Artic Fox, Polar Bears, White Owls...

[Guest SerenityNow]

I didn't know how to refute my husband. He does not even consider evolution to be "science", he gets pissed when they try and decorate a skull and/or guess what people ate, how they acted, etc. DH said that isn't science, science is facts. Then he goes onto say that "true" science still remains like the proof from Copernicus and Galileo, things that were "proven" true. DH said that they don't know the earth is billions of years old, it's only a guess, therefore not a fact and not science. He asked how the hell the fox would know that it needed to be white in the snow and how did the chemicals arrange themselves to be white and the same with the polar bear and white owl. Then of course, the insect that has methane, how did evolution get that right? Of course next was the inevitable, how did peoples skin change because he thinks evolution explanations are stupid and far fetched.

 

I couldn't even enjoy the show on the Science Channel tonight because of snickering that turned into a very heated debate with me not knowing how to defend this science. I just said that the evidence was strongly in favor and not worth throwing out and admitted that I need to study up. Then I suggested that he come here but warned him that you knowledgeable in this area would probably "eat you for dinner." LOL...I love this guy with all my heart but he doesn't buy into evolution at all. Also, DH brought up that if evolution is true, why are scientists who aren't Christians who don't buy it, black-listed. He said that scientist in this field will find whatever they want in order to get books published. Another point was made that over the years, science has said they had proof of something, then a few years later, the proof was wrong and they don't correct it in the text books. He said it'd be one thing to think and then find out your thought wasn't right than to say "this is what we found and here is the proof" only to find out that it was wrong. The errors are removed but not apologized for or made corrections too.

 

I did manage to get one "good" one in though! When I said, "Well, if there is a creator he may have just used evolution to get things to where they're at." DH said, "That is just ridiculous, why would the creator take that long to do something that he could do in a few days." I replied, "Why would the creator, if one has always been, just up and make everything? Was he bored? Lonely?" He smiled at me.

 

Just needed to vent on our disagreement...have a good night

[MrSpooky]

That's okay, Serenity. Honestly, people tend to have an absolutely terrible understanding of evolutionary biology, and criticize it without knowing any of the facts or methods that science uses.

 

It's something that definitely annoys me and many of my peers and professors. The public paints the scientific field as much more political than it really is. Sure, there are politics that go on, but overall there is a system in place that helps to determine and refine truth.

 

Evolutionary principles have been around for 140 years, and they've helped refine and improve the field dramatically. I have some old audio webcasts of my biology professor... I'll try to dig em up.

[Asimov]

I suggest he get a fucking dictionary and look up the definition of science.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

 

Science has said they had proof of something, then a few years later, the proof was wrong and they don't correct it in the text books. He said it'd be one thing to think and then find out your thought wasn't right than to say "this is what we found and here is the proof" only to find out that it was wrong. The errors are removed but not apologized for or made corrections too.

 

Blatant lie.

 

And it's not exactly the scientists fault if the textbooks don't update the knowledge. It's up to the publishers to update those books.

[MrSpooky]

I suspect your hubby has only a very limited exposure to scientific abstractions.

 

Humans are fallible, and there isn't much you can do to prevent mistakes from occuring at all. What you CAN do however is learn from those mistakes, and adjust to the new flow of data.

 

For example, the example of Haeckel's embryos is a very important instance in which the scientific field was entirely wrong. Haeckel believed that when creatures evolve, changes can only be "tacked on" additively in the critter's developmental stages. Many scientists fell for it, but eventually the errors were rooted out and corrected.

 

Of course, textbooks today STILL publish examples of evolutionary biology using embryonic examples. Are these textbooks full of outdated lies?

 

NO. Of course not. The embryonic similarities between species IS a genuine observation. This is an important thing to understand: there is a BIG difference between the observation and the explanation of an observation. One might look at a dead body and say "Aha! This man was murdered!" and be entirely wrong (i.e. the man died of natural causes), but this doesn't change the fact that you have a dead body in front of you. An incorrect explanation, even a fabricated one, does not diminish the reality of the observation.

 

In this instance, there IS a genuine observation of embryonic similarities across species, and Haeckel's EXPLANATION of this observation was wrong. Scientists have formulated much more accurate constructs that tie in with other observations and experiments. We accept the latter as true, even if the former is incorrect. This is the process of science.

 

You know, I just think it's funny that humans will tout the wonders of science when it brings them better crops, TV, cheaper and more effective medicines, and just about everything else. But the moment that science clashes with one's ideology, there come accusations of quackery and slanted skepticism like I've never seen.

 

Oy.

[Asimov]

My husband wanted to know if he kicked the ass of one of ya'll evolutionists, if that'd be considered the "survival of the fittest"? LOL... it was in a lighthearted fashion though.

 

I'd whip out my sculpted "guns" and show him a thing or two...

 

Serenity, I got two tickets to the gun show....wanna come?

 

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

He does not even consider evolution to be "science", he gets pissed when they try and decorate a skull and/or guess what people ate, how they acted, etc. DH said that isn't science, science is facts. Then he goes onto say that "true" science still remains like the proof from Copernicus and Galileo, things that were "proven" true. DH said that they don't know the earth is billions of years old, it's only a guess, therefore not a fact and not science.

 

It's a common misconception (particularly among fundamentalists who have been exposed to some of the creationist quacks out there) that science is only about "facts". In fact, science is about observation and probabilities for the most part. Things (such as fossils, DNA, etc.) are observed and then hypotheses are developed to explain the observations. When a significantly substantial number of observations support a hypothesis and there are few (or no) conflicting observations then the hypothesis is considered a theory. That's a oversimplification, but covers the basics. There's always the possibility that new observations will conflict with the theory and it will have to be altered or even thrown out. This has happened before with scientific models of our galaxy, etc.

 

This is a good thing - it allows us to continue to grow our explanation of the universe as we gain new tools for observation, etc. So, when scientists say the earth is 5 billion years old, what they are really saying is that, so far, the observations point to the earth being around 5 billion years old. They are very confident in that age because multiple methods of measuring age all point to that approximate age. They could be wrong, and the earth might really be 4 billion years old or 6 billion years old - new observations might cause a correction. However, there are no observations that point to the earth being 6000 years old. So, science says the probability of the earth being around 5 billion years old is very high and the probability of the earth being 6000 years old is very very very low - for all practical purposes it's impossible that the earth is only 6000 years old.

 

That's how science works - observations and probabilities. Contrast that to religion which deals in revelation and certain knowledge. Most fundy christians I know are absolutely certain that they believe the right thing although they base that on revelation instead of observation. And they have the nerve to gripe about science!

 

So, you can tell your husband that evolutionary theory is exactly "science". It is a group of related hypotheses that broadly and deeply explain the millions of observations from different areas of science. It is also "science" because it's open to change as new observations come in. Science is never "finished" - it is always expanding and reconsidering.

 

He asked how the hell the fox would know that it needed to be white in the snow and how did the chemicals arrange themselves to be white and the same with the polar bear and white owl. Then of course, the insect that has methane, how did evolution get that right? Of course next was the inevitable, how did peoples skin change because he thinks evolution explanations are stupid and far fetched.

