Jump to content


Photo

Misleading Whale Exhibit - Update


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 16 July 2016 - 01:14 PM

The problem is that the principle of parsimony or Occam's razor, dictates that the fewest assumptions should be the best explanation IMHO. If we have to assume there were evolutionary ancestors and assume those millions of years, and assume that the, "tail" is not a part of the specifically designed embryological plan, then IMHO, why even mention evolution? It seems the most obvious explanation is that the embryo was designed so that some things exist temporarily for a certain use while the embryo develops and then it is designed to either be "kept" for the type of animal intended to have a tail and not kept. Sometimes it is easier for some structures to be created, especially if a spinal column is being created. Should for example, a spinal column not have any surrounding outer-skin, during that phase of development? I am only asking the question. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" isn't quite your argument but it seems you are coming close to arguing that a tail in the embryo = evolutionary past. 

 

It's fair enough to argue, "if evolution then we might expect a tail or remnants of one", that is consistent evidence, but is that really what it is evidence of or is the design-plan for embryological development, simply purposeful by design?

 

The thing with Occam's razor is that it applies to competing explanations where all else is equal; IOW explanatory power is equal but one explanation requires fewer assumptions than the others. Also recognize that ToE is the explanation, not the assumption. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I think an old Earth is a given from the field of geology (why reinvent the wheel?). As for assuming the "tail is not part of the specifically designed embryological plan", you are more or less complaining that I am not starting with the assumption that you are correct.

 

To me the most obvious explanation is that we have genes for a tail because one of our evolutionary ancestors had a tail, and the human embryo has a tail because it is a historic evolutionary constraint. To me that has much more explanatory power than 'God so happened to design it that way'. The ID explanation is painfully superficial to me. I don't know what you are talking about with the skin around the spine; the tail extends the spine in length not give skin to the spine.

 

I do not know any modern scientist that advocates recapitulation theory, and how you got that out of my posts was a complete mystery until I noticed that much of the creationist literature dealing with yolk sacs, gill slits, and tails has a rant against it. Recapitulation theory says that embryos go in stages equivalent to the adult forms of the organism's evolutionary past, which is something completely different than recognizing an evolutionary carry over in the embryo.

 

I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it.

 

I recall an example of the, "yolk sac", it has a temporary-use in human development. Part of the problem with these types of arguments is they depend on question-begging-epithets, some of them being, "yolk sac" and, "gill slits", in fact the sac is to develop blood cells, and the branchial folds aren't gill slits simply because they are so named

 

http://creation.com/embryo-design

 

So I would argue personally that the evolutionary argument is superficial, the engineering-explanations can be found for such structures being part of the plan for development. 

 

 

As you can see, it seems the spine develops first making it look like a, "tail". I don't see how it is ever really a tail, it just has the appearance of one.

 

For me personally, adding evo is like adding sauce to an already-perfect meal. ;)

 

I don't know what evolutionary arguments you are referring to. I have never heard the argument 'we call these structures gill slits therefore ToE is true'. The similar names is an outcome of recognizing that many organisms share similar structures, and those similarities are used as evidence for ToE in various ways.

Why would we not expect engineering explanations, as you call them, if ToE is true? Decent with modification combined with differential reproduction is more or less guaranteed to form 'engineering solutions' to various problems. As proof of concept there are genetic algorithms which I'm sure you are aware of.

 

The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?



#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 July 2016 - 12:31 AM

Also recognize that ToE is the explanation, not the assumption.

 

When an "explanation" is being assumed as an explanation that does make it an assumption Goku.

 

You can't just wish this fact away because you don't like it...

 

 

I'm sure you'll disagree, but I think an old Earth is a given from the field of geology (why reinvent the wheel?).

 

And just how does this make your assuming "evolution did it" not an assumption?

 

Does you assuming that an old Earth is a given somehow make your assumptions about evolution valid? Not sure how you think this is logical?!?

 

 

 

As for assuming the "tail is not part of the specifically designed embryological plan", you are more or less complaining that I am not starting with the assumption that you are correct.

 

Well since the coccyx (not tail) performs a function then..... it is a part of a design...

 

 

To me the most obvious explanation is that we have genes for a tail because one of our evolutionary ancestors had a tail, and the human embryo has a tail because it is a historic evolutionary constraint. To me that has much more explanatory power than 'God so happened to design it that way'. The ID explanation is painfully superficial to me. I don't know what you are talking about with the skin around the spine; the tail extends the spine in length not give skin to the spine.

 

If you believe that the coccyx (not tail) is merely an evolutionary left-over then I offer to pay for you to have yours surgically removed.

 

Perhaps consider the fact that the coccyx (not tail), is an anchor for important muscles pertaining to motion.... Hmmm so if it does serve a purpose, then on what basis are you assuming that its merely an evolutionary left-over from ancestry?...

 

You may find this link educational ;)

 

http://www.answers.c...coccyx?#slide=2

 

 

 

 

 

I do not know any modern scientist that advocates recapitulation theory, and how you got that out of my posts was a complete mystery until I noticed that much of the creationist literature dealing with yolk sacs, gill slits, and tails has a rant against it.

 

Wonder no more since you made an answer in the very post you ask this question...

 

"I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it."

 

 

and again

 

"The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?"

 

 

 

 

I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it.

 

 

What you call "tail" in an embryo I call "developing spine"....

 

I'd love to see examples of people being born with "tails"... Keep in mind, I remember someone attempting to pull this a few years ago...

 

But before I go into that I would ask you to admit something. IF you claim that these are "strong evidence" in favour of evolution, then if said "strong evidence" gets quashed then wouldn't that

A- Make evolution debunked in terms of this "strong evidence" of yours.

B- Make your claims of "strong evidence" mean very little in terms of actual evidence or something of substance.

 

 

I don't know what evolutionary arguments you are referring to. I have never heard the argument 'we call these structures gill slits therefore ToE is true'.

 

 

Oh come off it Goku, you just did the same thing with "tails" in embryos...

 

Also folds of skin =/= gill slits... There are no gills in human embryos.

 

The similar names is an outcome of recognizing that many organisms share similar structures, and those similarities are used as evidence for ToE in various ways.

 

 

Wrong. The term "gill slit" is false and misleading.

 

There are no "gill slits" in an embryo since a slit is an opening by definition. (I suggest you read the definition... here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slit)

 

 

Folds of skin are not openings aka slits. Therefore an embryo contains NO GILL SLITS, by definition...

 

 

Why would we not expect engineering explanations, as you call them, if ToE is true?

 

 

Because "Engineering" itself requires planning and intelligence... Evolution has no plan or intelligence, therefore is unable to engineer anything.

 

 

 

Decent with modification combined with differential reproduction is more or less guaranteed to form 'engineering solutions' to various problems.

 

I just love it how evolutionists write with over-reaching confidence..

 

Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate the process that was "more or less guaranteed" to demonstrate the engineering solution that is the penguins foot and arterial design.

 

http://blogs.britann...-the-antarctic/

 

penguins-10a.jpg

 

 

Why would we not expect engineering explanations, as you call them, if ToE is true? Decent with modification combined with differential reproduction is more or less guaranteed to form 'engineering solutions' to various problems. As proof of concept there are genetic algorithms which I'm sure you are aware of.

 

:get_a_clue:

 

Firstly so you think that there being genetic algorithms is evidence for evolution... a blind.. unthinking... process being able to plan and engineer creations?.. Seriously... Perhaps you should EXPLAIN how your said evidence is actual evidence for what you are claiming.

 

 

Secondly where do you think these "genetic algorithms" come from?....

 

HUMAN INGENUITY, (aka intelligence).....

 

:cry:

 

 

 

The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine

 

 

So why not call it "the spine" instead of redefining it as a "tail"?


  • FaithfulCenturion and mike the wiz like this

#23 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 July 2016 - 09:25 PM

When an "explanation" is being assumed as an explanation that does make it an assumption Goku.

 

You can't just wish this fact away because you don't like it...

 

 

And just how does this make your assuming "evolution did it" not an assumption?

