Real Science Friday: A Bird, a Quadrillion Bacteria, and a Bible Tour

[lucaspa]

And...

And the eye is "wired backwards". The nerves pass in front of the photoreceptor cells, not behind them. What human designer designs a TV camera with the wires carrying the picture going in front of the lens? We would call that "backwards".

There is no debate over the term as it was never used.

In the opening post it is said that Aguilar referred to the structure as "functionless". That seems to be in error, since Aguilar called it "vestigial". Vestigial does mean that it does not have the original function and/or the original function is not critical anymore. Tonsils are vestigial. Yes, they still function as a minor part of the immune system but, when removed, people don't get a massive increase in infections. Tonsils are vestigial.

And, tellingly, you will never be able to provide evidence for any claim like this unless you actively enable the devolution of a function and record the process.

That is an artificial goalpost. But even that has been done by knockout experiments in bacteria:
1. BG Hall,Evolution on a petri dish. The evolved beta-galactosidase system as a model for studying evolution in the laboratory.  Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150,1982.
2. BG Hall, Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms. in Evolution of Genes and Proteins ed. by M Nei and RK Koehn, Sinhouer Associates,Sunderland, MA, 1983. Also described at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

Now, in mammals the loss of eyes -- such as the blind mole rat -- would be considered "devolution". However, the genetic process is recorded in the genes:
J Diamond, Evolving backward. Discover 19: 64-71, Sept. 1998.

Ironically for creationism, what the genes show is that this is an increase in information. But that is what we expect from natural selection, since natural selection increases information (William Dembski has demonstrated how). But the genes show how the eyes became vestigial as eyes but keep other functions.

I notice from your first post in this thread that you like to laugh at atheists. FYI, I am NOT an atheist, but Christian. And EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM.

 

[Stripe]

and from that link (which the OP seems to have removed for some reason, but it was there earlier, so I put it back in). This will save you from reading it yourself, if you are having trouble.:cheers[Any idea why the link was removed from the OP? :idunno Did the original poster not read the source fully before linking to it?second: ]

Or you could just read the next line...

And the eye is "wired backwards". The nerves pass in front of the photoreceptor cells, not behind them. What human designer designs a TV camera with the wires carrying the picture going in front of the lens? We would call that "backwards".

Who cares what you call it. :idunno:

There's a very good reason why the design is the way it is. Thus while you call it backwards because it's not the same as a TV camera, there is no evidence from this fact that it must have evolved.

In the opening post it is said that Aguilar referred to the structure as "functionless". That seems to be in error, since Aguilar called it "vestigial". Vestigial does mean that it does not have the original function and/or the original function is not critical anymore. Tonsils are vestigial. Yes, they still function as a minor part of the immune system but, when removed, people don't get a massive increase in infections. Tonsils are vestigial.

Someone listened to the show. :thumb:

That is an artificial goalpost. But even that has been done by knockout experiments in bacteria:

Alate made a claim that she has no evidence for. Showing how someone else might have evidence for a different claim is not helping.

Ironically for creationism, what the genes show is that this is an increase in information.

Choosing carefully your definition of "information", are you?

I notice from your first post in this thread that you like to laugh at atheists. FYI, I am NOT an atheist, but Christian. And EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM.

Difficult to see the difference.

Christians follow Jesus. He said He created the world in six days.

 

[Alate_One]

Who cares what you call it. :idunno:

There's a very good reason why the design is the way it is. Thus while you call it backwards because it's not the same as a TV camera, there is no evidence from this fact that it must have evolved.

What good reason is the vertebrate eye the way it is then? Explain it to us poor uninformed posters.

Someone listened to the show. :thumb:

So, you knew he used the word vestigial (it would be rather unusual for an informed person to use "without function" and not vestigial) and attacked me for my clarification of the word anyway. And you say I'm dishonest . . .

Alate made a claim that she has no evidence for. Showing how someone else might have evidence for a different claim is not helping.

Several posters have already pointed out why there is reason to think the structures and especially the muscles are vestigial. One of the signs of a vestigial structure, is when they are not present in a large proportion of the population. This tells you it must not have an important function.

When you can see a homologous structure present and functional in other organisms, it then leads one to wonder why it is present in humans but yet not having a similar function.