 

Another misconception common among folks who have been brainwashed by creationists is that evolutionary theory says that animals somehow change themselves to fit the environment. That's absolutely NOT what the theory says.

 

Using the white fox as an example, here's basically what evolution says... Foxes that live in an evironment that is "white" will have a better chance to survive and give birth to new generations if they can blend into their environment. This is because they can hide more easily from their predators and can sneak up more easily on their prey. Foxes that are born with lighter color fur therefore have an easier life in a white environment than those born with darker color fur. Over time, the foxes with darker color fur die earlier and leave fewer offspring. Foxes born with lighter color fur live longer (on average) and leave more offspring. Over time the foxes that are passing along the light colored fur gene become dominant and the foxes that are passing along the darker color fur gene become scarce or extinct in that environment.

 

No single fox decides to change from being a brown fox one day to becoming a white fox the next day. Evolutionary change doesn't occur within a single individual - they don't change from one characteristic to another. The change occurs over time as individuals with helpful traits survive (and pass along their genes) at a greater rate than those with harmful traits.

 

What I find particularly evil is that people at the top of creationist organizations know that evolution doesn't claim what your husband said, yet they dishonestly teach their followers these lies. Creationists can't compete at the scientific level (because there are no observations that show that the earth is only 6000 years old, for example), so they resort to telling lies about what evolutionary theory says.

[txviper]

“It's a common misconception (particularly among fundamentalists who have been exposed to some of the creationist quacks out there) that science is only about "facts".”

 

Actually, the accusation is usually that science is about facts and that creationism is not. But this is a welcome admission.

 

 

“In fact, science is about observation and probabilities for the most part. Things (such as fossils, DNA, etc.) are observed and then hypotheses are developed to explain the observations.”

 

Real science is certainly about observation. "Evolutionary science” however, is often about what to do when observations do not support the TOE.

 

For instance, Punctuated Equilibrium was formulated simply because the fossil record indicates stasis and stability in species, not gradualism as would be the case if evolution were true. The “equilibrium” is there to observe. The “punctuation” is an additive which tries to account for the observable being contrary to what the theory presupposes.

 

As for probabilities, you can forget that when evolutionary concepts are involved. The sappiest point of conjecture will override astronomical odds as long as the theory is not threatened.

 

 

“When a significantly substantial number of observations support a hypothesis and there are few (or no) conflicting observations then the hypothesis is considered a theory. That's a oversimplification, but covers the basics.”

 

PE as mentioned above, qualified as a theory with no observations whatever and nothing but conflicting observations.

 

 

“…science says the probability of the earth being around 5 billion years old is very high and the probability of the earth being 6000 years old is very very very low - for all practical purposes it's impossible that the earth is only 6000 years old.”

 

Actually, the slowing of the rotation of the earth, declining gravity, the helium content of the atmosphere, the moon moving away from the earth a foot every 8 years, salt content of the oceans, comet life-spans and numerous other issues do not at all support the idea of the earth or universe being billions of years old. But that does not matter. The sanctuary of the theory is not to be defiled, so billions of years it is. A sacred teaspoon of dogma from the clergy at Talk.Origins will always steady the faith of the common believer.

 

 

“Most fundy christians I know are absolutely certain that they believe the right thing although they base that on revelation instead of observation.”

 

This is an arguable point, but one I’m not interested in pursuing now. I would note however that it is when the revelations and observations coincide that things get really interesting.

 

 

”evolutionary theory is exactly "science". It is a group of related hypotheses that broadly and deeply explain the millions of observations from different areas of science.”

 

This is true just as long as the observations tuck neatly and comfortably into the folder. Anything anomalous that does not, must be either discarded or ignored. Or perhaps a not-so-candid admission that “there is still a lot that we don’t understand”. A good case in point is finding things in 65 million fossils that absolutely should not be there. The solution? The current understanding of fossilization processes is only marginally understood. Not so much as a whimper from any of the disciplines that the dating might be questionable. This is the watermark that identifies evolution as a superior religious system. Do not question, do not even think. And if you have heretical thoughts, keep them to yourself.

 

 

“Another misconception common among folks who have been brainwashed by creationists is that evolutionary theory says that animals somehow change themselves to fit the environment. That's absolutely NOT what the theory says.”

 

Well, no that is not what the theory says. Evolution is far too mundane to notice the obvious and prefers the imbecilic.

 

 

”Using the white fox as an example”

 

You probably should have gone with polar bears. Their coat stays white year round.

 

 

“..here's basically what evolution says... Foxes that live in an evironment that is "white" will have a better chance to survive…if they can blend into their environment…they can hide more easily…can sneak up more easily on their prey. Foxes that are born with lighter color fur therefore have an easier life in a white environment than those born with darker color fur….the foxes with darker color fur die earlier and leave fewer offspring…with lighter color fur live longer…leave more offspring… the foxes that are passing along the light colored fur gene become dominant and the foxes that are passing along the darker color fur gene become scarce or extinct in that environment”

 

Well, that’s all just fine. I’m glad you see the advantages of the design. But you skipped all the way to adaptation and left out what evolution says has to happen for the (Arctic) fox to be what it is. First you have to have a fox. This animal has to have (and there is no substitute for this process), accidental, completely random, DNA replication error(s), mutation(s), which somehow impact genes associated with the color of the animals fur. This has to happen in spite of enormously successful and potent enzyme activity in cells which are there specifically to keep these copy errors from occurring and repair them when they do. These errors must also happen in reproductive cells whereby they will be transmitted to succeeding generations, so there is one heck of a lot of random good luck involved for this genetic error to make its way into a local (in this case Arctic) population. It is astronomically unlikely that this mutation will occur at the same time in more than one individual, which really complicates the whole scenario. Add to this the fact that both varieties of white foxes blow their winter coats in favor of darker summer ones. Don’t forget that you have to have a selected mutation to account for this also. Things don’t just evolve according to the theory. They have to mutate into specialties.

 

 

”What I find particularly evil is that people at the top of creationist organizations know that evolution doesn't claim what your husband said, yet they dishonestly teach their followers these lies.”

 

What I find particularly irritating is that evolutionists can always appreciate the quality of the design, but fail to stick to their own theoretical constructs to account for the design. I would as well I suppose if I believed in such raging nonsense.

 

The next time you are observing the services in the Discovery Channel, Nature, National Geographic or some other denomination, when they remark about the beauty of evolution, think “accidental copy errors”. Mutations are holy. You guys need to write some hymns about them.

[SkepticOfBible]

“It's a common misconception (particularly among fundamentalists who have been exposed to some of the creationist quacks out there) that science is only about "facts".”

 

Actually, the accusation is usually that science is about facts and that creationism is not. But this is a welcome admission.

 

 

Hello TXViper.

 

If you think that Creationism is a better answer than evolution, then please your case in the following thread.

 

Evidence for Intelligent Design

 

Please do read the introductary remark, and do not forget to tell us what kind of creationist are you?Specifically what do you think is the age of earth.