 

Does you assuming that an old Earth is a given somehow make your assumptions about evolution valid? Not sure how you think this is logical?!?

 

Maybe I'm just tired but the first line doesn't make sense to me. We have the genes for a tail, and one explanation is that it is a carry over from an evolutionary ancestor. Whether or not that is a good explanation seems to be the current topic in this thread, but I don't see how the "explanation is being assumed as an explanation".

 

I'm not sure how you got "if the Earth is old then ToE true" out of my post. Mike brought up the age of Earth, not me, I just don't see the age of the Earth as pertinent to the discussion at hand (sort of like a red herring or moving the goal post), and an old Earth is well established in the scientific literature anyway.

 

Well since the coccyx (not tail) performs a function then..... it is a part of a design...

 

And a rock functions as a paper weight, yet it is not designed in the ID sense of design.

 

If you believe that the coccyx (not tail) is merely an evolutionary left-over then I offer to pay for you to have yours surgically removed.

 

Perhaps consider the fact that the coccyx (not tail), is an anchor for important muscles pertaining to motion.... Hmmm so if it does serve a purpose, then on what basis are you assuming that its merely an evolutionary left-over from ancestry?...

 

You may find this link educational ;)

 

http://www.answers.c...coccyx?#slide=2

 

Good thing I never said the coccyx is merely an evolutionary left over with absolutely no function.

 

Wonder no more since you made an answer in the very post you ask this question...

 

"I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it."

 

 

and again

 

"The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?"

 

Which is not recapitulation.....

 

What you call "tail" in an embryo I call "developing spine"....

 

I'd love to see examples of people being born with "tails"... Keep in mind, I remember someone attempting to pull this a few years ago...

 

But before I go into that I would ask you to admit something. IF you claim that these are "strong evidence" in favour of evolution, then if said "strong evidence" gets quashed then wouldn't that

A- Make evolution debunked in terms of this "strong evidence" of yours.

B- Make your claims of "strong evidence" mean very little in terms of actual evidence or something of substance.

 

The tail is the end part of the spine. "Developing spine" and "developing tail" are not mutually exclusive.

 

A: This is just one piece of evidence; obviously if it is debunked then it would no longer be evidence for ToE, but it doesn't speak for all the evidence for ToE.

 

B: Again if it is debunked then obviously it would no longer be evidence for ToE.

 

Oh come off it Goku, you just did the same thing with "tails" in embryos...

 

Also folds of skin =/= gill slits... There are no gills in human embryos.

 

The point Mike was making was that merely calling it a tail or gill slit does not equate to evolution being true or even evidence for evolution, and I agree. My point is that the evolutionary argument around those things has nothing to do with what we call it, but what those structures' form and function are, and how they compare to other species' structures.

 

I never said there were gills in a human embryo; all my talk of gills came from Mike's usage of gills, and notice that I was careful to never say or imply that humans have gills since I only spoke hypothetically about them. We do have pharyngeal clefts though.  ;)

 

Because "Engineering" itself requires planning and intelligence... Evolution has no plan or intelligence, therefore is unable to engineer anything.

 

I wasn't using the word "engineering" literally like that.....

 

I just love it how evolutionists write with over-reaching confidence..

 

Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate the process that was "more or less guaranteed" to demonstrate the engineering solution that is the penguins foot and arterial design.

 

http://blogs.britann...-the-antarctic/

 

penguins-10a.jpg

 

 

I said engineering designs, to use Mike's wording, are to be expected in a system with descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. That is not synonymous with saying I can demonstrate how any and every biological system evolved step by step.

 

Unless I am missing something, bringing an artery and vein close together to facilitate heat transfer would be a relatively simple matter for evolution; the closer they are the more fit the system is and is thus selected. As I understand it many birds, mammals, and even some fish use a CCHE system. Even our arms and legs use CCHE.

 

A system which uses descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction works best when solutions fall on a gradient of effectiveness, which appears to be the case here as the closer the blood vessels are the more effective the CCHE system is. Thus mutations that bring the blood vessels together creating a CCHE system will be kept.

 

:get_a_clue:

 

Firstly so you think that there being genetic algorithms is evidence for evolution... a blind.. unthinking... process being able to plan and engineer creations?.. Seriously... Perhaps you should EXPLAIN how your said evidence is actual evidence for what you are claiming.

 

 

Secondly where do you think these "genetic algorithms" come from?....

 

HUMAN INGENUITY, (aka intelligence).....

 

:cry:

 

As I said genetic algorithms is a proof of concept that descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction can and will produce complex designs. Obviously there is a little more to it than that; the big one being that there needs to be a viable pathway for such designs to be produced and especially in the case of biological evolution each step must be viable on its own.

 

You do realize that genetic algorithms are "blind" and "unthinking" to use your words? Sure we input parameters and 'goals' (get the best solution) into the algorithm, but analogously so does nature and the environment. As an analogy nature is the engineer who set up the algorithm with each solution being evaluated based on its' fitness.

 

So why not call it "the spine" instead of redefining it as a "tail"?

 

The tail is part of the spine. If it was an extension in the cervical or lumbar etc. section of the spine then it would be incorrect to call it a tail as that is the wrong section of the spine. However in the human embryo the section of the spine that extends (extra vertebrae) is the caudal area which is where the tail is if the species has a tail. This is why the coccyx is called the "tail bone" as it is the remaining caudal vertebrae after apoptosis eliminates the extra vertebrae and reduces the remaining caudal vertebrae.

 

I know of no reason to not call it a tail on a human embryo other than an emotional aversion to such terminology.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#24 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 July 2016 - 02:12 AM

 

My mom used to have an expression similar to monday mornkng quarterbacking (yes, goku I am usng a figure of speech lol) Someone stands on the sidewalk watching a building being built and explaing how it should actually be built in deference to how it is being built.

I think there is a danger in someone who hasn't and can't do the process they are describng assuming they know what they are talking about. They end up describing how "they" would do it. All that's well and good. Whether that acomplishes the task being described is dubious because they can't replicate what they are talking about ( a biological animmal such say a dog no not even a singal cell amoeba).

Of course I am more inclinedd to go with Gilbo's description. He knnows he is is intellgent and a creator. Goku is an impostor. He is trying to think like evolution (an impossible task as evo can't think which ought to give goku a clue). Ahhhh! Another just so story. lol



#25 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 July 2016 - 03:07 AM

 

 

Goku: A system which uses descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction works best when solutions fall on a gradient of effectiveness, which appears to be the case here as the closer the blood vessels are the more effective the CCHE system is. Thus mutations that bring the blood vessels together creating a CCHE system will be kept.

 

But I would counter by saying there are examples in nature, where natural selection, would not modify already-existent designs.

 

That is the problem, it's a bit begging-the-question, in the sense that to assume we descended by modifying a previous design, means we have to assume the previous design came about the same way, and the previous one, and the previous one, until we end up referring to the first lifeform, which did not have any design and natural selection did not act on it, and it also had no genes or DNA. Obviously when I say, "first lifeform" I really mean the first proposed "thing" that started to build itself for no reason.

 

Also there is the problem of those things which would not be selected for. There is no reason to believe that even if CCHE was selected for, that the inbetween anatomical stages for pre-bats would be selected for, for these stages would be a disadvantage, why would selections select for neither a wing or an arm but an inbetween? Sure, you can simply state there was a useful stage (circular reasoning, "if we evolved there would be a selection pressure to choose X, but here is an example where there seems to be no advantage, yet because we evolved there must have been), but logically speaking, it can be shown it would not be a useful stage, because you have to transition between those states. Physically we just know there are "useless" stages. for example, a seahorse swims vertically and supposedly had a horizontally-swimming progenitor, so then what was the useful inbetween stage? There are none, you would have to invent imaginary creatures that could evolve from a fish.

 

Goku, as a reasonable evolutionist, surely you can see that the cleverness of an idea such as CCHE, can't simply be attributed to evolution, with simply asserting that evolution pulled it off. There is no reason to assume that evolution is a creative intelligence that can solve any problem by simply saying it would select for the particular design. First it has to invent the design.

