Objective Origins: Just Say Noah!

Good news. Seems that the world is waking up to the lack of scientific relevance of Intelligent Design. How many years has it been since ID has been proposed? What scientific work based on ID has contributed to our knowledge? NONE.
Even in the area where ID should shine namely information and complexity, science has succeeded to show how mutation and selection is sufficient to increase the information in the genome (Schneider,Adami). Others have shown how under same processes IC systems can arise (Lenski et al Nature)

That's great news for Darby. Now, will somebody please wake up our board members here in Roseville, CA. One can't decide 'what to do, what to do'. The other won't make a hard decision contrary to his buddies' positions. The decision? Forget the last 3 hours of consensus in favor of our teachers, lets table it until next meeting.

As a science teacher (Physics and Chemistry) for 33 years, let me set your mind to rest regarding "curriculum guides". It doesn't matter a hoot what they say about evolution because they are rarely followed, read or even possessed by most teachers. What is really important is the *textbook* that is used, which in most cases in my experience, acts as the "curriculum guide".
In addition, in most cases teachers are free to teach or not teach what they please and no creationist teacher is ever going to teach evolution and no evolutionist teacher is ever going to teach creationism, regardless of how it's spelled out in some never seen state guideline. The whole thing is just a political exercise with no real practical effect on education. Of course, I'm only talking from my own experience in a Long Island, New York high school, which was rated as one of the best in the country. I certainly don't know what they do in Morris, Minnesota.

Charlie,

A question: If the guidelines do not amount to a hill of beans then why do universities that train teachers, like my own, have to bend over backwards and sideways to abide by the state-mandated regulations if teachers in the classroom can essentially ignore them?

MB

Another point - After reading the "Objective Origins" document, it seems to me that the Discovery Institute is exercising bias. Why not apply the same criteria to the study of English, History, Musis, Philosophy, Economics and so on?

I must admit that my philosophical biases enter into my teaching - they have to because I am human. Should I therefore beg the University president to fire me for being unobjective?

MB

Another point - After reading the "Objective Origins" document, it seems to me that the Discovery Institute is exercising bias. Why not apply the same criteria to the study of English, History, Music, Philosophy, Economics and so on?

I must admit that my philosophical biases enter into my teaching - they have to because I am human. Should I therefore beg the University president to fire me for being unobjective?

MB

Michael Buratovich wrote:

"If the guidelines do not amount to a hill of beans then why do universities that train teachers, like my own, have to bend over backwards and sideways to abide by the state-mandated regulations if teachers in the classroom can essentially ignore them?"

Because that's the way it is. It may not be right, but it's the way it is.

Charlie,

Are you aware that textbooks are usually approved based on how well they meet the curriculum?

ive months later an avowed creationist candidate for the school board, supported from the pulpits of several fundamentalist churches...

Reed Cartwright wrote:

"Are you aware that textbooks are usually approved based on how well they meet the curriculum?"

When I was teaching, I had dozens of copies of different textbooks on my desk and I used material from all of them. I was free to include what I thought was important and leave out what I thought was not. Of course in Chem and Physics, it's not so much of a problem, but in Bio it can be. WRT the students, they rarely opened the textbook anyway, so it didn't matter much what was in it. ;-)

Because that's the way it is. It may not be right, but it's the way it is

Andy Groves wrote:

"So Charlie - what do you think is the "right" way to teach in schools? Curriculum or not?"

Curriculum, of course. But teachers should and most often do have broad descretion as to how that is interpreted. It varies greatly from school to school and from district to district. Some will be told "here's the textbook, follow it and cover everything". Others will be required to hand in weekly lesson plans and will be observed regularly to make sure they're following the curriculum. Others will be given a broad outline of the requirements with topics and concepts. Still others will be largely left to their own devices. There's no one universal methodology. For example, in my 9th grade English class, the teacher was a "Moby Dick" fan and spent the better part of the year reading and discussing this book. The rest of the "curriculum" went mostly out the window. Was this right? I guess not, but it made a world of difference in my life.
My first chairman told me "when you go into that classroom and close the door, you're on your own, and you have only to answer to yourself. I respect your integrity and professionalism and I know you'll do the best you can for the kids". But he ended up firing me two years later because I showed a film that he had specifically told me not to show. It was the newly released films of what happened in Hiroshima after the bomb fell. Was I making a statement? You bet your life I was. Was I right? That's for wiser minds to assess.

Your reply to my question seems to be best summed up like this:

"We should have a curriculum that says what stuff kids should be taught. Teachers should follow the curriculum except a) when they are told they don't need to or b) when they don't want to. It's OK if they decide not to follow the curriculum, so long as what they teach is OK. If wiser minds decide it isn't OK, they should be fired".

Breathtaking.

Andy Groves wrote:

"Breathtaking."

