|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
It should be Willyburger, it is a USA publication - Massachusets (Oh I can't pronounce let alone spell many US place names how did Connecticut get that middle C how do you say Arkansas!) Institute of Technology Press.
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Answering the original question on this thread 'how would the failure of the theory of evolution' effect our theology, the answer to the question can be found in the opening essay and preface to two of the arguably most influential liberal theological works of the last century or so.
From 'Faith' in Lux Mundi
quote:
When for instance, men see their habitual reliance on the evidence for design in nature, which had been inherited from Paley, yield and vanish under the review of the facts with which the theory of evolution aquatints them. What they feel is, that their familiar mode of interpreting their faith, or justifying or picturing it, has been abruptly been torn from them.
[as an aside, note the supremacy of feeling or experience, in liberal theology, rather the rationalism so often sited by liberals as the leg to the three legged stool of scripture-tradition-reason. There's a thread in this...liberal theology is concerned primarily with the supremacy of experience, not reason.]
And John Hick in the preface to The Myth of God Incarnate.
quote:
Western Christianity made two major new adjustments in the response to important enlargements of human knowledge. It accepted that man is part of nature and has emerged within the evolution of forms of life on earth.
We need not ask the question, it has already been answered. Much, if not all, liberal theology would be written off as an irrelevance, a vacuous fallacy, if the theory of evolution were superceded. There's evidently more at stake than belief in the origins of life.
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Much, if not all, liberal theology would be written off as an irrelevance, a vacuous fallacy, if the theory of evolution were superceded. There's evidently more at stake than belief in the origins of life.
Now, I'm not a real expert on liberal theology, being an evangelical an all, but I don't see evolution as foundational to liberal theology (any more than Creation is foundational to evangelical theology, much as some people would seem to think it is).
Apologies for the following generalisation. Taking the "Reason, Tradition, Scripture" tripod, by and large liberals would emphasize Reason more than other theological positions. As such, they would be more open to learning from and incorporating the fruits of Philosophy, Science etc... So, yes, I'm sure evolutionary thought has influenced liberal theology. But if (and as we've covered in depth here that's a very big if) evolution is found to be an imperfect scientific description of the origins and development of life and is superceded by a better scientific theory (which, in my opinion, will not be either Creationism or Intelligent Design) then I'm sure liberal theology will adapt to the new understanding.
Alan
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neil Robbie
Shipmate
# 652
|
Posted
Alan
You said that liberals would adapt their theology to suit any new theory of the development of life and that is exactly my point.
In the quote from the essay 'Faith' by Rev H.S. Holland in Lux Mundi, he contrasted Palley's design with Darwin's evolution and decided that his faith as a Christian minister had to change because evolution had demonstrated, in his limited experience, that nothing is designed. I assume that any subsequent change in theory would lead to a change in theology. But God doesn't change because we change our theories, surely?
Now, you mentioned 'reason' as the supreme authority for liberals but I used the term 'experience' deliberately, as liberal theologians are supremely concerned with experience and not reason. You'd need to read 'Lux Mundi' or 'Honest to God' to begin to see why liberals are experiential not rational. It has much to do with not being experts in any scientific field and so retreating to a defensive theological position defined by a subjective experience which could not be detected by empirical means. Safe ground, but lacking in potency for evangelism.
Neil
Posts: 228 | From: Wolverhampton | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Copied from closed thread in Purgatory
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
A few weeks ago in New Scientist (I can't post a link as it's in the pay-to-view archive now) someone wrote an article in which he stated that his research had forever banished the theory of Intelligent Design of life.
The reasoning went like this:
We have the comprehensive family trees of a particular organism - lets say the Nautilus, so we know what all it's ancestors - trilobytes - were and what the branches of the 'evolutionary' tree look like.
If we find something we know has been a product of intelligent design, then do its family tree and then compare this to the family tree of the Nautilus, if the two match then Nautilus is a product of intelligent design.
So the guy took his enormous collection of cornets (small trumpet for those not in the know), grouped them by age and design features, then ran them through his genetic algorythm software which then spit out the family tree of his cornet collection.
Surprise surprise, it looked nothing like the tree of the Nautilus. This was because one manufacturer had a good idea, and then all the others appropriated it - this made the tree very flat with multiple branches from one node (rather than the 2 branches you'd expect in an evolutionary tree)
So, ipso facto evolution is correct, Intelligent Design is wrong, God is proven none-existent.
That seems to me to be a very fatuous piece of scientific research and the author has made some big leaps and assumptions which seem to me to be un-scientific in the extreme.
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
It's a fautous example and misleading - because the cornets have multiple intelligent designers,who were in competition with each other and learning from experience and each others' mistakes. In addition none of them were deities AFAIK. God has always insisted he created the Univers alone, without assistance.
Frankly, you might as well go looking for the primal cause in the Register of Patents.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
So, ipso facto evolution is correct, Intelligent Design is wrong, God is proven none-existent.
The first two clauses are OK - if evolution is correct then Intelligent Design is wrong. It does not, of course, follow that if evolution is right or ID wrong that God is proven non-existent.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The guy has a point, it may be reasonably expected that ID and evolution would result in differences in the family trees of organisms. In that sense he's pointed out a potential test to falsify ID. That he illustrates this with an inappropriate example, cornets, is a shame - but I'd think if he tried it on actual organisms he wouldn't be able to illustrate any difference. This would, of course, be because proponents of evolution and ID could quite easily look at the same organism as an example of both evolution and ID so the same family tree is consistent with both. What would be needed would be a sufficient understanding of both evolution and ID to draw up theoretical family trees and compare them to actual organisms - though I don't think either are in a position to do that at this time.
