Which came first, the fang or the poison?

[Assyrian]

Yes of course, except I'd have to add the caveat that for the theist, it could be partial. I guess that smacks of God-of-the-Gaps, but I don't know if I have any grounds for ruling that out. (Scientific grounds, not theological grounds.)

It just sound as if no matter how good or bad evolution is as a theory you would use it as a reason to reject it. A scientific theory should be able to explain the data and if it can't that is serious grounds to question it, but you take the fact evolution can explain the data and see that as a flaw.

I think I can see where you are coming from though, thinking back to my creationist days, it seems any time a new species is discovered, the zoologist studying it will come up with some long just-so story of how its peculiar features could have evolved. Well maybe, but that is just speculation. But what is important with evolution is that it isn't simply just-so stories, when they have more than the isolated animal to speculate about, when they can compare the genetics and physiology of species they think are related, or look in the fossil record, this confirms the kind of relationships evolution proposes. You even find examples of the just-can’t-be-so stories told by creationists in the past to show evolution is impossible. Like creatures with jaws intermediate between the four boned jaws of the early reptiles and the single bone jaws of modern mammal. The just–so story of the evolutionists looked at where the bones came from in embryology, and suggested that three of the early reptile bones developed into our present inner ear bones. You can now look at that gradual change through the fossil record.

But an idea can be possible, and be incredibly far-fetched at the same time. Technically, I suppose I can't disprove the origins claims of Scientology either.

How much evidence is there for Scientology?

For the record, I believe I have found things that evolution cannot explain, such as reason and free will, maybe even consciousness.

Which to the extent they are not biological need not be a problem for evolution, especially to a Christian who believes God has given us our spirits. Not that much of a problem to atheist scientists either who generally don't believe in the soul and would see consciousness as an emergent property of increasingly complex brains. I don't have a problem with that either. If it turns out God created our minds and reason that way I'm not going to argue with him, I think it would be cool.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hi Jester4kicks, you ask for the source for the statement "Even Darwin agreed his theory seems unlikely?"

Origin of the Species, published 1859. Here is a quote: " Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous to human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for an individual possessor." Chapter 14, Recapitulation and Conclusion.

The entire paragraph reads:

That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable; and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.

{Emphasis Added}

IOW, Darwin was anticipating his readers' incredulity and is seeking to dispel it. That is, I don't think Darwin is expressing any doubt here at all.

 

[Jester4kicks]

The entire paragraph reads:{Emphasis Added}

IOW, Darwin was anticipating his readers' incredulity and is seeking to dispel it. That is, I don't think Darwin is expressing any doubt here at all.

You beat me to it!

 

[Van]

Darwin did not express doubt, and no one said he did. Darwin said his theory seems unlikely. And that was in anticipation of some of his readers incredulity.

If the point is that evolution provides an unlikely answer as to how these differing designs came into being, I think that is a given. Doesn't make the possibility impossible.

So I disagree with your assessment that "evolution provides an unlikely answer as to how these differing designs came into being". A perfectly likely answer already exists if you're willing to put in the time to properly research the matter (beyond simple Google searches).

Even Darwin agree his theory seemed unlikely.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Darwin did not express doubt, and no one said he did. Darwin said his theory seems unlikely. And that was in anticipation of some of his readers incredulity.

I believe the problem is the tone of the statement.

When you say "Even Darwin said his theory seemed unlikely", you make it sound as if Darwin did not believe in his own theory.

The more correct way of stating it would be to simply say "Even Darwin said that some might find his theory difficult to believe".

 

[Mallon]

Regardless, Darwin's theory is much more believable today than it was in his day. We've come a loooooong way to explain the things he could not.
Not to accuse Van of this, but it always riles me to hear some neocreationist cite problems with Darwin's theory as formulated in Origins, as though no one has ever elucidated on them in the last 150+ years.

 

[Chesterton]

(Forgive me the lengthy cut-and-paste at the end of this. Some of you are probably already familiar with the Chesterton passages, but some may not be. It’s just that what I want to say has already been said better than I could say it.)

If you're truly interested in learning about the evolution of bee stings and snake venom (and not simply looking for knowledge gaps in which to squeeze God), why not ask the appropriate experts? It isn't hard to find the relevant researchers with a simple Google search. And please report back here when you do. I'd be interested in knowing the answers you find as well.

Are you talking about contacting actual experts or researchers themselves? It hadn’t occurred to me that any researchers would make time to talk to a layman about questions due to intellectual curiosity. Perhaps one or two might, I’ll try that. Thanks for the idea.