 

There is another thread over there in the colloseaum in which no christian has debated about

 

Is Protestant Christianity Credible?

 

Would you be interested in that?

 

Actually, the slowing of the rotation of the earth, declining gravity, the helium content of the atmosphere, the moon moving away from the earth a foot every 8 years, salt content of the oceans, comet life-spans and numerous other issues do not at all support the idea of the earth or universe being billions of years old. But that does not matter. The sanctuary of the theory is not to be defiled, so billions of years it is.

 

Could you present any links to any peer reviewed scientific papers which state the above problems?

 

This is a question for others

 

What are those Giant Trees called in America which are considered to be Millions of years old?

Aren't they considered a proof of an old earth?

 

Here is an interesting link

 

E-mail Conversation Alan Hale(Astronomer) vs. Anonymous Creationist

[txviper]

Serenity,

 

"And for TX... if there were only two people then how is it that we now have Mongoloides, Caucasians and Negroes? What is the Creation reasoning for that? I don't recall MR. Hovinds example."

 

I don't think you have to look much beyond dog shows to account for the huge variability in species. Evolution and Creation would both agree in the idea of common ancestry in the dog species. Creation theory maintains that the DNA of the ancestor was loaded with information which is being narrowed down into special features. Evolution has to work from the opposite direction, whereby mutations and selection initiate and choose advantageous traits. In the case of dogs and breeds, the selection process is obviously somwhat deliberate.

 

It works the same way in humans. Adam's DNA was no doubt not composed of 90+% "junk" as ours supposedly is. I think he was created with astonishing information in his genes. We function now on what I believe are only remnants.

[Asimov]

Serenity,

 

"And for TX... if there were only two people then how is it that we now have Mongoloides, Caucasians and Negroes? What is the Creation reasoning for that? I don't recall MR. Hovinds example."

 

I don't think you have to look much beyond dog shows to account for the huge variability in species. Evolution and Creation would both agree in the idea of common ancestry in the dog species. Creation theory maintains that the DNA of the ancestor was loaded with information which is being narrowed down into special features. Evolution has to work from the opposite direction, whereby mutations and selection initiate and choose advantageous traits. In the case of dogs and breeds, the selection process is obviously somwhat deliberate.

 

It works the same way in humans. Adam's DNA was no doubt not composed of 90+% "junk" as ours supposedly is. I think he was created with astonishing information in his genes. We function now on what I believe are only remnants.

 

Ad hoc, txviper. You have the audacity to claim that ""Evolutionary science” however, is often about what to do when observations do not support the TOE. "

[SkepticOfBible]

I don't think you have to look much beyond dog shows to account for the huge variability in species. Evolution and Creation would both agree in the idea of common ancestry in the dog species. Creation theory maintains that the DNA of the ancestor was loaded with information which is being narrowed down into special features.

 

So what was the reason of change in the different body parts?As in why did suddenly the skin turned white to dark?And why did the structure of eyes vary from european to the asian?

 

What did Adam look like?

 

Has creationist able to answer why we have useless body parts such male nipples and the appendix?

 

Evolution has to work from the opposite direction, whereby mutations and selection initiate and choose advantageous traits. In the case of dogs and breeds, the selection process is obviously somwhat deliberate.

 

No, evolutation says that it is the interaction with enviroment which causes the change through the process of mutation and natural selection. So pretty from a evolution point of view the environment is the breeder.

 

It works the same way in humans. Adam's DNA was no doubt not composed of 90+% "junk" as ours supposedly is. I think he was created with astonishing information in his genes.

 

So what's the creationist rationlisation to the fact that we share our genetic structure to Chimpazees?

 

We function now on what I believe are only remnants.

 

Remnants of what?

 

PS:i am still waiting for peer reviewed scientific journals which confirms the age of the earth to be 6000 years

[txviper]

Pritishd,

 

Hello to you as well.

 

 

”If you think that Creationism is a better answer than evolution, then please your case in the following thread.”

 

No, I will state it here and you may do with it what you wish. I enjoy bantering in forums like this but I have limited time to do so, especially right now.

 

My “case” against evolution is about questions that are inadequately answered or addressed by the TOE. They are very fundamental. I will define one category of them for now.

 

They are about sight.

 

There a many components involved in this magnificent phenomena. The orb itself is astonishingly complex. There are dozens of subsystems involved. The reactivity and assembly of the retina in and of itself is more than amazing.

 

Then you have the transducer mechanism which converts focused pictures into electrochemical impulses and transmits them to the sight receptor center in the brain which converts these signals into the images that are “seen”. All this happens in milliseconds.

 

Evolution has one mechanism to accomplish all this. Mutations. That’s it. Nothing else. Not guided, responsive or anticipatory in any way. Random, accidental, DNA copy errors. As I mentioned above, there are enzymes waiting in the protoplasm of cells on full alert to repair any replication errors as soon as they happen. The result is that mutations are reduced to about 1 in a billion each time replication occurs, and most of these, to the tune of 99% are of no consequence.

 

The co-process which mutations are supposed to work in tandem with is selection. “Environmental pressure” is supposed to accept or deselect “beneficial” mutations (which you will be able to provide exactly zero clear-cut examples of).

 

So my questions about sight are very simple:

 

Even if there was some kind of ambition driving mutations (and there cannot be according to the TOE), why would it head in the direction of light perception? In other words, if there is no awareness that light exists, why would the necessary millions of mutations be selected in blindness which are only leading up towards a completed system, still millions of years and mutations away?

 

This is a fair and reasonable inquiry.

 

 

-----------------------

 

 

“Please do read the introductary remark, and do not forget to tell us what kind of creationist are you?Specifically what do you think is the age of earth.”

 

Young earth and about six thousand years, for a number of reasons. I accepted the gap theory up until about 5 years ago.

 

 

”There is another thread over there in the colloseaum in which no christian has debated about

Is Protestant Christianity Credible? Would you be interested in that?”

 

Protestant vs. Catholic? I would but not until I have to time to do justice to the subject. Maybe later.

 

 

“Could you present any links to any peer reviewed scientific papers which state the above problems?”

 

No, nor would I look for any. The questions that can be asked do not require elite answers, just reasonable ones. I deal with exquisitely bright people all the time. High IQ’s, diplomas and prestigious positions do not insulate anyone from believing idiotic things. It is also worth noting that the peer review process is grossly political. There are words that can’t be used and ideas which cannot be mentioned.

 

 

---------------------

 

 

"What are those Giant Trees called in America which are considered to be Millions of years old?

Aren't they considered a proof of an old earth?

 

Redwoods, but bristlecone pines are older. About 4000 years. Just seedlings a few centuries after the flood and look at them now.

 

 

----------------------

 

 

“So what was the reason of change in the different body parts?"

 

I'm sorry but I don't understand the question.

 

 

"As in why did suddenly the skin turned white to dark?And why did the structure of eyes vary from european to the asian?”

 

As I indicated, I believe our DNA was designed to provide adaptability. Melanin production in response to UV exposure, etc.

 

 

”What did Adam look like?”

 

Elvis.