As an aside, I've put some brief thoughts on Design Theory on my website. Those who've read all this thread (and if you haven't, why not?) will realise that I don't really think that highly of ID.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Alan:
I appreciate that the existence of God cannot be surmised from either of the first 2 clauses - the article didn't, in fact, make any opinions on the existence or otherwise of God. That bit was my own sarcastic irritation at the article.
Whether we are intelligently designed or evolved is almost a side issue to the original post - I find it hard to believe that a scientist could claim to have proven any one theory defunct by looking at another case which is its fairly removed analogue.
Are my own leanings towards the existence of God (and therefore intelligent design/theistic evolution) forcing a bias of my opinion, or is this fellow lacking scientific rigour?
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phizz
Shipmate
# 4770
|
Posted
Must be quick and get on with what I'm paid for...
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Are my own leanings towards the existence of God (and therefore intelligent design/theistic evolution) forcing a bias of my opinion, or is this fellow lacking scientific rigour?
..or possibly both.
There are two questions. Does God exist? and How did life develop? Problems happen when people try and answer one by looking at the other.
I suspect your anger comes from your suspicion that the Scientist in question isn't really interested in evolution but is trying to disprove God. You've sort of admitted that you're not interested in how life developed but would like to prove God exists. Neither approach is going to get either question answered to anyone's satifaction.
I trust people who are genuinly interested in questions of life's development to come up with explanations. Similarly I'm spending far too much time on this board because I think you people are genuinely interested in God.
Incidently with my purely scientific hat on I don't even believe in myself. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
ST. PAUL WOULD HAVE POSTED USING CAPS LOCK (Galatians 6:11)
Was Dr Phizz. Now just Phizz
Posts: 116 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isis
Apprentice
# 4930
|
Posted
In English class we read the play Inherit the Wind which is based upon the Monkey Trial. I read the part of the Darrow-like guy and it was the greatest thing ever!
--------------------
QuidProQuo - yes or no?
Posts: 17 | From: Bushamerikkka | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
moved from Purgatory by host
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The Spectator has just published this article. In brief, it says more and more people are seeing holes in Darwin's thought, and there is growing scientific backing for Intelligent Design. This is summarised as: quote:
Unlike the swivel-eyed creationists, ID supporters are very keen on scientific evidence. They accept that the earth was not created in six days, and is billions of years old. They also concede Darwin’s theory of microevolution: that species may, over time, adapt to suit their environments. What Intelligent Design advocates deny is macroevolution: the idea that all life emerged from some common ancestor slowly wriggling around in primordial soup. If you study the biological world with an open mind, they say, you will see more evidence that each separate species was created by an Intelligent Designer. The most prominent members of the ID movement are Michael Behe the biochemist, and Phillip E. Johnson, professor of law at the University of California. They share a belief that it is impossible for small, incremental changes to have created the amazing diversity of life. There is no way that every organism could have been created by blind chance, they say. The ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe indicates a creator.
I know that Creation vs Evolution has been kicked around these boards until is a very dead horse indeed. However, I'm not a scientist and would be interested to hear from Shipmates who are if a)there really is a big swing away from Darwin and b) if there is anything in ID?
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
I know that Creation vs Evolution has been kicked around these boards until is a very dead horse indeed. However, I'm not a scientist and would be interested to hear from Shipmates who are if a)there really is a big swing away from Darwin and b) if there is anything in ID?
No, and no.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
[Full Version]
The fact that the same names - Behe, Dembski, Ross, Johnson come up time and time again shows there is no swing against Darwin. There're a few religiously motivated individuals, but no groundswell, no swing.
ID itself is no more than a revised God of the Gaps fallacy. Take Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. Essentially, his thesis is:
(a) some structures (example: bacterial flagellum) are "irreducibly complex" - take a bit away, and they don't work;
(b) darwinism can't explain how an irreducibly complex structure can arise;
(c) therefore God mustadunnit.
Quite apart from the logical fallacy of placing God in a gap in current knowledge that may be filled tomorrow, there is the problem that Behe's examples are only irreducibly complex in the context of their current function. Kenneth Miller has done a lot of work on Behe's examples and is the person to read - once again, I heartily recommend his book Finding Darwin's God. He goes into some depth on the blood clotting cascade, on which not only has a possible evolutionary pathway been proposed, but also molecular evidence gathered to support the theory. You can follow it here http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html
I would suggest ID is ultimately damaging to faith. When the gaps in which God is placed are closed, God becomes homeless. It is also scientifically flawed. "Ah, Goddidit" is not a scientific hypothesis. The scientist must ask "OK, then how did God do it?"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Nice succinct answer there Karl.
Also, I liked the last paragraph of that article
quote:
St Basil, the 4th century Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, said much the same thing ... If an Archbishop living 1,400 years before Darwin can reconcile God with evolution, then perhaps Dawkins and the ID lobby should be persuaded to do so as well.
Which of course also introduces the fact that extreme evolutionists like Dawkins, IDers and YECs fall into basically the same trap of expecting science to be more than science is. Science provides materialistic descriptions of the material universe ... to push it into metaphysics is a misunderstanding of both science and metaphysics.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
of course, the "succinct answer" bit referred to the first of Karls comments ... the second was written while I was typing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It is a good article. I was glad to see that the "no transitionals" PRATT was addressed - the most cursory glance at Archaeopteryx tells you it is the perfect reptile/bird transitional, and attempts by creationists of any stripe to discredit it as such are invariably highly amusing.
