tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3938570635667047740..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Evolution and (lack of) designLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89225686309249519572010-03-14T14:30:49.472-04:002010-03-14T14:30:49.472-04:00i don't see how god could have made it that wa...i don't see how god could have made it that way, but maybe Zeus, he didn't study anatomy as much!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5434939502853335722009-10-30T20:40:49.929-04:002009-10-30T20:40:49.929-04:00If creationists would say that we are so badly des...If creationists would say that we are so badly designed because their god is stupid, they'd sound a little more plausible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67424286302067049212009-07-29T13:20:07.764-04:002009-07-29T13:20:07.764-04:00Anonymous asks:I do not see evidence of the step-b...Anonymous asks:I do not see evidence of the step-by-step small morphological changes in the drawings. I only see drawings of morphological structures as completed evolutionary organs in rather distinctly different body forms (fish and mammals).<br /><br />What am I missing here? Are there other information sources where I can gain a perspective of the step-by-step changes in the "evolution" of this nerve and how the “first” laryngeal nerve originated?"<br /><br />It looks like you are missing developmental biology. Organs gradually form, they do not appear suddenly.TheChemistryOfBeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04228308036995626376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75579975697823158822009-07-28T17:31:27.349-04:002009-07-28T17:31:27.349-04:00Dr. Moran:
In response to the question of larynge...Dr. Moran:<br /><br />In response to the question of laryngeal nerve design and your declaration “But can it be explained by evolution? Of course it can.—You can <b>trace its evolution</b> as the modern blood vessels <b>evolved</b> in the mammal lineage."<br /><br />"Mark Ridley describes it, with diagrams, in his textbook Evolution.”<br /><br />In his book Evolution, there appears the following:<br /><br />“Evolution by natural selection proceeds in <b>small, local steps</b>---”<br /><br />“These nerves first evolved in fish-like ancestors.”<br /><br />“During evolution, the gill arches have been transformed: the sixth gill arch has evolved in mammals into the ductus arteriosus---”<br /><br />“(b) In mammals, the gill arches have evolved into a very different circulatory system.”<br /><br />“Ancestrally, the direct route for the nerve was to pass posterior to the aorta; but as the neck lengthened in the giraffe’s evolutionary lineage the nerve was led on a detour of increasing absurdity.”<br /><br />“—with each step taking place as a modification of what is already present.”<br /><br />Here is my problem in comprehending the overall plausibility of your declarative statement that you can trace its evolution as explained by Dr. Ridley’s diagrams.<br /><br />The quotes from Dr. Ridley’s book indicate a significant degree of major morphological change from organism to organism.<br /><br />Two of the quotes declare that these major morphological changes occurred in small steps as modifications from a previous morphological feature.<br /><br />You comment implies that these morphological changes can be traced in Ridley’s drawings.<br /><br />I do not see evidence of the step-by-step small morphological changes in the drawings. I only see drawings of morphological structures as completed evolutionary organs in rather distinctly different body forms (fish and mammals).<br /><br />What am I missing here? Are there other information sources where I can gain a perspective of the step-by-step changes in the "evolution" of this nerve and how the “first” laryngeal nerve originated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79104218880725949022009-07-28T16:22:32.338-04:002009-07-28T16:22:32.338-04:00Sarfati, on the other hand, makes the simple claim...Sarfati, on the other hand, makes the simple claims that what seems to be bad design is just deterioration from an original perfect design.<br /><br />(I'm having great fun with his <i>Refuting Evolution</i> tome at the moment)<br /><br />One slightly off-topic question for you-all. I seem to recall there was a point in time where creationists really had every single species separately created, and then a point where they came up with "variation within kinds", seemingly in response to embarrassing-to-refute modern-day observations.<br /><br />Am I misremembering? Otherwise, does anyone know who started the "variation within kinds" trend?Ritchie Annandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095044509186974971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16351647229071142842009-07-28T07:54:59.193-04:002009-07-28T07:54:59.193-04:00Suspiciously, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe w...Suspiciously, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe was also mentioned <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/inside_natures_giants_part_i.php" rel="nofollow">here</a>, posted on the very same day as this Sandwalk entry (take a look at the second image). Co-incidence?Augrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06534417456240169205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40909837075089824202009-07-28T01:06:23.267-04:002009-07-28T01:06:23.267-04:00The irony here is that yes, there are times where ...The irony here is that yes, there are times where evolutionists may resort to a religious argument - for example, when countering creationists/IDists they need to point out the obvious flaws in those theological arguments. So an evolutionist may argue that, based on what we know about God (omnipotent, perfect, etc, etc) then there is obviously a flaw in the design or creation process used by that God (and no, just saying the imperfections are all because of some mythical "fall" really doesn't cut it). So, because evolutionists use these kinds of arguments, he claims <i> they</i> are they ones making a religious argument. It's really all rather absurd. But so far everything Cornelius Hunter (Dr? Really?) has written on UD seems completely ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83962471931774082582009-07-27T22:31:11.522-04:002009-07-27T22:31:11.522-04:00I somewhat see Hunter's point, but it is a bit...I somewhat see Hunter's point, but it is a bit strained given that we aren't talking about hypothetical anatomy here. No one's making up stories about these body parts, honest to god they really are that way >.<<br /><br />Cut 'em open and see for yourself! :)<br /><br />The trouble is such relations of anatomical features across species are predicted to be found. The trouble for evolution would be if we never found these apparent relations.<br /><br />If the internal structure of each species was remarkably and fundamentally different from the next, that would support ID.<br /><br />...which actually here should stand for "Independent Design". For that's what the metaphysical difference really amounts to. If god made each species, he could have made every species irrefutably and fundamentally different from the next. <br /><br />Yet in evolution the "design" requires dependence on working from past forms. Thus we require some level of similarities.Dawshosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11006547516337749290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67675055164922820692009-07-27T22:28:11.047-04:002009-07-27T22:28:11.047-04:00As Sober has pointed out elsewhere, bad design by ...As Sober has <a href="http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2008/11/tale-to-pinto-donkey.html" rel="nofollow">pointed out elsewhere</a>, bad design <i>by itself</i> is no evidence for evolution, even when compared only to design. It is, as he says <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/15/0901109106.abstract?etoc" rel="nofollow">in the article</a> Hunter cites, useless or deleterious traits that are <i>shared</i> across species that provide strong evidence of common descent. It isn't <i>just</i> in comparison to design but in comparison to any other proposed explanation, such as Lamarck's idea that organisms separately evolve up a "chain of being," that evolution wins against. Evolution's truth status does not come from the "assumed" unlikeliness of design but from the fact that, out of all the things we've thought of yet to explain the shape of life, it fits the evidence best.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70401589733749272392009-07-27T17:09:18.037-04:002009-07-27T17:09:18.037-04:00Hunter would have a point if fish were metaphysica...Hunter would have a point if fish were metaphysical.TheChemistryOfBeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04228308036995626376noreply@blogger.com