Like I said, it may not be right, but it's the way it is.

Why do the curriculum guides matter?

Here in Texas, and increasingly in other states as standardized tests become the norm, the curriculum is rather carefully devised in hopes of producing a showing of achievement, meaning in hopes that most of the kids will pass the tests they are required to pass before graduating. Anyone who misses key points puts the kids' scores and, consequently, diplomas at risk.

This can be a powerful incentive. The fight in Kansas technically was not over a ban on evolution. The fight was because the state board decreed that evolution would not be tested -- if it's not tested, the common folk say, it's not taught.

So, one powerful argument before the Texas State Board to keep evolution in the textbooks and not junked up with bizarre complaints, was the fact that 9% of the Advanced Placement Biology examination is pure evolution, and a total of 29% of the exam requires knowledge of evolution. AP tests are used by U.S. News and World Report to rate to top high schools in America, and the better Texas high schools want as many kids to take the exams as possible, and they want the kids to pass.

One of the current AP texts features a full page explaining the problems with creationism. It was not controversial in Texas, I think because most of the creationists pay no attention to AP texts -- their kids won't be taking that exam.

In any case, the drive for state and nationally-comparable tests drives curriculum, and if teachers are savvy they make sure those topics are covered in the class.

Speaking of Noah, I think this date or near this date was calculated by Ussher to be the date the Ark came to rest on Arrarat.

~DS~

Like I said, it may not be right, but it's the way it is.

But teachers should and most often do have broad descretion (sic) as to how that is interpreted

Andy Groves wrote:

"You're going round in circles. Should teachers be allowed to modify the curriculum or not? And if so, who decides whether what they teach is appropriate?"

I'm not trying to sidestep the question, but it's very difficult to explain to someone who doesn't have teaching experience. You sound like you don't have secondary experience but I may be wrong.
Anyway, the answer is that it depends. For example in New York we have Regents exams and of course we have AP exams. I know exactly what will be on those exams and when I taught AP Chem or Regents level Physics, you can bet your butt that I covered *all* of the required topics. If I had time, I would add in enrichment topics that were not in the curriculum and I was free to choose what I taught. The results on these exams told my superiors how I was doing. Too many failures on the regents or too many 2's on the AP and my ass would be grass.
There were also "school level" classes and "electives". Some electives I designed myself, such as Astronomy and Computer Science. Others were designed by other teachers: Ecology, Marine Biology, Forensic Science, Science and Society. In these classes, the curriculum was written by the teacher and the teacher was free to pretty much indulge themselves, so long as they didn't go too far out. We had Space Science where the guy did model rocketry and oceanography, where they went out and waded in the canal and collected specimens. In the "school level" courses, we mostly worked from a rough outline of topics and the teachers were more or less free to modify this as they saw fit. The parents of these students didn't complain very much, so I guess there were teachers who got away with doing a bad job. But that's where supervision comes in. A good chairman will know what is going on in each class and will take appropriate action if the class is not doing what he expects it to.
In all cases, this is kept in check by:
1. Parent and Student complaints.
2. Oversight by the Dept. Chairman or Principal
3. Performance on exams.
4. Informal evaluation by colleagues. (yes, they'll rat you out if you screw up!) I had a very bad year in 1994 because my daughter was in a serious car accident and was hospitalized for months and had countless surgeries and I had a mild stroke. Pretty much everyone kept an eye on me and offered their help in any way they could. When everyone is working together to accomplish a goal and everyone knows what is expected and you have good administrators, it all seems to work out very well.

In all cases, this is kept in check by: 1. Parent and Student complaints. 2. Oversight by the Dept. Chairman or Principal 3. Performance on exams. 4. Informal evaluation by colleagues

In all cases, this is kept in check by: 1. Parent and Student complaints. 2. Oversight by the Dept. Chairman or Principal 3. Performance on exams. 4. Informal evaluation by colleagues

Andy Groves wrote:

This addresses the problem of who decides the standards. For example, if a teacher decides not to teach evolution in class, it is perfectly possible that:

- neither the parents nor the children will complain
- the Principal will not care
- the omission will have a negligible effect on exam results
- colleagues will feel the same way.

That's correct. In my years of teaching, I can say with great certainty that more than 50% of the teachers never taught evolution at all. I'm guessing at that number, of course, but evolution always has been an *optional* unit in the NYS Biology curriculum. On the Regents exam, students could opt not to select that group of questions. I just looked at the 1998 Biology Regents and it looks to me like they've dropped the evolution group entirely. They do have a unit on Ecolgy and one on Modern Genetics. In addition, the evolution section was always the last unit, which was taught in the first two weeks of June, a very bad time in the school business. It's not surprising that most teachers never got to it or glossed over it. On the other hand, the AP bio exam is heavy on evolution and it is taught as a regular part of the course.

