A new ID challenge at Hannity.com

[Mojo]

I can't speak for him, but I think his point is that TOE is directional when there is no need for it to be other than it just is.

And, of course, evolution by natural selection is not directional except in the short term. The only "goal" (I'm putting the word in quotation marks because it's really a little too anthropomorphic for my taste, but I can't think of an alternative right now) is to produce more descendents in a particular generation. If the environment changes, the "direction" may be completely different for the next generation.

To quote Steve Jones (in The Language of the Genes), "natural selection has superb tactics, but no strategy." Evolution didn't have some sort of ultimate plan of starting from a single cell organism and ending up with man. The only "goal" is to produce something that will survive and reproduce. As far as the theory of evolution by natural selection is concerned, a slime mould, if it survives, is just as valid a result as you or me. I suspect that's why some people find the idea of evolution by natural selection disturbing.

 

[Darat]

And, of course, evolution by natural selection is not directional except in the short term. The only "goal" (I'm putting the word in quotation marks because it's really a little too anthropomorphic for my taste, but I can't think of an alternative right now) is to produce more descendents in a particular generation. If the environment changes, the "direction" may be completely different for the next generation.

...snip...

Good examples to use are parasites: many of them are decendents from "highly evolved" creatures e.g. had mouths, had eyes, had limbs yet are now "highly evolved" creatures with no eyes, no limbs and so on.

 

[Jekyll]

Speaking of directional evolution, I think you might have implied it's existence here Merv. There should be additional viral DNA being propegated down the other branches in our family tree that won't get to humans. It's not just a streight line from monkeys to humans.

Still it's hard to know what to leave in when your talking to idiots.

NWM=New World Monkeys
OWM=Old World Monkeys
Gib=Gibbon
Org=Orangutan
Gor=Gorilla
Cmp=Chimp
Hum=Human

Let's say, theoretically, that the NWM picks up an ERV we call "A". It reproduces and all NWM's now have "A" in their genetic makeup.

NWM evolve into OWM. OWM inherit ERV A.

OWM pick up ERV "B". It reproduces. Now all OWM have ERV's A and B.

OWM evolve into Gib. Gibs inherit ERV's A and B.

Gibs pick up ERVs C, D, and E. Gibs reproduce. Now all Gibs have ERV's A, B, C, D, and E.

This continues until the ERV spread looks like this:

OWM - A
NWM - AB
Gib - ABCDE
Org - ABCDEF
Gor - ABCDEFGH
Cmp - ABCDEFGHIJ
Hum - ABCDEFGHIJK

This order (and only this order) supports evolution. If evolution weren't true, you could find all kinds of wacky combos. The ERV's are found at the same genome locations which shows that they were inherited rather than merely being a coincidence. If virus "D" injected its ERV into NWMs that are still alive today, it is vanishingly unlikely that it would be inserted into the same spot.

It is this accumulation of "junk DNA" that shows common ancestors. Aside from the meaningless explanation of Godidit, what other possibilities are there?

 

[Mojo]

Good examples to use are parasites: many of them are decendents from "highly evolved" creatures e.g. had mouths, had eyes, had limbs yet are now "highly evolved" creatures with no eyes, no limbs and so on.

There was some discussion of this sort of thing in another thread recently, in particular with respect to vestigial eyes in blind cave fish. According to a page on answersingenesis, they define this sort of thing as "devolution" and therefore acceptable to creationism as they claim that it only involves loss of information and the organism (which had been created in a "perfect" form, of course) becoming less perfect.

The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation.

This involves ignoring the inconvenient fact that while losing some features, the organism gains in other areas. In the case of the fish, it seems that the genetic changes which prevent the eyes developing properly give the fish an improved sense of taste and smell, which is of more benefit to them than sight, given their environment. In the case of parasites, while they lose things they don't use, they evolve highly efficient means of surviving within a host and of being transferred to a new one.

 

[Mojo]

Actually, I like their explanation for flightless birds having wings:

The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I've seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?

So much for the "what use is half a wing" argument!

 

[HeyLeroy]

Jeesh, they'd be better served with an opposable thumb.

Would a fossilized spork be acceptable evidence for ID?

 

[stamenflicker]

Actually, I like their explanation for flightless birds having wings: So much for the "what use is half a wing" argument!

After watching March of the Penguins with my kids, I was wondering what the evolutionary advantage of an upright bird really was. I was taught in college biology than humans began to walk upright because in the African plain the heat from the sun was better shaded on a higher percentage of the body for bipedalism. What is the evolutionary advantage for penguins? Do they also need to protect their bodies from excessive sunlight?

Just curious,

Flick

 

[Darat]

? All birds are upright in the sense penguins are, aren't they?

 

[stamenflicker]

It's not a question of a law being "imprinted" at the point of organisation. It's just a question of how things work once you have inherited variability.

As far as natural selection is concerned, a successful entity (whether we're talking about an entire organism or a molecule) is one that produces more copies of itself that its peers. If the traits that enable it to produce more copies of itself are inherited, then its descendents, having inherited those traits, will on average be able to produce more copies of themselves than individuals not exhibiting those traits, and the population will have an increasing proportion of descendents of our original successful individual.

This is not a law that was not present prior to organisation. It was there all the time, but only comes into play in populations in which variation can be inherited.

