Intelligent design

[TRoutMac]

But then I don't think you quite understand how what you'd call 'macro-evolution' is just a concatenation of all changes achieved by 'micro-evolution'.

 

Doesn't work. Natural selection, as described by Darwin himself, prevents it.

 

Example: Bacterial flagellum. The flagellum could not "evolve" to become a new structure/feature on a bacterium because the flagellum only serves a purpose once its completely formed. In the evolutionary stages between the "flagellum-less" bacterium and the bacterium which sports a fully-formed flagellum would suffer for having a partially, inadequately formed flagellum which would make survival more difficult because this "wannabe-flagellum" would not be able to serve a purpose and provide a benefit to the bacterium, and so the bacterium would become extinct and we would have no bacterium with flagellums. Natural selection would have "selected" the bacteria with partly-formed flagellums for extinction.

 

'Intelligent Design' is the Trojan Horse of Creationism. End of story. There's nothing scientific to it. It appeals to the emotional side of people who don't want to go to the effort of understanding how stuff works - seeing as it might entail giving up the hope and/or belief that we were put here for a reason.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Unfortunately, neither you nor anybody else who has participated in this discussion has been able to back that view up with anything substantive, and I've been able to show that indeed there is a powerful scientific basis for Intelligent Design. You are welcome to deny that scientific basis all you want, but your rejection of I.D. doesn't make evolution any less absurd nor does it make it any more scientific.

 

With the exception of Questor, every regular contributor to this particular thread has made the claim you just made, indeed some have made it repeatedly. But without anything to back it up, it's just hot air and baloney. And of course, the only reason Questor's an exception is because he agrees that there's nothing un-scientific about I.D.

[cwes99_03]

In the evolutionary stages between the "flagellum-less" bacterium and the bacterium which sports a fully-formed flagellum would suffer for having a partially, inadequately formed flagellum which would make survival more difficult because this "wannabe-flagellum" would not be able to serve a purpose and provide a benefit to the bacterium, and so the bacterium would become extinct and we would have no bacterium with flagellums. Natural selection would have "selected" the bacteria with partly-formed flagellums for extinction.

What support do you have for such a claim? How did fish that swam into a deep cave survive the trasferall from seeing fish, to blind fish?

By your above quote, nothing can mutate, because the links in between would not be capable of survival simply because they are in between. That is a horrendous argument. That is like saying, anyone born with a defect (say a sixth toe) would be marked for extinction and would most certainly die before having a chance to pass on that trait.

 

 

I myself am a creationist, but I think creationism should be put forth as a viable possibility based upon the evidence in support of the Bible as a historically accurate document. With that evidence then, anything not yet proven to be true but found in the Bible is yet a theory to be proven or disproven. Since it has not yet been disproven, only alternate theories with as many or more instances of conflict have been proposed, then it should be taught along side, and the student as well as the world should be allowed to decide which they believe more.

The opponents of intelligent design, in large part though not all, opposed the idea because they believe it is the gateway to creationist belief which they fear as something they cannot see, and therefore cannot support.

[Erasmus00]

Doesn't work. Natural selection, as described by Darwin himself, prevents it.

 

Example: Bacterial flagellum. The flagellum could not "evolve" to become a new structure/feature on a bacterium because the flagellum only serves a purpose once its completely formed. In the evolutionary stages between the "flagellum-less" bacterium and the bacterium which sports a fully-formed flagellum would suffer for having a partially, inadequately formed flagellum which would make survival more difficult because this "wannabe-flagellum" would not be able to serve a purpose and provide a benefit to the bacterium, and so the bacterium would become extinct and we would have no bacterium with flagellums. Natural selection would have "selected" the bacteria with partly-formed flagellums for extinction.

 

Why do you make the claim that a partial flagellum would make it more difficult to survive? Consider that at low Reynolds number fluid flow, even very crude motility would be pretty helpful for a large bacterium. (see Matzke, 2003). Also, your argument ignores the possibility that the flagellum originally evolved for some other purpose, and after several mutations ended up with its current role (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000).

-Will

[TRoutMac]

What support do you have for such a claim? How did fish that swam into a deep cave survive the trasferall from seeing fish, to blind fish?

By your above quote, nothing can mutate, because the links in between would not be capable of survival simply because they are in between. That is a horrendous argument. That is like saying, anyone born with a defect (say a sixth toe) would be marked for extinction and would most certainly die before having a chance to pass on that trait.