I promise I did do some internet research at least, before I asked the question. I even found in Origin of a Species where Darwin mentions bee stings in passing, simply saying venom could have originally been a gall, and that the stingers might have been used for boring (although I don’t believe bees currently bore anything, plus a hollow boring tool would be much weaker than a solid, and so on, and oh well, here it goes again…). I found some current research on the wide variety of snake fangs but almost nothing addressing the dual weapon/weapon delivery system feature of snakes, jellyfish, etc. So I thought I’d make that a question in here.

Having said all that, what I can tell you for certain is that all previously published identifications of supposedly irreducibly complex systems -- including the eye, bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, etc. --have been thoroughly refuted, and plausible intermediates identified.

I know you wouldn’t say this unless you thought it true, but maybe “thoroughly refuted” is in the eye of the beholder? In saying “plausible intermediates identified” aren't the identifications still plausible conjecture or speculation? And the speculations are based on ideas of exaptation/co-option/pre-adaptation, which seem to me tautological – “We know that different traits can evolve into complex systems, because we know complex systems have to have evolved from previous traits”. The speculations about the past functions of the parts of a flagellum have not been observed, they have been speculated upon, and cannot be said to be proven or disproven. The phrase “missing link” is a misnomer; the links may very well not be “missing”; for all we know they are non-existent. I have seen an artist’s representation of the various parts from which the flagellum could have come, and it’s plausible. But it is the representation of imagination, a vision, the same as the representation of the hairy caveman. Science has not observed it; it has imagined it.

Check out Miller's Finding Darwin's God for his thorough deconstruction of these systems. The track record of ID is not good and there's little reason to think it will yet prove useful.

I found an online excerpt from the Miller book you recommended. It sounds good, I’ll probably go on to read it, but I wanted to mention something from the excerpt. Because you suggested a book doesn’t mean you personally endorse every thought in it, Mallon, but this typifies something about theistic evolution which disturbs me-

Miller mentions hearing a priest say “God makes flowers”. Later on in life, after a scientific education, Miller concludes “God doesn't make a flower. The floral induction genes do.” I immediately recalled a C.S Lewis line about how moderns think: “Man lives by bread alone, and the ultimate source of bread is the baker’s van…” . I think the priest’s statement is correct, and Miller’s is wrong, and I have to let G.K. Chesterton explain why (From the book Orthodoxy, Chapter IV “The Ethics of Elfland”):

“Well, I left the fairy tales lying on the floor of the nursery, and I have not found any books so sensible since.”
---
“Here is the peculiar perfection of tone and truth in the nursery tales. The man of science says, ’Cut the stalk, and the apple will fall’; but he says it calmly, as if the one idea really led up to the other. The witch in the fairy tale says, ‘Blow the horn, and the ogre's castle will fall’; but she does not say it as if it were something in which the effect obviously arose out of the cause. Doubtless she has given the advice to many champions, and has seen many castles fall, but she does not lose either her wonder or her reason. She does not muddle her head until it imagines a necessary mental connection between a horn and a falling tower. But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting those facts. They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically. They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer.”
---

“In fairyland we avoid the word ‘law’; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it.,,,

"All the terms used in the science books, ‘law,’ ‘necessity,’ "order,’ ‘tendency,’ and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, ‘charm,’ ‘spell,’ ‘enchantment.’ They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched.

"I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. It is the only way I can express in words my clear and definite perception that one thing is quite distinct from another; that there is no logical connection between flying and laying eggs. It is the man who talks about ‘a law’ that he has never seen who is the mystic. Nay, the ordinary scientific man is strictly a sentimentalist. He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations. He has so often seen birds fly and lay eggs that he feels as if there must be some dreamy, tender connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none. A forlorn lover might be unable to dissociate the moon from lost love; so the materialist is unable to dissociate the moon from the tide. In both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen them together. A sentimentalist might shed tears at the smell of apple-blossom, because, by a dark association of his own, it reminded him of his boyhood. So the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist, because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples [or floral induction genes remind him of flowers]. But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country.
---
“Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, ‘Do it again’; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. … It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.”

 

[Mallon]

Are you talking about contacting actual experts or researchers themselves? It hadn’t occurred to me that any researchers would make time to talk to a layman about questions due to intellectual curiosity.

This made me laugh. You make it sound like scientists are some other race of high and mighty beings, incapable of giving the time of day to curious peons. They can answer your questions. Your taxes pay their salaries, after all. Just be sure to approach them honestly and with an open mind. Don't fire them off an email claiming that they're doing the devil's work by studying the evolution of life. You're not likely to get a response that way.

I promise I did do some internet research at least, before I asked the question. I even found in Origin of a Species where Darwin mentions bee stings in passing, simply saying venom could have originally been a gall, and that the stingers might have been used for boring (although I don’t believe bees currently bore anything, plus a hollow boring tool would be much weaker than a solid, and so on, and oh well, here it goes again&#8230.

