A simple case for intelligent design

[SkepticThinker]

Explain why "that isn't how it works" means there are multiple thousands of generations between species/genera/etc. but only fully formed species extant in fossils and now.

What I can't figure out is why you expect to find "half-formed" creatures, and what that is, exactly.

 

[Polymath257]

**I’m asking us to try to spitball some statistical probabilities and numbers. For example, I have about 30 proteins that clot blood when I’m injured. I’m trying to fathom how my ancestors/ancestor species didn’t bleed out when they were injured, and the odds of having 30 proteins that work together, and the odds of having evolved a lymphatic and nervous and a dozen other systems that trigger clotting, so that I don’t bleed to death and also don’t form unneeded clots and die from an embolism. This gedanken is an adjunct to evolution theory, that puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

Well, have you considered looking at the clotting mechanisms of animals that don't have 30 proteins? Doing a bit of comparative physiology with clotting proteins and how they are related might be a good way to proceed, don't you think?

Here's a simple investigation:
The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood clotting

 

[ratiocinator]

My question involves why only fully formed species are extant. I'm to understand that thousands of generations birth and die between species, genera, etc. but only complete species are extant in fossils or today?

The fact that we can divide the fossil record into species at all is an artefact of the patchiness of the record itself (because fossilisation is rare). If the record were complete, it would be impossible, as there would be a continuum between each current species and its ancestors. We'd have the same situation as with ring species, spread over time, for every single species and its ancestors.

Every single creature that ever lived was in a "fully formed species" at the time.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's not "statistically unlikely" that if we give 100 monkeys typewriters for a year, that they will produce a copy of a Shakespearean sonnet?!

Typing monkeys are totally irrelevant to evolution because of natural selection. Natural selection is like having monkeys typing but when a letter is in the correct place to produce the sonnet, it is kept, and every incorrect letter is discarded.

It's ridiculous to suggest that complex life could arise by pure chance (in the sense of typing monkeys: just waiting for everything to come together at once). Natural selection isn't just chance, it filters changes according to their utility in the environment and discards changes that are not useful in the environment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

**I’m asking us to try to spitball some statistical probabilities and numbers. For example, I have about 30 proteins that clot blood when I’m injured. I’m trying to fathom how my ancestors/ancestor species didn’t bleed out when they were injured, and the odds of having 30 proteins that work together, and the odds of having evolved a lymphatic and nervous and a dozen other systems that trigger clotting, so that I don’t bleed to death and also don’t form unneeded clots and die from an embolism. This gedanken is an adjunct to evolution theory, that puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

I do not see the point in my trying to spitball probabilities. I could just throw out numbers if you want. That is what creationists have done. All I see here is an argument from incredulity. You cannot conceive it, therefore it must be creation/design.

Evolution is constrained by the material available to it, the laws of nature, chance and selection. Within that frame, numerous possibilities still exist.

**…sexual and asexual reproduction, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory. Just to be clear. – source: Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality

Is it your intention to swamp out the competition with overload? Then near the bottom of your post, you plead for keeping it simple. You like to run hot and cold.

The list of structures, pathways, behaviors and systems in your massive list have at their heart a genetic basis. Given that, there is available opportunity for mutations and selection based on those mutations.

"This conclusion does not imply that humans have experienced few phenotypic adaptations, or that adaptations have not shaped genomic patterns of diversity. Comparisons of diversity and divergence levels at putatively functional versus neutral sites, for example, suggest that 10–15% (and possibly as many as 40% (29)) of amino acid differences between humans and Hernandez et al. Page 4 Science. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 June 03. NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript chimpanzees were adaptive (e.g., (30)) as were 5% of substitutions in conserved non-coding regions (22, 29) and ~20% in UTRs (22)."
Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

So there is evidence of selection for beneficial traits in humans after all. Did you look at the paper are you just swallowing what another creationist told you to think?

Your linked source is wrong about all known mutations being neutral or deleterious only. There are known beneficial mutations. We have discussed some, like nylon digestion in bacteria. There is lactose persistence in humans (a couple of different mutations with the same phenotype), the ice-nucleating glycoprotein in notothenioid fish and sickle cell in humans exposed to malaria. Not a huge list, but I have not reviewed the field extensively, but certainly not "none".

**I’m trying to understand how you are using incredulity and supercomplexity arguments to tell me all of 2) above, and thousands of more things, are possible via mechanistic evolution, but don’t believe God can write a book we can follow for life guidance, inerrantly, when working with writers are who yielded to His guidance (!) or that you might be wrong in your perceptions of Bible “problems”. I imagine your answer is, “I’ve read the Bible for myself, and feel certain aspects are wrong,” but if I say, “I’ve studied evolution for myself, and feel certain aspects are wrong,” you say I don’t want to learn and am using emotion rather than logic!