AG: "To use a Wagnerism, this is clearly not right. What should be done to prevent this?"

I don't agree that it's not right. Most people don't consider it as such a big deal. I personally don't think that darwinism should ever be taught in a public school, except in a historical context. I think that genetics, ecology and classification covers pretty well the facts of the matter. Of course, I don't think creation science should be taught either. Like Sgt. Friday said, "just the facts, Ma'am..."

Charlie,

With respect to the "facts" about genetics, do you really believe in chromosomes? Have you ever actually seen one? I mean, I know you've seen pictures of them, taken by scientists, but why do you choose to believe the scientists when they tell you about chromosomes and their bizarre fantastic properties but not when they tell you about evolution?

Chris

"Just the facts, Ma'am"

Biological evolution is a fact. Why should it not be taught in schools?

As a PS to the school board election, I find that a candidate for governor of Montana supports objective origins, see

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/52004e.asp

Montana's Would-be Governor Demands Equality For Creationism

By Jim Brown
May 4, 2004

(AgapePress) - A candidate for governor of Montana is voicing support for the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Biological evolution is a fact. Why should it not be taught in schools?

The only facts are that all living things are related and the living forms of the past are different from the living forms of the present.

Err...common ancestry via diversification/speciation ... is pretty much what the IDCists object to in no uncertain terms.

They're not bitching about anagenesis Vs cladogenesis.
The battle cry of the DI is not 'teach the evidence against genetic drift and teach the evidence for founders effect'.

~DS~

The only facts are that all living things are related and the living forms of the past are different from the living forms of the present. It's also a fact that mutations occur and that natural slection can change the frequency of genes in populations. Those are the facts. If you want to restrict your definition of "biological evolution" to just those statements then I have no problems with that. That is the "fact" of evolution. Anything beyond that is unsupported speculation.

Charlie,

Please explain to me why you take scientists at face value when they tell you that the DNA sequences of human chromosomes most closely resemble those of chimpanzees based on their sequences, but you refuse to take them at face value when they tell you that this close relationship is easily explained by the fact that humans and chimps recently shared a common ancestor.

Pretty please.

Well, I would disagree that it is a "fact" that all living things are related, (common descent).

What other parts of evolutionary biology are you uncomfortable with teaching?

Charlie "the Skeptic" Wagner says,

"The same genes, the same processes, the same structures are used over and over throughout a broad range of forms."

Charlie, please provide an example -- just one --of a non-mammal which has a gene whose DNA sequence is IDENTICAL to ANY gene which appears in a human. You can pick the gene.

Well, saying common ancestry, or evolution, or whatever component of evo/bio you dislike, is unsupported speculation in the wake of stating that all living things are related, is somewhat confusing to say the least.

It's also not going to fly, unless you have a rather unconventional definition in mind for the qualifier 'unsupported'.

Common ancestry is well supported, regardless if you wish to characterize it as speculation.

Moreover, there are degrees of certainty between unsupported speculation and absolute certainty such as plausible inference, which is what the domain of science utilizes pretty much exculsively, that you've conveniently disregarded.

I think when most folks think of something as 'unsupported speculation', they might imagine something like "The first self replicators were left on Earth 4 BYA when aliens from M-31 landed and discharged their bilge on the early earth's surface" or something equally intriguing, but untestable.

~DS~

DS, you aren't thinking big enough! Charlie would argue that THE ENTIRE EARTH with all species that ever lived on it was intelligently pooted forth by the Magic Muffin Men of M-31, or their equivalent, at some point in the distant past.

And the mere fact that the DNA sequences between living organisms (and viruses) vary in a way that is entirely consistent with their evolution from a common ancestor (or common community, according to Woese), why that's just a strange coinkidink! Or possibly it's a false trail intended to keep our scientists from searching out and finding the Golden Pooter from whence All Life Forms was pooted!

What a tragedy that scientists would prefer that our children be exposed to this profound concept in movies, TV, magazines and Kurt Vonnegut books instead of in their science classes!!! Look at the havoc this close-mindedness has already wreaked on our standing in the world of biological and medical research!! How disappointed the Magic Muffin Men of M-31 must be with our nation's scientists. And how very very proud the Magic Muffin Men must be of our brave iconoclast, Charlie Wagner.

Charlie says:

"insight means intelligence."

Charlie, remind me again why certain species of fish that live in caves have sightless eyeballs? I can't remember if it's because they use them as bait to attract prey or if it's to hold their foreheads up.

Charlie reminds us that

"he ended up firing me two years later because I showed a film that he had specifically told me not to show. It was the newly released films of what happened in Hiroshima after the bomb fell. Was I making a statement? You bet your life I was."

I remember reading about this in the papers. The controversy was not a political one. The problem was that Charlie showed the movie to prove his theory that atomic radiation turns your hair black.

