ID vs. Evolution... support and discuss

Great Debates
41

EEMan, if you are interested in knowledge regarding this topic, I would highly recommend spending the time necessary to understand the details. This could include taking biology courses at a university, reading on your own, websites (for surface level information, etc.

There is an absolute mountain of information on the topic, more than you could absorb in a life-time (including all of the different fields of science that come into play).

Prior to my exposure to some of the details behind evolution, I had erroneous assumptions about what the word means, how it works and therefore the things that can be logically inferred. That went away once I properly understood the details.
Finally, I would agree with your position that we don’t know how life started. But that is a different question than “how/why has life changed over time.”

42

Absolutely. Every species is transitional or dead end. My example was simplified for educational value, and I never meant to imply exclusivity.

43

OK, got it. The thing is, there are lots of people out there whose “understanding” of evolution includes ideas like “seals are in the process of evolving into whales”. I didn’t think you believed that, but your post could easily have been read that way.

44

Thank you! I would add that not only is proof in (or by) science not required, but it is not possible.

45

I think what Voyager was trying to say is that the existence of things like seals (and I would extend the set of examples to include walruses, otters, beavers, water voles, even bears etc) demonstrates that conceptually, the process of transforming a land animal into an aquatic/marine one is not irreducibly complex.
-These animals may not be related in a chain of transition from land to water, but they are the present-day occupants of a continuum of completely viable niches that could be occupied by a chain of transitions.

46

Though as I said, telling people this with explaining why, or what impact it has on all other forms of inquiry based on empirical observation, is ultimately deceptive and misleading. People will then just contrast science with what they believe to be “more reliable” things like everyday experience, observation, and ironically even things like forensic science. This conclusion is unwarranted… but’s it exactly the predictable road you’re leading them down if you are not careful, and you’d be remiss not to remedy or prevent it.

47

Yes. Semantic correctness, while nice, is less important that effective communication. We can’t educate the entire world on the definition of a “fact”.

That was similar to the point I was trying to make about “transitional” species. While that term is technically correct, it can easily lead to re-enforcement of common myths about evolution.

48

Consider an automotive license plate.

The specific syntax varies from location to location, but a common plate arrangement will feature six characters: three letters and three numerals. To determine the total number of possible character combinations given this format, you identify the number of potential entries in each position, and multiply across. Twenty-six letters, cubed, times ten numerals, cubed.

That’s about seventeen and a half billion possible license plates, given the syntax letter-letter-letter number-number-number. (Technically, you should reduce the number a bit to account for government rulemaking, such as disallowing combinations like ASS-069. :)) There are more arrangements if you shuffle the sequence; permitting any entry in any position would be calculated by raising 36 (letters and numbers) to the sixth power, which gives you something over two trillion sequences.

Now. Imagine any particular license plate. Say, HYJ-248. Perfectly ordinary plate. Not worth remarking on. Basically, one of billions of possibilities. If someone were to point to it in a parking lot, you would have no reason to remember it, or even think about it for more than a few moments. There are many, many more just like it.

But the probability of this particular license plate being put in front of you at that particular moment is infinitesimally small.

If you wanted to calculate, in advance, the odds of (a) this specific license plate configuration being spit out of a computer (b) at a particular manufacturing facility (c) on a particular date (d) such that it will be issued at a particular location (e) and assigned to a particular vehicle (f) that will be driven by somebody (g) to the specific parking lot (h) on that particular day (i) where somebody else will direct your eye to it… well, obviously, that sequence of events is so ridiculously unlikely as to be unworthy of a moment’s consideration.

And yet, as it happened, there was a license plate there for you to see.

So you have a choice. You can invent some deterministic mechanism that makes it inevitable that this particular license plate is put in front of you on this particular day – an Intelligent Assigner, let’s say. HYJ-248 had to be shown to you, and so you devise a means by which it occurs. Or, you recognize the pile of randomness that accumulated into the ultimate event, and you think about it no further.

That, more or less, is the conceptual leap you need to make when you’re thinking about this stuff. In hindsight, it seems ludicrous to believe that so many trillions of possible outcomes would line up just right to present the world we see before us. What might have happened if a particular stream dried up a few weeks early one year and a particular band of primates took up residence elsewhere? Or a volcano happened to erupt and wiped out a coastline a few million years ago? Or a particular cosmic ray hit a segment of genetic material just slightly differently and and caused a slightly different mutation and now the world is exactly the way we see it today except feline pupils are horizontal instead of vertical? What if, during the formation of the solar system, the rocky body that was becoming the third planet was accumulating slightly less iron, thus producing a slightly weaker magnetic field, which was less effective at blocking solar radiation, and therefore made the planet less habitable? (Not biological evolution, exactly, true, but still an environmental factor, which drives evolutionary change.)

