Oh no -- Rosa is at it again!!!
Rosa Rube is currently spending "her" 2 cents on a new article which claims that several unrelated species of fish have "evolved" the same optimal solution for swimming.
Here is a link to the PLOS One:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002123
It would be unfair of me to accuse Rosa herself of a mistake, as she merely copy / pasted directly from the paper and / or "Pop-Science" write-up and made it seem as if she used her own words:
"So, although starting from very different body plans, natural selection,
by favouring greater swimming efficiency, has caused the different
clades to converge on the same optimal solution.
This gives what is probably as simple an example as it possible to find
why natural selection acting on inherited variation can result in the
appearance of design for purpose. Given the mindlessness but
inevitability of the process it should be clear to see why this
convergence was inevitable. All that was required was that this
solution was possible and so available for evolution."
Rosa (et al) fail to comprehend that "Natural selection" and "Evolution" are merely implied in this paper (not observed at all) and the reason we call it "convergence" is ONLY because we know for a fact that this optimal design feature was not passed down through common descent, therefore, all species must have "Converged" on the solution.
Do these ignorant people not understand what "implied' means?
Do these people not comprehend what "presupposition" is?
My final thought: "Intelligent folks should be cringing at Rosa's kind of irrelevant and dishonest journalism."
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Sunday Mass for Atheists
"Atheism is not a religion!!!"
The oft heard battle-cry of the internet atheist which is refuted by the simple FACT that both the Supreme Court and a Federal Judge has ruled that Secular Humanism and Atheism are protected under the First Amendment as a "Religious entity" with all of the same benefits and perks (such as tax-free status) as any other religion.
A recent case involved an inmate who brought a lawsuit against the prison that denied him the right to host an "Atheist support group", and he won his case. Federal judge ruled that atheism should be protected as a "religious freedom" just like any other religious belief.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.
You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
My final thought on this topic: "The best way to not have a religion is simply to not have a religion."
The oft heard battle-cry of the internet atheist which is refuted by the simple FACT that both the Supreme Court and a Federal Judge has ruled that Secular Humanism and Atheism are protected under the First Amendment as a "Religious entity" with all of the same benefits and perks (such as tax-free status) as any other religion.
A recent case involved an inmate who brought a lawsuit against the prison that denied him the right to host an "Atheist support group", and he won his case. Federal judge ruled that atheism should be protected as a "religious freedom" just like any other religious belief.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.
"Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.
You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
My final thought on this topic: "The best way to not have a religion is simply to not have a religion."
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Umbrellas, Penguins, and Rosa Rube
Oh Dear -- Rosa is at it again!!!
...and this time she is claiming that a recent article found in "ScienceDaily" completely refutes Michael Behe and Irreducible Complexity, much to our confused dismay.
Attaching the propeller: How the motility structure of unicellular archaea is fixed to their surface
"Researchers demonstrate how the motility structure of the unicellular archaea is fixed to the cell wall of archaea – a type of unicellular life form. In addition, the researchers demonstrated that this protein is essential for the structure and functioning of the organ.
It is important for microorganisms to be able to move on their own: When their living conditions deteriorate, they are then capable of finding better ones on their own. The motility structure of bacteria, the flagellum, has been the object of detailed research for more than 30 years. It consists of up to 50 proteins assembled according to a fixed sequence of events. The result is a whip made of protein filaments that functions much like a propeller: A "motor" at the end fixed to the cell wall allows it to rotate, enabling the bacterium to swim.
Up until only a few years ago, scientists assumed that archaea also use flagella to move. However, the sequencing of the first archaeal genome revealed clear differences in the structures of the motility structures of bacteria and archaea. It was found that archaea use a structure called the archaellum to swim. In the model organism Sulfolobus acidocaldarius, it consists of a mere seven subunits but still achieves the same performance as the flagellum despite this simple structure. Only few structural studies of the subunits that make up the archaellum have been conducted to date. Two years ago Albers' research team discovered the structure of the motor protein FlaI and demonstrated that it forms the motor complex of the archaellum along with the proteins FlaX and FlaH. In their newly published article, the researchers describe the protein FlaF, which binds specifically to the model organism's only cell wall protein and fixes it firmly there. "It is important to learn more about these cell wall and surface structures, since the archaea can use them to interact with the environment -- and thus also with human cells," says Albers."
