• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

I don't know where this discussion has been the last 9 pages so forgive me if this is redundant. PZ Myers gave a nice lecture on the evolution of the eye to our Seattle Skeptic's group a week or so ago. They know a lot more now about the specific proteins involved.

So first, it was the fossil bone patterns that was evidence of the path of evolution. Next with the genome studies we saw the genetic patterns which trace the path of evolution. Now there is additional science research looking at the specific proteins that those genes produce and the proteins trace the path of evolution. And all the data corroborates the other data.

To think those silly evolution deniers are still whining on about transitional fossil evidence. :rolleyes:
 
You have to be So careful about wording with these Faithers!

Art Vandelay said:
The facts:

1. Some animals aren't exactly the same as others.
2. Some of those differences are inheritable.
3. Some of those differences affect the probability that the animal will reproduce.
4. In the case where both 2 and 3 apply, a circular effect is set up in which a difference affects the probability of the animal reproducing, which in turn affects the probability that the difference will show up in the next generation, which means the difference affects the probability of itself existing.
5. In case 4, the differences which decrease the probability of reproduction will create feedback loop which tends to eliminate them from the population. The differences that increase the probability, a feedback loop is created which tends to cause them to spread through the population.
6. As a result, animals tend to have properties that help them reproduce.
7. With the introduction of mutation, the possibility exists for one species to slowly turn into another.

Note that in 4, the circularity is often attacked as a fallacy, with such inanities as it's a "tautology". There is nothing fallacious about a circular effect.

All species are intermediate.
Click to expand...

Point 7 should read "slowly vary by small amounts dictated by Natural Selection until enough time passes FOR A NEW SPECIES TO FORM IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND TO BE CLASSIFIED".

A common Faither response to 7 is to claim how stupid it is to say that 'one' changes into 'another'; as if a horse could morph into a goat!

Which of course no evolutionist would suggest.

Wording is very important. Otherwise your point becomes very impotent!

A good example I give to my students is that of the blind cave crabs. Darwin describes these crabs as having eye stalks, meant to carry eyes, yet because they live in total darkness, they've adapted by loosing their eyes; being identical in all other respects to the 'normal', above-ground dwelling crabs, whom have eyes fully functional.

The economics of survival meant that the cave dwellers offspring borne without eyes did better because they were more economical and hence more efficient; requiring less food etc. for growth and repair. This increases the chances of survival.

The question one must pose to the Faither is this:-

"Why would a creator design blind crabs, with eye stalks, to hold eyes which are not present?"

As Darwin puts it:"It is as if you have a tripod, meant for the support of a telescope. Yet, there is no telescope!"

And as I put it:-

"Imagine you are a pair of identical-twin biologist field students, out on a field trip, in a dark cave. You have to carry a heavy microscope and a stand, but your twin only gets to carry a stand because they forgot their scope. Who, of the 2, will be the more tired at the end of the trip?"

And - "Which is the more stupid ?"

Obviously any creator who is dumb enough to design eye stalks with no eyes, must be blind!

It's interesting to ask the question, also, about the possible future function (if any) to which the eye stalks could be put - maybe feelers, for foraging for food?

To me this proves (among other reasons) that there is no intelligent design and hence no intelligent designer - no god! QED.

I can imagine some replies to that. But, the fact is, that to further believe that god is having fun creating creatures of little interest like blind crabs, with eye stalks and no eyes, just to "test out faith" must smack you in the face with your own hypocrisy!

Keep deluding your selves !
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I don't know where this discussion has been the last 9 pages so forgive me if this is redundant. PZ Myers gave a nice lecture on the evolution of the eye to our Seattle Skeptic's group a week or so ago. They know a lot more now about the specific proteins involved.

So first, it was the fossil bone patterns that was evidence of the path of evolution. Next with the genome studies we saw the genetic patterns which trace the path of evolution. Now there is additional science research looking at the specific proteins that those genes produce and the proteins trace the path of evolution. And all the data corroborates the other data.

To think those silly evolution deniers are still whining on about transitional fossil evidence. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I guess the PZ Myers lecture is not on the internet?

I found a few who are very nice to see at:
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html

Especially the one with Ken Miller.
 
Very technical but highly detailed review of the state of the science on eye evolution

Discussion of Pax6 gene which controls embryo eye development and is an interchangeable gene in insects and mammals.