I did not say that I do not believe God could write a book. I do not have evidence that God wrote a book. I do have evidence that all books I know of were written by people. I do not understand how you can claim honesty and objectivity, yet glibly ignore errors and inconsistencies clearly in the Bible, or rationalize them. It has no impact on the fact that I believe in God. My belief remains strong and intact despite the frailty of the Bible. My belief is in God. Not in a book I have turned into a god.

“I think that if you were to make the effort and seek out some general sources reviewing evolution, you would learn something. There are a number of books available that present it in terms that are understandable without a technical background. Mayr's "What Evolution Is" or Zimmer's "Tangled Bank" would be good choices.

If you are truly interested and want to read what is actually coming out of science, then those would be a good start.”

**I hear you, but my goal is to hear from an evolution-committed thinker like you, some answers to my questions—questions formed after studying the issues.

Then you have some other agenda than to learn. I have attempted to keep an open mind about your interest, but another agenda was highly likely.

“Bacteria show evidence of evolution in the lab and in the field. Of course they do.

The evidence indicates that bacteria did change in some very important and significant directions. Are you completely sure you can just dismiss that without regard? A logical person would not do that offhand and against the evidence.”

**I’m not dismissing that without regard. I’m rather saying there is an awesome statistical difference between bacterial changes as observed, and Kingdom-Order changes and etc.

There are differences in the environment that are significant and can alter those probabilities too. You seem to be saying that these can be ignored or that not knowing them leads to your desired conclusions.

“Only creationist expect to find crocoducks and catdogs. No one with a reasonable understanding of evolution expects to find anything like that. There is no expectation for some sort of half one species, half another arising from the theory of evolution. These are not only different species, but in the crocoduck example, they are different classes.

Does anyone really need to explain even the general issues regarding why these are not seen? Have I been giving you too much credit?”

** I’m not asking regarding a crocoduck or catdog. I’m asking again why the phylogenic tree seems very intensive, very well considered, but we can’t find transition fossils for so many, many species. Would some examples help?

Transitions have been found. You were shown a picture of a feathered transition just recently. You have had this explain ad nuaseum to the point that is is tiresome and pointless to continue explaining.

“There is often no logic to what I see you posting. That is my honest assessment. You made some references to religion and when I responded directly to the points you made in that post, for no logical reason, you asked not to spend time discussing what you, yourself, brought up. You made the initial reference to monkeys typing Shakespeare and then attacked when others presented responses. I am not seeing someone operating on high logic here, but rather, I am seeing someone with emotional responses to valid points that you are not comfortable with.”

**Do you want to discuss Christianity or evolution? I’m making a game attempt to learn from you via asking questions about evolution, not Christianity. Rather than answer my questions, you lecture me that I’m not “really” wanting to learn, am dogmatic . . . are you certain it’s an “emotional response” to say, for example, “after a century of attempts, scientists designing experiments in controlled conditions cannot reproduce 1/10,000th of life/abiogenesis, so saying it evolved mechanistically seems statistically unlikely. . . ”?

Again, YOU brought up the points about religion and Christianity. Not ME. I will respond to what you post. If you do not want to discuss religion, then do not post about it.

“I still do not understand what you are talking about with regard to one billion species. Is it an estimate of all species that ever lived or do you think that there are one billion species existing alive on Earth today?

**An estimate of all that ever lived. How about keeping things simpler, for our peace of mind, you and I? Was abiogenesis a one-time thing, or did it happen three times, do you think? If you are in the camp that says multiple times, separately, do you wonder at my incredulity? Is my incredulity reasonable, reasoned?

Incredulity is failure at the capacity to reason. Finding something incredible is the gut feeling that drives you to look. It is not the basis of an argument that explains what you see. I find it incredible that people consider the Bible to be without error and deify it. I argue on the basis of the evidence that I have found from my interest stemming from that incredulity.

I have no idea if abiogenesis was largely a single event or multiple events. The evidence only indicates that we arose from one that I know of. That ultimately this may have derived an intermingling of lifeforms arising from that source, there is some evidence in your mitochondria that supports the idea.

I have previously posted one or two estimates of the total number of species that have ever existed. These numbers were one or two orders of magnitude greater than one billion depending on what percentage you consider extant living things to be as part of the total.

My time is valuable to me. I will no longer respond fully to posts of this size again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Typing monkeys are totally irrelevant to evolution because of natural selection. Natural selection is like having monkeys typing but when a letter is in the correct place to produce the sonnet, it is kept, and every incorrect letter is discarded.

It's ridiculous to suggest that complex life could arise by pure chance (in the sense of typing monkeys: just waiting for everything to come together at once). Natural selection isn't just chance, it filters changes according to their utility in the environment and discards changes that are not useful in the environment.

