A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

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.

In lay terms, since you are more familiar with the modern theorizing here, can you tell me how you know a proto-wing is found in forensics? For example, I could look at a modern flightless bird, but assume it could fly, if I only saw its wings or a skeleton with wings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you assume that 1. your ancestor did not have those 30 proteins and 2. why you think that only that combination of proteins is engaged in hemostasis.



This is false.
Wow, coool - why not just link to Gray's anatomy and wonder how all of that arose all at once via random chance, or some other hackneyed nonsense?
How did Yahweh poof all of that out of dust all at once? Why expect from others that you never even try to present for your own side?

Are you truly interested? Would you like a response? You sound a bit rhetorical, considering how much dust there is in the known universe to "poof" from.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We see words and cognates that show Latin changing to French over time--we have evidence for that--so why no evidence for morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved?

But there is evidence. Not only do we have fossils of transitional wing forms (SOURCE: Arm to Wing Evolution - from Dinosaur to Bird Evolution ), we have modern arms and proto-wings that exist today.

A wing is at a DNA information level far more complex than the words of a human language, all the words of such a language!

"Complexity" is a nebulous term with no measureable basis or practical application in this debate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was referring to this part of your comment.

...it is possible for monkeys to type Shakespeare,​

It is impossible for monkeys to type Shakespeare. Again, do the math.

Huh? It is certainly possible for monkeys to type Shakespeare or for a supercomputer, spitting out random English characters, to do so, but if we run a character length text each iteration, the same length as a given sonnet, is it highly unlikely for any one iteration to be a rose, by any name, if you will.

In a study, evolutionists concluded that the cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. What is more likely, 100 monkeys typing for one year to get one sonnet (or 1,000,000 typing years), or the odds of a cecal appendix evolving, raised to the 32nd power?

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand, but have you considered the odds of every creature passing recessive genes down, until new species pop into existence?

So you don't understand at all. Species don't "pop into existence" - change from one to another is gradual. What on earth do you think recessive genes have to do with it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Exactly my point! Your God did nothing for all but 6 days of eternity/forever. I sometimes think YHWH is really just a young son of GOD. One day GOD walks into YHWH's room and says in a loud booming voice (because that's the way GODs talk):

GET UP YOU LAZY RUNT! IT'S BEEN FOREVER AND YOU'VE DONE NOTHING!
​

To which YHWH meekly replies:

OK Pops, I'll get right on it.
​

Six days later:

(Yawn) Now I gotta get some rest.​

An interesting judgment. Do you want a response? It sounds like you want some kind of attention.

A true response could be, "What is your experience of time/forever when you are an omni-PRESENT being, living in the absence of time/light?"

Then again, I think you are just shooting from the hip and not thinking through the issues you yourself raised, carefully.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This post is an excellent example of what is being discussed in the side arguments. The poster copies/pastes stuff from creo websites posing pseudo-scientific anti-evolution "arguments". He then adds a few of his own "incredulous" comments.

It's very obvious from a few of his other posts that his real reason for disbelieving evolution is his fundamentalist religious beliefs.

He's been on this forum for over six years.

Does anyone really believe he wants to learn?
Does anyone really believe he is teachable?

I believe you are teachable? I don't believe you like to teach others, though. Check your pedagogy.

Repeating: I CAN go to fundie and creationist websites and download all the (facts? hyperbole? cherry picking? are you sure?) that I wish. I come here to:

1) see what the latest science and research has to say
2) see what the other side has to say
3) re-verify that skeptics hate teaching, hate listening, and love ad homs, when patience and self-control fails

I was chatting with Dan because he seems more knowledgeable (and more patient) than you. We'll see, I guess!

 

[ratiocinator]

A study concluded that the cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. What happens to statistical odds raised to the 32nd power? And what filters reduce these odds?

What "statistical odds" and why should they be raised to the 32nd power? Many features evolve more than once simply because they (more specifically the small changes that lead to them) have a survival advantage in similar environments.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

**

"You cannot conceive it, therefore it must be creation/design."