 

For example, imagine as an analogy, you went into a restaurant hungry. You saw there was a very ostentatious dish. You take it despite the price because you are hungry. Does that mean you made the dish because you selected it?

 

In the same way, I don't see how evolution is being offered a smorgasbord of intelligent designs just because there is selection pressure in that population of individuals. Who knows, maybe CCHE is possible by evolution, but does that mean a mass-exchange contraflow lung is possible? Not really, and if you are to be consistent, since bats have the "modified" mammalian, bellows-type lung, then it would be reasonable to assume that birds would also have a modified lung, modified like the bats. A make-do lung for a bird as birds have a higher demand because of their performance abilities. But what birds actually have is a special contraflow lung. 

 

What does that tell us? Are we seeing evolution modifying "make-do" features, or are we seeing the correct design specifically created so the organism can perform it's tasks? I would say the latter, because think of some of the features needed, some of them are exceedingly excellent engineering, such as echolocation. Bats, whales and oil birds have echolocation, not because they have a common ancestor but because it is clear that they have a use for echolocation. 

 

I can't see how evolution would invent the perfect materials either. When the first vertebrates purportedly evolved, they just happened to find the correct material, cartilage, which can stretch and grow and form and later solidify into bone, and cartilage which is also perfect for joints. Wood for trees just happen to be presented for selection, so did waterproof skin and enamel for teeth, and feathers for flight. To say evolution would chance upon an ostentatious menu, requires a lot of faith in the simplistic mechanisms of evolution, to say the least. What we are actually seeing is one of the elements of design. (correct materials) As a comparison, we would also find in vehicles, rubber for tyres, and metal for a chassis, and an air-bag for a crash precaution, etc.. the seahorse has a special bubble in it's gut like an air-bag, so it can swim upright, it is kind of like it's own spirit-level, or balance, for want of a better analogy.

 

If you are honest, every creature just happens to have the correct materials for it's job. Did it get sent them by the hand of evolutionary chance? Where are all the failed versions in the fossils? ;) (okay that's off-topic mischief, I admit) :D



#26 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 20 July 2016 - 05:16 AM

But I would counter by saying there are examples in nature, where natural selection, would not modify already-existent designs.

 

That is the problem, it's a bit begging-the-question, in the sense that to assume we descended by modifying a previous design, means we have to assume the previous design came about the same way, and the previous one, and the previous one, until we end up referring to the first lifeform, which did not have any design and natural selection did not act on it, and it also had no genes or DNA. Obviously when I say, "first lifeform" I really mean the first proposed "thing" that started to build itself for no reason.

 

In a sense the first lifeform would have been designed by the laws of physics and chemistry. I would go so far as to say, given the right environment, the formation of life is inevitable. As a quick example of what I mean amphiphilic molecules (molecules with polar and non-polar regions), say a hydrocarbon tail with an oxygen at one end (a very simplified analogy to the phospholipids modern cells use), dropped in an aqueous solution will spontaneously form micelles which are a closed, rudimentary cell membrane as the non-polar regions naturally try to escape the water while the polar regions are more chemically attracted to the surrounding water. Of course that doesn't create a cell by itself, but the point of the tangent is that physics/chemistry will spontaneously create complex structures given the right environment based on the laws of nature, and a natural selection of sorts plays a role too (e.g. chemical structures that are stable and able to form long and complex chains will be selected by physics/chemistry; it isn't a mystery as to why life is carbon based rather than silicon based or some random element).

 

Also there is the problem of those things which would not be selected for. There is no reason to believe that even if CCHE was selected for, that the inbetween anatomical stages for pre-bats would be selected for, for these stages would be a disadvantage, why would selections select for neither a wing or an arm but an inbetween? Sure, you can simply state there was a useful stage (circular reasoning, "if we evolved there would be a selection pressure to choose X, but here is an example where there seems to be no advantage, yet because we evolved there must have been), but logically speaking, it can be shown it would not be a useful stage, because you have to transition between those states. Physically we just know there are "useless" stages. for example, a seahorse swims vertically and supposedly had a horizontally-swimming progenitor, so then what was the useful inbetween stage? There are none, you would have to invent imaginary creatures that could evolve from a fish.

 

I think it is a bit unfair in asking me to explain how a CCHE system could theoretically evolve and then exclaim it doesn't explain how bats evolved. :P

 

I don't think a transition must necessarily have "useless" stages. My understanding is that bats most likely evolved from arboreal mammals. The early transitional stage from arm to wing could have been used to help jump from limb to limb (help catch/get food or escape from danger to basic mobility in the trees), or perhaps helped in mitigating damage sustained from falling out of a tree. From there I would think transitioning into a glider and eventually full flyer wouldn't have been a great viability issue.

 

I did a quick google search about seahorse evolution and found this: http://news.national...s-stand-up.html, and it looks like the seahorse developed its vertical swim for camouflage against predators. Apparently the closest animal to the seahorse is the pygmy pipehorse which looks exactly like a horizontal seahorse. Using genetics they determined that the two lineages diverged about 25 million years ago, and at about that time the climate changed due to tectonic activity littering the area with shallow water and seagrass. Apparently horizontal swimming easily stands out in the background of seagrass, whereas a vertical swim does not. I am not sure what all the disadvantages a transitional stage would confer, but it would seem the benefits of not getting eaten would outweigh the disadvantages being less proficient swimmers. Recall the evolutionary joke that I don't have to outrun the lion chasing us, I just have to outrun you. Similarly perhaps the seahorse didn't have to be the best swimmer, it just had to camouflage itself better than the seahorses around it.

 

One thing that might interest you is fitness landscapes, and the idea that species will opt out of a local maximum, go to a local minimum, only to rebound towards another local maximum that is higher than the previous. It's been years since I read anything about it (and not in any detail), but it might be something that will pique your curiosity since one of your themes against evolution is the loss of fitness during transitional stages. I should note that ToE requires that each stage is "viable", not necessarily more fit than the last.

 

Goku, as a reasonable evolutionist, surely you can see that the cleverness of an idea such as CCHE, can't simply be attributed to evolution, with simply asserting that evolution pulled it off. There is no reason to assume that evolution is a creative intelligence that can solve any problem by simply saying it would select for the particular design. First it has to invent the design.

 

For example, imagine as an analogy, you went into a restaurant hungry. You saw there was a very ostentatious dish. You take it despite the price because you are hungry. Does that mean you made the dish because you selected it?

 

No intelligence is needed. Of course natural selection doesn't come up with solutions as it only selects from what is available, but mutations (gene regulation etc.) provide natural selection with a smorgasbord of options. Any mutation that brings veins and arteries closer together facilitating the formation of a rete mirabile (the network of blood vessels that perform CCHE) will be selected for tautologically if such a system would increase fitness.

 

In the same way, I don't see how evolution is being offered a smorgasbord of intelligent designs just because there is selection pressure in that population of individuals. Who knows, maybe CCHE is possible by evolution, but does that mean a mass-exchange contraflow lung is possible? Not really, and if you are to be consistent, since bats have the "modified" mammalian, bellows-type lung, then it would be reasonable to assume that birds would also have a modified lung, modified like the bats. A make-do lung for a bird as birds have a higher demand because of their performance abilities. But what birds actually have is a special contraflow lung. 

 

What does that tell us? Are we seeing evolution modifying "make-do" features, or are we seeing the correct design specifically created so the organism can perform it's tasks? I would say the latter, because think of some of the features needed, some of them are exceedingly excellent engineering, such as echolocation. Bats, whales and oil birds have echolocation, not because they have a common ancestor but because it is clear that they have a use for echolocation. 

 

It is more like many potential solutions exist for a given fitness need, but what solution evolution ends up with is going to depend on what we started with (evolution has to work with structures that are already there) and what happenstance mutations occur.