I don't know why school teachers with education degrees (I've met a few) think they have the ability to pronounce judgement on what parts of evolution are reliable. It's like the guy at Burger King telling Wolfgang Puck the best way to cook a steak. Remember those dimwits in Kansas? I remember reading an interview with the woman in charge, Linda Holloway. She had an education degree. Knew nothing about science. Said she did a lot of research about evolution and concluded it was bad science. In light of the amicus curae (sp?) brief filed in 1983 in which 72 science Nobel Laureates supported evolution, it's a good thing I wasn't the interviewer. I might have hurt her feelings.

BTW, if someone in my own field (physics) tried to teach "just the facts", he'd probably be fired. Facts are meaningless without theory. Physics consists of lots of data, 6 theories which explain the data, and procedures for generating new hypotheses, testing them, etc.

Lots of people would say dumb things like "Yeast have 40% similar genes to humans, Dogs have 60% similar genes, this monkey has 98% similar genes. Sure. That's a fact. But that means we're all related? Nooooo, that's speculation. Science should just stick with the facts."

That's garbage, by people who don't know science from sun-worshipping. Inference is a crucial part of science. Science is not just direct evidence. Knowledge does not just come from direct evidence. Uranus and pluto were inferred quite some time before they were directly observed, for instance. Lots of people infer the guilt of O.J. Simpson, though there's no direct evidence. I did not see Abraham Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg address, but I infer that it happened because of the overwhelming weight of indirect evidence. For those who aren't scientists, there are good explanations of this in books like Web of Belief. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0075536099/102-9193413-2348940?v=glance)

Usually these are the same sort of people who say things like "Evolution isn't proved. It's a theory." Which is an equally basic misunderstanding. In science, 'proved' is like 'heavy'. After so much evidence gets piled on, it is proved, though there wasn't necessarily a point where the idea transformed magically from speculation to 'fact'.

BTW, if someone in my own field (physics) tried to teach "just the facts", he'd probably be fired. Facts are meaningless without theory. Physics consists of lots of data, 6 theories which explain the data, and procedures for generating new hypotheses, testing them, etc.

— Steve

This is a strong indication that there is a common origin to all living forms. Common descent of course, goes a bit further, saying that all living forms evolved from a single, common ancestor. That's not so clear.

Also, I spent some time looking at your papers and reading about your work on the HEI website. I must say I found it fascinating. Do you see no component of intelligent input in the structures and processes that you work with? Do you attribute it *all* to random, fortuitous mutations?

So if all living forms share a common origin, but did not evolve from that common origin, where does that leave us?

What is the nature of this common origin?

If you grant the common origin, but deny evolution, then the only alternative I can see to evolution from a common origin is creation by a common creator. But you're not a creationist, right, Charlie?

Right, I'm not a creationist. And I don't deny evolution, I only deny the darwinian mechanism or any other non-directed, accidental mechanism.

— Charlie

It's painful not knowing, but sometimes you just have to suck it up and admit it. We just don't know.

Well, that is something, since those Montana voters tend to be idiots. Educashun? They don't need none of that elitist twaddle! Quite impressive that the local rednecks were beaten 2 to 1 on this issue. If the evolutionists can win in Montana, California should be a piece of cake.

What is the nature of this common origin? I haven't a clue

So if all living forms share a common origin, but did not evolve from that common origin, where does that leave us? In the dark. At the bottom of a deep, dark mystery.

My main issue is with darwinism, the notion that all structures, processes and adaptations are the result of random mutations and natural selection. I don't think genetic drift is much of an effect either. In order to put systems together in such a way that processes, structures and functions all work together requires insight. Random mechanisms cannot do the job. And of course, insight means intelligence.

— Charlie Wagner

"I don't attribute it only to random, fortuitous mutations. There are other non-intelligent processes at work, and biologists are studying them, and discovering new ones."

...intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation of the specific features of the Cambrian explosion, and the features of this explosion in turn attest to the activity and power of a purposeful intelligence.

It's painful not knowing, but sometimes you just have to suck it up and admit it. We just don't know.

cancer is very complicated. so therefore, it was designed, and what business do you have 'fixing' it, heathen? you make me sick, with your evil cancer cures. Cancer is Irreducibly Grotesque. Anywho, it is unlikely that all the parts of god could have just randomly popped into being and into place, so I'm invetigating his designer, who we're referring to as Supergod... (apologies to Dennett)

Such as? Charlie, on reading my comment about processes acting in addition to random fortuitous mutations, said:

"Selection, migration, genetic drift, recombination, gene conversion and molecular drive for starters . . . . . . "

Charlie asked

"And can you provide any empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that these effects are capable of creating the highly organized processes and structures involved in hearing and integrating them into a functional hearing system?"

How about this Charlie?

