Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[Vash]

Sorry to butt in, but I am in a position of ignorance and don't want to 'argue from that - ' what is the Paley's watchmaker argument?

http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/paley.htm

 

[Fatmop]

Rats. Blocked on the school computers for 'Web Hosting.' Now I have to use a proxy site and that takes forever.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

in my post post: #98, the link i gave would have answered that question, i believe, had he bothered to read it all

Really? Would you please highlight the point(s) which you feel successfully argue against descent with modification as the best inference of vestigial structure and homology? Also, speaking of vestigial structure, ...

Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters

Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994).

Confirmation:

Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).

There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes (Rouquier et al. 2000), the RT6 protein gene (Haag et al. 1994), the galactosyl transferase gene (Galili and Swanson 1991), and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) (Oetting et al. 1993).

- see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

How might your 'theory' of Intelligent Design be justified as the more reasonable exlication of this broken gene?

 

[painted wolf]

what intelligent purpose does this imply?
Why do dolphins have legs inside thier bodies?
If an intelligent designer made all the animals individually then why are we so similer both in structure (dolphin legs) and in our DNA?

some points in refutation of the article you posted:

2. Wells's second claim is that "biologists have known for decades that homologous features are not due to similar genes." In fact, a large body of evidence suggests the opposite: many similar genes determine limbs of mammals, indeed of all vertebrates. Wells's claim is true only in the trivial sense that homologous structures are not necessarily determined by exactly the same set of genes. This distinction seems beyond Wells, since in discussing certain fruit fly genes that are similar to mammalian genes, he asks this idiotic question: "If genes control structure, and the developmental genes of mice and flies are so similar, why doesn't a mouse embryo develop into a fly, or a fly embryo into a mouse?" Wells leaves this question unanswered as if it is unanswerable and represents a profound contradiction challenging the theory of evolution.
But the question has trivially obvious answers: (1) slight differences in the structure or regulation of homologous genes can contribute to differences in anatomic structures; and (2) some genes that govern mouse development play no part in insect development, and vice versa. To mislead readers away from the pro-evolution evidence that limb development is controlled by similar genes in all mammals, Wells stresses evidence that some of these genes also control the development of insect wings, which are not homologous to mammalian limbs. Wells claims that this fact represents a profound challenge to evolution. To support this claim, Wells indulges in a typical creationist trick: he quotes a respected scientist out-of-context to imply that the scientist agrees with Wells, while the context shows that the scientist saw this same evidence as perfectly compatible with evolution. Indeed, the whole thrust of the paper by Tabin that Wells cites in his chapter is to suggest that insect wings and mouse limbs use a similar network of regulatory proteins in their development because they use copies of genes that programmed the development of primitive appendages in a common ancestor of insects and mammals. This idea entirely consistent with evolution.
Wells's homology chapter thus rests on misleading arguments that would never persuade readers who are familiar with the literature and are willing to track down quotations that seem to challenge evolution. Unfortunately, such readers – including most scientists – are in the minority, and most readers will likely be only too happy to be misled by Wells's devious tactics

snitched from: http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm

also helpful information is to be found here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/icon.cfm
in more import here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/icon.cfm#Vertebrate-limb-homology

Icons of Evolution presents the dark view of evolutionary biologists held by Wells. He says that we are involved in a conspiracy to consciously lie in what we teach students and present in our writings. Claims of deliberate scientific fraud and "Darwinian censorship" reaches a crescendo as the book progresses. These are strong accusations built on a shaky scaffolding of special pleading and deceptive use of quotations. [...] Wells notes correctly that there is not a necessary connection between homologous genes and homologous structures, nor must homologous structures arise from similar developmental processes. [Wells and colleagues conclude that...] "naturalistic mechanisms proposed to explain homology do not fit the evidence." What logical gymnastics! If it is unexplained, it must be unexplainable by evolutionary biology. If it's be unexplainable by evolutionary biology, it must require an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, as the influence of the intelligent designer grows in this train of thought, the relationships between phenomena and explanations becomes increasingly arbitrary. Finally one reaches a point where all biological features are "special creations" and other explanations become unnecessary. (Raff, 2001)​

Honestly why does the dolphin have legs inside its body?
Why would god put them there, was he just to lazy to take them off?

wa:do

​

 

[Vash]

what intelligent purpose does this imply?
Why do dolphins have legs inside thier bodies?
If an intelligent designer made all the animals individually then why are we so similer both in structure (dolphin legs) and in our DNA?