 

The Hebrew word for Adam is as much a title as it is a name and it carries a connotation of “redness”. I don’t know what he looked like.

 

 

”Has creationist able to answer why we have useless body parts such male nipples”

 

The “design economy” of a common embryological plan.

 

 

“and the appendix?”

 

“the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs”

 

Creationists feel no compulsion to account for biological attributes in the basis of pure functionality. Human are the only species whose head hair has no stop-growth mechanism. Mutations and selection can’t account for this. It was a design choice.

 

 

“So what's the creationist rationlisation to the fact that we share our genetic structure to Chimpazees?”

 

Our immediate argument is that common morphology and microbiology indicates a common designer.

 

I’ve conceded that at this point in time, with lots of genomic unknowns still on the table, that retrovirus insertions are a strong argument in favor of common descent. If I believed in evolution, I would certainly use it. It is not however a smoking gun. It is only a detail. In the grand overview of an impoverished theory, one issue limited to two “species” can hardly be considered substantial. Evolutionary theorists, based on microbiology, also think that blue whales and hippos share a common ancestor.

 

 

“Remnants of what?”

 

Adam’s original DNA profile.

 

 

”PS:i am still waiting for peer reviewed scientific journals which confirms the age of the earth to be 6000 years”

 

Which you will never see. There are arguments in favor of a young earth (universe actually). But the six thousand year figure has to do with prophetic, theological and historical indications, not empirical evidence. Physical science has limitations.

 

 

========================

 

 

Asimov,

 

"Ad hoc, txviper. You have the audacity to claim that ""Evolutionary science” however, is often about what to do when observations do not support the TOE. " "

 

Great post. Very strong.

[Asimov]

Evolution has one mechanism to accomplish all this. Mutations. That’s it. Nothing else. Not guided, responsive or anticipatory in any way. Random, accidental, DNA copy errors. As I mentioned above, there are enzymes waiting in the protoplasm of cells on full alert to repair any replication errors as soon as they happen. The result is that mutations are reduced to about 1 in a billion each time replication occurs, and most of these, to the tune of 99% are of no consequence.

 

Fallacy, there are 6 mechanisms of Evolution with which an organism may variate.

 

The co-process which mutations are supposed to work in tandem with is selection. “Environmental pressure” is supposed to accept or deselect “beneficial” mutations (which you will be able to provide exactly zero clear-cut examples of).

 

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html#mutations

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

 

So my questions about sight are very simple:

 

Even if there was some kind of ambition driving mutations (and there cannot be according to the TOE), why would it head in the direction of light perception? In other words, if there is no awareness that light exists, why would the necessary millions of mutations be selected in blindness which are only leading up towards a completed system, still millions of years and mutations away?

 

What do you mean by awareness that light exists? Who says that our eyesight is a completed system? Who says that it was the goal of evolution to "create" sight? Obviously light sensitive cells would be a beneficial mutation in organisms, viper, considering sunlight is a requirement for many things to grow and could aid in food production, obtaining food etc.

 

As I indicated, I believe our DNA was designed to provide adaptability. Melanin production in response to UV exposure, etc.

 

Also known as evolution.

 

The “design economy” of a common embryological plan.

 

In other words, the "pull an answer out of your ass" argument.

 

Our immediate argument is that common morphology and microbiology indicates a common designer.

 

Non-sequiter, you can only infer that being closely related means we are closely related. Unless you wish to dispute that your parents are only in relation to you by a "common designer" and we were all created yesterday.

 

It is not however a smoking gun. It is only a detail. In the grand overview of an impoverished theory, one issue limited to two “species” can hardly be considered substantial. Evolutionary theorists, based on microbiology, also think that blue whales and hippos share a common ancestor.

 

good thing you dealt with that argument with a handwave or you might have been in trouble...

 

Except that it's not limited to two species and can be traced through an entire Order of species.

 

Adam’s original DNA profile.

 

Meaningless gibberish.

 

Which you will never see. There are arguments in favor of a young earth (universe actually). But the six thousand year figure has to do with prophetic, theological and historical indications, not empirical evidence. Physical science has limitations.

 

There are arguments, none of them credible.

 

"Ad hoc, txviper. You have the audacity to claim that ""Evolutionary science” however, is often about what to do when observations do not support the TOE. " "

 

Great post. Very strong.

 

Just an observation in your hypocrisy.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I do have a question along the lines of TXViper that did come to me earlier today but I want to hear an answer from you guys. While I explained to my kids today about the fox it made so much sense but then I thought the following, "Chameleons, the Jack Rabbit, etc." animals that are able to camouflage. What is the evolutionary answer for these things in nature?

 

I'm not a biologist, so I can't answer in detail about the chameleons. I did some research, tho, and found several sites - this one included - that talk about the mechanism that enable chameleons to change color. There's nothing magic about it, and it doesn't work the way I thought it did (chameleons can't change their color to match any background, instead they have a set range of colors that just happen to match their most common backgrounds of green, grey, tan, etc.) As with characteristics of other animals, this ability to reflect light in different ways is one that proved useful for survival for this animal in its environment. The chameleons that had the ability to turn bright red were probably eaten immediately, and that trait wasn't passed down to offspring.

 

As for the various young-earth "proofs" raised by txviper, this paper by Donald U. Wise, geologist and former NASAS chief scientist, points out the problems with those proofs and raises many other problems for anyone claiming that the earth is only 6,000 years old...

 

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

[SkepticOfBible]

Before I begin, I would like to point that I am not a scientist. So I am argueing from a very limited knowledge base and I am not familar with the technical Jargon.

 

My “case” against evolution is about questions that are inadequately answered or addressed by the TOE. They are very fundamental. I will define one category of them for now.

 

No one has said that evolution has answered all the question or claiming it is a infallible theory.

 

Hopefully you are not implying that creationist has answered all the questions\

 

Let's not forget disproving a theory doesn't mean that creationism/ID becomes the proof. ID/Creationism needs to stand on their own grounds as theory. Ie it must prove positive evidence for it to be true.

 

While we are at it, what sort of evidence would creationism require so that it is proven false?

 

There a many components involved in this magnificent phenomena. The orb itself is astonishingly complex. There are dozens of subsystems involved. The reactivity and assembly of the retina in and of itself is more than amazing.

 

Indeed, but lets forget that Humans did not have the best pairs of eyes in the world. There are far more superior "designed" eye system in other animals. So I don't find the human eye has fascinating.

 

It is however a very delicate system though

 

Evolution has one mechanism to accomplish all this. Mutations. That’s it. Nothing else. Not guided, responsive or anticipatory in any way. Random, accidental, DNA copy errors.

 

I object to your usage of the words accidental or DNA copy errors. No one saying that mutations are accidental or mistake, and as Asimov pointed out there are more than 1 mechanism that evolution works

 

Even if there was some kind of ambition driving mutations (and there cannot be according to the TOE), why would it head in the direction of light perception? In other words, if there is no awareness that light exists, why would the necessary millions of mutations be selected in blindness which are only leading up towards a completed system, still millions of years and mutations away?

 

This is a fair and reasonable inquiry.

