New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory

[Todd33]

I don't think scientist should even acknowledge ID, let alone try to prove it wrong. Scarce research time and funds should not be used to combat religious zealots and ignorance. Science stands on it's own, always has.

 

[dahunan]

Uh.. if ID is reality then where did the IDesigner come from ...

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CycloWizardI can argue the exact converse - that the only reason ID is not yet a testable hypothesis is because we lack the scientific sophistication to test it. Until we have a true time machine, we'll never really know the answer, will we? Yet people continue to disparage those who disagree rather than simply saying 'ok, that's a possibility, since we can't prove otherwise' as is done in any real scientific field. Like I said, I have no stake in either side of the argument, but I also refrain from bashing the views of even die-hard creationists. If that view suits them, why should I piss in their Cheerios? Why are we struggling so hard to oppose exposing our children to a variety of viewpoints? Are we so opposed to making them think for themselves?

In science class aren't we supposed to be teaching our children science? ID as you say is not a hypothesis much less a theory. While it does have philosophical credibility it lacks scientific meaning. It is not science therefore it shouldn't be put in a science class. Teaching children to question the fact of evolution(yes evolution is a fact -- there are many theories surrounding the fact of evolution however) is like teaching children to question the fact of gravity. Sure, it might lead somehow to a greater understanding of it -- but certainly there are much better ways of teaching and certainly those ways do not need to rely on faith-based philosophy.

I fear for our nation's future if we insist on teaching faith/philosophy/religion as an alternative to hard science in our science classes.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I shared my knowledge of the eye anecdotally on the off chance that someone might read it and understand where people are coming from when they say that you are not simply a random ball of atoms defying the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, you demonstrate that they are incorrect by showing off the increasing entropy of your thought processes with time, so all is well in the world of science once again.

Again more ignorance. Were you educated in Kansas perhaps? The awww, to hell with it back to talk origins.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Wholistically untrue. The non-human primate eye is nearly identical to ours, other mammals have eyes that very similar in structure, but are only slightly different in fuction.

Um, no, you're simply wrong. Let me key you in: this is what I do. I am very much in touch with the latest literature on the subject. While what you say was commonly held to be true five years ago, it is certainly not true today. I refer you to the article "The Mechanism of Presbyopia" by Strenk, Strenk, and Koretz (Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005 May;24(3):379-93, PubMed abstract). And I quote:

While Helmholtz' theory regarding the mechanism of accommodation is generally accepted with regard to broad issues, additional details continue to emerge. Age-related changes in anterior segment structures associated with accommodation have been documented, often through in vitro and/or rhesus monkey studies. A review of these findings suggests that presbyopia develops very differently in humans compared to non-human primates.

The fact is, there is no animal model for human vision. This is true neurologically, mechanically, anatomically - you name it.

Again, more baseless nonsense. Would a "designer" make an inverted retina? The mammalian eye is a prime example of horrible design. Light has to travel through a meshwork of blood vessels and other cells to reach the receptors at the back of the retina. The responses of those receptors are then funneled out (via bipolars to ganglion cells--along with other modulating cells at the the IPL and OPL) of the eye via the optic nerve. This process leaves one hell of a blind spot in each eye. Sure its only detectable in a few scenarios, but we have our massive visual cortex to thank for that. All mammalian eyes are structurally like this. Now take a very distant relative, like an invertabrate, maybe the octopus. The octopus has a retina that is facing the "right" way. Now, what was that you were saying of genetic determinism?

If you knew your eye from a hole in the ground, you would note that what you state in this paragraph is completely and utterly untrue. In fact, I even specifically mentioned things that contradict it in the post that you quoted. For example, you claim that light must pass through a network of blood vessels prior to being input to the retina. False. The three avascular tissues of the body which I mentioned are the only thing between the outside world and the retina. Further, the blood vessels of the retina all occur posteriorly (read: behind) the rods and cones. They may be visualized via ophthalmoscope simply because the length scale of rods and cones is such that they are not visible at such magnifications. Further, no one ever said that the human retina is inverted. I did, however, state that the lens is an inverted membrane. This is true in any species with an ocular lens, as it could not develop embryologically in any other manner.

This 'baseless nonsense' is what doctors, scientists, and engineers such as myself would call 'research.' Thanks for demonstrating that, while many consider ID advocates to be ignorant, evolution advocates can match them every step of the way.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I can argue the exact converse - that the only reason ID is not yet a testable hypothesis is because we lack the scientific sophistication to test it. Until we have a true time machine, we'll never really know the answer, will we? Yet people continue to disparage those who disagree rather than simply saying 'ok, that's a possibility, since we can't prove otherwise' as is done in any real scientific field. Like I said, I have no stake in either side of the argument, but I also refrain from bashing the views of even die-hard creationists. If that view suits them, why should I piss in their Cheerios? Why are we struggling so hard to oppose exposing our children to a variety of viewpoints? Are we so opposed to making them think for themselves?

