Design evidence # 111: The heart

Except that Ernst Mayr's comment was written 33 years ago. Sonnikke must have a fondness for out-of-date books.

No I just have a fondness for illuminating quotes by evo's, and, regardless mutations are still as useless as ever at producing the kind of "believed in" change, that the evo is hoping for.Regards,
S------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233

Sonnikke:
No I just have a fondness for illuminating quotes by evo's, and, regardless mutations are still as useless as ever at producing the kind of "believed in" change, that the evo is hoping for.
(snipped for brevity: another one of his possibly-bogus old quotes)Let's interpret the Bible the way that Sonnikke interprets the writings of evolutionary biologists. Thus, "Happy is the one who smashes your babies against a rock" (Psalm 137:9) is direct Biblical support of baby killing.And Ernst Mayr's alleged statement is actually a criticism of the view that some evolution is caused by macromutations, mutations with large effects. He is claiming that "good" macromutations essentially don't happen, which is justified by extrapolation from many known macromutations.However, the good-macromutation hypothesis is starting to make a comeback, as evidenced by some recent "evo-devo" research -- this sort of hypothesis is becoming testable! Some recent examples:Both Drosophila fruit flies and Artemia brine shrimp have Ultrabithorax Hox genes, which are expressed in their rearward segments, and which make those segments develop as "proper" rearward ones. However, the fly version stops legs from forming, while the shrimp version does not -- and the shrimp version in a fly makes the fly try to grow lots of abdominal legs.So a few mutations in the Ultrabithorax gene may be all that's necessary to go from shrimp rearward legs to insects' absence of such legs.Likewise, snakes have a pattern of Hox-gene expression that contains no front-limb zone, as other vertebrates do. Thus, they don't grow front legs. They may have gotten a mutation in an Hox-gene-control gene that moves a bit forward the expression of one of the rearward-expressed Hox genes.

Hi Sonnikke,Your Ernst Mayr quote is still the scientific view of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" ideas. Evolution is believed to proceed through the accumulation of small changes, not by sudden large ones.--Percy

quote:

---

How many beneficial "defects" do you know?
It is only plausible in the evo's mind because you have an extraordinary belief in extrapolating data from the miniscule to the astronomical.

---

I meant "defects" in the broader sense of not an exact copy based on the original. To be clearer I should have said mutations, of which most are defects and a small amount beneficial.Others have stated examples of very real beneficial mutations. What is your reply to this?Breeding and natural changes seen within species over time (microevolutionary mutations) is irrefutable. Neither is it miniscule. There have been a few macroevolutionary changes directly seen by man as well (mainly in plants it seems). It is not astronomical to make a theory that life has continued as it does now and that differences in species are the result of cummulative changes via ways that we have seen it change.In fact, it is to jump from the totally absent to the astronomical, to make the positive claim that (despite our known experiences) something totally out of our world of experience came and altered life in ways we have never seen and have no clue about.

quote:

---

I do love how that is the typical response from evo's.
"Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as
it is currently concieved..."

---

Lpetrich made it very simple for you to understand why abiogenesis is separate and distinct from evolution. This is why I said you should duke it out with Behe. Behe's criticisms hold more weight against abiogenesis than they do about any evolutionary change. This may very well be why Behe supports general evolutionary theory.That said, I agree in part with the quote you gave, specifically the part I left above, and have mentioned before that the low statistical probabilities for evolution (or abiogenesis) based on current understandings of biological mechanisms may very well point to the fact that we don't have a clear understanding of all biological mechanisms!Calculations are premature and not real science. Behe says this in his book. As an aside, can you produce a mathematical-statistical analysis for god. And I don't mean the long shots of other theories, I mean creating the same positive type of stats for God and creation that you demand evolutionary theory reach.As it is current conceptions within evolutionary theory are changing via new research, and so effecting those long shot probabilities all the time. Margulis has offered some very interesting possibilities which I have yet to hear ID theorists try to handle, other than to side with mutation-based evos (ahhh any port in a storm).

quote:

---

It is not easily answered. How does a system that "bathes" the internal organs with blood, create the necessary vessels and arches and force mechanisms to become closed, while at the same time remaining functioning. There would have to be so many intermediate steps, created by succesive beneficial mutations. The odds are simply zero for that to occur.

---

An excellent explanation has already been given, but I want to add that your response does not affect my criticism. What laws need to be invoked for such an answer? This suggests to me that you do not even know what a scientific law is, much less how they are used. This is not meant as an insult, it really does appear that way.

quote:

---

Re-read his story.