Because at any point in time only 'fully formed' species are selected for. The point is that those species change over time, always being 'fully formed'.

The analogy is languages. Latin slowly changed into French. At each point in time, the language was 'fully formed'. At each point in time, people understood both the previous generation and the following one and would have considered both to be speaking the same language. Nonetheless, the language changed over time.

Just to provide some perspective here ...

I see that you are a new member here. Which means you don't have the history with other forum members that some of us have. Those of us that have this history have been around the block many times with particular forum members and the arguments said members have repeatedly made over time. Many of us have already provided extensive explanations and evidence to the questions asked and assertions made by said members, and yet keep seeing the same arguments pop up again and again anew, as if those explanations were not provided. So yes, some of us get to a point where we are tired of repeating ourselves, and instead implore certain posters to educate themselves, since no amount of explanation seems to cure their ignorance on the subject matter.

This is one of the reasons I come to this forum. I am surrounded by the brilliance of the perspective of others that often speak so clearly the thoughts I cannot so aptly communicate.

Sorry if I have messed up this multiple quote attempt. It is my first try.

 

[Jose Fly]

The way I look at it, anyone knowledgeable has a duty to dispel ignorance, even if that effort has no impact on the specific person spouting the ignorance.

I used to think of myself in that way....."I'm the ignorance police".....but after many years of beating my head against the same wall over and over and over and over and over and over, I've kinda lost my enthusiasm for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow, it was found with feathers

It has a proto-wing....a limb that is less than a fully-developed wing, exactly what you asked to see.

and this isn't a concept drawing you sent, from a skeleton or partial skeleton found extant? I stand corrected.

Of course not. All you had to do was google "caudipteryx" to see descriptions of all the fossil specimens.

The fact remains, you challenged us to provide an example of a proto-wing and you've been given one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I used to think of myself in that way....."I'm the ignorance police".....but after many years of beating my head against the same wall over and over and over and over and over and over, I've kinda lost my enthusiasm for it.

I can see that. I think the duty is to have informed response out there available for others to see and not necessarily only those that are in denial and steadfastly against science or the conclusions of science for emotional and religious reasons.

But, yes, after having the same dull and refuted points pressed against me again and again, my head hurts too.

Besides, I would not meet others like you if I did not attempt to wade through the frass.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has a proto-wing....a limb that is less than a fully-developed wing, exactly what you asked to see.


Of course not. All you had to do was google "caudipteryx" to see descriptions of all the fossil specimens.

The fact remains, you challenged us to provide an example of a proto-wing and you've been given one.

Considering the homology and origins of the structure compared to forelimbs, I am wondering if a pretty good argument could be made for using that aforementioned forelimb as an example of a protowing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has a proto-wing....a limb that is less than a fully-developed wing, exactly what you asked to see.


Of course not. All you had to do was google "caudipteryx" to see descriptions of all the fossil specimens.

The fact remains, you challenged us to provide an example of a proto-wing and you've been given one.

Sure. Great. You get the short posts.

 

[Jose Fly]

I can see that. I think the duty is to have informed response out there available for others to see and not necessarily only those that are in denial and steadfastly against science or the conclusions of science for emotional and religious reasons.

But, yes, after having the same dull and refuted points pressed against me again and again, my head hurts too.

Besides, I would not meet others like you if I did not attempt to wade through the frass.

I always try and give new folks the benefit of the doubt, but after a few times of them acting the stereotypical internet creationist, I stop. Then I'll usually move on to seeing if they're willing to discuss the issue from a different angle, such as the role their faith plays in their views. Unfortunately, the vast majority of creationists absolutely freak out when I try and go down that road. Apparently it's quite threatening.

So anyways.....it's all good, especially given the data that shows this is rapidly becoming a non-issue. The best scenario to me would be for this "debate" to effectively end and be relegated to the same status as the flat-earth/round-earth "debate". I don't think we're too far away from that either.

 

[Jose Fly]

Considering the homology and origins of the structure compared to forelimbs, I am wondering if a pretty good argument could be made for using that aforementioned forelimb as an example of a protowing.

It's certainly not a "fully-formed wing", but it's clearly in the developmental pathway to one, so IMO that's exactly what a proto-wing would be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I always try and give new folks the benefit of the doubt, but after a few times of them acting the stereotypical internet creationist, I stop. Then I'll usually move on to seeing if they're willing to discuss the issue from a different angle, such as the role their faith plays in their views. Unfortunately, the vast majority of creationists absolutely freak out when I try and go down that road. Apparently it's quite threatening.