It sounds like you might still coming at the idea of cooption with some misconceptions. Reading a little Gould never hurt.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/contriv.pdf

I found some current research on the wide variety of snake fangs but almost nothing addressing the dual weapon/weapon delivery system feature of snakes, jellyfish, etc. So I thought I’d make that a question in here.

Do you have a university subscription, by any chance? You might be able to better access the peer-reviewed literature if you have one. If not, let me know and I'll see if I can track you down some articles. Also, try checking out Google Scholar for citations.

I know you wouldn’t say this unless you thought it true, but maybe “thoroughly refuted” is in the eye of the beholder?

Perhaps. Although 99% of natural scientists and the US court believe ID has been thoroughly refuted. Ultimately, you'll have to judge for yourself based on who you think best deals with the evidence. Check out Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Check out Miller's book. Check out the Lamoureux/Johnson debate in Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins.

In saying “plausible intermediates identified” aren't the identifications still plausible conjecture or speculation?

Yup! We'll never be 100% certain that we've got it right. Then again, science of any kind doesn't deal in absolutes. We can only ever say our theories are likely or unlikely, with some percentage of certainty. But when our predictions concerning evolution are borne out in the fossil record, or in the deconstruction of biomolecular mechanics -- as they nearly always are -- then evolutionary scientists can't help but feel vindicated. Sure, it's possible that God created all these apparently transitional morphologies out of a puff of smoke, but then you have to ask yourself why He would do that.

I found an online excerpt from the Miller book you recommended. It sounds good, I’ll probably go on to read it, but I wanted to mention something from the excerpt. Because you suggested a book doesn’t mean you personally endorse every thought in it, Mallon, but this typifies something about theistic evolution which disturbs me-

Miller mentions hearing a priest say “God makes flowers”. Later on in life, after a scientific education, Miller concludes “God doesn't make a flower. The floral induction genes do.”

Again, you'll have to read the entire book to get what Miller is saying. Miller is reacting here to the words of his priest, who once claimed that because scientists could not explain what makes a flower, God must be behind it. This is classic God-of-the-gaps theology. Miller is simply pointing out where this gets you -- if scientists can now explain via natural causation what makes a flower, does that mean God doesn't make flowers? According to Miller's priest, it must! Again, evolutionary creationism is about the only form of Christian theology that does away with this god-of-the-gaps type thinking. We're all perfectly comfortable with God's providential action through natural causation here; many (most?) neocreationists are not. They unwittingly restrict God's actions to signs and miracles.

 

[Chesterton]

This made me laugh. You make it sound like scientists are some other race of high and mighty beings, incapable of giving the time of day to curious peons. They can answer your questions. Your taxes pay their salaries, after all. Just be sure to approach them honestly and with an open mind. Don't fire them off an email claiming that they're doing the devil's work by studying the evolution of life. You're not likely to get a response that way.

No, it's not like that. Actually, I have a friend who's in research, a geneticist trying to map the gene for bipolar disorder. I just figured they have jobs and families and limited time as we all do. When a stranger contacts me with questions (“Hello sir, we’re conducting a brief survey…”), I might not always be receptive. As far as the devil's work, my only concern with it, is trying to make sure I'm not doing it.

Do you have a university subscription, by any chance? You might be able to better access the peer-reviewed literature if you have one. If not, let me know and I'll see if I can track you down some articles. Also, try checking out Google Scholar for citations.

No, I don’t. Occasionally I find newer reports and stuff offered for sale, but you know, I’ve taken up arguing with strangers ‘cause it’s a cheap hobby. I appreciate your offer, I’ll let you know.

Check out Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Check out Miller's book. Check out the Lamoureux/Johnson debate in Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins.

Thanks, I'll take a look at those.

 

[Van]

While it is true that neo-Darwinism is much more believable today, than Darwinism was in his day, that only says that many of the mistakes in his theory have been corrected, hence "neo-Darwinism" and that the theory is now widely taught to us from childhood, so we we tend to accept it. This does not suggest in the slightest that neo-Darwinism is not true, but it is a fallacy to support the premise of truth with majority acceptance.

None of us can escape the blind spots in the knowledge base of our time.

 

[Jester4kicks]

While it is true that neo-Darwinism is much more believable today, than Darwinism was in his day, that only says that many of the mistakes in his theory have been corrected, hence "neo-Darwinism" and that the theory is now widely taught to us from childhood, so we we tend to accept it. This does not suggest in the slightest that neo-Darwinism is not true, but it is a fallacy to support the premise of truth with majority acceptance.

None of us can escape the blind spots in the knowledge base of our time.

