Irreducible complexity occurs naturally

[Ophiolite]

1) This means wings acttually just start as random little nubs at the side of the bird. Random little symmetrical nubs on the side of the animal. Wouldn't these useless little nubs at first be a hindrance to said animal?

They don't start as random little nubs, they start as arms. They start as arms on a dinosaur. They start as arms on a warm blooded dinosaur, a warm blooded dinosaur that has evolved feathers to help it control its temperature.
It is a bipedal dinosaur and uses its arms to help catch its prey. To get out of the way of larger dinosaurs it is quite agile. Mutations occur which shape and characterise its feathers, so that its agility is increased. Perhaps they help it stop more quickly, to execute a turn, avoiding its chasing predator. It climbs into trees at night to avoid being eaten by large nocturnal carnivorous dinosaurs.
Some of them climb up quite high and are injured when they jump down, or fall of the tree. Those with more feathers and larger feathers are slowed donw somewhat and run less risk of injury. They prosper. Their great great.... grand children have feathers long enough they can glide from tree to tree.
And so on.

2) Why don't we see more random little nubs on animals, and not always in eventually useful places like the sides where they will eventually evolve into wings, why don't we also see random little nubs all over like on the back?

Life is not random. Evolution uses what is already there. It adapts and modifies it.

3) If intelligence is selected for (and I see no why reason it wouldn't be) why don't all animals over time become smarter and smarter?

There is scant evidence that intelligence is a good thing. In the 1960s we came close to wiping out a greater part of the human race via our intelligence and the atomic bombs that intelligence had created. It was a close run thing.
More importantly evolution suits animals for their environment. If you don't need intelligence in your environment why invest the effort in having it?
The human brain uses up 30% of the energy required by the body. That is a massive commitment in extra foodstuffs. It requires a hugely extended childhood where parental attention is essential to improve survival. Not much of a good idea, to be honest.

I basically have taken it on faith that it's true).

Don't do that. Never do that. Never take it anything on faith.
If you meant you accept that many brilliant minds in the fields of palaeontology, botany, zoology, microbiology, genetics, embryology,and comparative anatomy, have studied the evidence and come to the solid conclusion that evolution is real, and that you know all of their studies are available for you to examine and evaluate, and therefore you will accept for the timing being that evolution is most probably true, then that is OK. But blind faith - never.

Hope that helped. If not ask some more questions.

 

[grover]

They don't start as random little nubs, they start as arms. They start as arms on a dinosaur. They start as arms on a warm blooded dinosaur, a warm blooded dinosaur that has evolved feathers to help it control its temperature.

Right, but what darwinism states is that all these things occur totally ranomly due to genetic mutation. That means all kinds of chance mutations occur and the ones that are beneficial get selected for. The dinosaurs arms started out as little nubs that had absolutely no benefit but eventuallly evolved into arms? The question is how did those little nubs get selected for? Why aren't more random nubs seen in the fossil record? What the case always appears is that these "random nubs" appear to be destined to grow into useful things like arms or wings. It doesn't look like randomness can account for it. Why don't we see more humans walking around with strange little random nubs on them? And even if we did, how would those nubs be selected for?

It is a bipedal dinosaur and uses its arms to help catch its prey. To get out of the way of larger dinosaurs it is quite agile. Mutations occur which shape and characterise its feathers, so that its agility is increased. Perhaps they help it stop more quickly, to execute a turn, avoiding its chasing predator. It climbs into trees at night to avoid being eaten by large nocturnal carnivorous dinosaurs.

Right. But, what selected for the little nubs. And why don't we see more random nubs on baby animlas that get selected against. Random nubs are actually in the beginning an imediment to survival.

Some of them climb up quite high and are injured when they jump down, or fall of the tree. Those with more feathers and larger feathers are slowed donw somewhat and run less risk of injury. They prosper. Their great great.... grand children have feathers long enough they can glide from tree to tree.
And so on.

But how do the initial random nubs get selected for?

Life is not random.

I'm pretty sure that's a basic tenet of darwinism.

