I am reading a book by Huran Yahya called Signs of God. He has already put forward a few good arguments against the theory of evolution. These are mainly his words, as expressed in the introduction to his book.
Personally, I am looking for other views, and perhaps some of you can enlighten me as to why the following argument can have a perfectly reasonable evolutionary based counter-argument. In some ways, both the evolutionist and creationist thinkers are helping each other out here, because it allows for one to have to think of a counter-argument against the other. From what I have read here in this book so far, I must admit I see no reason why this should not stand alongside anything else that is "taught" in a science classroom. Nobody is talking about a 6000 year universe here, or a world flood.
So please , would someone care to explain to me why what Huran is saying can have a reasonable evolution based argument, where mutations and minute changes account for what we see in nature.
-------------------------------
According to Darwin's theory on the Origin of the Species, all creatures evolved by chains of coincidences and mutated from one another. It is said that all lifeforms go through minute random changes. If those changes improve a life form , then it will gain an advantage over the others, and that advantage is then carried onto the following generations.
This is a theory that has been conveyed to people for nearly 150 years, and is generally held to being very scientific and beyond a reasonable dount. Yet there are some contradictions here, when one begins to observe the species in more detail.
Darwin had no knoweldge of genetics at the time, as we do nowadays. It was those after Darwin that coined the word "Mutation". Mutation is arbitrary disconnections, dislocations or shifts of genes in living things. Interestingly there is not one single mutation in history that has been shown to improve the condition of a creature's genetic information. Nearly all known cases of mutation disable or harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect.
To think that a creature can improve through mutation is the same as shooting at a crowd of people hoping that the injuries will result in better healthier individuals.
Also, even if someone assumes that a certain mutation could improve a creature's condition, Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse. The reason for this is a concept called "Irreducible complexity".
The implication of this concept is that the majority of systems and organs in living things function as a result of various independant parts working together, and the elimination or disabling of even one of which would be enough to disable the entire system or organ.
For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a sequence of smaller organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one of the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever. In order for an ear to perceive, a variety of components - such as external auditory canal, tympanic membrane, bones in the middle ear, that is, the hammer, anvil and stirrup, fluid filled cochlea, hearing receptors or hair cells, the cilia which help these cells to sense the vibrations, the net of nerves that connect to the brain and hearing centre of the brain - have to work together without exception. The system could not have developed in segments becuase none of the segments could possibly function alone.
Hence, the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of evolution at its foundations. Interestingly, Darwin also worried about these very prospects. he wrote in 'On the Origin of Species' - "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutley break down"
Darwin could not, or might not have wanted to, find such an organ at the premature levels of 19th century science. However the science of the 20th century did study nature in minute details and proved that the majority of living structures embody irreducible complexity. Therefore, Darwin's theory has "absolutely" collapsed as he feared.
An example of irreducible complexity: The eye of the lobster.
There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed to the camera-type found in vertebrates. This structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.
However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on a principle of reflection rather than that of refraction.
The most outstanding charachteristic of the lobster's eye is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture on the next page, these squares are positioned most precisely.
The eye of a lobster shows remarkable geometry not found elsewhere in nature - it has tiny facets that are perfectly square, so it looks like perfect graph paper.
These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.
Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.
The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments so that they all focus the light at a single point.
It is obvious that the design of the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity". If even one of its features - such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer of the back - were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step by step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly.
One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye was one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and the shrimp.
The other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type eye structure", which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting eye. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells of a lobster eye, the cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.
The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures with the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally different design.
However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.
It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created seperately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous.
From Signs of God, by Huran Yahya
Harun Yayha is a lie. You're wasting your time reading it, because it's trying to trick you in the subtlest ways that it can. It's like reading Dan Brown for insights into Church conspiracies: not the best source
This is an absolute lie. And it's obviously a lie to anyone who has experience in genetics. The only reason to include such a lie is to fool people who don't know better. Just google for "beneficial mutations"; in all instances, you'll likely find a mutation which allows a species to thrive in an environment where the wildtype had a disadvantage.
Harun Yayha is trying to make the world a worse place, or at least, that's a side effect of their attempts to push their world view onto others to increase their political power.
Finally, about IC. How many instances of IC have been 'found' by religious objectors, only to have their examples disproven fairly quickly? Each time, the religionist thinks they've found one, they don't research properly but declare "Ah HA! This DISPROVES evolution!". It's become a waste of time. If they wanted to further knowledge, they'd spend the effort disproving their own objections.
QUOTE
Interestingly there is not one single mutation in history that has been shown to improve the condition of a creature's genetic information.
This is an absolute lie. And it's obviously a lie to anyone who has experience in genetics. The only reason to include such a lie is to fool people who don't know better. Just google for "beneficial mutations"; in all instances, you'll likely find a mutation which allows a species to thrive in an environment where the wildtype had a disadvantage.
Harun Yayha is trying to make the world a worse place, or at least, that's a side effect of their attempts to push their world view onto others to increase their political power.
Finally, about IC. How many instances of IC have been 'found' by religious objectors, only to have their examples disproven fairly quickly? Each time, the religionist thinks they've found one, they don't research properly but declare "Ah HA! This DISPROVES evolution!". It's become a waste of time. If they wanted to further knowledge, they'd spend the effort disproving their own objections.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 22 2007, 02:55 AM)
Harun Yayha is a lie. You're wasting your time reading it, because it's trying to trick you in the subtlest ways that it can. It's like reading Dan Brown for insights into Church conspiracies: not the best source
This is an absolute lie. And it's obviously a lie to anyone who has experience in genetics. The only reason to include such a lie is to fool people who don't know better. Just google for "beneficial mutations"; in all instances, you'll likely find a mutation which allows a species to thrive in an environment where the wildtype had a disadvantage.
Harun Yayha is trying to make the world a worse place, or at least, that's a side effect of their attempts to push their world view onto others to increase their political power.
Finally, about IC. How many instances of IC have been 'found' by religious objectors, only to have their examples disproven fairly quickly? Each time, the religionist thinks they've found one, they don't research properly but declare "Ah HA! This DISPROVES evolution!". It's become a waste of time. If they wanted to further knowledge, they'd spend the effort disproving their own objections.
Wow, for a moment there I had to look twice at what you were saying. I have not seen such fundamentalist type retorts. What do you have to say about the construction of the lobster's eye. How is this a lie? I am not here to trick you buddy, but your answer may as well have come from some person like dad1. Oh ok, I'll believe ya.:-)
I'm very open minded about the whole issues regarding evolution and creation. Until I read this intro by Huran I really had it settled in my mind that the scientists must have had it worked out, and only a few more things like the evidence for the origin of life and macro evolution to go. ANd that still wouldn't have meant that ther ewas no actual creation of the process. Yet it seems you don't actually have an answer for how flight began either. No fossil evidence apparently.
What you have retorted with is just not enough. Give me more facts please.
I don't care about who Huran is. I take what I read as what I read, and what I am after is an explanation as to why what I have read is not true.
This is an absolute lie. And it's obviously a lie to anyone who has experience in genetics. The only reason to include such a lie is to fool people who don't know better. Just google for "beneficial mutations"; in all instances, you'll likely find a mutation which allows a species to thrive in an environment where the wildtype had a disadvantage.
Harun Yayha is trying to make the world a worse place, or at least, that's a side effect of their attempts to push their world view onto others to increase their political power.
Finally, about IC. How many instances of IC have been 'found' by religious objectors, only to have their examples disproven fairly quickly? Each time, the religionist thinks they've found one, they don't research properly but declare "Ah HA! This DISPROVES evolution!". It's become a waste of time. If they wanted to further knowledge, they'd spend the effort disproving their own objections.
Wow, for a moment there I had to look twice at what you were saying. I have not seen such fundamentalist type retorts. What do you have to say about the construction of the lobster's eye. How is this a lie? I am not here to trick you buddy, but your answer may as well have come from some person like dad1. Oh ok, I'll believe ya.:-)
I'm very open minded about the whole issues regarding evolution and creation. Until I read this intro by Huran I really had it settled in my mind that the scientists must have had it worked out, and only a few more things like the evidence for the origin of life and macro evolution to go. ANd that still wouldn't have meant that ther ewas no actual creation of the process. Yet it seems you don't actually have an answer for how flight began either. No fossil evidence apparently.
What you have retorted with is just not enough. Give me more facts please.
I don't care about who Huran is. I take what I read as what I read, and what I am after is an explanation as to why what I have read is not true.
See: http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/eyeevolution.html
As usual, they leave out the interesting evolutionary details.
http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/images/strat.gif
Too bad most people simply can't IMAGINE what it means to have evolved over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years.
The evolutionary split that lead to the different eye of the lobster was over 300 million years ago.
Arthur
As usual, they leave out the interesting evolutionary details.
http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/images/strat.gif
Too bad most people simply can't IMAGINE what it means to have evolved over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years.
The evolutionary split that lead to the different eye of the lobster was over 300 million years ago.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 22 2007, 04:30 AM)
See: http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/eyeevolution.html
As usual, they leave out the interesting evolutionary details.
http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/images/strat.gif
Too bad most people simply can't IMAGINE what it means to have evolved over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years.
The evolutionary split that lead to the different eye of the lobster was over 300 million years ago.
Arthur
They?? You people can worse than the bloody fundamentalists, he he!
Thanks for the gif. How does this event form 300 million years ago actually explain the functioning of the eye? And who can't imagine 300 million years. I can imagine all the way back to the split second before the big bang actually. You ain't gonna accuse me of believe that 6000 year thingy are you? Please don't. I just want to find out for myself how you can be so confident here about your theory, that's all.
I'm up till 5 in the morning here, having looked up some more on mutation. Very enjoyable ride too. I think it's really funny how you guys sound so grumpy personally, he he! I mean, I'm there for the convincing. All that needs to be done is to convince me. The gif file doesn't really say anything, does it?? What does it say? A tree, going back 300 million years. It may as well be a bloody tree with the names of saints on it.:-)
Go to this link if you like, as this is where I started gainign some further insight into mutation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...Mutations.shtml
A bit basic, but nevertheless it was the first link. I take it you won't think this particular site is based on a lie?
I'll assume you don't for now.
>>>The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring.>>>
No implication there yet about a changing from one specie to another.
This page then goes on to show how a mutation has caused the cat's ears to fold back slightly. Again, the ear is there intact, and no explanation as yet is given how the ear got to be intact and working.
>>>>There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles—mutations could not have done it.>>>>
Even if they could, one would see developed wings, fully working, or a foot all intact. Mutations do not seem to do do anything gradually.
Exposure to certain chemicals can cause mutations. We also know of some of the mutations that occur when living things are exposed to nueclear waste.
Gene Flow...no talk of one specie becoming another. The talk is of modifications to a specie.
Sex and genetic shuffling - again influencing only the specie itself. No talk of eyes developing gradually either. The son gets a big nose from his father's side, but a nose that is fully functioning nevertheless, unless it is a lethal mutation of course.
Development...a fruit fly is shown to possess an extra pair of wings. Again, no gradual extra pair of wings, but wings fit for the job. Modular evolution perhaps? Spare parts all working and present.
Vestigial structures...no sign of any gradual non functioning here, just something that is switched off if not needed.
>>>>First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are “good enough,” you’ll get some offspring into the next generation—you don’t have to be perfect. >>>>
True, but a lobster's eye does, or it won't work. Lobster's however will pass on genes, and if the eye comes out imperfect it is a lethal dose of "see ya later" for that lobster.
I'll have to explore further the idea of macro-evolution. There is no link between micro and macro here at all, so far.
As usual, they leave out the interesting evolutionary details.
http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/images/strat.gif
Too bad most people simply can't IMAGINE what it means to have evolved over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years.
The evolutionary split that lead to the different eye of the lobster was over 300 million years ago.
Arthur
They?? You people can worse than the bloody fundamentalists, he he!
Thanks for the gif. How does this event form 300 million years ago actually explain the functioning of the eye? And who can't imagine 300 million years. I can imagine all the way back to the split second before the big bang actually. You ain't gonna accuse me of believe that 6000 year thingy are you? Please don't. I just want to find out for myself how you can be so confident here about your theory, that's all.
I'm up till 5 in the morning here, having looked up some more on mutation. Very enjoyable ride too. I think it's really funny how you guys sound so grumpy personally, he he! I mean, I'm there for the convincing. All that needs to be done is to convince me. The gif file doesn't really say anything, does it?? What does it say? A tree, going back 300 million years. It may as well be a bloody tree with the names of saints on it.:-)
Go to this link if you like, as this is where I started gainign some further insight into mutation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...Mutations.shtml
A bit basic, but nevertheless it was the first link. I take it you won't think this particular site is based on a lie?
I'll assume you don't for now.
>>>The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring.>>>
No implication there yet about a changing from one specie to another.
This page then goes on to show how a mutation has caused the cat's ears to fold back slightly. Again, the ear is there intact, and no explanation as yet is given how the ear got to be intact and working.
>>>>There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles—mutations could not have done it.>>>>
Even if they could, one would see developed wings, fully working, or a foot all intact. Mutations do not seem to do do anything gradually.
Exposure to certain chemicals can cause mutations. We also know of some of the mutations that occur when living things are exposed to nueclear waste.
Gene Flow...no talk of one specie becoming another. The talk is of modifications to a specie.
Sex and genetic shuffling - again influencing only the specie itself. No talk of eyes developing gradually either. The son gets a big nose from his father's side, but a nose that is fully functioning nevertheless, unless it is a lethal mutation of course.
Development...a fruit fly is shown to possess an extra pair of wings. Again, no gradual extra pair of wings, but wings fit for the job. Modular evolution perhaps? Spare parts all working and present.
Vestigial structures...no sign of any gradual non functioning here, just something that is switched off if not needed.
>>>>First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are “good enough,” you’ll get some offspring into the next generation—you don’t have to be perfect. >>>>
True, but a lobster's eye does, or it won't work. Lobster's however will pass on genes, and if the eye comes out imperfect it is a lethal dose of "see ya later" for that lobster.
I'll have to explore further the idea of macro-evolution. There is no link between micro and macro here at all, so far.
Awh, 'trolling' are we? You know that kind of overfishing are soon gonna be a memory just :)
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 22 2007, 03:08 AM)
Wow, for a moment there I had to look twice at what you were saying. I have not seen such fundamentalist type retorts. ...
I don't care about who Huran is.
I apologise for the vehemence. The Harun Yayha organisation is an evil, evil organisation. Arguing with them is historically similar to arguing with Nazis about race. They present some facts, but they have no interest in actually getting to the truth and so cherry-pick their facts in order to obfuscate and confuse. And they certainly don't investigate things in detail.
Their goal is to reinterpret the world such that the Koran cannot be wrong. That's their goal. Because of this, they're not interesting in finding truth, but making truth.
Regardless, look at their intro "no beneficial mutations have ever been found". It's a lie. They're willing to lie about something that simple and familiar to biologists that we can recognise that they're not interested in truth.
