Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[Brian 2.0]

let's try to get on the same page, I'll try to restate you...

If you then tie it to the respiratory system, where BOTH are time critical then evolution in that case only has a few minutes to both systems working together. So if one fails or flawed, the other system will DIE even if it is functional. Thus, we have at least two interdependent systems where both must work in real time, or both systems will fail.

You talk about the heart and circulatory systems as all-or-nothing "time bombs" or "geneades" that if they aren't working, they need to work in mintues or you die. This is completely true in a modern day human. I have pointed out the heart and circulatory systems were NOT time bombs in smaller organisms. And in each small evolutionary step, each one of them wasn't a time bomb from the previous. Take that first example for the first mutation creating small pulsing muscles moving the nutrient rich fluids around the small organism... take that muscle out... and the organism doesn't die... it's still okay, it's just slightly less adapated for survival. ALL changes occured that way.

We need to observe those intermediate steps prior to the fully functioning system. Let's see your facts, please.

First, this statement of your is incorrect if I'm understanding you. ALL of the steps are "fully functioning systems". It doesn't go from a non-workable heart over multiple generations of non-workable hearts until it finally evolves into a workable heart. Each of those intermediate steps is a fully functioning system. Each next step is just better adapted for survival than the last.

As for the facts you wanted of those intermediate steps I provided the turtle article to show just this, but you may have misunderstood the article or my reaons for using it.

The turtles have a wall that is beginning to form. It's starting to form a new chamber, but it's not a fully new chamber. That is the intermediate step. And this change results in blood that is "slightly richer in oxygen." Take away that small beginning of a wall, and it's no time bomb... the turtle survives... it just has blood that is slightly LESS rich is oxygen.

There's the intermediate step. And each step from the pulsing small muscle in the organism to the 4-chamber heart in a homo sapiens can come about in one of those intermediate steps that is not an all-or-nothing grenade.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Vance]

Here's a branch off point:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water/

The Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) is a fast reproducing fast evolving fish. There is a high population of such fish in the Hudson River. But pollution of the Hudson made the waters toxic killing off the fish... but... a genetic variant occured where the toxin weren't absorbed... that fish didn't die, reproduced... and now simply years later... there is a new tomcod fish population in the Hudson river who are missing 6 base pairs of DNA, and that small change make them able to survive in the toxins.

At the same time outside of the Hudson, there are plenty of tomcod that still have those 6 base pairs. These two groups will continue to reproduced and speciate on their own and they might get to the point where biologist give that hudsom tomcod a different species name. It may be different enough now that it could get a different species name.

Not a biologist here BUT your article seems to contradict itself. First is says "Bottom-feeding fish in the Hudson River have developed a gene that renders them immune to the toxic effects of PCBs, researchers say." Then is says, "The fish are missing six base pairs of DNA of the AHR2 gene, and the two amino acids each triplet would code for.", but it also says "The fact that it exists at all in those nearby populations leads the researchers to believe the Hudson Bay tomcod had the mutation at least to a low degree before the PCB onslaught. "

So, it did NOT really develop a new (unknown before) gene, NOR is it "missing" any genetic material, NOR is it genetically incompatible with other populations.

Conclusion: it is NOT a new species at all, just a different population.

[Brian 2.0]

So . . . if somebody says they're different species, it means they're different species. Sounds kinda circular to me, but whadooeyeno?

That actually is the ONLY way something can be classified as a different "species".

Animals are not born with a note attached to their toe saying "I'M A NEW SPECIES! I have enough genetic material different than the species of my ancestors so please give me a new species name. Thanks!"

That decision needs to get made by someone... by it's not a cut and dry process:

In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producingfertileoffspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).

Do you have a better means ot determing a new "species" or that somebody or some group determining it as being classified as a new species?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[USU78]

That actually is the ONLY way something can be classified as a different "species".

Animals are not born with a note attached to their toe saying "I'M A NEW SPECIES! I have enough genetic material different than the species of my ancestors so please give me a new species name. Thanks!"

That decision needs to get made by someone... by it's not a cut and dry process:

In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producingfertileoffspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).

Do you have a better means ot determing a new "species" or that somebody or some group determining it as being classified as a new species?

No . . . just amused at the circular reasoning, au courrant amongst the greenie [so-called] intelligentsia, that it's a new species if somebody says it's a new species.

This circular reasoning caused no end of grief for the Golden State farmers when a "new" species of pupfish was found in Lake Mono a coupla decades ago.