So anyways.....it's all good, especially given the data that shows this is rapidly becoming a non-issue. The best scenario to me would be for this "debate" to effectively end and be relegated to the same status as the flat-earth/round-earth "debate". I don't think we're too far away from that either.

That is some food for thought. Keeping the debate alive when it has died, would be counterproductive and only serve to legitimize the dissent. That issue came up early in the origin of ID when legitimate scientists refused to openly debate ID proponents or creation scientists, because their mere presence lent credibility to their ID/creationist opponents.

My generosity seems to wax or be short lived more than I like these days, but I continue to maintain the vestiges of an open mind and objectivity, despite the environment against it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's certainly not a "fully-formed wing", but it's clearly in the developmental pathway to one, so IMO that's exactly what a proto-wing would be.

I was thinking so too. It is a matter of where you consider the evolution of a trait or structure to commence. Even the starting point is a point on the path. Conceptually, creationist do not seem able to understand that. Either through ignorance, willful intent, or both, I do not always know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I always try and give new folks the benefit of the doubt, but after a few times of them acting the stereotypical internet creationist, I stop. Then I'll usually move on to seeing if they're willing to discuss the issue from a different angle, such as the role their faith plays in their views. Unfortunately, the vast majority of creationists absolutely freak out when I try and go down that road. Apparently it's quite threatening.

So anyways.....it's all good, especially given the data that shows this is rapidly becoming a non-issue. The best scenario to me would be for this "debate" to effectively end and be relegated to the same status as the flat-earth/round-earth "debate". I don't think we're too far away from that either.

I find that as soon as it is known that I am a Christian who works in science and accepts the methods and findings of science, the discussion almost always turns to whether I am a "true" Christian and no longer focuses on what I can communicate about science.

Since, I consider religious beliefs to be the personal business of those who hold them and would not proselytize regardless of rules against the activity, I often find more congeniality and reason with atheists and agnostics who are in support of science, than I do from professed fellow Christians. At least, Christians of the fundamentalist kind. Not that all atheists are the same, but I have found more reasoned discourse among them than not.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was thinking so too. It is a matter of where you consider the evolution of a trait or structure to commence. Even the starting point is a point on the path. Conceptually, creationist do not seem able to understand that. Either through ignorance, willful intent, or both, I do not always know.

Well, from what I've seen, it's that understanding might lead to acceptance, and acceptance leads to a crisis of faith. So it's far safer for them to just deliberately not understand.

Most of what we see from creationists are simply coping mechanisms. It's quite fascinating to observe.

 

[Jose Fly]

I find that as soon as it is known that I am a Christian who works in science and accepts the methods and findings of science, the discussion almost always turns to whether I am a "true" Christian and no longer focuses on what I can communicate about science.

Yup, I've seen that many, many times.

Since, I consider religious beliefs to be the personal business of those who hold them and would not proselytize regardless of rules against the activity, I often find more congeniality and reason with atheists and agnostics who are in support of science, than I do from professed fellow Christians. At least, Christians of the fundamentalist kind. Not that all atheists are the same, but I have found more reasoned discourse among them than not.

IMO, fundamentalists of any sort are usually ignorant, angry, and very irrational people. I've met fundamentalist atheists who are like that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I always try and give new folks the benefit of the doubt, but after a few times of them acting the stereotypical internet creationist, I stop. Then I'll usually move on to seeing if they're willing to discuss the issue from a different angle, such as the role their faith plays in their views. Unfortunately, the vast majority of creationists absolutely freak out when I try and go down that road. Apparently it's quite threatening.

So anyways.....it's all good, especially given the data that shows this is rapidly becoming a non-issue. The best scenario to me would be for this "debate" to effectively end and be relegated to the same status as the flat-earth/round-earth "debate". I don't think we're too far away from that either.

I always come away from discussions about science with those that have opposition to some aspect of science, with the notion that they are seeking a response that boils a 1000 years of human knowledge and thought into a couple of pithy sentences that explains everything. Failing that, than someone with a background or knowledge of science really knows nothing and is just espousing a religious view.

Not that a scientist cannot be wrong or is not subject to the same frailties as anyone, but that the creationist/theist should be able to learn and understand everything about science or at least a topic within science and because that does not happen, their religious beliefs are correct. It is not even a quality of the answer, being better or worse, but the idea that it is something they can learn in a minute and understand as if they had practice for decades. A sort of "fast food" mentality to learning. Not that I expect the average person to know everything coming in, but you would think they would review it a little if their intent is to discuss it openly.

There is an apparent imbalance in the dynamic that is used against those skilled in the art.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yup, I've seen that many, many times.


IMO, fundamentalists of any sort are usually ignorant, angry, and very irrational people. I've met fundamentalist atheists who are like that.

I agree. Your words capture my experiences and express them very well. I have met fundamentalists of all sorts.