I can conceive, and have a passion for, gaming, probability and statistics. I saw a study excerpted, for example, that evolutionists recently concluded that the cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. I see this as a unlikely-but-species-beneficial statistical event, now raised to the 32nd power. I know evolution has filters and works on principles that enhance and speed desirable traits, however...

...There are known beneficial mutations. Yes. Would you be willing to state at ReligiousForums what percentage of mutations is beneficial? Or can we cut to the chase and say, "Things operate so rapidly in the fossil record, there must be catalysts that are unknown, to speed these processes," statements I've read/seen heard from scientists? For example:

"It is now generally recognized that beneficial mutations are rare, and that high-impact beneficial mutations are extremely rare. In higher life forms where population sizes are modest, the mutation rate per nucleotide per generation is normally extremely low (about 10−8). This means that the waiting time for a specific nucleotide within single chromosomal lineage would be 100 million generations." -- source: The waiting time problem in a model hominin population

Statements like the above prompt scientists to understand that one of the current gaps in evolution knowledge is life explosion/rapid speciation...

I have evidence that God wrote the Bible. I'm pursuing you for evolution knowledge and to bridge gaps in my knowledge, but yes, I'm hesitant to pour out evidence to someone who does not ask for such evidence without an accompanying comment like "you are dishonest, since you ignore Bible errors". We haven't discussed Bible accuracy or Bible errors, so why pre-judge? Because I'm a creationist? That seems to be too generalizing for my taste.

I do have other agendas, sure, like loving brothers and sisters. Jesus told us both, "The world will know you are mine if you have love, one for another." I love God, I love His Word. Why does that imply to you that I'm dishonest, unscrupulous? That seems an unwarranted accusation. Or put another way, are you able to restate that you worry about my fealty to Bible inerrancy because you love me? But please do not tell me your love is conditional, for Jesus commanded Christians to love Christians.

 

[Polymath257]

We see words and cognates that show Latin changing to French over time--we have evidence for that--so why no evidence for morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved?

A wing is at a DNA information level far more complex than the words of a human language, all the words of such a language!

Wings are a modified arm with feathers. That is what we see.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm curious, as to your estimate on the minimum number of proteins, neurotransmitters, systems to recognize bleeding is occurring, pathways to release clotting proteins, etc. Even if one protein only is needed... how long would it take to evolve? Because my point is one generation isn't fast enough to stop wounded creature from bleeding to death.

Moving the goalposts a bit? Getting one protein that changes solubility when cleaved wouldn't be difficult at all. And, as pointed out in the article, there are organisms (lobsters) with exactly that: one protein (a digestive protein) to cleave, and one inside of cells that changes solubility when cleaved.

This is why actual study of living things today can help in this: there is far more variability in life than most people think.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm curious, as to your estimate on the minimum number of proteins, neurotransmitters, systems to recognize bleeding is occurring, pathways to release clotting proteins, etc. Even if one protein only is needed... how long would it take to evolve? Because my point is one generation isn't fast enough to stop wounded creature from bleeding to death.

You do realize that there are many animals that don't have as much blood volume as we do, right? And that don't rely on the blood to deliver food and oxygen (oxygen can diffuse into tissue--many animals use this method)?

Looking at birds and mammals for how the clotting mechanism developed is silly: birds and mammals are the end result, not the beginning. Look instead at invertebrates, worms, crustaceans, etc. And in *these* animals, you find that the cascade of proteins seen in mammals doesn't exist. The complicated system doesn't exist. Look at animals with minimal circulatory systems and low blood pressure. See what sorts of clotting mechanisms they have.

In other words, do a bit of comparative anatomy and physiology before saying what is possible and impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand, but have you considered the odds of every creature passing recessive genes down, until new species pop into existence?

Why do you think that would be so difficult? If they are neutral in effect, they won't be selected against, so will be passed down. Since they are recessive, the tend not to have full effect.