"Rosa" clearly hasn't read this paper or even understood the implications of the "Pop-Science" write up, as Michael Behe and Irreducible Complexity are not mentioned at all.
Good reason for that -- as the alternative system is not a precursor to any known flagellar system and the archaellum is really it's own "IC" system developed completely independent of the flagellar system and does not in any way contradict IC at all.
Humorously, this assclown "Rosa" presents the ScienceDaily article as if it's some great new discovery in her usual "Haha, Gotcha" form, but we (the ID Community) had actually known about this and commented 2 years ago -- it's simply old news.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/more_about_cili069261.html
"So here scientists have elucidated another irreducibly complex "outboard motor" that is assembled out of complex proteins according to a genetic plan. Yet this motor does not appear to be related to anything else within archaea. Evolutionists would not expect evolutionary sharing between two different kingdoms of life, even if some of the building blocks are the same. Moreover, within archaea, the archaella are "highly conserved" in this supposedly archaic, primitive kingdom of microbes. Furthermore, the organism they studied, Sulfolobus acidocaldarius, has not just one, but three archaella. Add to that the fact that these motors need to assemble and work in hot springs and highly acidic conditions, and the only logical inference is intelligent design."
Rosa Rube is ultimately synonymous with "Irrelevant Journalism".
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
A Few Good Men (Vitalism)
Natural Genetic Engineering and the underlying Vitalism that may exist in organic (biochemical) systems is the primary focus of this Blog --- and our friend (Physicist Theophil Goddard)
had a few interesting words in regard to the abundance of organic chemicals found throughout the Universe:
"Whatever caused animal body plans to arise had to know where it (namely, the cause) was going. And the first step on that road is the hardest to take.
The same can be said about fertilized egg -- it surely 'knows' where it is heading. Constructing trillions of cells, properly specialized and arranged into tissues and organs, all connected in a highly functional way is far beyond any technological projects human have ever undertaken. Even some future 'solar system' scale construction projects humans may undertake some day, would be dwarfed by what is equivalent to galactic scale construction project that fertilized egg carries out as it builds the organism.
Hence, there is already an incomprehensible level of intelligence and foresight in the cell capable of figuring and carrying out much more complex bioengineering tasks than anything human intelligence can begin to conceive. Figuring out and implementing body plan transformations is no harder bioengineering project than what cells already routinely do without breaking a sweat.
Why are Nelson, Meyer and the rest of 'Seattle ID' club completely blind to this perfectly evident vast intelligence of the right kind and in the right place? The intelligence is clearly emanating and acting from small to large, unfolding from inside out. That is in fact no different than how intelligence emanates and builds up in human technologies, from individual human brains.
Similarly, looking at the astonishing degree of fine tuning of physical laws and constants for life, it is evident that what we consider some dumb particles aimlessly bouncing around is not so either. The whole operation of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale appears to be a project of construction of ever larger computing technologies, each one computing and building the next one at the larger scale."
"Whatever caused animal body plans to arise had to know where it (namely, the cause) was going. And the first step on that road is the hardest to take.
The same can be said about fertilized egg -- it surely 'knows' where it is heading. Constructing trillions of cells, properly specialized and arranged into tissues and organs, all connected in a highly functional way is far beyond any technological projects human have ever undertaken. Even some future 'solar system' scale construction projects humans may undertake some day, would be dwarfed by what is equivalent to galactic scale construction project that fertilized egg carries out as it builds the organism.
Hence, there is already an incomprehensible level of intelligence and foresight in the cell capable of figuring and carrying out much more complex bioengineering tasks than anything human intelligence can begin to conceive. Figuring out and implementing body plan transformations is no harder bioengineering project than what cells already routinely do without breaking a sweat.
Why are Nelson, Meyer and the rest of 'Seattle ID' club completely blind to this perfectly evident vast intelligence of the right kind and in the right place? The intelligence is clearly emanating and acting from small to large, unfolding from inside out. That is in fact no different than how intelligence emanates and builds up in human technologies, from individual human brains.