It is, as I've said before, like being used to seeing cars with windshield wipers and then finding a car with wipers that are missing a blade and don't move when turned on. You could assume that the bladeless, non-moving wipers were there to perform some unknown function, or you could make the obvious leap in saying that they were actually broken.

The problem here is you are starting with the assumption that God created creatures (especially humans) de-novo, from scratch. If you assume that, a non-functional structure makes no sense, it would be like God created something that was broken to begin with. Of course this isn't true because God *actually* created through evolution and these structures do not normally cause harm to the organism. They may be co-opted for other uses or eventually be lost, as the eye muscles in question are undergoing.

But because of your perspective, it appears you are totally unable to accept even the possibility of a vestigial, or a truly non-functional structure.

Difficult to see the difference.

Christians follow Jesus. He said He created the world in six days.

And this is the saddest turn I've seen you take recently. Six days is not a salvation issue, period.

 

[Paulos]

Christians follow Jesus. He said He created the world in six days.

Jesus is not quoted anywhere in the gospels as stating that He created the world in "six days": http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/what-did-jesus-say-about-creation/

And this is the saddest turn I've seen you take recently. Six days is not a salvation issue, period.

Jesus said a number of things that Strike doesn't take literally--John 6:53, for example.

 

[Stripe]

What good reason is the vertebrate eye the way it is then? Explain it to us poor uninformed posters.

Why don't you:

I was really quite stunned to find that blood vessels and nerves were layered over the top of the light sensitive cells. At the time I shrugged my shoulders and went on. Now I understand the reason for it.

So, you knew he used the word vestigial (it would be rather unusual for an informed person to use "without function" and not vestigial) and attacked me for my clarification of the word anyway. And you say I'm dishonest . . .

Actually, I didn't know for sure. But I did know you had not listened to the show. :chuckle:

Several posters have already pointed out why there is reason to think the structures and especially the muscles are vestigial. One of the signs of a vestigial structure, is when they are not present in a large proportion of the population. This tells you it must not have an important function.

You simply use the word "vestigial" to hide the evolutionary assumptions you have.

When you can see a homologous structure present and functional in other organisms, it then leads one to wonder why it is present in humans but yet not having a similar function.

And therefore evolution?

Sorry, doesn't cut it.

The problem here is you are starting with the assumption that God created creatures (especially humans) de-novo, from scratch. If you assume that, a non-functional structure makes no sense, it would be like God created something that was broken to begin with.

Or it has broken since creation.

but don't let a rational argument get in the way of your tirades.

But because of your perspective, it appears you are totally unable to accept even the possibility of a vestigial, or a truly non-functional structure.

You will never be able to provide evidence that a structure has no function.

And this is the saddest turn I've seen you take recently. Six days is not a salvation issue, period.

Never said it was. :loser:

 

[Stripe]

Jesus is not quoted anywhere in the gospels as stating that He created the world in "six days": http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/what-did-jesus-say-about-creation/

:darwinsm:

Jesus was the one who did the creating!

I think He would know. :chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

Given Stripe's inability to answer questions, to write his own posts, and willingness to just repeat each post's questions as if they were his own, I think he (it?) would fail a Turing Test.

Stripe: Are you just a piece of code running on the hosting site? Or are you really just provoking without contributing, like a troll?

 

[Stripe]

Given Stripe's inability to answer questions, to write his own posts, and willingness to just repeat each post's questions as if they were his own, I think he (it?) would fail a Turing Test. Stripe: Are you just a piece of code running on the hosting site? Or are you really just provoking without contributing, like a troll?

Neither.

When are you going to read the OP?

 

[gcthomas]

Neither.

When are you going to read the OP?

Hey, Stripe, I've written a function that will save you ever having to read what is written in these threads. (I don't think anyone will notice, though! :rotfl

def questionToStripe(question)
direct=True
if question=direct:
print("I reject your question. Have you read the OP?")
else:
print("Have you read the OP?")
return

 

[Frayed Knot]

Stripe: Are you just a piece of code running on the hosting site? Or are you really just provoking without contributing, like a troll?

His role here is this: anytime someone posts a challenge to young earth creationism at this forum, Stripe walks in and defecates in the middle of the room, driving away anyone who wanted to have an actual discussion.