Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread

---

• From: "ave1" <ave1@xxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: 11 Jun 2006 03:20:18 -0700

---

hersheyhv wrote:

ave1 wrote:

hersheyhv wrote:

ave1 wrote:

hersheyhv wrote:

ave1 wrote:

Logos wrote:
Well, can't fault me for tryin'.

Yesterday I tried to start a respectable debate here. But first I laid a
few ground rules, one of which was no ad hominins or flamings. Well, it
wasn't long before I encountered such witless put-downs as "Didn't your
mother tell you to stay out of the deep end of the gene pool?" and "What the
*** is 'evolutionism?'"

Even in the more civil threads, I could sense a hostility straining beneath
the surface of your "Please and thank you" replies.

I was indeed taken aback by all the anger and mean-heartedness. I wondered
what could have happened in your lives to make you all such bitter people.

And then I realized: Darwinism is sinking. The tide has turned against it.
Everyone senses it. And that has to be a very bitter pill to swallow for
those who have hitched their wagon to the wrong star.

So I can't be angry, and in fact feel a little pity for all of you. I'll
pray for you tonight.

Many of these t.o. regulars have dedicated their lives to what they're
taking a stand on here. They live, eat, and breathe what they believe
is pure science. Unfortunately this pure science is often nothing
other than just storytelling. Look at this video (don't worry it's
quite short):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwVGUTXJt4&search=evolution%20eye

Many find this kind of explanation to be a very valid scientific
response to complaints of people who aren't buying common descent
evolution. They *BELIEVE* that this eye evolving can be accounted for
through blind processes.

In the video, there's a distinct lack of scientific discussion of the
details that would have to be gotten right all at once in order for
each step to properly occur. I noticed that there was no discussion
about how light detecting cells could have sprung up in the first
place-- and that's exactly what these Evolutionist explanations
typically tend to avoid-- the nitty gritty molecular details of how
specified molecules could get put together in just the right way in
order to get things working right.

As a matter of fact, the nitty gritty molecular details of how vision
(not the eye itself, which is what was being discussed in the above,
but the way that photons hitting a cell get transmuted into electrical
nerve impulses) arose is quite an interesting story, because it arose
at least twice (in invertebrates and in vertebrates). The story starts
with vitamin A, a ubiquitous chemical found throughout life, which is a
short modification away from cis-retinol. Cis-retinol has the property
of changing shape once it absorbs photonic energy. That is the basis
of all vision.

Once the absorption of photonic energy occurs there have to be feedback
loop system in place to regulate the process.

"11-cis-retinal functions in the retina in the transduction of light
into the neural signals necessary for vision. 11-cis-retinal, while
attached to opsin in rhodopsin is isomerized to all-trans-retinal by
light. This is the event that triggers the nerve impulse to the brain
which allows for the perception of light. All-trans-retinal is then
released from opsin and reduced to all-trans-retinol. All-trans-retinol
is isomerized to 11-cis-retinol in the dark, and then oxidized to
11-cis-retinal. 11-cis-retinal recombines with opsin to re-form
rhodopsin."
http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/vit_0260.shtml

An even better description is found at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/evod3.htm (an excerpt from
Darwin's Black Box):

Retinoids (and opsins, the proteins that bind them) initially evolved
as membrane components in *bacteria*, not earthworms. They still serve
this initial purpose in eucaryotes, which is why vitamin A is a
necessary vitamin for us poor higher eucaryotes. In addition, other
retinoids act as developmental hormones and as *pigments* (the
carotenoids) that absorb light in plants. They also serve as
antioxidants and as protection of eggs from proteases.

Acting like evolution is the only logical way to view the fact that
similar components get used in different manners, is just not going to
fly here.

The *fact* that retinoids have uses other than vision and the *fact*
that the primary (essentially universal) function of these molecules is
in membrane support was used to support the claim that it is, in fact,
possible (even likely, given the primary function of retinoids) for the
visual function to be an exadaption of a pre-existing compound rather
than requiring a process that involves poofing such a compound into
existence by magic.

I'm not proposing magic. I am proposing the application of
intelligence, which conceived of blueprints and then arranged matter
and energy so that living organisms (things with both extremely high
complexity and extremely high levels of order) of varying types could
thrive on our planet. This may involve some serious technology which
we may not have a mental grasp on, but to say that it HAS TO HAVE BEEN
magic is a non-sequitur.

1. If A then B (e.g. If intelligent design occured to make things long
ago, one way this might have taken place is via magic).
2. Not B (e.g. magic doesn't exist)
3. Therefore, Not A (e.g. Intelligent design couldn't have occured.)

Want to make a revision to your arguments?

The last is what the creationist argument
requires:

.. . . Or technology which far exceeds what we can comprehend in our
puny human minds.

that there be some system that *requires*, as a matter of
necessity, the entire system to be produced by magic in one swell foop.

When intelligence was applied to follow a recipe to make a polio virus
from scratch (piecing it together with the proper components), this
very complex and highly specified compound was arranged in a
methodical process, not "one swell foop". It took hours upon hours of
"synthesizing" work-- not to mention some serious blueprint scheming
beforehand.

By demonstrating that the system need not be produced in one swell
foop, but that there is *evidence* that it could be exapted from a
pre-existing useful function that could reasonably be expected to be
present in reasonable ancestral organisms, I am presenting *evidence*
against the primary requirement of ID and creationism: that there be
ignorance of any workable pathway (well, they actually have to present
*evidence* that there is no possible pathway, but seem to be quite
content with personal ignorance of such).

It's true that anyone who wishes to bring a challenge to common descent
Evolution will have to do what Darwin said must be done: "If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".

This was a challenge that rightfully needs to be assessed. I am doing
just that when I challenge the open-to-seawater optic-cup eye to
vitreous-fluid (fluid manufactured by the organism) closed-eyeball idea
of a morphological transition that evolutionists must admit is part of
their theory.

There are a variety of problems with that morphological transition
which are based on what we know about eyes and the requirements for
proper function (ie. a fluid and a cornea that are not opaque with
clouding or having metabolic debris everywhere).

ID is the assertion that an
unknowable disembodied "intelligence" with unknowable motives working
by an unobservable mechanism that differs from any mechanism that can
currently be observed

.. . . The polio virus synthesis experiment has a close and striking
connection to that which would have taken place long ago on planet
Earth. Here's the method utilized: 1) Form a blueprint with
intelligent input. 2) Build what is needed with the available
technology and resources (whether it be not that great or extremely
great).

Oh, and if you're going to argue that we have to "know all about the
people who designed something" in order to be practicing true science
in identifying the products of their civilizations, be aware that
archaeologists have identified (via the methods of intelligent design
analysis) ancient structures which were differentiated from naturally
formed rocks-- despite the fact that they knew nothing about the
specific source or intelligent agents' culture (other than a "they
must've been people that lived over 5000 years ago"):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/72494.stm

produces whatever the claimer asserts he is too ignorant to explain otherwise.

This is a strawman of what ID is. Intelligent Design theory is based
on the same principles used by those archaeologists who identified the
"giant loudspeakers" stone circles in northwest Europe as the products
of some largely-unknown specific group of people who lived in that part
of Europe. The observation is made, and the analogical method is
utilized to come to a conclusion about the origination of something.
Sure it's not difficult to employ the methods of ID theory, but it
nevertheless is legitimately utilized by scientists.

We see wheels and cogs getting utilized in watches just as
they get used in machinery that makes automobiles and washing machines.
This makes sense in a design context, no less than it might make sense
in a blind-processes context.

Except that if there are wheels and cogs lying around that can be
co-opted or modified to make automobile wheels and cogs, that means
that a claim that wheels and cogs *must* be made from scratch by a
disembodied "intelligence" to make a car is a false claim.

ID theory never says that something has to have been designed in a
*must* sense. We all know that science is not about proving things.
What science is about is seeing whether something is reasonable or not,
and there's an aspect of probabilities that has to enter here. Even
the t.o. website realizes this: "A crucial related point is that
modern scientific theories are probabalistic. This means that all
testing of scientific predictions is carried out in a statistical
framework. Probability and statistics pervade modern scientific
theories, including thermodynamics (statistical mechanics), geology,
quantum mechanics, genetics, and medicine. The mathematics of
probability is a discipline that many people find, shall we say,
distasteful. However, a working knowledge of statistics is absolutely
essential for judging the fit between observed data and the predictions
of any theory." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

None of the retinols involve unusual or highly complex changes from vit
A. I think I remember that there are precisely two enzymatic steps
involved, neither being particularly unusual or uncommon in organisms.

But once the retinol is there, you need to consider many other factors
that need to come about-- things like how the signals get to the proper
neuroprocessing area, and not only that, but how these signals might
result in an action that translates to better survivability.

In bacteria or eucaryotic protozoans (some of both respond to light by
specifric behaviors), of course, there is no "neuroprocessing" area,
there is only biochemistry within the cell.

The biochemistry in the cell membrane or cytoplasm or organelles
certainly is analogous to neuroprocessing that goes on in multicellular
organisms. And both are set up by DNA instructions to establish
behavior and processes of the organism.

So the question then
becomes: In these organisms, how can a photon-asorbing molecule cause
a change in behavior through biochemistry? The answer is surprisingly
simple. The photon absorption causes a mechanical change in the
retinoid, this leads to a change in the 3-D structure of the opsin,
typically leading to a change in the level of an allosteric regulator
molecule like cGMP. This change in level, in turn, interacts with a
*pre-existing* sensory chain of molecules

Before we get into analyzing this, I'll have to point out that your use
of those last five words sounds VERY analogous to neuroprocessing
(though, of course, not synonymous).