Similarly, looking at the astonishing degree of fine tuning of physical laws and constants for life, it is evident that what we consider some dumb particles aimlessly bouncing around is not so either. The whole operation of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale appears to be a project of construction of ever larger computing technologies, each one computing and building the next one at the larger scale."
Sunday, April 5, 2015
How Vestigiality is a Science Stopper
Popular arguments for 'bad design' often feature "vestigial organs",
which are claimed to be useless, and their presence in the human body is
touted as evidence of common descent, and also of the non-teleological
nature of the same. However, it is imprudent, nay, foolish, to assume
that because we might not know a function of something, the same has no
function. Indeed, such a non-sequitur prevents further research, for who
would endeavor to study something which has no function. However,
sooner or later, a stroke of luck might enable a researcher to find
functions for what had hitherto been considered useless. And we see that
this has occurred repeatedly. Yet, the champions of the Darwinist
paradigm still espouse these outdated claims. Physicist Dr. Karl
Giberson in his tirade against Intelligent Design Theory on 'The Daily
Beast' claims:
"We carry the evidence of this long history in our bodies—features useful to our ancestors but, for various reasons, not to us." [1]
One of the example he gives is that of the plica semilunaris, a fold of conjunctiva in the eye, which is homologous to the nictitating membrane in non-primates. He writes:
"We have a bunched-up third eyelid in the corner of our eye that provided a transparent eye covering for our ancestors, allowing them to “blink” without have to fully shut down their vision." [2]
But is the plica semilunaris merely a useless remnant of the nictitating membrane? Not really:
According to Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology, the plica has the following function:
"In humans, the plica functions as the opposite of a fornix; that is, if the conjunctiva were to directly join the eyelids to the globe, the globe and eyelids would both be restricted in movement. The fornix provides for a fold of conjunctiva that may be extended or retracted as the globe moves. Extension occurs because of fibrous slips that connect the fornix to its extraocular rectus muscle. As the muscle contracts, the globe rotates and the adjacent conjunctiva is retracted. This occurs above, laterally, and below the globe, but not medially, which would not allow the lacrimal puncta to drain the lacrimal lake. On abduction the plica tends to unfold and flatten, whereas on adduction it is drawn posteriorly and is unfolded by the fibrous slips that extend to the plica and caruncle from the medial rectus. While it never completely unfolds, extreme adduction of the plica causes it to form a true fornix. As this occurs, a small movement of the globe occurs as a result of the retraction of the medial canthal tendon. This keeps the lacrimal puncta properly positioned with the lacrimal lake. The puncta now dips into the lacrimal strip to allow continuous drainage despite the position of the globe. In addition, the plica helps to maintain the lacrimal lake in its proper position and location in the puncta." [3]
So contra the wild claims made by Darwinist storytellers, real science keeps finding functions for "vestigial" organs, and thereby vindicates time and again the teleology inherent in biological systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/the-crazy-way-creationists-try-to-explain-human-tails-without-evolution.html
[2] http://www.eyecalcs.com/DWAN/pages/v8/v8c002.html#pli
"We carry the evidence of this long history in our bodies—features useful to our ancestors but, for various reasons, not to us." [1]
One of the example he gives is that of the plica semilunaris, a fold of conjunctiva in the eye, which is homologous to the nictitating membrane in non-primates. He writes:
"We have a bunched-up third eyelid in the corner of our eye that provided a transparent eye covering for our ancestors, allowing them to “blink” without have to fully shut down their vision." [2]
But is the plica semilunaris merely a useless remnant of the nictitating membrane? Not really:
According to Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology, the plica has the following function:
"In humans, the plica functions as the opposite of a fornix; that is, if the conjunctiva were to directly join the eyelids to the globe, the globe and eyelids would both be restricted in movement. The fornix provides for a fold of conjunctiva that may be extended or retracted as the globe moves. Extension occurs because of fibrous slips that connect the fornix to its extraocular rectus muscle. As the muscle contracts, the globe rotates and the adjacent conjunctiva is retracted. This occurs above, laterally, and below the globe, but not medially, which would not allow the lacrimal puncta to drain the lacrimal lake. On abduction the plica tends to unfold and flatten, whereas on adduction it is drawn posteriorly and is unfolded by the fibrous slips that extend to the plica and caruncle from the medial rectus. While it never completely unfolds, extreme adduction of the plica causes it to form a true fornix. As this occurs, a small movement of the globe occurs as a result of the retraction of the medial canthal tendon. This keeps the lacrimal puncta properly positioned with the lacrimal lake. The puncta now dips into the lacrimal strip to allow continuous drainage despite the position of the globe. In addition, the plica helps to maintain the lacrimal lake in its proper position and location in the puncta." [3]
So contra the wild claims made by Darwinist storytellers, real science keeps finding functions for "vestigial" organs, and thereby vindicates time and again the teleology inherent in biological systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/the-crazy-way-creationists-try-to-explain-human-tails-without-evolution.html
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
The Lavalle Treaty (Reducible Simplicity)
"When you are testing a hypothesis, you have to account for the other ways the condition you are testing could have come about. For a sequence of bases or amino acids, you can add one at a time to a chain, you can take one at a time away from a longer chain, you can join chains together, you can split the middle out of a chain, or you can join a bunch of chains together at the same time.