Why is it new? Because we gave it a new name! The Lake Mono pupfish! How is it different? Uhhhhhh mmmmmm we'll get back to you on that.

[Brian 2.0]

Not a biologist here BUT your article seems to contradict itself. First is says "Bottom-feeding fish in the Hudson River have developed a gene that renders them immune to the toxic effects of PCBs, researchers say." Then is says, "The fish are missing six base pairs of DNA of the AHR2 gene, and the two amino acids each triplet would code for.", but it also says "The fact that it exists at all in those nearby populations leads the researchers to believe the Hudson Bay tomcod had the mutation at least to a low degree before the PCB onslaught. "

So, it did NOT really develop a new (unknown before) gene, NOR is it "missing" any genetic material, NOR is it genetically incompatible with other populations.

Conclusion: it is NOT a new species at all, just a different population.

This is a branch off point...

You've got tomcod fish. At some point in their past a fish mutated (6 less base pairs, added gene, whatever). This mutation didn't kill the fish, probably didn't affect the fish at all. It reproduces, that it's offspring reproduce, and soon you have a percentage of the tomcod population that has that mutation... the rest don't.

The Hudson river, which houses a lot of these fish, gets polluted. All tomcod die EXPECT for the ones with this mutation die in the Hudson. The Hudson now becomes a places where ONLY those with the mutation can survive and reproduce. I don't know the geographical area covered by a tomcod, but if this population lives and dies within the polluted areas then they have created a separate group of tomcod that will reproduce and mutated on their own, completely separate from the tomcod outside the polluted area. Over time this population will evolve completely differently from the tomcod outside Hudson.

This is speciation is process.

[Brian 2.0]

No . . . just amused at the circular reasoning, au courrant amongst the greenie [so-called] intelligentsia, that it's a new species if somebody says it's a new species.

This circular reasoning caused no end of grief for the Golden State farmers when a "new" species of pupfish was found in Lake Mono a coupla decades ago.

Why is it new? Because we gave it a new name! The Lake Mono pupfish! How is it different? Uhhhhhh mmmmmm we'll get back to you on that.

The species problem is a hard problem indeed.

But I don't know how to answer the challenge from some on this board to show "new species" that are being developed that reproduce on their own without getting into it.

Perhaps Vance and ERayR, who brought up the challenge and both liked your dismissal of my answer as circular logic, perhaps they will enlighten me how I could answer the question without getting into man-made labels of "species."

Edited July 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Vance]

This is a branch off point...

You've got tomcod fish. At some point in their past a fish mutated (6 less base pairs, added gene, whatever). This mutation didn't kill the fish, probably didn't affect the fish at all. It reproduces, that it's offspring reproduce, and soon you have a percentage of the tomcod population that has that mutation... the rest don't.

The Hudson river, which houses a lot of these fish, gets polluted. All tomcod die EXPECT for the ones with this mutation die in the Hudson. The Hudson now becomes a places where ONLY those with the mutation can survive and reproduce.

When it can no longer interbreed with the other populations and produce reproductively viable offspring it will be a new species. Until then, NO CIGAR!!!!

I don't know the geographical area covered by a tomcod, but if this population lives and dies within the polluted areas then they have created a separate group of tomcod that will reproduce and mutated on their own, completely separate from the tomcod outside the polluted area. Over time this population will evolve completely differently from the tomcod outside Hudson.

This is speciation is process.

And based upon "faith" (or magic), you BELIEVE it will, eventually, maybe, most likely, perhaps, quite possible, nearly certainly, be a new species. Until then, you haven't provided an example of the creation of a new species, through evolution or otherwise.

[Brian 2.0]

When it can no longer interbreed with the other populations and produce reproductively viable offspring it will be a new species. Until then, NO CIGAR!!!!

When it "can" no longer interbreed (i.e. it psyically impossible for interbreeding with viable offspring) or they simply don't interbreed in the wild?

Because we always have this to deal with...

Edited July 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

So, where are the new species that can reproduce? I talking NEW species, not the use of selective breeding to get certain characteristics.

More reading to answer your challenge:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20425468

Scientists are increasingly finding evidence of evolution in action. They are recording in numerous and varied detail how populations of similar animals, from lamprey and sea urchins to Drosophila flies and crickets, are diverging - splitting into two or more distinct groups, driven apart by natural processes.

Some are driven apart by geography; it's how most species endemic to islands are thought to have appeared. Some are separated by morphology; a study published this month shows how populations of periwinkles are evolving elaborate and different penises, which prevents them mating with other populations of snail, isolating them into different species.