But, for historical interest, which religionist organisation first thought that the "Irreducible Complexity" argument was a good one?
Here's the problem: Harun Yayha will reach tens of thousands of people, and convince them that the Lobster Eye disproves evolution. Then, within a couple years, someone will disprove that the eye is IC. However, Harun Yayha will NOT publically retract their position and then seek to inform their poor audience. They will trundle off, ignore more facts, and then find another example to deceive people with. They will not endeavour to inform their target audience, but target new people with deception.
The scientists involved could have presented their theories to other scientists, and then sought the answers they were allegedly looking for: even try to help find answer themselves. Instead, they try to confuse laymen with a mass mailing of propaganda disguised as information.
I don't care about who Huran is.
I apologise for the vehemence. The Harun Yayha organisation is an evil, evil organisation. Arguing with them is historically similar to arguing with Nazis about race. They present some facts, but they have no interest in actually getting to the truth and so cherry-pick their facts in order to obfuscate and confuse. And they certainly don't investigate things in detail.
Their goal is to reinterpret the world such that the Koran cannot be wrong. That's their goal. Because of this, they're not interesting in finding truth, but making truth.
Regardless, look at their intro "no beneficial mutations have ever been found". It's a lie. They're willing to lie about something that simple and familiar to biologists that we can recognise that they're not interested in truth.
But, for historical interest, which religionist organisation first thought that the "Irreducible Complexity" argument was a good one?
Here's the problem: Harun Yayha will reach tens of thousands of people, and convince them that the Lobster Eye disproves evolution. Then, within a couple years, someone will disprove that the eye is IC. However, Harun Yayha will NOT publically retract their position and then seek to inform their poor audience. They will trundle off, ignore more facts, and then find another example to deceive people with. They will not endeavour to inform their target audience, but target new people with deception.
The scientists involved could have presented their theories to other scientists, and then sought the answers they were allegedly looking for: even try to help find answer themselves. Instead, they try to confuse laymen with a mass mailing of propaganda disguised as information.
The question "How did the lobster eye evolve?" is a good one, though.
You'll need a couple bits of information: what's the genetic requirement for the shape and style of the eye? How many genes are divergent from the other type of eye? What was the eye-shape variance among the common ancestor 300 million years ago?
Remember that the eye is actually dozens of components. The genes will have a significant effect on shape and location, but there likely are many intermediate survivable steps. It could very well be that a lobster eye is more closely related to the ancestor and that the other eyes evolved out of the more primative style.
The text falls apart because the text (once again) tries to fool people with "half an eye is no use". They certainly didn't look for subtle variations of intermediate steps.
You'll need a couple bits of information: what's the genetic requirement for the shape and style of the eye? How many genes are divergent from the other type of eye? What was the eye-shape variance among the common ancestor 300 million years ago?
Remember that the eye is actually dozens of components. The genes will have a significant effect on shape and location, but there likely are many intermediate survivable steps. It could very well be that a lobster eye is more closely related to the ancestor and that the other eyes evolved out of the more primative style.
The text falls apart because the text (once again) tries to fool people with "half an eye is no use". They certainly didn't look for subtle variations of intermediate steps.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 22 2007, 12:52 PM)
I apologise for the vehemence. The Harun Yayha organisation is an evil, evil organisation. Arguing with them is historically similar to arguing with Nazis about race. They present some facts, but they have no interest in actually getting to the truth and so cherry-pick their facts in order to obfuscate and confuse. And they certainly don't investigate things in detail.
Their goal is to reinterpret the world such that the Koran cannot be wrong. That's their goal. Because of this, they're not interesting in finding truth, but making truth.
Regardless, look at their intro "no beneficial mutations have ever been found". It's a lie. They're willing to lie about something that simple and familiar to biologists that we can recognise that they're not interested in truth.
But, for historical interest, which religionist organisation first thought that the "Irreducible Complexity" argument was a good one?
Here's the problem: Harun Yayha will reach tens of thousands of people, and convince them that the Lobster Eye disproves evolution. Then, within a couple years, someone will disprove that the eye is IC. However, Harun Yayha will NOT publically retract their position and then seek to inform their poor audience. They will trundle off, ignore more facts, and then find another example to deceive people with. They will not endeavour to inform their target audience, but target new people with deception.
The scientists involved could have presented their theories to other scientists, and then sought the answers they were allegedly looking for: even try to help find answer themselves. Instead, they try to confuse laymen with a mass mailing of propaganda disguised as information.
Well your dislike for this guy must have sparked off your reaction, which is understandable becuase I'm prone to go jumping in at times. I've never heard of him personally. Yet as I awoke this morning it dawned on me that this disgruntlement between one side and the other has plenty of paranoia attached to it. I never read what I read with any prior motive. It was a well written argument I must admit. Having flicked through the book there are some lovely pictures of insects and other animals in full colour, and the book seems to be highlighting certain aspects that need clarification from, I guess, what he considers to be the evolutionist theory. If he goes too far, I don't think he is the only guitly party from I'm finding out.
Both sides, the evolutionists and the religious seem to be basing their position on opposing ground , but actually on closer inspection there is little difference there.
In all honesty, I have to say that faith is required on both sides in order to justify the belief system of choice. Again, I personally think evolutionists should carry on with their job, be honest, admit what they don't know, and don't get involved with the shady area of what their theories prove.
The Koran and the bible are not as enlightening as Taoism for example, so I wouldn't support any agenda to discredit evolution based on the beliefs regarding creation from the basis of those two religions.
The tiny look I've had into mutation shows that creatures have the ability to adapt. Whether that can be classed as an improvement or simply a survival mechanism is open to debate. The substance of the article is really about the eye of this lobster.
Unless that is tainted with BS too, I'm finding it a rather compelling argument, and not based on any wish to defend any religion. Whether this lobster's eye disproves evolution or not, it is surely something that needs clarifying. You say it will be clarified within a couple of years, which to me is no different than saying the messiah will come back soon! They've looked for the missing link for quite a long time, and amybe by 23 August 2013 it will be found eh?!
I really don't see where the deceit in this highlighting of the lobster's eye is. What I see is people feeling threatened, but not questioning that the bits and pieces they have to defend requires a large amount of faith too. There is nothing deceiving about this pretty amazing thing that allows the lobster to see. If Huran's motives are deceitful then he must be deceiving himself with bringing to the fore something that just naturally is.
And why someone should accuse me of trolling here is another one of them "hmmmmmmmmmmm" feelings I get. So I have to shut my mouth about these things?
I'll bear in mind what you've said about Huran being part of some organisation who wish to discredit evolution by acts of deceit.
Their goal is to reinterpret the world such that the Koran cannot be wrong. That's their goal. Because of this, they're not interesting in finding truth, but making truth.
Regardless, look at their intro "no beneficial mutations have ever been found". It's a lie. They're willing to lie about something that simple and familiar to biologists that we can recognise that they're not interested in truth.
But, for historical interest, which religionist organisation first thought that the "Irreducible Complexity" argument was a good one?
Here's the problem: Harun Yayha will reach tens of thousands of people, and convince them that the Lobster Eye disproves evolution. Then, within a couple years, someone will disprove that the eye is IC. However, Harun Yayha will NOT publically retract their position and then seek to inform their poor audience. They will trundle off, ignore more facts, and then find another example to deceive people with. They will not endeavour to inform their target audience, but target new people with deception.
The scientists involved could have presented their theories to other scientists, and then sought the answers they were allegedly looking for: even try to help find answer themselves. Instead, they try to confuse laymen with a mass mailing of propaganda disguised as information.
Well your dislike for this guy must have sparked off your reaction, which is understandable becuase I'm prone to go jumping in at times. I've never heard of him personally. Yet as I awoke this morning it dawned on me that this disgruntlement between one side and the other has plenty of paranoia attached to it. I never read what I read with any prior motive. It was a well written argument I must admit. Having flicked through the book there are some lovely pictures of insects and other animals in full colour, and the book seems to be highlighting certain aspects that need clarification from, I guess, what he considers to be the evolutionist theory. If he goes too far, I don't think he is the only guitly party from I'm finding out.
Both sides, the evolutionists and the religious seem to be basing their position on opposing ground , but actually on closer inspection there is little difference there.
In all honesty, I have to say that faith is required on both sides in order to justify the belief system of choice. Again, I personally think evolutionists should carry on with their job, be honest, admit what they don't know, and don't get involved with the shady area of what their theories prove.
The Koran and the bible are not as enlightening as Taoism for example, so I wouldn't support any agenda to discredit evolution based on the beliefs regarding creation from the basis of those two religions.
The tiny look I've had into mutation shows that creatures have the ability to adapt. Whether that can be classed as an improvement or simply a survival mechanism is open to debate. The substance of the article is really about the eye of this lobster.
Unless that is tainted with BS too, I'm finding it a rather compelling argument, and not based on any wish to defend any religion. Whether this lobster's eye disproves evolution or not, it is surely something that needs clarifying. You say it will be clarified within a couple of years, which to me is no different than saying the messiah will come back soon! They've looked for the missing link for quite a long time, and amybe by 23 August 2013 it will be found eh?!
I really don't see where the deceit in this highlighting of the lobster's eye is. What I see is people feeling threatened, but not questioning that the bits and pieces they have to defend requires a large amount of faith too. There is nothing deceiving about this pretty amazing thing that allows the lobster to see. If Huran's motives are deceitful then he must be deceiving himself with bringing to the fore something that just naturally is.
And why someone should accuse me of trolling here is another one of them "hmmmmmmmmmmm" feelings I get. So I have to shut my mouth about these things?
I'll bear in mind what you've said about Huran being part of some organisation who wish to discredit evolution by acts of deceit.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 22 2007, 07:27 AM)
Awh, 'trolling' are we? You know that kind of overfishing are soon gonna be a memory just 
Wanna explain to me why I'm trolling? I have to accept things without question your honor?
Wanna explain to me why I'm trolling? I have to accept things without question your honor?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 22 2007, 01:20 PM)
The question "How did the lobster eye evolve?" is a good one, though.
You'll need a couple bits of information: what's the genetic requirement for the shape and style of the eye? How many genes are divergent from the other type of eye? What was the eye-shape variance among the common ancestor 300 million years ago?
Remember that the eye is actually dozens of components. The genes will have a significant effect on shape and location, but there likely are many intermediate survivable steps. It could very well be that a lobster eye is more closely related to the ancestor and that the other eyes evolved out of the more primative style.
The text falls apart because the text (once again) tries to fool people with "half an eye is no use". They certainly didn't look for subtle variations of intermediate steps.
That's it, that's what I meant about how one side is helping the other side to make deeper inroads into the whole question of life and how it originated. Personal motives don't really have to come into it. In some ways evolution seems to set up opposing sides in order to raise the awareness levels. I know this puts a purpose to the whole act, but someone can now study a little further the possible evolutionary steps required for the lobster to see whilst having its eye evolve over time. I don't think I am the man to answer that, but I will definately look forward to a well written thesis that provides further insight. I've had a great time disproving some music theory myths, and have had the arguments from the past to use as a basis for highlighting the error of thought.
So you say it isn't true that the lobster would not be able to see if any of the perfect squares were not intact from the begining? That would be quite an easy experiment to prove, by setting up a model of the eye and adjusting the squares, or looking for any possible variations that would still produce sight.
You'll need a couple bits of information: what's the genetic requirement for the shape and style of the eye? How many genes are divergent from the other type of eye? What was the eye-shape variance among the common ancestor 300 million years ago?
Remember that the eye is actually dozens of components. The genes will have a significant effect on shape and location, but there likely are many intermediate survivable steps. It could very well be that a lobster eye is more closely related to the ancestor and that the other eyes evolved out of the more primative style.
The text falls apart because the text (once again) tries to fool people with "half an eye is no use". They certainly didn't look for subtle variations of intermediate steps.
That's it, that's what I meant about how one side is helping the other side to make deeper inroads into the whole question of life and how it originated. Personal motives don't really have to come into it. In some ways evolution seems to set up opposing sides in order to raise the awareness levels. I know this puts a purpose to the whole act, but someone can now study a little further the possible evolutionary steps required for the lobster to see whilst having its eye evolve over time. I don't think I am the man to answer that, but I will definately look forward to a well written thesis that provides further insight. I've had a great time disproving some music theory myths, and have had the arguments from the past to use as a basis for highlighting the error of thought.
So you say it isn't true that the lobster would not be able to see if any of the perfect squares were not intact from the begining? That would be quite an easy experiment to prove, by setting up a model of the eye and adjusting the squares, or looking for any possible variations that would still produce sight.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 22 2007, 12:43 AM)
They?? You people can worse than the bloody fundamentalists, he he!
Thanks for the gif. How does this event form 300 million years ago actually explain the functioning of the eye? And who can't imagine 300 million years. I can imagine all the way back to the split second before the big bang actually. You ain't gonna accuse me of believe that 6000 year thingy are you? Please don't. I just want to find out for myself how you can be so confident here about your theory, that's all.
I'm up till 5 in the morning here, having looked up some more on mutation. Very enjoyable ride too. I think it's really funny how you guys sound so grumpy personally, he he! I mean, I'm there for the convincing. All that needs to be done is to convince me. The gif file doesn't really say anything, does it?? What does it say? A tree, going back 300 million years. It may as well be a bloody tree with the names of saints on it.:-)
Go to this link if you like, as this is where I started gainign some further insight into mutation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...Mutations.shtml
A bit basic, but nevertheless it was the first link. I take it you won't think this particular site is based on a lie?
I'll assume you don't for now.
>>>The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring.>>>
No implication there yet about a changing from one specie to another.
This page then goes on to show how a mutation has caused the cat's ears to fold back slightly. Again, the ear is there intact, and no explanation as yet is given how the ear got to be intact and working.
>>>>There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles—mutations could not have done it.>>>>
Even if they could, one would see developed wings, fully working, or a foot all intact. Mutations do not seem to do do anything gradually.
Exposure to certain chemicals can cause mutations. We also know of some of the mutations that occur when living things are exposed to nueclear waste.
Gene Flow...no talk of one specie becoming another. The talk is of modifications to a specie.
Sex and genetic shuffling - again influencing only the specie itself. No talk of eyes developing gradually either. The son gets a big nose from his father's side, but a nose that is fully functioning nevertheless, unless it is a lethal mutation of course.
Development...a fruit fly is shown to possess an extra pair of wings. Again, no gradual extra pair of wings, but wings fit for the job. Modular evolution perhaps? Spare parts all working and present.
Vestigial structures...no sign of any gradual non functioning here, just something that is switched off if not needed.
>>>>First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are “good enough,” you’ll get some offspring into the next generation—you don’t have to be perfect. >>>>
True, but a lobster's eye does, or it won't work. Lobster's however will pass on genes, and if the eye comes out imperfect it is a lethal dose of "see ya later" for that lobster.