Any one of these processes could produce a chain out of which you could knock one element and have a non-functioning molecule.
Which, if any, of those processes is the one that is predicted by a model of irreducible complexity?
#2 on the CONFIRM side is not possible to show without exhausting all of the possible pathways. #1 on the CONFIRM side seems to be short some possible ways that the irreducibly complex structure can form, which directly affects how you go about showing #2 on the FALSIFY side of the equation. For #1 on the FALSIFY side, what about on the gain of a protein?
And what about the possibility of trading segments of proteins? I doubt that even Michael Behe supports this idea any longer. I think he has changed the definition."
First of all --- the definition of IC has remained unchanged since it's initial citation in Behe's 1996 book: "Darwin's Black Box", therefore Lavalle's assertion that it has somehow "changed" is really nothing more than an unfounded strawman.
My personal assumption is that Mr. Lavalle generally misunderstands the intended point of the IC hypothesis, which is to highlight the fact that specific complex systems are not physically "REDUCIBLE" to a "Stepwise Darwinian Pathway". IC has absolutely nothing to do with "reducing a system to individual parts", as all designed systems are reducible to individual parts. Why wouldn't they be?
IC is a fairly simple concept (not intended to be applied to everything under the sun), but rather to specifically address the Darwinist position that complex systems will arise over time due to "NS acting on Random Mutations" -- and the IC hypothesis has held up quite well for 18 years.
Genetic Drift was never intended to be addressed here, as GD (in it's simplest form) would basically mean that a complex "outboard motor" just randomly falls together over millions of years for no particular reason and THEN (because an outboard motor is a good thing to have) it gets "Naturally selected for".
There are plenty of legitimate reasons as to why this position is absurd, but again, IC has nothing to do with addressing Genetic Drift and was never intended to do so.
Co-Option is another handwave which is more directly relevant to the IC hypothesis and most ID proponents would agree that exaptation most likely plays a strong role in the construction of new complex systems (such as the flagellar). There is no real dispute on this issue, but the problem for the Darwinists is that "Co-Option" is typically an "action" associated 100% with Intelligent agents and the idea that "evolution" somehow randomly "Co-opts" parts and then reshapes them and re-organizes them into a brand new, sophisticated, complex system is as equally absurd as claiming "Outboard motors randomly fall together given enough time". Evidence, please?
All of this is fairly easy to comprehend...
...which begs the question: "Why does Steven Lavalle avoid comprehending it?"The obvious answer is most likely Dogma and Bias on his part as an admitted "ID skeptic".
Human Tails and Darwinian Gibberish
... So I came across this article in The Daily Beast by Dr. Karl Giberson:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/the-crazy-way-creationists-try-to-explain-human-tails-without-evolution.html
Giberson writes:
"In the debate, I emphasized the problem of bad design that I outlined above, mentioning that bad design is common in nature and poses serious problems for ID. I gave some examples of bad design and showed a picture of an infant with a well-formed tail to illustrate one example."
Firstly, imperfect design does not equate to "no design" -- something William Paley emphasized -- if one finds a watch which doesn't work perfectly well or has superfluous parts, it doesn't mean that the watch is not designed.
"Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty into the argument, if there were a few parts of the watch, concerning which we could not discover or had not yet discovered in what manner they conduced to the general effect ; or even some parts, concerning which we could not ascertain whether they conduced to that effect in any manner whatever. For, as to the first branch of the case, if by the loss, or disorder, or decay of the parts in question, the movement of the watch were found in fact to be stopped, or disturbed, or retarded, no doubt would remain in our minds as to the utility or intention of these parts, although we should be unable to investigate the manner according to which, or the connection by which, the ultimate effect depended upon their action or assistance ; and the more complex the machine, the more likely is this obscurity to arise. Then, as to the second thing supposed, namely, that there were parts which might be spared without prejudice to the movement of the watch, and that we had proved this by experiment, these superfluous parts, even if we were completely assured that they were such, would not vacate the reasoning which we had instituted concerning other parts. The indication of contrivance remained, with respect to them, nearly as it was before." [1]
Well and good, but what else does our venerable critic say?
"The response was exactly what one would expect from lawyers. Rather than noting that apparent bad design was common and needed to be addressed by ID—a point I have made in several debates with creationists and ID theorists and has always been met with silence—the response focused exclusively on the particular example of the human tail, as if that is all that needs to be explained. One ID spokesperson, David Klinghoffer, claimed—falsely and absurdly—that I presented it a “proof of Darwinian evolution,” on which I was “very stuck.” (It is a piece of evidence, which is quite different than a proof.) Klinghoffer then attempted to undermine the argument from bad design by undermining the image I had used to illustrate my point. The image came from an article on Cracked.com, which Klinghoffer described as the “vestigial online presence of an old satirical magazine, now defunct, a knockoff of Mad.” But where the image came from is of zero import; Klinghoffer’s point does absolutely nothing to undermine the universally accepted and fully documented reality that human babies are occasionally born with tails. Google has more than a million hits—and countless images—for the term 'babies born with tails.'”
Ah, there we have it, gentlemen, now the number of Google hits on a particular topic is somehow relevant to the accuracy of said topic. Ancient aliens, here we come!
But seriously, Klinghoffer isn't wrong here. If I were to present the case that an alien spaceship had crash-landed in a friend's backyard and that he had photographed the alien before it died and melted into the ground, and show that photo to the public, only to have the public find that the photo was a fake, then if it doesn't show my dishonesty, it at least shows my shoddy homework. And we see that this is the case with Dr. Giberson, who goes on to say:
"Casey Luskin, also of the Discovery Institute, published several pieces on humans with tails that at least engaged the phenomena of tails, instead of the pedigree of the image I used. But rather than address the actual question on the table—how can ID account for bad design?—he focused exclusively on creating a tenuous speculation that there might be no such thing as genuine human tails."
Note the reasoning process here, keeping in mind that 1) there is a consensus in the scientific community that humans are sometimes born with real tails that are evolutionary throwbacks; 2) the gene for tails has been located in the human genome is the same one that mice use to produce their tails; and 3) the issue is not the human tail, but the problem of bad design in nature.
Well, as for the actual question on the table, ID has no problem with bad design in nature -- to use Paley's example, the fact that there are badly functioning watches doesn't negate the fact that the watch is designed. ID theorists agree that natural selection of random (i.e., undirected) mutations occurs, but say (rightly) that it merely breaks down things, i.e., destroys functionally complex specified information. Can it build functionally complex specified information? That is the *real* question. And let us look at his argument.