Onto the analyzing: I'm not really sure what you would claim this
hypothetical *pre-existing* sensory chain of molecules was there for
in the first place.

Also, don't you find it just a little too convenient that in your
evolving-cell-with-the-first-photoreceptors scenario, the hypothetical
pre-existing pathway happens to be there all ready to go for
assimililation of the processing work? I mean it's already tied in
with the flagellar motor??! The whole hypothetical pathway thing just
seems a bit too far-fetched to me.

and leads (in the case of
bacteria) either to flagellar rotation clockwise or counter-clockwise,

This is all assuming that the flagellum could even remotely build
itself up from blind processes.

a good Dr. Sean Pitman quote suffices here: "It is strange that the
TTSS system is so commonly promoted as the most likely starting point
by many evolutionists since the TTSS system is supposed to have evolved
hundreds of millions of years after flagellar evolution. That's right!
There is good evidence to believe that the TTSS starting point arose
from the fully formed flagellum and not the other way round."

I paid a visit to the t.o. article on the flagellum evolution at:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Here we see that an export system (which Sean was speaking about above)
has some of the parts which a flagellum system is comprised of. The
problem here is seen in the words that are used which I've referred to
before as evolutionist magic, where mechanisms aren't really important,
but stuff just happens somehow:

"Addition of the cap (FliD) and subsequent coevolution of the pilin and
cap subunits could have occurred fairly early "

"secreted substrates might escape from beneath the sides of the cap"

"adhesin pentamer were to initially form a ring atop the secretin,
instead of a cap"

"Initially, one cap protein could chaperone the assembly of both
structures"

Here's a really good one: (the asterisks are mine):

"On the model, a mutation in this FliN-like protein *created* a
proto-FliN that bound to FliG,"

YES, THE T.O. ARTICLE USED THE WORD "CREATED".

". . . FliN originated for some role in structural support or enhancing
export, and was later coopted to a switching function via the binding
of CheC"

" All other changes at all levels were matters of gradual improvement
of function, i.e. optimization and co-adaptation of components."

"Each stage would obviously be followed by gradual coevolutionary
optimization of component interactions"

There's little mention of how molecules get optimized and end up going
into just the exact right positions for things to become workable and
efficient. I guess evolutiondidit. ;)

Also, on this webpage it is admitted that a number of flagellum
components don't really have homologs:

"No nonflagellar homologs of FliG have been discovered (except in type
III virulence systems), perhaps not surprisingly given the peculiar
function of this protein and the radical change it must have undergone,
whatever its ancestral function."

So when there's no homolog present in a component of the flagellum, the
almighty RADICAL CHANGE idea becomes a last resort for evolutionists to
try to grasp at.

Here are some other components which have no homologs in the flagellum:
"Finally, five components (FliF, FlhA, FlhB, FliN, and the ancestor of
the axial proteins) have no identified potential homologs, although
nonflagellar ancestral functions are not difficult to postulate. [I'm
unclear why he didn't include FliD (the cap) in this list. . .] The
type III virulence system contains homologs of most of these proteins
(probably including an axial protein; Cordes et al., 2003), but as
discussed previously its phylogenetic position is controversial."

Must have taken a (let's all use the magic words) "radical change" to
somehow get all of these components to form and find their proper
positions in the molecular machine.

leading to random or directional movement (either toward or from the
light source, depending on which direction is selected against).

This is assuming the *pre-existing* pathway of yours could be set-up to
work before the photosensitive spot somehow fortunately shows up and
gets established as a new gene in the DNA.

In simple multicellular organisms, light-sensing links the initial
steps to *pre-existing* sodium channels in the neural network.

So are you now saying it was multicellular organisms that first evolved
the photosensitive cells? I thought it was the single cells.

Light-sensing cells are part of this neural network.

Provided that this coding is present, this is true.

Again this will
lead either to movement toward or away from the light source, depending
upon which direction is selected against. [More accurately, in those
organisms where the signal generated selectively occurs in those
neurons that produce a signal leading to movement in the right
direction, this trait, to the extent that it has a heritable basis,
will be selectively passed on to the organism's progeny.

I'm still having trouble getting past the part where there's a
preexisting pathway that allows the cell that just had evolved light
detecting cells to immmediately use that extremely fortunate mutation
(or series of unlikely mutations, actually). And then there's that
whole flagellum-just-happened-to-come-together-via-blind-processes
thing. . .

This can be
due to the simple expedient of increasing the amount of retinol and
associated proteins in one type of nerve cell rather than another.]

The probable *initial* pre-adaptive or exapted function of carotenoids
involved in vision was as a light-absorbing pigment that signalled
bacteria that they were too close to the surface.

Okay, and why would closeness to the surface be a problem for bacteria?

Initially on the biotic earth there was little ozone in the upper
atmosphere and the amount of DNA-damaging UV light close to the surface
would have been intense. <snip>

From what I understand there's no evidence that we've found rocks

anywhere which show evidence of extremely low oxygen on planet Earth at
any stage of its existence. Maybe you have some evidence I've not
seen?

Don't they survive in all sorts of environments (light and dark)
without a problem?

That is, the initial
function 'visual' function preceded multicellularity or the presence of
nervous tissue. Again, retinol is particulaly useful for the
absorbtion of visible light but it, and related compounds are not
somehow limited to eye tissue. They are common to many tissues and
merely are more concentrated in eyes and nervous tissue of higher
organisms *because* these tissues can make more use of the information
about the amount of light hitting the organism.

The word "information" is often used in a context where data or
specified patterns are being associated from a sender to a receiver.
What would be the receiver of this information in an initial bacterial
candidate for light-detection (which has undergone a Vitamin A
mutation)?

The information is the amount of photons received.

The photoreceptors would not be the ultimate stopping point, though, in
this light detecting mechanism. The mechanism would involve processing
of the information well past the photoreceptor level. I'm sure this is
where you pull out your hypothetical *pre-existing* pathway explanation
again. . .

This, in the cell,
would be translated into a change in the level of some allosteric
regulatory molecule.

Not sure what this means, but it sounds very technical. Translated?

The consequences of the change in the level of
that molecule would depend on the particular cell and how selection
shaped it. In some organisms it could, for example, lead to the
organism moving away from the light. In others, moving toward it. It
is silly to call this a "neural center". Bacteria do not have neural
centers. They do have sodium channels.

If you don't want to consider my language in a figurative way, I'll
concede and use "translating center" instead.

In other words, why would there be any reason to think that
the neural center would come to translate the electrical signals as
having some meaning for the organism without having that pre-encoded to
occur in the first place?

Why would the "meaning" have to be "pre-encoded" in the sense of the
cell having a teleologic knowledge that such a "meaning" would be
useful?

When I say "meaning", I mean something which helps the organism
(something meaningful for the organism). Its antonym would be
"uselessness".

If you want to argue semantics we can, but I'd rather get into deeper
things. . .

If, in a particular organism, the change in level of
allosteric molecule causes the organism to move in the wrong direction
(that is, the "meaning" "pre-encoded" in that organism is worse than
useless, that organism will be selected against. But it is not hard,
if you already have a system

Oh, the hypothetical one.

for responding to a molecule, for
mutations to cause the opposite response. If such mutations exist (or
were already useful), then the organism's response would lead to its
being selectively favored. So yes. In those organisms exapted to
respond in a selectively useful way to signals related to the level of
photons impinging on the cell, selection will favor such organisms and
produce a *system* of beneficial response to light in those organisms.

This is, of course, assuming that the translating center could be
already pre-established and immediately utilizing the information
provided by the photons hitting the cell (which would have had to be
VERY fortunate in getting the light detector).

By the way, when you claim that it's rather easy to get a light
detector, why is it that sightless unicellular organism populations
that we've been observing over the past couple hundred years NEVER seem
to evolve these light detectors?

The "meaning" that was "pre-encoded" was not teleologic because there
is no guarantee that it would be useful.

When I used the word "meaning" I meant it to be synonymous with
usefulness, but I can't expect you'd read my mind.

But only the useful
pre-encoded meanings continue to exist.

If it's meaningful to the cell, it will promote existence.

They do so *because* they are
beneficial, not because there was any design plan that they necessarily
must be beneficial.

What we're getting into here is a conversation about originating
instincts and/or behavior. I'd like to know whether or not there's
observational evidence of blind-process evolution originating a new
instinct in any organism.

I did a Google search using the key words "instinct evolution" and
after wading through a couple pages of listed websites, I decided this
wasn't producing anything significant. I then went ahead and tried
some searches of the Talk Origins website (keywords "a new instinct"
and "instinct evolution" and came up with nothing at all). Maybe you
have some evidence worth presenting that might pertain to our
discussion, because right now this isn't looking too hopeful.

Obviously the place to look for the role that genetics plays in
evolving "instinct" (the hard-wired responses to stimuli) rather than
"learning" (flexible responses to stimuli) is in simple organisms like
C. elegans and bacteria. Unless your claim is that "instinct" is not
genetic, which would be silly, it must be the case that "instinct" or
hard-wired responses to stimuli are capable of undergoing modification
by mutation

Sure, but there will be limits to this.

and for populations to change the frequency of such alleles
in response to environmental conditions.

Again with limits.

Fish aren't going to begin spitting at bugs on leaves above the water,
just as cats aren't going to go spitting at animals which threaten it.

I would suggest that you look
up selection experiments involving geotaxia and phototaxia in
fruitflies (both are multigenic traits rather than single-gene traits).
It is quite possible to breed in "instinctual" preferences for either
going up or down or going toward or away from light in fruitflies.

Before I discuss what I'm after when I say I want evidence of new
instincts, I'll point out that the flies in the above selection
experiments already had all the traits in the population(s) which ended
up getting separated out by the experimenters. These were not new
traits being observed coming about via mutation. They were inherent
already in the parent population.

Let's look at some fundamental concepts which might help out
conversation get some firm footing.

I have asked about observational evidence of "a new instinct" coming
about via evolutionary naturalistic processes. By "new" I am meaning
unprecedented (for that organism). By "instinct", I am referring to
innate behavior (having its basis in genes) or pattern established for
a response to occur because of a stimulus. Behavior could be (A)
nothing but an innate action (output alone) such as a cat sharpening
its claws without really needing an external stimulus trigger to get
the ball rolling, or (B) it could be something that's triggered (a cat
that's sensing a threat will flatten its ears and have hair standing on
end) which is more than just an output, but is an instinct which
involves input as well. It can be easily seen that (B) might involve
nuances, but (A) is the pinnacle of what instincts are about. If a
mammal population underwent a mutation or series of mutations that
ended up placing an unprecedented innate action (output) into its
behavior patterns, this would most certainly be a good example of the
evolution of "a new instinct". We'll call this category A1.

Now let's consider (B), which involves stimuli (input) and responses
(output). I'll categorize the B conditions as B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5.

B1: If you have an old stimulus that produces an old response (the same
one that was always there) is that a new instinct? Definitely not.

B2: If you have an old stimulus that produces an old response (but not
the same one-- some other old response) is that a new instinct? I
would contend that it would not be. It would be an alteration in the
instinct, but not the origination of an unprecedented instinct. Let's
say we have a cat that flattens its ears when under some significant
stress (among other responses like hair standing on end) undergoing
(when passing from one generation to the next) some unique mutation
that requires that the offspring flatten its ears and have hair stand
on end not only when under the stressful situation, but also when it
smells apple pie. The output response (which was present before) would
be produced from a stimulus (the input which involves sniffing the
odors in the environment) which was already there. Is this a new
instinct? No. Since the stimulus and behavior output are nothing new
for the organism, it can't be called a purely unprecedented instinct,
though it certainly is an altered instinct because of the old input
that triggers the old output (though a different one than the one that
originally was established to occur).

B3: If you have a new stimulus that produces an old response is that a
new instinct? This would be the a resultant response (old and already
present) ellicited in a newly-arisen manner. Here's an example: Let's
say we have a truly new stimulus for an organism (a light-detecting
eyespot-- which gains info on light in the environment-- in a certain
single-cell organism that came from a population that lacked this
feature), which brought forward an old response (let's say twisting its
flagellum clockwise rapidly). Would this be a new instinct? I would
definitely say that this would be something that's unprecedented, so
yes it's a new instinct.

B4: If you have an old stimulus that produces a new response (output)
is that a new instinct? This would be a never-seen-before resultant
response ellicited through some old input/stimulus. Here's an example:
let's say a cat that is facing a threat which responds by flattening
its ears and having hair that stands on end had an offspring which (by
mutation of genes) not only flattened the ears when under stress but
also aimed and spat its saliva in the direction of the threat. I'd say
that since the response was unprecedented for cat, that this would
constitute a new instinct.

B5: If you have a new stimulus that produces a new response is that a
new instinct? Without explaining myself on this one, I'll say this
without a question would be a new instinct.

At this point, you'll notice that what I'm calling a new
(unprecedented) instinct is something that has either an unprecedented
output or an unprecedented input (or both). (I'm not just being
arbitrary in this characterization of new instinct.) Everywhere the
response or behavior output is labelled as "new", I say yes to it being
a new instinct. Everywhere the response *and* behavior output is
labelled as "old", I say no to it being a new instinct.

Well, now that I've laid the groundwork, let's go from here.

Obviously it is also possible to breed out (or in some cases breed in)
some innate level of "agression" from domestic animals even before we
humans were aware of doing so. If it is possible for artificial
selection to affect such "instinctual" behavior, it is surely possible
for nature to select for such behavior as well. Your claim that
evolution does not occur for "behavior" is utterly without merit.

Just present the observational evidence, and I'll certainly consider it
here.

To show you that *real* scientists have been discussing the evolution
of 'instinct' for some time, I direct you to examine the Baldwin
effect.

http://www.apperceptual.com/baldwin-editorial.html

I'm more interested in observations in the realm of biology than I am a
computer program which might leave out complicating factors that occur
in nature or simplify input/output aspects. I did read a good bit of
it, though. . .

"When a photon hits the retina, it interacts with a small organic
molecule called cis-retinal, causing its rather bent shape to
straighten out. This changes the shape of the protein rhodopsin, which
is bound to it, and exposes a binding site that allows the protein
transducin to stick to it. Part of the transducin complex now
dissociates and interacts with a protein called phosphodiesterase,
which then acquires the ability to cut a molecule called cyclic-GMP and
turn it into 5'-GMP.

It is after this point that the vertebrate and invertebrate vision
biochemistry parts ways.

To be fair, it doesn't have to be stated in that manner ("parts ways").
It could just as easily be stated that the biochemistry is preset to
do things via innate pathways that differ once you get to a certain
point. I'm just saying. . .

I was merely saying that the *biochemistry* of visions differs after
that point. All biochemical pathways are innate to the organism that
has them. That doesn't mean that they can't or don't or haven't
changed over all kinds of different time scales.

I'm aware of your position on this.

Biochemistry can be
adaptive within the life of an organism due to regulation.
Biochemistry can change from generation to generation by mutation (and
even some quasi-mutational events). Biochemistry can evolve by
changing in populations over time. But I was merely pointing out the
*fact* that the same allosteric regulator, cGMP, hooks into different
mechanisms for sending nerve signals in invertebrates and vertebrates.
Both systems work well. There is no reason to think that one
biochemical mechanism is physiologically "better" than the other. In
evolutionary terms, this would make the vision system of vertebrates
(after the cGMP step) an *independently* evolved system. Like the
eubacterial and archaeal flagellae. Or the pterodactyl and bat wings.
Or the squid and whale morphological eye.

The more we see striking similarity sporadically acrossed the board in
nature, the more we need to realize we are the product of one Designer.
Evolution is said to create almost unlimited variety, but for some
reason these pesky very close-looking and sometimes very close-acting
"convergences" keep showing up in the nested hierarchy. There are
butterflies that mimic wasps, and bugs that mimic the plants they spend
time around. These are some of the best examples of the clues that
have been left for us to decipher.

.. . . but, of course, I know you are not going to be persuaded to
become a creationist just by looking at a completely white orchid
mantid with legs that take on the same shape of the petals of the
orchid flowers that are familiar in its territory. I know you are not
going to be persuaded to see things my way by looking at a lanternaria
(lantern fly) which appears to have a crocodile head with teeth and all
-- See it at: http://www.kendall-bioresearch.co.uk/hemip1.htm

Such independent
convergences upon similar solutions is an expectation of a historical
pattern of vertical descent when the common ancestors lack the feature
in question.

I definitely don't see it this way.

It is less clear why a *single* designer would produce,
so frequently, such convergent solutions when, unlike historical
vertical descent, such a designer has the option of borrowing
horizontally.

I've suggested reading "The Biotic Message" to you before, but you
didn't take to well to the idea. The explanation about convergence in
the book is very insightful.

Each utilizes a *different* pre-existing
pathway for transducing electral impulses down a nerve. But both start
by recognizing a change in the level of c-GMP, which is the common
allosteric regulatory molecule in vision. AIR, one system uses a
turn-off of sodium channels and the other uses a turn-on of sodium
channels, each activated by changing c-GMP levels.

Some of this sticks to another protein called an
ion channel. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions into the cell,
but when the concentration of cyclic-GMP decreases because of the
action of the phosphodiesterase, the cyclic-GMP bound to the ion
channel eventually falls off, causing a change in shape that shuts the
channel. As a result, sodium ions can no longer enter the cell, the
concentration of sodium in the cell decreases, and the voltage across
the cell membrane changes. That in turn causes a wave of electrical
polarization to be sent down the optic nerve to the brain. The system
then has to regenerate and return to the starting point ready for the
next incoming photon.4 When the electrical signals are processed,
integrated, and interpreted by the brain (and mind), vision results."

The feedback loop is going to have to be functional from the very start
if vision will occur AT ALL.

The pre-existing enzymes simply restore the level of c-GMP/5'-GMP to
the status quo ante. The retinol structural change has already
occurred.

Without this regulatory process encoded in the genome of the organism,
this restoring would not be occuring in any controlled manner. It
takes preset genetic encoding for vision to even have a chance at being
helpful to the organism. In other words, once the proper receptors are
present on the organism, you also need another mutation to occur at the
same time to get the feedback loop in place.

If you really want to know what's wrong with an idea that evolution
could get vision-processing going in a step by step manner, a quick
visit to Dr. Sean Pitman's website is all that is needed:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

Sean's level of ignorance is good for the soul.

Does saying things like that make you feel really good about yourself?
I'm going to have to work on that.

". . . what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to
suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or
"spot" of cells on its head?

It might be useful to evolve a pigment for defensive purposes (in a
world with visual predators). [Of course, for an earthworm, which
tries to live entirely underground, what use would there be for vision
at all?] And why do the pigments have to be in a small group or spot
of cells initially? My guess is that earthworms already make vit A and
use it as membrane support. Now at this point, the pigments that are
in the nervous system might, advantageously, interact with the already
present nervous system's pre-existing impulse generating activity

So membrane supporting Vit A somehow would (very vague term ahead-->)
"interact with" the nervous system. . . This kind of conjecture is
essentially in pseudoscientific territory. It reminds me of the
content of the Discovery Channel's "The Future Is Wild" series of
programs-- wild speculation.

The very complexity of interactions in a cell is why a sufficiently
large amount of a photo-absorbing molecule (not vit A) might, typically
indirectly rather than directly, have an effect on membrane potential
of the nerve cell it is in under some conditions. After all, that
absorbed light energy has to have *some* consequences to the cell it is
in.

I just wish we could understand why this has not been observed going on
in current day bacterial colonies (which number in the trillions and
have generation times which are surely fast enough to bring about scads
of these newly-formed light-detectors over the past twenty years). . .

Maybe it could be that there's much more to this than you realize when
you say it's really not that hard to get the mutations to make the
photodetecting capability?

(in some subset of nervous tissue) by causing the worm to dig down
everytime it 'sees' too much light.

Here you're proposing that evolution can bring about new instincts (or
at least a new organism pattern of action that relates to a new
stimulus it is beginning to encounter).

The latter. The instinct or hard-wired behavior to move in a
particular direction already exists. What is different is that a new
stimuli (light) is triggering nerve cells that cause this behavior. It
does so by causing, directly or indirectly, a *sufficient* change to
cause these cells to undergo a change.

It's just so simple, right?

Maybe not so right.

The simple expedient of
increasing the amount of light-absorbing molecules in these neurons may
be sufficient to accomplish this by causing enough change to reach the
threshhold level required to activate the change in membrane charge.

I don't see why a few photodetector molecules would be prone to
increase in number when they'd be below a certain threshold of
significance. There wouldn't be any selection pressures here.
Wouldn't they have to be numerous right off the bat to get past this
threshold required to activate this hypothetical translating center?

The problem with this is that
all instincts we know of in organisms are occuring because the parents
of the organism had the instinct and passed down those genetic
instructions. (Of course I'm aware that there's some plasticity in
instincts (ie. birds of a feather, when separated for a while can have
variations in their songs), but we're not merely talking about
adjustments of instincts here, but the coming about of *new*
instincts.)

Actually, old instincts triggered by a different stimuli.

I think I labelled that "B3" above.

When a worm would get the signal (assuming the regulatory feedback loop
was somehow evolved just in time) from newly evolved photoreceptors
(which passed the stimulus through a very hypothetical-- already
somehow constructed-- neural pathway) down to the neural processing
center, what would be a key piece of evidence that might make us think
it would "dig down" in response to getting that stimulus?

If you want me to think that some worms might get the stimulus wired up
in various ways initially in the neural center, I'll consider that.
Let's say some of the worms-- upon receiving that stimulus-- are wired
up to do one action, while others are wired up for another, while yet
others do something else. You might say that there'd be some with
inherent instructions to "pee", while others might have instructions to
"be hungry", while others might have instructions to "waggle their
behind vigorously", while others might have instructions to "go
faster", while others might have instructions to "undergo an autoimmune
response that makes them puff up", while others might have instructions
to "dig down".

You need to deal with earthworms and their behavior rather than pretend
that they are elongated humans.

Fine. If you want to come up with better function ideas to replace
pee, be hungry, waggle, go faster, and puff up, be my guest.

Now we'll entertain the idea that the ones which tend to survive are
the ones which "dig down" (as opposed to the ones that "pee").
Eventually there's been an evolution of a brand new instinct. Wow,
that was easy, wasn't it? Well, we need to look at it critically
before declaring victory.

Do we really have evidence that instincts can evolve in this manner?
Do brains of multicellular animals as well as unicellular creatures
undergo wiring for instincts in a large variety of ways-- via a blind
process-- and the best ways end up getting selected?

Unicellular creatures do not have brains. <snip>

translating centers.

But yes, simple multicellular animas do indeed have hard-wired nervous
systems. Even more complex behaviors can have substantial genetic
influence and mutations do occur that alter instinctual behavior. And
indeed selection results in organisms that are optimally adapted to
local conditions. One can even artificially select for altered
instinctual behavior (especially in multigenic traits).

But those traits are already in the population. Where's the
observation of a truly unprecedented instinctual behavior coming about
via evolution?

We need
observational evidence from the field of biology for this to be thought
of as a legitimate mechanism by which evolution can create new
instincts.

Let's look at Archer fish. Here we have an instinct for fish to go
about obtaining food in a very difficult manner-- spitting at insects
that might be walking on branches or leaves hanging above the water (as
opposed to just finding a foodsource in their water environment). They
not only have to shoot water at a high rate of speed out of their mouth
(where'd they come up with this idea?) while pointing their heads
upward when they are near the surface of the water, but they also have
to see the insect of course and process the distorted image properly as
a foodsource. Then there's one more very complex association which
must occur for the success in the shot-- an accounting for the index of
refraction (water to air) so the angle of the shot won't end up going
the wrong direction (remember, their view under the water is a
displaced view).

Do you have any evidence for when, where, and how the designer designed
the archer fish? What is your alternative?

I've already explained the observations of high levels of complexity
and specificity and how the analogical method has application in
science (whether it be archaeology or ID theory).

What makes you think that
there is no pathway of *useful*, but not at the level of the modern
archer fish, intermediates between a fish with none of these traits and
the current one with all of them? That is what you need. Evidence
that there are no possible intermediate state that would be useful to
the organism that has that intermediate state. I am no genius, but I
can think of several intermediate states that would be useful. Not as
good as the current situation, but still useful relative to not having
the capability.

But wouldn't it be much better to spend the energy on eating seafood???


I hope you're aware that these archer fish have a diet that is mainly
comprised of food from the water, not above the water. It's almost
like they're doing it for sport when they don't have anything better to
do!

It is not like fish cannot push water out of their
mouths. And once a useful pathway starts (in this case opening up a
food resource that would otherwise be unavailable), selection tends to
try to optimize it within the constraints of modifying pre-existing
systems.

But when it's so much easier to prey on creatures in their own water
environment, why waste the energy to get at that which is really,
really hard to get at?

And why do you think they'd even get one bug if they weren't aiming
exactly at the right spot from day one of this alleged evolutionary
process?

But unless you have some direct evidence that *favors* the idea that
the archer fish was specifically designed at x time and place by the
following manufacturing process by the following design and
manufacturing agent, I don't see how its existence supports ID.

All I'm saying is that the evolutionary explanation makes zero sense
unless you postulate something other than blind processes. It would
take multiple all-at-once fortunate mutations in the genome to get ANY
sort of accuracy in hitting the individual insects on the leaves that
would enable them to begin exploiting that food source.

All I see is an assertion that your level of ignorance allows you to claim
that "goddidit".

All I see is your ignorance of the numerous all-at-once beneficial
mutations that would have to have occured in order to get the genome
exactly arranged for this has-to-be-accurate-or-it-doesn't-pay-off
shooting behavioral instinct.

Here's what Darwin had to say about contrivances like this: "Many
instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear
to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overcome my whole theory."
(brought to my attention at
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dasc/EATB404.HTM )

That's exactly what this example accomplishes. In fact, I'd contend
that the "dig down" idea is also "wonderful", in that this would
accomplish what evolution has never been (to my knowledge) seen to do
before-- make a new helpful-for-survival instinct that the predecessor
organisms didn't have.

The link provided above has some good info about beaver dam production
and what evolutionists have said about it. Please check that out.

Also, here's some observational evidence which shows what can happen
when alterations in instincts occur (you could say this might qualify
as an instance of blind processes at work in nature-- where things just
don't turn out right): http://www.aulis.com/twothirds2.htm

"When widely divergent species of animal are crossed and subsequently
observed in the laboratory the offspring are frequently found to have
inherited conflicting sets of instincts, evolved in their parents'
separate evolutionary pasts.

As an actual instance we have the offspring of the cross between a
Peach-Faced Lovebird and a Fischer's Lovebird. The Peach-Faced
Lovebird when building its nest carries leaves and strips of bark
tucked into its rump feathers. The Fischer's Lovebird however
transports these items in its beak. The hybrid cross is found to
possess both sets of instinctive instructions. So the unfortunate
offspring tears itself a strip of bark. The Peach-Faced instinct now
tells the bird to insert this into its rump feathers, which the
youngster does.

But at this point the Fischer's instinct intervenes and instructs the
bird not to let go of the material because it has not yet arrived at
the nest site. So the youngster resumes the ready-to-fly position with
the bark still in its mouth. But then the Peach-Faced instinct, noting
the bark in the mouth, once again intervenes and reminds the bird to
place the bark in its rump feathers. This the youngster again attempts
to do. But now once more the Fischer's instinct reminds the bird that
it is not yet at the nest site-so the ready-to-fly position is again
resumed with the bark still in the youngster's beak . . .

The see-saw process continues on and on and on-with the young bird
exhibiting ever greater confusion and distress."

And this is a problem for evolution how...?

It's a demonstration that blind processes-- when getting involved in
driving instincts into significantly bold new territory-- basically
messes things up.

It clearly is an argument
in favor of reproductive isolation and speciation. And just because
current *modern* species produce this effect does not tell us that the
process by which the isolated populations acquired this difference was
not stepwise. The first requirement to show that there is no possible
intermediate state would be showing that the trait in question was due
to a single gene difference. Is that the case?

We will be finding more and more in the next ten or twenty years about
what the gene-involvement is for instincts. I am very much looking
forward to seeing the complexity be revealed, and once again reading
news stories about how some researchers were "astounded" or "taken by
surprise" by what they found out.

Simply as a result of the
interaction of the opsin with the retinoid leading to changes in c-GMP
levels in those cells.

Not so simply. You have to consider the aspects of wiring in stimulus
and the complexities of what would need to occur in the neural
processing center of the earthworm to generate a new helpful instinct.

Again. I am assuming that the changes in cGMP levels are occurring in
a nerve cell. The wiring already exists. All I need is sufficient
effect of cGMP levels to induce the triggering of the membrane effect.

I'd say that the wiring to the worm's neural processing center would be
so much more likely to make an irrelevant non-selectable response (ie.
"pee" or any of the other hundreds of irrelevant thing that could
possibly associate with the connection to photodetectors) than a
meaningful (useful) response (ie. "dig down"), that this incredibly
rare circumstance where photodetectors fortunately appeared for some
reason on its head would be incredibly unhelpful-- a waste of worm
resources.

This could then be the keystone event that
leads to more sensitive response to light by those nervous cells (the
simple expedient of increasing the amount of pigment in these cells
would do this nicely) and the related directional 'knee-jerk' reaction.

Nice story, but without real evidence it's not anything worth getting
excited about.

It is a lot more evidence than exists for your designer.

What evidence is there? WE DON'T SEE THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENING IN
RAPIDLY REPRODUCING MICROORGANISMS, LET ALONE EARTHWORMS, AND THAT'S A
DEFINITE SIGN THAT VARIATION HAS ITS LIMITS.

I am quite
clear that I could demonstrate that an artifical increase in the level
of visual pigment that produced a significant change in cGMP levels in
response to light in a nerve cell that has the remaining pathway but
does not ordinarily respond to light would trigger the nerve to fire in
response to light. Such experiments may have already been done. But
the fact remains that *I* can think of ways to test my claims. You
cannot think of any way (other than by expressing ignorance) to test
your claim that these systems were designed by some agent.

The way to test ID is to postulate & describe scenarios in biology
(with some real-world evidence) where highly specified and highly
complex necessary-component systems/mechanisms might be feasible in a
blind processes naturalistic mechanism. If it makes a lot of sense and
has a significant amount of biological evidence to back it up, the
theory of ID will end up falsified.

These cells now have the ability to
detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm?
Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins
to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to
a photon of light striking them.

What I am saying is that most of this did not need to be developed
*for* the purpose of 'vision'.

So why would there be all sorts of preset Vit A membrane-support
connections to the neural processing center?

The connection is via the level of cGMP.

This is no simple feat. Here's Michael Behe's take on it ( from
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp ):

"When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule
called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to
trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec]is about the time it takes
light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the
shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the
protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The
protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin
II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before
bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small
molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin
II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin.
(GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called
phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When
attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase
acquires the chemical ability to "cut" a molecule called cGMP (a
chemical relative of moth GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of
cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its
concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a
bathtub."

You're trying to make it look like it's a simple process and that
multiple all-at-once mutations would not have to occur in order for
this evolution process to occur in a way which would not have a single
ineffective intermediate on the way. You claim that all the pathways
would be inherent already in the single cell before the photodetecting
spot shows up, but are plainly avoiding any explanation of how the
organism would translate this revolutionary new info on photons it's
receiving. It has to translate "'attenuation of photon intensity'
to 'a shadow of a predator is responsible' to 'I must take
evasive measures', and be able to act on this information for it to
have any selective value." (quote from Jonathan Safarti's review of
Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable".)

I also need to point out that opsin has to be present in the first
place. What accounts for that in the first alleged lifeforms here on
Earth? Let's listen to what Dr. Howard Glicksman has to say about it:
http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_041101.htm

"First one needs to explain the development of the two separate
molecules that are necessary for its [rhodopsin's] formation and one
also needs to take into account that the opsin molecule consists of
over 300 amino acids arranged in a specific order. Since there are 20
amino acids to choose from, the chances of forming a protein molecule
with 300 amino acids in the right order to allow for photosensitivity
is one chance in 10 raised to almost the 400th power. Then you have to
explain how the cell has the underlying information (blueprint) and
machinery to create this specific molecule for a specific purpose of
function.

The mere presence of rhodopsin-like molecules in other organisms does
not prove that they came about by the random forces of nature. It only
proves that there are similar biomolecular structures that function in
similar ways within various organisms. And why should we be so
surprised since all of life is under the same constraints of the
physical and chemical laws of the universe? It's like assuming that
just because a lawn mower and an automobile both need oil and gas and
use them in a somewhat similar fashion, that they must have come into
being by the random forces of nature. Are we to suppose that as long
as there are similarities between the biomolecular structures and
functions of different organisms that this must only mean that they
developed from each other by the random forces of nature? But all of
human invention empirically tells us that this may not be so. And
therefore the world must demand to know the specifics of the mechanism
behind these incredibly complex transformations attested to by
macro-evolution and its supporters."

At this point in the discussion Dr. Glicksman aptly points out that if
Vitamin A and rhodopsin are so interchangeable via blind processes
(like you are making it out to be), why haven't the rhodopsin molecules
inherent in our human vision system been modified through naturalistic
processes so we can be Vitamin A producers over the many millions of
years apes and alleged prehumans have been around? We use Vitamin A in
our bodies for much more than just vision processes. It's used for
skin and mucous membrane development and growth, as well as immune
function. Why is it that evolution after all these millions of years
doesn't just go through this "simple process" and enable us to make our
own Vitamin A?

Then the article goes on to say more about how the explanations of
evolving translating centers in single celled organisms for the
processing of light detection is lacking in any scientific details:
"These descriptions that purport to explain how all of this happened;
"Which came first the eye or the brain?"; are replete with
optimistic and simplistic explanations, which are surrounded by
rhetorical language, but are devoid of any detailed scientific
description of how the myriad of biomolecular reactions involved and
the associated genetic material necessary for their substrate, came
into being, and how the neurocircuitry and its underlying
electrophysiology developed over time. Certainly these explanations
may serve to satisfy the intellects of those who are committed to the
belief of macroevolution, but to me they seem to border on what is
commonly called science fiction."

I agree.

. . . is derived from
vit A. It is not vit A. Since vitA is ubiquitous, I do not need to
imagine some cell connecting to the nervous system. The *selectively
successful* examples of this change involve the change occurring *in* a
type of nerve cell. In humans and all sighted chordates, it occurs in
the nerve cells that are part of the brain that became the optic
vesicle.

It was borrowed from pre-existing
biochemical pathways and became jury-rigged to react to visual stimuli.

Let's say (just for fun) I go along with an idea that Vit A
membrane-support was already prewired up to the neural processing
center in some less-than-specialized way (for what reason I don't
know). Wouldn't the processing center become a bit confused with
membrane-support electrical impulses being fed in while this new
light-detecting apparatus would also be sending electrical impulses?

Again, the light-absorbing visual pigment is not vit A. It is derived
from vit A.

For some reason you avoided my question here.

BTW, I knew the light-absorbing pigment is not vit A. The reason I
referenced vit A was because you said that all of the important
molecules come about by modification of vit A.

I would think that this confusion of signals would be detrimental to the
organism, unless it had an innate capability to weed out the light
sensing impulses from the standard innervation impulses. The problem
here is that there would be no genetic instructions present to let the
neural processing center in on the little secret that there's a
difference between one signal or the other! This is the kind of
confusion which would serve to short-circuit the standard information
processing for the organism creating nothing but a problem.

Your silence on this issue is noted.

So what?! What good is it for them
to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes
if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Annelids have a pre-existing nervous system. A nervous pathway and the
biochemistry of such pathways do not have to be evolved to respond to
visual clues.

This is not true. A neural center has to carry out a proper reaction
when a certain type of stimulus occurs. Genetic instructions need to
provide for a well-specified pathway here.

Again, the response pre-existed. All that has changed is that it now
responds to a different input.

The input would have to be tranposed through the worm's neuroprocessing
center into something that's interpreted as "threat", and then the dig
down response would be innate. The big question here is this: What
would immediately (right after the new innovative mutation(s) occured
to get photodetection jumpstarted) enable the worm's neuroprocessing
center to translate the signal into "threat" so it'd dig down? This
would require some gene to be altered at the same time that the
mutation responsible for the photodetecting cells occured. Why
wouldn't there be some other interpretation for the worm's
neuroprocessing center happening when the photodetector showed up?
What I'm getting at here is that there are many other interpretations
which could have gotten connected up-- not just "threat".

The pre-existing pathways need to be connected to some
signal that are generated by photons striking some pre-existing nerve
cells. Say by noticing a change in the level of cGMP in certain nerve
cells, since cGMP levels are one of the pre-existing allosteric
activators of sodium channels.

See above.

Now,
what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal
could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going
to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this
signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated
processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique
systems.

If an earthworm receives a signal from certain nervous tissue, it
responds by digging (down).

This is a bald assertion unless you wish to provide some good evidence
from the field of biology that instincts can be created from scratch,
naturalistically.

The instinct to dig down pre-exists in earthworms.

Along with a whole bunch of other processes that the earthworm can
perform. . . It's just one of many. The gene responsible for getting
the worm's neuroprocessing center to gain the perception of "threat"
(and thus do it's already-preset dig down action) would have to undergo
a very fortunate mutation right at the same time the photodetector is
established.

All that is needed
is to trigger the nerves that cause the response to fire.

It's not at all that simple.

If it receives a signal from other nerves,
it responds by stopping digging (down). Yet others, it may dig up.
Why does this have to be "learning" rather than a rote mechanical
reflexive response? How smart does an earthworm have to be?

Archer fish have a very complex and accurate instinct. How smart were
they to come up with such a unique way of getting a snack? I'd say
they were either smarter than people generally are (most people
instinctively aren't good at archery or accurate spitting for that
matter) or else we're dealing with genetic information that came from a
very smart source.

As far as Earthworm intelligence is concerned, I'd say that a digging
down response would be about the last thing we'd expect blind processes
to accomplish. Confusion in signals would be a reasonable expection
there. For a worm to dig down would require a bunch of other mutations
to occur all at once (besides the one that would change Vit A into
11-cis retinol), and thus create a new instinct from scratch.

Earthworms already have the instinct to dig down. We are talking about
linking that pre-existing instinct,

.. . . Requiring at least one (if not two, three, or four) very
fortunate change in a gene. . .

a consequence of certain neurons
firing, to a new stimulus, <snip>

.. . . Also, at the same time (or within a reasonably close time
period)), requiring a certain number of all-at-once mutations (or close
to all-at-once) to fortunately occur in order to get rhodopsin and some
other components established in a pattern that facilitates detection of
photons.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability
to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it
does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or
vision offers no advantage to them. All of these wonderful processes
need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated
(turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off
once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory
ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and
other molecules... all of which must be in place initially for vision
to be beneficial."

The above ridiculous non-evolutionary thought process is brought to you
by the letter "I", which stands for Idiotic or ID.

So are you denying that regulation of the light sensing at the level of
the receptor itself is irrelevant? Why would you think this?

No.

You called the idea idiotic. How can you answer my question with a
"no"???

I am denying the idea that the earthworm must go from no vision to
being able to interpret images in one generation.

Well the further you get away from one, the more likely it'll be to
have the preliminary mutation(s)-- which you might want to call
pre-adaptations-- getting eliminated in the population because--
alone-- they really have no selective value without the other needed
genetic changes.

There is no
"interpretation" involved in "instinct".

It was figurative speech.

There is a hard-wired
stimulation of particular neurons leading directly to a behavioral response.

Some scientists might call this a genetic interpretation. See
http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-CIMAGES/view/pct/getbykey5?KEY=02/02741.020404


Here's more evidence of scientists recognizing that genetic
interpretation takes place in the process of DNA reading (which, of
course, is directly related to established instincts):
"The DNA sequence is interpreted in groups of three nucleotide bases,
called codons."
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/mutations/

Why, what possible
evidence, is there that the above is what *any* self-respecting
biologist would claim as the way 'vision' evolved?

The only self-respecting biologists I've ever read eye-evolving science
literature from were ALWAYS leaving out things like regulation (which
would be required from the outset of this evolving process) and pathway
explanations (that explain how things would not be getting confused in
the neural processing center-- leading to significant problems for the
organisms) and instinct production (and how we'd expect this to be
accomplished neurologically). . .

You obviously are confusing vision with image-formation and instinct
with learning.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, so please explain where you're
coming from.

It is nothing but a
strawman argument, posing a silly process that no intelligent person
would propose as reasonable because Sean can only make an argument
against such a silly alternative.

What's silly is that you aren't seeing how many things would need to
mutate just right all at once in order to get the first organism wired
up properly for vision to be a helpful trait.

That is right. I do not see how you or Sean can simply assert that all
these things must occur "all at once"

Hopefully after my explanations tonight, this insight (which I've
provided plenty of evidence for) is making substantial headway.

and claim (falsely) that that is what evolution proposes. <snip>

One of the most compelling arguments is the one where we see an optic
cup forming into a deeper pit and eventually into a sphere with an open
front (totally open) with an unformed dome of clear tissue that is
generation by generation growing inward (from outer edge (all 360
degrees of it) of the iris to the central anterior point), and then--
BANG-- the evolutionist has to postulate that a clear cornea in one
particular generation gets to the point where it seals AND the fluid in
the eye suddenly is produced by cells or leaking blood plasma inside
it-- with zero problems in pressurization, and no issues with clouding
of the cornea or vitreous humor (which has debris and metabolic waste
from the retina accumulating quickly (with no outlet like Schlemm's
canal) from the outset). Please consider that in this scenario there
had to have been seawater inside the unsealed and open eye just a
generation beforehand.

That's what evolution proposes-- a big morphological jump with multiple
components having to work out just right all-at-once and not ruin the
vision. You can deny that evolution isn't some poofing magical entity
all you want, but it pretty much can't be denied that-- in this eye
evolving step-- there'd *have to be* poofing going on.

ALL of these features would have to be arranged at the start for vision
to occur in any helpful way to the survival of the organism population
with the first vision system.

So Sean asserts. Wrongly, of course.

These aren't assertions. He has brought forward details which need to
be accounted for.

No. He has simply muddled together all the features of *modern* eyed
organisms and *asserted* without any evidence that all of these
features *must* occur simultaneously. And falsely claimed that that is
the evolution "model".

Well I don't agree.

Another thing that needs to be mentioned
is that all the heritable mutations which have to simultaneously occur,
here, are going to have to not interfere with other processes as they
get into their appropriate arrangements.

This would be a mighty tall order-- or should I say a tall tale.

I reject Sean's "tall tale" because it is built from straw.

Totally erroneous accusation.

If he
wants to argue against *real* evolution, he has to argue against a
*real* or *realistic* proposal, not a bogus fantastical one of his own
choosing.

What's "real" or "realistic" about saying that blind processes can
create new instincts from scratch? What's "real" or "realistic" about
saying an eye spot doesn't need multiple other mutations to occur
before "vision" becomes helpful for the organism?

What is real or realistic is that I can generate changed instinctual
behavior by mutation (a blind random process).

You can point to instances where things that are already established
might change around, but this isn't very helpful in explaining the
origination of unprecedented instincts. We need something that will
have really great explanatory power for origination
(blind-process-driven or otherwise) of habits like when cats habitually
sharpen their claws (an A1 instinct). How do they know that's a good
idea, or at least what could have placed this habit into the genes?
Did they figure it out by using their deductive intelligence to learn
this skill, and then somehow translate the learning into their genetic
code? Where is the real world evidence from biology supporting that
kind of thinking?

I could undoubtedly
generate a new instinctual response by introducing genes that
significantly change cGMP levels in particular neurons when the
organism is exposed to a particular chemical.

The input (interacting with chemical stimulus in the water environment)
for the single cell organism is something it's been doing for a long
time. The output would have to do with pulling a trigger that might
get a step (the cGMP) in some "new instinctual" (your words) response
(and I'm assuming you might not be opposed to viewing a possible
candidate to be counterclockwise turning of the flagellum (which would
be the actual desired "behavior").

So let's analyze this. Input/stimulus is not an unprecedented
occurence for the cell. It's what the cell does with that stimulus
that really matters, though. Output/response would need to be a
behavior (ie. getting a molecular pathway established that might
actually trigger a flagellum spinning) that is ellicited. This cGMP
adjustment single step (out of many others that would have to
eventually occur for connecting the stimulus to the response
(tail-spinning and thus motility)) is not enough to even start the
flagellum. In your scenario, it sounds like you are proposing a
category B4 originating instinct. Too bad there are a whole bunch of
other steps that would have to be mutated into place before any pathway
suitable for connecting the stimulus (a hypothetical chemical exposure)
to the response (getting a chemical pathway established that connects
signals all the way out to the flagellum mechanism).

Blind natural processes can only be an acceptable explanation for the
coming about of a B4 instinct if there's convincing evidence that the
appropriate pathway connections can be made without a genetic
blueprint. All we know of in the here and now is that the pathway *IS*
established to exist only because there's genetic instructions which
enable it to work. If you say otherwise, you are asserting it
*despite* the evidence.

I could undoubtedly
cause neurons other than the standard one to fire when exposed to light
by arranging genetic changes

Again, you need a bunch of fortuitous mutations, and on every step of
the way there cannot be an intermediate step that fouls up.

that significantly affect cGMP levels in
those cells when they are exposed to light.

Don't forget the complicated pathway that gets you to the cGMP step. .
..

What experiments can you
provide that would test the idea that eyes were poofed into existence
by an undetectable something that did something at some unspecified
point in time at some unspecified point in space by some unspecified
mechanism to produce whatever you *want* it to do?

ID is testable, but it has its basis in inference (or the analogical
method). To try to poke holes in it by saying it needs to step outside
the realm of historical science is just nonsensical because we can't
run observational experiments on how lifeforms came about without a
time machine. It, as a theory, requires inference. Darwin, when he
proposed his theory about common descent evolution (also in the realm
of historical science) also relied heavily on inference.

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the
tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils." (from "The Episodic
Nature of Evolutionary Change" in "The Panda's Thumb".)

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument.
We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet
to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we
view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess
to study."

These are excerpts from "The Panda's Thumb" (a book in which S.J. Gould
compiled some of his writings from past books and articles), which I
became aware of through reading "Darwin's Demise". The quotes
demonstrate just how much inference Darwin's theory rested on.

Oh, and ID's not about getting into describing anything other than the
recognized design in things originated long ago that we can observe
existing. The SETI program seeks to find intelligently sent signals
from unspecified people that might have done something at some
unspecified point in time at some unspecified point in space (they're
looking in many places for the signals) by some high tech method that
coincides with something we as humans might do to send signals out. To
complain that ID isn't science on this basis, just shows that you
really don't think those SETI guys have a legitimate place in science
either.

Evolution does not and never has proposed that *any* system
evolved in a poof of magical coming together of a thousand mutations.
The mechanism that proposes that a system is produced in a poof of the
magical coming together of a thousand subparts is *creation* or
*intelligent* manufacture. Evolution is NOT intelligent manufacture
minus an intelligent agent. It is an entirely different algorithmic
step-wise mechanism.

When it comes to the Archer fish, it would be a magical poofing of a
spitting instinct coupled with deciding to find prey outside its
immediate environment coupled with accounting for the index of
refraction in the water and getting past the optical displacement
effect. A bunch of mutations would have had to occur to get these fish
adapted for this instinct.

Why wouldn't evolution just get the fish to jump out of the water to
knock the insects off the leaves? Why such a complex behavior of
spitting at just the right angle when you might accomplish just the
same thing by popping out of the water for a second???

Unless you have a better evidenced explanation, pointing out an area of
current ignorance is not evidence that your preferred fall back
explanation ("I don't know." or "God did it." are equivalent
explanations) is correct.

We have close correlations of high information in computers (in
comparison to the information in the living natural world) which have
been intelligently designed, and it can be easily seen that the genetic
programming in the instincts of the Archer fish is-- by inference
application-- a reasonable understanding of their intelligently
designed origin. The case is very strong for design, not blind
processes.

But after one more step, the pathways for generating
neural signals differs in vertebrates and invertebrates. A common
chemical generated by the change in shape of cis-retinol essentially
hooks into a *pre-existing* signalling neurotransmission pathway
(different in invertebrates and vertebrates). Of course, since that
initial hookup, some cells have become more and more specialized for
transmitting signals induced by photons.

. . . in this fictional story.

As opposed to the fictional story that Sean proposes?

We apparently are at an impasse.

Then what we need to do is look at the places where there is evidence.

How about we look at that Archer fish example again, then?

We have real evidence that natural selection occurs. We have real
evidence that mutation is the mechanism that produces variance in
populations.

And we also have a lot of evidence that these variances always have
boundaries in how far they'll go. We don't see the kind of variation
occuring that would be the responsible party for taking a shrew-like
organism and eventually getting it into the form of a whale (which is
about as close to unbounded variation as one could conceive of).

It's like extrapolating that the Earth must be flat by seeing the flat
land around you and taking it too far. It may seem reasonable to the
observer, but seeing a small portion of something in your vicinity does
not warrant a bigtime extrapolation to extend that into the unseen
realm.

We have real evidence that many biological systems
appear, structurally, to be derived from more ancestral systems (that
often still exist).

And I've already explained why this makes perfect sense in the context
of Creation. I've also explained some very interesting exceptions to
this here at t.o. before.

To argue otherwise is to claim that the
similarities are pure chance rather than modification and descent.

I don't think it's chance. I see it as a biotic message which has
specific reasons for being set up in the nested pattern that it is set
up in.

We have real evidence that the rate of change permitted by even neutral
change over time is more than adequate to explain the amount of change
seen in organisms, given the time since divergence.

What? Using some computer model that was devised by people who want to
promote Darwin's theory?

Or maybe it was selected data from biology, where the other data on
rates that don't really support these ideas are shoved under the rug. .
..

OTOH, there is no mechanism proposed for intelligent design.

This is false. See above.

It exists only as a false dichotomy dependent on personal ignorance of any other
explanation.

Strawman.

Or the fictional
story of a supposed invisible something that somehow does something at
some time and some place to somehow produce whatever someone (namely
you) want produced?

I'd invite you to read the content of the website in my sig. There is
evidence of God being present in our universe. Once you've read it,
I'd invite your comments here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/17627ce405b39064?hl=en&;

We call such cells retinal
cells. The evidence, in other words, shows a process that evolved and
*became* "the right way", not one that was *created* in just the right
way.

Saying it *became* is no more helpful in understanding this unseen
event (or series of events if you prefer) than saying that God wired it
all up. In fact, the God explanation is much less nonsensical.

Saying that "vision" occurs when there is a link between a pre-existing
change in cGMP levels due to interaction of a pigment with photons and
the opening and closing of sodium channels that are regulated by
changes in cGMP levels is *becoming*.

See my comments above on all the things that would have to "become"
just right all at once in order to get vision processing to be a
valuable trait in a once-not-seeing organism.

When it comes to evolutionary explanations of the eye, Michael Behe
gives a good analogy to these evolutionist's attempts: "This can be
compared to answering the question 'How is a stereo system made?'
with the words 'By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and
adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck."

The conditions which need to be met are typically ignored, and a story
(devoid of the really important details) is all we get.

I am not ignoring the pre-conditions. I am pointing them out.

Well, you're managing to miss some of the most important stuff then.
Hopefully we'll get this conversation back on track with some
realizations that need to be made.

ID OTOH, fails to present any evidence or preconditions necessary for what
happened. It invokes magic.

This is totally untrue. Intelligent Design theory makes scientific
observations and then evaluates the data via the analogical method
(abductive inference) to get at whether something might be likely to
have been originated via a process that involved intelligence. This is
a well-thought-of scientific endeavor, because it is employed in
archaeology and forensics.

No, it is not. There is nothing about the abductive inference that ID
uses that is actually useful in science.

You could not be more wrong. We'd have much more knowledge about our
genome today if evolutionists hadn't convinced a large number of
scientists 40 or so years ago that the bulk of the genome was
comprised of junk. When it turned out that this prediction was wrong--
way wrong-- the new data and implications were absorbed into the Theory
of Evolution. It is not even a theory because it isn't falsifiable,
but just sees what's there and gets molded into something a bit
different whenever its predictions are shown to be wrong. If we
suddenly found evidence of mammals in the paleozoic rocks, it would not
falsify the theory of Evolution. The theory would be changed (again)
to fit this "new and shocking" revelation. Again, Evolution would be
hailed as victorious, as is done over and over again when we see things
that cause problems for the theory.

I'm just not at all impressed with this lame version of "science".

Also, be aware that the SETI program seeks for evidence of
intelligence, and it has much in common with Intelligent Design.

No it does not.

Depends on who you talk to.

If
you wish to grapple with all facets of this, I'll point you to an
involved discussion I've had here at t.o. a couple years ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/00f1ff39327585e5?hl=en&;

This is just one of many threads I pursued in that topic back then.
Other threads hold more info on my position (which I managed to uphold
quite well). Some of the people I was having rather involved
conversations with, just walked away-- it was actually rather
surprising.

In my case, I ran into some difficulty in posting at all.

The ID response to the question of how a
stereo system is made is that "God made it" somehow, somewhere, by some
unknowable mechanism. Not humans by human manufacturing processes.
God.

Actually, a stereo is something which can be observed, and ID is-- in
part-- about getting to the details of observational data. Stereos can
be seen in the assembly process,

And how is that useful wrt vision?

There are correlations when it comes to the information it would take
to make one or the other. Also there are components in both which are
necessary components for certain things to have the pertinent function,
and those components are placed in just the right position in order to
get the function set up properly. Forethought is required.

and there's much that can be gained
from this observing. We can see how multiple items that are necessary
for function coming together all at once will account for that which
has high information.

We can observe that the process is controlled by and often done by
humans.

This would be the working out of sentient thought processes.

Of course, then there's the analogical method which was discussed
above. . .

Analogy is only useful to the extent that the systems are analogous.

Well, why did Darwin establish an analogy to convince people he had a
good theory? He asked people to look at variation and the "less
hypothetical" observationally-based principle which was called the
"principle of selection" (mentioned in the first chapter of Origins),
and then afterwards spoke of the vast variety of lifeforms the world
over and claimed that the known variation processes (dog breeding, bird
speciation, etc. . .) could be seen as an analogy (something much more
hypothetical-- an inference based on extrapolation) taking those minor
changes and turning dinosaurs into birds, land animals into whales, and
apes into men. This analogy goes way too far, though. The evidence
demonstrates that the theory of Evolution (not the "principle of
selection", but the theory which invoked common descent) has gone too
far in its extrapolation. Here's some of the best evidence I've come
across: http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

I'm sure that after you'll read this, I'll be pointed to a handful of
scientific experiments/observations which demonstrate the coming about
of new information (not of very significant levels, but new information
nevertheless). But just look at the paltry number of examples there
are of this being observed, and realize that most of nature is
comprised of a trend that goes the other way. A business can't make
money when it's spending way more than is coming in. The same goes for
evolution.

Living things are not manufactured by anything like the process by
which stereos are manufactured.

And you know this because you saw it happen?

Yet your claim is specifically that
living things are manufactured just like stereos are.

Well, my position actually is that there are correlations between the
two, but not that they are synonymous. Once again, you've been caught
red-handed with straw dust on your hands. I'd say you smell like
straw, even.

Well, the claim
is that the first living organism(s) [can't even agree on what
organisms this involves] was created just like *all* stereos are,
despite the fact that no *known* living thing has ever been created
just like *any* stereo.

The claim is that a mental process (that which is something other than
a blind process) was involved-- that is all.

We can either look at blind processes as the route by which we all got
here or nonblind processes. Nonblind processes just make more sense.

To ID, the stereo system just is there, with everything already
plugged in.

Not at all true. Various aspects of it's components can be discussed
when bringing forward the evidence of intelligent design-- everything
from parts used in other devices to the arrangement of the laser
assembly in the cd-rom drive being irreducibly complex. There's alot
to be discussed when it comes to stereos.

And nothing of relevance wrt evidence to living things.

That's a mighty bold assertion you have there. It's way off, but at
least it's bold.

There is also no discussion of how
and why evolution would establish appropriate neuropathways (and new
novel neurotransmitters) for such intricately detailed and precise
processes such as vision transmission.

Anyway, the presentation starts with already formed light detecting
cells in "primitive" worm creatures which live underwater, and then
some variation process occurs and a cupping of that tissue seems to
take place enabling them to have some sort of advantage because the
vision is now directional. Then we've got a claim that the eye cupped
even more to form a hollow ball with an opening at the front (an iris
that opens and closes-- Hey how'd the organism get those muscle fibers
to develop connections with the brain to be able to do that????).

The shape of the eyeball is due to differential growth during
development, not muscle fibers.

Read my statement again. I was bringing up the coming about of the
iris (which is comprised of muscle).

Only some organisms have irises in their eyes. And isn't the
musculature of the eye's irises a rather unsurprising feature?

