CTC sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I simply don’t have enough time to devote to our discussion.
CTC said: ‘Actually, historical or origins science and scientific advancement are not related. ‘
You have yet to define ‘historical or origins science’ and ‘operational science’ in a measureable way. Until you do so, how can I address your point? And please don’t try to assert that it is ‘common sense’. Common sense has no place in science. There are many examples of things that were once thought ‘common sense’ which have been shown untrue by science.
CTC said: ‘There has been NOTHING discovered by means of Darwinian evolution that has benefited man the least little bit. Go ahead and name one.’
First off, is the sole purpose of scholarship (of any kind) to find applications? If so why do we study history at all? After all, the old saying ‘He who does not know his history is doomed to repeat it’ has never held up and historians (as a whole) have never been able to make predictions based on history that are any better than chance. Sometimes knowledge is worth having for its own sake. It helps give an understanding of who we are. Secondly, the concept of natural selection and decent with modification are largely accredited to Darwin, thus shouldn’t they are part of ‘Darwinian evolution’; although, as I have already explained, I hate the term ‘Darwinian evolution’. No person’s name should ever be attached to any scientific idea. It holds the science back. Anyway, back to the point. Understanding natural selection and decent with modification is useful in a number of fields including agriculture, animal breading, and medicine. However, you like to try to separate these ideas from evolution even though that is not a scientifically supported stance. All that aside, let’s look at how organisms are interrelated (the tree of life). This is an idea which most creationists reject, so I assume it is safe to place in what you would call ‘Darwinian evolution’. Has our understanding of these relationships had any benefit to man? The answer is obviously yes. If evolution is true, then knowing an organism’s place on the tree will tell us other information about it based on the other organisms to which it is most closely related. Where might this be useful? One answer is in medicine. Suppose someone goes to the doctor with a new ‘bug’ which the doctor cannot identify. How should he treat it? He doesn’t want to give the wrong treatment, as it could make the problem worse. He must first identify the organism which is causing the problem and properly place it on the evolutionary tree. This can be done by analyzing the unknown organism’s DNA. From known organisms which are closely related to the unknown, the doctor can treat it in the same way he would its close relatives. With a high degree of certainty, the unknown organism will be vulnerable to the same treatment as its relatives. The process is called 16s ribosomal typing. It works on the same concept as a paternity test. After all, the only difference from a person’s family tree and the evolutionary tree is size. If you accept one, the other follows. What you are doing is equivalent to agreeing 1+2+3+4+5=15, but then claiming there is no way that 1+2+3+…+n = (n+1)n/2. There is no difference! Mutation and selection (as well as a few others) are the same forces which create small variations within a species (microevolution) as well as drive the emergence of new species (macroevolution). What do you feel could stop the process? We have seen the emergence of new kinds (macroevolution). We have seen the evolution of completely new traits (adding information). We have seen the emergence of complexity. What incremental, measurable step do you feel we are still missing? Please define your terms.
CTC said: ‘That example doesn't even raise my eyebrows.’
I don’t find it surprising that it didn’t raise your eyebrows. You’ve already said that there is nothing I could show you which would convince you of life’s interrelatedness and diversification. I recommend you consider the concept a bit further before you dismiss it. There are examples of ring species and the implications of the fact are vast. Some creationists (such as Kent Hovind) even accept the idea, although he denies the obvious implications.
CTC said: ‘At best, I see it as reduction in the DNA. Reduction is hardly the direction needed to go from single cell to man and all other life kinds.’
You have yet to explain what is meant by a ‘reduction in the DNA’ or an increase in ‘information’. Please do so, and make sure you explain how it is to be measured. It should also be noted that evolution does not imply every step must be more complex than the one before? Evolution does not have a long term goal. The only goal of evolution is to make sure no niche goes unfilled.
CTC said: ‘The classic example of a ring species was the herring gull, with populations circling the northern hemisphere. But this example is not what it has been advertised to be. In a 2004 paper titled "The herring gull complex is not a ring species," German and Dutch biologists concluded:
What earlier authors... regarded as "the herring gull" turned out to be an assemblage of several distinct taxa (argentatus, vegae, smithsonianus), which are not each other's closest relatives. Our results show that the ring-species model does not adequately describe the evolution of the herring gull group.