 

I'm not sure why you would expect birds and bats to have the same type of lung; sure they both fly but they each evolved flight independently. Bats evolved flight while mammals so it is to be expected that evolution would modify the mammalian lung and adapt it to the needs of flight. Since birds are not mammals nor evolved from mammals there is no reason to think, from an evolutionary perspective, that birds ought to have a modified mammalian lung for flight, or conversely that bats ought to have a modified contraflow type lung as seeing in animals like crocodiles and dinosaurs which are related to birds. To me the types of lungs bats and birds have is an example of how evolution must work with what it already has, and adapts previous designs to the needs of the present.

 

If one type of lung is the "correct" design, why didn't God give both bats and birds the same type of respiratory system? To me this sounds like evolution making-do with what it started with; different lineages so different modifications to achieve flight.

 

I don't think anyone is saying bats and whales received echolocation from a common ancestor; they each evolved echolocation independently. The famous example is the eye, which is said to have independently evolved many times throughout life's history because eyes are such a useful feature that when mutations arise that give sight they are often strongly selected.

 

I can't see how evolution would invent the perfect materials either. When the first vertebrates purportedly evolved, they just happened to find the correct material, cartilage, which can stretch and grow and form and later solidify into bone, and cartilage which is also perfect for joints. Wood for trees just happen to be presented for selection, so did waterproof skin and enamel for teeth, and feathers for flight. To say evolution would chance upon an ostentatious menu, requires a lot of faith in the simplistic mechanisms of evolution, to say the least. What we are actually seeing is one of the elements of design. (correct materials) As a comparison, we would also find in vehicles, rubber for tyres, and metal for a chassis, and an air-bag for a crash precaution, etc.. the seahorse has a special bubble in it's gut like an air-bag, so it can swim upright, it is kind of like it's own spirit-level, or balance, for want of a better analogy.

 

If you are honest, every creature just happens to have the correct materials for it's job. Did it get sent them by the hand of evolutionary chance? Where are all the failed versions in the fossils? ;) (okay that's off-topic mischief, I admit) :D

 

In a sense, yes, evolution stumbled upon all these great materials. You also have to remember that evolution had millions of years to 'discover' these materials with each generation offering millions/billions of 'experiments' in the form of individuals with each individual carrying many mutations (it's different for each species and individual, but as a reference point each human zygote has on average about 100 mutations not present in either parent).

 

The 'designs' of organisms as having the perfect design or material for their niche is deceptive evidence for ID. What I mean is that on the surface it looks like really strong evidence for ID, but I think the evolutionary explanation is rather illuminating: evolution optimizes organisms for specific niches and after so many modifications the organism will look as if it has been specifically designed for that niche, and in a certain sense it has been designed for that niche through evolution.

 

This is partially why I brought up genetic algorithms as a proof of concept. Like biological evolution, each solution/individual in a genetic algorithm is going to have a different fitness level which is going to correspond to different levels of reproductive success, and over time the population is going to be more and more optimized for a given niche. You can literally watch this happen in genetic algorithms, even if you change the environment/problem along the way you will see the population move towards optimization of the new problem. Genetic algorithms are known for coming up with incredibly creative, innovative, and complex solutions that go above and beyond human engineered solutions for the same problem. Again I am not bringing up genetic algorithms as proof of evolution, but it is a proof of concept that when there is a pathway to achieve some kind of optimal system/solution through descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction then optimization will occur in some fashion (even if the optimization is local on the gradient of potential solutions).



#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 July 2016 - 09:51 PM

Maybe I'm just tired but the first line doesn't make sense to me. We have the genes for a tail, and one explanation is that it is a carry over from an evolutionary ancestor. Whether or not that is a good explanation seems to be the current topic in this thread, but I don't see how the "explanation is being assumed as an explanation".

 

I'd like to see the evidence that supports this claim of humans having the genes to develop a fully functional tail, (developing a coccyx isn't a tail Goku).

 

 

And a rock functions as a paper weight, yet it is not designed in the ID sense of design.

 

:cry:  Missing the point....
 

Yet you used your intelligence to utilise the rock as a paper weight.... Hence intelligence is STILL required when there is a design involved... (There is no way for you to dodge this fact since a design by definition denotes the use of intelligence to account for said design).

 

 

Good thing I never said the coccyx is merely an evolutionary left over with absolutely no function.

 

Actually its not a good thing since you claimed human tail, which is what you had confused the Coccyx for... The coccyx is not a tail, you need to understand that Goku.

I know how much you want it to be a tail, your emotional need for evolution to be true, but you need to come to grips with reality and understand that the coccyx is simply a part of the spine and thus is not a tail.

 

 

Which is not recapitulation.....

 

You stated....

 

"I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it."

 

 

and again

 

"The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?"

 

 

Which IMPLIES recapitulation, seriously did you not read what I wrote, or do you not understand what recapitulation is?

 

Here is what recapitulation is

 

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed in Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.

 

https://en.wikipedia...tulation_theory

 

 

You believe that humans "evolved" from bacteria to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to humans. These animals mostly had tails, (and fish had gills).

Now when you are talking about embryos having tails and gill slits then you ARE implying or even discussing recapitulation.

 

 

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

 

The tail is the end part of the spine. "Developing spine" and "developing tail" are not mutually exclusive.

 

If its a part of the spine, then it isn't a "tail"..
 

tail 1

 (tāl)

n.
1. The posterior part of an animal, especially when elongated and extending beyond the trunk or main part of the body.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tail


Does the Coccyx extend beyond the trunk of the body?... No.... So its merely a part of the spine.

 

You need to stop playing word games Goku, this may work in an atheist-centred blog or something but you're not going to fool anyone here.

 

 

 

The tail is the end part of the spine. "Developing spine" and "developing tail" are not mutually exclusive.

 

Which is Gokuese for 'I know that the coccyx is not a tail, but I am just going to call it one because I have an emotional investment in evolution'.

 

 

 

 

A: This is just one piece of evidence; obviously if it is debunked then it would no longer be evidence for ToE, but it doesn't speak for all the evidence for ToE.

 

And so begins the evolution evidence merry-go-round... When one piece is debunked on a thread, evolutionists point to something else, yet when that gets debunked on a different thread then they'll point to the evidence that was debunked in the previous thread...

 

 

B: Again if it is debunked then obviously it would no longer be evidence for ToE.

 

Way to dodge my point.

 

Actually I was discussing your ability to call out something as "strong evidence"... Since if you think this is "strong evidence" and it is debunked... which it has been... Then your reliability to determine what is "strong evidence" would be called in to question, yes?

 

Some advice, play your cards close to your chest. Don't be like other evolutionists and try and speak out with undue confidence.

 

 

 

I wasn't using the word "engineering" literally like that.....

 

As Adam would say. Words they mean things.

 

Funny how words requiring intelligence (like engineering) gets used when discussing nature and biological function... Yet then this is believed to have been caused by a blind, un-thinking, un-engineering, un-creating process.

 

 

 

 

I said engineering designs, to use Mike's wording, are to be expected in a system with descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. That is not synonymous with saying I can demonstrate how any and every biological system evolved step by step.

 

Did I say it was synonymous? (Don't put words in my mouth).

 

I was asking you for a demonstration of this process you claim that occurred...

 

How do you know that that methodology was used by nature unless you have some examples within nature to demonstrate?... Or was this you making a statement of faith ;)

 

 

 

Unless I am missing something, bringing an artery and vein close together to facilitate heat transfer would be a relatively simple matter for evolution; the closer they are the more fit the system is and is thus selected.

 

Its not just distance but also duplication and entanglement of the artery around the vein.

 

IF this is so simple for evolution, (not sure how you can possibly know that), then can you do as I asked and provide a demonstration of evolution designing this in action.

 

 

 

As I said genetic algorithms is a proof of concept that descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction can and will produce complex designs.

 

Um... No...

 

Since as I said, genetic algorithms are a product of human intelligence and thus cannot be a "proof of concept" for natural phenomena... IF you want evidence for nature, then go TEST nature.