The problem you’re having (which is not uncommon) is that you’re looking at the overall picture the wrong way round. You’re trying to make sense of the grand scope of history as a means by which the current situation can be created, as if the world we live in is somehow inevitable. From this perspective, of course it looks silly; there’s just too much that has to fall in exactly the right way, and too much that could go wrong.

So don’t look at it that way. Turn it around. Consider the system of random interactions, and recognize that (a) billions of years of arbitrary undirected events will result in something, and (b) what we see before us is just one of the possible somethings that may have resulted.

Don’t be distracted by outcomes. When you look at the license plate attached to your car, recognize that a whole lot of random stuff occurred that wound up giving you this particular plate but that none of it actually adds up to anything particularly interesting. (Of course, paradoxically, this in itself is pretty interesting, on a higher level, but that’s the point, right?)

49

And I was addressing more fundamental misconceptions than that. I think you were addressing the kind of person who accepts evolution, but doesn’t quite understand it, while I was addressing the person educated (heh) by creationists who say the kind of thing like - no one has ever seen a transitional species, meaning one that had the characteristics of two - something like elephant seals.

I feel telling them that all species are transitional would get nowhere. One step at a time - after they buy that some are, then we can tell them that all are.

50

I don’t think that is what he’s talking about. Dawkins actually covers this in Climbing Mt. Improbable. Though there are many ways for life to happen, there are far more ways for it not to. If we posited that a cell formed from basic materials, the chance of this is so small that a billion years would not be enough time.

What really seemed to happen is that a cell evolved from much simpler life and almost-life structures through evolution, which does not have the probability issue, because each stage is self-sustaining.

I like the analogy of a 100 stage combination lock, each stage having ten possibilities. All must be set to the right value, in order, for the lock to open. By pure chance, it will never happen. However, if each stage clicks when the right digit is selected, getting to the right combination is trivial. The click is reproductive success and natural selection.

The shortcoming of this analogy is that it assume there is only one right answer, which is not how evolution works. A better one would be that each stage has hundreds of digits, several of which click, so that there are millions of combinations that open the lock. If you randomly spin each stage, and then move to the first click, you won’t be able to predict what combination you’ll get to, but you will always get to one to open the lock.

51

A better example for your purposes might be the still-ambiguous relationship between marine iguanas and land iguanas in the Galapagos.

52

I was beginning to think EE stood for Endless Ellipses.

53

Maybe, but one Thanksgiving we dragged our kids to see the elephant seals at Ano Nuevo, before you needed a guide to walk on the beach.

They’ve never forgiven us. :slight_smile:

54

Actually it stood for Electrical Engineer… and was a rather bad choice for a user ID when I picked it (end of '02)…

You will have to excuse me for speaking in ‘circles’, but I find it difficult to respond to all the different posts, from different people, taking different tacks…

If we were to break down the ‘grand theories’ of ID and Evolution, they would have to break down as such…

Evolution - things change

ID- there is a designer

There is no ‘unified theory of evolution’ and in fact the website provided (ad nauseam) in this thread will even tell you there are 2 broad portions of evolution… the ‘theory’ and the ‘fact’… the fact being, things change… the theory being the mechanisms for such change…

The mechanisms for change are argued by those IN the study of evolution… and as such are not “unified”…

at this point any ‘circular logic’ introduced is merely me going back after each individual poster and trying to clarify the position I’m stating…

As far as professional study goes… not that it really matters in most cases, nor will I give you enough of my personal information for you to check into my background, but my undergrad studies were in a dual degree for Electrical Engineering (BS) and Philosophy (BA)… my post-grad work, is more along the lines of Systems Engineering (of which I have a MS in Biomedical Engineering)… this by no means makes me an expert on evolution, but then short of an actual degree in evolution (not sure such a degree is offered as a BS anywhere); or a scientist in that particular field… not sure what would, though I’m perfectly comfortable with the technical aspects of the arguments…