I'll have to explore further the idea of macro-evolution. There is no link between micro and macro here at all, so far.
Stick to the subject.
LOBSTER EYES.
But the "facts" and most definately the CONCLUSION presented are NOT true.
The eyes were NOT designed, as the larval forms most clearly show, they EVOLVED.
That said, expecting modern scientists to be ablet to lay out the complete history of all the evolutionary changes in a species that has evolved over 350 Million years is ludicrous, and that's predominately what Creationists do. Pick on any one of MILLIONS of evolutionary changes expressed in the very FEW currently living species and then try to use REVERSE LOGIC to show that the diverse forms COULDN'T have evolved.
It apparently works on enough of those of limited scientific background to keep their coffers full.
Which IS the point.
For a someone WITH a scientific background its actually pretty funny.
In EVERY case I've seen of this, the Creationists simply IGNORE the rich layer of science that explains their conundrum and present a "Cliff Notes" version, with plenty of facts to support their conclusion, just leaving out the ones that clearly show it to be false.
See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/ctz/vol67/nr04/art01
Arthur
Thanks for the gif. How does this event form 300 million years ago actually explain the functioning of the eye? And who can't imagine 300 million years. I can imagine all the way back to the split second before the big bang actually. You ain't gonna accuse me of believe that 6000 year thingy are you? Please don't. I just want to find out for myself how you can be so confident here about your theory, that's all.
I'm up till 5 in the morning here, having looked up some more on mutation. Very enjoyable ride too. I think it's really funny how you guys sound so grumpy personally, he he! I mean, I'm there for the convincing. All that needs to be done is to convince me. The gif file doesn't really say anything, does it?? What does it say? A tree, going back 300 million years. It may as well be a bloody tree with the names of saints on it.:-)
Go to this link if you like, as this is where I started gainign some further insight into mutation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...Mutations.shtml
A bit basic, but nevertheless it was the first link. I take it you won't think this particular site is based on a lie?
I'll assume you don't for now.
>>>The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring.>>>
No implication there yet about a changing from one specie to another.
This page then goes on to show how a mutation has caused the cat's ears to fold back slightly. Again, the ear is there intact, and no explanation as yet is given how the ear got to be intact and working.
>>>>There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles—mutations could not have done it.>>>>
Even if they could, one would see developed wings, fully working, or a foot all intact. Mutations do not seem to do do anything gradually.
Exposure to certain chemicals can cause mutations. We also know of some of the mutations that occur when living things are exposed to nueclear waste.
Gene Flow...no talk of one specie becoming another. The talk is of modifications to a specie.
Sex and genetic shuffling - again influencing only the specie itself. No talk of eyes developing gradually either. The son gets a big nose from his father's side, but a nose that is fully functioning nevertheless, unless it is a lethal mutation of course.
Development...a fruit fly is shown to possess an extra pair of wings. Again, no gradual extra pair of wings, but wings fit for the job. Modular evolution perhaps? Spare parts all working and present.
Vestigial structures...no sign of any gradual non functioning here, just something that is switched off if not needed.
>>>>First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are “good enough,” you’ll get some offspring into the next generation—you don’t have to be perfect. >>>>
True, but a lobster's eye does, or it won't work. Lobster's however will pass on genes, and if the eye comes out imperfect it is a lethal dose of "see ya later" for that lobster.
I'll have to explore further the idea of macro-evolution. There is no link between micro and macro here at all, so far.
Stick to the subject.
LOBSTER EYES.
QUOTE
The eye of a lobster shows remarkable geometry not found elsewhere in nature - it has tiny facets that are perfectly square, so it looks like perfect graph paper.
These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.
Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.
The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments so that they all focus the light at a single point.
It is obvious that the design of the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity". If even one of its features - such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer of the back - were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step by step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly.
One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye was one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and the shrimp.
The other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type eye structure", which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting eye. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells of a lobster eye, the cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.
The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures with the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally different design.
However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.
It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created seperately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous.
These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.
Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.
The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments so that they all focus the light at a single point.
It is obvious that the design of the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity". If even one of its features - such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer of the back - were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step by step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly.
One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye was one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and the shrimp.
The other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type eye structure", which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting eye. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells of a lobster eye, the cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.
The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures with the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally different design.
However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.
It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created seperately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous.
But the "facts" and most definately the CONCLUSION presented are NOT true.
The eyes were NOT designed, as the larval forms most clearly show, they EVOLVED.
That said, expecting modern scientists to be ablet to lay out the complete history of all the evolutionary changes in a species that has evolved over 350 Million years is ludicrous, and that's predominately what Creationists do. Pick on any one of MILLIONS of evolutionary changes expressed in the very FEW currently living species and then try to use REVERSE LOGIC to show that the diverse forms COULDN'T have evolved.
It apparently works on enough of those of limited scientific background to keep their coffers full.
Which IS the point.
For a someone WITH a scientific background its actually pretty funny.
In EVERY case I've seen of this, the Creationists simply IGNORE the rich layer of science that explains their conundrum and present a "Cliff Notes" version, with plenty of facts to support their conclusion, just leaving out the ones that clearly show it to be false.
See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/ctz/vol67/nr04/art01
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 22 2007, 01:59 PM)
Stick to the subject.
LOBSTER EYES.
But the "facts" presented are NOT true.
See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/ctz/vol67/nr04/art01
Arthur
Listen man, stick to the spirit in which the subject has been presented. Wanna be short then go get reduction therapy.
Thanks for the link. Will go have a look in a few.
LOBSTER EYES.
But the "facts" presented are NOT true.
See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/ctz/vol67/nr04/art01
Arthur
Listen man, stick to the spirit in which the subject has been presented. Wanna be short then go get reduction therapy.
Thanks for the link. Will go have a look in a few.
Arthur has hit on what I perceive to be the major flaw in the irreducible complexity argument. They start at the conclusion and try to reverse engineer it.
That's not how the system works.
Evolution didn't have a goal in mind. It's just that Mother Nature can't quit tinkering with things. If something works, mess with it anyway. Eventually things get complicated and intertwined.
That's not how the system works.
Evolution didn't have a goal in mind. It's just that Mother Nature can't quit tinkering with things. If something works, mess with it anyway. Eventually things get complicated and intertwined.
QUOTE (yor_on+)
Awh, 'trolling' are we? You know that kind of overfishing are soon gonna be a memory just
First point FALSE See Table 1, Long bodied decapods are not the only ones with reflecting eyes.
Second point, No, he has it backwards, the reflecting eye pre-dates the refracting eye, ONE branch stuck mainly with reflecting eye, the other branches came up with DOZENS of variations, including the refracting eye.
Third point. There are DOZENS of examples of different levels of subtle to not so subtle VARIAIONS between the various forms of eyes within Crustaceans which CLEARLY show that one form, given sufficient time, can TRANSITION to another.
Forth point. The paper misses the fact that the Larval stages, where ALL crustacean eyes start out essentially the same, and then diverg into the different Adult forms without EVER going through non-functional transitions.
First point FALSE See Table 1, Long bodied decapods are not the only ones with reflecting eyes.
Second point, No, he has it backwards, the reflecting eye pre-dates the refracting eye, ONE branch stuck mainly with reflecting eye, the other branches came up with DOZENS of variations, including the refracting eye.
Third point. There are DOZENS of examples of different levels of subtle to not so subtle VARIAIONS between the various forms of eyes within Crustaceans which CLEARLY show that one form, given sufficient time, can TRANSITION to another.
Forth point. The paper misses the fact that the Larval stages, where ALL crustacean eyes start out essentially the same, and then diverg into the different Adult forms without EVER going through non-functional transitions.
Nilsson (1983) pointed out that the transparent compound eyes of euphausiid and decapod crustacean larvae are in fact preadapted to serve either apposition optics, refracting superposition optics, or reflection superposition optics in adults. Thus, the problem of passing through nonfunctional intermediates does not occur during expansion of the eye.
..
The spectacular diversity of eye types of adult marine Crustacea does not appear in their larval eyes, all of which have a transparent apposition design. The ontogenetic appearance of the adult types from the same morphological source provides fascinating examples of evolutionary inventiveness and ontogenetic flexibility. We have shown here how well the larval design meets the ecological and behavioral requirements of crustacean larvae, and how this design can provide a base from which to develop the adult eye.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa37...i_n9001951/pg_1
Based on the above there is NO BASIS for the claim that it is "CERTAIN" that these eye structures were "DESIGNED".
As to your objections of the terms, "probably", "might have" etc, true scientists don't typically claim CERTAINTY, again, we are talking about changes over 350 million years, for which we have a very limited set of fossil evidence. A prudent scientist is HUMBLE about our ability to know things to an ABSOLUTE level.
Still, what IS clear is a continued trend of INCREASING COMPLEXITY over time.
More complex forms evolving from a continued building upon of previous structures.
EVOLUTION
Arthur
Well I can appreciate your first two points. The third point, however, yet again, doesn't convince me either way:
Third point. There are DOZENS of examples of different levels of subtle to not so subtle VARIAIONS between the various forms of eyes within Crustaceans which CLEARLY show that one form, given sufficient time, can TRANSITION to another.
****************
Clearly as in the eyesight was fully functional? Meaning that Huran's claim was wrong, that any deviation from the reflecting eye structure of the lobster would not allow the lobster to see? One sees various forms, but does one see transition in the evolving from one form to the other?
Variation and transition - As a songwriter I know I have hundreds of failed attempts at writing a song I am happy with. Each song was a seperate attempt, and the only transition is in my skill at writing one. All my past efforts have similarities, and I can say one did evolve into another, but I would not wish to say that I was not part of that learning how to write a song. I was there in the process.
>>>Forth point. The paper misses the fact that the Larval stages, where ALL crustacean eyes start out essentially the same, and then diverg into the different Adult forms without EVER going through non-functional transitions.
*******************
Precisely, they come out working right? Again difference , and indeed various adaptions when necessary, but the whole point is the functionality of the eye.
What I undertsood from the paper was that if that particular model was changed within itself, even slightly, the lobster would be blind. And you are saying this isn't so?
Based on the above there is NO BASIS for the claim that it is "CERTAIN" that these eye structures were "DESIGNED".
****************
I agree there is never certainty at this stage of our evolution.:-)
I'm not claiming any certainty. I was just asking a question regarding the lobster's eye, and any credible counter-argument to this guy's claims.
>>>As to your objections of the terms, "probably", "might have" etc, true scientists don't typically claim CERTAINTY, again, we are talking about changes over 350 million years, for which we have a very limited set of fossil evidence.>>>
***************
That's good about not claiming certainty. I wouldn't dream of being certain about scanty fossil records, and go off preaching that design is a fallacy. Actually I think that isn't the issue anyway. The vehemence being spouted is a war between old hat religious views and a reluctance to let it anywhere near your own research. That's cool I guesss. Any more questions I may have I'll just put on some web site. Didn't like school anyway, just another brick in the wall.
>>>Still, what IS clear is a continued trend of INCREASING COMPLEXITY over time.
That's not bad for a, normally, directionless path. Trends eh? One minute your house is worth a million, the next some squatter warms his toes in front of your fire, whilst you go out looking for scraps. And all the while your partner wishes you weren't so complicated!
>>>More complex forms evolving from a continued building upon of previous structures.
******************
All the way back to that little "jump" from non-living to living no doubt. I think I get the picture.
>>>>>EVOLUTION>>>>>>
*****************
Certainly.:-) But what is really within the nature of evolution?
I disagree. The Harun Yahya is not 'asking questions that need asking', or at least not in a useful way. It's forwarding lies combined with 'thought-provoking' questions to a host of people who are not informed enough to see through the lies.
*****************
Well his personal motives are, as I said , his own. I wouldn't really want to guess what he is all about. Sometimes it doesn't occur to people to ask anything , especially about lobster's eyes. The first I ever knew about it anyway.
>>If they wanted to know about lobster eyes, they could have asked experts in the field and then funded research to answer the questions we don't know. They didn't. They used the money, instead, to combine lies about 'no useful mutations' and 'the ear is irreducibly complex' with a question about lobsters.
******************
I can't argue with that one. That was sneaky. He was claiming that all the parts of the ear need to be developed before one can hear. But these parts can evolve and be brought in over time? Or that less sophisticated versions can be replaced over time?
A bit like upgrading one's guitar?
It's target audience are people who are starting to have doubts that a Global Flood occured, not scientists>>>>>>>>>
Muslims believe in that one too? So he's reinforcing his belief about design in nature and promoting that, and cutting corners with the facts? Oh human nature!
>>>You have 'sight' once you have a light-sensing molecule combined with a system to make use of the information. Phototaxis in bacteria, light-sensing cones in [Amphioxis], and on up. Any light detection is useful. From that point, you have variation.
********************
What made me spend half an hour typing out that section of the intro was this claim that there was no variation possible in that particular desing of the lobster's eye.
Think about it this way. Suppose you found examining the moon useful. Any mutation from that point which gains you more information about the moon is useful. Want more information about the moon? Look at it through a paper-towel tube. This simple little addition blocks out additional ambient light from your surroundings and thus gives you more to know about the moon. Once the tube is there, there are thousands of useful additions available: only a couple will start you on the path to being a telescope, however - only some will.
************************
Sure, and it was ok for the development of the telescope, and many other examples like that too. That , in fact, is the kind of transition I can well believe, all seperate attempts. It just seems that intermittant blindness would be a bad option for the lobster. Again, I can only assume that the claim that the lobster would be blind should the design have deviated from that particular set up, is a correct one.
The guitar example is a great one, if we're going to compare it to an ear (or eye).
Harun would say that a both a guitar and a violin are "Irreducibly Complex": you can only take some parts away from a guitar before it can function as a 'guitar'. And each removal would make it a 'worse' guitar'. And you certainly can't swap parts to make a guitar into a violin, or at least not without losing the ability to play music.
But they're presenting a false idea. It's not that violins came from guitars, but that they both came from a common ancestor.
Think of the example of a common ancestor this way: suppose you have an elastic band stretched between two fingers, and that plucking this causes a pleasing 'twang' sound. Now, you are very capable of adding refinements to this elastic band such that it changes (always maintaining the ability to twang). The trick is to change one piece at a time, with incremental changes. If you do that, you can eventually build a guitar or a violin. It takes awhile, but it can be done. Each refinement will be an improvement upon a previous one.
You'll cross a point of no-return eventually (in that, you cannot begin a migration away from "guitarness" to "violiness" without losing function).
So no, the lobster never 'lost' the ability to see. Or at least, we wouldn't expect so (you can imagine where they'd lose the need for their eyes if they migrated into a pitchblack environment ala mole rats and then a mutation allowed them back out again ... but, it's unexpected). Once they had the ability to do ANY processing with light incremental refinements would augment that ability. At some point, these refinements would diversify them away from the other eye types.
To figure out the exact evolutionary sequence, you'd need to know what eye analogue the ancestor had. Then you'd need the genetic differences between it and the eye of the lobster.