 

 

 

Obviously there is a little more to it than that; the big one being that there needs to be a viable pathway for such designs to be produced and especially in the case of biological evolution each step must be viable on its own.

 

Which is the big issue for gradualism and why irreducible complexity was invented to attempt to solve that problem.

 

Just a question, what viability was there for cells to shift from a single celled organism (the most efficient organism known to humankind), to a multi-celled organism (inefficient and thus reduces fitness).

 

 

 

You do realize that genetic algorithms are "blind" and "unthinking" to use your words?

 

Did I say that equations are not blind or were sentient? Or are you attempting to put words in my mouth....

(Why do you keep doing this? It only makes you look dishonest...)
 

 

 

You do realize that genetic algorithms are "blind" and "unthinking" to use your words? Sure we input parameters and 'goals' (get the best solution) into the algorithm

 

Which is what I said.... The algorithms are a product of human thinking, not evolution.

 

 

 

but analogously so does nature and the environment. As an analogy nature is the engineer who set up the algorithm with each solution being evaluated based on its' fitness.

 

Wrong.... Nature doesn't have the intelligence or sentience required to use algorithms... All you are doing is spouting airy rhetoric.

 

Now I must ask you, do you understand that your "blind and unthinking" process is actually BLIND and UNTHINKING? Since how can you claim that nature uses genetic algorithms with the understanding that nature isn't sentient?

 

 

 

The tail is part of the spine.

 

Its called the Coccyx not "the tail"... Again stop playing word games.

 

Again, if its a part of the spine then why not call it "the spine"? Why create a differentiation when there is none?

 

 

 

If it was an extension in the cervical or lumbar etc. section of the spine then it would be incorrect to call it a tail as that is the wrong section of the spine.

 

And since the coccyx IS a section of the spine, you've just contradicted your own claims...

 

 

 

However in the human embryo the section of the spine that extends (extra vertebrae) is the caudal area which is where the tail is if the species has a tail. This is why the coccyx is called the "tail bone" as it is the remaining caudal vertebrae after apoptosis eliminates the extra vertebrae and reduces the remaining caudal vertebrae.

 

So embryos have "tails" which then actually develop into the spine.... I think its a bit anal to be calling shots on organism parts when the organism is still in development. The fact that the "tail" of the embryo develops into the spine demonstrates that it wasn't actually a tail after all.

 

Also still waiting for your examples of humans having tails today.... (I've already seen them a few years ago, but am curious as to what argument attempt you'll use with them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • Blitzking likes this

#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 02:35 AM

Goku I have noticed that when I ask for transitionals you will usually show me, or explain that there are similar creatures, as though these represent transitionals. In fact both the pygmy pipehorse and seahorse have been found fossilized together in the same rocks, living alongside each other. You also argued earlier that instead of a transitional eye, there are simpler eyes.

 

I think this is the usual rhetorical trick evolutionists tend to play on us, they take advantage of the fact that the diversity of life is so large that you can take similar creatures or even related creatures, and use these as examples as the transitional stages, because no actual transitionals exist. But these other eyes, or other seahorses, are also already complete, and fully seahorse, be them living seahorses or fossilized seahorses. So there is a variety of seahorses but this doesn't explain how they evolved, though I appreciate that you may have me on the vertical-fish claim, yet another reminder to me that I can't always take CMI's claims as the be all and end all, I have noticed they are sloppy sometimes;

 

 

 

Link: Scientists discovered the 1-inch-long (2.5-centimeter-long) species—dubbedHippotropiscis frenki—in a fossil-rich region called the Tunjice Hills, where the team also found the oldest known seahorse fossils in 2009.

http://news.national...nimals-science/

 

This is the problem, they don't ever seem to find transitionals, but they always find fossils of present-day species. If the claim is that everything evolved from scratch but we only ever see completed and modern forms???....well, doesn't take Sherlock to figure the rest out.....

 

As for simpler eyes, that only proves that a simpler design of eye actually exists, it doesn't prove that a more complicated eye evolved from it. So we can't use your examples as evolution, without again assuming evolution. But what we want is actual evidence that eyes can evolve, as we only ever find completed eyes, be them simple or complex. (though of course, none are really, "simple" but rather just less complex than some others)

 

 

Goku: I'm not sure why you would expect birds and bats to have the same type of lung; sure they both fly but they each evolved flight independently. Bats evolved flight while mammals so it is to be expected that evolution would modify the mammalian lung and adapt it to the needs of flight. Since birds are not mammals nor evolved from mammals there is no reason to think, from an evolutionary perspective, that birds ought to have a modified mammalian lung for flight

 

Please look at the following diagram I have drawn.

Attached File  bird lungs.jpg   24.85KB   0 downloads

 

As you can see, both birds and bats would have had reptilian ancestors in their distant lineages, they both would have inherited a bellows-type lung to begin with because reptiles have the bellows type lung. You have to remember, the only reason and the only advantage of having a contraflow lung with air-sacs, is if you have to fly to a bird's level of ability, as the following quote explains the designer-reason:

 

 

link: Human beings breathe about 12 times a minute, whereas small birds can breathe up to about 250 times a minute. This is thus a perfect system for the high metabolic rate of birds, which use up energy very quickly. In fast forward flight particularly, birds could not sustain exhaling against the oncoming airstream. Note also that birds are warm-blooded, which presents a vast biological hurdle for those who maintain a reptile ancestory for birds

 

 

 

Goku: No intelligence is needed. Of course natural selection doesn't come up with solutions as it only selects from what is available, but mutations (gene regulation etc.) provide natural selection with a smorgasbord of options

 

I'm afraid that's just a bare statement of faith, Goku. Certainly I can see no logical, rational reason to suppose that millions of correct materials would come about this way. If I randomly bought things online and selected the parts I needed to build a car, how long would that take compared to getting the right parts ordered?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the better way to get the car, is to have random parts distributed and vaguely selected, without any intelligence involved? That just isn't reality.



#29 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2016 - 03:44 AM

Mike,
 

Goku: I'm not sure why you would expect birds and bats to have the same type of lung; sure they both fly but they each evolved flight independently. Bats evolved flight while mammals so it is to be expected that evolution would modify the mammalian lung and adapt it to the needs of flight. Since birds are not mammals nor evolved from mammals there is no reason to think, from an evolutionary perspective, that birds ought to have a modified mammalian lung for flight.

Hmmmm. Spoken like Goku observed it himself. Me thinks Goku is using that amazng brain he has been given and it is in "create" mode. Rather than describing what he observed, he is creating and writing  a "just so story" evos are famous for. LOL

Evo has no clear goal? It's random except for selection process and yet the eye evolved seperatedly at least 50 times and flight in birds, bats and insects (to numerous to mention) seperately. How consistnt? Not to mention human intelligently derived flight. It does not sound to me like evo is so random and goaless? When s a goal not a goal? Whenever evos say it is not a goal! Shaespeare must be wrong when he said, "A rose by any other name would smell the same." :)


This is Goku's contradiction--a paradox if you will: Goku is using itelligence and creativity to claim that intlligence and  creativity is not necessary to do something he can't do. Funny isn't it?
 



#30 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 04:10 AM

Mike, Goku actually got the evolutionary order wrong, too. As you can see from the diagram, the evolution fictional story is that reptiles evolved into mammals, and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, (though they kind of were large reptiles you could argue of course), meaning that both dinos and mammals would have inherited the shared characteristic from a fictional common ancestor. Birds have an apomorphy, (contraflow, mass-exchange, two-stroke lung system with sacs). Because birds are diurnal, and are made to migrate, and some are designed to have dog-fights, and other be predatorial, and for many other birdy-reasons,..the necessity for a special lung was of vital importance for them to excel but only at what would be a later evolutionary stage

 

However, the evo-story tells us that clumsy birds evolved from theropods, meaning there would initially be no need for any designer-lung. So then, if evolution had happened, like with the bat, the bellows-type, regular lung that mammals and reptiles share, would have simply been modified by descent. As an analogy, if you take a rock and place it on a small incline and pour a bottle of water down the incline, nature will take the path of least resistance, and the water will go around the rock. It would be absurd to believe that the water would go over the rock. That is what the evolution of the avian lung would be like, evolution would simply have chosen the perfectly viable, bellows-type lung, like it apparently did in the bat. Yet we are asked to believe that a selection-pressure would create two very differently designed lungs. (how simplistic, that we should attribute sophisticated designs to such a pressure, as though the design of a bat or bird rests upon one simplistic pressure to initially glide or hop, which is like saying that every dish ever created by chefs, only came about by design, for the reason that people were hungry, and the sophistication of the design of the dishes, only represents hunger). What absurdly tenuous reasoning.

