I watched the original series Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last
Battlefield" tonight.
In this episode, Spock said, "The actual theory is that all life-forms evolved from the lower
levels to the more advanced stages."
This highlights my scientific objection to Evolution; I
see lots of "change" in life forms, in the fossil record, in
everyday experience, in the lab, in historical records, but that
change is overwhelmingly downward, somewhat lateral, and never
unambiguously upward. Cave fish lose their eyes, serpents lose
their legs, bacteria lose the ability to process a chemical which
makes them less fit overall but allows them to survive in a
weakened state in a small niche environment of antibiotic
chemicals; finch beaks lengthen one year and shrink the next, only
to lengthen again the next year, as weather/environmental
conditions change from year to year; robust mutt dogs "evolve"
into weaker but more specialized breeds, gaining perhaps a longer
body suitable for digging mice out of mice-holes, but at the cost
of weaker spines and shorter lives. When it can be demonstrated
that some natural process (random genetic mutations, or hereditary
passing of acquired characteristics, or whatever) can generate
new, never-before-seen functions and organs and capabilities, not
just on a "here's a possible candidate" rare exception basis, but
on a "this is the rule rather than the exception" basis, then I'll
be able to consider Evolution as a more viable concept.
Simply put, the evidence is lacking.
And the inability to distinguish between upward evolution and
downward or lateral evolution, using the same term to describe all
three phenomena, is what makes most people believe Evolution is
true. The evolutionary proponents take advantage of this
inability, "moving the goalposts" so to speak, by claiming in
their books, documentaries, museum displays, etc, that "Evolution"
(in the sense of upward progress) is a fact supported by a wealth
of evidence, and then they trot at as evidence examples of lateral
and/or downward "evolution".
10 comments:
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Daniel 'Back in' Black writes:
Biology never claims that the crucible of its findings indicate "only upward lateral movement." This misunderstanding of biology is an odd mixture of nature (organisms change slowly due to DNA's slightly less-than perfect reproduction of itself) and religious narcism (Man is atop a ladder overlooking lesser creatures). This ladder or "pyramid" concept is incompatible with the tenants of biology, because biological change is blind; there is no direction, up or down.
Change happens at calculable rates, but has no goal in mind.
If an organism is subject to a minor change that helps it eat, fly, climb, fight, and/or breed more effectively, this organism is more likely to have more offspring, and these offspring are more likely to outperform their kin, and the older genes are less likely to survive in the gene pool.
If an organism is subject to a minor change that hinders its ability in the ways I mentioned above, it is less likely to have more offspring—or at least less likely to have offspring capable of competing for resources with more adapted kin.
It's very simple. No ladder involved. Just change. And only because DNA is—though more accurate than any other reproductive chemicals we know—not perfect.
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Kent West writes:
If change were truly random, there'd be lots of activity around a core center. This is actually what we see in real life, in the fossil record, in the lab, in breeding experiments, even in the Bible (see Jacob's breeding program, for example, in Gen 30:25ff) - lots of variation on a central theme - short horses, tall horses, fast horses, draft horses, but the farther you get from the center, mules, for example, the higher the barrier becomes to further change.
But this is not what Spock is talking about; he's talking about all life forms arising (a-"rising") from lower levels (a "simple" single cell) to higher levels (complicated squids and bees and humans). This is also what is meant when we're told by "authoritative" sources that "evolution is fact".
Nobody denies the variation-on-a-theme type of evolution. But that does not explain how humans developed from microbes.
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Kent West writes:
Random change like what you describe gives us variation on a theme that does not progress in any one direction; but the evolution from microbe to man is a progression in one direction (at least beyond what random variation would produce). That one-direction progression is what remains unexplained by the evidence.
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Daniel 'Back in' Black writes:
DNA's changes are random. The vast majority of changes do nothing, since we—and most other organisms—have so much "junk" DNA that is no longer utilized. It's extremely rare for a natural mutation of DNA to be either helpful or hindering.
The script's statement of "arising" seems to be erroneous in the manner of becoming better than another creature. As humans, we're anything but the pinnacle of biological development. The eyes of many carnivorous sea creatures are many times more precise than our own, not to mention every human eye has a blind spot in the center that the brain must cover up—along with having to flip images right-side-up. We have useless organs that no longer serve a purpose, we have a vast collection of unused DNA left over from our past (as mentioned), "claws" and "fangs" that have long been unneeded for our survival, and thus have atrophied to the point of almost nonexistence, third eyelids that now sit curled up and unattended within our eye sockets, tails that have receded to nothing more than a useless waste of bone at the bottom of our spines, and nerve endings that wind their way through our bodies many times longer than necessary, only to reach their destination several inches from where they began; all odd choices for a divine engineer to have blundered.