 

[Polymath257]

One gap I see includes morphological innovations, such as wings, (two wings or more!) which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved. Or how a study showed that evolutionists have determined a cecal appendix evolved independently, at least 32 separate times, in mammals. What happens to statistical odds when they are raised to the 32nd power?

That suggests pretty strong selection pressures, don't you think? Now, do all of these 32 systems work exactly the same way, using the same protein systems, etc? Can we correlate the type among those 32 systems between related and unrelated species? Can we look at comparative physiology to see what systems changed in each case to produce the end result?

The point is that it is far from being as simple as 'raising to the 32nd power'. Sorry, but probabilities like this can't be computed so easily.

 

[Jose Fly]

Entertaining at first... But when it becomes their 'argument of choice', it can get frustrating...

Sometimes, yeah. But most of the time I expect it, which means I'm not disappointed or frustrated when they do it. I just go back and forth between amusement and boredom with it.

 

[Jose Fly]

In lay terms, since you are more familiar with the modern theorizing here, can you tell me how you know a proto-wing is found in forensics? For example, I could look at a modern flightless bird, but assume it could fly, if I only saw its wings or a skeleton with wings.

Wait.....you don't know what a proto-wing is? Did you actually challenge us to provide an example of something, even though you wouldn't know one if you saw it?

 

[tas8831]

In lay terms, since you are more familiar with the modern theorizing here, can you tell me how you know a proto-wing is found in forensics? For example, I could look at a modern flightless bird, but assume it could fly, if I only saw its wings or a skeleton with wings.

Then I submit that you would need some refresher courses in physics, physiology, and anatomy.

Modern flightless birds have wing structures that are obviously too small to be able to generate enough lift for flight or even gliding, in most cases.

Gosh.... looks almost like a dinosaur.

 

[tas8831]

Are you truly interested? Would you like a response?

Yes. And you can start with this:

Why do you assume that 1. your ancestor did not have those 30 proteins and 2. why you think that only that combination of proteins is engaged in hemostasis.

 

[tas8831]

...There are known beneficial mutations. Yes. Would you be willing to state at ReligiousForums what percentage of mutations is beneficial?

No idea what percentage are beneficial, but relatively new evidence indicates that they are not only more common than previously held, but the production of harmful mutations appears to be less frequent as well:


Bacteria show capacity for rapid, beneficial mutations
"Researchers studying tens of thousands of generations of E. coli bacteria report that most new genetic mutations that were passed down were actually beneficial and occurred at much more variable rates than previously thought."


Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought
"Scientists show that in bacteria the rate of beneficial mutations -- those that increase the capacity of an organism to survive in a particular environment -- is much higher than previously thought. In the case of Escherichia coli, the bacteria studied, this is as much as 1,000 times higher than previously believed."



Harmful genetic mutations may be less common than we thought
"The results, published in Science, suggest point mutations in bacteria arise at a constant rate of about one every 600 hours. To the researchers' surprise, they also discovered that only around 1% of these DNA changes were lethal to the bacteria – far fewer than previously thought."

 

[tas8831]

* The filter to store unneeded gut bacteria in the appendix until needed

Um.. Bacteria already live in the gut. Bacteria that live in the gut can be consumed and they can then colonize. No need to 'store' anything. It is not that they are "not needed" according to the articles I saw, but that during things like diarrhea, when much of the gut flora is 'washed out', those hanging out in the appendix are spared and can then re-colonize the gut.

* The filter to build the appendix as a rarefied storage unit

See above.

* The filter to have the enzymes and other catalysts to release the bacteria, etc. times about 30 other things we can think of from a medical/endocrine/biology perspective, raised to the 32nd power for 32 independent evolutionary changes

Enzymes and 'other catalysts' to "release" the bacteria... googled for papers re: 'appendix evolved 32 times'. Found a couple (not sure which one you referred to). None of them mentioned enzymes.