 

With that in mind, evolution would then have to change IT'S mind, and take an altogether different path from the initial path of modifying a bellows type, which function perfectly well in bats. 

 

There just aren't any logical reasons to believe that later on a very special lung would start to develop. I also note that water-birds such as avocets are found in later dino-layers meaning that the lung would have apparently already completely evolved not all that long after the evolution of birds.

 

All of this stretches credulity to breaking point, especially when we consider how irreducibly complex some of the features of birds are, such as the hook/latch system which needs to be oiled right from the start, so there is a sliding lock for the hooks/barbs/barbules.. Each feather is also perfect for aerodynamics, yet we are required to believe that with no transitionals at all, reptile scales which are actually part of the skin, and are shed as a whole, somehow became individual feathers, with the correct shape, correct and complicated barbs, and hooks.

 

Lol. It just basically almost causes me to WHOOP with joy, Mike, because all of this is just such powerful evidence against evolution. Yesterday I felt this kind of joy all day because I read just so very many things that make it so blatantly obvious that evo is false, I had a kind of moment-of-clarity, you know, when you kind of re-realise something is true. I guess it just fascinated me, that all of those educated people, thousands of them, literally have duped themselves into believing something that so obviously could not and did not happen.

 

Wonderful!


  • Mike Summers likes this

#31 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 23 July 2016 - 05:57 AM

I'd like to see the evidence that supports this claim of humans having the genes to develop a fully functional tail, (developing a coccyx isn't a tail Goku).

 

This is an abstract that explains the Wnt-3a gene in mice plays a pivotal role in the development of mice tails, with reduction in said gene linked to vestigial tails: http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/8595882

 

This is another abstract comparing the similarities between said gene(s) in mice and humans, which in conjunction with the previous paper demonstrates that we have the genes for tail development even if those genes are too degraded to develop a fully functional tail at the flip of a switch (which makes sense given that humans haven't had tails for millions of years so some mutations are to be expected, also I never said we have the genes to develop a "fully functional tail") :  http://www.ncbi.nlm....7?dopt=Abstract 

 

 

You stated....

 

"I would say that the fact that we have the genes for a tail, that we have a tail as an embryo, and that some people are born with a tail is more than some superficial consistent evidence for ToE, but is strong evidence in favor of it."

 

 

and again

 

"The spine may develop early, but a human embryo has extra vertebrae that are then eaten away by the body later. The tail is essentially an extension of the spine, so when a human embryo has an extension of the spine (extra vertebrae) what logical reason is there to say it only has the appearance of a tail rather than being a tail or the beginnings of a tail since it is later phased out?"

 

 

Which IMPLIES recapitulation, seriously did you not read what I wrote, or do you not understand what recapitulation is?

 

Here is what recapitulation is

 

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed in Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.

 

https://en.wikipedia...tulation_theory

 

 

You believe that humans "evolved" from bacteria to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to humans. These animals mostly had tails, (and fish had gills).

Now when you are talking about embryos having tails and gill slits then you ARE implying or even discussing recapitulation.

 

 

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

 

And I shouldn't have to explain to you that an evolutionary carry over in embryological development is not the same thing as recapitulation, yet here we are.

 

Also, as I told you literally last post, I never said that human embryos have gills slits (I was quoting Mike, who brought it up in the first place, when I said gill slits). We have pharyngeal clefts that are homologous to the precursors of gills in fish embryos (that then develop into gills in fish), but instead of developing into gills ours develop into various parts of our neck and head.

 

Actually its not a good thing since you claimed human tail, which is what you had confused the Coccyx for... The coccyx is not a tail, you need to understand that Goku.

I know how much you want it to be a tail, your emotional need for evolution to be true, but you need to come to grips with reality and understand that the coccyx is simply a part of the spine and thus is not a tail.

 

If its a part of the spine, then it isn't a "tail"..
 

tail 1

 (tāl)

n.
1. The posterior part of an animal, especially when elongated and extending beyond the trunk or main part of the body.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tail

Does the Coccyx extend beyond the trunk of the body?... No.... So its merely a part of the spine.

 

You need to stop playing word games Goku, this may work in an atheist-centred blog or something but you're not going to fool anyone here.

 

 

Which is Gokuese for 'I know that the coccyx is not a tail, but I am just going to call it one because I have an emotional investment in evolution'.

 

 

Its called the Coccyx not "the tail"... Again stop playing word games.

 

Again, if its a part of the spine then why not call it "the spine"? Why create a differentiation when there is none?

 

 

And since the coccyx IS a section of the spine, you've just contradicted your own claims...

 

So embryos have "tails" which then actually develop into the spine.... I think its a bit anal to be calling shots on organism parts when the organism is still in development. The fact that the "tail" of the embryo develops into the spine demonstrates that it wasn't actually a tail after all.

 

Also still waiting for your examples of humans having tails today.... (I've already seen them a few years ago, but am curious as to what argument attempt you'll use with them).

 

I really don't know how to explain it any more simply than this, with few exceptions (I only know of one, the vestigial tail of the Barbary Ape which I talked about earlier in this thread), the mammalian tail is part of the spine.

 

Your assertion that if it is part of the spine then it isn't a tail is like saying if the number 5 is an integer then it can't be odd. 

 

The spine of mammals is divided up into several sections. The tail end (pun intended) of the spine is called the caudal region and is composed of the caudal/coccygeal vertebrae. In species that have a tail the tail is composed of the caudal vertebrae. To use your own definition of tail, it is this caudal vertebrae that extend beyond the main body that makes up the tail.

 

The human embryo will develop extra coccygeal vertebrae that extend beyond the main body - a tail by any other name including your definition. As the embryo develops several of these coccygeal vertebrae will be destroyed and absorbed back into the embryo via apoptosis. The remaining coccygeal vertebrae, usually three to five, will also be reduced during this time period and eventually fuse into coccyx. This is why the coccyx is called the tail bone; it is essentially a reduced tail with the few remaining (and degraded) tail vertebrae fused together.

 

I never said the coccyx is a tail. Why are you putting words into my mouth?

 

For a visual shocker you can go to youtube and see people with tails voluntarily moving them (true tails contain nerves and muscle etc).

 

For something more academic you can read this: http://www.bjj.bonea.../4/508.full.pdf  

 

Note that in the "On human tails" section of the paper at the end, it describes the patients condition as brought on by hypertrophy of the coccygeal vertebrae. Hypertrophy in this context means that the vertebrae are larger than normal; the three to five remaining coccygeal vertebrae were not reduced to their normal size during embryonic and fetal development. The paper doesn't say, but it sounds like the gene regulation in charge of apoptosis of the coccygeal vertebrae was being partially turned off. I wonder what would happen if it was further turned off and the other coccygeal vertebrae were not completely absorbed back into the embryo. Sounds like a tail, does it not?

 

:cry:  Missing the point....
 

Yet you used your intelligence to utilise the rock as a paper weight.... Hence intelligence is STILL required when there is a design involved... (There is no way for you to dodge this fact since a design by definition denotes the use of intelligence to account for said design).

 

Very well, I won't beat around the bush and give another rock example; calling the human embryonic tail a designed feature is begging the question.

 

And so begins the evolution evidence merry-go-round... When one piece is debunked on a thread, evolutionists point to something else, yet when that gets debunked on a different thread then they'll point to the evidence that was debunked in the previous thread...