First, he appeals to the consensus, but this is never an arbiter of truth, so we shall ignore it. Let us agree that yes, humans may be born with true tails -- but this is not an atavism or an evolutionary regression:
"Dao and Netsky [10] reviewed 32 previous descriptions of tails published from 1859 to 1982. They distinguished true or persistent vestigial tails from other forms of caudal appendages or pseudotails. A true human tail is defined as a boneless, midline protrusion capable of spontaneousor reflex motion. The true human tail lacks vertebrae in all cases and is usually attached to the skin of the sacrococcygeal region. A pseudotail is a caudal protrusion composed of other normal and abnormal tissue. However, their classification is mainly based on histolopathological findings and is not done from an embryological standpoint. The associated embryogenesis of the human tail is first noted at the fourth week of gestation. The somites are formed, and the remaining primitive knot and streak compose a compact mass at the caudal end of the embryo that is called the tail bud or end bud. The continued uneven growth causes the tail bud to extend and curl beneath the hind gut. During the fifth and sixth weeks, the trunk ends in a conspicuous tail containing 10–12 caudal vertebrae. The distal portion lacks bone and is composed of mesodermal elements. During the seventh and eighth weeks, the vertebrated portion retracts into the soft tissue. The nonvertebrated part projects temporarily and then undergoes regression caused by phagocytosis, with the debris-laden macrophages migrating back to the body [11], and it disappears completely at the end of the eighth week. Thus, the presence of human tail can be considered a disturbance in the development of the embryo but not a regression in the evolutionary process." [2]
So much for the idea that human tails are an evolutionary throwback.
Next, as for the claim that humans and mice possess the same gene responsible for the development of tails, Giberson links to an article on the scientific journal Nature, which says:
"... it's first important to note that all humans briefly possess tails while in the uterus. Specifically, during normal development, certain fetal cells develop into a tail and then regress as a result of programmed cell death, or apoptosis. Investigators have identified a gene called Wnt-3a as a principal regulator of this process, at least in mice (Takada et al., 1994). Researchers have also discovered that humans indeed have an intact Wnt-3a gene, as well as other genes that have been shown to be involved in tail formation. Through gene regulation, we use these genes at different places and different times during development than those organisms that normally have tails at birth. Should this process of gene regulation somehow go wrong, however, the likelihood (albeit rare) exists that a person could indeed be born with a true tail."
What does the Wnt-3a gene do? Well, it has a whole gamut of functions, including positive regulation of mesodermal cell fate specification, axon guidance, extracellular matrix organization and biogenesis, positive regulation of protein binding, cell proliferation in forebrain, positive regulation of transcription and so on. [3]
So much for the claim that humans and mice use the same gene to make tails -- that gene makes many other things besides.
The last claim is what really matters: "... the issue is not the human tail, but the problem of bad design in nature." This poses no problem for the ID argument, because ID theory never claims that design is the only process acting in the living world. What it claims is that there are some features of the living world that darwinian evolution cannot explain -- irreducible complexity, and functionally complex specified information which could not have risen by natural processes that we know of, based on Dembski's design filter. It seems to me that by "bad design", what Dr. Giberson here means is that the genes for the tail persist despite there being no tail in anatomically normal humans -- for he says:
"Unfortunately, natural selection has no mechanism to eliminate useless features, but traits that become irrelevant can atrophy or get co-opted for some other task since there is no longer a disadvantage when those features show up in a weakened form."
But since we have seen that the gene responsible for the development of the tail in mice has many other functions, this argument doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Now, does the fact that a fetal tail exists, give evidence for common descent? Yes. But if common descent is true, does it mean ID is false? No. ID is fully compatible with universal common descent, and that babies may be born with true tails does not entail (pun intended) that the evolutionary process which gave rise to human beings was undirected. How would the fact that the persistence of a tail is due to an error in genetic regulation, imply that process by which this regulation originated is itself undirected? It would be like saying that because a doctor might perform a surgical procedure poorly, that procedure itself is flawed. Dr. Giberson has made the fallacy of a non-sequitur here, and has argued against a straw man of what ID theory proposes. If only he had tried to study and understand ID theory, rather than mount fallacious arguments... Alas, unlike human tails, the opponents of ID have the rather simian trait -- doubtlessly an evolutionary throwback! -- of "tossing irrelevant mud" (to use Giberson's own words) on the design argument. Very dreadful indeed.
__________________________________________________________
References:
[1] Natural Theology by William Paley, Chapter 1, 'State of the Argument'
[2] http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aorth/2011/153797/
[3] http://www.phosphosite.org/proteinAction.do?id=18401&showAllSites=true
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/the-crazy-way-creationists-try-to-explain-human-tails-without-evolution.html
Giberson writes:
"In the debate, I emphasized the problem of bad design that I outlined above, mentioning that bad design is common in nature and poses serious problems for ID. I gave some examples of bad design and showed a picture of an infant with a well-formed tail to illustrate one example."