All of these things were not needed for most of our ancestors to have an advantage over their kin, and thus those who didn't have the strongest of these bodily items were not penalized, but instead thrived, effectively doing away with them on account that they no longer mattered.
The Genesis reference is outright against hundreds of years of observation and study, as creatures do not change based on what their parents see whilst they copulate. But I do see the end result you're trying to show, which is "variations on a theme."
There is not, however, any known evidence to suggest there are magical limitations on biology to develop other than the survivability of said changes. Do you have sources—preferably peer-reviewed by experts in the fields of biological disciplines—to validate this unusual claim? Or is it a conjecture by theologians?
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Kent West writes:
Concerning so-called "junk DNA"; the more we learn, the more that those in the know are abandoning this concept. For example, from the peer-reviewed journal "RNA Biology":
Pseudogenes were long considered as junk genomic DNA:
present in the genome but non-coding and without function. However, discoveries in the ancient protist T. brucei, as well as in some metazoan, indicate that pseudogene regulation is widespread in eukaryotes. Accordingly, the moniker "pseudogene" has been challenged.
(Yan-Zi Wen, Ling-Ling Zheng, Liang-Hu Qu, Francisco J. Ayala and Zhao-Rong Lun, "Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more," RNA Biology, Vol. 9(1):27-32 (January, 2012).)
I see lots of "change" in life forms, in the fossil record, in everyday experience, in the lab, in historical records, but that change is overwhelmingly downward, somewhat lateral, and never unambiguously upward.
Although I did mention the Bible, I did not intend to use it as an argument, except to point out that its view concerning biologic change is consistent with what we actually observe in the real world. No matter the explanation the Bible uses for Jacob's breeding program, the actual report is that one "type' of lifestock "evolved" into a different type, but it was not an "upward" change - nothing new evolved, but rather it was a lateral (sideways) change (just mixing of genetic material/expressions that were already there) or possible downward (loss of genetic material necessary for non-speckling, etc).
Concerning the sub-optimal design of the eye, the blind-spot and "reverse wiring" touted by Dawkins, et al, does not impair vision at all. In fact, the vertebrate eye with its "backward wiring" out-performs that of the invertebrate eye which has "forward wiring", being sensitive enough to generate a signal to the brain from a single photon of light striking a retinal cell. If only we had such "bad designers" working on the manufacture of artificial eyes for the blind.
But regardless of the quality of the eye's design, the question is irrelevant to the topic at hand: do we see simple eyes "evolving" into more complex eyes in the lab? in breeding farms? in caves? No. What we see is degradation - downward - change. We see the loss of eyesight, even eyes, in fish that have lived for generations in lightless caves.
Again, for evolution to be true, there must be upward change (from no eyes, to very good eyes; from one cell, to billions of cells working as a very complex integrated system; from having no wings to having a fully-functional flight system our best engineers can't yet duplicate.
Concerning your request for peer-reviewed sources on the matter of biological limits, will JSTOR suffice? From the abstract:
For multitrait systems, recent results using longer term studies of organisms, in which more is understood concerning what traits may be under selection, have indicated that selection may exhaust genetic variance, resulting in a limit to the selection response.
(http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3450762?uid=3739256&sid=21101161051397)
In mere-human-speak, biological systems may be limited to how much change they can undergo because of limitations in the built-in genetic variability.
But again, the amount of change is not my point. My point is the direction of change. Is it upward, sideways, downward, or fluctuation around a norm? The best evidence I see is a fluctuation around a norm with a tendency toward downward change over the long-term. Evolution requires an upward change, and it is evidence for that sort of change which seems to be lacking.
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Daniel 'Back in' Black writes:
That’s an interesting find, and very recent too! Thanks for providing a source with some great material; I’ll touch on vestigial organs at the end of this post, because it provides a tidy bow to the overarching idea I’m trying to get at.