 

I didn't quite comprehend the question

 

 

 

”There is another thread over there in the colloseaum in which no christian has debated about

Is Protestant Christianity Credible? Would you be interested in that?”

 

Protestant vs. Catholic? I would but not until I have to time to do justice to the subject. Maybe later.

 

Oh well, but till this date no christian has ever proven to me that their theology is the correct one.

 

 

“Could you present any links to any peer reviewed scientific papers which state the above problems?”

 

No, nor would I look for any. The questions that can be asked do not require elite answers, just reasonable ones. I deal with exquisitely bright people all the time. High IQ’s, diplomas and prestigious positions do not insulate anyone from believing idiotic things.

 

Well it is suprising that you not regard the scientific community, because they are the ones who creating the benefits for society.

 

It is also worth noting that the peer review process is grossly political. There are words that can’t be used and ideas which cannot be mentioned.

 

And for good reasons, it certain prevents many pseudo science theories such as scientology, astrology from entering the scientific domain.

 

Is the peer review process perfect? No. But it definately has produced excellent results.

 

Can you come up with more reliable review process?

 

”PS:i am still waiting for peer reviewed scientific journals which confirms the age of the earth to be 6000 years”

 

Which you will never see. There are arguments in favor of a young earth (universe actually).

 

Physical science has limitations.

 

It is ironic, that when I hear the debates between the various creationist, they will always refer to the same peer reviewed scientific journals that you just berated.

 

But the six thousand year figure has to do with prophetic, theological and historical indications, not empirical evidence.

 

Well the bible hasn't proven any reliablity to me.

 

 

---------------------

 

 

Just seedlings a few centuries after the flood and look at them now.

 

Well the flood hasn't yet proven to me, and on the contrary there has been evidence which disproves the flood

 

 

”What did Adam look like?”The Hebrew word for Adam is as much a title as it is a name and it carries a connotation of “redness”. I don’t know what he looked like.

 

Ok

 

 

”Has creationist able to answer why we have useless body parts such male nipples”

 

The “design economy” of a common embryological plan.

You'll explain more of that?

 

 

Creationists feel no compulsion to account for biological attributes in the basis of pure functionality. Human are the only species whose head hair has no stop-growth mechanism. Mutations and selection can’t account for this. It was a design choice.

 

And what was the reason behind the design choice?

 

“So what's the creationist rationlisation to the fact that we share our genetic structure to Chimpazees?”

 

Our immediate argument is that common morphology and microbiology indicates a common designer.

 

To my knowledge I believe science has provided the evidence for a common ancestor, but I don't see creationist produce any positive evidence for a common designer

 

I’ve conceded that at this point in time, with lots of genomic unknowns still on the table, that retrovirus insertions are a strong argument in favor of common descent. If I believed in evolution, I would certainly use it. It is not however a smoking gun. It is only a detail. In the grand overview of an impoverished theory, one issue limited to two “species” can hardly be considered substantial. Evolutionary theorists, based on microbiology, also think that blue whales and hippos share a common ancestor.

 

My arguement is the same as Asimov

 

 

“Remnants of what?”

 

Adam’s original DNA profile.

 

Well if we are remanants of Adam's DNA profile, have the creationist found any DNA profile of this Adam "character" or any transitionary DNA profile, which would prove your speculation?

 

If we look at some human body which dates back to 4000 year, do you think that there will be a difference in the DNA profile?

[Asimov]

Well if we have remanants of Adam's DNA profile, have the creationist found any DNA profile of this Adam "character" or any transitionary DNA profile, which would prove your speculation?

 

If we look at some human body which dates back to 4000 year, do you think that there will be a difference in the DNA profile?

 

I think it would be interesting anyways to find a DNA sample of even someone 2000 years ago. I read in a news report regarding Dodo birds and DNA sampling and even a DNA sample of a few hundred years yields not much in the ways of DNA, but close enough to fit the Dodo into a hierarchy.

[crazy-tiger]

Tx... You had your ass kicked here, here, here, here and here. (and that one was plagerized...)

 

And guess what? Every single time you end up being shown that you have no argument, and every single time you disappear, only to re-appear and repeat the same old strawmen arguments.

 

 

 

Either you can't remember being soundly trounced, or you think we won't remember you being soundly trounced...

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Tx... You had your ass kicked here, here, here, here and here. (and that one was plagerized...)

 

And guess what? Every single time you end up being shown that you have no argument, and every single time you disappear, only to re-appear and repeat the same old strawmen arguments.

 

 

 

Either you can't remember being soundly trounced, or you think we won't remember you being soundly trounced...

When someone uses the same arguments over and over although they know those arguments have been discredited it is a simple case of intellectual dishonesty. In my experience with "professional" creationists this is not unusual. One thing that doesn't seem to improve (evolve?) at all is the level of dishonesty among creationism propagandists. It's immoral and disgusting.

[Wertbag]

Actually, the slowing of the rotation of the earth, declining gravity, the helium content of the atmosphere, the moon moving away from the earth a foot every 8 years, salt content of the oceans, comet life-spans and numerous other issues do not at all support the idea of the earth or universe being billions of years old. But that does not matter. The sanctuary of the theory is not to be defiled, so billions of years it is. A sacred teaspoon of dogma from the clergy at Talk.Origins will always steady the faith of the common believer.

May want to double check those claims as they are mostly incorrect. The main mistake made when looking at the speed of the earth and the distance of the moon is the belief that they were constants. Unfortunately the data used was only a few decades worth and didn't give the whole picture. The fact is most of these events are cyclic, they move in variations over centuries and it was a simple case of too small a test sample. These in no way point to an age of earth.

 

We have multiple dating methods: coral, oil, plate movements, volcanoes, fossils, ice ages, erosion, and even human history that all supports an old earth and invalidates a global flood.

-Did you know there is more oil in the ground than living material on the planet? If you converted all living matter on the planet to oil you would not create as much as there is buried.

-Did you know there are tree rings showing the age of some trees to be 5000 years old?

-Did you know there are many ways of measuring the ages of samples including Micro Probes, Thermion Mass Spectrometry, Isochron Radiometric Dating, Thermoluminescence, Amino Acid Geochronology, Fission-track Dating, and even the classic carbon dating has half a dozen different isotopes that can be used. All of these methods and numerous others agree on an old earth.

-Did you know the fossil record is in the order exactly as evolution proposes? We do not see modern animals with ancient as a young earth would claim, and we do not see a random jumble of bones as a global flood would propose.

 

I could go on for quite some time about the overwhelming evidence that invalidates a young earth and invalidates a global flood (and the Noah version which is even more ridiculous), but having debated these subjects many times I know the wall of ignorance will come up and the facts will be ignored in favour of the crazy bible stories.

[Asimov]

Those arguments are so juvenile, wertbag, I'm surprised you even addressed them!

[txviper]

Asimov,

 

Regarding mutation the single mechanism for change:

 

“Fallacy, there are 6 mechanisms of Evolution with which an organism may variate.”