What's less well known is the amazing series of transitionals that links reptiles to the first mammals. The apparently difficult feat of replacing the reptile jaw joint with a mammalian one and migrating the reptilian jaw bones into the middle ear is shown in graphic detail through the therapsid series. (go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html and do a search for "therapsid" on the page)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, one of the objections mentioned in the article is quite valid quote:
The playwright blamed the doctrine of survival of the fittest for ‘capitalist misery and the oppression of the people’.
Which is a confusion between Darwinism as an theory of the origin of species by natural selection acting on genetic diversity with some of the more whacky extensions of the theory to aspects of sociology and politics. It's no more valid to criticise Darwinism for this than say criticise Special Relativity because you disagree with notions of relative morality.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thank you for these responses. This is an area I have little specialist knowledge in, and I have to admit the thought of reading everything on this thread daunts me for that very reason. However I was surprised to see an article like this in the Spectator, and was hoping for some insight from those better informed than I. Many thanks for providing it.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Karl said the first time.
The second one is a bit dodgier - Behe's "intelligent design" really is the "God of the Gaps" brought in to explain stuff we have no good theory on. But it is not irreconcileable with the observed universe the way YEC is.
To follow Dawkins analogy of a historian annoyed by people who claimed that the Roman Empire never existed & all the apparent evidence is faked.
YECism is like saying that ALL of known history is faked. That the whole world came into existence about 100 years ago and the stuff your grandparents told you that their grandparents told them was all lies. If you believed that then history would be a pointless excercise.
Behe-style ID is like saying that the Roman Empire did exist, but the usual account of its origins were wrong - instead of being founded by Augustus in a coup against the Roman Republic, it was all down to a secret society of Illuminati, who left no records which can can understand.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Copied from a closed thread in Purgatory
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I went to university and seriously struggled when studying geology.
I could not reconcile Genesis 1 to what I was being taught.
I still do have problems reconciling it - in that I do believe the bible is inerrant and therefore the Genesis 1 description is true whatever that may be.
I think it is a cop out by some that a day is like a thousand years and that they were not physical days - but have to say that the evolution debate will not be resolved till this world ends.
I do believe things changed before and after the fall - I do not think thorns (bain of my garden ) came into the world after the fall - Gen 3v18
I know about plate techtonics and how the North and South poles changed their polarity over millions of years and that is why tests from America to Europe it shows this feature because this plate is expanding because the rocks have different polarities and that this is one way that they look at time. I also did not feel comfortable learning about the periods of time of the Jurassic etc
One concern I have about science is that in some circles it has become a religion in itself.Our understanding is more important and we exalt ourselves out of a faith.
I am encouraged that people can have a living vibrant faith whatever they believe regarding creation
But you can see my dilema between what I have learned and what I believe
The only thing I can say is that I look at the world today and cannot accept that all this was down to a chance explosion -
at school the science teacher stood back when teaching creation v evolution and let the class discuss it - the only thing I had was to keep on going back and asking people who believed in the bang - what happened before - and kept on asking that question to each theory they cmae to explain that one away -
I presume that noone is advocating that God was not involved in making this world or do we take out the first three verses of John 1 as well.
I did have to subscribe to a flood to tie a lot of it together - including why plates are moving - there have obviously been changes on this earth even after the fall given that Methuselah lived till he was almost 1000 in yet I have to be happy with my threscore years and ten.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
the only thing I had was to keep on going back and asking people who believed in the bang - what happened before - and kept on asking that question to each theory they cmae to explain that one away
Firstly, if you understood the 'big bang' theory you'd understand that this is a senseless question.
Secondly, even if it weren't a senseless question, God doesn't provide an answer to it. God is not the beginning of a chain of events. God is not 'before' in a literal sense. God is outside of, and the creator of, time. There is a difference between the doctrine of Creation - which asserts that God is the reason why there is something rather than nothing at all - and temporal cosmological explanation. Hence, holding that the universe has no beginning, as in steady state theory, is compatible with belief in Creation.
(St. Thomas Aquinas asserted something similar - holding that believing the world had always been there didn't do violence to faith in God or his Creation, but rejecting the idea because scripture claims the world has a beginning.)
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I went to university and seriously struggled when studying geology.
I could not reconcile Genesis 1 to what I was being taught.
I take it that you mean you couldn't reconcile a particular interpretation of Genesis 1 with what you were being taught at University. I studied physics, with a dash of geophysics, at university and I'm now working in a lab where other people do a lot of dating working. I have no problem because I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal historic account of what happened; it is a symbolic statement of the theological truth that God created and some elements of the nature of the world we live in (eg: it is ordered and coherent because it's the work of a single God who brings order out of chaos).
quote:
I still do have problems reconciling it - in that I do believe the bible is inerrant and therefore the Genesis 1 description is true whatever that may be.
I'm not a Biblical Inerrantist, but if you read the Biblical Inerrancy thread here in Dead Horses you'll find that there are Inerrantists who would agree with my reading of Genesis 1 (more or less) - Inerrancy doesn't compel you to accept Genesis 1 as a particular literary style, yuo can beleive it to be an inerrant non-historical account.
quote:
I think it is a cop out by some that a day is like a thousand years and that they were not physical days - but have to say that the evolution debate will not be resolved till this world ends.
I'd agree that saying the "days" are infact longer periods of time is a cop out. For a start, it still disagrees with what science tells us about the world. It introduces long periods of time, but things are still in the wrong (and indeed, illogical) order.
I'm more optimistic than you about a resolution to the "problem". I believe that the picture portrayed by science, of a geology and biosphere that has changed gradually over long periods of time in accordance with phenomena as currently observed, is how God actually created the world we live in. The opening chapters of Genesis tell us those important details about Gods involvement and purpose that science is unable to tell us, but says nothing about the mechanism or time scale of creation.
quote:
One concern I have about science is that in some circles it has become a religion in itself.
Which is an entirely different discussion, and a point I expect I'd probably agree with you on. But it's a mistake to read the likes of Dawkins and think he speaks for all scientists on the philosophical matters (on the other hand, his descriptions of the science of genetics and evolution are excellent).
quote:
I presume that noone is advocating that God was not involved in making this world or do we take out the first three verses of John 1 as well.
Well, I'm not. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is good for me.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
P.D.Q. Sparrow
Shipmate
# 5319
|
Posted
Aha- so this is where that thread I started ended up!
Well, I want to thank all those who did respond to my opening post back in Purgatory. I found many of the responses encouraging. On almost every American board I've gone to, where I've argued for a figurative reading of Genesis One, I have had my faith questioned. It's always implied that if one trusts God sufficiently, there will be no need to ask questions...even when a literal reading and one's knowledge of science leads to contradictions.
I have found that I can't 'will' myself to believe something that I know isn't true. (I feel that is what I am being told I have to do to be a good Christian, by these people.) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
So I'm still seeking an acceptable harmonization of Genesis with modern cosmology- I hope that such a thing is possible. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Those who insist on being sure about everything must be content to creep along the ground and never soar. ~J.H. Newman
Posts: 374 | From: Pacific Northwest | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BrightSparrow:
It's always implied that if one trusts God sufficiently, there will be no need to ask questions
I've always thought the opposite is true - truly trusting in God is being able to ask questions and still believe in Him.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
XtattiK
Apprentice
# 6060
|
Posted
I'm only jsut wading into this debate, so i'm sorry if i'm repeating someone else's thoughts, but if you're trying to reconcile genesis to science you're in for some trouble.
If you study the original Hebrew language, you'll find it's not a "scientific" language, unlike the Greek which is far mroe scientific in structure and form, and the genesis account (at least the first dozen chapters or so) is even more poetical in its form than the rest of the Old T (with the exception perhaps of psalms / SoS)
The Hebrew genesis was written as a "why" rather than a "how". there are numerous patterns and imagery within it. It even contains a not so subtle dig at the the Babylonian account of creation (if you've studied a little of that as well). The ultimate purpose of the creation story was to say, regardless of how it was done, that God was behind it, and to set out the pattern by which we were intended to live out our lives.
--------------------
"Science withour religion is lame religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
Posts: 4 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Androet
Shipmate
# 4133
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by BrightSparrow:
It's always implied that if one trusts God sufficiently, there will be no need to ask questions
I've always thought the opposite is true - truly trusting in God is being able to ask questions and still believe in Him.
I agree. Does this help at all:
"The Jewish sages also tell us that God dances when His children defeat Him in argument, when they stand on their feet and use their minds. So questions...are worth asking. To ask them is a very fine kind of human behavior. If we keep demanding that God yield up His answers, perhaps some day we will understand them. And then we shall be something more than clever apes, and we shall dance with God." (Mary Doria Russell, The Sparrow)
Best regards,
Androet
--------------------
Where knowledge cannot go, imagination ventures. (Brian Aldiss)
Posts: 235 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
Alan you mentioned you were involved in dating work
I am interested has there been much progression from carbon dating ?
What do you think of the gap theory ie there was a space of time between the world being created and man coming onto this earth?
It is interesting the freedom people have to interpret scripture - from taking things literally to taking things figuratively / spiritually.
I still have a 7 day hang up - but it has to be a matter by faith and not based on science - I do like Martyn Josephs line in saying that sometimes we should treasure the questions - it is not wrong that I have doubts and holes in my understanding - but I know that we look through a glass darkly now ...
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Androet:
"The Jewish sages also tell us that God dances when His children defeat Him in argument, when they stand on their feet and use their minds. So questions...are worth asking. To ask them is a very fine kind of human behavior. If we keep demanding that God yield up His answers, perhaps some day we will understand them. And then we shall be something more than clever apes, and we shall dance with God." (Mary Doria Russell, The Sparrow)
Thanks for posting this, I love it! How can God be other than pleased when we use to their utmost limits the questioning minds he gave us?
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Alan you mentioned you were involved in dating work
I am interested has there been much progression from carbon dating ?
Personally I'm not directly involved in dating work. The other half of the research group I'm in does do some luminescence dating, and I do help out with some radiation measurements for that work. Within the rest of the lab there is some C14 work (both dating and environmental studies, and an AMS facility for that work has recently been built) and a whole load of radioactive and stable isotope geochemistry, and does some dating work.
I'm not sure what you mean about progression from radiocarbon. For most of the dating of geological relevance C14 is inappropriate anyway, as C14 dating only works for samples of less than about 30-40 thousand years old. The use of AMS has enabled accurate dates to be determined from much smaller samples, and we recently had a talk on progress into various reservoir effects (where the source of carbon in an organism has a different isotopic ratio from the atmosphere - for example in marine environments).
Of course, there have been more suitable dating techniques for geological systems for many years. These include K-Ar, Rb-Sr and U-Pb dating, which allow accurate dates for samples going all the way back to the formation of the earth some 4.6 billion years ago.
[ 17. May 2004, 07:39: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
I knew carbon dating was not very accurate - the other thing about dating the way I see it is that the concept is to extrapolate - and base it on an imagined amount in the first place. Some of it being based logarithmically which could mean millions of years out in some cases - but that is to say that I do not know much about dating - but was interested to see what techniques are used to date items more accurately than carbon dating
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
...I do not know much about dating - but was interested to see what techniques are used to date items more accurately than carbon dating
Let me refer all of you to the excellent talk.origins website, where years and years of discussion are archived. There are many excellent links there, including
Another site I found through a web search is RadioMetric Dating: a Christian Perspective which reviews the 40 or so methods used.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I knew carbon dating was not very accurate
I never said, nor intended to imply, that carbon dating is in any way inaccurate. For suitable samples (less than about 50000 years old) carbon dating is accurate, though at some points on the calibration curve uncertainities of maybe as much as a few percent occur. There are additional uncertainties associated with corrections to the calibration curve for marine samples to account for the regional variations in 14C concentrations in water and in some locations these variations are poorly defined.
quote:
the other thing about dating the way I see it is that the concept is to extrapolate - and base it on an imagined amount in the first place.
In most cases the initial concentrations are well known. The 14C calibration is based on comparisons between 14C dates and dendrochronology (tree ring counting) which effectively measures the atmospheric 14C concentration over time. If you look at K-Ar dating then the samples dated are usually volcanic (or otherwise heated to high temperature), with the hot rocks allowing Ar to escape setting the Ar concentration to zero which then increases as K decays.
quote:
Some of it being based logarithmically which could mean millions of years out in some cases
Radioactive decay follows an exponential curve. That doesn't make it unaccurate, at least not for samples younger than about 10 half lives of the decay being used. For 14C that is 5730 years, giving the maximum usable age of about 50000 years.
quote:
but that is to say that I do not know much about dating
Indeed, I suggest if you want to discuss the question you find out some more. There are plenty of good websites out there that will explain the techniques - try for university sites, rather than just Creationist sites.
[ETA: I see you don't even need to Google for them]
quote:
but was interested to see what techniques are used to date items more accurately than carbon dating
Not more accurately. Covering different timescales or rocks, and hence better suited in some situations.
[ 18. May 2004, 21:50: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I knew carbon dating was not very accurate
Well its quite accurate. Usually within a couple of hundrd years out of a few thousand - it can sometimes be calibrated by tree-rings, lake varves & so on, so we have good data.
But it has no relevance at all to evolution because it only works for recent objects, the last ten thousand years or so.
quote:
the other thing about dating the way I see it is that the concept is to extrapolate - and base it on an imagined amount in the first place.
I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean by this.
quote:
Some of it being based logarithmically which could mean millions of years out in some cases
yes it could. But a few million years out of hundreds of millions is quite accurate really
quote:
was interested to see what techniques are used to date items more accurately than carbon dating
Carbon dating is only relevant for newish stuff, and only relevant for things that were once alive (like wood or bone). It can sometimes be calibrated by tree rings or varves which are probably exact - so we really do have good dates from it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ScaredOfGrasshoppers
Apprentice
# 6485
|
Posted
I may (and probably am) way out of my depth on this issue, but I have spent a fair bit of time reading from both sides of the debate, and despite being a Pentecostal, have managed to keep a fairly open mind ;-)
My question to anyone that cares to answer has to do with something someone on this board called macro-evolution. The example I'll use has to do with your average mammal's vision.
If we start somewhere around the mammal's point in evolution where sight did not exist, then assume that one part of the visual system, for example the retina, appeared first. So here we have a spot, somewhere at the front of this creature, that does nothing. At this point, the creature can't see, because the retina, unless backed up by the 5 other sub systems involved in the visual system, does not provide the creature with sight.
My question is, why, as a natural part of the evolutionary process, would this spot persist while all the other components of sight came together, if it had no apparent benefit for the creature in question?
--------------------
"It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it; Fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." - Aung San Sui Kyi
Posts: 30 | From: Torquay, Australia | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, mammals started off with decent eyes anyway. But, to address the general query, eyes developed from photosensitive skin. This has an evolutionary advantage over no photosensitive skin in that if something passes between you and the source of light you know about it - that could be a predator (so you can take avoiding action) or prey (which could be lunch). Then, if that patch of skin were inside a slight dimple in the skin there's potential information on which direction the shadow is coming from ... and before too long you get a rudimentary eye.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There are a number of animals that do just have a patch of photosensitive cells. It seems to give them an advantage.
The Irriducible Complexity argument, which is what we have here, makes a number of mistakes. One of them is assuming that unless it worked the way it does now - i.e. a camera eye producing a sharp image on a retina - it would confer no advantage.
The eye is, of the structures in the natural world, perhaps one with the best extant set of transitional forms.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ScaredOfGrasshoppers
Apprentice
# 6485
|
Posted
Thanks guys, I appreciate your responses, but my lack of understanding begs me to ask another question.
How does a patch of photosensitive skin transmit data to the brain, unless there's a connection? And if there's a connection, did that develop at the same time as the skin? Don't we come back to the irreducibly complex argument?
And Karl said this:
quote:
One of them is assuming that unless it worked the way it does now - i.e. a camera eye producing a sharp image on a retina - it would confer no advantage.
I understand that, and see the flaw in the argument, but looking at the way the eye does work now, in that all the sub systems must be functioning in order for sight to be possible, how did it get to where it is? Please don't think I'm trying to argue with you here, just trying to get my head around it.
--------------------
"It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it; Fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." - Aung San Sui Kyi
Posts: 30 | From: Torquay, Australia | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dei
Apprentice
# 6980
|
Posted
Greetings, and first off I have to say that it is impossible to construct a theory based on the scientific method that could even remotely explain design or a designer.
How could you falsify that?
So far there is no theory at all to dispute evolution and common descent.
If so please name one that follows the scientific method?
As time progresses more and more evidence exists to enforce evolution as a fact. You would have to intentionally close your eyes to avoid the landslide of evidence that exists and supports the theory of evolution.
Secondly you need to drop the term Darwinism, there is no 'ism' to it. It's not mythology, it's science, Darwin didn't make this up, he discovered it.
If you'd like some real evidence of evolution seeing how most who don't believe in it know absolutely nothing about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Posts: 3 | From: Raleigh, NC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dei
Apprentice
# 6980
|
Posted
When the mammals first evolved they had eyes!
Macro-evolution is not the term, it's called Common Descent.
Structures are passed on to the next generation and built upon therein. Evolutionary theory predicts that all structures will follow this pattern.
Posts: 3 | From: Raleigh, NC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dei
Apprentice
# 6980
|
Posted
'If you have, you will know that Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a means for explaining the origin of life and the origin of new species is coming under increasingly objective scientific criticism.'
But it still stands as the undisputed answer to the observed phenomena.
There is no other currernt theory, no falsifications have been presented to believe otherwise.
I must add that the theory of evolution DOES NOT, explain the origin of life, it simply details how life works to adapt to it's ever-changing environment. That's a common theme and typical of people who do not understand evolution.
Nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution, you'd have to discount every biological science there is if evolution were wrong. Currently there is nothing that makes evolution wrong.
Just a bunch of statements like 'they have evidence it's wrong!' yet no one ever presents any.
'they' is a common cop-out, you can make statements all day long that include 'they' which details no science or proof in your statement.
Just like evidence that supports god, there is none and no current theories to explain it.
Please back up what you say with some form of scientific proof.
Posts: 3 | From: Raleigh, NC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Dei - welcome to the Ship and thank you for your posts.
If you were trying to answer previous posts, it helps to indicate who you are answering. The easy way to do this is to use the double-quote icon above the original post, then deleting any text you don't want. Don't delete anything inside square brackets, however, or the brackets themselves, as these are UBB instructions. If you want to try this out in a safe environment (i.e. where you will not attact unwanted criticisms ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) try the 'Practise UBB' thread in the Styx Board
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ScaredOfGrasshoppers:
How does a patch of photosensitive skin transmit data to the brain, unless there's a connection?
Well, there are plenty of "data transmission channels" between the skin and the brain that don't relate to sight - just put your hand on a warm surface and you'll experience the effect of some of them.
quote:
And if there's a connection, did that develop at the same time as the skin? Don't we come back to the irreducibly complex argument?
Skin is only present in larger organisms of course, bacteria being single cells don't have a layer of skin cells. It developed over time to allow larger oganisms to both protect their inner organs from the outer environment and to interact with that environment. I'm pretty sure the second of those would have required some form of communication of signals from the skin to whatever nervous system the organisms have. So, yes, skin and the communications system developed together. Nothing irreducibly complex there.
quote:
but looking at the way the eye does work now, in that all the sub systems must be functioning in order for sight to be possible, how did it get to where it is? Please don't think I'm trying to argue with you here, just trying to get my head around it.
It got to where it is by the process of several small steps, each of which was an improvement on the earlier version and so gave a survival advantage. The same as any other feature developed. Another thing is, we have living examples of all the basic steps along that line of development (in some organisms and environments the cost of developing more complex eyes outweighs the benefits gained and so the intermediate forms are the best suited and are retained).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ScaredOfGrasshoppers: Thanks guys, I appreciate your responses, but my lack of understanding begs me to ask another question.
How does a patch of photosensitive skin transmit data to the brain, unless there's a connection?
The most primitive creatures with such a patch do not even have brains. Once you do have a central nervous system, there's no real difference between a nerve ending that fires when it experiences touch and one that fires when the cells it's attached to respond to light. And remember, all we need here is "Ooo! Light source this way!"
quote:
And if there's a connection, did that develop at the same time as the skin? Don't we come back to the irreducibly complex argument?
It developed at the same time as the CNS, if it occured the way I describe above. I'm not an expert, but I'm sure I could look it up if you're interested.
quote:
And Karl said this:
quote:
One of them is assuming that unless it worked the way it does now - i.e. a camera eye producing a sharp image on a retina - it would confer no advantage.
I understand that, and see the flaw in the argument, but looking at the way the eye does work now, in that all the sub systems must be functioning in order for sight to be possible, how did it get to where it is? Please don't think I'm trying to argue with you here, just trying to get my head around it.
To answer this, we need to ask which stages you are questioning.
Eyes in nature include pits containing light sensitive cells (more directional than just a patch), pits with very small apertures (pinhole cameras that start to focus actual images) and eyes where the aperture is larger but has a rudimentary lens (better than a pinhole in low light). Once you get muscles round the aperture to squash and flatten the lens, the rest is garnish.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Some (relatively uncontroversial statements):
1. Dawin was a very thoughtful man
2. Dawinism died in the the last century and was replaced by Neo-darwinism.
3. Neo-darwinism explains the origin and diversity of the species in the following way:
Random mutation is always occuring. If a mutation offers a selective advantage (ie. it makes an animal more likely to survive and/or reproduce) it is selected for. This is natural selection which is entirely 'anti-random' as Dawkins puts it.
So far so good.
The problem is (and I speak as one with a degree in molecular biology) is that it doesn't work. Before I go any further let me say two things: 1. I've read Behe's book - it is very good and explains the problems with Neo-dawinism very well; 2. I am very nervous of any scientific argument and resutls in the philosophical 'God-of-the-gaps.' The God of the bible is intricately involved in his creation and not simply there to explain what science cannot.
Having said that, Neo-darwinism (evolution as it is currently understood) does not explain the origin or species.
How can I make such an outrageous claim? Well Darwin himself knew that his theory (and the subsequent more sophisticated theories) depend on a stepwise mechanism and that anything in nature that could not be arrived at in a stepwise manner would be the downfall of his theory.
There are so so so many biological mechanisms that cannot develop in a stepwise manner.
The eye seems to be a popular battle ground for this debate. One says I don't see how an eye can evolve - look at it; it has a lens, a retina a nerve and muscles etc. And the reply quite acurately points out that even some light-sensitive cells would confer a selective advantage and the rest is simply improvements.
This argument is flawed because (as Behe) makes very clear there is nothing simple about a light-sensitive cell and it requires many many proteins to work. And so for a cell to become light-senstive is the problem.
Let me explain further- (I'm sorry to everyone who already knows this, and this is a simplified version).
Proteins are the stuff of life - Genes code for proteins. Each protein is made up of building blocks called amino-acids. The gene simply determines which building blocks go together is which order to make a particular protein. Proteins are incredibly variable. There are 20 different amino acids and haemoglobin, for example has over 100 of them (in each subunit) and that's a small protein.
Neodarwinism works like this - A mutation occurs in the DNA. This then makes a novel protein, this protein gives some advantage to the organism and then is selected for. Thus the species evolves. Different conditions make different things beneficial hence fish have gills and birds have wings.
OK. Mutation occurs all the time. (Although all higher organisms have mechanisms to correct mutations). The vast majority of mutations do not make any difference. A small number are deadly. An even smaller number are beneficial. But to get a novel protein is difficult.
The theory goes that if you allow enough time then a mutation that is useful will occur and thus be selected for.
Here's a bit of degree level genetics: An experiment you can do with bacteria goes like this. If you put E. coli (bacteria) on an agar plate it will grow. If you put ampicillin in the agar (an antibiotic) the E.coli won't grow. If the E.coli has an ampicillin resistance gene added to it, this strain of E.coli will grow even on the ampicillin plate.
Okay the experiment is this; A simple molecular technique is used to inactivate the ampicillin resistance gene. Then the E.coli is spread on the plate containing ampicillin. What we expect is no growth - we've switched off the gene needed to allow the bacteria not to be killed by ampicillin. What you get is some growth - but very very little. This is because at a rate of 1 in 10 to the power of 7 ie: 1 in 1000000 the bacteria spontaneously reverts - that is by random mutation it switches back on the gene for resistance, this clearly has a selective advantage and so only the mutants grow.
So far so good. But coming back to the eye: light sensitive cells require multiple proteins to work; if they required two: the chances of getting both mutations is 1 in 10 to the power of 14. And that is an underestimate for two reasons - 1. the spontaneous revertant explained above is a simple mutation and not reflective of nature and 2. you need at least 9 proteins for a light-sensitive cell to work. So the chances of it happening are (much higher than) 1 in 10 to the 63. And you need each of the nine proteins before you have any advantage for the organism for natural selection to work on.
And there are countless examples of cellular mechanism that depend on multiple protiens in order to work.
I'm not yet sold on the design hypothesis, but as a scientist with an open mind I have to say that Neo-darwinsim does not work on the molecular level. Hence it cannot be true. The fact that I cannot offer a replacement theory does not mean I have to accept one I know to be wrong.
Congratulations to anyone who got to the bottom of this. I promise this is a simple as I could make it. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Feel free to PM me with any questions or debate me on the board.
AFZ BSc(Hons)
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Have the new people read the other 8 pages of this thread before weighing in? It's customary to do so on this board, so as to avoid repetition and especially in order to avoid raising points which have already been answered.
Behe, for example, has been discussed at length at the very start of this thread.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...The most primitive creatures with such a patch do not even have brains. ...
As I recall, some single-cell organisms have primitive "eyespots" - euglenids which as basically pond-scum.
Does the euglenids eyespot require two proteins? That page implies that it's unexplored territory.
I'd assume (at some chance of making an "ass" of "me") that the eyespot is a modified chloroplast. If the two proteins the previous poster referred to include chlorophyl (is that a protein?), which is useful in itself - then there's no problem.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I trust that Alienfromzog has read Ken Miller's writings on Behe's IC argument - i.e. that the irriducibly complex structures that Behe describes aren't.
The biggest problem (IIRC) with Behe's resolution - that God pre-programmed all these structures into the primaeval DNA of the first cells is that through the millions of years they were not required, transcription errors, with no selection pressure because they are not expressed, would have rendered them useless.
You know what's wrong with IC - your suspicion of God of the Gaps answers is correct. Even if neo-Darwinian theory needs further work (or even some complete overhauling in places - not that I think it does), the answer is not going to be Goddidit.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ScaredOfGrasshoppers:
… How does a patch of photosensitive skin transmit data to the brain, unless there's a connection? And if there's a connection, did that develop at the same time as the skin? Don't we come back to the irreducibly complex argument?
… looking at the way the eye does work now, in that all the sub systems must be functioning in order for sight to be possible, how did it get to where it is? Please don't think I'm trying to argue with you here, just trying to get my head around it.