Now to address some additional points… that have come up…

Dinos had feathers, thus proving that birds did indeed come from Dinos… similar characteristics do not show causality, nor heritage… a fair example would be a duck-billed platypus… On that end, thank you for introducing me to several other examples of dinos with feathers…

I use quotes around words, when I feel the word itself is not the best choice, but is the common usage… or when I have no better word… it has nothing to do with censorship on my part…

As far as me being a proponent of ID because my comments make it look like I’m a proponent of ID… my comments are purely on points of contention… the reason they seem to be one sided, is simply due to the responses I’m getting…

As far as there being no such thing as ‘proof’ in science… that was one of my very first points… there is evidence… not proof… you can DISPROVE a theory… you can never prove it…

If you would like MY personal beliefs, which really have no real bearing… (though I have stated them previously)…

I personally believe that evolution is likely the best mechanism for the development of new species… that it is more likely that change over time (either the dominance of a previously recessive traits through natural selection; or though beneficial genetic mutation) produces our new forms…

That said, this is by no means fact… it IS a supported theory… with lots of evidence… but claiming it is fact, is wrong; as wrong as claiming Newtonian physics is fully correct…

Another issue with ‘evolution’ (using the quotes to denote that I am using the overloaded term for a specific subset, not that I am censoring myself), is the fact that there must be either multiple beneficial genetic mutation, or a cession of natural selection; for some changes go occur…

Let me give you an example… let up pretend that a fish (any fish) would want to travel on land, instead of the water (as one popular belief goes, all life began in the ocean)…

That fish would then what? slowly develop legs? … these legs would be a unfavorable appendage in the water … and useless on land (without another mutation allowing lungs)…

Ok so legs can’t be first… how about the ability to breath air? Well then you must use that ability for some benefit… lest it be nothing more than additional energy required… and another non-beneficial addition…

So what would the physical mechanism be for transform from a sea bound, to earth bound animal… such that natural selection wouldn’t kill off those traits in a generation?

We don’t know… we can guess… but we don’t know… THIS aspect of ‘evolution’ (again a subset of the full ‘theory’) requires you to take it on ‘faith’ that it happened… without asking ‘how’ or ‘why’… we can GUESS at the how or why… but we don’t (and right now can’t) know the answer… such leaps of faith (in my mind) are no different than the ones required to believe in ID…

Does not knowing the mechanism of that change, in validate the theory… of COURSE NOT… but it also leaves holes … holes we can not yet fill

55

You were going so strong right up to this point, then started talking complete rubbish; fish don’t ‘want’ to travel on land; desire or forward planning has nothing at all to do with it. Evolution happens to organisms that are not even capable of desire.

56

poor choice of words…

By ‘want’ (again the wrong word for the situation)… I was merely trying to follow a hypothetical start and end point… (much like the famous painting of fish turning into man)… the contention being that multiple beneficial genetic mutations must have occurred… or perhaps natural selection wasn’t doing its ‘job’ (again bad word for the situation)

57

What exactly is the problem with multiple beneficial mutations? Given that they confer survival+reproductive advantages which tend to preserve said mutations in the gene pool, at the same time as tending to weed out the non-beneficial ones.

58

…also, you need to stop thinking about it in absolute, compartmentalised terms; there are no ‘water’ animals and ‘land’ animals; there are animals that live in water, but for various reasons, occasionally find themselves in less water than is good for them, or none at all, for a variety of durations; there is no need for a transition to occur suddenly, when there’s a whole spectrum of opportunities to be slightly better at surviving a situation than your peers.

59

All genetic mutations are random… some will have no outward effect … some will give some form of adnormality; either benifical or not…

The chances of genetic mutation (that is expressed) is small… if it weren’t the genome would breakdown rather quickly… the chance of two such genetic mutation to spontainously occur (two expressed benifical mutations that is) is pretty remote (not that it COULDN’T occur… but that it has a very small statistical chance of occuring)…

That could merely explain why the evloutionary track is so slow… but it also makes the mechanics of evolution imperfectly understood

60

Sure that could be what happens… but that adds another huge element of chance into the whole arena… because if their condition is such that the element would be helpful, not only has to do with the randomness of their genetic code, but also their current situation…

If they are someplace for 100 years that require teeth… and they aquire teeth… bonus… but if teeth are not helpful, during the 100 years before or after… and they develop it then, it is simply lost…

That again doesn’t mean it won’t happen… it just decreases the likelihood (statistically speaking)