The guitar example is a great one, if we're going to compare it to an ear (or eye).
Harun would say that a both a guitar and a violin are "Irreducibly Complex": you can only take some parts away from a guitar before it can function as a 'guitar'. And each removal would make it a 'worse' guitar'. And you certainly can't swap parts to make a guitar into a violin, or at least not without losing the ability to play music.
But they're presenting a false idea. It's not that violins came from guitars, but that they both came from a common ancestor.
Think of the example of a common ancestor this way: suppose you have an elastic band stretched between two fingers, and that plucking this causes a pleasing 'twang' sound. Now, you are very capable of adding refinements to this elastic band such that it changes (always maintaining the ability to twang). The trick is to change one piece at a time, with incremental changes. If you do that, you can eventually build a guitar or a violin. It takes awhile, but it can be done. Each refinement will be an improvement upon a previous one.
You'll cross a point of no-return eventually (in that, you cannot begin a migration away from "guitarness" to "violiness" without losing function).
So no, the lobster never 'lost' the ability to see. Or at least, we wouldn't expect so (you can imagine where they'd lose the need for their eyes if they migrated into a pitchblack environment ala mole rats and then a mutation allowed them back out again ... but, it's unexpected). Once they had the ability to do ANY processing with light incremental refinements would augment that ability. At some point, these refinements would diversify them away from the other eye types.
To figure out the exact evolutionary sequence, you'd need to know what eye analogue the ancestor had. Then you'd need the genetic differences between it and the eye of the lobster.
It's not that violins came from guitars, but that they both came from a common ancestor.
********************
Again I actually have no problem with the common ancestor belief. For me everything comes as manifest from the undifferentiated polar state. I like the idea of everything coming from one origin. Sound is actually a good example, and the law of overtones highlights how one fundamental can give rise to infinite overtones (theoretically anyway). If one strikes something like a bell or plucks a string, a series of overtones is given - 1:1 2:1 3:1 4:1 etc etc. Like most average musicians I can hear up to about 10:1. As overtones, and frequency rise in pitch they enter the domains where sound is not perceived, and then we tlak of the color spectrum with its frequency (around the 40th octave), and then the massively short wavelengths of x-rays etc etc. No break has happened, and the trnasition from one to another can be highlighted by the frequency at which it oscillates. This common ancestor, to me, is like the 1:1 fundamental. It's children have been created ef
QUOTE (Mirrorman+)
Wanna explain to me why I'm trolling? I have to accept things without question your honor?
Mirrorman: Since I accurately explained a misread of one of your posts to some other posters a few days ago, I'll try my hand at it again. I think that yor_on used "trolling" in a different sense than you understood, as a play on words.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trolling
Main Entry: 1troll
Pronunciation: \ˈtrōl\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Anglo-French *troiller, *troller; akin to Anglo-French troil, trolle winch
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1: to cause to move round and round : roll
2 a: to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession b: to sing loudly c: to celebrate in song
3 a: to fish for by trolling b: to fish by trolling in <troll lakes> c: to pull through the water in trolling <troll a lure> d: to search in or at <trolls flea markets for bargains>; also : prowl <troll nightclubs>
intransitive verb
1: to move around : ramble
2 a: to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat b: search, look <trolling for sponsors>; also : prowl
3: to sing or play in a jovial manner
4: to speak rapidly
— troll·er noun
Since you made a reference to "lobster eyes", I think yor_on playfully mentioned "trolling" and "overfishing". For whatever that's worth...
Mirrorman: Since I accurately explained a misread of one of your posts to some other posters a few days ago, I'll try my hand at it again. I think that yor_on used "trolling" in a different sense than you understood, as a play on words.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trolling
Main Entry: 1troll
Pronunciation: \ˈtrōl\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Anglo-French *troiller, *troller; akin to Anglo-French troil, trolle winch
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1: to cause to move round and round : roll
2 a: to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession b: to sing loudly c: to celebrate in song
3 a: to fish for by trolling b: to fish by trolling in <troll lakes> c: to pull through the water in trolling <troll a lure> d: to search in or at <trolls flea markets for bargains>; also : prowl <troll nightclubs>
intransitive verb
1: to move around : ramble
2 a: to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat b: search, look <trolling for sponsors>; also : prowl
3: to sing or play in a jovial manner
4: to speak rapidly
— troll·er noun
Since you made a reference to "lobster eyes", I think yor_on playfully mentioned "trolling" and "overfishing". For whatever that's worth...
All: You should know by now that I generally avoid getting into discussions about things that I haven't personally researched. With this in mind, I'm simply offering the following article as an FYI without offering my opinions on either side of the argument/discussion. Since I subscribe to the NY Times online, I read this article a few days ago. Here it is, in it's entirety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/...r=1&oref=slogin
Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: July 17, 2007
In the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fueled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.
Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion.
It is the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.
At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
In bowing to Scripture, Mr. Yahya resembles some fundamentalist creationists in the United States. But he is not among those who assert that Earth is only a few thousand years old. The principal argument of “Atlas of Creation,” advanced in page after page of stunning photographs of fossil plants, insects and animals, is that creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible, illusory, a lie, a deception or “a theory in crisis.”
In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.
The book caused a stir earlier this year when a French translation materialized at high schools, universities and museums in France. Until then, creationist literature was relatively rare in France, according to Armand de Ricqles, a professor of historical biology and evolutionism at the College de France. Scientists spoke out against the book, he said in an e-mail message, and “thanks to the highly centralized public school system in France, it was possible to organize that the books sent to lycées would not be made available to children.”
So far, no similar response is emerging in the United States. “In our country we are used to nonsense like this,” said Kevin Padian, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who, like colleagues there, found a copy in his mailbox.
He said people who had received copies were “just astounded at its size and production values and equally astonished at what a load of crap it is.
“If he sees a picture of an old fossil crab or something, he says, ‘See, it looks just like a regular crab, there’s no evolution,’ ” Dr. Padian said. “Extinction does not seem to bother him. He does not really have any sense of what we know about how things change through time.”
Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, said he and his colleagues in the life sciences had all received copies. When he called friends at the University of Colorado and the University of Chicago, they had the books too, he said. Scientists at Brigham Young University, the University of Connecticut, the University of Georgia and others have also received them.
“I think he must have sent it to every full professor in the medical school,” said Kathryn L. Calame, a microbiologist at the Columbia University medical school who received a copy. “The genetics department, the biochem department, micro — everybody I talked to had it.”
While they said they were unimpressed with the book’s content, recipients marveled at its apparent cost. “If you went into a bookstore and saw a book like this, it would be at least $100,” said Dr. Miller, an author of conventional biology texts. “The production costs alone are astronomical. We are talking millions of dollars.”
Fatih Sen, who heads the United States office of Global Impex, a company that markets Islamic books, gifts and other products, including “Atlas,” would not comment on its distribution, except to describe the book as “great” and refer questions to the publisher, Global Publishing of Istanbul. Repeated attempts by telephone and e-mail to reach the concern, or Mr. Yahya, were unsuccessful.
In the book and on his Web site (www.harunyahya.com), Mr. Yahya says he was born in Ankara in 1956, and grew up and was educated in Turkey. He says he seeks to unmask what the book calls “the imposture of evolutionists” and the links between their scientific views and modern evils like fascism, communism and terrorism. He says he hopes to encourage readers “to open their minds and hearts and guide them to become more devoted servants of God.”
He adds that he seeks “no material gain” from his publications, most of which are available free or at relatively low cost.
Who finances these efforts is “a big question that no one knows the answer to,” said another recipient, Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Missouri who studies issues of science and religion, particularly Islam. Dr. Edis grew up in a secular household in Turkey and has lived in the United States since enrolling in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, where he earned his doctorate in 1994. He said Mr. Yahya’s activities were usually described in the Turkish press as financed by donations. “But what that can mean is anybody’s guess,” he said.
The effort seems particularly odd given the mailing list. Both Dr. Padian and Dr. Miller testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover, Penn., lawsuit that successfully challenged the teaching of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, in schools there. Other recipients include Steve Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University who has been active on behalf of school board candidates who support the teaching of evolution and science museums that accept evolution as the foundation for modern biology.
“I don’t know what to make of it, quite honestly,” said Laddie Elwell, the director of the Headwaters Science Center in Bemidji, Minn., which she said received a dozen copies. Chuck Deeter, a staff member, said he and his colleagues might use the books’ fossil photographs in their programs on Darwin, which he said can be a hard sell in a region where many people are fundamentalist Christians with creationist beliefs.
Support for creationism is also widespread among Muslims, said Dr. Edis, whose book “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring.
“Taken at face value, the Koran is a creationist text,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to find a scholar of Islam “who is going to be gung-ho about Darwin.”
Perhaps as a result, he said, Mr. Yahya’s books and other publications have won him attention in Islamic areas. “This is a guy with some influence,” Dr. Edis said, “unfortunately for mainstream science.”
Dr. Miller agreed. He said he regularly received e-mail messages from people questioning evolution, with an increasing number coming from Turkey, Lebanon and other areas in the Middle East, most citing Mr. Yahya’s work.
That’s troubling, he said, because Mr. Yahya’s ideas “cast evolution as part of the corrupting influence of the West on Islamic culture, and that promotes a profound anti-science attitude that is certainly not going to help the Islamic world catch up to the West.”
As the scientists ponder what to do with the book — for many, it is too beautiful for the trash bin but too erroneous for their shelves — they also speculate about the motives of its distributors.
“My hypothesis is, like all creationists, they believe that they have a startling truth that the public has been shielded from, and that if they present the facts, in quotation marks, that the scales will fall from the eyes and the charade of evolution will be revealed,” said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which fights the teaching of creationism in public schools. “These people are really serious about this.”
That may be, Dr. Miller said, but it’s also possible “that Harun Yahya and his people have decided that there are plenty of Muslim people in the United States who need to hear this message.”
In his e-mail message, Dr. de Ricqles said some worried that the book was directed at the Muslim population of France as a strategy to “destabilize” poor, predominantly immigrant suburbs “where a large population of youngsters of Moslem faith would be an ideal target for propaganda.”
But despite its wide distribution, Dr. Padian predicted that the book would have little impact in the United States. “We are used to books that are totally wrongheaded about science and confuse science and religion,” he said. “That’s politics.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/...r=1&oref=slogin
Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: July 17, 2007
In the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fueled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.
Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion.
It is the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.
At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
In bowing to Scripture, Mr. Yahya resembles some fundamentalist creationists in the United States. But he is not among those who assert that Earth is only a few thousand years old. The principal argument of “Atlas of Creation,” advanced in page after page of stunning photographs of fossil plants, insects and animals, is that creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible, illusory, a lie, a deception or “a theory in crisis.”
In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.
The book caused a stir earlier this year when a French translation materialized at high schools, universities and museums in France. Until then, creationist literature was relatively rare in France, according to Armand de Ricqles, a professor of historical biology and evolutionism at the College de France. Scientists spoke out against the book, he said in an e-mail message, and “thanks to the highly centralized public school system in France, it was possible to organize that the books sent to lycées would not be made available to children.”
So far, no similar response is emerging in the United States. “In our country we are used to nonsense like this,” said Kevin Padian, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who, like colleagues there, found a copy in his mailbox.
He said people who had received copies were “just astounded at its size and production values and equally astonished at what a load of crap it is.
“If he sees a picture of an old fossil crab or something, he says, ‘See, it looks just like a regular crab, there’s no evolution,’ ” Dr. Padian said. “Extinction does not seem to bother him. He does not really have any sense of what we know about how things change through time.”
Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, said he and his colleagues in the life sciences had all received copies. When he called friends at the University of Colorado and the University of Chicago, they had the books too, he said. Scientists at Brigham Young University, the University of Connecticut, the University of Georgia and others have also received them.
“I think he must have sent it to every full professor in the medical school,” said Kathryn L. Calame, a microbiologist at the Columbia University medical school who received a copy. “The genetics department, the biochem department, micro — everybody I talked to had it.”
While they said they were unimpressed with the book’s content, recipients marveled at its apparent cost. “If you went into a bookstore and saw a book like this, it would be at least $100,” said Dr. Miller, an author of conventional biology texts. “The production costs alone are astronomical. We are talking millions of dollars.”
Fatih Sen, who heads the United States office of Global Impex, a company that markets Islamic books, gifts and other products, including “Atlas,” would not comment on its distribution, except to describe the book as “great” and refer questions to the publisher, Global Publishing of Istanbul. Repeated attempts by telephone and e-mail to reach the concern, or Mr. Yahya, were unsuccessful.
In the book and on his Web site (www.harunyahya.com), Mr. Yahya says he was born in Ankara in 1956, and grew up and was educated in Turkey. He says he seeks to unmask what the book calls “the imposture of evolutionists” and the links between their scientific views and modern evils like fascism, communism and terrorism. He says he hopes to encourage readers “to open their minds and hearts and guide them to become more devoted servants of God.”
He adds that he seeks “no material gain” from his publications, most of which are available free or at relatively low cost.
Who finances these efforts is “a big question that no one knows the answer to,” said another recipient, Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Missouri who studies issues of science and religion, particularly Islam. Dr. Edis grew up in a secular household in Turkey and has lived in the United States since enrolling in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, where he earned his doctorate in 1994. He said Mr. Yahya’s activities were usually described in the Turkish press as financed by donations. “But what that can mean is anybody’s guess,” he said.
The effort seems particularly odd given the mailing list. Both Dr. Padian and Dr. Miller testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover, Penn., lawsuit that successfully challenged the teaching of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, in schools there. Other recipients include Steve Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University who has been active on behalf of school board candidates who support the teaching of evolution and science museums that accept evolution as the foundation for modern biology.
“I don’t know what to make of it, quite honestly,” said Laddie Elwell, the director of the Headwaters Science Center in Bemidji, Minn., which she said received a dozen copies. Chuck Deeter, a staff member, said he and his colleagues might use the books’ fossil photographs in their programs on Darwin, which he said can be a hard sell in a region where many people are fundamentalist Christians with creationist beliefs.
Support for creationism is also widespread among Muslims, said Dr. Edis, whose book “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring.
“Taken at face value, the Koran is a creationist text,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to find a scholar of Islam “who is going to be gung-ho about Darwin.”
Perhaps as a result, he said, Mr. Yahya’s books and other publications have won him attention in Islamic areas. “This is a guy with some influence,” Dr. Edis said, “unfortunately for mainstream science.”
Dr. Miller agreed. He said he regularly received e-mail messages from people questioning evolution, with an increasing number coming from Turkey, Lebanon and other areas in the Middle East, most citing Mr. Yahya’s work.
That’s troubling, he said, because Mr. Yahya’s ideas “cast evolution as part of the corrupting influence of the West on Islamic culture, and that promotes a profound anti-science attitude that is certainly not going to help the Islamic world catch up to the West.”