 

Please take some time to visit the link below, which features an interview with Michael Behe. There are many great questions and answers here, but in particular look at number 11.

 

http://www.id.ucsb.edu/detche/video/biology/behe/interview/behe.html

 

Now, let me explain a little further. Evolution in general is the idea that living organisms gain in their features, complexity and function slowly and gradually over long periods of time, ultimately taking us from a one-celled animal to humans. So, according to evolutionary theory, every complex creature existing today has, somewhere in its past, a simpler, cruder version of itself and in fact, is ultimately descended from some one-celled animal that burst forth in a primordial soup. In "Origin of Species" (6th ed. p. 154) Charles Darwin himself said:

 

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

 

Now, for another example: On the talkorigins web site, a guy named Pete Dunkelberg suggests that the Venus flytrap evolved from the sundew. (though he admits there is no supporting fossil evidence… but we'll use his example)

 

The sundew is a plant with a flexible, soft "leaf" with tendrils all over it, and it uses a sweet, sticky glue to capture insects and the tendrils collapse all around the insect, with the leaf sort-of engulfing the insect. But, the leaf has no hinge, no spines, no trigger hairs.

 

A Venus flytrap doesn't use glue to trap insects. Rather, it is two fairly rigid, hinged leaves with a border of interlocking spines which, when closed, form a "cage" and entrap the insect. There are three trigger hairs inside the leap which triggers the closing of the leaf.

 

Now, the evolution of the sundew into the Venus flytrap has the same problem the bacterial flagellum has. If the sundew becomes the Venus fly trap via numerous, successive, slight modifications, then there must be a number of intermediate stages where the plant is really neither entirely a sundew nor entirely a flytrap. Right? At some point the plant has neither glue nor a functional trap door with which to trap insects. And at some point the plant has neither sticky, flexible tendrils nor rigid, interlocking spines with which to prevent an insect's escape. In other words, there would be a vast range of intermediate stages between a sundew and a flytrap which, by definition, would not be able to reliably capture insects using either method. And if that were the case, you have a starving plant which is incapable of survival. Natural selection demands that each and every iteration of a given species offer a survival advantage. Well, what survival advantage do those intermediate stages offer? They can't trap bugs, so what did they do? How did they survive? Obviously, the intermediate stages would offer nothing in the way of a survival advantage. In fact, as the plant morphed further and further from the function of a sundew, it would become less and less able to trap insects and survive. And quite correctly, natural selection weeds out those organisms that cannot compete for whatever reason and this mythical plant, stuck halfway between a sundew and a flytrap would be one of 'em. If it were true that a flytrap evolved from a sundew, then we would not even have the flytrap. The intermediate stages would have gone extinct because they would be unable to survive.

 

My first child, whom I've mentioned on this forum before, had a condition called "trisomy 13". It's a mutation. Extra copy of the 13th chromosome. This created extra digits on his hands, bilateral cleft palate and numerous other deformities both internal and external, and none of those deformities offered him any sort of "survival advantage". In fact, with the exception of the cosmetic deformities, they all threatened his existence to one extent or another. He passed away after only 18 days. So pardon me if I tend to laugh in someone's face when they tell me that mutations can be beneficial. I watched my son die from a mutation. Mutations happen, but they are devastating… particularly large ones.

 

Again, no one is arguing against micro-evolution. I have no problem with the idea that natural selection governs micro-evolution. But macro-evolution has a number of major problems and although I have asked for specific, documented examples from this crowd, no one has produced any.

[TRoutMac]

Why do you make the claim that a partial flagellum would make it more difficult to survive? Consider that at low Reynolds number fluid flow, even very crude motility would be pretty helpful for a large bacterium. (see Matzke, 2003). Also, your argument ignores the possibility that the flagellum originally evolved for some other purpose, and after several mutations ended up with its current role (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000).

 

Irreducible complexity. Either the flagellum's all there and fully functional, or it's not. In order for that flagellum to serve its purpose, it must have all of its associated parts and they must all be in the correct position, orientation, configuration, scale, etc.

 

If you want to speculate about alternate functions, fine. But that's not science… that's just your imagination and conjecture. You show me the partially formed flagellum and show me what function it served so adequately and show me what survival advantage it provided. Short of that, if we're going to confine ourselves to what is "scientific", we'd best leave the daydreaming for someone else.