I'm not sure if I understand your point or intention behind this statement. It sounds like "We understand it better today, and we've improved upon the theory since its inception... and, since we improved upon it, it must have been flawed in the beginning... and, because it was flawed in the beginning, we should be teaching it".

If I'm off base, by sincerest apologies... but if that's the case, could you please clarify why was intended by your statement? My interpretation of it obviously has me scratching my head about you.

 

[shernren]

I think I can understand the sentiment of his statement, if not its exact content. One of my frequent canards anywhere I go (on CF.com) is this: why do you believe in atoms? Why do you believe in oxygen? And why do you believe in heliocentrism? Many people believe these things simply because they have been taught them. And to believe such fantastic theories simply because they are taught in the schools, and then turn around and demand to "teach the controversy" around creationism and evolution, seems to me to be simplistic at best and downright duplicitous at worst.

Never mind that there isn't even a controversy in the academy. If I had to "teach a 'controversy'", I would gladly teach pre-atomic chemistry any day, or observational astronomy pre-Galileo. To be downright honest those are a hundred times more exciting than any creationist literature I've ever seen, whether before or after Darwin.

 

[Van]

While it is true that neo-Darwinism is much more believable today, than Darwinism was in his day, that only says that many of the mistakes in his theory have been corrected, hence "neo-Darwinism" and that the theory is now widely taught to us from childhood, so we we tend to accept it. This does not suggest in the slightest that neo-Darwinism is not true, but it is a fallacy to support the premise of truth with majority acceptance.

None of us can escape the blind spots in the knowledge base of our time.

Some have said the above blurb had them scratching their head, as if to say they could not understand it. I submit the above is easy to understand. So I think it possible some want to avoid its truth, and pretend to be obtuse to change the subject to the clarity of the post, rather than its content. Been there, done that.

 

[Van]

Is it important to "teach a controversy?" Of course. To say its settled that McCain will make the best President, and Obama is utterly unqualified, provides a point of view but misses the mark of education. Indoctrination yes, but education no. Critical thinking requires analysis of differing views, and teaching controversy is a key element in education.

Let me give you an example: Which came first, the fang or the poison?

 

[artybloke]

Critical thinking requires analysis of differing views, and teaching controversy is a key element in education.

From the scientific point of view, there is no controversy. Evolution won. No scientist working in the field disagrees with it.

Though it might be a good idea to teach it better. The number of dumb ideas about what evolution is supposed to be that I've read on this website it pretty staggering...

It is still possible to teach creationism, though, as long as it's in mythology class, alongside, say, the Hindu creation myths, the Australian creation myths and others. Then you can have a controversy about which is best (personally I'm quite fond of the Australian Dreamtime myths...)

 

[Van]

Your view, Artybloke, is there is no controversy. My view is there is a controversy.
When you say, "from the scientific point of view" you allude to a non-existent monolith.
Certainly some scientists believe the current understanding contains error. The theory of evolution has radically changed over the last 100 years, and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to, uh ... evolve, in the future. Teaching what we do not know, examining the controversies of our time, is part of education.

 

[Mallon]

Your view, Artybloke, is there is no controversy. My view is there is a controversy.
When you say, "from the scientific point of view" you allude to a non-existent monolith.
Certainly some scientists believe the current understanding contains error. The theory of evolution has radically changed over the last 100 years, and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to, uh ... evolve, in the future. Teaching what we do not know, examining the controversies of our time, is part of education.

The vast majority of biologists -- probably some 99% -- agree that there is no controversy re: evolution. Yes, there is some disagreement concerning the tempo and mode of evolution, but as to whether or not evolution happens, everyone agrees that it does. Thus, there is no controversy to be taught. Just because a handful of fundamentalists want their brand of pseudoscience taught in schools doesn't mean there is a controversy within the scientific community. There are still geocentrists and astrologists kicking about, after all, yet we feel no obligation to teach their side of the story.

 

[Mallon]

Let me give you an example: Which came first, the fang or the poison?

We already answered that. Fangs are plesiomorphic.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Your view, Artybloke, is there is no controversy. My view is there is a controversy.
When you say, "from the scientific point of view" you allude to a non-existent monolith.
Certainly some scientists believe the current understanding contains error. The theory of evolution has radically changed over the last 100 years, and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to, uh ... evolve, in the future. Teaching what we do not know, examining the controversies of our time, is part of education.

Could you describe exactly how the Theory of Evolution has "radically changed" in the last 100 years?

 

[Van]

Yes, I can describe the difference between neo-Darwinism and Darwinism. Are you suggesting the changes are not radical?

My thinking runs along the line presented here: http://www.answers.com/topic/modern-evolutionary-synthesis