- See more at:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/sorry_ring_spec058261.html#sthash.dk46EEAh.dpufDorit Liebers1†, Peter de Knijff2 and Andreas J. Helbig1*
1Institute of Zoology, University of Greifswald, Vogelwarte Hiddensee, 18565 Kloster, Germany
2Forensic Laboratory for DNA Research, MGC-Department of Human and Clinical Genetics,
Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9503, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands’
I was unaware of the herring gull. The example of a ring species which I see used most often is that of the greenish warbler (
Phylloscopus trochiloides). Of course, it is not a perfect example either as the distribution is not continuous. Yet all adjacent populations can interbreed with the exception of where the two divergent branches meet up. This demonstrates a clear example of speciation with most of the intermediate forms still present.
Another example which is sometimes used is the
Ensatina eschscholtzii, a kind of salamander. The reason this is not as strong of an example is that there is some hybridization between the two final branches (as your article correctly pointed out). However, these hybrids are uncommon so it will be interesting to see if the genetic isolation becomes complete.
It should be noted that the article you posted made a very blatant error. At the end of the first paragraph it said: ‘biologists have never actually observed the origin of a new species by variation and selection’. This is simply false. There have been many examples of speciation (the origin of a new species) both in the lab and in the field. This is not an obscure fact, and is accepted by many leading creationists. As such, I am at a loss as to how they could have made such a mistake.
CTC said: ‘I'll give my favorite evidences for creation.
Irreducible complexity - the old mouse trap argument. All parts must be in place and fully developed all at once or the result is death and extinction.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n2/admissions’
I was wondering how long it would be until you brought up irreducible complexity. There are many problems with irreducible complexity (at least as you are trying to use it), one of which should really concern you, it definitely concerns me. Irreducible complexity is a God of the gaps argument. What happens when those gaps are filled in? There have been a number of proposed irreducibly complex systems which have been shown to have evolutionary roots. Your article gives a few examples of proposed irreducibly complex structures for which an evolutionary expiation has been found (such as the bacterial flagellum). If you put all of your faith in a God of the gaps, what happens to your faith when there are no more gaps? You have just become responsible for the death of God. I think the irreducible complexity argument has the potential to do more damage to belief based religions (such as Christianity and Islam) than anything in science. For a much better explanation than I could ever give of why irreducible complexity and intelligent design are bad for faith in general and Christianity in particular, I recommend you read some of Francis Collins’ writing on the subject.
Let’s now look a closer at the ideas and assumptions behind irreducible complexity. From your article: ‘By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’ If we can all agree on using this definition of irreducibly complex, then I am more than happy to admit that there are a large number of irreducibly complex systems in nature. However, that does not mean that they could not have evolved. Evolution neither requires nor predicts every structure have the same function as that form which it evolved. The process of evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures by repurposing parts which once had different uses. We see this in nature all the time (just think of the flight feathers in birds). Also, evolution can remove structures as easy as it can add them, so there is no guarantee that what we see now is all there ever was. For a nonorganic example to illustrate this point, think of a stone arch (I am talking about arches occurring in natural rock formations, not man made). If any part of the arch is removed, the whole thing collapses; therefore, some intelligence must have constructed the arch. Clearly not. The supports could have eroded away. The same is true with organic systems. A system could have evolved with supports which, once they became unnecessary, were selected against and thus removed.
As for your specific example of the bombardier beetles, I admit my ignorance on its evolutionary history, or that of any arthropod. I have run into the example before, the topic was presented in an introductory biology class I took in undergrad. I remember finding the lecture that day rather uninteresting, and I never took the time for fully understand it. As such, I will not attempt to create a rebuttal to your video. Instead, I will provide you with a link which maps out how the beetle could have evolved. The points made in the article are close to what I remember my professor saying all those years ago. However, it does present the idea much clearer than I could have done myself:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html I do not know if the article is peer reviewed, but it does provide references from peer reviewed sources. I have only checked a few of them, but those do seem to support the assertion of the article.