 

I never pointed to any other evidence in lieu of human tails. Why are you either accusing me, or dreaming up fantasy scenarios, that I have not partaken in?

 

You asked if the human tail thing was debunked if it would also debunk ToE, and the answer is simply no. Theories are explanations of a broad set of facts, and while a single observation/fact can make or break a theory the theory is going to bend towards the preponderance of evidence or be broken by it. The simple fact is that the human tail is not that kind of make or break observation for ToE. I said it was strong evidence because it is visually striking and can be emotionally jarring for many - it personalizes the issue in a way that talking about bird evolution doesn't.

 

If, hypothetically, you prove that the human embryo never has a tail, that we don't have the genes for a tail, and any and all medical cases of human tails is debunked, then logically it would no longer be evidence for ToE. However, logically, it does not mean every other piece of evidence for evolution is also debunked, and there is more than enough evidence in support of ToE without ever mentioning the human tail.

 

Way to dodge my point.

 

Actually I was discussing your ability to call out something as "strong evidence"... Since if you think this is "strong evidence" and it is debunked... which it has been... Then your reliability to determine what is "strong evidence" would be called in to question, yes?

 

Some advice, play your cards close to your chest. Don't be like other evolutionists and try and speak out with undue confidence.

 

To be fair your original question was poorly worded and semi-incoherent. I'm sure it made sense in your head, but sometimes when you write things down and show it to someone else the meaning simply isn't there.

 

I think it is premature to assert that it is debunked; from what I can tell you were mostly debunking a strawman. Of course if someone makes a strong claim and does so forcefully, and it later turns out to be false then the person's credibility takes a hit. Again I think this talk is a bit premature, and is somewhat close to a poisoning the well fallacy on any future claims I make before those claims are properly vetted in a fair and objective way.

 

Do you agree that each and every claim stands or falls on its own merit?

 

As Adam would say. Words they mean things.

 

Funny how words requiring intelligence (like engineering) gets used when discussing nature and biological function... Yet then this is believed to have been caused by a blind, un-thinking, un-engineering, un-creating process.

 

Words do mean thing, but context matters too; something like only 10% of the meaning is carried in the word itself. You are looking at a word devoid of the context and trying to shoehorn in a different context you feel makes your point.

 

Did I say it was synonymous? (Don't put words in my mouth).

 

I was asking you for a demonstration of this process you claim that occurred...

 

How do you know that that methodology was used by nature unless you have some examples within nature to demonstrate?... Or was this you making a statement of faith ;)

 

 

Since as I said, genetic algorithms are a product of human intelligence and thus cannot be a "proof of concept" for natural phenomena... IF you want evidence for nature, then go TEST nature.

 

 

Did I say that equations are not blind or were sentient? Or are you attempting to put words in my mouth....

(Why do you keep doing this? It only makes you look dishonest...)
 

 

Which is what I said.... The algorithms are a product of human thinking, not evolution.

 

 

Wrong.... Nature doesn't have the intelligence or sentience required to use algorithms... All you are doing is spouting airy rhetoric.

 

Now I must ask you, do you understand that your "blind and unthinking" process is actually BLIND and UNTHINKING? Since how can you claim that nature uses genetic algorithms with the understanding that nature isn't sentient?

 

It just seemed you were implying that the two were synonymous when you brought up CCHE; if you can bring up CCHE what is to stop you from asserting that I ought to demonstrate how any and every biological system evolved?

 

The methodology of genetic algorithms (GA) is based off the mechanisms of ToE; mutation (dissent with modification) and natural selection (differential reproduction), which even creationists accept insofar as such is required for micro evolution.

 

As for a demonstration of a GA that produced a complex solution you can read about some of them here: https://www.damninte...n-of-circuits/

 

From the article: Dr. Thompson dabbled with computer circuits in order to determine whether survival-of-the-fittest principles might provide hints for improved microchip designs...... Finally, after just over 4,000 generations, test system settled upon the best program....... Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type. It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.  

 

Please explain to me how the above is not an example of a GA using dissent with modification coupled with differential reproduction to produce a complex solution.

 

You misunderstand, nature doesn't use GAs, GAs are analogous to evolution; they are based off of evolutionary principles. Furthermore while the algorithm itself is produced by humans, the solution is designed by the blind, unintelligent algorithm in an evolutionary process, and that's the point.

 

Which is the big issue for gradualism and why irreducible complexity was invented to attempt to solve that problem.

 

Just a question, what viability was there for cells to shift from a single celled organism (the most efficient organism known to humankind), to a multi-celled organism (inefficient and thus reduces fitness).

 

How does irreducible complexity solve the issue of viability in gradualism?

 

I'm not sure I understand your question; fitness is based on environment, and when the environment is full of resources multi-celled organisms can get the upper hand as it is harder for single cells to eat them, and multicellular organisms can have cell differentiation which can lead to more complex anatomy and physiology giving them novel abilities. So I don't know why you think multicellularity is necessarily a reduction in fitness. As for viability in the shift you can look at colonial organisms like the volvox to get an idea of how a transitioning organism may have looked. Even bacteria show some interesting features when they aggregate; cooperation is an extremely powerful tool.

 

Its not just distance but also duplication and entanglement of the artery around the vein.

 

IF this is so simple for evolution, (not sure how you can possibly know that), then can you do as I asked and provide a demonstration of evolution designing this in action.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking of me. I can't write a code that perfectly mimics an animal's body and run a simulation where it needs to adapt to the cold while I tell it to build a CCHE system.

 

Again the point of bringing up GAs is that they are a proof of concept that dissent with modification coupled with differential reproduction can and will produce complex solutions, provided there is a viable pathway. This was done as a rebuttal to Mike's argument that complex anatomical features can only be produced by intelligent agents. GAs do create complex solutions without intelligence by simply working with the basic paradigm of evolution.



#32 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:10 AM

 

 

Goku: As for viability in the shift you can look at colonial organisms like the volvox to get an idea of how a transitioning organism may have looked. 

 

Of course, that is what we always have to do; imagine how transitionals would have looked. You always recommend we look at a real organism in order to imagine how a fictional one would have existed, but all factual, real organisms, already are complete, and not evolving.

 

 

 

Goku: I'm not sure I understand your question

 

I'm not sure I understand why you say this, and then give a direct answer which proves you did understand Gilbo's question. I can only think you say that to create a kind of smokey effect, that makes out that Gilbo doesn't even know what he is asking. But then when you answer precisely, it kind of ruins the effect. There's no need to PRETEND we are stupid, all you have to do is answer the best you can.

 

You forget that we are told that all of the stasis in the fossil record is because animals, "don't have to evolve", yet here you are telling us that they do. Which one is it then? We assume if they need to evolve but it is clear that Gilbo has given a perfectly valid reason as to why a single-celled organism would NOT need to. We also have the evolutionist-story of the absurd, that jellyfish and starfish and slugs and what not, have all remained unchanged in 500 million years, while a fish got out of the sea, became an amphibian, became a reptile, a reptile then became a mammal, while a land mammal got back into the sea and became a whale, along with a dugong-ancestor which got out of the sea and evolved on land giving an ancestor to elephants then got back into the sea and evolved into a dugong, while dinosaurs evolved into sparrows and apes gave rise to humans.

 

No, nothing unrealistic about that story then, completely plausible.  :rotfl3: 

 

 

 

Goku: Again the point of bringing up GAs is that they are a proof of concept that dissent with modification coupled with differential reproduction can and will produce complex solutions, provided there is a viable pathway. This was done as a rebuttal to Mike's argument that complex anatomical features can only be produced by intelligent agents. GAs do create complex solutions without intelligence by simply working with the basic paradigm of evolution.

 

And you have not shown that this ridiculous comparison is logically equivalent, at all. Perhaps it would count as a refutation if GAs did not represent a false world where generation time is ignored also, mutational rate is artificially high, the genome is artificially small, and in real life a mutation occurs throughout the genome, not just a gene that specifies a trait. There is no problem of irreducible complexity with G.As either unlike with real life forms, and when we consider the specified and purposeful complexity of say the bombardier beetle with the correct gases but also the right catalytic agents and retarding agents for want of a better phrase, along with the precise structures. When we consider a sea-slug eats sea anemone darts, this could in no way happen gradualistically, to eat the dart all of the contingencies must be in place.