How about we introduce ID in science class once it's a testable theory? That only seems fair doesn't it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Czar
excelent post 😀

And I agree with you, the eye is a puzzling thing. But it doesnt exactly help the ID side or the Evolution side, which like you said you sortof support neither over the other.

That is all fine and dandy, but lets get to that subject. Science works on the princible of finding out what we dont know, in this case we try to find out how the eye came to be. ID on the other hand works out from the princible that someone created it, or directed the creation, without knowing anything else.

I for example does not rule out that some power influenced or hell, even made everything as it is now, but I do recognize without scientific proof it means absolutely nothing to science. The idea or faith that something bigger is out there has nothing to do with science because it doesnt deal with facts.

I agree wholeheartedly. The point of the eye example was that science cannot yet come close to explaining how the eye works, let alone how it developed due to random genetic mutations. The entire point is that calling someone ignorant because they recognize this and are awestruck, rather than cynical, is itself ignorant.

Originally posted by: homercles337
Again more ignorance. Were you educated in Kansas perhaps? The awww, to hell with it back to talk origins.

Actually, your 'source' is incorrect - that is NOT what the second law of thermo states. It in fact claims that entropy (disorder) of the universe must increase as the result of any physical process. The portion quoted in your source is one necessary outcome of this statement, not the law itself. Maybe you should educate yourself before trying to meddle with someone who knows what he's talking about? I'm teaching a thermodynamics class now if you're interested.

Besides, that statement I made was obviously (to anyone with a brain, anyway) a joke. I'm not here to debate that the entropy of the universe can increase while decreasing local entropy, resulting in an increase in complexity and order. However, there are those that would argue that this is a necessary implication of the second law.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Czar
excelent post 😀

And I agree with you, the eye is a puzzling thing. But it doesnt exactly help the ID side or the Evolution side, which like you said you sortof support neither over the other.

That is all fine and dandy, but lets get to that subject. Science works on the princible of finding out what we dont know, in this case we try to find out how the eye came to be. ID on the other hand works out from the princible that someone created it, or directed the creation, without knowing anything else.

I for example does not rule out that some power influenced or hell, even made everything as it is now, but I do recognize without scientific proof it means absolutely nothing to science. The idea or faith that something bigger is out there has nothing to do with science because it doesnt deal with facts.

I agree wholeheartedly. The point of the eye example was that science cannot yet come close to explaining how the eye works, let alone how it developed due to random genetic mutations. The entire point is that calling someone ignorant because they recognize this and are awestruck, rather than cynical, is itself ignorant.

Sortof agree. The problem I have is when some people try to push ID as a possibility just because science cant explain everything. Thats a big big problem.

 

[homercles337]

Holy crap, if your "work" is concerned with the eye youre an utter idiot. Im talking about the structure of the retina and you quote papers talking about accomodation. Do you even know the difference? Yes, the average college educataed human is myopic (i am), while the average primate (macaque) is hyperopic. Do you know why this is? Do you have any clue about the behavioral theories behind this? Do you think it might have a behavioral source--maybe reading versus recognizing friend/foe from afar?

For example, you claim that light must pass through a network of blood vessels prior to being input to the retina. False. The three avascular tissues of the body which I mentioned are the only thing between the outside world and the retina. Further, the blood vessels of the retina all occur posteriorly (read: behind) the rods and cones.

You might want to look at an undergrad biology text. Wait, here you go: human eye. Your ignorance knows no bounds does it? If you doubt my claims about the octopus do a google.

BTW, im a visual neuroscientist with a phd from berekeley. I think i know quite a bit more about this than you. Let me guess, associates or bachelors from some sh!tty local school? Unless you start to show SOME sign of knowledge im done with you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Sorry, ID/creationism "believers" are ignorant. No ifs, ands, nor buts about it. There's zero scientific basis behind creationism and its new prettified name: Intelligent Design. It's pure faith. And, Darwin is not the be-all, end-all expert on evolution and the way it works. Taking any doubt or curiosity he may have had about the eye and using that as a basis to give ID some credibility belies your true agenda. BTW, Cyclo, I thought you vowed to never return? Pulling a heartsurgeon?

Sorry, but YOU are ignorant. I daresay I know a sliver more about the scientific workings of things than you do. No ifs, ands, nor buts about it. You simply seek to demean anyone who disagrees with you to prop up your own ill-founded beliefs in nothing. This is true of you whether we're discussing evolution/ID or any other topic.

I shared my knowledge of the eye anecdotally on the off chance that someone might read it and understand where people are coming from when they say that you are not simply a random ball of atoms defying the second law of thermodynamics. Of course, you demonstrate that they are incorrect by showing off the increasing entropy of your thought processes with time, so all is well in the world of science once again.

