Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The Gaps are Real!

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/30343 We know that animal echolocation is common to shrews, most bats, most cetaceans, and
    Message 1 of 40 , Dec 30, 2012
      Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/30343 We
      know that animal echolocation is common to shrews, most bats, most
      cetaceans, and two unrelated bird groups.

      Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echolocation_(animal) (last
      modified on 9 December 2012 at 21:21.) The word "evolution" appears 17
      times in this article. The old Theory of Evolution (including natural
      selection) have not been largely substantiated by observation nor
      experiment. How would you answer these questions?

      1 Is animal echolocation an example of common ancestry or is animal
      echolocation an example of common design?

      Charles P: Natural selection is self evident. Natural selection = not
      random selection. Shapiro describes the role of selection in the processes
      of evolution and its importance to natural genetic engineering. Natural
      selection has been the purifying force for shrews, the purifying force for
      most bats, the purifying force for cetaceans, and the purifying force for
      two unrelated bird groups. Echolocation preexisted natural selection and
      echolocation has been purified by natural selection in each group over time.

      James A Shapiro: The role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary
      novelties that prove to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive
      needs. Selection operates as a purifying but not creative force.

      Charles P: Common ancestry is self-evident within each animal group.
      Without experimentation and verification, we can logically assume that all
      shrews with echolocation abilities had a common ancestor. We can also
      logically assume common ancestry and echolocation abilities among most
      bats. We can assume the same among most cetaceans and among the unrelated
      bird groups with echolocation abilities. Common ancestry is not
      self-evident between non-related groups.

      2 Without empirical and verifiable evidence, why do science writers
      conclude that the animal echolocation that is common to each of these four
      unrelated groups is the result of convergent evolution?

      3 How do narratives about homologies and analogies help science writers to
      conclude that animal echolocation is the result of common ancestry (or
      common descent)?

      Understanding Evolution:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 In this
      module, you'll learn more about homologies and analogies and why they are
      important. We'll start by playing a game to get you thinking about
      similarities and differences.

      Charles P: Common design is self-evident withing each animal group. The
      DNA digital code information ensures the survival, growth, and
      proliferation of each living thing.

      James A Shapiro: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient)
      entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth,
      and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication,
      information-processing, and decision-making capabilities. Cells are built
      to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics
      rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic
      processes as well as by cell mergers.

      ENCODE Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE These publications
      combine to show that approximately 20% of non-coding DNA in the human
      genome is functional while an additional 60% is transcribed with no known
      function. Much of this functional non-coding DNA is involved in the
      regulation of the expression of coding genes. Furthermore the expression of
      each coding gene is controlled by multiple regulatory sites located both
      near and distant from the gene. These results demonstrate that gene
      regulation is far more complex than previously believed.

      4 Why should animal echolocation not be considered only as an example of
      common design?

      5 Without empirical and verifiable evidence to support the evolution of
      animal echolocation, why should we not exclude common ancestry of
      non-related groups from evolution theories?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: Actually, the concepts of homology and analogy pre-date the theory of evolution. Once evolution was understood, the biological basis of homology and
      Message 40 of 40 , Jan 2, 2013
        Gluadys: Actually, the concepts of homology and analogy pre-date the
        theory of evolution. Once evolution was understood, the biological basis of
        homology and analogy was better understood. As the page you linked to
        explains, some similarities are due to inheritance from a common ancestor.
        Some have a different cause. Evolution is involved in both (in particular
        natural selection) but in different ways. It is blatant nonsense to call
        this "invented" or outdated. Neither is the case. What is the case is that
        analogies due to convergent evolution tell us nothing useful about common
        descent.

        Charles P: Homologous and analogous mean the same thing. Both words mean
        that body parts are "alike" in different living things.

        1 The body parts of a male human and a female human are "alike" but it is
        self evident that there are some important dissimilarities.

        2 The body parts of animals with the ability of echolocation are "alike"
        but it is self evident that there are some important dissimilarities.

        Homologous: http://thesaurus.com/browse/homologous?s=t homologous
        features are those that were originally the same in
        evolutionary development but have adapted differently (arms of humans,
        forelegs of cats, etc.); analogous features are those that resemble one
        another in function but are traceable back to completely different origins.

        Analogous: http://thesaurus.com/browse/analogous?s=t homologous features
        are those that were originally the same in evolutionary development but
        have adapted differently (arms of humans, forelegs ofcats, etc.); analogous
        features are those that resemble one another in function but are traceable
        back to completely different origins.

        1 The body parts of a male human and a female human are "alike" but it is
        self evident that there are some important dissimilarities. The definition
        of homologous requires a science writer to says that those dissimilarities
        are "homologous" and those dissimilarities are not "analogous". How do we
        know for sure? Because the reasoning is circular. We believe that human
        males and human females have a common ancestor, therefore the body parts
        that are alike are "homologous".

        2 The body parts of animals with the ability of echolocation are "alike"
        but it is self evident that there are some important dissimilarities. The
        definition of homologous requires a science writer to says that those
        dissimilarities are "not homologous" and those dissimilarities are
        "analogous". How do we know for sure? Because the reasoning is circular.
        We believe that the animals of different groups with the ability of
        echolocation do not have a common ancestor, therefore the body parts that
        are alike are "analogous".

        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 It works
        the same way in biology.

        1 The science writer believes that body parts of a male human and a female
        human are "alike" and the science writer believes that those features are
        those that were originally the same in evolutionary development but have
        adapted differently. The science writer is required to describe those body
        parts as "homologous".

        2 The science writer believes that body parts of animal echolocation are
        "alike" and the science writer believes that those features are those that
        resemble one another in function but are traceable back to completely
        different origins. The science writer is required to describe those body
        parts as "analogous".

        Charles P: Please verify this for yourselves. There is only belief in
        common ancestry and belief in convergent evolution. The only reliable
        evidence for ancestry is DNA evidence. There is no reliable evidence for
        convergent evolution.

        1 The science writers are required, by definition and because of their
        beliefs, to say that homologous body parts are evidence for common ancestry.

        2 The science writers are required, by definition and because of their
        beliefs, to say that analogous body parts are evidence for convergent
        evolution.

        Charles P: Many science writers do not understand this circular reasoning.
        We went through the same kind of circular reasoning when we discussed
        transition forms as evidence for the old Theory of Evolution. The problems
        of the circular reasoning come from not having empirical and verifiable
        evidence that can be verified by others. Common design is the best
        description for animal echolocation.

        **********************************************

        James A Shapiro: What Is the Best Way to Deal With Supernaturalists in
        Science and Evolution?

        1 Rather than accept that evolution science is always a tentative work in
        progress, conventional evolutionists make absolutist statements like "all
        the facts are on my side." Making obviously inflated and unrealistic
        assertions is hardly likely to convince anyone who has serious questions.

        2 We need to emphasize that science operates strictly within the natural
        world and treats all theories as subject to criticism, revision and
        (ultimately) replacement. Think of Newtonian ideas of space, time and
        gravity as compared to Einsteinian general relativity. There is no reason
        to believe that evolution science is in any way special in this regard.

        3 In summary, pro-evolution debaters will enjoy far more success by active
        engagement with evolution doubters. We need to demonstrate that evolution
        science is alive and well, as well as show how it is making remarkable
        progress through the application of molecular technologies -- even though
        it does not have all the answers.

        4 To the thoughtful scientist whose job is to uncover natural processes,
        this is surely a better way of advocating the scientific method than
        dogmatically asserting that we found all the scientific principles we need
        in centuries past.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.