Pax genes in eye development and evolution.
Animal eyes with widely different anatomical designs have long been thought to arise independently, multiple times during evolution. This view was challenged about a decade ago by the landmark discoveries that Pax6, a highly conserved transcription factor, plays a key role in eye morphogenesis in both flies and mammals. Since then, more evidence has emerged in favour of the redeployment of Pax6 and some other developmental control genes within the genetic program underlying eye formation throughout the animal kingdom. Recent work has indicated that other members of the Pax gene family play a pivotal role in eye morphogenesis. The Eye gone gene regulates eye growth in Drosophila, whereas the PaxB gene is implicated in visual system development in jellyfish, the most basal organism possessing eyes.
Click to expand...



PZ mentioned the fact that:
For vision, insect and vertebrate eyes use rhabdomeric and ciliary photoreceptor cells, respectively. These cells show distinct architecture and transduce the light signal by different phototransductory cascades. In the marine rag-worm Platynereis, we find both cell types: rhabdomeric photoreceptor cells in the eyes and ciliary photoreceptor cells in the brain. The latter use a photopigment closely related to vertebrate rod and cone opsins. Comparative analysis indicates that both types of photoreceptors, with distinct opsins, coexisted in Urbilateria, the last common ancestor of insects and vertebrates, and sheds new light on vertebrate eye evolution.
Click to expand...
Here is related discovery:

Cephalochordate melanopsin: evolutionary linkage between invertebrate visual cells and vertebrate photosensitive retinal ganglion cells.


So you can see the gist here. There have been multiple discoveries showing the evolution of the eye and the data all corroborates evolution theory.
 
This one summarizes the talk to some extent.

Evolving eyes.
Despite the incredible diversity among extant eyes, laws of physics constrain how light can be collected resulting in only eight known optical systems in animal eyes. Surprisingly, all animal eyes share a common molecular strategy using opsin for catching photons, but there are a diverse collection of mechanisms with proteins unrelated to each other used to focus light for vision. However, opsin is expressed in either one of two types of photoreceptor that differ fundamentally in their structure and tissue of origin. Taken together, this collection of observations strongly suggests that eyes have had multiple origins with remarkable convergence due to physics and molecular conservation of the opsin protein. Yet recent work has shown that a family of conserved genes are involved in eye formation despite substantial differences in their structure and origin, leading to a controversy over whether eyes evolved once or repeatedly. A likely resolution of this discussion is that particular genes and genetic programs have become associated with specific features needed for eyes and such suites of genes have been recruited as new eyes evolve. Since specific genes and their products are used repeatedly, it is somewhat difficult to conceptualize their causal relationships relative to evolutionary processes. However, detailed comparison of developmental programs may offer clues about multiple origins.
Click to expand...

And here's a PubMed list of related articles.
 
Here's a blog note from Science A GoGo:
Insight Into Eye Evolution Deals Blow To Intelligent Design
in research reported this week in Current Biology, the evolutionary history of a critical eye protein has revealed a previously unrecognized link between certain components of sophisticated vertebrate eyes - like those found in humans - and those of the primitive light-sensing systems of invertebrates. The findings, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the University of London and Radboud University in The Netherlands, put in place a conceptual framework for understanding how the vertebrate eye, as we know it, has emerged over evolutionary time.
Click to expand...
 
So, does anyone want to write an article on eye evolution?

---

I've just added a [swiki]Genetics Glossary[/swiki] ... if anyone wants to look through it for the more egregious blunders, I should be most grateful.
 
Last edited:
Many of the internal (anchor) links are broken because they violate the case-sensitive requirement of 'named anchors'

e.g. line 320 in the source code (the section on Cytosine)
<a name="Cytosine"></a><h2><!-- snip --> <span class="mw-headline">Cytosine</span></h2>

:) line 94 in the source code (in the 'Table of Contents')
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Cytosine"><span class="tocnumber">22</span>

:( line 263 in the source code ('behind' the words "C is the abbreviation for cytosine")
<p>C is the abbreviation for <a href="/index.php/Genetics_Glossary#cytosine" title="Genetics Glossary">cytosine</a>

Some people find that the w3c link checker is a useful tool for identifying such inconsistencies... although the output is likely to be meaningless to anyone unaccustomed to viewing source code in a text editor that supports Line Numbering
 
six7s said:
Many of the internal (anchor) links are broken because they violate the case-sensitive requirement of 'named anchors'
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I have no idea what that means.

They still link you to the right things, what's the problem?
 
Dr Adequate said:
They still link you to the right things
Click to expand...

Not quite...