 

Or, show me what the plant between a sundew and flytrap looked like and how it caught insects. Whichtever. It's all the same question, and it all has the same answer.

[Erasmus00]

Natural selection demands that each and every iteration of a given species offer a survival advantage.

 

This is where you falter. Mutations that offer no advantage or disadvantage (like a 6th finger) do nothing to decrease chances of survival. Lets say that eventually that six finger (with no disadvantage) develops into a thumb. Now, you have survival advantage from what was once neutral.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

If you want to speculate about alternate functions, fine. But that's not science… that's just your imagination and conjecture. You show me the partially formed flagellum and show me what function it served so adequately and show me what survival advantage it provided. Short of that, if we're going to confine ourselves to what is "scientific", we'd best leave the daydreaming for someone else.

 

You claimed that it was impossible for the bacterial flagellum to evolve. I pointed out that there are many scenario's one could imagine where the flagellum evolved. Are these postulated situations exactly what happened? Who knows. I certianly can't PROVE it. However, it does demonstrate the POSSIBILITY of the flagellum evolving. Also, the article on low reynolds flow demonstrated that even a stubby, mostly immobile flagellum offers a survival advantage.

 

To disprove that something couldn't possibly have happened, all one needs to provide is one possible situation. I'm not trying to scientifically show that the flagellum deffinately evolved according to one certain model, I'm trying to show that your claim that the flagellum could never, ever have evolved is specious at best.

-Will

[TRoutMac]

I pointed out that there are many scenario's one could imagine where the flagellum evolved. Are these postulated situations exactly what happened? Who knows. I certianly can't PROVE it.

 

You pointed out that there are those who claim that the flagellum evolved despite natural selection's tendency to prevent such evolution. And yet, no one has any evidence that it actually happened that way or any other way. They simply want it to have evolved and they're willing to twist logic and common sense into all sorts of contortions in order to support that. They will come to any conclusion except the one that's most obvious and the most sensible, Intelligent Design.

 

Unfortunately, if you focus on the claims of natural selection, you cannot help but realize that any structure which does not provide an immediate benefit will not be left to linger. If it's useless, if it provides no benefit, then it is a waste of resources. A useless feature, a useless limb can only be a hindrance if it doesn't provide a benefit immediately. The idea that, well, it could have been a "neutral" mutation that later was made useful by another mutation which just HAPPENED to take place in such a way as to make what was previously useless useful, is even further contraining, even less likely, even more difficult to believe, even more preposterous and, yes, laughable.

 

Bottom line is, I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

[Erasmus00]

Unfortunately, if you focus on the claims of natural selection, you cannot help but realize that any structure which does not provide an immediate benefit will not be left to linger. If it's useless, if it provides no benefit, then it is a waste of resources. A useless feature, a useless limb can only be a hindrance if it doesn't provide a benefit immediately. The idea that, well, it could have been a "neutral" mutation that later was made useful by another mutation which just HAPPENED to take place in such a way as to make what was previously useless useful, is even further contraining, even less likely, even more difficult to believe, even more preposterous and, yes, laughable.

 

The vast majority of mutations ARE in fact neutral, which is what you would expect given the random nature of the suggested mechanism. Again, a sixth finger provides no immediate disadvantage (hence, the occasional six fingered person you see walking around). By insisting that there is no such thing as neutral mutations, you create a strawman of evolution, which you find quite easy to refute. The only problem is you've only refuted your characterization not the theory itself.

-Will

[Boerseun]

TroutMac:

 

Whether the Venus Fly-trap evolved from the sundew, I don't know. But saying that there must be stages inbetween that will be impossible to catch flies, is presumptious. Say, for instance, the sundew developed a hinge, and evolved to look exactly like a modern venus fly-trap, and only then lost the sticky surface? Of course neither you nor I know what really happened, but I've just proved to you that it certainly is possible, and that there is a scenario where all intermediate steps support the catching of flies. So there goes that argument.

 

For the second time, I'm sorry to hear about your kid. But an emotional response to the reality of mutations does not prove or disprove anything. In fact, 99% of mutations are neutral, .99% fatal, and .01% beneficial. But the .01% beneficial mutations do improve the organisms' chances for procreation, and will therefore be passed on. A couple of generations later, and that 0.01% would be spread to the biggest part of the population. And voila; there you go. Evolution.

 

(All the figures above I have thumbsucked, but should serve to illustrate my point.)