Evolution uses what is already there. It adapts and modifies it.

This seems to be a mischaracterization. Evoultion has to do with beneificial random mutations get selected for and unbeneficial random mutations getting selected against.

There is scant evidence that intelligence is a good thing.

Really?

In the 1960s we came close to wiping out a greater part of the human race via our intelligence and the atomic bombs that intelligence had created. It was a close run thing.

If intelligence doesn't have survival advantage it would have gotten slected against.

More importantly evolution suits animals for their environment. If you don't need intelligence in your environment why invest the effort in having it?
The human brain uses up 30% of the energy required by the body. That is a massive commitment in extra foodstuffs. It requires a hugely extended childhood where parental attention is essential to improve survival. Not much of a good idea, to be honest.

Hmmm, interesting. You are actually saying that intelligence should be selected against. So the fact that there is intelligence suggests that there is intelligent design.

Don't do that. Never do that. Never take it anything on faith.
If you meant you accept that many brilliant minds in the fields of palaeontology, botany, zoology, microbiology, genetics, embryology,and comparative anatomy, have studied the evidence and come to the solid conclusion that evolution is real, and that you know all of their studies are available for you to examine and evaluate, and therefore you will accept for the timing being that evolution is most probably true, then that is OK. But blind faith - never.

Accepting what brilliant minds say is taking it on faith.

Hope that helped. If not ask some more questions.

No, it didn't. I'm not entirely sure that you understand the theory of evolution.

 

[river-wind]

Roy,
Am I missing something or is it kind of ironic that you provide something that was designed intelligetnly(fractals) as evidence that there is no intelligent design?

Fractals aren't intelligently designed - they were discovered by man (intelligently uncovered?), but we didn't create them. The principals underwhich they work are natural ones, we just made extreme versions of those natural systems (like the artistic looking mandlebrot set) to use as significant examples for human consumption.

 

[grover]

Fractals aren't intelligently designed - they were discovered by man (intelligently uncovered?), but we didn't create them. The principals underwhich they work are natural ones, we just made extreme versions of those natural systems (like the artistic looking mandlebrot set) to use as significant examples for human consumption.

Ok, give me an example of a fractal that exists in nature that follows a precise mathematical formula such as the one in the mandelbrot set?

 

[river-wind]

Like I said, we as humans took the natural rules (math and fractal properties), and created extreme versions for the sake of showing people the idea.

Nothing in nature is a pure fractal, but many things show fractal-like patterns in thier structural foundations. For instance, plants are not made of little leaves, but the basic branching structure can be seen repeated at many levels of vascular plant structure.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Ok, here's my understanding of evolution:
Random mutations occur, mutations that are beneficial get selected for and mutatins that are harmful get selected against. I have a couple of questions.
1) This means wings acttually just start as random little nubs at the side of the bird. Random little symmetrical nubs on the side of the animal. Wouldn't these useless little nubs at first be a hindrance to said animal?
2) Why don't we see more random little nubs on animals, and not always in eventually useful places like the sides where they will eventually evolve into wings, why don't we also see random little nubs all over like on the back?
3) If intelligence is selected for (and I see no why reason it wouldn't be) why don't all animals over time become smarter and smarter? Why are humans leaps and bounds smarter than everything else on earth?

(P.S.-these are actual questions. I do believe in evolution, but I haven't looked into it very closely for myself. I basically have taken it on faith that it's true).

First of all, this is not a thread about evolution.

Second, the term 'random' is merely a human concept for any process that is too complex for our minds to grasp the patterns and/or chain of cause and effect that causes the reaction we observe. Nothing is actually random.

Also, there have been many studies that reveal evidence for the theory that wings would have been more than simple 'nubs' and would have aided in making faster turns and higher speeds to evade predation and survive to reproduce. There is more and more evidence for punctuated equilibrium.