Some by their environment; scientists isolate different populations of Drosophila flies under unique laboratory conditions, and are able to experiment with evolution, testing how environments trigger new adaptations.Drosophila flies bred this way over hundreds of generations can diversify to become less thirsty, more aggressive or live longer, to name just a few.

Some are diverging because of their behaviour; two subspecies of the sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma now spawn at different times in the seas off Western Australia, one in summer, the other in winter, scientists report in the journal Evolution. As a result, they are unable to mate, destined to take their own, separate evolutionary journeys, perhaps to become separate species.

Tangible, quantifiable, observable evolution.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[USU78]

The species problem is a hard problem indeed.

But I don't know how to answer the challenge from some on this board to show "new species" that are being developed that reproduce on their own without getting into it.

Perhaps Vance and ERayR, who brought up the challenge and both liked your dismissal of my answer as circular logic, perhaps they will enlighten me how I could answer the question without getting into man-made labels of "species."

The problem isn't yours and it isn't mine. It's the politicization of the process that I find objectionable. If we want to differentiate between the Norwegian Blue and the New Caledonian White for purposes of stocking pet store shelves, that's one thing. If we want to differentiate between them in order to seize someone's property for a public purpose without compensation, that's quite another.

[Vance]

More reading to answer your challenge:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20425468

A lot of speculation and bald assertion in that one. A species that was unknown before, gets discovered, evolutionists make the claim that it is the result of "hybridization" or some other form of evolutionary magic and . . . VOILA!!!! We have "evidence" for evolution.

[Vance]

The problem isn't yours and it isn't mine. It's the politicization of the process that I find objectionable. If we want to differentiate between the Norwegian Blue and the New Caledonian White for purposes of stocking pet store shelves, that's one thing. If we want to differentiate between them in order to seize someone's property for a public purpose without compensation, that's quite another.

Don't get me talking about the "Utah" prairie dog, and the havoc that resulted from its existence being misused.

[Brian 2.0]

A lot of speculation and bald assertion in that one. A species that was unknown before, gets discovered, evolutionists make the claim that it is the result of "hybridization" or some other form of evolutionary magic and . . . VOILA!!!! We have "evidence" for evolution.

Do what you will... but I'm through providing evidence for this. These sources are not crackpot anti-god websites. I'm pulling from National Geographic, BBC, all providing links to peer-reviewed journal articles. Fact check if you want, but there's no point in answering your questions when the answers get tossed aside so easily.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Brian,

In my opinion I have made my objections sufficiently clear, but I see no effort on your part to understand them. You give me the impression that you just want to argue, and I have no interest in that.

We may be able to continue the discussion, but I suspect the price for you will be too high. You must first show that you understand the objections. You're just repeating yourself.

"Turtles are a curious transition — they still have three chambers, but a wall, or septum is beginning to form in the single ventricle. This change affords the turtle's body blood that is slightly richer in oxygen than the frog's."

You should be able to answer yourself if you were to understand my objections. What did I say?

I am thoroughly confused by this comment. I am obviously not understanding you. My best attempt at reconstructing your argument:

You think of an organism, like a fish. You see that it has a working heart, a closed circulatory system and a respiratory system all working in concert. You say such a thing could not have evolved on its own because it would be like winning the lottery for these systems to have just "magically" evolved on their own. That is - why would the respiratory system evolve without a working heart? Why would a heart evolve without the respiratory system? If an organism doesn't have these things it will die.

Now your turn. From your comments and the opening post itself, I do not think you have a basic understanding of how evolution works. Scientists have dedicated their careers to outlining the small, and subtle changes from simple to complex that are required to develop a human heart. You think you have a sound argument against evolution. Perhaps you should start by explaining to me how you think evolution works at its simplest level. I know I can't convince you to believe in evolution, but perhaps we can each increase our understanding of each other's view points? You speak in your posts about "intermediate steps" that you are looking for. What does evolution say we should be looking for in an "intermediate step?" What are you looking for in an "intermediate step"? What would constitute proof of an intermediate step? I think these questions need to be answered before we can have a productive conversation.

Edited July 18, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Bikeemikey]

So . . . if somebody says they're different species, it means they're different species. Sounds kinda circular to me, but whadooeyeno?

And if someone says there not different species then there not different species?