Firstly, imperfect design does not equate to "no design" -- something William Paley emphasized -- if one finds a watch which doesn't work perfectly well or has superfluous parts, it doesn't mean that the watch is not designed.
"Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty into the argument, if there were a few parts of the watch, concerning which we could not discover or had not yet discovered in what manner they conduced to the general effect ; or even some parts, concerning which we could not ascertain whether they conduced to that effect in any manner whatever. For, as to the first branch of the case, if by the loss, or disorder, or decay of the parts in question, the movement of the watch were found in fact to be stopped, or disturbed, or retarded, no doubt would remain in our minds as to the utility or intention of these parts, although we should be unable to investigate the manner according to which, or the connection by which, the ultimate effect depended upon their action or assistance ; and the more complex the machine, the more likely is this obscurity to arise. Then, as to the second thing supposed, namely, that there were parts which might be spared without prejudice to the movement of the watch, and that we had proved this by experiment, these superfluous parts, even if we were completely assured that they were such, would not vacate the reasoning which we had instituted concerning other parts. The indication of contrivance remained, with respect to them, nearly as it was before." [1]
Well and good, but what else does our venerable critic say?
"The response was exactly what one would expect from lawyers. Rather than noting that apparent bad design was common and needed to be addressed by ID—a point I have made in several debates with creationists and ID theorists and has always been met with silence—the response focused exclusively on the particular example of the human tail, as if that is all that needs to be explained. One ID spokesperson, David Klinghoffer, claimed—falsely and absurdly—that I presented it a “proof of Darwinian evolution,” on which I was “very stuck.” (It is a piece of evidence, which is quite different than a proof.) Klinghoffer then attempted to undermine the argument from bad design by undermining the image I had used to illustrate my point. The image came from an article on Cracked.com, which Klinghoffer described as the “vestigial online presence of an old satirical magazine, now defunct, a knockoff of Mad.” But where the image came from is of zero import; Klinghoffer’s point does absolutely nothing to undermine the universally accepted and fully documented reality that human babies are occasionally born with tails. Google has more than a million hits—and countless images—for the term 'babies born with tails.'”
Ah, there we have it, gentlemen, now the number of Google hits on a particular topic is somehow relevant to the accuracy of said topic. Ancient aliens, here we come!
But seriously, Klinghoffer isn't wrong here. If I were to present the case that an alien spaceship had crash-landed in a friend's backyard and that he had photographed the alien before it died and melted into the ground, and show that photo to the public, only to have the public find that the photo was a fake, then if it doesn't show my dishonesty, it at least shows my shoddy homework. And we see that this is the case with Dr. Giberson, who goes on to say:
"Casey Luskin, also of the Discovery Institute, published several pieces on humans with tails that at least engaged the phenomena of tails, instead of the pedigree of the image I used. But rather than address the actual question on the table—how can ID account for bad design?—he focused exclusively on creating a tenuous speculation that there might be no such thing as genuine human tails."
Note the reasoning process here, keeping in mind that 1) there is a consensus in the scientific community that humans are sometimes born with real tails that are evolutionary throwbacks; 2) the gene for tails has been located in the human genome is the same one that mice use to produce their tails; and 3) the issue is not the human tail, but the problem of bad design in nature.
Well, as for the actual question on the table, ID has no problem with bad design in nature -- to use Paley's example, the fact that there are badly functioning watches doesn't negate the fact that the watch is designed. ID theorists agree that natural selection of random (i.e., undirected) mutations occurs, but say (rightly) that it merely breaks down things, i.e., destroys functionally complex specified information. Can it build functionally complex specified information? That is the *real* question. And let us look at his argument.