Last, the reason there are so few 'intelligent' organisms on this planet is because they have no need for intelligence. They survive just fine as they are. If they, perhaps, came into a new environment that forced the less aware to die out, then perhaps the population would be bred for greater awareness, therefore becoming more intelligent. But, this only happens if that trait is more easily selected for rather than, say, greater speed, or more prominent colors (for mating), or any other trait that could help them. There are a lot of other things that animals do better than we do.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Roy,
Am I missing something or is it kind of ironic that you provide something that was designed intelligetnly(fractals) as evidence that there is no intelligent design?

Fractals occur naturally. Did you read the article?

 

[RoyLennigan]

Ok, give me an example of a fractal that exists in nature that follows a precise mathematical formula such as the one in the mandelbrot set?

Why does it have to follow the exact formula as the mandelbrot set?

Seeing as math alone is not a subject defined by human concepts, it seems that anything proven by math is able to occur in the natural world, or else we would not be able to prove it.

The very notion that a fractal can subdivide indefinately to create unique and complex structures should prove my point, regardless of what kind of fractal it is.

A few naturally occuring fractals:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Fractal_Broccoli.jpg
http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/snowflake.jpg
Veins, such as in your body or in a tree or plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fibonacci_spiral.svg
I like to think of the Golden ratio or Fibonacci spiral as a fractal, though I don't know if it qualifies. Either way, its seen in art, shell formation, flowers, and very many natural aesthetics.

In fact, the study of fractals has much to do with chaos theories which are used to study natural events like the movement of particles, or weather, as well as many other aspects of the natural world.

 

[Ophiolite]

Right, but what darwinism states is that all these things occur totally ranomly due to genetic mutation.

I don't give and aardvark's anus what Darwinism says about evolution, since Darwinism was drastically modified by the redicovery of Mendel's work by de Vries and others a hundred years ago, and subtantially modified in the Modern Synthesis by Dhobzansky, Meyr, et al over sixty years ago, and subject to further changes during the debate on Gould's punctuated equilibrium, and evo-devo over the last thirty years.

The dinosaurs arms started out as little nubs that had absolutely no benefit but eventuallly evolved into arms?

No they didn't. They started out as legs on quadruped dinosaurs, which had evolved from legs on quadruped amphibians, which had evolved from fins on fishes, which had evolved from vertebrae. You may find this article helps your understanding.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uof-usd072606.php

Random nubs are actually in the beginning an imediment to survival.

Setting aside that we are not looking at random little nubs at all, I'll pretend for a moment that we are. Random little nubs on the side of a bottom dweller could contribute to a camouflage effect, helping to protect it from predators.

But how do the initial random nubs get selected for?

The nubs are not random. They are occuring at specific points on the organsims. i.e. if the mutation proves beneficial, or at least neutral, then these 'nubs' will occur at the same place in successive generations.
Secondly, they may not necessarily be nubs. If the mutation is in a control gene then it may unlock a cascade of effects that lead to a major step. [Please note I am not talking about a full blown leg suddenly developing out of nowhere, but a sufficiently discrete object that it could offer some behvioural benefits.]

I'm pretty sure that's a basic tenet of darwinism.

Darwinism, yes. Not necessarily the current views of evolution. Although somewhat heretical the work of Kaufmann and others on complexity suggest that while the specific 'changes' may well be random, the tendency for complexity and order to emerge are most definitely not. This is what I mean by saying evolution is not random.

This seems to be a mischaracterization. Evoultion has to do with beneificial random mutations get selected for and unbeneficial random mutations getting selected against.

That in no way invalidates my statement that nature uses (not in a teleological sense) existing structures on which to act. Our hearing apparatus evolved, for example, from the gills of our fishy ancestors.

If intelligence doesn't have survival advantage it would have gotten slected against.

Correct. Which is exactly what happened for 99.99% of the planets history and the vast majority of its biomass. A handful of species have modest intelligence, millions have almost no intelligence at all. Clearly it can have some survival advantage (though we do not know yet whther this is not merely a short term advantage), but in nearly every instance that advantage is nor present - hence all the life forms that lack more than rudimentary intelligence levels.

Hmmm, interesting. You are actually saying that intelligence should be selected against. So the fact that there is intelligence suggests that there is intelligent design.