[cdowis]

Here's a branch off point:

http://news.national...volution-water/

The Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) is a fast reproducing fast evolving fish. There is a high population of such fish in the Hudson River. But pollution of the Hudson made the waters toxic killing off the fish... but... a genetic variant occured where the toxin weren't absorbed... that fish didn't die, reproduced... and now simply years later... there is a new tomcod fish population in the Hudson river who are missing 6 base pairs of DNA, and that small change make them able to survive in the toxins.

Yes, dribbling evolution is well documented where organisms make short term adaptations to environmental changes.

Nothing new here.

[cdowis]

let's try to get on the same page, I'll try to restate you...

Wonderful. Let's go.

You talk about the heart and circulatory systems as all-or-nothing "time bombs" or "geneades" that if they aren't working, they need to work in mintues or you die. This is completely true in a modern day human. I have pointed out the heart and circulatory systems were NOT time bombs in smaller organisms.

I specifically refer to closed systems which are typically found in "larger" organisms.

And in each small evolutionary step, each one of them wasn't a time bomb from the previous. Take that first example for the first mutation creating small pulsing muscles moving the nutrient rich fluids around the small organism... take that muscle out... and the organism doesn't die... it's still okay, it's just slightly less adapated for survival. ALL changes occured that way.

Let's keep the original focus on a closed system, specifically where the where the circulatory and respiratory systems are interdependent.

snip

As for the facts you wanted of those intermediate steps I provided the turtle article to show just this, but you may have misunderstood the article or my reaons for using it.

The turtles have a wall that is beginning to form. It's starting to form a new chamber, but it's not a fully new chamber. That is the intermediate step. And this change results in blood that is "slightly richer in oxygen." Take away that small beginning of a wall, and it's no time bomb... the turtle survives... it just has blood that is slightly LESS rich is oxygen.

There's the intermediate step. And each step from the pulsing small muscle in the organism to the 4-chamber heart in a homo sapiens can come about in one of those intermediate steps that is not an all-or-nothing grenade.

OK, you have a good point, but, you are talking about making a fully functional system more efficient.

But there is a quantum jump from the open to a closed system. The heart and respiration have to "suddenly" become mutually functional.

Look at the following wiki article on quantum jump with electrons.

"Atomic electron transition is a change of an electron from one quantum state to another within an atom^[1] or artificial atom.^[2] It appears discontinuous as the electron "jumps" from one energy level to another"

This quantum jump would also apply in an organism installs an entire system, transitioning from open to closed. There is a "computerized" (intelligent) mechanism developed to coordinate the beating of the heart and coordinating the blood flow with the respiratory system. It responds to real time changes in the environment.

Similar to the electron example, there is a "discontinous", sudden, dramatic change, not a gradual step by step process.

This is not just a matter of improving efficiency, but a whole new way of doing things.

While evolution does a fine job of describing the step by step process (dribbling), Dawkins admits there is no ability to handle quantum (jackpot) changes. They are real, and we find them throughout modern organisms.

Edited July 19, 2013 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

Is it hard to understand that attempts to improve efficiency lead to whole new ways of doing things?

[Brian 2.0]

But there is a quantum jump from the open to a closed system. The heart and respiration have to "suddenly" become mutually functional.

I think I see your point here. Simply saying "open system... yada yada yada ... millions of year later we get a closed system" is a big evolutionary jump. And add a closed system that works with a respiratory system and it's even a bigger jump.

And it is a big jump for sure if done all at once, but that jump was taken in very small steps over a very long time. And I'm not waving the magic wand here because we can see some of these steps in organisms. SeekingUnderstanding's Post #24 does a good job showing that. As he indicated there, the respiratory system was evolved AFTER the circulatory system was closed. Our modern earthworm has a closed circulatory system, but no lungs. The oxygen is obsorbed from the soil through the skin... so we don't need to attach the need of a respiratory system to a closed circulatory system.

But that still leaves the evolution from open to closed that you mentioned. And there are many steps one can take to get from point A to point B while still being "functional" and not being a quantum leap. Many "open" systems have sets of arteries and veins. The crab for example has set of arteries and veins, but they simply stop and the fluid "pours" out of the arteries into the body cavity, then is "sucked" back up by the veins. This is an open system, but it's has a network of walled arteries in it. This netwok formed over time in steps as the organism got bigger and getting the "blood" further in the extremites (the crabs leg) was beneficial, and an evolutionary advantage.