1) DNA encodes proteins.

2) The structure and activity of proteins is determined by their amino acid sequences which are encoded by DNA.

3) Genomes, composed of DNA, accrue mutations over time. Some mutations are beneficial. Some are not.

4) Mutations, even single point mutations, can have drastic and profound effects on the structure or activity of the encoded protein.

5) The ear is made of proteins and compounds which are synthesized by proteins.

6) Organisms which can detect food and their enemies and potential mates (if necessary) are more likely to reproduce than those which cannot.

7) Sound is vibration.

8) A simple membrane is all that is needed to detect vibration. A protein attached to the membrane whose conformation changes when the membrane is vibrated can transmit a signal by any of numerous means which activates translocation by the organism toward or away from the signal.

9) Genomes, with accompanying mutations, are passed on to offspring when reproduction is successful.

10) Over the course of hundreds of millions of years, with the help of millions of mutations (most of which were harmful) animals with more "complex" structures such as those in animal ears can be observed in fossils. Some organisms are still alive. If we look at the genomes and sensors of these organisms, we can identify variations in the population, some of which lead to reproductive advantages over others.

11) Other organisms use other means for relating to their environment, which do not require hearing or which require more primitive vibrational sensors not so different from those described in (8). Some of those organisms are extinct but may be found in the fossil record. Some are still alive and if we look at their genomes and sensors we can identify variations in the population, some of which lead to reproductive advantages over others.

Charlie, there is tons of empirical and observational evidence to support every statement above and I don't think there are any statements which you would disagree with.

Based on my personal lab experience, I know that in a few hundred generations MAX I could easily use artificial selection to produce a bacteria which has properties, e.g., chemotactic properties or antibiotic resistance properties, which would take YEARS for a well-trained scientist to tease apart. I've no doubt the system which confers, e.g., antibiotic resistance, would involve all sorts of different "interlocking parts", and it is highly likely that altering any of one of the parts would destroy or greatly attenuate the properties conferred by this new system.

Undoubtedly this system could never be complex enough to satisfy YOU Charlie. My point is that for 99.99% of the people who understand what a gene is and how it is inherited, the above "observations and empirical evidence" along with hundred of millions of years of reproduction and selection is about as close to "proof" that ears evolved (along with everything else) as science ever gets to proving anything.

I'm leaving untouched the thousands of predictions made by scientists which assumed evolution was true and which have been confirmed a hundred times over.

If I applied your level of skepticism to every historical event, Charlie, not only would I deny evolution, but I'd also question every event I hadn't seen in real time "with my own eyes."

Speaking of which, I've been wondering why you don't have a web page which questions your own conception, Charlie. Can you provide any empirical or observational evidence that you were in fact conceived as the result of human intercourse? Because I suspect now it's more likely that you were implanted into your mother's uterus by one of those Muffin Men I've been reading about.

And just fyi: if your parents did the nasty in some hotel that Frank Sinatra slept in, I really don't need to hear about that, thanks.

Charlie,

On the topic of hearing, this might answer some of your general questions about the evolution of complex, interconnected systems, and it also has a brief discussion of the evolution of hearing. It's not a long paper, so it shouldn't take you too long to read it and get back to us with your critique. And if you haven't read it already, Andrea's post on IDEA has a link to a somewhat longer and denser paper on the evolution of the flagellum that's worth a read.

And can you provide any empirical evidence, either observational or experimental that these effects are capable of creating the highly organized processes and structures involved in hearing and integrating them into a functional hearing system?

On the topic of hearing, this might answer some of your general questions about the evolution of complex, interconnected systems, and it also has a brief discussion of the evolution of hearing. It's not a long paper, so it shouldn't take you too long to read it and get back to us with your critique.

But to cut to the real problem, allow me to quote from the paper itself. The author postulates a possible evolutionary sequence from reptilian to mammalian jaws. He states: "A tympanum evolved on a ventrally located process of the lower jaw." In the next step the author states: "the ability to masticate evolved . . . " In step 3, the author states: "A second joint evolved from secondary bones . . . " In step 4, the author states: "the quadrate and articular became less massive and more loosely connected . . . " In step 5, the author states: "the modification of the quadrate and articular enabled transmission of higher frequency sound, leading ultimately to their conversion into the incus and malleus . . . " Now don't forget, it's not natural selection that's causing this to happen. These structures and other changes must occur *before* natural selection can act on them. No clue is given by the author on how the tympanum "evolved". Apparently, it was the result of random mutations. I don't really see how this is different from "evolution pixies" or for that matter, magic. No clue is given by the authors as to how the genes that control these processes emerged. They just "evolved" I guess, whatever that means. This paper should not have been published in a scientific journal because it's nothing more than a story the authors made up to support their belief in darwinian evolution. It offers no observational or experimental evidence as to how these processes and structures "evolved" or were converted into functional systems. They would have us believe that the emergence of these structures and processes and their integration into a highly organized hearing system was somehow the result of purely random processes and fortuitous accidents. I don't believe it.