More of your holier-than-thou BS. You were the king of trolls and come in here with knowledge based on what you're working on that, in the grand scheme of things, adds nothing to the content of this thread. Darwin's doubts/curiosity of the eye does not equal the end of science's study of the eye (as you should well know). Relying upon one man's doubts and using that as a basis for giving credence to ID is utterly ridiculous (and you should know that, too).

And, being as you studying this in-depth, you should also very well know that ID has absolutely ZERO basis in scientific fact or study. It's 100% pure faith. That's all I'm driving at in this thread but you seem oddly compelled to defend ID as some valid form of scientific theory.

As for my presence in this forum, I'll come and go as I please. Don't like it? Guess who doesn't care.

Well, obviously not a confessed troll such as yourself.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically this article attempts to tell all non-scientists that they are stupid and we just have to agree with them because we are ignorant and they are some sort of super-intelligent being.

These are people who dedicate their lives to learning and to science; who are openminded to all information which might call what they believe and feel they know into question. I think they're a little more credible than people who've dedicated their lives to a 9 to 5 and to watching TV sitcoms.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: homercles337
BTW, im a visual neuroscientist with a phd from berekeley. I think i know quite a bit more about this than you. Let me guess, associates or bachelors from some sh!tty local school? Unless you start to show SOME sign of knowledge im done with you.

Wow. If this is the typical communique of a well-learned PhD scientist, it's no wonder that "berekeley" often carries such a stigma with it.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
BTW, im a visual neuroscientist with a phd from berekeley. I think i know quite a bit more about this than you. Let me guess, associates or bachelors from some sh!tty local school? Unless you start to show SOME sign of knowledge im done with you.

Wow. If this is the typical communique of a well-learned PhD scientist, it's no wonder that "berekeley" often carries such a stigma with it.

A berkeley "stigma" because i happened to add an extra "e?" Or is being in the top 5 of most disciplines nationwide what youre talking about? I have already been through this with BushBasha. Do we need to revisit it?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
BTW, im a visual neuroscientist with a phd from berekeley. I think i know quite a bit more about this than you. Let me guess, associates or bachelors from some sh!tty local school? Unless you start to show SOME sign of knowledge im done with you.

Wow. If this is the typical communique of a well-learned PhD scientist, it's no wonder that "berekeley" often carries such a stigma with it.

A berkeley "stigma" because i happened to add an extra "e?" Or is being in the top 5 of most disciplines nationwide what youre talking about?

I was actually simpy refering to your gruff and rather unprofessional language. Had you not professed your degree, I doubt many would have ventured guess to that based solely on your posts here.

I have already been through this with BushBasha. Do we need to revisit it?

Not at all.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I was actually simpy refering to your gruff and rather unprofessional language. Had you not professed your degree, I doubt many would have ventured guess to that based solely on your posts here.

Point noted, but i dont treat P&N as a professional forum. But then my colleagues that i communicate with are scientists and not bible thumpers. Would a single one of my colleagues falsely claim that the mammalian retina is not inverted? Nope, because we all KNOW that they are. Sometimes it takes gruff language to get ones point across in forums like this.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically this article attempts to tell all non-scientists that they are stupid and we just have to agree with them because we are ignorant and they are some sort of super-intelligent being.

These are people who dedicate their lives to learning and to science; who are openminded to all information which might call what they believe and feel they know into question. I think they're a little more credible than people who've dedicated their lives to a 9 to 5 and to watching TV sitcoms.

Anyone who thinks scientists are open minded hasn't met very many scientists. While I'm not for teaching ID/Creationism in science classes, people sure do get defensive of evolution any time a flaw in the theory is suggested out. I guess unlike other areas of science, we have a perfect understanding of evolution. People are closed minded on both sides of the aisle, just like usual. Scientists can be just as blind and prejudiced about their opinions as anyone else. If you think scientists only publish unbiased fact, go spend a few months in a lab, especially while they are applying for research grants/funding. They will pick out any facts they can get away with to make their research look like the most important thing for mankind. Science is oh so pure (as long as you're not directly involved in it). While they are more credible for science, don't be deluded that they have no agenda.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: albatross
why some people think evolution and god are mutually exclusive?

Because their faith is weak as well as their minds. They lack the ability to want to think critically and feel evolution is a threat to their faith and they must work to tear it down to feel good about themselves and their faith.

Pretty sad, really.

But, we're going to keep seeing more and more advances like this in science and it will be beneficial to us all, esp. in the world of medicine.

lmao you could replace evolution in there with religion and it would describe every left winged nut on this msgboard.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: albatross
why some people think evolution and god are mutually exclusive?

Because their faith is weak as well as their minds. They lack the ability to want to think critically and feel evolution is a threat to their faith and they must work to tear it down to feel good about themselves and their faith.