Not at all. I am saying that going for intelligence is a rsiky strategy whose successf has been limited. Moreover, massive (human level) intelligence has been tried only once and is of questionable long term benefit.

I'm not entirely sure that you understand the theory of evolution.

Let me set your mind at ease. I do, including many of its it grey areas, limitations, conflicts, paradoxes, etc.
If I were inclined to do so I could almost take your last remark as patronising. Since you are keen to learn more about evolution and have an open mind, I am sure I just misreading you.

 

[grover]

Ophiolite,
I clearly misunderestimated you. The simple fact is I don't know enough about this subject to debate it intelligently.

A couple questions?
What are some of the paradoxes?
Are there any claims by the Intelligent Design camp that sound reasonable to you? From my perspective there appears to be some kind of teleological principle at work? Why is this considered wrong?

 

[guthrie]

Many claims by the ID camp sound reasonable at first, especially if you have no specialised knowledge. This includes irreducible complexity and Dembskis infinite improbability drive, sorry, probability bound.

However, upon closer inspection by scientists and philosophers, they all turn out to be either lies or unscientific wishful thinking.

A place to start is:
www.pandasthumb.org

That is a website which is devoted to evolution and its defense, and it encourages people like yourself to come along and ask questions about stuff they do not understand. Go and read some of the posts and ask yourself if ID'ers have any morals or brains left.

As for teleology, that does not occur in evolution. ID'ers like to think that it does, but can provide no evidence. For example, I know that my car was specifically designed with an end goal in mind. IF necessary I could go all the way back to the car company documentation and look up what the end goal was, and how they designed it to suit.
With living creatures, how do you do that?

 

[river-wind]

Ophiolite can answer for him/her self, but in my opinion, it is not "wrong", but because it assumes a purpose, and a creator, then it has assumed the answer. If you remove the assumption of purpose from the idea, then it all falls apart.

The difference is that one assumes design, through claims of "irreducible complexity" without first reliably showing the irreducibility, the other doesn't assume it. And when trying to learn something, the fewer assumptions the better.

Certainly, science has its own assumptions, but they are open for review by anyone by studying reasoning, induction, logic, statistics, etc. ID's assumptions cannot be challenged, by thier very design. Therefor, it is less useful as a method for actually understanding the universe.

 

[Ophiolite]

What are some of the paradoxes?

The first multicellular organisms appear first (in quantity) in the fossil record in the so-called Cambrian explosion. Virtually all the current phyla are represented. Why have no further major phyla appeared in the interim?

Speciation events, and the emergence of genera, are often well represented in the fossil record. This is not always the case and is rarely the case for higher level tax, which appear to emerge suddenly. Why is this?

The self-repair facilities of DNA appear to be able to retain a remarkable stability of form for milllions of years? Why then (and how) do we the sudden emergence of new species and genera?

Are there any claims by the Intelligent Design camp that sound reasonable to you?

Not in relation to evolution. I see no need for postulating the mechanism to account for the diversity of life forms, or the evolutionary, or genetic records. The paradoxes I mentioned above represent areas that require further research. There are several plausible explanations to account for each. Eventually we shall gather sufficient evidence to decide upon one.
Where I do have an issue is with the mechanism for abiogenesis. I have seen no convincing demonstration of the pathways by which life could first have been intitiated. Many plausible details have been proposed for portions of the process, but no overall structure, with necessary detail, has been forthcoming. In the absence of such I find the time available to generate primitive life forms on the Earth to be problematic. There appear to be five ways of addressing this:
a)Through further research, identify robust pathways that are convincing as an explnation for a natural, terrestrial origin of life.
b)Pan spermia - life arrived from outer space. The vast intergalactic gas/dust clouds are rich in organic material and could provide a fertile ground for the origin of life through abiogenesis. Such an environment offers much better probability for life arising because of the many orders of magnitude greater volumes of material.
b)God did it. Not a very satisfactory explanation and one that would be difficult to test.
c)Life on the planet was deliberately seeded by an alien, but wholly natural, intelligence. This would be a form of intelligent action, if not intelligent design.
c)God set up the laws of nature in such a way that life was inevitable. There are a handful of Universal Constants, which determine the charcater of the Universe. Were any of these different by only a small amount the Universe as we know it, and life, would be impossible. If Intelligent Design has any significance it would lie in this area.