As the scientists ponder what to do with the book — for many, it is too beautiful for the trash bin but too erroneous for their shelves — they also speculate about the motives of its distributors.
“My hypothesis is, like all creationists, they believe that they have a startling truth that the public has been shielded from, and that if they present the facts, in quotation marks, that the scales will fall from the eyes and the charade of evolution will be revealed,” said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which fights the teaching of creationism in public schools. “These people are really serious about this.”
That may be, Dr. Miller said, but it’s also possible “that Harun Yahya and his people have decided that there are plenty of Muslim people in the United States who need to hear this message.”
In his e-mail message, Dr. de Ricqles said some worried that the book was directed at the Muslim population of France as a strategy to “destabilize” poor, predominantly immigrant suburbs “where a large population of youngsters of Moslem faith would be an ideal target for propaganda.”
But despite its wide distribution, Dr. Padian predicted that the book would have little impact in the United States. “We are used to books that are totally wrongheaded about science and confuse science and religion,” he said. “That’s politics.”
Mirrorman: I'm not accusing you of trolling. Don't worry about that. I don't think of you as a troll at all.
Harun Yahya is an organisation or a network: theory is that they're from Saudi Arabia and that they're trying to export particular Koranic views. Note how heavily they're borrowing from Behe and his ilk.
The problem with presenting the ear as something Irreducibly Complex is that they're presenting the Theory of Evolution ("ToE") as if it predicts that 'ping!' a cochlea appeared in the middle of the ear. This is not the prediction at all.
The ear evolved as a whole, each earlier step was still useful to the organism. The cochlea evolved from an earlier ancestor that was 'cochlea-like', in an organ that was subtley different from the ear. Systems can evolve, systems can differentiate and specialise. Organs are part of systems, and not stand alone devices. A pressure-detecting membrane is all that's needed to start the pathway to 'earness', pressure detection is present in a multitude of primitive animals. A soon as an organism detects pressure in a useful way, it will retain the feature in its offspring. Any additional specialisation will be a benefit.
Most importantly, Harun Yahya is lying about what the ToE is presenting, in order to try to trick people away from it.
Harun Yahya is an organisation or a network: theory is that they're from Saudi Arabia and that they're trying to export particular Koranic views. Note how heavily they're borrowing from Behe and his ilk.
The problem with presenting the ear as something Irreducibly Complex is that they're presenting the Theory of Evolution ("ToE") as if it predicts that 'ping!' a cochlea appeared in the middle of the ear. This is not the prediction at all.
The ear evolved as a whole, each earlier step was still useful to the organism. The cochlea evolved from an earlier ancestor that was 'cochlea-like', in an organ that was subtley different from the ear. Systems can evolve, systems can differentiate and specialise. Organs are part of systems, and not stand alone devices. A pressure-detecting membrane is all that's needed to start the pathway to 'earness', pressure detection is present in a multitude of primitive animals. A soon as an organism detects pressure in a useful way, it will retain the feature in its offspring. Any additional specialisation will be a benefit.
Most importantly, Harun Yahya is lying about what the ToE is presenting, in order to try to trick people away from it.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 22 2007, 01:51 PM)
That's it, that's what I meant about how one side is helping the other side to make deeper inroads into the whole question of life and how it originated. Personal motives don't really have to come into it.
I disagree. The Harun Yahya is not 'asking questions that need asking', or at least not in a useful way. It's forwarding lies combined with 'thought-provoking' questions to a host of people who are not informed enough to see through the lies.
If they wanted to know about lobster eyes, they could have asked experts in the field and then funded research to answer the questions we don't know. They didn't. They used the money, instead, to combine lies about 'no useful mutations' and 'the ear is irreducibly complex' with a question about lobsters.
It's target audience are people who are starting to have doubts that a Global Flood occured, not scientists
You have 'sight' once you have a light-sensing molecule combined with a system to make use of the information. Phototaxis in bacteria, light-sensing cones in [Amphioxis], and on up. Any light detection is useful. From that point, you have variation.
Think about it this way. Suppose you found examining the moon useful. Any mutation from that point which gains you more information about the moon is useful. Want more information about the moon? Look at it through a paper-towel tube. This simple little addition blocks out additional ambient light from your surroundings and thus gives you more to know about the moon. Once the tube is there, there are thousands of useful additions available: only a couple will start you on the path to being a telescope, however - only some will.
I disagree. The Harun Yahya is not 'asking questions that need asking', or at least not in a useful way. It's forwarding lies combined with 'thought-provoking' questions to a host of people who are not informed enough to see through the lies.
If they wanted to know about lobster eyes, they could have asked experts in the field and then funded research to answer the questions we don't know. They didn't. They used the money, instead, to combine lies about 'no useful mutations' and 'the ear is irreducibly complex' with a question about lobsters.
It's target audience are people who are starting to have doubts that a Global Flood occured, not scientists
QUOTE
So you say it isn't true that the lobster would not be able to see if any of the perfect squares were not intact from the begining? That would be quite an easy experiment to prove, by setting up a model of the eye and adjusting the squares, or looking for any possible variations that would still produce sight.
You have 'sight' once you have a light-sensing molecule combined with a system to make use of the information. Phototaxis in bacteria, light-sensing cones in [Amphioxis], and on up. Any light detection is useful. From that point, you have variation.
Think about it this way. Suppose you found examining the moon useful. Any mutation from that point which gains you more information about the moon is useful. Want more information about the moon? Look at it through a paper-towel tube. This simple little addition blocks out additional ambient light from your surroundings and thus gives you more to know about the moon. Once the tube is there, there are thousands of useful additions available: only a couple will start you on the path to being a telescope, however - only some will.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 22 2007, 01:59 PM)
Stick to the subject.
LOBSTER EYES.
But the "facts" and most definately the CONCLUSION presented are NOT true.
The eyes were NOT designed, as the larval forms most clearly show, they EVOLVED.
That said, expecting modern scientists to be ablet to lay out the complete history of all the evolutionary changes in a species that has evolved over 350 Million years is ludicrous, and that's predominately what Creationists do. Pick on any one of MILLIONS of evolutionary changes expressed in the very FEW currently living species and then try to use REVERSE LOGIC to show that the diverse forms COULDN'T have evolved.
It apparently works on enough of those of limited scientific background to keep their coffers full.
Which IS the point.
For a someone WITH a scientific background its actually pretty funny.
In EVERY case I've seen of this, the Creationists simply IGNORE the rich layer of science that explains their conundrum and present a "Cliff Notes" version, with plenty of facts to support their conclusion, just leaving out the ones that clearly show it to be false.
See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/ctz/vol67/nr04/art01
Arthur
The compound eye is one of the most complex and remarkable organs, not only on account of its optical precision, but also for the diversity of optical arrangements that have evolved. This is particularly true of the Crustacea which includes examples of nine out of the ten described types of compound eye (Nilsson, 1989). Such is the complexity of the optics of most compound eyes, it is likely that once one had evolved it would not be replaced by another unless the latter bestowed a significant optical advantage. It is for this reason that Land (1981) suggested that eye structure should be considered a conservative character.
***************************
"that had evolved"...a throw away statement already assuming the position to being the correct one. A similar thing occurs in theology schools I'm sure, where the students get it rammed into their heads that the theological position is already assured, like a priest once said to me wqhen I questioned him on som e text !well I thoight we had esgtablished the truth about God, now can we move on". Well, I'm an alien that doesn't know what is and what isn't assured..:-)
"that once one had evolved". The article I read was that any variation from the complex arrangement of squares would render the lobster blind. How would it have evolved and kept sight intact?
>>>>Given these facts,
*********************
What facts??????? The ones just assumed above???
Make note of the last sentence here:
The evolution of superposition eyes from the apposition eyes found in primitive crustaceans poses a particular problem. The apposition eye produces multiple inverted images whereas in the superposition eye a single erect image is present (Nilsson, 1989). To make this transition without going via non-functioning intermediates requires a continuing correction of the focusing properties of the dioptric apparatus so that light leaving the crystalline cone is either afocal or is focused onto the rhabdom layer. In the reflecting superposition eye this correction is performed by the corneal lens which becomes weaker as the ommatidium lengthens and so the rays remain focused on the rhabdom (unpublished observations). In the refracting superposition eye an increase in the refractive index of the proximal cone tip to effectively form a second lens results in an afocal beam leaving the crystalline cone in some insects (Nilsson, 1989). The parabolic superposition eye (Nilsson, 1988) solves the problem of light crossing the clear zone by using a lightguide to transmit light from the crystalline cone to the rhabdom.
These fundamental differences in the way in which this change from apposition to the different forms of superposition optics occurs means that the latter are not always interchangeable. It appears to be theoretically possible to transform the cylindrical lens of the parabolic superposition eye into the continuous lens cylinder of the refracting superposition eye (Nilsson, 1990). As various intermediates between the two types have been found it is very likely that evolution of one type from the other has occurred. In the case of the reflecting superposition eye, however, there is no apparent mechanism whereby the optics used could have evolved from either of the other types of superposition eye.
*******************************
And another sentence:
This suggests that, whereas the evolution of cylindrical lens systems is not an uncommon event, it may be the case that reflecting superposition optics have evolved very rarely, perhaps only once.
************************
Here again the assumption that it has evolved is already stated as fact, leaving no room for questions. Is this how it is when one goes to school? I never take the word of another just becuase they are an "authortiy".
>>>The discovery of a unique form of optics in decapod crustaceans, termed reflecting superposition (Vogt, 1975), prompted a number of authors to consider the relationships within the order in the light of this discovery. Land (1981) came to the conclusion that Euphausiidae were more closely related to the Mysidae than to the Decapoda, based on the refracting superposition optics shared by these groups, and suggested that the super-order Eucarida was unsound. He also grouped together the long-bodied decapods and the anomuran galatheids as they were thought to be the only taxa sharing reflecting superposition eyes. He concluded that eye design constituted a conservative character, providing a good indication of evolutionary origins. Fincham (1980) came, independently, to much the same conclusions, but also included the Dromioidea and Homoloidea with the galatheids and long-bodied forms as these groups also have square-faceted eyes. The remaining taxa, Brachyura, Hippoidea and Paguroidea formed a second group, as they were then assumed to retain apposition eyes throughout their adult life. These ideas were supported in general by Cronin (1986). All of the conclusions arrived at in these papers seemed to be reasonable, defining the cladistic proximity of the groups based on observed synapomorphies. The subsequent descriptions of refracting superposition eyes from a variety of crustacean taxa (Nilsson, 1990), however, cast considerable doubt on the description of refracting superposition eyes as synapomorphic.
****************************
This form of catagorizing seems to pass off as evidence of evolution. I have no doubt that things evolve, as evidenced by many examples. Yet there is no explanation here about how any of these eyes evolved. That they evolved one to the other seems to be taken as fact, with no examples to back up these "facts". After the unquestioned "facts" are established, one goes on to create a tree, that catagorises thiese changes between the groups, or how the groups share similar traits. How this passes for proof that the lobster's eyes transitioned from one to the other type of eye I am questioning. It's ok to go through a book and make groups of all the letters that appear in the book (the letter "a" appeared 156,763 times, for example, and an "a" with a squiggly mark above it), but that doesn't go on to answer how the alphabet evolved.
>>>These groups (with the possible exception of the Penaeidea) probably arose from an explosive radiation in the Devonian and Carboniferous (Hessler, 1983) from an ancestor that may have possessed reflecting superposition eyes. >>>>>>
**********************
Probably..:-)
>>>Although reflecting optics could have evolved independently in each of these taxa, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case.>>>
***********************
Nor any evidence that the lobsters were not born immediately having those eyes. I'm only being negative about this because I don't take "probables" or "might haves", then go about talking about them as if they were facts. Are you saying a lobster has been found with some reflecting and some refracting process intermediately occuring?
>>>If it is assumed that this state was common to all of the early Decapoda, it is only necessary to suggest that these unusual optics evolved once from the apposition eyes of the ancestral eumalacostracan>>>>
******************
Yeah, let's assume Harry Potter's world is real, then it is only necessary to suggest we all cry out abracadabra.
Thanks for the link anyway, there was some great info in there and I know more about the jargon used in biology. To suggest I have no right to post what I did because of the obvious facts regarding the evolutionary process you wish to have faith in is no different to the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to my door once and told me I couldn't have God unless I was one of theirs. I soon told them to go fondle their beliefs elsewhere. Or that George Bush is right in suggesting one is either for or against freedom, so as to justify his action against Iraq..
It isn't exactly enjoyable having to be at loggerheads with both religionists and so called evolutionists. You both have your bibles, exercise your faiths, and defend your positions.
That's my position for now. Always open to further reason. I'll come back to some of your own points Arthur, as I think one could easily state the same things about your own position. Suffice to say that if they clearly show evolution, then such words as "probably" and "suggest" would be avoided by the author.
LOBSTER EYES.
But the "facts" and most definately the CONCLUSION presented are NOT true.
The eyes were NOT designed, as the larval forms most clearly show, they EVOLVED.
That said, expecting modern scientists to be ablet to lay out the complete history of all the evolutionary changes in a species that has evolved over 350 Million years is ludicrous, and that's predominately what Creationists do. Pick on any one of MILLIONS of evolutionary changes expressed in the very FEW currently living species and then try to use REVERSE LOGIC to show that the diverse forms COULDN'T have evolved.
It apparently works on enough of those of limited scientific background to keep their coffers full.
Which IS the point.
For a someone WITH a scientific background its actually pretty funny.
In EVERY case I've seen of this, the Creationists simply IGNORE the rich layer of science that explains their conundrum and present a "Cliff Notes" version, with plenty of facts to support their conclusion, just leaving out the ones that clearly show it to be false.
See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/ctz/vol67/nr04/art01
Arthur
The compound eye is one of the most complex and remarkable organs, not only on account of its optical precision, but also for the diversity of optical arrangements that have evolved. This is particularly true of the Crustacea which includes examples of nine out of the ten described types of compound eye (Nilsson, 1989). Such is the complexity of the optics of most compound eyes, it is likely that once one had evolved it would not be replaced by another unless the latter bestowed a significant optical advantage. It is for this reason that Land (1981) suggested that eye structure should be considered a conservative character.
***************************
"that had evolved"...a throw away statement already assuming the position to being the correct one. A similar thing occurs in theology schools I'm sure, where the students get it rammed into their heads that the theological position is already assured, like a priest once said to me wqhen I questioned him on som e text !well I thoight we had esgtablished the truth about God, now can we move on". Well, I'm an alien that doesn't know what is and what isn't assured..:-)
"that once one had evolved". The article I read was that any variation from the complex arrangement of squares would render the lobster blind. How would it have evolved and kept sight intact?
>>>>Given these facts,
*********************
What facts??????? The ones just assumed above???