Just to add to what Alan and Karl have said (and repeat a bit too):
When thinking of the evolution of complex structures three key points are these:
(1) that it is structures and chemicals that are already present that are altered by gradual changes over time to arrive at the structures we have today; and
(2) that some structures and chemicals that are already present are incorporated into other structures during the course of the evolution of a complex structure or organ;
(3) as long as each intermediate stage is an advantageous improvement on the previous stage then it does not matter that the intermediate stages are not as good as the final stage.
When you ask “How does a patch of photosensitive skin transmit data to the brain, unless there's a connection? And if there's a connection, did that develop at the same time as the skin? Don't we come back to the irreducibly complex argument?” you are assuming that the skin had no link with the nervous system when it became photosensitive. You need to ask what was there to begin with before the photosensitivity began. It is likely that the skin in question would have had some nerves in it already, doing other useful things (detecting certain chemicals say). Skin that acquired photosensitivity would thus be connected up already. That patch of skin would thus fire off nerve impulses in different circumstances to the surrounding skin. If the response of the organism to those firings was, as with the chemical detectors ‘move in that direction’ and this was advantageous then it would tend to be selected for. (This is from point (1) above.)
When you say that “looking at the way the eye does work now, in that all the sub systems must be functioning in order for sight to be possible” you are not quite correct. Ask any partially sighted person, (e.g. a person with no lens in their eye) if they can see and they will say ‘yes’ or ‘yes, but …’. Karl also illustrates this when he lists the wide range of more or less sophisticated types of sight there are. (This is point (3) above – intermediate stages are functional despite not being as sophisticated as the final stage).
A typical proposal for the stages of the gradual evolution of the mammalian eye goes something like this:
An organism (well before mammals arose) with a nervous system with nerves in its skin:
a) has a patch of skin that is photosensitive. This is an advantage if light is correlated with something beneficial or harmful for the organism
b) that patch is larger. This may be advantageous because it makes the organism more sensitive to light than those of its kind that have a smaller patch.
c) the patch becomes covered in a protective layer of translucent cells
d) the patch becomes curved inwards. The nerve messages from concave patch of photosensitive cells will be different to a flat patch because if the light is coming from an angle then one side of the patch may be in shadow while the other is fully lit. The direction of the light source is thus more accurately known. If this is an advantage to the organism it will tend be selected for by natural selection.
e) with an even more concave patch of cells the effect becomes like a blurry pinhole camera and still more information can be derived from the nerve messages.
f) the transparent protective layers of cells that now fill the cavity changes its refractive index and thus improves the image on the retina;
g) a portion of this layer near the hole is particularly critical for this and comes to form a lens;
h) additional features such as an iris also evolve;
i) the shape of the cavity also alters to best suit the focal length of the lens;
k) concurrently with this, the brain of the organism is also evolving and those organisms in the population which develop neural pathways which can get more useful information out of the more accurate images will be selected for.
l) and also concurrently with this, the variety of pigments in the photosensitive cells can also evolve.
Key points about this are that:
- each step is functional;
- no step requires that a large numbers of adaptations to take place all together for any of them to be a benefit;
- each step is advantageous compared to the previous one IF increased visual acuity is likely to increase the survival and reproduction of the individual of the species. (As Alan has pointed out, if you are an animal that doesn’t need visual acuity then it is not to your advatage to have great eyes).
As an illustration of point (2) mentioned earlier, the lens of sophisticated eyes are filled with globular proteins called crystallins. Nowadays we can sequence proteins and, lo and behold, we find that these crystallins are proteins identical to or slightly modified versions of proteins elsewhere in the body that are used for different functions e.g. certain enzymes. So it is not necessary to evolve an entirely new protein from scratch but instead a protein already in use elsewhere gets conscripted in, as it were, for a different function in the eye.
(For some discussion of these matters see Mark Ridley (ed) Evolution (an Oxford Reader – a collection of articles and extracts from many authors) in particular Dan-E. Nillson and Susanne Pelger ‘A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve’ - their estimate is 363992 generations i.e. much less than half a million years.)
Another post for Alienfromzog to follow.
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There are so so so many biological mechanisms that cannot develop in a stepwise manner.
... there is nothing simple about a light-sensitive cell and it requires many many proteins to work. And so for a cell to become light-senstive is the problem.
... light sensitive cells require multiple proteins to work; ... you need at least 9 proteins for a light-sensitive cell to work. So the chances of it happening are (much higher than) 1 in 10 to the 63. And you need each of the nine proteins before you have any advantage for the organism for natural selection to work on.
And there are countless examples of cellular mechanism that depend on multiple protiens in order to work.
Neo-darwinsim does not work on the molecular level. Hence it cannot be true.
The three principles that I outlined in my last post apply at the molecular level too.
(1) that it is structures and chemicals that are already present that are altered by gradual changes over time to arrive at the structures we have today; and
(2) that some structures and chemicals that are already present are incorporated into other structures during the course of the evolution of a complex structure or organ;
(3) as long as each intermediate stage is an advantageous improvement on the previous stage then it does not matter that the intermediate stages are not as good as the final stage.
Your argument assumes that you need at least 9 proteins to make a cell light sensitive, but that is a highly questionable assertion. What grounds do we have to insist upon it? It is not sufficient to point to that number being used now in light sensitive cells, we are interested in much earlier forms of life. Is it not possible that a gradual stepwise progression to this current number and arrangement occured with each stage being functional but less good than the next? I simply fail to see how that can be dismissed even after the kinds of arguments Behe offers. You will find references to Behe's arguments in the earlier parts of this thread. Karls reference to Miller is very much worth following up.
Glenn (BA (Hons) Biology specialising in molecular genetics (not boasting, but just indicating a comparable background))
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