From my perspective there appears to be some kind of teleological principle at work? Why is this considered wrong?

The appearance of a teleological principle is not the same as the existence of a teleological principle. That is largely why it is thought wrong, because it confuses appearance with reality.
Kaufmann and others at the Santa Fe institute, and elsewhere, would argue that life is a necessary, emergent property of the Universe, arising directly as a consequence of the laws of physics. Further they would note that intelligence is a further inevitable consequence of these same laws. Conway Morris goes so far as to argue that a)life is common; b) where it arises it will eventually produce a bi-pedal, binocular visioned, upright, intelligent being. [This is in total contradiction to Gould's view that were we to 'replay the tape of life' it would proudce radically different results each time. Thus Gould sees life's path as truly random, Conway Morris senses direction and thus a teleological element.]

 

[grover]

Ophiolite can answer for him/her self, but in my opinion, it is not "wrong", but because it assumes a purpose, and a creator, then it has assumed the answer. If you remove the assumption of purpose from the idea, then it all falls apart.

Actually oddly enough I think one can conceive of a teleological principle at work without a creator per se. It seems to me that the universe it self is a greater power than us, the universe creates. I personally find it meaningful that the the universe could have just as easily been lifeless. But instead we not only have life but intelligent life, and not only intelligent life but conscious life.

Certainly, science has its own assumptions, but they are open for review by anyone by studying reasoning, induction, logic, statistics, etc. ID's assumptions cannot be challenged, by thier very design.

Intelligent Design theory is definitely not science. And they should have never tried to pass it off as science. BUT, that doens't mean it isn't true. It seems kind of dogmatic to me to think that science can answer all questions, and that anything that can't be proven scientifically is of no value.

 

[Ophiolite]

It seems kind of dogmatic to me to think that science can answer all questions, and that anything that can't be proven scientifically is of no value.

Science does not claim to be able to answer all questions. Only some scientists, the ones without a proper education, claim that anything unproven by science is valueless.

 

[grover]

Science does not claim to be able to answer all questions. Only some scientists, the ones without a proper education, claim that anything unproven by science is valueless.

I know. But many scientists think this way. And some scientists, like Dawkins, are even starting to say as much.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here is a brief compilation of remarks I have had occasion to make about Dawkins elsewhere.

1. Personally I find his style presumptive and arrogant, but I am in a distinct minority in this regard.

2. Dawkins' Achilles heel: he has rarely contemplated the possibility that his great mind could ever be wrong. Fortunately for science the process of peer review will correct any errors resulting from this hubris.

3. We can safely ignore Dawkins's Selfish Gene, since ignoring Dawkins is just good application of scientific method.

4. A suggestion for you Mitchell. I considered Dawkins the most arrogant, self satisfied, smug, unscientific purveyor of popular evolution on the face of the planet, simplifying theory to the point of pointlessness, and glossing over genuine gaps in our knowledge. I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger.
After having read the first three or four chapters of Ancestor's Tale I have forgiven him.

5.Try the Ancestor's Tale, by Dawkins. It is so good I have forgiven the arrogant prat for the self indulgence of all his earlier works.

My problem with Dawkins is that his intellect is so brilliant it sometimes blinds him to reality. It is dangerous when a major spokesperson for a scientific approach to the world is themselves enmeshed in a para-religious stance on science.

 

[grover]

My problem with Dawkins is that his intellect is so brilliant it sometimes blinds him to reality. It is dangerous when a major spokesperson for a scientific approach to the world is themselves enmeshed in a para-religious stance on science.

Beautifully stated.

 

[river-wind]

Indeed. I agree completely, and only wish I could word it so well (maybe with the exception of the vomiting on him part).