First, he appeals to the consensus, but this is never an arbiter of truth, so we shall ignore it. Let us agree that yes, humans may be born with true tails -- but this is not an atavism or an evolutionary regression:
"Dao and Netsky [10] reviewed 32 previous descriptions of tails published from 1859 to 1982. They distinguished true or persistent vestigial tails from other forms of caudal appendages or pseudotails. A true human tail is defined as a boneless, midline protrusion capable of spontaneousor reflex motion. The true human tail lacks vertebrae in all cases and is usually attached to the skin of the sacrococcygeal region. A pseudotail is a caudal protrusion composed of other normal and abnormal tissue. However, their classification is mainly based on histolopathological findings and is not done from an embryological standpoint. The associated embryogenesis of the human tail is first noted at the fourth week of gestation. The somites are formed, and the remaining primitive knot and streak compose a compact mass at the caudal end of the embryo that is called the tail bud or end bud. The continued uneven growth causes the tail bud to extend and curl beneath the hind gut. During the fifth and sixth weeks, the trunk ends in a conspicuous tail containing 10–12 caudal vertebrae. The distal portion lacks bone and is composed of mesodermal elements. During the seventh and eighth weeks, the vertebrated portion retracts into the soft tissue. The nonvertebrated part projects temporarily and then undergoes regression caused by phagocytosis, with the debris-laden macrophages migrating back to the body [11], and it disappears completely at the end of the eighth week. Thus, the presence of human tail can be considered a disturbance in the development of the embryo but not a regression in the evolutionary process." [2]
So much for the idea that human tails are an evolutionary throwback.
Next, as for the claim that humans and mice possess the same gene responsible for the development of tails, Giberson links to an article on the scientific journal Nature, which says:
"... it's first important to note that all humans briefly possess tails while in the uterus. Specifically, during normal development, certain fetal cells develop into a tail and then regress as a result of programmed cell death, or apoptosis. Investigators have identified a gene called Wnt-3a as a principal regulator of this process, at least in mice (Takada et al., 1994). Researchers have also discovered that humans indeed have an intact Wnt-3a gene, as well as other genes that have been shown to be involved in tail formation. Through gene regulation, we use these genes at different places and different times during development than those organisms that normally have tails at birth. Should this process of gene regulation somehow go wrong, however, the likelihood (albeit rare) exists that a person could indeed be born with a true tail."
What does the Wnt-3a gene do? Well, it has a whole gamut of functions, including positive regulation of mesodermal cell fate specification, axon guidance, extracellular matrix organization and biogenesis, positive regulation of protein binding, cell proliferation in forebrain, positive regulation of transcription and so on. [3]
So much for the claim that humans and mice use the same gene to make tails -- that gene makes many other things besides.
The last claim is what really matters: "... the issue is not the human tail, but the problem of bad design in nature." This poses no problem for the ID argument, because ID theory never claims that design is the only process acting in the living world. What it claims is that there are some features of the living world that darwinian evolution cannot explain -- irreducible complexity, and functionally complex specified information which could not have risen by natural processes that we know of, based on Dembski's design filter. It seems to me that by "bad design", what Dr. Giberson here means is that the genes for the tail persist despite there being no tail in anatomically normal humans -- for he says:
"Unfortunately, natural selection has no mechanism to eliminate useless features, but traits that become irrelevant can atrophy or get co-opted for some other task since there is no longer a disadvantage when those features show up in a weakened form."
But since we have seen that the gene responsible for the development of the tail in mice has many other functions, this argument doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Now, does the fact that a fetal tail exists, give evidence for common descent? Yes. But if common descent is true, does it mean ID is false? No. ID is fully compatible with universal common descent, and that babies may be born with true tails does not entail (pun intended) that the evolutionary process which gave rise to human beings was undirected. How would the fact that the persistence of a tail is due to an error in genetic regulation, imply that process by which this regulation originated is itself undirected? It would be like saying that because a doctor might perform a surgical procedure poorly, that procedure itself is flawed. Dr. Giberson has made the fallacy of a non-sequitur here, and has argued against a straw man of what ID theory proposes. If only he had tried to study and understand ID theory, rather than mount fallacious arguments... Alas, unlike human tails, the opponents of ID have the rather simian trait -- doubtlessly an evolutionary throwback! -- of "tossing irrelevant mud" (to use Giberson's own words) on the design argument. Very dreadful indeed.
__________________________________________________________
References:
[1] Natural Theology by William Paley, Chapter 1, 'State of the Argument'
[2] http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aorth/2011/153797/
[3] http://www.phosphosite.org/proteinAction.do?id=18401&showAllSites=true
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)