 

And you didn’t bother to list the others. Why don’t you do that. I’m betting they would include such things as gene flow, gene transfer, antigenic shift, and reassortment. These are not source mechanisms. They are about horizontal or lateral transfer of genetic information. They are not causal.

 

I repeat, mutation is the sole process for change. Selection and transfer are of no consequence whatever if a mutation has not occurred in the gametes of an organism which is passed on to succeeding generations. The whole idea of life evolving hinges on accidental DNA copy errors. I know this is difficult for you to grasp. Here is the concept in honest terms from one of your clerics:

 

"11. Mutation

a. A physical change in hereditary material resulting from some process other than genetic recombination.

b. Mutations, with minor exceptions, are by definition replicable.

c. Because mutations are random changes to highly evolved structures (i.e., loaded with information), most mutations are detrimental to the organism possessing the mutation.

d. Sole source of beneficial variation:

i. Nevertheless, mutations are the sole source of novel genetic information.

ii. Thus, on rare occasions mutations can lead to a selective advantages to the organisms carrying the mutation.

iii. More frequently, mutations, at least iniitally, are selectively neutral."

 

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1505.htm

 

The two links you provided to try and document beneficial mutations were predictable. The micro examples area natural default where coerced reactions can be marveled at. In humans it will usually either be “resistance to malaria/sickle cell” or “PAI-1/vascular disease” articles. Kindof like bring up archaeopteryx to cover no transitional fossils, but without the fraud.

 

These raise a couple of questions I’d like to hear your thoughts on:

 

1) With bacteria being billions of years old and reproducing in only hours, does it not strike you as odd that many of the same species of them in the fossil record are morphologically the same as the ones existing now? Doesn’t that tell you something about the efficacy of mutations?

 

2) In regards to humans, just what would you consider “beneficial” to mean? Specifically, does an increased lifespan for a given organism qualify as beneficial? I’ll have a follow-up to this depending on how you answer.

 

“What do you mean by awareness that light exists? Who says that our eyesight is a completed system? Who says that it was the goal of evolution to "create" sight? Obviously light sensitive cells would be a beneficial mutation in organisms, viper, considering sunlight is a requirement for many things to grow and could aid in food production, obtaining food etc.”

 

I don’t think you comprehend my question, nor do I think you really understand the implications of your theory. I’ll ask it again.

 

According to evolution, every single micro-detail involved in your being able to see and read this, happened by way of mutations. These DNA copy errors were then either selected or rejected based on whether or not they are advantageous to the organism. But only the integration of all the components has any value.

 

The question is then, why were all the sub-assemblies selected millions of times for millions of years while the organism was still blind as a fill-in-the-blank rock?

 

===================================

 

TexasFreethinker,

 

I’m familiar with most of the arguments Wise as I only became a young-earth advocate a few years back. He does a pretty good job in summarizing. I’d appreciate hearing your take on the following statement from his piece:

 

“Creationist claims about radiometric dates coupled with the supposed unreliability of the fossil record fail to point out the rarity of locations where rocks with well controlled fossil dates are closely associated with proper mineral material for the most precise of radiometric dates. There are at most a few hundred of these well dated localities on which the entire dating system of the geologic column is based.”

 

===================================

 

pritishd,

 

“I am not a scientist. So I am argueing from a very limited knowledge base and I am not familar with the technical Jargon”

 

I appreciate your candor. I am a layman as well. Whether or not we are therefore somehow disadvantaged is arguable.

 

 

”No one has said that evolution has answered all the question or claiming it is a infallible theory.”

 

Then it should be presented on a much more tentative basis and should be rigorously scrutinized. I would take issue with you though inasmuch as there is no shortage of evolutionists who call evolution is indeed a fact.

 

 

”Hopefully you are not implying that creationist has answered all the questions”

 

No, I am not.

 

 

”Let's not forget disproving a theory doesn't mean that creationism/ID becomes the proof.”

 

Agreed. But neither should we lose sight of the fact that there ultimately only two competing points of view. Things were either conceived, designed and created or they formed on their own with no intellect whatever involved. All other points of view are variations of one of these two concepts.

 

 

‘ID/Creationism needs to stand on their own grounds as theory. Ie it must prove positive evidence for it to be true”

 

I agree with this as well. But the idea that a designer could or must be have been involved is currently an automatic disqualifier on the basis of a phony excusionary line drawn in the sand.

 

 

”While we are at it, what sort of evidence would creationism require so that it is proven false?”

 

Good question. I’m not sure I could come up with a good answer for it. Something in the way of substantial evidence for anything else would be a good start.

 

 

”lets forget that Humans did not have the best pairs of eyes in the world. There are far more superior "designed" eye system in other animals. So I don't find the human eye has fascinating”

 

Agreed. So substitute the sight of any organism. Trilobites or eagles, it doesn’t matter.

 

 

”I object to your usage of the words accidental or DNA copy errors. No one saying that mutations are accidental or mistake”

 

You seem like a decent and rational person who is in genuine pursuit of the truth. I would ask you to please look into this and make absolutely sure you are correct in your statement.

 

 

“as Asimov pointed out there are more than 1 mechanism that evolution works”

 

See if he lists these in response to my suggestion above.

 

 

”I didn't quite comprehend the question”

 

I did not do a good job of asking it. I rephrased in response to Asimov above. See if it makes more sense this time around.

 

 

”till this date no christian has ever proven to me that their theology is the correct one”

 

I am very comfortable in my own, but there are some things I have not settled down on and perhaps never will. On the basics though, I feel pretty surefooted.

 

 

“Well it is suprising that you not regard the scientific community, because they are the ones who creating the benefits for society”

 

I acknowledge and regard the obvious value of science. I reject ideologies presented as scientific truth. Dr. Raymond Damadian was the key patent holder and player in the development of MRI technology. He is also is a young earth creationist. Newton was as well. Almost every one of the fathers of the modern sciences were Biblical Christians. I despise that punk atheists like Dawkins stand on their shoulders and try to associate atheism with objectivity.

 

 

”Is the peer review process perfect? No. But it definately has produced excellent results.”

 

I agree. But there is a lot of sappy stuff published that simply tows the evolutionary line. There is also exclusion and censorship based on preconception and politics.

 

 

”Can you come up with more reliable review process?”

 

No, I’m relatively happy with what is in place. Darwinists have their hands full. Just keep everything in the public arena and out of the courts.

 

 

“It is ironic, that when I hear the debates between the various creationist, they will always refer to the same peer reviewed scientific journals that you just berated.”

 

Everyone is working with the same data. It is the interpretation of that data that is the issue.

 

 

”Well the bible hasn't proven any reliablity to me”

 

Perhaps we will get to talk about some things that you are not aware of or don’t appreciate. But I could be wrong. I am often amazed what people will accept in faith and what they will dismiss without examining. It often falls into the “swallow a camel and choke on a gnat” category.

 

 

”Well the flood hasn't yet proven to me, and on the contrary there has been evidence which disproves the flood”

 

I can appreciate that. However there are simple questions that can be asked that flood theory has better answers for than does mainstream geology, in my view.

 

 

”The “design economy” of a common embryological plan.