Make note of the last sentence here:
The evolution of superposition eyes from the apposition eyes found in primitive crustaceans poses a particular problem. The apposition eye produces multiple inverted images whereas in the superposition eye a single erect image is present (Nilsson, 1989). To make this transition without going via non-functioning intermediates requires a continuing correction of the focusing properties of the dioptric apparatus so that light leaving the crystalline cone is either afocal or is focused onto the rhabdom layer. In the reflecting superposition eye this correction is performed by the corneal lens which becomes weaker as the ommatidium lengthens and so the rays remain focused on the rhabdom (unpublished observations). In the refracting superposition eye an increase in the refractive index of the proximal cone tip to effectively form a second lens results in an afocal beam leaving the crystalline cone in some insects (Nilsson, 1989). The parabolic superposition eye (Nilsson, 1988) solves the problem of light crossing the clear zone by using a lightguide to transmit light from the crystalline cone to the rhabdom.
These fundamental differences in the way in which this change from apposition to the different forms of superposition optics occurs means that the latter are not always interchangeable. It appears to be theoretically possible to transform the cylindrical lens of the parabolic superposition eye into the continuous lens cylinder of the refracting superposition eye (Nilsson, 1990). As various intermediates between the two types have been found it is very likely that evolution of one type from the other has occurred. In the case of the reflecting superposition eye, however, there is no apparent mechanism whereby the optics used could have evolved from either of the other types of superposition eye.
*******************************
And another sentence:
This suggests that, whereas the evolution of cylindrical lens systems is not an uncommon event, it may be the case that reflecting superposition optics have evolved very rarely, perhaps only once.
************************
Here again the assumption that it has evolved is already stated as fact, leaving no room for questions. Is this how it is when one goes to school? I never take the word of another just becuase they are an "authortiy".
>>>The discovery of a unique form of optics in decapod crustaceans, termed reflecting superposition (Vogt, 1975), prompted a number of authors to consider the relationships within the order in the light of this discovery. Land (1981) came to the conclusion that Euphausiidae were more closely related to the Mysidae than to the Decapoda, based on the refracting superposition optics shared by these groups, and suggested that the super-order Eucarida was unsound. He also grouped together the long-bodied decapods and the anomuran galatheids as they were thought to be the only taxa sharing reflecting superposition eyes. He concluded that eye design constituted a conservative character, providing a good indication of evolutionary origins. Fincham (1980) came, independently, to much the same conclusions, but also included the Dromioidea and Homoloidea with the galatheids and long-bodied forms as these groups also have square-faceted eyes. The remaining taxa, Brachyura, Hippoidea and Paguroidea formed a second group, as they were then assumed to retain apposition eyes throughout their adult life. These ideas were supported in general by Cronin (1986). All of the conclusions arrived at in these papers seemed to be reasonable, defining the cladistic proximity of the groups based on observed synapomorphies. The subsequent descriptions of refracting superposition eyes from a variety of crustacean taxa (Nilsson, 1990), however, cast considerable doubt on the description of refracting superposition eyes as synapomorphic.
****************************
This form of catagorizing seems to pass off as evidence of evolution. I have no doubt that things evolve, as evidenced by many examples. Yet there is no explanation here about how any of these eyes evolved. That they evolved one to the other seems to be taken as fact, with no examples to back up these "facts". After the unquestioned "facts" are established, one goes on to create a tree, that catagorises thiese changes between the groups, or how the groups share similar traits. How this passes for proof that the lobster's eyes transitioned from one to the other type of eye I am questioning. It's ok to go through a book and make groups of all the letters that appear in the book (the letter "a" appeared 156,763 times, for example, and an "a" with a squiggly mark above it), but that doesn't go on to answer how the alphabet evolved.
>>>These groups (with the possible exception of the Penaeidea) probably arose from an explosive radiation in the Devonian and Carboniferous (Hessler, 1983) from an ancestor that may have possessed reflecting superposition eyes. >>>>>>
**********************
Probably..:-)
>>>Although reflecting optics could have evolved independently in each of these taxa, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case.>>>
***********************
Nor any evidence that the lobsters were not born immediately having those eyes. I'm only being negative about this because I don't take "probables" or "might haves", then go about talking about them as if they were facts. Are you saying a lobster has been found with some reflecting and some refracting process intermediately occuring?
>>>If it is assumed that this state was common to all of the early Decapoda, it is only necessary to suggest that these unusual optics evolved once from the apposition eyes of the ancestral eumalacostracan>>>>
******************
Yeah, let's assume Harry Potter's world is real, then it is only necessary to suggest we all cry out abracadabra.
Thanks for the link anyway, there was some great info in there and I know more about the jargon used in biology. To suggest I have no right to post what I did because of the obvious facts regarding the evolutionary process you wish to have faith in is no different to the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to my door once and told me I couldn't have God unless I was one of theirs. I soon told them to go fondle their beliefs elsewhere. Or that George Bush is right in suggesting one is either for or against freedom, so as to justify his action against Iraq..
It isn't exactly enjoyable having to be at loggerheads with both religionists and so called evolutionists. You both have your bibles, exercise your faiths, and defend your positions.
That's my position for now. Always open to further reason. I'll come back to some of your own points Arthur, as I think one could easily state the same things about your own position. Suffice to say that if they clearly show evolution, then such words as "probably" and "suggest" would be avoided by the author.
QUOTE (newguy+Jul 22 2007, 03:15 PM)
All: You should know by now that I generally avoid getting into discussions about things that I haven't personally researched. With this in mind, I'm simply offering the following article as an FYI without offering my opinions on either side of the argument/discussion. Since I subscribe to the NY Times online, I read this article a few days ago. Here it is, in it's entirety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/...r=1&oref=slogin
Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: July 17, 2007
In the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fueled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.
Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion.
It is the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.
At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
In bowing to Scripture, Mr. Yahya resembles some fundamentalist creationists in the United States. But he is not among those who assert that Earth is only a few thousand years old. The principal argument of “Atlas of Creation,” advanced in page after page of stunning photographs of fossil plants, insects and animals, is that creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible, illusory, a lie, a deception or “a theory in crisis.”
In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.
The book caused a stir earlier this year when a French translation materialized at high schools, universities and museums in France. Until then, creationist literature was relatively rare in France, according to Armand de Ricqles, a professor of historical biology and evolutionism at the College de France. Scientists spoke out against the book, he said in an e-mail message, and “thanks to the highly centralized public school system in France, it was possible to organize that the books sent to lycées would not be made available to children.”
So far, no similar response is emerging in the United States. “In our country we are used to nonsense like this,” said Kevin Padian, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who, like colleagues there, found a copy in his mailbox.
He said people who had received copies were “just astounded at its size and production values and equally astonished at what a load of crap it is.
“If he sees a picture of an old fossil crab or something, he says, ‘See, it looks just like a regular crab, there’s no evolution,’ ” Dr. Padian said. “Extinction does not seem to bother him. He does not really have any sense of what we know about how things change through time.”
Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, said he and his colleagues in the life sciences had all received copies. When he called friends at the University of Colorado and the University of Chicago, they had the books too, he said. Scientists at Brigham Young University, the University of Connecticut, the University of Georgia and others have also received them.
“I think he must have sent it to every full professor in the medical school,” said Kathryn L. Calame, a microbiologist at the Columbia University medical school who received a copy. “The genetics department, the biochem department, micro — everybody I talked to had it.”
While they said they were unimpressed with the book’s content, recipients marveled at its apparent cost. “If you went into a bookstore and saw a book like this, it would be at least $100,” said Dr. Miller, an author of conventional biology texts. “The production costs alone are astronomical. We are talking millions of dollars.”
Fatih Sen, who heads the United States office of Global Impex, a company that markets Islamic books, gifts and other products, including “Atlas,” would not comment on its distribution, except to describe the book as “great” and refer questions to the publisher, Global Publishing of Istanbul. Repeated attempts by telephone and e-mail to reach the concern, or Mr. Yahya, were unsuccessful.
In the book and on his Web site (www.harunyahya.com), Mr. Yahya says he was born in Ankara in 1956, and grew up and was educated in Turkey. He says he seeks to unmask what the book calls “the imposture of evolutionists” and the links between their scientific views and modern evils like fascism, communism and terrorism. He says he hopes to encourage readers “to open their minds and hearts and guide them to become more devoted servants of God.”
He adds that he seeks “no material gain” from his publications, most of which are available free or at relatively low cost.
Who finances these efforts is “a big question that no one knows the answer to,” said another recipient, Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Missouri who studies issues of science and religion, particularly Islam. Dr. Edis grew up in a secular household in Turkey and has lived in the United States since enrolling in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, where he earned his doctorate in 1994. He said Mr. Yahya’s activities were usually described in the Turkish press as financed by donations. “But what that can mean is anybody’s guess,” he said.
The effort seems particularly odd given the mailing list. Both Dr. Padian and Dr. Miller testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover, Penn., lawsuit that successfully challenged the teaching of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, in schools there. Other recipients include Steve Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University who has been active on behalf of school board candidates who support the teaching of evolution and science museums that accept evolution as the foundation for modern biology.
“I don’t know what to make of it, quite honestly,” said Laddie Elwell, the director of the Headwaters Science Center in Bemidji, Minn., which she said received a dozen copies. Chuck Deeter, a staff member, said he and his colleagues might use the books’ fossil photographs in their programs on Darwin, which he said can be a hard sell in a region where many people are fundamentalist Christians with creationist beliefs.
Support for creationism is also widespread among Muslims, said Dr. Edis, whose book “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring.
“Taken at face value, the Koran is a creationist text,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to find a scholar of Islam “who is going to be gung-ho about Darwin.”
Perhaps as a result, he said, Mr. Yahya’s books and other publications have won him attention in Islamic areas. “This is a guy with some influence,” Dr. Edis said, “unfortunately for mainstream science.”
Dr. Miller agreed. He said he regularly received e-mail messages from people questioning evolution, with an increasing number coming from Turkey, Lebanon and other areas in the Middle East, most citing Mr. Yahya’s work.
That’s troubling, he said, because Mr. Yahya’s ideas “cast evolution as part of the corrupting influence of the West on Islamic culture, and that promotes a profound anti-science attitude that is certainly not going to help the Islamic world catch up to the West.”
As the scientists ponder what to do with the book — for many, it is too beautiful for the trash bin but too erroneous for their shelves — they also speculate about the motives of its distributors.
“My hypothesis is, like all creationists, they believe that they have a startling truth that the public has been shielded from, and that if they present the facts, in quotation marks, that the scales will fall from the eyes and the charade of evolution will be revealed,” said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which fights the teaching of creationism in public schools. “These people are really serious about this.”
That may be, Dr. Miller said, but it’s also possible “that Harun Yahya and his people have decided that there are plenty of Muslim people in the United States who need to hear this message.”
In his e-mail message, Dr. de Ricqles said some worried that the book was directed at the Muslim population of France as a strategy to “destabilize” poor, predominantly immigrant suburbs “where a large population of youngsters of Moslem faith would be an ideal target for propaganda.”
But despite its wide distribution, Dr. Padian predicted that the book would have little impact in the United States. “We are used to books that are totally wrongheaded about science and confuse science and religion,” he said. “That’s politics.”
Thanks Newguy. I've never heard of the guy until a few days ago. I don't support whatever his intentions are. To me it is about the fact that there a re no established facts either way. Dunno why people just don't admit that. Regardless of this Huran and his wishes, I wanted know what the truth was about this certain lobster's eye. So far I haven't found any conclusive truth about it. What I've found is attacks from both sides, dismissals from both sides, accusations of conspiricies etc. I can believe that some do use nature as a way of dominating with their own their belief systems. I don't have to side with the established religious views, and I can't go further than wishing evolutionists all the best in their searches. To actually allow a kid to come out of school believing that they hold the truth about evolution and their theories is something my kid won't be encouraged to do. He'd be given the state of affairs as they are. Micro-evolution, no worries. Macro-evolution? What it would all proove? In some ways the animosity both sides display may as well be from a chapter of Gulliver's Travel.
And I really understand the fight to keep religious nutters out of the science lab. I would have thought, though, that intelligent people don't go out to attack anyone that questions their "facts". It isn't just about christians and muslims. What about the eastern philosophies regarding creation? What about people that aren't actually religious but still aren't prepared to just believe in a theory that establishes some things, and pretends to have settled the argument once and for all? Maybe these non committed people are fodder for the two sides to tempt into their own fold, but what does that say? It says to me that the two sides are from pretty similar coins, and that they should be a little more discerning about "probably" and "maybe"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/...r=1&oref=slogin
Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: July 17, 2007
In the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fueled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.
Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion.
It is the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.
At 11 x 17 inches and 12 pounds, with a bright red cover and almost 800 glossy pages, most of them lavishly illustrated, “Atlas of Creation” is probably the largest and most beautiful creationist challenge yet to Darwin’s theory, which Mr. Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
In bowing to Scripture, Mr. Yahya resembles some fundamentalist creationists in the United States. But he is not among those who assert that Earth is only a few thousand years old. The principal argument of “Atlas of Creation,” advanced in page after page of stunning photographs of fossil plants, insects and animals, is that creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible, illusory, a lie, a deception or “a theory in crisis.”
In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.
The book caused a stir earlier this year when a French translation materialized at high schools, universities and museums in France. Until then, creationist literature was relatively rare in France, according to Armand de Ricqles, a professor of historical biology and evolutionism at the College de France. Scientists spoke out against the book, he said in an e-mail message, and “thanks to the highly centralized public school system in France, it was possible to organize that the books sent to lycées would not be made available to children.”
So far, no similar response is emerging in the United States. “In our country we are used to nonsense like this,” said Kevin Padian, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who, like colleagues there, found a copy in his mailbox.
He said people who had received copies were “just astounded at its size and production values and equally astonished at what a load of crap it is.
“If he sees a picture of an old fossil crab or something, he says, ‘See, it looks just like a regular crab, there’s no evolution,’ ” Dr. Padian said. “Extinction does not seem to bother him. He does not really have any sense of what we know about how things change through time.”
Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, said he and his colleagues in the life sciences had all received copies. When he called friends at the University of Colorado and the University of Chicago, they had the books too, he said. Scientists at Brigham Young University, the University of Connecticut, the University of Georgia and others have also received them.
“I think he must have sent it to every full professor in the medical school,” said Kathryn L. Calame, a microbiologist at the Columbia University medical school who received a copy. “The genetics department, the biochem department, micro — everybody I talked to had it.”
While they said they were unimpressed with the book’s content, recipients marveled at its apparent cost. “If you went into a bookstore and saw a book like this, it would be at least $100,” said Dr. Miller, an author of conventional biology texts. “The production costs alone are astronomical. We are talking millions of dollars.”
Fatih Sen, who heads the United States office of Global Impex, a company that markets Islamic books, gifts and other products, including “Atlas,” would not comment on its distribution, except to describe the book as “great” and refer questions to the publisher, Global Publishing of Istanbul. Repeated attempts by telephone and e-mail to reach the concern, or Mr. Yahya, were unsuccessful.