Many of them "still link you to the right things"

Many of them do nothing... other than (perhaps) irritate/confuse the reader and/or maybe, in the eyes of truthophobes (i.e those that are desperate to ignore anything that debunks thier woo) undermine the credibility of the entry

Have a look at the c-section the section on C

C

C is the abbreviation for cytosine

<snip/>
Click to expand...

The word cyotosine should link to
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Genetics_Glossary#Cytosine with a MAJOR case C
instead it links to
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Genetics_Glossary#cytosine with a minor case c

the latter does not exist
therefore, the link - in common parlance - is broken

There are many, many such instances on the page :(

All easily fixed :)
 
Last edited:
A colleague and I were discussing evolution and theological positions. We are both military Medical Technicians and he is studying to become a M.D. and is describes himself as a Monotheist. His awe and wonder at the complexity and variety in biology leads him to the position of acceptance of a "Designer" who directly intervenes in certain aspects of evolutionary processes. He is unable to accept for example, without evidence or at least a plausible pathway, that the superior oblique muscle and trochanter of the human eye could evolve through natural processes. My colleague has even agreed, on paper and with his signature, to accept the premise of there being no "Designer" if a plausible explanation for the incremental development of this facinating leverage is illustrated to him.

I recognise and have pointed out to him that his intellectual position is based on the logical falacy of "The Argument From Incredulity" however he remains unconvinced.

Can anyone either illustrate a plausible evolutionary process, direct me to specific data on known facts about it or tell me in which department of a good University I should enquire of the experts?
 
Last edited:
apathetic medic said:
...the superior oblique muscle and trochanter of the human eye could evolve through natural processes. My colleague has even agreed, on paper and with his signature, to accept the premise of there being no "Designer" if a plausible explanation for the incremental development of this facinating leverage is illustrated to him.

I recognise and have pointed out to him that his intellectual position is based on the logical falacy of "The Argument From Incredulity" however he remains unconvinced
Click to expand...

Although the following video might not specifically address your colleague's particular fallacies, it is - at least for me - both fascinating and thought-provoking with regard to the absurdity of the irreducible complexity (so-called) 'argument'

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
​

the MORE INFO link at top-right said:
In this video I deconstruct the broken watch straw man argument used by creationist / ID supporters to attack evolution. I had to pack a ton of information into this video so you WILL need to pause it periodically.

The basic premise of the argument is that a bunch of parts will never randomly assemble into the correct arrangement to form a properly functioning complex. Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation. Systems evolve through many intermediates, one step at a time, slowly building up the complexity.

Here I deconstruct their straw man argument. Basically, I simulate clocks as living organisms. Selective pressure is focused on their ability to accurately tell time. NO goal is imposed on the design (you can tell this because every simulation ends with a differently constructed clock). And it works. Clocks evolve through a series of transitional forms: Pendulum, Proto-clock, 1-handed Clock, 2-handed Clock, 3-handed Clock, and 4-handed Clock. Gradually the complexity is built up.

These labels I have assigned to the transitional forms have nothing to do with the simulation itself. They are names I assigned so that we could analyze what the population was doing. The clocks are just clocks, living in their world, trying to tell time as accurately as possible.

One thing I wanted to address but didn't have time in the video is how rapid the transitional period can be. In some simulations the population goes from pendulums to 3-handed Clocks in a hundred or so generations. And the transitions between the transitional forms are even more rapid, happening in about ten generations. Chances are none or a very limited representation of that transition will be preserved in the fossil record.

One thing I should add. The program does not draw the clocks. It maintains, mates, and simulates them, but the drawing must be done manually from the genome matrix.

The program is written in MatLab.

The hand rotations that begin with 86 are 86,000 not 86.000. When YouTube compressed the video it becam hard to tell a comma from a period.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9e1zz000mq7

To download the program go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?1umdtnwayyp

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.
Category:
Howto & Style
Tags:
Intelligent Design ID Creationism Wrong Mutation Natural Selection Irreducible Complexity Experiment Education Straw Man
URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As Six7's has said, as well as the hypothetical example explaining evolution, similar mechanisms have actually been used in engineering to "evolve" optimal solutions where analysis is difficult.

Should you wish, I can easily dig out several articles that show this.

Why don't you turn the question round a little?

There are examples of amazingly complex structures, that could seem "designed", but there are also many examples of what seems like stonkingly poor "design", that is easily explianed by evolution, but wopuld make one wonder about the competence of any "intelligent" designer. (Unless He had off-days...)

