"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

seamus

doctoremma wrote: »

You say this as if "variation" is some kind of limited process, as if the word represents piffling changes to phenotypes.

"Variation" doesn't only describe small changes in beak shape, it encompasses the process of fins to arms, of simple osmotic membranes to complex kidneys.

"Variation" is evolution.

One of the things I love most about the process is the beauty of looking at species which at first glance couldn't be more separated, more different (e.g. humans and sperm whales), but when you look underneath the skin, the majority of the biology (especially the skeleton) are just variations on the same theme.

BizzyC

mickrock wrote: »

Wouldn't you rather discuss Darwinism and show me where I'm going wrong?

If you could provide any sort of basis or detail to your claim, then we could discuss it.

And before you go off on a tangent of "you guys can't/won't discuss it", a discussion is a two way street.
If you challenge a position, provide a reason behind your challenge so that people can respond to it.
Otherwise your not starting a discussion, your just stating personal opinion.

doctoremma

seamus wrote: »

One of the things I love most the process is the beauty of looking at species which at first glance couldn't be more separated, more different (e.g. humans and sperm whales), but when you look underneath the skin, the majority of the biology (especially the skeleton) are just variations on the same theme.

To follow on from this...
I think those not easily able to "look underneath the skin" (they don't study biology, they don't read any academic texts, etc) simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

Darwinists are the ones making grand claims with the flimsiest of evidence.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is the only scientific supported form of evolution I'm aware of, it is why science thinks evolution takes place at all.

You asserted evolution takes place but by a different system.

Please explain the processes in this non-Darwinian system.

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

You've made a claim and you've been asked to justify it.

Your choices are either to justify it, or withdraw it and, as mod, I'll be making sure you do make a choice.

I've already justified it by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is illogical and the evidence is flimsy.

It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.

I can't think of any evidence for Darwinian evolution. Lenski's E.coli that adapted to metabolise citrate under aerobic condition (which they could already do anaerobically) is often offered as the best evidence of evolution in action. Very underwhelming, to say the least.

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.

Wrong. Just wrong, and not what evolutionary theory says.

They would merely have to be advantageous or, at the very least, not harmful.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

I can't think of any don't understand the evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Perhaps?

seamus

mickrock wrote: »

I've already justified it by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is illogical and the evidence is flimsy.

It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.

But that's what happened. That's historical fact and can be traced. There is no denial that evolution occurs, that organs arise through gradual intermediate stages (and no, each stage does not have to be a fully functional organ).

Here you are, once again failing to explain your theory about why evolution occurs.

Though I suspect I won't get an answer because you actually deny that evolution occurs at all and believe that the fossil record is a "test" from God, or other similar nonsense.

Ziphius

Care to provide an example of an organ that could not have developed gradually, mickrock?

Don't you creationists refer to this as 'irreducible complexity'?

Yeah, well, how come life doesn't spontaneously arise in a jar of peanut butter? Checkmate!

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

To follow on from this...
I think those not easily able to "look underneath the skin" (they don't study biology, they don't read any academic texts, etc) simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face.

'they don't study biology' = did, but only up to Inter Cert (yes, I am old).

'they don't read any academic texts' = read them all the time but in a different discipline (did do some archaeology as a Fresher which covered human evolution but that was eons ago).

'simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face' = Yes, I can. Makes sense to this non-scientist...and I think it is fascinating...

What I can't understand is how anyone could say "God made the world in 6 days" with a straight face

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What I can't understand is how anyone could say "God made the world in 6 days with a straight face"

Agreed. There's no reference anywhere as to what facial expression, if any, god wore during the creation.

Sorry Bannasidhe. Had to move your quotation marks to make it work, but I think it works.

Comedic licence?

doctoremma

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...

You know what I meant, stop making trouble.

I was referring to those who don't make a particular effort to educate themselves on the subject.

mickrock

doctoremma wrote: »

Well then, you don't understand what evolution is. Most obvious by use of the phrase "blind, undirected".

Have you forgotten about natural selection?

You don't understand Darwinian evolution if you don't think it's blind and undirected.

joseph brand

doctoremma wrote: »

To follow on from this...
I think those not easily able to "look underneath the skin" (they don't study biology, they don't read any academic texts, etc) simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face.

This reminds me of the 'Conspiracy Road Trip' with Andrew Maxwell. He took a bunch of creationists to the States to meet scientific experts. Having a man (Northie Phil) who has studied a 2,000 year old book, argue with a biologist or paleontologist is silly, and sums up the whole debate right here.

Creationist: "I know nothing about anything, but I feel , in my mind, that there must have been a creator. I have no real reason other than I read it in a very old book from the Middle East and I really don't want to change my mind".

Biologist/ Archaeologist/ Geologist/ Paleontologist rolls eyes, lets out a sigh, and thinks; "what's the bloody point?"

seamus

endacl wrote: »

Agreed. There's no reference anywhere as to what facial expression, if any, god wore during the creation.

If God did create the world in six days, I don't think he could have kept a straight face considering what a balls he made of it.

"Oh **** man. I've left pot everywhere"

Ziphius

seamus wrote: »

If God did create the world in six days, I don't think he could have kept a straight face considering what a balls he made of it.
"

Indeed. The amount of incompetent design present in living things makes the idea that they were each, intelligently, designed and created from scratch ridiculous.

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

You don't understand Darwinian evolution if you don't think it's blind and undirected.

I treat the phrases "blind" and "undirected" differently when they come out of a creationist mouth, where they tend to get mixed in with "random", "accidental" and "jumbo jet made out of junkyard parts".

If you feel that you are using the phrases as appropriate to the process of evolution and natural selection, I apologise.

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

I've already justified it by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is illogical and the evidence is flimsy.

It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.

I can't think of any evidence for Darwinian evolution. Lenski's E.coli that adapted to metabolise citrate under aerobic condition (which they could already do anaerobically) is often offered as the best evidence of evolution in action. Very underwhelming, to say the least.

No, mickrock you haven't justified any of your views. You have not at any point explained why natural selection is wrong, all you've done is state that it is. That is not a justification.

Now as for your claim about organs. First of all, the phrasing of your claim shows again that you don't have the first clue how evolution actually works or what natural selection is. Secondly, and more importantly, you're wrong.

And here's why.

You obviously haven't read back through this thread because if you did you would have found this post I made about the evolution of the eye and how it was achieved incrementally with each step conferring an advantage on its possessor.

And then there's this:

The Bombardier Beetle

The bombardier beetle, for a while, was the poster insect of the ID cause. For those out there who may not know, the bombardier beetle is a family of about 500 species whose defense mechanism is a foul-smelling, boiling liquid which is ejected from a special nozzle at the beetle's rear. The liquid is created by mixing two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) which are secreted by separate glands in the abdomen. The two liquids are then mixed in a reaction chamber with some catalysts which acts to vapourise some of the mixture (about 20%) which then provides the propellant necessary to expel the now heated liquid.
One of the components of the ID argument against the bombardier beetle states that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone explode when mixed and so this combination of chemicals could not have evolved. This argument is just plain wrong. Anyone interested can try it for themselves. Hydroquinone is the primary constituent in photo developer and hydrogen peroxide is cosmetic bleach. Mix them for yourselves, they don't explode.
The other component of the argument is that the beetle is too complex to have evolved incrementally. On the contrary, a step-by-step evolutionary pathway has been well documented for the beetle.

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This is a common feature of arthropods.

2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes.

3. Small gaps or invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen.

5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder.

9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.

11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist.

13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

15. The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.

And if you so choose, here is some of the research to support this mechanism. Sorry I'm a bit stuck for time so I don't have time to include hyperlinks.

• Dean, Jeffrey, D.J. Aneshansley, H.E. Edgerton, T. Eisner, 1990. Defensive spray of the bombardier beetle: a biological pulse jet. Science 248: 1219-1221.
  
• Dettner, Konrad, 1987. Chemosystematics and evolution of beetle chemical defenses. Annual Review of Entomology 32: 17-48.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, 1958. The protective role of the spray mechanism of the bombardier beetle, Brachynus ballistarius Lec. Journal of Insect Physiology 2: 215-220.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, 1970. Chemical defense against predation in arthropods. In Sondheimer, E. & J. B. Simeone, Chemical Ecology, Academic Press, NY, pp. 157-217.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, T.H. Jones, D.J. Aneshansley, W.R. Tschinkel, R.E. Silberglied, J. Meinwald, 1977. Chemistry of defensive secretions of bombardier beetles (Brachinini, Metriini, Ozaenini, Paussini). J. Insect Physiol. 23: 1382-1386.
  
• Eisner, Thomas & Daniel J. Aneshansley, 1982. Spray aiming in bombardier beetles: jet deflection by the Coanda effect. Science 215: 83-85.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, D.J. Aneshansley, M. Eisner, A.B. Attygalle, D.W. Alsop, J. Meinwald, 2000. Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus). Journal of Experimental Biology 203: 1265-1275.
  
• Eisner, Thomas, George E. Ball, Braden Roach, Daniel J. Aneshansley, Maria Eisner, Curtis L. Blankespoor, & Jerrold Meinwald, 1989. Chemical defense of an Ozaenine bombardier beetle from New Guinea. Psyche 96: 153-160.
  
• Erwin, Terry L., 1967. Bombardier beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of North America: Part II. Biology and behavior of Brachinus pallidus Erwin in California. Coleopterists' Bulletin 21: 41-55
  
• Erwin, Terry Lee, 1970. A reclassification of bombardier beetles and a taxonomic revision of the North and Middle American species (Carabidae: Brachinida). Quaestiones Entomologicae 6: 4-215.
  
• Forsyth, D.J., 1970. The structure of the defence glands of the Cicindelidae, Amphizoidae, and Hygrobiidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). J. Zool. Lond., 160: 51-69.

mickrock

Ziphius wrote: »

Care to provide an example of an organ that could not have developed gradually, mickrock?

It unlikely that any organ could have developed in a piecemeal fashion.

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

It unlikely that any organ could have developed in a piecemeal fashion.

Please nominate your organ of choice. Someone here will be able to break it down for you.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

It unlikely that any organ could have developed in a piecemeal fashion.

opinion != example

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

You know what I meant, stop making trouble.

I was referring to those who don't make a particular effort to educate themselves on the subject.

Ah yes, the Willfully Ignorant* as I like to call them.






*Not to be confused with the Hard-of-Thinking although it is possible to be both Willfully Ignorant and Hard-of-Thinking.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

*Not to be confused with the Hard-of-Thinking although it is possible to be both Willfully Ignorant and Hard-of-Thinking.

Are you implying a causal link? What environmental factors might result in an evolutionary change from the latter to the former?

BizzyC

mickrock wrote: »

It unlikely that any organ could have developed in a piecemeal fashion.

Why??

Again, you offer nothing other than a single line containing personal opinion.

What leads you to believe this to be the case?
Is there anything out there to support your point of view?

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

Are you implying a causal link? What environmental factors might result in an evolutionary change from the latter to the former?

P'shaw to your empirical research.

I have based this entirely on personal observation and I know in my heart it is true.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

P'shaw to your empirical research.

I have based this entirely on personal observation and I know in my heart it is true.

Damn. I understand fully. *Bad scientific methodologist!*

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.

mickrock wrote: »

I've already justified it by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is illogical and the evidence is flimsy. It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.

An organ performing one action certainly can evolve into another one performing a separate action - I've already mentioned the five-digit land-based hands that evolved into fins in whales and there are many other examples. BTW, your use of the term "illogical" is wrong in the above; what you probable mean is "unreasonable" or "unsupported".

Incidentally, one organ which was held by creationists to be "irreducibly complex" is the bacterial flagellum. You can find a model for the evolution of this organ here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

If you don't believe that this change is possible, then you will have to explain why this cannot have occurred in the manner proposed by evolution -- stepwise change directed by a selection pressure which favoured "better" fins or multi-purpose or partially-purposed organs. For extra marks, you should provide an alternate explanation which explains why whale fins have five fingers and why the bacterial flagellum exists as it does.

mickrock wrote: »

I can't think of any evidence for Darwinian evolution.

There's lots out there, including what Sarky has seen for himself. If you can't think of any evidence, then the fault lies with you for not seeking it out, or in the case of this debate here, for you not reading it.

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

Damn. I understand fully. *Bad scientific methodologist!*

Bet I could find enough historical evidence to prove my thesis...

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bet I could find enough historical evidence to prove my thesis...

I may be able to contribute. Co-author?

Now, where could we find some peers to review our findings...?