#33 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 23 July 2016 - 09:09 PM

Goku I have noticed that when I ask for transitionals you will usually show me, or explain that there are similar creatures, as though these represent transitionals. In fact both the pygmy pipehorse and seahorse have been found fossilized together in the same rocks, living alongside each other. You also argued earlier that instead of a transitional eye, there are simpler eyes.

 

But you didn't ask for transitionals, you asked how a transitional stage could be viable, and that is the question I answered.

 

Pygmy pipehorses still exist; they are evolutionary cousins of the seahorse. As I understand it the thought is that their last common ancestor was anatomically similar to the pygmy pipehorse, with the pygmy lineage staying in that same basic anatomical form while the seahorse evolved into a vertical swimmer.

 

I may be misremembering, but IIRC you were arguing that the human eye was irreducibly complex (or something like that), and I brought up simpler eyes as an example of a functioning eye without as many bells and whistles.

 

I think this is the usual rhetorical trick evolutionists tend to play on us, they take advantage of the fact that the diversity of life is so large that you can take similar creatures or even related creatures, and use these as examples as the transitional stages, because no actual transitionals exist. But these other eyes, or other seahorses, are also already complete, and fully seahorse, be them living seahorses or fossilized seahorses. So there is a variety of seahorses but this doesn't explain how they evolved, though I appreciate that you may have me on the vertical-fish claim, yet another reminder to me that I can't always take CMI's claims as the be all and end all, I have noticed they are sloppy sometimes;

 

http://news.national...nimals-science/

 

This is the problem, they don't ever seem to find transitionals, but they always find fossils of present-day species. If the claim is that everything evolved from scratch but we only ever see completed and modern forms???....well, doesn't take Sherlock to figure the rest out.....

 

As for simpler eyes, that only proves that a simpler design of eye actually exists, it doesn't prove that a more complicated eye evolved from it. So we can't use your examples as evolution, without again assuming evolution. But what we want is actual evidence that eyes can evolve, as we only ever find completed eyes, be them simple or complex. (though of course, none are really, "simple" but rather just less complex than some others)

 

Please try to understand that the questions I was asked in this thread were about viability, not fossilized transitionals (until now, apparently).

 

According to your link the fossilized pygmy discovered is a new species of pygmy; the pygmy pipehorse is a subfamiliy, not a species.

 

I am certain I would have never argued that since simple eyes exist they therefore evolved into more complex eyes. That asinine logic is more in kin to one of your modus operandi strawman than something I would argue. If you really want to press the issue find a quote of me arguing such, and I'll either retract it or explain what I was trying to say.

 

We do find transitionals, lots of them; I would give a list but I suspect you already know the main ones and have seen lists before. What do you mean we "only ever see completed and modern forms"? What would you consider transitional?

 

Please look at the following diagram I have drawn.

attachicon.gifbird lungs.jpg

 

As you can see, both birds and bats would have had reptilian ancestors in their distant lineages, they both would have inherited a bellows-type lung to begin with because reptiles have the bellows type lung. You have to remember, the only reason and the only advantage of having a contraflow lung with air-sacs, is if you have to fly to a bird's level of ability, as the following quote explains the designer-reason:

 

I understand the basic flow of evolution, Mike; I was alluding to research that concluded theropod dinosaurs had an avian-like respiratory system rather than a mammalian-type lung: http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/19711481

 

This is a page from PZ Myers' blog talking about bird and theropod respiration that gives a little more detail than the above abstract, and makes points tailored towards an evolution vs. creation discussion: http://scienceblogs....dinosaur-lungs/

 

So birds would have inherited the basic structure for their lung from their theropod ancestors who already had an avian style respiratory system. Also crocodiles have an avian-style respiratory system, suggesting that such a system evolved relatively early in the archosaur clade (to more efficiently make use of the low oxygen environment of the Permian/Triassic) when it broke off of the reptilian clade that would eventually become mammals.

 

I'm afraid that's just a bare statement of faith, Goku. Certainly I can see no logical, rational reason to suppose that millions of correct materials would come about this way. If I randomly bought things online and selected the parts I needed to build a car, how long would that take compared to getting the right parts ordered?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the better way to get the car, is to have random parts distributed and vaguely selected, without any intelligence involved? That just isn't reality.

 

I think the term "correct" is a bit of a misnomer. Often multiple materials and systems can perform the same function. For example the cell wall present in most bacteria and the cell wall in plants have an analogous function, yet the main material is different; in plants it is cellulose in bacteria it is peptidoglycan. So my first point is that we have no idea how many possible configurations of material you can have for a given system or function, and I think using the term "correct" unduly gives the appearance that there was only one path, one way, to achieve a given outcome.

 

My second point is that you have to remember that evolution works over many generations over millions and billions of years. Of course random mutation is not an efficient way, in terms of speed, to get complex systems composed of complex parts and materials. However, when you have large amounts of time even random guesses will have you stumbling upon gems.



#34 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:41 PM

Of course, that is what we always have to do; imagine how transitionals would have looked. You always recommend we look at a real organism in order to imagine how a fictional one would have existed, but all factual, real organisms, already are complete, and not evolving.

 

Again I was asked about viability, not transitionals. Do you know what moving the goal post is?

 

I'm not sure I understand why you say this, and then give a direct answer which proves you did understand Gilbo's question. I can only think you say that to create a kind of smokey effect, that makes out that Gilbo doesn't even know what he is asking. But then when you answer precisely, it kind of ruins the effect. There's no need to PRETEND we are stupid, all you have to do is answer the best you can.

 

Maybe because I was trying to give Gilbo the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't asking me to write a code that perfectly mimics the entire world with all of its complexities and minutia so that I can demonstrate how the CCHE system evolved step by step as that would be a completely and utterly asinine request for a plethora of reasons.

 

You forget that we are told that all of the stasis in the fossil record is because animals, "don't have to evolve", yet here you are telling us that they do. Which one is it then? We assume if they need to evolve but it is clear that Gilbo has given a perfectly valid reason as to why a single-celled organism would NOT need to. We also have the evolutionist-story of the absurd, that jellyfish and starfish and slugs and what not, have all remained unchanged in 500 million years, while a fish got out of the sea, became an amphibian, became a reptile, a reptile then became a mammal, while a land mammal got back into the sea and became a whale, along with a dugong-ancestor which got out of the sea and evolved on land giving an ancestor to elephants then got back into the sea and evolved into a dugong, while dinosaurs evolved into sparrows and apes gave rise to humans.

 

No, nothing unrealistic about that story then, completely plausible.  :rotfl3: 

 

When did I ever say that organisms must (macro) evolve? I said that when resources are plentiful there can be advantages in going from single celled to multi celled. You are a perpetual strawman machine.

 

And you have not shown that this ridiculous comparison is logically equivalent, at all. Perhaps it would count as a refutation if GAs did not represent a false world where generation time is ignored also, mutational rate is artificially high, the genome is artificially small, and in real life a mutation occurs throughout the genome, not just a gene that specifies a trait. There is no problem of irreducible complexity with G.As either unlike with real life forms, and when we consider the specified and purposeful complexity of say the bombardier beetle with the correct gases but also the right catalytic agents and retarding agents for want of a better phrase, along with the precise structures. When we consider a sea-slug eats sea anemone darts, this could in no way happen gradualistically, to eat the dart all of the contingencies must be in place.

 

I never said GAs were a logical equivalent to the process of biological evolution, but they do share similar features as GA is directly based off of the evolutionary process.

 

Again, for the billionth time, GAs is a proof of concept that dissent with modification coupled with differential reproduction can and will produce complex solutions provided that there is a viable pathway.

 

Now, please, use that logic of yours and understand the scope of what I am saying and stop strawmaning it into something that I never said or implied.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users