[C1ay]

Bottom line is, I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

The bottom line is this:

 

We are here; we know not why or how. There are some theories on this and there is no evidence to conclude that any of them holds the absolute answer. Some may hold that ID is one of these theories but they should at least be honest enough with themselves to see that it is not a theory that can be used at this point to produce any testable predictions as science requires, so it is a weak theory scientifically. You can write analogies 'til the cows come home and it will not change any of this; there is no proof that ID must be the answer because other theories don't explain this or that. That any theory fails to answer this or that is not proof or even evidence that any other theory is closer to the truth. The very act of claiming that any theory must be the answer without conclusive proof is proof itself that such an act is a faithful conclusion and not a scientific one.

[TRoutMac]

Whether the Venus Fly-trap evolved from the sundew, I don't know. But saying that there must be stages inbetween that will be impossible to catch flies, is presumptious. Say, for instance, the sundew developed a hinge, and evolved to look exactly like a modern venus fly-trap, and only then lost the sticky surface?

 

The key word there is "developed". Again, you're alluding to slight, incremental modifications. If it "developed" a hinge, then there was a time when it was somewhere between having no hinge and having a hinge. What did that organism look like and how did it trap insects? Or, if it didn't trap insects, how did it survive? The sundew doesn't just rely on glue to trap insects. It also relies on the flexibility of the leaf and all of the flexible tendrils which radiate from the leaf. These work in concert with the glue to entrap the insect. So, if it has the glue but lacks all the tiny tendrils and the flexible leaf, it's not as effective as trapping insects.

 

The funniest part, however, is that you are betraying your own argument, which is against design. How? Because here you are trying to "design" a functional system in your mind, using your intelligence and what you consider could be the available components… (glue, hinge, etc.) to create a functional insect trap and all the while, in effect, arguing for Intelligent Design! You see, according to some of you, there is no intelligent direction going on. So, it's really quite silly for you to apply your intelligence to try to solve the design problem because that violates your entire premise. You're just proving the necessity for design.

 

Sometimes very good arguments for Intelligent Design come from evolutionists, albeit unwittingly.

 

Of course neither you nor I know what really happened, but I've just proved to you that it certainly is possible, and that there is a scenario where all intermediate steps support the catching of flies. So there goes that argument.

 

All you have proved is the necessity for design, despite your intentions to the contrary.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your kid. But an emotional response to the reality of mutations does not prove or disprove anything.

 

I realize that my experience with my son is anecdotal. Regardless, there seems to be no shortage of disagreement on the frequency of mutations and whether most are beneficial, neutral or detrimental:

 

"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

 

"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41, p. 103.

 

"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species, p. 73.

 

I would expect that those who reject Intelligent Design are likely playing the same kind of games with the word "mutation" as they do with the word "information". In other words, the answer to the question "Can mutations be beneficial (or even neutral)" would depend largely on the definition of the word mutation and how it's used by the person arguing. If you get "loose with the language" then anything is possible, and I have proven decisively that the I.D. bashers have done precisely this with regard to the discussion of "information".

 

So, it seems to me that we have to first agree on exactly what a "mutation" is and what a mutation is not and go from there. Otherwise I suspect we'll be comparing apples to oranges.

[TRoutMac]

The vast majority of mutations ARE in fact neutral, which is what you would expect given the random nature of the suggested mechanism.

 

So, it would appear then, that evolutionists only invoke natural selection when it benefits them… that is, when it is convenient. They pretend there is no natural selection whenever that natural selection would eliminate the feature upon which they need to build future mutations.

 

And they call that "science"? What a joke.

[rockytriton]

gawd... are you still here? Do you have anything legitimate to contribute to the site or are you just here to troll?

[TRoutMac]

gawd... are you still here? Do you have anything legitimate to contribute to the site or are you just here to troll?

 

Hey… is that any way to talk to Boerseun? Be nice!

[rockytriton]

thanks for answering my question!

[TRoutMac]

gawd... are you still here? Do you have anything legitimate to contribute to the site or are you just here to troll?

 

But seriously, it's really very entertaining that you ask such a question, a question which itself contributes nothing legitimate to this site, while my posts have stayed on-message and have contributed much that is legitimate.

 

By the way, apologies to Boerseun for the fact that I used him to inject a little humor. Even though I disagree with his arguments, such as they are, at least he has the cojones to actually make an argument.