---

I did, I don't see any instantaneous generations involved. Let's pretend I did. Then his specific description would have been errant. So what? I proposed a meandering river analogy to express slow build up of changes over time within one system to create separate and distinct systems (while functionality is maintained). I meant it to aid your conceiving what he had said, but it can support the vaguer description I gave. What is your response?

quote:

---

I had a better diagram at work, but of course I can't find it now.
However, look at this diagram, it is not as simple as just growing an extra throat. The circulatory system is separate and elaborate.

---

lpetrich has given a valid explanation for this.

quote:

---

At an extremely basic, untestable, unprovable, level.
However, "A" for effort...is just too bad evolutionary science retsricts itself to entirely natural events, and thus misses out on exploring all the possible avenues...

---

Your implied method of scientific inquiry is pre-dark age and was rightly dicredited and excised during the enlightenment. I lampooned this method in my 2piR thread. What I find interesting is that in that thread you criticized evos for using this kind of logic, and now turn around to say its too bad they don't... or at least too bad they don't with repect to your theory because then they could gain so much.You really must find a philosophical position you like and stick with it. Frankly, given proven progress since the enlightenment, I'd lump the darkage stuff and stick with a winning mode of inquiry.By the way, your link showed astronomical ignorance of both science and two specific areas of research. SETI has nothing to do with DNA research. While I do agree that IF there was something that created or altered life it is possible there would be indications left behind, but DNA research is not trying to do this and not nearly advanced enough to try. I think it's ironic they used steve martin's "jerky" image to show someone making such a connection.Did I say ironic? I meant appropriate.holmes

"How many beneficial "defects" do you know?"I have one myself.I don't have any lower wisdom teeth. Don't need 'em for chewing, and I didn't have impactions or pain because they don't exist!

Grrrr. Schraf, I had the opposite - six wisdom teeth in all. I must be a throwback!!! :-(

Son - did you not like my explanation of gene activity?

Hi Percy,
Thank you for your continued demonstration of class.Regards,
S

I have yet to see even an explanation. So far I have seen stories. What you consider an "explanation" is analagous to me saying that a tricycle accidentally grew another wheel and became a four wheeler. Then one day an accident caused an internal combustion engine to form on the four wheeler. Further, structural changes fortuitously took place which encaged the lucky engine. The four wheeler adapted to the new changes by growing a steel skin which encompassed the entire four wheeler. More gradual modifications ensured that roominess abounded so the lucky four wheeler could carry passengers. That is the "excellent" explanation for how a tricycle evolved to a car. (sidebar: please spare me the "it's not a biological organism, it can't pass on heritable traits, etc"..it's the same idea for illustration purposes). pre-dark age? please elaborate. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy involved in this dark age stuff. Yes I'm aware thank you. The link was to show that man is looking for intelligence in the wrong places, spending millions of dollars looking for any signs of intelligent life from outer space, whilst right here in our own world an incredibly intelligent "sign" has been found in the form of DNA.
What I was saying was that just as man is not seeing the obvious in that respect, man is also not seeing the obvious (God's creation) as evidenced by the naturalistically limited search for answers to our existence.Regards,
S------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233

quote:

---

(sidebar: please spare me the "it's not a biological organism, it can't pass on heritable traits, etc"..it's the same idea for illustration purposes).

---

It sure does sound ridiculous when you talk about something which doesn't grow, much less reproduce, changing for no reason whatsoever.And that isn't the only point on which your analogy falls apart. Your analogy is a single organism changing within itself. Evo does not suggest an individual organism would suddenly grow something new. It is only related to the reproductive process.If you wish to restrict my criticisms of your analogy, and insist it simply must be right (when it is not), then lets dump using it as it gets us nowhere.After all there is no need to use analogies, when there are real life things we can talk about.I have already outlined the problem you have to address.Biological organisms do reproduce, and change during reproduction. They have changed visibly, developing different characteristics. They do this on their own, usually when breeding populations become isolated, and may have this effect amplified through intentional breeding programs.Thus there is no question that (using your analogy) a tricycle may become more roomy or grow another wheel (or at least the newer models based off it may).This is called microevolution and I don't know anyone debating this.So why is it unreasonable to create an explanation based on the idea that these microevolutionary cycles, and the changes which occur within those cycles, produced all life as we see it now?I find the delineation between microevolution (which is not contested by ANYONE I know of) and macroevolution (disputed only by creationists), rather arbitrary and necessary of a better explanation (or story) than "I can't believe that story", and contentious analogies which usually involve nonreproductive organisms.By the way, my overall criticism still stands... there was no reason for mentioning scientific laws.

quote:

---

pre-dark age? please elaborate...
I'm sure there's a logical fallacy involved in this dark age stuff.