Just a quick, run-of-the mill answer to Charlie's question about middle ear bone evolution that he can test at home.

Put a radio in your bathroom. Run yourself a nice warm bath, climb in, and stick your head under water. Put your fingers in your ears. Listen to the radio. Now lift your head out of the water, but keep your fingers in your ears. Now take your fingers out of your ears, and replace with cotton wool. Now take out the cotton wool.

Does your hearing get better or worse at each stage?

P.S. Disclaimer. Most ear doctors would discourage you from sticking anything in your ears, so be careful......

Apparently, it was the result of random mutations. I don't really see how this is different from "evolution pixies" or for that matter, magic.

This paper should not have been published in a scientific journal because it's nothing more than a story the authors made up to support their belief in darwinian evolution. It offers no observational or experimental evidence as to how these processes and structures "evolved" or were converted into functional systems.

Charlie says,

"No clue is given by the author on how the tympanum "evolved"."

Charlie, I've seen pictures of your jaw but you haven't seen any of mine. Your jaw looks quite a bit weaker than my jaw, just so you know.

My jaw looks like my dad's jaw. I married a woman with a big jaw because she reminded me of my dad. My son's jaw and my daughter's jaw are at least as powerful as mine.

Do you understand WHY the jaws of my children are strong like mine, Charlie? I'm not going to assume that you do. I'm going to tell you why: my family carries a certain variety of "mutations" or gene variations, in roughly about fifteen genes, which affect a variety of factors related to bone development and calcium metabolism, that work TOGETHER in a complicated fashion to cause our jaws to be bigger and stronger than the average human's. In any event, our jaws are stronger than your jaw or the jaws of any of your family members. ALthough we are both human, Charlie, and have virtually the identical set of genes, the DNA sequences of these jaw-affecting genes are slightly different in each of us. Therefore, the proteins encoded by those genes are slightly different.

Let's say that my family and your family and a dozen other families get stranded on a rocky island. The only food to eat is fish and some plants. The plants provide some essential vitamins. A few months go by and we all barely survive on this stuff. However, my large jaw attracts quite a few women and, horny dog that I am, I manage to impregnate every woman on the island, my wife included, and sire 40 or 50 babies.

You also get lucky, Charlie, and sire one or two offspring of your own. Unfortunately, all of your offspring inherit your weak jaw which, while great for talking and drinking fermented fish blood, is not strong enough to thoroughly chew the plants on the island. Sadly, none of your offspring survive long enough to reproduce.

My offspring, on the other hand, thrive (having eaten the plants that your offpsring couldn't eat).

Okay Charlie, now here's the part where we always lose you. Take a deep breath. Imagine that a thousand years go by. Assume that my jaw was the biggest and strongest jaw on the island and is minimally required to have a significant chance at surviving to reproductive age. The stronger the jaw, the more plants can be eaten and the more nutrients I can extract.

Do you suppose that after a thousand years most of the people on the island will have jaws that look like mine or will they look like the jaws of your dead offspring?

Of course their jaws will look like mine! But they won't be IDENTICAL to mine, Charlie, because DNA replication isn't perfect. Plus, everyone lays out on the sun and the radiation beats on our testicles, heating them up, and mutating some of our "seed" (as the Bible folks say). Plus, those plants we need to eat contain some chemicals which are mildly mutagenic.

So, in a 1000 years, Charlie. the genetic makeup of the population is going to be quite different from what it was at the beginning. Certainly your inferior genes are going to be long gone by that time (as you failed to reproduce). They were SELECTED AGAINST, naturally.

A 1000 years is all it takes to produce a bunch of (somewhat inbred) people with big ol' jaws. Such a short period of time. A blink of the eye in geologic time.

So what is that prevents you, Charlie, from accepting that in 10,000 years the change could be even more dramatic, as subtle selective forces work to increase the frequency of other genetic variations in the population?

Let's say 100,000 years (!!!) go by on this island. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS CHARLIE. Is there some sort of stopping point Charlie that you can define Charlie at which no change can occur because suddenly the change becomes "too complex" for someone to envision precisely how it happened? Is there a reason that the slight curvature in my jaw couldn't have a selective advantage for eating these plants such that now the people have have strong jaws with a very peculiar curve very specific curve in them that it would be difficult to trace back after ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS? Can you give me a reason, Charlie, that any changes in the DNA sequences and jaw structures MUST be so easy to trace back that even high school teachers must be able to explain WHY every amino acid in every enzyme that functions to create my jaw bone came to its "precise" and "perfectly" functioning location?