You'll explain more of that?””

 

Not much more. I was referring to this in my comments about designer preference. Decoration as opposed to function. Breasts are not exclusively about nursing in humans.

 

 

"And what was the reason behind the design choice?"

 

For the hair? Who knows. Maybe just because I like ponytails and God likes me.

 

 

”To my knowledge I believe science has provided the evidence for a common ancestor”

 

I disagree. I would acknowledge that there are things that suggest this, but not prove it. I believe that science has woven a gigantic fantasy about human ancestry. Also, I never lose sight of the fact that evolutionary theory proposes that humans and tomatoes ultimately have a common ancestor.

 

 

“but I don't see creationist produce any positive evidence for a common designer”

 

I see incomprehensible complexity, self-awareness, gender and all as evidence of a designer.

 

 

”Well if we are remanants of Adam's DNA profile, have the creationist found any DNA profile of this Adam "character" or any transitionary DNA profile, which would prove your speculation?

If we look at some human body which dates back to 4000 year, do you think that there will be a difference in the DNA profile?”

 

I don’t know. But I took the time to respond to you because you have sense enough to think and formulate formidable and excellent questions like this. I would expect that second generation humans already had diminished genetics.

[crazy-tiger]

...a couple of questions I’d like to hear your thoughts on:

 

1) With bacteria being billions of years old and reproducing in only hours, does it not strike you as odd that many of the same species of them in the fossil record are morphologically the same as the ones existing now? Doesn’t that tell you something about the efficacy of mutations?

You have been provided with the answer to that question before...

2) In regards to humans, just what would you consider “beneficial” to mean? Specifically, does an increased lifespan for a given organism qualify as beneficial? I’ll have a follow-up to this depending on how you answer.

Depends on the situation... an answer you have also been provided with before.

“What do you mean by awareness that light exists? Who says that our eyesight is a completed system? Who says that it was the goal of evolution to "create" sight? Obviously light sensitive cells would be a beneficial mutation in organisms, viper, considering sunlight is a requirement for many things to grow and could aid in food production, obtaining food etc.”

 

I don’t think you comprehend my question, nor do I think you really understand the implications of your theory. I’ll ask it again.

 

According to evolution, every single micro-detail involved in your being able to see and read this, happened by way of mutations. These DNA copy errors were then either selected or rejected based on whether or not they are advantageous to the organism. But only the integration of all the components has any value.

 

The question is then, why were all the sub-assemblies selected millions of times for millions of years while the organism was still blind as a fill-in-the-blank rock?

They weren't selected as they are now...

 

Have a little read here.

”No one has said that evolution has answered all the question or claiming it is a infallible theory.”

 

Then it should be presented on a much more tentative basis and should be rigorously scrutinized. I would take issue with you though inasmuch as there is no shortage of evolutionists who call evolution is indeed a fact.

Here's a problem for you... Evolution is a fact.

 

Why is that? Because Evolution happens... It's been seen, it's been tested, it's been confirmed. Evolution is a fact.

Evolution is also a theory... but it isn't a contradiction. There is the fact of Evolution, that it happens... and the Theory of Evolution, how it happens.

 

Do you disagree? Do you insist that it must either be a fact or a theory? Then explain Gravity... It happens... It's been seen, it's been tested, it's been confirmed. Gravity is a fact.

But it's also a theory. We know gravity happens, but we don't know how it happens.

 

Fact and theory at the same time.

 

Why is it not presented on a tentative basis? Because it's the most accurate way of describing how Evolution happens that exists... nothing else has even come close, because all other "theories" end up giving a result that contradicts reality.

Why is it not rigorously scrutinized? It is...

 

 

 

Almost forgot... "morphologically the same" just means "looks the same"

[Asimov]

And you didn’t bother to list the others. Why don’t you do that. I’m betting they would include such things as gene flow, gene transfer, antigenic shift, and reassortment. These are not source mechanisms. They are about horizontal or lateral transfer of genetic information. They are not causal.

 

Boohoo, not causal...

 

Mechanisms decrease variation:

 

Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and Genetic Drift

 

Increase Variation:

 

Mutation, Recombination, and Gene Flow.

 

 

I repeat, mutation is the sole process for change. Selection and transfer are of no consequence whatever if a mutation has not occurred in the gametes of an organism which is passed on to succeeding generations. The whole idea of life evolving hinges on accidental DNA copy errors. I know this is difficult for you to grasp. Here is the concept in honest terms from one of your clerics:

 

 

It is not. If you keep weeding out traits that are undesirable, regardless of mutation, you will get a different organism than you had a few million years ago.

 

The two links you provided to try and document beneficial mutations were predictable. The micro examples area natural default where coerced reactions can be marveled at. In humans it will usually either be “resistance to malaria/sickle cell” or “PAI-1/vascular disease” articles. Kindof like bring up archaeopteryx to cover no transitional fossils, but without the fraud.

 

Hand-wave argument. They are beneficial mutations and documented.

 

1) With bacteria being billions of years old and reproducing in only hours, does it not strike you as odd that many of the same species of them in the fossil record are morphologically the same as the ones existing now? Doesn’t that tell you something about the efficacy of mutations?

 

No.

 

2) In regards to humans, just what would you consider “beneficial” to mean? Specifically, does an increased lifespan for a given organism qualify as beneficial? I’ll have a follow-up to this depending on how you answer.

 

Increased lifespan is due to health-care and not necessarily any beneficial mutations. In a country such as Africa where malaria is rampant, a mutation that arises from the population that provides resistance to such diseases is an obvious benefit to the population. Just as a mutation that arises that allows people who live on islands to see better underwater, or to hold their breath longer.

 

According to evolution, every single micro-detail involved in your being able to see and read this, happened by way of mutations. These DNA copy errors were then either selected or rejected based on whether or not they are advantageous to the organism. But only the integration of all the components has any value.

 

What are you talking about? In so many words, you are saying "half an eye is no good". But of course you are assuming that the eye itself is a goal in evolution, and you are assuming that all the evolved at the same time, rather than built on previous systems.

 

The question is then, why were all the sub-assemblies selected millions of times for millions of years while the organism was still blind as a fill-in-the-blank rock?

 

Who says it was? Who says the purpose of primitive eyes were to see like we can right now? Who's to say that it didn't provide a different purpose, such as light sensitivity, rather than sight?

 

Then it should be presented on a much more tentative basis and should be rigorously scrutinized. I would take issue with you though inasmuch as there is no shortage of evolutionists who call evolution is indeed a fact.

 

Why? Who says it's not? There's no shortage of creationists who call Creation a fact, what's your point? It has no effect whatsoever on the validity of the theory.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

According to evolution, every single micro-detail involved in your being able to see and read this, happened by way of mutations. These DNA copy errors were then either selected or rejected based on whether or not they are advantageous to the organism. But only the integration of all the components has any value.

 

What are you talking about? In so many words, you are saying "half an eye is no good". But of course you are assuming that the eye itself is a goal in evolution, and you are assuming that all the evolved at the same time, rather than built on previous systems.