I noticed your main point was about “downward” change, but this concept is flawed in at least two glaring ways. I’ve already touched on the first issue I take with that terminology to some degree when I talked about the fact that there is no “ladder” of progression or regression insomuch as a creature is a better creature or a worse creature; an organism that is survivably viable fills a niche. Simple as that. To expound on that idea, a seeming “loss in one particular functionality” shouldn’t immediately be considered a net detriment or a “rung down the ladder” for a group of organisms that need every precious resource in their bodies focused on survival in their current environments. A group of cave-dwelling creatures may be selected against for their happenstance to divert biological resources from less-needed sensory organs aimed at eyesight for keener organs used in hearing. Or another colony of animal to lose long beaks for smaller, stouter ones, or yet another to atrophy fangs, claws, and tails for cunning and the ability to grasp objects (like Hominidae). These changes enhance the creature for its given niche; it doesn’t get demoted along an imaginary step of the pyramid simply because it adapts to differing needs of survival.
As for genetic variability limitations, I grant you One Internet for a very good source in response to my statement; I’m extremely happy you did some digging for me to look into. I do—however—must concede that this interesting look into limitations to genetic variance seems to be one that is referring to groups within species who have filled in all available niches, and have exhausted survival traits their given genetics will allow for, not about the slightly larger picture of out-group changes. And I know why this type of research is of great interest to you: it points to your mention of the most grand “microbes to man” ponderance. I’m unfortunately woefully under qualified to provide any type of acceptable framework for you about that challenge to the collective fields of biology, paleontology, traditional morphology, taxonomy, and genetics, but I can say that those disciplines have all independently arrived at the same ultimate conclusion, and—lest I be accused of ignoring more qualified historians than I—it may be more interesting and enlightening to seek the answer to this complex matter within their decades of findings and observation. Heck, I’d love to know as well. =)
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Daniel 'Back in' Black writes:
Returning at last to residual organs: Again, excellent find about our new discoveries into parts of various genomes we once thought useless (or at the very least inactive). However, I’m still left to wonder if the larger genre of vestigial constructs—rather than DNA—can at all be proven to be still useful, or if you’d at least admit to some degree that they’re highly unusual for a creature to have were it designed in its current state. The easiest example I can immediately think of that hasn’t been mentioned yet are the remnants of pelvic girdles and hind legs appearing in whales, located precisely in the areas of their bodies where such things as limbs and pelvic assemblies should be had they been degenerated from working versions. Even if these vestigial limbs are found to have some purpose in managing buoyancy/weight, movement, or other functions, it seems odd—and extremely improbable—that they be “placed” there intentionally. If they indeed turn out to have some function, why were they spitefully placed in the perfect spot to be mistaken for remnants of limbs and pelvises; why not create an entirely unique and unmistakable mark of engineering ingenuity to accomplish whatever purpose these parts may or may not serve?
I can’t sum up this concept any better than one of my Christian heroes, evolutionary molecular biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller, who stated in a lecture, “In the broadest sense, I believe in a Designer. But I don’t believe in a deceptive one.”
Lastly, while I’m talking about Dr. Miller, and that particular quote as it happens, I have a very short and—for nerds like me—somewhat riveting snippet of a lecture he gave about the Dover trial, wherein he hints at some of the discoveries about biological occurrences that touch on factors of the driving forces in the kinds of “large-scale” “forward-moving” changes you seek to know about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Post Textum: If you have some time during meals, snacks, or both, the entire talk is extremely stimulating, and details of what kinds of evidence have been presented against biology in the courts, and how they have been summarily debunked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Kent West writes:
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this; school started, and life got busy.
I disagree that there is no ladder of progression (or regression), and that a loss of functionality is not a net detriment, and that a loss does not demote an organism down.
The loss of eyesight in cave-fish puts the fish at a disadvantage, if only by restricting him to a narrower survivable environment than what sighted fish have. Should a threat push a sighted fish into darkness, the sighted fish suffers no disadvantage greater than the blind fish has. But should a threat push the blind fish into the light, the blind fish does suffer a disadvantage greater than the sighted fish has. The sighted fish has a greater range of survivable environments than does the blind fish. That is a net detriment.
A man without the genetic ability to grow hands has an advantage in an environment in which people are handcuffed and beaten regularly, because he's more likely to escape the beatings since handcuffs can't hold him, sliding right off his hand-less wrists. But I doubt anyone would argue that the loss of hands is not a net detriment.
Same with sickle-cell anemia. The loss of the ability to produce normal blood cells also conveys immunity to malaria, which might be an advantage in a malaria-ridden environment. But I doubt anyone would argue that severely-damaged blood cells is not a net detriment.