At this point the next step would be to connect the open "pouring" arteries to the open "sucking" veins. In our bodies that is our network of capillaries -- ultra thin vessels only a cell thick that allow for exchange of nutrients between the vessel wall. In the evolutionary ladder, an organism with an open system where those open arteries were close to those open veins, a next step would be to connect those, even if just slightly, and even if just a portion of one arteries to vein. That connection of an artery to vein would be more efficient, but not necessary to the open system organism. Continue that connection process and you end up with a closed system, never having quantum leap between each steps.

[halconero]

A lot of speculation and bald assertion in that one. A species that was unknown before, gets discovered, evolutionists make the claim that it is the result of "hybridization" or some other form of evolutionary magic and . . . VOILA!!!! We have "evidence" for evolution.

I deal with the theory of evolution a lot in my chosen major and I can count the number of times I've heard the term "hybridization" on one hand in the last few years. Usually it's with reference to biological failures. Contrary to popular belief, hybrids aren't the most biologically fit organisms.

Usually discoveries tend to confirm new hypothesis. The thing about scientific theories is that they allow scientists to predict the outcome of other hypothesis based on past experiments/experiences. With regards to biology there are very rarely any "new" discoveries (discoveries that catch scientists by surprise). For the most part they have a reasonable idea of what the discovery would look like (genetically, phenotypically, etc). The discovery usually confirms the hypothesis. In odd instances it doesn't confirm the hypothesis, which isn't a bad thing, because it in fact gives the researchers more data with which to work. Scientists are often so excited by discoveries not because they did not expect them, but because they're a fascinating confirmation of what they already hypothesized. Imagine coming up with a prediction about what an early hominid looked like during a particular time period, basing your idea off of past data, and then one day, as your digging (and believe me, you're not digging at a random spot, hoping you might bump into something), you find a bone, then several. Suddenly, as you're putting this skeleton back together, you see that it very closely matches what you predicted. That would be an awesome feeling!

So...to change up your quote:

A lot of predictions and hypothesis in that one. A species that was conceptually idealized before, gets discovered, evolutionists make the claim that it is the result of "adaptation" or some other form of evolutionary theory and . . . VOILA!!!! We have "evidence" for evolution.

[cdowis]

Is it hard to understand that attempts to improve efficiency lead to whole new ways of doing things?

Is it hard to understand that such changes come thru a deliberate design? We can "understand", we can "imagine" many things.

The issue is the mechanism thru which changes are made.

Edited July 19, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I think I see your point here. Simply saying "open system... yada yada yada ... millions of year later we get a closed system" is a big evolutionary jump. And add a closed system that works with a respiratory system and it's even a bigger jump.

Save your breath, my friend. Let's examine the premise that evolution is based solely on gradual, step-by-step processes. This is old school stuff.

I understand that evolutionists have already addressed that issue (sudden jumps). So do us a favor -- do some homework and get back to us. See if the new Darwinism offers some insight on the issue.

Edited July 19, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

ISo...to change up your quote:

A lot of predictions and hypothesis in that one. A species that was conceptually idealized before, gets discovered, evolutionists make the claim that it is the result of "adaptation" or some other form of evolutionary theory and . . . VOILA!!!! We have "evidence" for evolution.

What do you think of this?

[Bikeemikey]

Is it hard to understand that such changes come thru a deliberate design? We can "understand", we can "imagine" many things.

The issue is the mechanism thru which changes are made.

First evolution and deliberate design are not mutually exclusive. We may live in a world where both are true.

Given the necessity of agency in Gods plan for us I like evolution better. It provides the nice fit that even our bodies are the result of millions of cycles of agency. This is in addition to general scientific research highly supportive of evolution.

As for the micro-macro distinction... I think that if evolution is what happened (and have no vested interest either way) then this distinction is the artificial result of humans incapacity to observe and understand the subtly of change over billions of years.

Wouldn't be an interesting world we lived in if humankind was intimately link to all living beings on earth. That some changed and evolved differently but the test from god is what we end up doing with this artificial distinction of otherness and superiority.

[halconero]

What do you think of this?

Thought it was interesting. Good explanation of hypothesis, theory and discovery. For the unfamiliar I would make the point that the interbreeding between different chromosoned organisms as shown in the video does not reflect "hybridization."

One part of the video that made me wince a little is the term "real science." It smacks of the no true Scotsman argument. Science is just a method and collection of data. Even false data is still useful if discovered as it helps in the formulation of more accurate hypothesis and lab conditions. Science can be applied to almost everything, so I do not believe that it is useful to say that something is "real science." Surely some people misuse the scientific method, but I would rather not call what they're doing science at all rather than "false science."