 

The question is then, why were all the sub-assemblies selected millions of times for millions of years while the organism was still blind as a fill-in-the-blank rock?

 

Who says it was? Who says the purpose of primitive eyes were to see like we can right now? Who's to say that it didn't provide a different purpose, such as light sensitivity, rather than sight?

 

There are several good descriptions on how the eye might have evolved in steps with each step proving to be beneficial to the organism. (See one from Darwin and others below). It's not wrong for a novice to ask such a question, but I get the feeling that txviper is no novice and certainly has read that evolutionary theory doesn't think that eyes were the result of a sudden mutation that built useless sub-assemblies in anticipation of the current eye.

 

It's this repetition of discredited or straw man arguments that make me think that txviper is being dishonest and not interested in a real discussion.

 

An Old, Out of Context, Quotation

 

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

- Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167. (p. 18 of The Revised Quote Book)

 

Darwin is not a "modern source." Furthermore, this quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:

 

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals." These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a "depression" in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps "focus" the image like a simple "box-camera" may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a "sack-like fold in the skin."

 

George Gaylord Simpson in The Meaning of Evolution, points out that the different species of modern snail have every intermediate form of eye from a light-sensitive spot to a full lens-and-retina eye.

 

Neither would all the modifications necessary to improve clarity of vision need to be accomplished by a single method of change, nor by changes occurring simultaneously in the eye as a whole. For instance, Darwin continued: "If a lens has too short or too long a focus, it may be amended either by an alteration of curvature, or an alteration of density; if the curvature be irregular, and the rays do not converge to a point, then any increased regularity of curvature will be an improvement. So [also] the contraction of the iris and the muscular movements of the eye are neither of them essential to vision, but only improvements which might have been added and perfected at any stage of the construction of the instrument. Within the highest division of the animal kingdom, namely the Vertebrata [animals with backbones], we can start from an eye so simple, that it consists, as in the lancelet [small sea animals which evolutionists think resemble the earliest ancestors of fish], of a little sack of transparent skin, furnished with a nerve and lined with pigment, but destitute of any other apparatus. In fishes and reptiles ... the range of gradations of dioptric [optical] structures is very great ... In living bodies, variations will cause the slight modifications, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of man?"

 

That is what Darwin wrote in context. Obviously, he was not admitting that the origin of the eye was an insuperable difficulty, as the editors of The Revised Quote Book wish to deceive their readers into thinking.

 

Coincidentally, the same week that I checked on the above quotation, the evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould, wrote an article on it! ("Common Pathways of Illumination," Natural History 12/94, p. 10) According to Gould, "Anti-evolutionists continually cite this passage as supposed evidence that Darwin himself threw in the towel when faced with truly difficult and inherently implausible cases. But if they would only read the very next sentence, they would grasp Darwin's real reason for speaking of absurdity 'in the highest possible degree.' (Either they have read these following lines and have consciously suppressed them, an indictment of dishonesty; or they have never read them and have merely copied the half quotation from another source, a proof of inexcusable sloppiness. Darwin set up the overt 'absurdity' to display the power of natural selection in resolving even the most difficult cases -- the ones that initially strike us as intractable in principle. The very next liner, give three reasons all supported by copious evidence for resolving the absurdity and accepting evolutionary development as the cause of optimally complex structures."

 

Besides Gould's article there have appeared several others on the topic of the evolution of the eye, demonstrating that such an evolution is far from "absurd," but rather is entirely plausible.

 

See professor Kenneth R. Miller's excellent article on eye evolution, "Life's Grand Design" (Technology Review, v. 97, no. 2, Feb./Mar. 1994, pp. 24-32).

 

See also D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger's article, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58).

 

In his recent book, River Out of Eden (Basic Books, 1995), Richard Dawkins points out how Nilsson and Pelger set up a computer model of evolving eyes to determine if a smooth gradient of change exists from a pigmented eye spot to the camera eye with a lens and cornea, and how long it would take such a transformation to occur. They employed pessimistic figures for the amounts of change possible per generation -- giving their model only 50% "heritability" (many human traits are over 50% inheritable), and chose pessimistic values for the coefficient of variation (how much variation there typically is in a population). And they determined that Darwinian evolution could produce a good camera eye in less than a half a million years! That's a mere "blink of the eye" in geologic time!

 

Since an eye's efficiency can be easily measured using elementary optics, their computer simulation had more validity than, say, trying to measure how subtle anatomical changes increased the efficiency of a cheetah's speed and agility.

 

"Nilsson and Pelger began with a flat retina atop a flat pigment layer and surmounted by a flat, protective transparent layer. The transparent layer was allowed to undergo localized random mutations of its refractive index. They then let the model deform itself at random, constrained only by the requirement that any change must be small and must be an improvement on what went before. The results were swift and decisive ... leading unhesitatingly from the flat beginning through a shallow indentation to a steadily deepening cup. The transparent layer thickened to fill the cup and smoothly bulged its outer surface in a curve [the cornea]. And then, almost like a conjuring trick, a portion of this transparent filling condensed into a local, spherical subregion of higher refractive index [a lens]." -- Dawkins, pp. 80-81

 

And the lens that formed was not of a uniform refractive index, but was "graded," just like real eyes, with the highest refractive index near the center of the lens! And it was graded according to the optimum ratio for vision, known as "Mattiessen's ratio."

 

I should add that Nilsson and Pelger's computer simulation never produced an eye that combined the focus of two lenses -- one placed directly behind the other -- lenses that could slide toward and away from each other to produce added magnification and "close-ups" of small objects and far away objects, as in a "zoom camera." Instead, the best "zoom" available to us humans is to bring the newsprint closer to our eyes! I guess the "Biblical Creator" in his infinite wisdom could not design eyes any better than natural selection could. However, robots of the future will undoubtedly have such "extra" design features added by their human creators.

 

Other recent articles, like Gould's, mentioned above, have pointed out how a common genetic key triggers the development of eyes of vastly different construction in animals as varied as flies and mice (in vertebrates and invertebrates). So, all eyes may originate from a common ancestor that evolved this genetic trigger. See for instance, Peter Monagham's article, "Revelations from Fruit Flies" (Chronicle of Higher Education A8-A9, May 26, 1995). And also see Carol Yaesuk Yoon's article, "The Wizard of Eyes: Evolution Creates Novelties by Varying the Same Old Tricks" (New York Times, Nov- 1, pp. C1, C11).

 

Also see the articles on eye evolution in Science, v. 265, no. 5173, Aug. 5, 1994, pp. 742 & 785; and in Nature, v. 368, Apr. 21, 1994, p. 690.

 

As an aside, I must mention a recent article in Discover magazine (Jan. 1996), titled, "From Fin to Hand," that discussed how merely extending the length of time a particular gene remained activated during embryological development, had a lot to do with turning a fin into a hand! So, minor mutations of embryologic growth patterns might produce larger effects than expected, even perhaps in the story of eye evolution from an eyespot to a skin dimple to an eye cup, etc.

 

E.T. BABINSKI

 

Quote from here.

[MrSpooky]

Does anyone have that PBS movie link about eye evolution?