Regardless of these specific examples, I deem it a mistake to claim that there is no ladder of progression. The evolution of life from a single-celled organism to the very complex human is a very definite ladder of progression. This is common sense. In order for evolution to be true, life must have progressed upward from something very simple to something very complex. Hearts had to progress; blood vessels had to progress; spines had to progress; legs, arms, eyes, mouth, alimentary canal; all these things had to progress from not existing to existing, from simple to complex.
And what we see in real life, in the lab, in the fossil record, in breeding experiments, etc, is that functionality may be lost (lose an eye; lose normalcy in blood cells), but functionality is not gained. The only place we see functionality gained is in the textbooks and in museum displays and on National Geographic TV specials, and always with glaring leaps of story-telling -- In my best David Attenborough voice, "Over millions of years the wingless raptor developed wings and learned to fly."
Concerning the whale pelvic bones being inconsistent with a designer, you're straying into theology - "A good designer wouldn't create this design." Your hero also objects on theological grounds - he doesn't believe in a deceptive designer. We've established that loss is well-attested in the real world; whatever purpose the pelvic bones in whales served or are serving, everyone seems to be agreed that they're not becoming something new, which is my whole point in my original post: [The claim is made that] "Evolution" (in the sense of upward progress) is a fact supported by a wealth of evidence, and then they trot at as evidence examples of lateral and/or downward "evolution". And if Miller wishes to reject creationism on the basis of theology, that's fine, but it needs to be understood that his objection is not based on science, but on theology.
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Kent West writes:
Concerning Ken Miller's video to which you linked, what he has proven is that humans have one chromosome that appears to be the result of two chromosomes fusing together. I have no problem with that. But his next step is a leap of faith: he claims that since apes have two chromosomes whereas humans only have one which seems to be the fused remains of those two, humans must have evolved from apes and in the process these two chromosomes fused into one.
But if the fusion event happened prior to humans becoming their own separate species (i.e. while we were still in the ape-like ancestor stage), then other current hominids who have descended from that ape-like ancestor should also have the fused chromosome. But we don't see any of our "apelike cousins" with fused chromosomes; we humans are unique in that feature. Therefore, it's obvious that the fusion event occurred after humans were their own separate species.
In other words, the best evidence is that modern humans inherited a fused chromosome from unfused-chromosome human ancestors, not from unfused-chromosome ape ancestors. Miller's example does not demonstrate what he claims it to demonstrate. The evidence indicates that modern humans evolved from ancestral humans.
It's taken me a week or two to get around to writing this response, and in the meantime, it's notable that within that time frame Nature reports that the concept of "junk DNA" is going the way of the dodo, writing:
[quote]
The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. (http://tinyurl.com/bopt49j)
[/quote]
The conversation continues at the mirrored post on Facebook:
======
Kent West writes:
The researchers who best know the workings of the cell (RNA Biology cited earlier in this thread; now Nature) keep indicating that "junk DNA" is a flawed concept. I suggest that one of its main flaws is that it has impeded medical research. After all, if you think a section of code is useless junk, why bother studying it? Now that research is being done "outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions", that paradigm is changing, driven by empirical science.
Moving out of DNA to the "larger genre of vestigial constructs", according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#History - and I've seen the same information elsewhere for years), the list of vestigial structures in humans has been as long as 180 items in the past century. Since then, functions have been discovered for most of them. National Geographic (http://tinyurl.com/ned7aq) reports the view of the director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York's Mt. Sinai School of Medicine:
[
History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said.
"People say, You can remove it and still live. But you have to be careful with that logic," he said. "You could remove your left leg and still live. But whenever a body part is moved or changed, there's a price to pay."
]
Earlier in the article:
[
But as technology has advanced, researchers have found that, more often than not, some of these "junk parts" are actually hard at work.
]
This is not to say that vestigial structures do not exist, either at the macro or the micro level; it is to say that ignorance of function is not the same as lack of function, and history shows that it is unwise to assume something has no function just because we don't understand it. History also shows that the concept of vestigial organs is a concept that is not well-supported by the actual evidence.
Yet, even if vestigial structures exist, again, this testifies to my basic point in my original post: "I see lots of 'change' in life forms, in the fossil record, in everyday experience, in the lab, in historical records, but that change is overwhelmingly downward...", and that when evolutionary apologists are pressed for evidence of their views, "they trot out as evidence examples of lateral and/or downward 'evolution'".
Post a Comment