Even so, it is a characteristic that is uncharacteristic for molecules, or even systems of molecules in the universe with life seeming to be the big exception. So we have things like motion, response to stimulus, reproduction, etc. as descernable categories for determining this organization and the future development of the organization, but no real reason it other than it just is. I suppose its really more of a abiogenesis discussion than a TOE discussion as someone pointed out, cause once the system is in place, it makes (almost) perfect sense.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

? All birds are upright in the sense penguins are, aren't they?

I suppose they are, but walking (or marching to use the movie's terminology) seems like a poorly adapted method of transport when you are carrying wings around. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the required body fat to survive the bitter cold made their wings useless as their bodies evolved into something too heavy to lift. Therefore, walking was about all they had left. But thats just a guess.

Flick

 

[Ed]

After watching March of the Penguins with my kids, I was wondering what the evolutionary advantage of an upright bird really was. I was taught in college biology than humans began to walk upright because in the African plain the heat from the sun was better shaded on a higher percentage of the body for bipedalism. What is the evolutionary advantage for penguins? Do they also need to protect their bodies from excessive sunlight?

Just curious,

Flick

It makes them better targets for long range rifle shooters.

 

[Darat]

I suppose they are, but walking (or marching to use the movie's terminology) seems like a poorly adapted method of transport when you are carrying wings around. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the required body fat to survive the bitter cold made their wings useless as their bodies evolved into something too heavy to lift. Therefore, walking was about all they had left. But thats just a guess.

Flick

But their primary locomotion is swimming not walking and from the films I've seen I'd say their wings are wonderfully adapted flippers.

 

[Mojo]

Even so, it is a characteristic that is uncharacteristic for molecules, or even systems of molecules in the universe with life seeming to be the big exception.

It is a characteristic of systems in which variations are inherited.

 

[kmortis]

After watching March of the Penguins with my kids, I was wondering what the evolutionary advantage of an upright bird really was. I was taught in college biology than humans began to walk upright because in the African plain the heat from the sun was better shaded on a higher percentage of the body for bipedalism. What is the evolutionary advantage for penguins? Do they also need to protect their bodies from excessive sunlight?

Just curious,

Flick

I'm currently reading Dawkins's "Ancestor's Tale", and he states that the jury is still out as to why our ancestor stood upright. He didn't mention the shade one, but use of tools and sex were both theories that have been proposed. He did memtion that the ones that he put forth weren't the only ones, but just ones that were indicitive of that kids of theories out there.

And as Darat said, penguins "fly" though the water, rahter than air, so the wings are still needed. Why they have a terrestial upright gait, I couldn't even begin to wager a guess, although, I'm 99.9% sure it wasn't to make them better marksmen...or markspenguins, for that matter.

 

[Darat]

...snip... Why they have a terrestial upright gait, I couldn't even begin to wager a guess, although, I'm 99.9% sure it wasn't to make them better marksmen...or markspenguins, for that matter.

Well looking at fat penguins they seem pretty spherical to me so I suspect their current shape is due to the cold weather, they are the shape they are to radiate as little heat as possible in proportion to their size. And another way to avoid heat loss in a cold environment is to have as little flesh as possible in contact with the ground.

Penguins may look cutesy and awkward when they walk but that is just our perception because we see them as little men in tuxedos! Anyone want to bet if you analysed their gait it wouldn't turn out to be efficient?

 

[Ed]

I'm currently reading Dawkins's "Ancestor's Tale", and he states that the jury is still out as to why our ancestor stood upright. He didn't mention the shade one, but use of tools and sex were both theories that have been proposed. He did memtion that the ones that he put forth weren't the only ones, but just ones that were indicitive of that kids of theories out there.

Most of our physiology (and some pretty cool anatomy) is designed (HA!) to protect the brain. I wonder if the upright posture was selected for because those who stood were less likely to suffer damage to the brain in an attack.

 

[kmortis]

Most of our physiology (and some pretty cool anatomy) is designed (HA!) to protect the brain. I wonder if the upright posture was selected for because those who stood were less likely to suffer damage to the brain in an attack.

We can throw that on the pile of theories. Part of the problem that Dawkins points out is that we're not the only bipedial critter. There seems to be a wide variety of reason to stand on two legs, all of which would be applicable to Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[kmortis]

Well looking at fat penguins they seem pretty spherical to me so I suspect their current shape is due to the cold weather, they are the shape they are to radiate as little heat as possible in proportion to their size. And another way to avoid heat loss in a cold environment is to have as little flesh as possible in contact with the ground.

Penguins may look cutesy and awkward when they walk but that is just our perception because we see them as little men in tuxedos! Anyone want to bet if you analysed their gait it wouldn't turn out to be efficient?

Darat, are you a mathematician? Identical and shpereical, hmm?

I used to say that, to me, viscious = adorable because all the animals that I found adorable were some of the most viscious. Wolveriens, badgers, raptors, and penguins.

 

[Ed]

We can throw that on the pile of theories. Part of the problem that Dawkins points out is that we're not the only bipedial critter. There seems to be a wide variety of reason to stand on two legs, all of which would be applicable to Homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans=protect brain
Penguins=provide targets to 1, above.

I am progressing well at working this out. What other bipedal creatures are there? Not apes and monkeys. Bigfoot?

 

[Darat]

Humans=protect brain
Penguins=provide targets to 1, above.

I am progressing well at working this out. What other bipedal creatures are there? Not apes and monkeys. Bigfoot?

It would help us all if next time you are designing (sorry I can't use Ed and intelligent together) stuff you made some notes so we wouldn't have to try and jog your memory about these things after the fact?