For example:

Here is an article by Neil Shubin (author of our inner fish)

Imagine trying to jury-rig a vintage Volkswagen Beetle to travel at speeds of 150 miles per hour. In 1933, Adolf Hitler commissioned Ferdinand Porsche to develop a cheap car that could get forty miles per gallon of gas and provide a reliable form of transportation for the average German family: the result was the Volkswagen, a car that remained substantially the same throughout its many years of production. Its original design placed constraints on the ways it could be modified--engineers could only tweak it so far before major problems arose--and it ultimately was replaced by a completely new Beetle.

In many ways, humans are the fish equivalent of an old Beetle turned hot-rod. Take the body plan of a fish, reconfigure it to be a mammal, then tweak and twist that mammal until it walks on two legs, talks, thinks, and has superfine control of its fingers--and you have a recipe for trouble. In a perfectly designed world--one with no evolutionary history--we would not have to suffer from hemorrhoids or easily-damaged knees. Indeed, virtually every illness we suffer has some historical component that can be traced back from mammals to amphibians to fish and beyond.
Click to expand...

He then discusses various aspects of human anatomy, the problems that occur, and how they can be traced back to ancestor structures in fishes or amphibians:

Speech and eating
The larynx corresponds to gill arches, but the way it evolved can lead to sleap apnoea. The way our lungs evolved from swim bladders put us at risk from choking. If the swim bladder and stomach were the other way round, and mamalian lungs evolved from the swim bladder, then there wouldn't be at any risk from from choking.

Hiccoughs
These are useful in tadpoles, but not in humans, so are evifdence of modifications to an amphibian bodyplan.

And now my "favourite" The descent of the testes and hernias
A shark's gonads lie towards the front of the body, in mammals, the position is different, as we all know:

Our gonads begin their development in much the same place as a shark’s: up near the liver. As they grow and develop, our gonads descend. In females, the ovaries descend from the midsection to lie near the uterus and fallopian tubes. This ensures that the egg does not have far to travel to be fertilized. In males, the descent goes farther.

The descent of the gonads, particularly in males, creates a weak spot in the body wall. To envision what happens when the testes and spermatic cords descend to form a scrotum, imagine pushing your fist against a stretched rubber sheet. In this example, your fist becomes equivalent to the testes and your arm to the spermatic cords. The problem is that where once the rubber sheet was a simple wall, you’ve now made another space, between your arm and the rubber sheet, where things can slip. This is essentially what happens in many types of inguinal hernias in men. Some inguinal hernias, or hernias of the groin, are congenital, created when a piece of the gut travels with the testes as they descend. Inguinal hernia can also be acquired: A weak spot in the body wall—the muscular wall of the abdomen—can be breached, if pushed by a strong muscle contraction, and a loop of gut can be squeezed to lie next to the spermatic cord.
Click to expand...

This has to be evidence of either lousy design, a designer with a puerile and malicious sense of humour, or of evolution.

The Eye is a classic example, because it was originally argued as a complex organ that couldn't have evolved. There is now plenty of evidence that it did so. For example, some molluscs have very simple "pit eyes" whilst others have very advanced eyes, with the retina and blood vessels in the "correct" relative locations, unluke mammals.

Here is one discussion about the evolution of eyes in molluscs.







Remember also that with only a few hundred generations, evolutionary algorthms can produce circuits which by some measures are better than equivalent designed circuits. E.coli, for example, can have a new generation every 17 minutes; even with the utterly implausible Young Earth of 6,000 years, this is more than 180-million generations.
 
While all of the recent information is great, we all know the mental gymnastics employed by believers tends largely to be greater. Their cognitive dissonance and abilities to rationalize and hold opposing ideas simultaneously are realy quite remarkable.

My colleague, however, has conceeded a weakness. He has, as I said, agreed in writing to alter his thinking if presented with evidence that I think is very likely available. I need only to find it!

I think this is important as he is (usually) a very intelligent fellow who will one day be a Doctor. His education level is well above mine in anatomy and debating him in this area is a challenge even though my critical thinking skills are superior. I hope to improve his medical skills and knowledge by clearing some cobwebs from his mentation and improving his critical thinking.

I have not been able to find any information online on the evolution of this particular structure so again I need some help to find where to look or whom to ask.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I'm afraid I have no idea what that means.

They still link you to the right things, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

They may not cause you problems right now because your wiki is hosted on a Windows machine, where filenames are case insensitive. If you should ever need to move to a Unix/Linux server, all links that have case differences between the link and the referenced filename will break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom