet identified) affecting the formation of the lens of the eye, that all told there have probably been hundreds of thousands of mutations in these genes, and that the best improvements have benefitted from positive natural selection over millions of years what is the basis for concluding that this complex web of genetic behaviour did not produce a complex feature like the lens of the eye?

At the very least, why would we close off the possibility? What is the basis for concluding there is insufficient grounds to explain complexity via evolution?

 

[gluadys]

But what you say isn't accurate. What you describe as "1 through 9" is more like 100, 200, 300, 400... 900; and even that is overly simplified. It's a huge leap just between each step as I've shown in this thread. This is not science.

You just blamed me for suggesting that you thought there might be only one mutation between A and Z. Yet now you say this. Why are you assuming there is a "huge leap" between each step? Why can this "huge leap" not be broken down into hundreds of little steps?

Especially when, as alluded to in my previous post, we are likely looking at the combined interaction of many genes affected by many mutations.

 

[Smidlee]

No, I think what Gluadys is trying to show you is how it could happen scientifically. If you say it could not happen scientifically, then you should show, scientifically, why it could not happen.

It's more like trying to show how it could happen cartoony. Again Remus you must prove that their cartoons couldn't happen even though they had no idea how to make their cartoons a reality. I believe the problem is their definition of science is anything that come out of an evolutionist's mouth. It's like trying to prove Bugs Bunny isn't possible scientificly.

 

[Remus]

Well, I'll have to give ya'll the last word. My time has grown short.

 

[shernren]

Thank you for your kind words shernren. I think TO is biased. Lindsay, to be honest, I don't recall ever seeing his site until this thread. You can see from my previous post how his site glosses over a lot.

I can understand that. It all looks good on the surface.

I’m just the opposite; I’m not really concerned about the age of the earth, just evolution.

Well I've been re-looking through the thread ... and I guess my conclusion is this. A lot of times YECists say "evolution is nonsense, there's no way it could have happened" and we reply "it might have happened like this, it might have happened like that" and then you ask "is that scientific? Can you prove it actually happened?" (sometimes it happens a bit more politely )

But I guess that the existence of a plausible hypothesis disproves the idea that the whole theory is unworkable. Is it the right hypothesis? Goodness knows. But since the theory has done good predictive work already, the onus is on the detractors to blow it away. Which so far hsn't been all that impressive.

Still, I do acknowledge that a lot remains unknown. Then again, at least we have only two competing theories (evolution the scientific one and creationism the half-scientific one). So far I can think of four theories describing gravity (GR/SR, supersymmetry, superstring, brane theory - any more to add?) and nobody even knows how they can be talking about the same thing! I think that by comparison evolution is more settled than gravity.

I'm curious, what do you think about the age of the earth? Do you accept the mainstream figure? Does it give you problems?

 

[Vance]

And the problem with the YEC model is that it simply doesn't fit the evidence we have.

 

[Remus]

I'm curious, what do you think about the age of the earth?

I believe the age of the earth is less then 10k years.

Do you accept the mainstream figure?

No

Does it give you problems?

Not at all.

 

[invisible trousers]

So far I can think of four theories describing gravity (GR/SR, supersymmetry, superstring, brane theory - any more to add?) and nobody even knows how they can be talking about the same thing! I think that by comparison evolution is more settled than gravity.

Oh I definitely agree. However, arguing about evolution and using false religious emotional appeals and translations is a lot more exciting than (basically) nerds arguing about math and things we can't see with our eyes.