Did I mention that there was a nice variation that spontaneously occured in the DNA of one of the women which my great great great (x 100) grandson impregnated which encoded an intestinal enzyme which turned out to be superior to the average intestinal enzyme and which, in combination with the calcium metabolic enzymes and bone formation enzymes, makes my jaw even stronger and more oddly shaped but, fortuitously, even better at digesting and extracting the nutrients from those plants? Unbelievably, it actually happened in the course of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. Can you believe it Charlie?

Now let's say one MILLION years go by. At what point, Charlie, do the beneficial variations stop being selected for? How complex is too complex according to your theory? I've only gone out to a million years but do you doubt, Charlie, that after a MILLION years those people who have some real fine jaws for chewing the plants on this island and god knows what other weird features? Did I mention that one of the first kids I sired on the island a million years ago had acromegaly and was the most successful plant chewer and fornicator of all? What are the odds of that? Are those odds just too long for you to accept Charlie? Impossible, you say, for anyone in a group of 100 people to have acromegaly?

In any event, I still have HUNDREDS of millions of years in my pocket, Charlie. HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS and BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of nucleotides to test. I wonder what's happened on the other islands with different plants during all this time?

This is why I "believe" in evolution, Charlie. It's rather straightforward, actually, once you have an appreciation for the lengths of time available for nature to have its way. And it's why your "skepticism" sounds so darned forced to me and nearly every other scientist on the planet.

As to your intelligent design "theory", that "theory" is nothing but a non-scientific Hallmark Card to yourself, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Use it to bookmark your copy of Tarantula. It has no other utility that you (or anyone else) has been able to articulate.

What a drag it gets to be. writing for this chosen few. writing for anyone cpt you. you daisy mae, who are not even the masses...I will nail my words to this paper, and fly them on to you. an forget about them...thank you for the time. youre kind Love and kisses your double Silly Eyes (in airplane trouble)

"This is why I "believe" in evolution, Charlie. It's rather straightforward, actually, once you have an appreciation for the lengths of time available for nature to have its way. And it's why your "skepticism" sounds so darned forced to me and nearly every other scientist on the planet."

Charlie,

I realize you're trying to respond to many at once so don't feel the need to repsond to me.

... asking for the step by step evolution of a complex system with the genetic details for each step is a bit disingenuous now isn't it?

Supposing we had that level of detail at the ready. What you're asking for is for someone to present a sequence perhaps ten million elements long, with the requisite genetic details and the pertinent external/environmental factors...summerized on this message board for your benefit? So that you can then reject it. Right? Otherwise, if that isn't provided, your (il)logical conclusions is that evolution is impotent and your own version of IDC is valid?

That's slightly unrealistic not to emntion irrational isn't it? And rejecting the evolutionary explanation in the absence of such enormous data and defaulting to magic/aliens/Gods is not only ludricrous Charlie, it's duplicitous.
It's an old, tired, underhanded, and ultimately fallacious tactic we see all too often. I had been enjoying your comments up to now and I'd hoped you were above stooping to that level.

Anyone of us can use that same trick and put you on the spot.

To whit: Tell you what Charlie, you show me the aliens from M-31 standing in front of the Washington Monument with Condeleeza Rice holding a current edition of the NY Times in the act of creating a new lifeform, along with a signed, notarized, statement detailing the exact steps the aliens used to create life on earth, otherwise I'll conclude every life form on this planet came about by purely naturalistic, dare I say 'random' methods, and club you over the head with your failure to provide what I asked for, for the rest of your stay on this blog.

~DS~

How's that?

The reason we can hear is that our ears contain mechanosensory hair cells, which have stereocilia on their apical surface. The tips of these stereocilia are held together by so-called tip links. It is believed that the mechanosensory ion channels that allow hair cells to become electrically active in response to vibration are located near the insertion of these tip links.

So here we have an example of an ancient gene family that has been amplified - at least in some cases by gene conversion - to give one family member which has a novel and unique function in the mechanics of the inner ear, and in which mutations cause hearing loss in humans and other vertebrates.

Charlie. Wow! Biochemical processes, structural components, electrical and mechanical signals, all integrated in such a way as to mediate the function of hearing. Clear and self-evident evidence, in my opinion for intelligent design.

Another wonderful appeal to ignorance. Not only do we not see any attempt to go beyond the fallacy of personal (in)credulity but also we notice the total lack of any relevant explanation as to why and how this was intelligently designed.

Charlie. And while this is an extremely interesting piece of evidence, I don't see how it supports the notion that "selection, migration, genetic drift, recombination and molecular drive" are mechanisms of evolution. WRT gene conversion, I would not argue that genes cannot change, only that these changes are not random or accidental.

Again personal incredility especially in light of the vaste amounts of data. Not the mention the lack of much of any data supporting Charlie's ideas.