In the book and on his Web site (www.harunyahya.com), Mr. Yahya says he was born in Ankara in 1956, and grew up and was educated in Turkey. He says he seeks to unmask what the book calls “the imposture of evolutionists” and the links between their scientific views and modern evils like fascism, communism and terrorism. He says he hopes to encourage readers “to open their minds and hearts and guide them to become more devoted servants of God.”
He adds that he seeks “no material gain” from his publications, most of which are available free or at relatively low cost.
Who finances these efforts is “a big question that no one knows the answer to,” said another recipient, Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Missouri who studies issues of science and religion, particularly Islam. Dr. Edis grew up in a secular household in Turkey and has lived in the United States since enrolling in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, where he earned his doctorate in 1994. He said Mr. Yahya’s activities were usually described in the Turkish press as financed by donations. “But what that can mean is anybody’s guess,” he said.
The effort seems particularly odd given the mailing list. Both Dr. Padian and Dr. Miller testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover, Penn., lawsuit that successfully challenged the teaching of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, in schools there. Other recipients include Steve Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University who has been active on behalf of school board candidates who support the teaching of evolution and science museums that accept evolution as the foundation for modern biology.
“I don’t know what to make of it, quite honestly,” said Laddie Elwell, the director of the Headwaters Science Center in Bemidji, Minn., which she said received a dozen copies. Chuck Deeter, a staff member, said he and his colleagues might use the books’ fossil photographs in their programs on Darwin, which he said can be a hard sell in a region where many people are fundamentalist Christians with creationist beliefs.
Support for creationism is also widespread among Muslims, said Dr. Edis, whose book “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring.
“Taken at face value, the Koran is a creationist text,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to find a scholar of Islam “who is going to be gung-ho about Darwin.”
Perhaps as a result, he said, Mr. Yahya’s books and other publications have won him attention in Islamic areas. “This is a guy with some influence,” Dr. Edis said, “unfortunately for mainstream science.”
Dr. Miller agreed. He said he regularly received e-mail messages from people questioning evolution, with an increasing number coming from Turkey, Lebanon and other areas in the Middle East, most citing Mr. Yahya’s work.
That’s troubling, he said, because Mr. Yahya’s ideas “cast evolution as part of the corrupting influence of the West on Islamic culture, and that promotes a profound anti-science attitude that is certainly not going to help the Islamic world catch up to the West.”
As the scientists ponder what to do with the book — for many, it is too beautiful for the trash bin but too erroneous for their shelves — they also speculate about the motives of its distributors.
“My hypothesis is, like all creationists, they believe that they have a startling truth that the public has been shielded from, and that if they present the facts, in quotation marks, that the scales will fall from the eyes and the charade of evolution will be revealed,” said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which fights the teaching of creationism in public schools. “These people are really serious about this.”
That may be, Dr. Miller said, but it’s also possible “that Harun Yahya and his people have decided that there are plenty of Muslim people in the United States who need to hear this message.”
In his e-mail message, Dr. de Ricqles said some worried that the book was directed at the Muslim population of France as a strategy to “destabilize” poor, predominantly immigrant suburbs “where a large population of youngsters of Moslem faith would be an ideal target for propaganda.”
But despite its wide distribution, Dr. Padian predicted that the book would have little impact in the United States. “We are used to books that are totally wrongheaded about science and confuse science and religion,” he said. “That’s politics.”
Thanks Newguy. I've never heard of the guy until a few days ago. I don't support whatever his intentions are. To me it is about the fact that there a re no established facts either way. Dunno why people just don't admit that. Regardless of this Huran and his wishes, I wanted know what the truth was about this certain lobster's eye. So far I haven't found any conclusive truth about it. What I've found is attacks from both sides, dismissals from both sides, accusations of conspiricies etc. I can believe that some do use nature as a way of dominating with their own their belief systems. I don't have to side with the established religious views, and I can't go further than wishing evolutionists all the best in their searches. To actually allow a kid to come out of school believing that they hold the truth about evolution and their theories is something my kid won't be encouraged to do. He'd be given the state of affairs as they are. Micro-evolution, no worries. Macro-evolution? What it would all proove? In some ways the animosity both sides display may as well be from a chapter of Gulliver's Travel.
And I really understand the fight to keep religious nutters out of the science lab. I would have thought, though, that intelligent people don't go out to attack anyone that questions their "facts". It isn't just about christians and muslims. What about the eastern philosophies regarding creation? What about people that aren't actually religious but still aren't prepared to just believe in a theory that establishes some things, and pretends to have settled the argument once and for all? Maybe these non committed people are fodder for the two sides to tempt into their own fold, but what does that say? It says to me that the two sides are from pretty similar coins, and that they should be a little more discerning about "probably" and "maybe"
QUOTE
The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures with the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally different design.
However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.
It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created seperately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous.
However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.
It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created seperately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous.
First point FALSE See Table 1, Long bodied decapods are not the only ones with reflecting eyes.
Second point, No, he has it backwards, the reflecting eye pre-dates the refracting eye, ONE branch stuck mainly with reflecting eye, the other branches came up with DOZENS of variations, including the refracting eye.
Third point. There are DOZENS of examples of different levels of subtle to not so subtle VARIAIONS between the various forms of eyes within Crustaceans which CLEARLY show that one form, given sufficient time, can TRANSITION to another.
Forth point. The paper misses the fact that the Larval stages, where ALL crustacean eyes start out essentially the same, and then diverg into the different Adult forms without EVER going through non-functional transitions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures with the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally different design. However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces. It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created seperately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous. |
First point FALSE See Table 1, Long bodied decapods are not the only ones with reflecting eyes.
Second point, No, he has it backwards, the reflecting eye pre-dates the refracting eye, ONE branch stuck mainly with reflecting eye, the other branches came up with DOZENS of variations, including the refracting eye.
Third point. There are DOZENS of examples of different levels of subtle to not so subtle VARIAIONS between the various forms of eyes within Crustaceans which CLEARLY show that one form, given sufficient time, can TRANSITION to another.
Forth point. The paper misses the fact that the Larval stages, where ALL crustacean eyes start out essentially the same, and then diverg into the different Adult forms without EVER going through non-functional transitions.
Nilsson (1983) pointed out that the transparent compound eyes of euphausiid and decapod crustacean larvae are in fact preadapted to serve either apposition optics, refracting superposition optics, or reflection superposition optics in adults. Thus, the problem of passing through nonfunctional intermediates does not occur during expansion of the eye.
..
The spectacular diversity of eye types of adult marine Crustacea does not appear in their larval eyes, all of which have a transparent apposition design. The ontogenetic appearance of the adult types from the same morphological source provides fascinating examples of evolutionary inventiveness and ontogenetic flexibility. We have shown here how well the larval design meets the ecological and behavioral requirements of crustacean larvae, and how this design can provide a base from which to develop the adult eye.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa37...i_n9001951/pg_1
Based on the above there is NO BASIS for the claim that it is "CERTAIN" that these eye structures were "DESIGNED".
As to your objections of the terms, "probably", "might have" etc, true scientists don't typically claim CERTAINTY, again, we are talking about changes over 350 million years, for which we have a very limited set of fossil evidence. A prudent scientist is HUMBLE about our ability to know things to an ABSOLUTE level.
Still, what IS clear is a continued trend of INCREASING COMPLEXITY over time.
More complex forms evolving from a continued building upon of previous structures.
EVOLUTION
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 22 2007, 06:25 PM)
Well I can appreciate your first two points. The third point, however, yet again, doesn't convince me either way:
Third point. There are DOZENS of examples of different levels of subtle to not so subtle VARIAIONS between the various forms of eyes within Crustaceans which CLEARLY show that one form, given sufficient time, can TRANSITION to another.
****************
Clearly as in the eyesight was fully functional? Meaning that Huran's claim was wrong, that any deviation from the reflecting eye structure of the lobster would not allow the lobster to see? One sees various forms, but does one see transition in the evolving from one form to the other?
Variation and transition - As a songwriter I know I have hundreds of failed attempts at writing a song I am happy with. Each song was a seperate attempt, and the only transition is in my skill at writing one. All my past efforts have similarities, and I can say one did evolve into another, but I would not wish to say that I was not part of that learning how to write a song. I was there in the process.
>>>Forth point. The paper misses the fact that the Larval stages, where ALL crustacean eyes start out essentially the same, and then diverg into the different Adult forms without EVER going through non-functional transitions.
*******************
Precisely, they come out working right? Again difference , and indeed various adaptions when necessary, but the whole point is the functionality of the eye.
What I undertsood from the paper was that if that particular model was changed within itself, even slightly, the lobster would be blind. And you are saying this isn't so?
Based on the above there is NO BASIS for the claim that it is "CERTAIN" that these eye structures were "DESIGNED".
****************
I agree there is never certainty at this stage of our evolution.:-)
I'm not claiming any certainty. I was just asking a question regarding the lobster's eye, and any credible counter-argument to this guy's claims.
>>>As to your objections of the terms, "probably", "might have" etc, true scientists don't typically claim CERTAINTY, again, we are talking about changes over 350 million years, for which we have a very limited set of fossil evidence.>>>
***************
That's good about not claiming certainty. I wouldn't dream of being certain about scanty fossil records, and go off preaching that design is a fallacy. Actually I think that isn't the issue anyway. The vehemence being spouted is a war between old hat religious views and a reluctance to let it anywhere near your own research. That's cool I guesss. Any more questions I may have I'll just put on some web site. Didn't like school anyway, just another brick in the wall.
>>>Still, what IS clear is a continued trend of INCREASING COMPLEXITY over time.
That's not bad for a, normally, directionless path. Trends eh? One minute your house is worth a million, the next some squatter warms his toes in front of your fire, whilst you go out looking for scraps. And all the while your partner wishes you weren't so complicated!
>>>More complex forms evolving from a continued building upon of previous structures.
******************
All the way back to that little "jump" from non-living to living no doubt. I think I get the picture.
>>>>>EVOLUTION>>>>>>
*****************
Certainly.:-) But what is really within the nature of evolution?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 22 2007, 04:20 PM)
I disagree. The Harun Yahya is not 'asking questions that need asking', or at least not in a useful way. It's forwarding lies combined with 'thought-provoking' questions to a host of people who are not informed enough to see through the lies.
*****************
Well his personal motives are, as I said , his own. I wouldn't really want to guess what he is all about. Sometimes it doesn't occur to people to ask anything , especially about lobster's eyes. The first I ever knew about it anyway.
>>If they wanted to know about lobster eyes, they could have asked experts in the field and then funded research to answer the questions we don't know. They didn't. They used the money, instead, to combine lies about 'no useful mutations' and 'the ear is irreducibly complex' with a question about lobsters.
******************
I can't argue with that one. That was sneaky. He was claiming that all the parts of the ear need to be developed before one can hear. But these parts can evolve and be brought in over time? Or that less sophisticated versions can be replaced over time?
A bit like upgrading one's guitar?
It's target audience are people who are starting to have doubts that a Global Flood occured, not scientists>>>>>>>>>
Muslims believe in that one too? So he's reinforcing his belief about design in nature and promoting that, and cutting corners with the facts? Oh human nature!
>>>You have 'sight' once you have a light-sensing molecule combined with a system to make use of the information. Phototaxis in bacteria, light-sensing cones in [Amphioxis], and on up. Any light detection is useful. From that point, you have variation.
********************
What made me spend half an hour typing out that section of the intro was this claim that there was no variation possible in that particular desing of the lobster's eye.
Think about it this way. Suppose you found examining the moon useful. Any mutation from that point which gains you more information about the moon is useful. Want more information about the moon? Look at it through a paper-towel tube. This simple little addition blocks out additional ambient light from your surroundings and thus gives you more to know about the moon. Once the tube is there, there are thousands of useful additions available: only a couple will start you on the path to being a telescope, however - only some will.
************************
Sure, and it was ok for the development of the telescope, and many other examples like that too. That , in fact, is the kind of transition I can well believe, all seperate attempts. It just seems that intermittant blindness would be a bad option for the lobster. Again, I can only assume that the claim that the lobster would be blind should the design have deviated from that particular set up, is a correct one.
Etymologically true, a bedrock of integrity, as always when you're involved newguy. I'm surprised to the low level of 'cunning' here mirrorman. (or am i using the right word now?) Never mind, to simplify is to diversify, is it not? As for seeing into a lobsters eye, i dare you! Now as for the rest of you argument i can only say fish! Have you ever seen a fish? No? Yes? There goes your argument. So.
Mirrorman
Then your assumption is in error.
While I have not studied the minutia of a lobster's eye, in every instance where this assumption is put forth by creationists it has been shown to be a false one. Behe uses the complexity of blood coagulation in asserting that if just one reaction was missing, the whole system would fail, he was shown to be incorrect. The Bombadier Beetle was put forth as an arguement for design, yet it can be seen that other's of related species have simular structures which have evolved to different uses.
"Complexity
Just knowing what something looks like doesn't tell us whether it looks designed; for that, we must also know what "design" means. Although it's rarely defined, the most important aspect of design as it relates to creationism appears to be complexity. As Richard Lumsden says,
Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. [Lumsden, 1995]
However, the theory of evolution also allows complex, functionally integrated, low-probability systems to arise via gradual variation and selection. For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into human eyes. [Darwin, 1872, chpt. 6] For complexity to be a problem for evolution, it must show some property that rules out gradual development. Michael Behe proposes such a property with the concept he calls "irreducible complexity," which he defines as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." [Behe, 1996, p. 39] Although Behe leaves open the questions of whether bombardier beetles are irreducibly complex, Gish expresses the concept succinctly with reference to them when he says, "How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!" [quoted in Weber, 1981]
Gish is wrong; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
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. [Eisner, 1970])
Small 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.
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. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
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.
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. [Forsyth, 1970]
Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
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.
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.
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. [Eisner et al., 2000]
The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
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.
The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.
A few other points regarding this scenario should be stressed:
Parts of an integral system need not be created specifically for that system, and features used for one purpose can be used for another purpose. The quinones which originally served to darken the cuticle later became used for defense. The muscles which control the valve and squeeze the reservior could easily be adapted from muscles which already existed in the beetle's abdomen.
Complexity can diminish as well as increase. In the proposed scenario, most of the invaginations in which quinones appeared later disappeared. In other cases, a structure could orginally develop with a complex supporting structure which later decreases or disappears.
Two or more parts can evolve a little at a time in conjunction with each other. The strength of the reaction chamber walls and the amount of catalases increased together. One did not have to be present in its final form before the other existed.
Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples. Most important, nature is not constrained by any person's lack of imagination."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
So, it has been shown that "Irreducable Complexity", as used by creationists, is a false assumption. Evolution can and does explain how seemingly designed systems(such as the lobster's eye) can arise naturally.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Again, I can only assume that the claim that the lobster would be blind should the design have deviated from that particular set up, is a correct one
Then your assumption is in error.