---

Okay, you are simply being deliberately obtuse. You and I have been discussing such issues over three different threads. Now here you feign ignorance? At the very least my "enlightenment" reference should have jogged your memory of what I am talking about.The darkage reference is not ad hominem (if that is the fallacy you were looking for). It is an accurate description (dating) of the method of scientific inquiry you were suggesting.It dates back to the Greeks (and probably before that), when most logic was deductive and so started with grand universal "truths" which were imposed on, or used as an a priori filter for, empirical experiences. This method was terribly susceptible to problems relating to circular logic, and has ultimately been abandonded for more fruitful methods of inquiry.

quote:

---

Yes I'm aware thank you. The link was to show that man is looking for intelligence in the wrong places, spending millions of dollars looking for any signs of intelligent life from outer space, whilst right here in our own world an incredibly intelligent "sign" has been found in the form of DNA.

---

Apparently you were not aware of what is wrong with that site, or at least not aware of what my criticisms of the site were, because you just repeated the ridiculous claims it made.Please explain how DNA is a sign of intelligent life, and how science is investigating DNA as a message from some other intelligence (alien or God).From what I understand the farthest we have gotten so far, is mapping the structure of DNA, which determines protein production in cells, and so during reproduction influences what a growing structure may end up as.We are not sure what every piece of DNA does, what mechanisms are used (much less how they came to be), and what exact role DNA plays in life. While we do know it is important, it is not clear that it is the ONLY important part of a living organism.Infact, if anything, DNA research has been uncovering more evidence which suggests that we are many organisms that have come to live together in symbiosis (support for Margulis' symbiogenesis). This may reduce the primary importance of DNA in shaping life (outside of the individual).And anyway, you are inconsistent in embracing the importance of DNA research and scientific inquiry when a "story" based loosely on that research seems to prove your point, yet denouncing that very research as "storytelling" when it seems to prove you wrong.

quote:

---

What I was saying was that just as man is not seeing the obvious in that respect, man is also not seeing the obvious (God's creation) as evidenced by the naturalistically limited search for answers to our existence.

---

Huh????? So the limits of our perceptive capabilities, specifically when combined with our temporal existence, is some sort of evidence for God?I can't believe that you do not see how circular your arguments are. As a scientist, you simply cannot start with a presuppostion, and then measure evidence by that presupposition.You rightly criticize evo scientists that have done so (ie, homology), why are you immune to this criticism?holmes

Are you sure you read Ipetrich's story, because his "lucky" worm grew a new throat. It didn't happen over many many generations apparantly. I know of no one debating microevolution, that is correct. My tricycle to car analogy was illustrative of macro-ev. It wouldn't be that unreasonable IF we saw evidence that the little miniscule changes that are either horizontal or downward, could be extrapolated to astronomical changes, but that evidence was supposed to be in the rich fossil record, and it wasn't. How many years have they experimented on mutating flies? 20 years or so? We still only have flies right? right!
These mutations which are supposed to add the raw material for new organisms, do the opposite most of the time. And when they don't, they are neutral or horizontal. Thanks for insulting me by the way...
"grand universal truths"..."a priori"..you mean like uniformitarianism and natural occurences only??
Evolutionism isn't far from the greeks then, I suppose.
Let me ask you something, what if God really did create life and the universe and the only "evolution" that has occurred since is MICRO...that creation event would have been supernatural correct? So if science really wanted the truth to be found, wouldn't it make sense to NOT limit itself to a priori reasoning and grand universal truth assumptions?? Seriously?As far as the DNA example, again, it is just an illustration of how people can miss the forest for the trees.Regards,
S------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233

As I understand it, Sonnikke's entire belief in design
is based upon the assumption that one can infer
design from complexity and inter-relationships.I suggested earlier in this thread, and elsewhere,
that since many designed objects are wonders of
simplicity, then complexity cannot be related to
design in any way.Sonnikke has not responded to this suggestion
thus far.

That's a non-sequitur if I've seen one. What kind of logic is this? Because something designed can be simple thus complexity cannot be related to design? What constitutes a simple design? What's the simplest design you can think of? Even the most simple design is DESIGNED! So actually what you are saying is that design can be inferred even more easily since even simple things show evidence of design.Regards,
S------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233

quote:

---

Are you sure you read Ipetrich's story, because his "lucky" worm grew a new throat. It didn't happen over many many generations apparantly.

---

Again, you have deliberately ignored my response to this issue in an earlier post. It is neither necessary to have grown it in one step, and even if lpetrich posited this and we say that is improbable, it only makes lpetrich's specific example problematic.Deal with the example without instantaneous growth of the whole second throat. Pretend I made it.

quote:

---

I know of no one debating microevolution, that is correct. My tricycle to car analogy was illustrative of macro-ev... wouldn't be that unreasonable IF we saw evidence that the little miniscule changes that are either horizontal or downward, could be extrapolated to astronomical changes, but that evidence was supposed to be in the rich fossil record, and it wasn't.