"Not all structural similarities, however, are inherited from a common ancestor (as Darwin and his followers recognized). For example, the eye of a mouse is structurally similar to the eye of an octopus, yet their supposed common ancestor did not possess such an eye."

what i gather from that is the dolphin legs need not be from a common ancestor. even if it was, so what? if dolphins did evolve from a land-based ancestor it only begs the question - where did that land-based ancestor come from? the dolphin issue does not deal with the issue at hand...the origin of life. not that i can see. if im missing something in that reguard do tell.

havent looked at your links yet but i will

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

even if it was, so what? if dolphins did evolve from a land-based ancestor it only begs the question where did that land-based ancestor come from? the dolphin issue does not deal with the issue at hand...the origin of life.

Good point. But, before we address "the issue at hand...the origin of life", let's first be clear on where you stand with regards to our dolphin friend. Do you accept descent with modification as the best inference suggested by these specific homologous structures? If not, please explain them using your 'theory' of Intellligent Design.

 

[Vash]

also helpful information is to be found here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/icon.cfm

i took a quick browse around the site, lots of info there to go through. i also took a quick look around for opinions/reviews about the TalkReason website itself, and found this:

Academic Extinction
More and More, Evolutionary Theory is Becoming Nothing More than Darwinian Mantra

At Internet web sites such as The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin's theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.

Publishing his work with the Cambridge University Press, hardly a venue known for its slack intellectual standards, Dembski has proposed that designed structures in nature might be detected by means of a rigorous analytical test. The idea of design is a staple of the social, anthropological and forensic sciences. It is the crucial metaphor in Noam Chomsky's minimalist theory. Dembski holds two PhD's, the first from the University of Chicago in mathematics, and the second from the University of Illinois in philosophy.

Dumbski indeed.

based on this and what i already saw at talkreason i am not entirely optomistic about finding ID treated fairly there.


i also thought this might interest some people:

Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a purposeless process that "has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges

Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

 

[Mr Spinkles]

[QUOTE="Academic Extinction] Publishing his work with the Cambridge University Press, hardly a venue known for its slack intellectual standards...[/QUOTE] The Cambridge University Press also publishes Bibles. So what?

I would encourage you, Vash, to read the link from TalkOrigins that Deut provided. If it does not treat ID fairly, please explain why you think so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i took a quick browse around the site, ...

Not so fast, grasshopper: please answer the question posed to you?

Do you accept descent with modification as the best inference suggested by these specific homologous structures? If not, please explain them using your 'theory' of Intellligent Design.​

 

[Vash]

The Cambridge University Press also publishes Bibles. So what?

I would encourage you, Vash, to read the link from TalkOrigins that Deut provided. If it does not treat ID fairly, please explain why you think so.

i would be happy to

its a tall order so itll take some time. first ill focus on http://www.talkreason.org/articles/icon.cfm#Vertebrate-limb-homology

then ill look at the rest of the site in general

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do you accept descent with modification as the best inference suggested by these specific homologous structures? If not, please explain them using your 'theory' of Intellligent Design.

That's easy, Deut. The Intelligent Designer is trying to trick us into thinking that those specific homologous structures arose via descent with modification, just as he was trying to trick us into thinking that the Earth revolves around the Sun centuries ago. I'm surprised you missed this obvious explanation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i would be happy to

Your actions suggest otherwise.

its a tall order so itll take some time.

Particularly is you keep avoiding the question.

Again: Do you accept descent with modification as the best inference suggested by these specific homologous structures? If not, please explain them using your 'theory' of Intellligent Design.

