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

The Gaps are Real!

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Gluadys: Neither. It is an example of natural selection adapting different animals in similar ways for similar lifestyles. Generally referred to as
    Message 1 of 40 , Jan 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Gluadys: Neither. It is an example of natural selection adapting different
      animals in similar ways for similar lifestyles. Generally referred to as
      "convergent evolution".

      Charles P:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 The
      intelligently designed concept of "convergent evolution" was invented
      because many science writers truly believe in the old Theory of Evolution.
      They probably feel loyalty to Francis Crick and they have generally
      ignored more than 60 years of molecular science.

      Francis Crick: http://bevets.com/equotesc.htm Biologists must constantly
      keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

      James A Shapiro:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/more-evidence-on-the-real_b_1158228.html
      These ideas came about before we knew about DNA. Now that we have
      almost
      60 years of DNA-based molecular genetics and genome sequencing behind us, a
      different picture has emerged.

      Charles P:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
      Please choose from this list of examples of common design between
      non-related living things. Please show us the empirical and verifiable
      evidence observed in nature that explains how non-related living things can
      have body parts with a common design coming from a common ancestor.

      Charles P: Common design is self-evident withing each animal group.

      Gluadys: You were going to substantiate this claim. You haven't yet.

      Common ancestry: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Common+ancestry

      1 A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a
      common ancestor. (This is self-evident. All dogs have a common ancestor.
      The average reader can easily describe their own examples).

      2 In modern biology, it is generally accepted that all living organisms on
      Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. (This
      is not self-evident. "It is generally accepted" is not the same as
      empirical evidence. It is a distraction for the central issue.)

      Common design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimetics Common design is
      self-evident. Biomimetics is the study of the structure and function of
      biological systems as models for the design and engineering of materials
      and machines. It is widely regarded as being synonymous with biomimicry,
      biomimesis, biognosis and similar to biologically inspired design.

      Charles P: The DNA digital code information ensures the survival, growth,
      and proliferation of each living thing.

      Gluadys: What has that to do with common design? Most biologists take it
      as evidence of common descent.

      James A Shapiro: 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.
      Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and
      interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation.

      Charles P: Why should animal echolocation not be considered only as an
      example of common design?

      Gluadys: How does it provide evidence for common design? Why would this
      be a logically necessary way for common design to be expressed? When these
      questions have substantive replies, common design might be given
      consideration.

      Charles P: Design in living things comes from DNA digital code
      information. Animal echolocation is an example of design involving at
      least (1) transmission of signals of a specific wavelength different from
      surrounding noises (2) reception of echos at differing times and (3) the
      ability to interpret the echos for the purpose of locating separate objects
      in the environment. Animal echolocation may be more complicated than these
      observations in nature. These separate parts were useless unless all
      preexisted simultaneously. Common design is the only logical tentative
      scientific conclusion to replace common ancestry from non-related groups in
      the 21st Century Theory of Evolution.

      Gluadys: Who claims there is no empirical and verifiable evidence?

      Charles P: I make the tentative claim that there is no empirical and
      verifiable evidence for the common ancestry of non-related groups. I make
      the tentative claim that all other examples of "convergent evolution" are
      really examples of common design in non-related groups. If the old Theory
      of Evolution is tentative, then it will be updated to teach science
      students only what is observed in nature and verifiable by others.

      Gluadys: Have the necessary genomic and phylogenetic studies on bats,
      shrews, cetaceans and birds been done?

      Charles P: http://tolweb.org/tree/ Yes. The Tree of Life Web Project.

      Gluadys: Have they shown any reason to claim that animal echolocation did
      not evolve?

      Charles P: Of course not. Every science writer knows that evolution
      within a group is self-evident.

      Gluadys: Most of your questions seem to include questionable assumptions
      for which there is no empirical and verifiable evidence.

      Charles P: Please show us here on Origins Talk an example of what you mean
      by this statement. Please show us the empirical and verifiable evidence
      observed in nature that explains how non-related living things can have
      body parts with a common design coming from a common ancestor.


      [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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.