A question of intelligence

[Gnisy]

Err.. what is 'intelligent design'? something to do with evolution ( or opposing it ).. ya, that one. Can anyone give it to me in layman's terms?

[Clanad]

As to Mr. Dawkins: From Scientific Inquiry...Dawkins says... "eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times, independently in various parts of the animal kingdom," and "In some cases these eyes use radically different principles" (Dawkins, 1996,
p.127), including "at least nine distinct design principles ... pinhole eyes, two kinds of camera-lens eyes, curved-reflector ("satellite dish") eyes, and several kinds of compound eyes" (Dawkins, 1995, p.91). But then it was unexpectedly discovered that these "nine distinct design principles" in "these forty-plus independent evolutions" (Dawkins, 1995, p.91), are all `hardwired' into one master gene, pax-6. Not only can a transplanted pax-6 gene produce a fruit-fly's eye on its wings, legs, and
antennae, but also a transplanted mouse pax-6 gene can produce a fruit-fly's eye on a fruit fly's body
(Halder, et al., 1988; Bromham, 2002)! In other words, the underlying machinery of the eye, arose just
once (Dover, 2000, p.172), in "the common ancestor of all surviving animals, who lived perhaps a billion years ago" (Dawkins, 1996, p.128), yet anticipated the future development of all eyes in all animals, for all time, in all environments: water, land and air! As Berlinksi observes,

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

"No one in possession of these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory. How could the mechanism of random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the course of
morphological development ... in widely different organisms?" (Berlinski, 1996). That this was totally
unexpected by evolutionary theorists, is evident by Dawkins, who calls this discovery a "Remarkable fact ...
[that] is almost too startling" (Dawkins, 1996, p.176).

Seems to me that this pretty well answers your objections, but I think we should just agree to disagree. It also seems to me that you fail to recognize that, as in the discussion of the knee, that the evolution of only one of the requirements is meaningless and useless without the other features.

Additionally, Dawkins has been rebutted concerning the clotting cascade article controversey...

[jimmer]

Clanad

You have not quite grasped the concepts of evolution. The Honey Bee - at least the Worker Bee - does not mate. Therefore its function within the social group is to collect food, build the hive and protect the hive. They do not reproduce. The drone - which is stingless - does the mating. This type of specialisation has survived selection because it is of overall benefit to the colony.

You quote Berlinski on the evolution of the eye as "anticipating the course of morphological development"
This is like saying "how did the wheel come along it would have to anticipate the morphological development of the motor car", in that it is a totally meaningless statement.

So, the creator gave the chimp a knee structure remarkably similar to our own only not quite as good? This means we can walk upright all the time but the chimp can only do so for short periods. Wouldn't you agree that a chimps knee v's a human knee sounds like micro-evolution? Perhaps an adaptation for upright walking.

Jim

[Clanad]

jimmer, I'm surprised that you would make the argument that the development of the wheel must anticipate the devlopment of the car... the more pertinent argument would be that without the development of the wheel, the car would not have been possible, at least in the form we know today. The car could have been developed to it's fullest extent, but without the wheel...zip, nada, zero. Only the design of the car to include all its intrinsic parts allows for it to be useful. Perhaps its you that doesn't grasp the concepts of evolution.
As to the honey bee... I've only paraphrased what Darwin stated... if the "evolution" of any part of an organism is detrimental to the survival of that organism it would disprove the Theory. So, is this trait of the honey bee detrimental or not? I would argue death of the organism is about as detrimental as one could describe... By the way, Berlinski is not answered by your reply, in my opinion, but you have joined together lots of words...

[jimmer]

Clanad,

that's the great thing about darwin, even though he lacked knowledge about the mechanism of heredity he still got it right and his theory is strengthened the more knowledge we gain. The sallient point about the Honey Bee is that the worker - the one that stings kamikasi style to protect his colony - does not contribute any genetic material to the gene pool because it does not breed. You could almost say that bees have evolved to act as a single organism (much like a sponge). Car wheels are a diversion because cars are designed. But if you like: seal the car and it will float; modify the engine and you have a motor boat; find that it is profitable so take the wheels of to improve movement through water. Now you have a boat.

jim

[Clanad]

Your didsertation on honey bees, while interesting, is not entirely factual. Firstly, any female larvae, originally destined to become a worker bee can become a queen if needed by the previous queen's demise. The newly selected queen does provide her genetic information to further larvae production. Secondly, the drone bees also have a barbed stinger, except it's their male sexual organ. They also die once mating with the newly minted queen by virtue of the ultimate in orgasmic sacrifice. When no queen is present to inhibit the development of their ovaries, however, workers eventually begin to lay eggs that develop into drones. Thereby depositing genetic material for the next round of mates for a new queen.
And once again, you've missed the point entirely concerning the analogy of the car. Of course the car was designed... my point, I believe. However, it could not fullfill its intended purpose, ala evolution, without the concurrent evolution of the wheel. In order for the car to "improve with time and modification" it would, at some point, require the wheel to make it functional, as a car... (a species, if you like). Without the device it becomes useless conglomeration of metal, plastic, etc.
Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Lastly, to cover a point you made in a previous posting concerning the "knee". Its form in function in apes and chimps is entirely different than in a human. Additionally, in order for the ape to walk upright would require a quantum change in its structure... far beyond just adaptation of human knees.

Look, here's where I think you and me fundamentally disagree. You believe, if I may, that given eons of time, minor genetic changes can occur that profit a given species thereby enabling it to better survive. It doesn't matter to your thinking, that many, if not most, of those accumulated changes require something to exist in the structure before that particular change can have any function, let alone benefit. My belief is that, exemplified by the knee dissertation, the changes cannot occur as isolated events. The cruciform ligaments so primary to the function of the human knee, could not have formed without the channels in the leg joint to accomodate them. To do so would have made them useless, since there would have been no where for them to provide their service. For the very specialized "bumps and hollows" to have formed before the ligaments, equally serves no purpose whatsoever. This lies at the heart of "irreducible complexity". I'm sure we will, as I've stated before, have to agree to disagree. But I think it is important to understand that many well respected scientists of all pertinent persuasions are willing, now, to at least consider the implications since there have been aspects of development that they could not rationally explain by relying on classic Darwinism...

[jimmer]

Hi Clanad

Exactly. Finally you get it. A car (in this case a non designed car) is a collection of bits, the difference is that my car is organic and in no way designed. The motor car didn't turn up fully formed it was a product of engineering evolution. A car is not irreducibly complex it has parts which are perfectly useful on their own. wheels, seats, engine, exhaust, ashtray, etc, etc. But which have evolved with the whole car and become specialised. We can change the body plan of the car: add wheels; articulation; a hinged front cabin; back axle steering and a diesel engine. Make it a lorry. Strip it back again and things wont work as a car but we can see where they came from.

the knee of a chimp is a less refined version of the knee of a human they are not "entirely different". Given we separated from chimpanzees 5 mya the similarities are astounding. You share more DNA with some Chimps than you do with me and vice versa we are closer relatives to chimps than horses are to zeebras

Anyway you're right we probably will have to agree to disagree.



jim