I find it fascinating to see time after time such appeal to ignorance and personal (in)credulity when it comes to intelligent design arguments.

That ID has no scientific merrits should be obvious by now.

In the evolution of the eye for example, questions must occur at every step of assembly. Design questions.

All of this organizational design requires insight.

. . . asking for the step by step evolution of a complex system with the genetic details for each step is a bit disingenuous now isn't it?

. . . asking for the step by step evolution of a complex system with the genetic details for each step is a bit disingenuous now isn't it?

WRT gene conversion, I would not argue that genes cannot change, only that these changes are not random or accidental.

I'm looking for evidence it's possible

Taking that statement at face value and abstracting from your ear query to the wider context of a complex system in general, what would be in your view evidence that it is possible?

~DS~

I'm looking for evidence that it's possible.

I've made analogies between living organisms and machines, I've defined organization and explained why it points to intelligent design...

I direct your attention to my posts above, and again to the articles I linked to. In addition, numerous others, on several threads, have given you evidence that complexity can and does evolve, and every time you declare that the proof doesn't meet your evidentiary standards. (see your objection to the first article I recommended) But when it comes to ID, no hard evidence is required, arguments by analogy and appeals to ignorance will suffice:

Well thanks for at least participating Charlie. It's more than most of your creationist peers are willing to do.

I really would like to know what kind of evidence for evolution you would accept. But, if you're too frustrated to continue, so be it.

~DS~

We must consider the physical structures and their orientation as well as the biochemical processes and we must integrate all of these structures and processes in such a way that the eye performs its function. Any mis-assembly, any mis-alignment, any missing parts, and it just won't work."

Charlie,

"I have no intention of running around in circles chasing my tail over this. You and others keep asking the same questions that have already been answered"

Can I ask a few that haven't been answered?

1) Do you believe that a person's DNA sequence can affect their ability to differentiate colors?

2) Do you believe that the giraffe evolved from an animal was a common ancestor to the horse?

3) What is the simplest biological system that you are aware of that is too organized to have evolved by natural selection?

Thanks. These should be easy. The first two at least are just yes or no questions.

ARRGHH. Excuse the double post. I always assume when Explorer gives me a "system not responding" error message that my message didn't get posted. I even checked and refreshed the page.

Crap. Charlie, you can take your pick of which post to reply to (or ignore both, at your peril ;) ;)

I really would like to know what kind of evidence for evolution you would accept. But, if you're too frustrated to continue, so be it.

The last sentence in that paragraph is blatantly false, Charlie.

Will you oblige me by answering two straightforward questions? (1) do you believe that a person's DNA sequence may affect whether they are likely to wear glasses or not? (2) do you believe that a person's DNA sequence may affect their ability to differentiate certain colors? A simple yes or no will suffice.

With respect to your definition of organization, it is nice to see you set it down for us but I'd rather see your answers to my follow-up questions, above, namely : "At what point, Charlie, do the beneficial variations stop being selected for? How complex is too complex [for evolution to be responsible for observed complexity] according to your theory?"

Finally, just so we're all on the same page about where your skepticism begins and ends, do you believe that giraffes evolved from a plant-eating ancestor with a shorter neck?

Can I ask a few that haven't been answered? 1) Do you believe that a person's DNA sequence can affect their ability to differentiate colors? 2) Do you believe that the giraffe evolved from an animal was a common ancestor to the horse? 3) What is the simplest biological system that you are aware of that is too organized to have evolved by natural selection? Thanks. These should be easy. The first two at least are just yes or no questions.

Crap.

I don't have a clue where giraffes got their long necks.

A beak gets longer, a NECK GETS LONGER, white-eyed fruit flies die off and red-eyed flies dominate, etc. These are SIMPLE changes in gene frequency in populations under selective pressure and I certainly do not deny that they occur. I have OBSERVATIONAL and EXPERIMENTAL evidence from COUNTLESS STUDIES that demonstrate this." (emphasis mine) I understand that you take these contradictory positions, Charlie, because you're human. But they are obvious contradictions and, frankly, don't reflect well on you. You also admit that a person's DNA sequence may affect whether they are likely to wear glasses or differentiate certain colors. And yet you deny the blatant falsity of your earlier statement regarding the human eye: Any mis-assembly, any mis-alignment, any missing parts, and it just won't work."

I screwed up the second quote box above because I am inept at KwikCode. All apologies.

It is a well established principle of developmental biology that the same genes, the same processes are used across a wide variety of applications and systems in the living world. But this is not just an incidental quirk of nature, it's a window into our understanding of life itself. It is a profound and humbling realization.

And while this is an extremely interesting piece of evidence, I don't see how it supports the notion that "selection, migration, genetic drift, recombination and molecular drive" are mechanisms of evolution. WRT gene conversion, I would not argue that genes cannot change, only that these changes are not random or accidental.