 

[Vash]

The Cambridge University Press also publishes Bibles. So what?

I would encourage you, Vash, to read the link from TalkOrigins that Deut provided. If it does not treat ID fairly, please explain why you think so.

here is something William Dempski said once in responce to a talkreason article:

On the Talk Reason website, Nicholas Matzke claims to provide a detailed Darwinian model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum -- go here. For my response to Matzke's article go here.

On October 11, 2003, the Talk Reason website posted an article by Nicholas Matzke titled "Evolution in (Brownian) Space: A Model for the Origin of the Bacterial Flagellum" (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagellum.cfm). Talk Reason advertises itself as a website that "presents a collection of articles which aim to defend genuine science from numerous attempts by the new crop of creationists to replace it with theistic pseudo-science under various disguises and names." The most obvious target here is intelligent design. Indeed, Matzke's article attempts to rebut one of the main challenges that intelligent design has raised against Darwinian evolution, namely, how to explain the emergence of irreducibly complex biochemical machines like the bacterial flagellum.

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000437#000000

 

[Vash]

And this as well:

If Only Darwinists Scrutinized Their Own Work as Closely: A Response to "Erik"

by William A. Dembski
[email protected]

ABSTRACT—An Internet persona known as "Erik" reviewed those aspects of my book No Free Lunch dealing with the Law of Conservation of Information and specificational resources. Erik's review is titled "On Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information" and is available at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski_LCI.pdf. I respond to the review here:

To read the entire paper, please click here
To discuss this paper, please click here.

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000032#000000

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So has Matzke in fact filled in the gaps that intelligent design claims are insurmountable for the Darwinian selection mechanism?

I'm surprised he would so outwardly admit to relying on a filling-in-the-gaps argument. Did Dembski intend to say that out loud? :biglaugh:

 

[Vash]

I'm surprised he would so outwardly admit to relying on a filling-in-the-gaps argument. Did Dembski intend to say that out loud? :biglaugh:

i think you might be missing his point. he seems to be saying that Matzke didnt live up to his promises

 

[Vash]

/rant on

the problem in the ID issue is not over evidence, but rather that evolutionists are committed to a materialist philosophy before the evidence has a chance to speak. science, to them, is not a search for the truth...it is a naturalistic philosophy that cannot stand the thought of an intelligent designer.

the issue is not whether this or that flimsy dolphin or moth story really supports Darwin’s theory or not. It is that it must support it, because the alternative, that there really is a creator who made the world and the things in it, is philosophically repugnant to them.

/rant off

 

[Mr Spinkles]

rant/ Vash--answer Deut's question. /rant

 

[The Voice of Reason]

After reading the last three pages of posts, I don't guess you've had enough time to switch your "Religion" in your profile. At this point, I'm beginning to think "Neutrals" may all be "Fundies" in disguise. I can't even put my car in Neutral without subconciously thinking it's probably something else.

Earlier in this thread, you accused me of not being a true Agnostic, because I wouldn't accede to your position regarding the "obvious" need for a Creator. I now accuse you of being a closet fundamentalist, evidenced by your constant evasion of Deut's question. Repeatedly. I'd like to see you answer Deut's question in your own words. As if you had thought about it, without simply cutting and pasting the next link to Dembski's latest publication.

I have another question for you - why do you think the National Academy of Sciences labels ID as a pseudoscience? What agenda do they have? Are they totally ignorant of the wonderful insight into ID that Dembski provides?

On a side note, Dembski's degree is not in Philosophy, per se, but in Divinity. If you are going to discount a web site (i.e. Talkreason.org) because an admittedly conservative group with a religious agenda denounces them as biased, the least you could do is treat Dembski with the same contempt. Or would that would be heresy, questioning the word of your savant?

TVOR

PS - Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before Deut gets his answer (in Vash's own words) or how long it will take before we find out exactly why the NAS is hellbent on discrediting ID?

 

[Steve]

Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before Deut gets his answer

Not long
"Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp

Now anyone want to answer some of the points i raised in this post earlier in this thread? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=132785#post132785