Pretty sad, really.

But, we're going to keep seeing more and more advances like this in science and it will be beneficial to us all, esp. in the world of medicine.

lmao you could replace evolution in there with religion and it would describe every left winged nut on this msgboard.

Possibly. There are plenty on the left who ridicule religion at every opportunity. But, at least on this board, I don't see that as the norm. You are making the mistake by generalizing the criticism of the radical Christian clerics and their followers as a criticism of all religion. And, that's all I'll say on your post as it's a duh-version from the topic.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
BTW, im a visual neuroscientist with a phd from berekeley. I think i know quite a bit more about this than you. Let me guess, associates or bachelors from some sh!tty local school? Unless you start to show SOME sign of knowledge im done with you.

Wow. If this is the typical communique of a well-learned PhD scientist, it's no wonder that "berekeley" often carries such a stigma with it.

Isnt it funny when trolls are called out and owned they come back with interesting tails about being a PHD from a well known university? Yet they write and think like a 3rd grader? If this is what it takes to be liberal and well educated in this country. It may explain the problems with the DNC.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: albatross
why some people think evolution and god are mutually exclusive?

Because their faith is weak as well as their minds. They lack the ability to want to think critically and feel evolution is a threat to their faith and they must work to tear it down to feel good about themselves and their faith.

Pretty sad, really.

But, we're going to keep seeing more and more advances like this in science and it will be beneficial to us all, esp. in the world of medicine.

lmao you could replace evolution in there with religion and it would describe every left winged nut on this msgboard.

Possibly. There are plenty on the left who ridicule religion at every opportunity. But, at least on this board, I don't see that as the norm. You are making the mistake by generalizing the criticism of the radical Christian clerics and their followers as a criticism of all religion. And, that's all I'll say on your post as it's a duh-version from the topic.

Your avg Church goer is a Fundie to you. Ill take your rebuttle with a huge grain of salt.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Holy crap, if your "work" is concerned with the eye youre an utter idiot. Im talking about the structure of the retina and you quote papers talking about accomodation. Do you even know the difference? Yes, the average college educataed human is myopic (i am), while the average primate (macaque) is hyperopic. Do you know why this is? Do you have any clue about the behavioral theories behind this? Do you think it might have a behavioral source--maybe reading versus recognizing friend/foe from afar?

You said all primate eyes were nearly identical. I demonstrated that this is clearly not the case. You did not say their retinas were nearly identical.

You might want to look at an undergrad biology text. Wait, here you go: human eye. Your ignorance knows no bounds does it? If you doubt my claims about the octopus do a google.

BTW, im a visual neuroscientist with a phd from berekeley. I think i know quite a bit more about this than you. Let me guess, associates or bachelors from some sh!tty local school? Unless you start to show SOME sign of knowledge im done with you.

P'shaw. Wash U's med school and ophthalmology department are ranked higher than Berkeley's. Still want to appeal to your school's reputation while ragging on mine? So I don't deal with the retina much. You're ignorant in thermo and maybe my understanding of the retinal anatomy is incomplete. However, I can still one-up you since your blanket statements regarding the eye have been demonstrated to be false. So nyeah! /childish rant

Let me know if you want to return to the real topic at hand instead of trying to toot your own horn.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: albatross
why some people think evolution and god are mutually exclusive?

Because their faith is weak as well as their minds. They lack the ability to want to think critically and feel evolution is a threat to their faith and they must work to tear it down to feel good about themselves and their faith.

Pretty sad, really.

But, we're going to keep seeing more and more advances like this in science and it will be beneficial to us all, esp. in the world of medicine.

lmao you could replace evolution in there with religion and it would describe every left winged nut on this msgboard.

Possibly. There are plenty on the left who ridicule religion at every opportunity. But, at least on this board, I don't see that as the norm. You are making the mistake by generalizing the criticism of the radical Christian clerics and their followers as a criticism of all religion. And, that's all I'll say on your post as it's a duh-version from the topic.

Your avg Church goer is a Fundie to you. Ill take your rebuttle with a huge grain of salt.

Again, more baseless rhetoric. There's a reason that quote of mine is in your sig and I'll remind you of that every time I need to.

And, please, stay on topic?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Uh.. if ID is reality then where did the IDesigner come from ...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Uh.. if ID is reality then where did the IDesigner come from ...

You're thinking only in terms of things which exist within space and time. Current physics theories seeking to unify quantum mechanical behavior with classical physics suggest that additional dimensions exist outside our conceptualization of space-time.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dahunan
Uh.. if ID is reality then where did the IDesigner come from ...

You're thinking only in terms of things which exist within space and time. Current physics theories seeking to unify quantum mechanical behavior with classical physics suggest that additional dimensions exist outside our conceptualization of space-time.

Spin, spin, spin!

LMAO!

The apologists know no end.