---

You can keep saying astronomical, and mathematicians can keep calculating long odds using our limited knowledge of mechanisms, but that does not change that we have ONLY seen continuing micro-ev changes and some limited macro evolutionary changes (remember the plants!).I'm still waiting for the less than astronomical calculated odds for intervention by a deity. Where are all these mathematicians with that scenario? The best they can do is calculate odds based on current mechanisms.The lack of transitional fossils has already been addressed by Gould and Eldredge. It is called punctuated equilibrium.Now please share one piece of positive evidence for the presence of God, angels, etc etc. Or an explanation for why we have no evidence.

quote:

---

How many years have they experimented on mutating flies? 20 years or so? We still only have flies right? right!
These mutations which are supposed to add the raw material for new organisms, do the opposite most of the time. And when they don't, they are neutral or horizontal.

---

I think this speaks for itself. We've only been experimenting for 20 years. They have already found reproductive isolation.If you mean purely genetic mutations (like adding wings) then please address Margulis (who you have still not responded to, like all IDers I have read).Specific mechanisms of evolutionary change are not well known. Margulis has challenged the mainstream held gene-mutation mechanism to some effect. Perhaps we won't be talking about gene-mutations as much 20 years from now. Maybe then we'll hear someone from the creation camp address the new research instead of using old quotes?

quote:

---

"To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability."
Cohen, I.L. (1984)
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81

---

That's why we still need to investigate mechanisms. Basic gene-mutation mechanisms may not be enough. Address Margulis.Where are Cohen's calculations on deity intervention? Perhaps entering unseen entities with unknown mechanisms into his formulas would fall into the same category of mocking logic and denying the weight of evidence.

quote:

---

Thanks for insulting me by the way...

---

If I said you were obtuse, that would be an insult. My stating that you are BEING obtuse, especially given the evidence of our correspondences on this subject, is an accurate characterization of your actions.

quote:

---

"grand universal truths"..."a priori"..you mean like uniformitarianism and natural occurences only??
Evolutionism isn't far from the greeks then, I suppose.

---

No. Please research how uniformitarianism came to be used as a functioning assumption. It did not involve any a priori reasoning, and it is not a grand universal truth. It allows for new evidence to shape science in general, including the negation of uniformitarianism as a functioning assumption (making it a conditional working assumption).The limitation of explanations of naturally occuring phenomena to natural explanations is also a working assumption. It's hard to call it a priori as it comes from the visible failure of deductive appeals to unseen (directly or indirectly) forces to explain natural phenomena. The entire weight of evidence has been for restricting explanations to natural phenomena.Some may use this as a grand universal truth in their lives (ala Dawkins famed "fulfilled atheist" quote) but it is hardly a grand universal truth in science. Mainly because deity intervention would suddenly become a "natural phenomena" if it entered the realm of experience. It merely works as a temporary filter to focus on the most probable causes first.Evolutionary theory may in some cases be considered deductive, since it is based on applying currently known mechanisms to the past. However it admits evidence from the past which is able to counter current assumptions. Punctuated Equilibrium is a fossil-based example, Margulis is a contemporary research based example.

quote:

---

Let me ask you something, what if God really did create life and the universe and the only "evolution" that has occurred since is MICRO...that creation event would have been supernatural correct? So if science really wanted the truth to be found, wouldn't it make sense to NOT limit itself to a priori reasoning and grand universal truth assumptions?? Seriously?

---

Science is not limited in the way you suggest. Once solid evidence comes in that macroevolutionary events are not possible through any naturally occuring mechanism, science would be forced to conclude microevolutionary events are the only natural (biological) events and that some non-biological event must have occured with regard to macro-ev.If God and creation were true, this should eventually occur.We are simply not anywhere near that point yet. In fact, there is highly suggestive evidence that macroevolutionary events do occur naturally in biological organisms (plants and insects).If creation were wholly supernatural, and so beyond any direct or indirect experience how else will its truth ever be discovered? Seriously?You would be unable to discern between religious creation events, without appeals to some sensory experience of some kind. You are inconsistent in demanding everyone accept your interpretation and not accepting everyone else's.What if lord Baal is god after all? Boy is he gonna be pissed, therefore believe in Baal, or don't create rules to exclude him.Everyone can play that game.Uniformitarianism and reliance on natural explanations ends that kind of game-playing, to get on with the search for truth. Baal or Jehovah will make their presence known through experience if they want to be known.

quote:

---

As far as the DNA example, again, it is just an illustration of how people can miss the forest for the trees.

---

Only in some vague, totally inaccurate analogy sort of way. But let's say its accurate, at least scientists are looking at trees.Some people miss forests by focusing on the gaps between the trees. Those people don't look at anything but empty air.holmes