While I have not studied the minutia of a lobster's eye, in every instance where this assumption is put forth by creationists it has been shown to be a false one. Behe uses the complexity of blood coagulation in asserting that if just one reaction was missing, the whole system would fail, he was shown to be incorrect. The Bombadier Beetle was put forth as an arguement for design, yet it can be seen that other's of related species have simular structures which have evolved to different uses.
"Complexity
Just knowing what something looks like doesn't tell us whether it looks designed; for that, we must also know what "design" means. Although it's rarely defined, the most important aspect of design as it relates to creationism appears to be complexity. As Richard Lumsden says,
Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. [Lumsden, 1995]
However, the theory of evolution also allows complex, functionally integrated, low-probability systems to arise via gradual variation and selection. For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into human eyes. [Darwin, 1872, chpt. 6] For complexity to be a problem for evolution, it must show some property that rules out gradual development. Michael Behe proposes such a property with the concept he calls "irreducible complexity," which he defines as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." [Behe, 1996, p. 39] Although Behe leaves open the questions of whether bombardier beetles are irreducibly complex, Gish expresses the concept succinctly with reference to them when he says, "How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!" [quoted in Weber, 1981]
Gish is wrong; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
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. [Eisner, 1970])
Small 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.
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. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
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.
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. [Forsyth, 1970]
Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
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.
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.
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. [Eisner et al., 2000]
The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
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.
The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.
A few other points regarding this scenario should be stressed:
Parts of an integral system need not be created specifically for that system, and features used for one purpose can be used for another purpose. The quinones which originally served to darken the cuticle later became used for defense. The muscles which control the valve and squeeze the reservior could easily be adapted from muscles which already existed in the beetle's abdomen.
Complexity can diminish as well as increase. In the proposed scenario, most of the invaginations in which quinones appeared later disappeared. In other cases, a structure could orginally develop with a complex supporting structure which later decreases or disappears.
Two or more parts can evolve a little at a time in conjunction with each other. The strength of the reaction chamber walls and the amount of catalases increased together. One did not have to be present in its final form before the other existed.
Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples. Most important, nature is not constrained by any person's lack of imagination."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
So, it has been shown that "Irreducable Complexity", as used by creationists, is a false assumption. Evolution can and does explain how seemingly designed systems(such as the lobster's eye) can arise naturally.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I can't argue with that one. That was sneaky. He was claiming that all the parts of the ear need to be developed before one can hear. But these parts can evolve and be brought in over time? Or that less sophisticated versions can be replaced over time?
A bit like upgrading one's guitar?
A bit like upgrading one's guitar?
The guitar example is a great one, if we're going to compare it to an ear (or eye).
Harun would say that a both a guitar and a violin are "Irreducibly Complex": you can only take some parts away from a guitar before it can function as a 'guitar'. And each removal would make it a 'worse' guitar'. And you certainly can't swap parts to make a guitar into a violin, or at least not without losing the ability to play music.
But they're presenting a false idea. It's not that violins came from guitars, but that they both came from a common ancestor.
Think of the example of a common ancestor this way: suppose you have an elastic band stretched between two fingers, and that plucking this causes a pleasing 'twang' sound. Now, you are very capable of adding refinements to this elastic band such that it changes (always maintaining the ability to twang). The trick is to change one piece at a time, with incremental changes. If you do that, you can eventually build a guitar or a violin. It takes awhile, but it can be done. Each refinement will be an improvement upon a previous one.
You'll cross a point of no-return eventually (in that, you cannot begin a migration away from "guitarness" to "violiness" without losing function).
So no, the lobster never 'lost' the ability to see. Or at least, we wouldn't expect so (you can imagine where they'd lose the need for their eyes if they migrated into a pitchblack environment ala mole rats and then a mutation allowed them back out again ... but, it's unexpected). Once they had the ability to do ANY processing with light incremental refinements would augment that ability. At some point, these refinements would diversify them away from the other eye types.
To figure out the exact evolutionary sequence, you'd need to know what eye analogue the ancestor had. Then you'd need the genetic differences between it and the eye of the lobster.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 23 2007, 08:47 AM)
Etymologically true, a bedrock of integrity, as always when you're involved newguy. I'm surprised to the low level of 'cunning' here mirrorman. (or am i using the right word now?) Never mind, to simplify is to diversify, is it not? As for seeing into a lobsters eye, i dare you! Now as for the rest of you argument i can only say fish! Have you ever seen a fish? No? Yes? There goes your argument. So.
Hey I'd like some of what you're on you on. If you think I am being cunning perhaps it is you that resonates with such a quality? If you want to know what I am being then just ask in the manner which is fitting.
Hey I'd like some of what you're on you on. If you think I am being cunning perhaps it is you that resonates with such a quality? If you want to know what I am being then just ask in the manner which is fitting.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 23 2007, 12:13 PM)
Mirrorman
Then your assumption is in error.
While I have not studied the minutia of a lobster's eye, in every instance where this assumption is put forth by creationists it has been shown to be a false one. Behe uses the complexity of blood coagulation in asserting that if just one reaction was missing, the whole system would fail, he was shown to be incorrect. The Bombadier Beetle was put forth as an arguement for design, yet it can be seen that other's of related species have simular structures which have evolved to different uses.
"Complexity
Just knowing what something looks like doesn't tell us whether it looks designed; for that, we must also know what "design" means. Although it's rarely defined, the most important aspect of design as it relates to creationism appears to be complexity. As Richard Lumsden says,
Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. [Lumsden, 1995]
However, the theory of evolution also allows complex, functionally integrated, low-probability systems to arise via gradual variation and selection. For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into human eyes. [Darwin, 1872, chpt. 6] For complexity to be a problem for evolution, it must show some property that rules out gradual development. Michael Behe proposes such a property with the concept he calls "irreducible complexity," which he defines as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." [Behe, 1996, p. 39] Although Behe leaves open the questions of whether bombardier beetles are irreducibly complex, Gish expresses the concept succinctly with reference to them when he says, "How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!" [quoted in Weber, 1981]
Gish is wrong; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
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. [Eisner, 1970])
Small 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.
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. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
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.
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. [Forsyth, 1970]
Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
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.
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.
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. [Eisner et al., 2000]
The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
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.
The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.
A few other points regarding this scenario should be stressed:
Parts of an integral system need not be created specifically for that system, and features used for one purpose can be used for another purpose. The quinones which originally served to darken the cuticle later became used for defense. The muscles which control the valve and squeeze the reservior could easily be adapted from muscles which already existed in the beetle's abdomen.
Complexity can diminish as well as increase. In the proposed scenario, most of the invaginations in which quinones appeared later disappeared. In other cases, a structure could orginally develop with a complex supporting structure which later decreases or disappears.
Two or more parts can evolve a little at a time in conjunction with each other. The strength of the reaction chamber walls and the amount of catalases increased together. One did not have to be present in its final form before the other existed.
Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples. Most important, nature is not constrained by any person's lack of imagination."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
So, it has been shown that "Irreducable Complexity", as used by creationists, is a false assumption. Evolution can and does explain how seemingly designed systems(such as the lobster's eye) can arise naturally.
Grumpy
Well, again, it seems that first I have to re-establish that I don't put myself under any umbrella, or have any other motive than to ask my own questions as and when I like. The sensitivity towards what these" religionists agenda " is has SFA to do with me. And the fact that maybe some won't believe that is about as relevant to me as a solar storm on the other side of the universe.
The sensitivity to the word design I can understand if there are a bunch of nutters trying to use it as a way of re-establishing false beliefs, and by that, the scientific implications of them. However, why is it that some are not able to grasp that design is something we all do, in stages, and comes under the idea of an idea evolving. There's plenty of designers I know, and they work for hours evloving their idea. The direction of that idea may even change half way throgh the design.
If I am to be honest then I have to honestly say that some come to conclusions even though their information is predominantly scanty. The information that is then forwarded as some kind of justification for their own belief system happens to be nothing more than a skill at catogorizing and building up a viable kind of theory that would hold that categorizing in truth, and then they somewhere along the line forget it is a theory and go around talking of facts.
I DUNNO ANYTHING FOR SURE. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE DOES EITHER. Enjoy your theories, I find I can study for myself and don't go joining any agendas in life. I was a rebel at shcool and I still am today. I learnt music for myself and I'm learning about evolution for myself, in small baby steps maybe. But so far I see a spirit that pissed me off about religion coexists in the minds of many non religionists. Why's that I wonder. is it the classic "you become what you hate"? The "revolution comes around and casts out the corrupt government, only to become corrupt itself, and spawns another revolution etc etc. Honesty gets interpreted as "cunning", only because some are unable to function any other way themselves.
Your info is very well put, and I'll continue pondering on it. Really want to get into some music today. As for judging anyone's motives, that isn't anything to do with me.
Then your assumption is in error.
While I have not studied the minutia of a lobster's eye, in every instance where this assumption is put forth by creationists it has been shown to be a false one. Behe uses the complexity of blood coagulation in asserting that if just one reaction was missing, the whole system would fail, he was shown to be incorrect. The Bombadier Beetle was put forth as an arguement for design, yet it can be seen that other's of related species have simular structures which have evolved to different uses.
"Complexity
Just knowing what something looks like doesn't tell us whether it looks designed; for that, we must also know what "design" means. Although it's rarely defined, the most important aspect of design as it relates to creationism appears to be complexity. As Richard Lumsden says,
Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. [Lumsden, 1995]
However, the theory of evolution also allows complex, functionally integrated, low-probability systems to arise via gradual variation and selection. For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into human eyes. [Darwin, 1872, chpt. 6] For complexity to be a problem for evolution, it must show some property that rules out gradual development. Michael Behe proposes such a property with the concept he calls "irreducible complexity," which he defines as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." [Behe, 1996, p. 39] Although Behe leaves open the questions of whether bombardier beetles are irreducibly complex, Gish expresses the concept succinctly with reference to them when he says, "How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!" [quoted in Weber, 1981]
Gish is wrong; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
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. [Eisner, 1970])
Small 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.
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. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
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.
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. [Forsyth, 1970]
Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
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.
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.
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. [Eisner et al., 2000]
The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
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.
The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.
A few other points regarding this scenario should be stressed:
Parts of an integral system need not be created specifically for that system, and features used for one purpose can be used for another purpose. The quinones which originally served to darken the cuticle later became used for defense. The muscles which control the valve and squeeze the reservior could easily be adapted from muscles which already existed in the beetle's abdomen.
Complexity can diminish as well as increase. In the proposed scenario, most of the invaginations in which quinones appeared later disappeared. In other cases, a structure could orginally develop with a complex supporting structure which later decreases or disappears.
Two or more parts can evolve a little at a time in conjunction with each other. The strength of the reaction chamber walls and the amount of catalases increased together. One did not have to be present in its final form before the other existed.
Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples. Most important, nature is not constrained by any person's lack of imagination."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
So, it has been shown that "Irreducable Complexity", as used by creationists, is a false assumption. Evolution can and does explain how seemingly designed systems(such as the lobster's eye) can arise naturally.
Grumpy
Well, again, it seems that first I have to re-establish that I don't put myself under any umbrella, or have any other motive than to ask my own questions as and when I like. The sensitivity towards what these" religionists agenda " is has SFA to do with me. And the fact that maybe some won't believe that is about as relevant to me as a solar storm on the other side of the universe.
The sensitivity to the word design I can understand if there are a bunch of nutters trying to use it as a way of re-establishing false beliefs, and by that, the scientific implications of them. However, why is it that some are not able to grasp that design is something we all do, in stages, and comes under the idea of an idea evolving. There's plenty of designers I know, and they work for hours evloving their idea. The direction of that idea may even change half way throgh the design.
If I am to be honest then I have to honestly say that some come to conclusions even though their information is predominantly scanty. The information that is then forwarded as some kind of justification for their own belief system happens to be nothing more than a skill at catogorizing and building up a viable kind of theory that would hold that categorizing in truth, and then they somewhere along the line forget it is a theory and go around talking of facts.
I DUNNO ANYTHING FOR SURE. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE DOES EITHER. Enjoy your theories, I find I can study for myself and don't go joining any agendas in life. I was a rebel at shcool and I still am today. I learnt music for myself and I'm learning about evolution for myself, in small baby steps maybe. But so far I see a spirit that pissed me off about religion coexists in the minds of many non religionists. Why's that I wonder. is it the classic "you become what you hate"? The "revolution comes around and casts out the corrupt government, only to become corrupt itself, and spawns another revolution etc etc. Honesty gets interpreted as "cunning", only because some are unable to function any other way themselves.
Your info is very well put, and I'll continue pondering on it. Really want to get into some music today. As for judging anyone's motives, that isn't anything to do with me.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 23 2007, 01:28 PM)
The guitar example is a great one, if we're going to compare it to an ear (or eye).
Harun would say that a both a guitar and a violin are "Irreducibly Complex": you can only take some parts away from a guitar before it can function as a 'guitar'. And each removal would make it a 'worse' guitar'. And you certainly can't swap parts to make a guitar into a violin, or at least not without losing the ability to play music.
But they're presenting a false idea. It's not that violins came from guitars, but that they both came from a common ancestor.
Think of the example of a common ancestor this way: suppose you have an elastic band stretched between two fingers, and that plucking this causes a pleasing 'twang' sound. Now, you are very capable of adding refinements to this elastic band such that it changes (always maintaining the ability to twang). The trick is to change one piece at a time, with incremental changes. If you do that, you can eventually build a guitar or a violin. It takes awhile, but it can be done. Each refinement will be an improvement upon a previous one.
You'll cross a point of no-return eventually (in that, you cannot begin a migration away from "guitarness" to "violiness" without losing function).
So no, the lobster never 'lost' the ability to see. Or at least, we wouldn't expect so (you can imagine where they'd lose the need for their eyes if they migrated into a pitchblack environment ala mole rats and then a mutation allowed them back out again ... but, it's unexpected). Once they had the ability to do ANY processing with light incremental refinements would augment that ability. At some point, these refinements would diversify them away from the other eye types.
To figure out the exact evolutionary sequence, you'd need to know what eye analogue the ancestor had. Then you'd need the genetic differences between it and the eye of the lobster.
It's not that violins came from guitars, but that they both came from a common ancestor.
********************
Again I actually have no problem with the common ancestor belief. For me everything comes as manifest from the undifferentiated polar state. I like the idea of everything coming from one origin. Sound is actually a good example, and the law of overtones highlights how one fundamental can give rise to infinite overtones (theoretically anyway). If one strikes something like a bell or plucks a string, a series of overtones is given - 1:1 2:1 3:1 4:1 etc etc. Like most average musicians I can hear up to about 10:1. As overtones, and frequency rise in pitch they enter the domains where sound is not perceived, and then we tlak of the color spectrum with its frequency (around the 40th octave), and then the massively short wavelengths of x-rays etc etc. No break has happened, and the trnasition from one to another can be highlighted by the frequency at which it oscillates. This common ancestor, to me, is like the 1:1 fundamental. It's children have been created ef