I see the feature as quite amazing in that the constricting and
dilating can not only help in the adjustment to various light levels,
but also to depth of field in the focussing department (our pupils
constrict when we look at things that are near, and that's done for a
purpose). The muscle apparatus is intricately constructed (dare I say
"designed"?) to be highly effective in what it does.

Yet it, like everything else in life, is a modification of pre-existing
systems. In this case, muscles similar to those in skin that cause
your hairs to stand up.

You can go on believing that if you want to. Just don't try to say
that this isn't an expectation of the biotic message of creation,
because that'd be wrong.

And the fact that organisms actually
exist that have these putative intermediate states

Do you really think there's a creature out there with an iris
(comprised of muscles) which is there but lacks the wiring for the
actions of constriction and dilation? That would be a good
intermediate for you to show me.

Intermediates in the shape of the eye cup. I would suppose that some
of these have muscles that help to regulate the shape of the opening.

But what known creature has muscle without innervation for
constricting/dilating?

Muscles and their innervation go together. Nerves find (during
development) muscles to innervate. What you are talking about is what
triggers those particular nerves.

This pretty much goes right back to the pathway that connects the
photosensing eyespot to the flagellum. I covered that above.

and we know enough
to be able show what kind of advantage a pinhole or cup-shaped eye
would produce seemingly is not knowledge you are aware of.

Well, I'm aware that there are a good variety of eyes out there.

Are you aware that Cambrian trilobites with double lensed eyes have NO
precursor in the fossil record?

And? Trilobites, of course, actually precede extensive fossilization
because some precede shelly parts.

There are a number of examples of jellyfish in the fossil record, so

Are you aware of how *few* jellyfish there are in the fossil record!

Hundreds.

These jellyfish fossils found in Wisconsin were all in a series of
strata layers that spanned around 12 vertical feet:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/fossils.asp

where are the many precursors of trilobites (with their very simple
eyes)? Let me guess: You will claim that evolution can make rather
fast strides (geologically speaking) to accomplish changes that end up
unrecorded in the fossil record. To that I only have this as a
response:

It is demonstrablely true that the amount of change possible by
selection can be so fast that it could not be recorded by the fossil
record *for most organisms* that only rarely become fossilized.

This is a very weak argument.

So you need to look at change in the types of organisms that *are*
fossilized well, such as the foramniferans. In science, we try to draw
inference from places with the best evidence rather than from places
with the least.

"Any claim that natural selection operated with great effect exactly
where it was least likely to be documented-- in small, localized,
transitory populations-- would have seemed to render Darwin's new
theory almost preposterous as a scientific proposition." S.M. Stanley,
"Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (San Francisco: Freeman, 1979), p.
6.-- Brought to my attention in Lester and Bohlin's "The Natural Limits
to Biological Change".

Sounds like a quote-mine to me.

Care to provide info on where I went wrong?

In fact, the evidence (in those
organisms with the best fossil record rather than the worst) says that
small isolated populations are indeed a major source of variation.
This is also consistent with the observation of founder effects on
islands.

All you've done here is to cite that which pertains to Darwin's
"principle of selection" which is not Evolution on a macro scale. In
order for the latter to be established as viable, we would need to have
good in-the-field observational evidence that new cell-composed
morphology (with new/additional function inherent) can come about via
evolving proceses in multicellular organisms. Where is this evidence?

Of course sea water is the basic fluid of the eyeball at this point,
but there's not a mention of how this fluid was replaced with clear
vitreous fluid-- a very specific fluid that happens to need to be
clear, and not opaque. . . There is nary a mention of the cells that
would have to come about in order to accomplish the intricate process
of producing this fluid.

Cell exudates tend not be opaque.

http://library.thinkquest.org/25607/anatomyParts.php3
Regarding the aqueous humor, we find this statement: "It has a chemical
composition similar to blood plasma but lacking the high protein
content of the latter"

And blood plasma is relatively clear. Especially if it lacks high
protein levels.

So let's say we have an eye that just had a cornea go from not quite
fully covering over a sea-water-filled open-system eye to (in one
generation) completely enclosing the front of the eye. And let's say
plasma (instead of sea water) was what managed to fill this
unprecedented closed-system eyeball. I'm not sure where this plasma
would be coming from,

Do you think your coelom is filled with air?

No animal has an air-filled eyeball. If we are at all a product of
creatures of the past, they didn't have air-filled eyeballs either.

but maybe there's a mutation that goes along with
the corneal covering mutation which causes some blood vessels to leak
plasma into the eyeball until it's filled. It may not be as clear as
the sea water, but it might be clear enough to let the organism still
live a reasonably decent life.

Now the plasma would be sitting there in the eye while the corneal
cells, various retinal cells, and uvea, and or iris cells slough off
and subsequently degenerate without a way to be removed. (Remember that
the precursor organisms had a free flow of sea water in the eye, so
this wasn't such an issue.) There would be no outlet system
established yet. (nothing like Schlemm's canal). Just an inlet for the
plasma fluid (which, by the way would not have a way out other than the
rather slow process of reabsorption into tissue or blood vessels that
happen to be around. What's to keep the pressure in this eye from
building up above a level which might staunch appropriate blood flow in
the retinal tissue? This is a glaucoma problem just waiting to happen
right off the bat.) Anyway, the main point is that within a few days
of the birth of this creature, the vitreous would be starting to cloud
with metabolic byproducts and sloughed off cell material.

In other words we'd have a creature with eyes that are WORSE than the
eyes of its parents. Doesn't selection weed out orgaanisms that aren't
as well suited for survival?

Well, *IF* your completely hypothetical problems were, in fact, REAL
problems rather than purely hypothetical ones,

They are certainly more realistic than the wildly optimistic ideas you
espouse.

there might be a need
for an explanation. Why do I need to come up with real solutions to
imaginary problems?

Explain to me what's so imaginary about a seawater-filled eye having
to-- once fully sealed-- produce its own rightly pressurized fluid in
order to not have some serious problems.

If there were a high protein content, the vision would be much worse
off for the organism. In fact, it would seem to me that the sea water
(open eye vision system, as opposed to a closed eye vision system)
would be considerably better.

Also it must be pointed out that the vitreous and aqueous humor fluid
of the eye are not just "cell exudates" as you're purporting.

"The fluid also provides nutrition for the lens and also for the
cornea, both of which are devoid of blood vessels; the steady renewal
and drainage serve to bring into the eye various nutrient substances,
including glucose and amino acids, and to remove waste products of
metabolism."

The vitreous fluid is a fluid with some very fine-tuned properties.

Of course. Evolution is in the business of optimizing features for
particular function. I would be surprised if, by now, it had not
optimized those features it could, such as clarity.

Clarity would be out the window rather quickly in this eye evolving
scenario.

This purely hypothetical scenario.

REALISTIC.

In fact, although the chambered
nautilus eye is a pinhole eye, I would imagine that most eyes that are
sealed from the outside by the ectoderm never experienced the pinhole
state of being open to the outside environment.

I never purported that this represents my position. Interesting
thought, though.

Also, I need to point out here that without an inflow and outflow
regulator for that fluid, a creature that was undergoing an evolving of
an open eye (with sea water directly in the enclosed area) to a closed
eye (with magically appearing vitreous humor) would have no inflow and
outflow regulators established to keep the intraocular pressure from
getting too low (where there's a problem with potential eyeball
deflation) or too high (which can cut off blood supply in the nerve
tissue and render the organism blind). Have you even thought of this
at all?

Why do you think that this would be a problem? Tissues absorb and
exude liquids all the time. That is a process hardly unique to eyes.

But there wouldn't be time to establish the rates of inflow or outflow
in this initially evolved creature. We'd have a very high likelihood
of things going wrong with this prime example of evolution on a
macro-scale.

Because you want there to have been a problem? Sorry. That does not
mean that there must have been a problem.

Have you ever wondered why it is that you never want to look into these
kinds of problems. You are just totally buying these optimistic ideas.
Doesn't that at all make you feel the least bit uneasy?

Then we're supposed to think that a clear dome (cornea) just shows up

It is creationists who think that the cornea "just shows up", being
poofed into existence by their favoite fairy.

The only way one can go from an optic pit (over many generations) to a
partial corneal covering to a completely closed-system eye would be for
this corneal tissue to have grown in via evolving processes. If that's
not "just showing up" (at least in a gradual manner), I don't know what
is.

I think the cornea
evolved from overlying transparent skin, which became better and better
adapted to its current function.

What you need to acknowledge here is that you understand that in one
generation there had to be an open-system seawater-filled eye having to
jump immediately into a closed system plasma-filled eye.

No. In fact the open seawater filled eye may not have actually existed
for most eyes.

Well, then what's all this talk about an optic cup then?

The fact remains that the cornea *is* evolved/derived
from overlying transparent extoderm, as is the lens. That is what
developmental biology tells us.

Then you need to acknowledge the problems which would have to be
overcome at this particular step.

You mean the purely hypothetical problems you propose that may or may
not actually have ever been real problems?

See above.

for some reason and stays clear all on its own (and for some reason
there's no mention of how the epithelium, stroma, and endothelium of
the cornea established a way of keeping sea water from getting into
that tissue and constantly clouding it up. But I digress. . .

No. You do not digress. You are simply ignorant and inconsistent.
First you claim that sea water was useful because it was clear (unlike
cell exudates)

well, yes it doesn't have a cornea to cloud up in an organism with no
cornea.

and now if sea water gets in it will constantly cloud
things up. Choose one or the other but not both.

The mutated-into-place transparent membrane of tissue covering over the
eye wouldn't have a way of keeping itself from becoming opaque without
the pre-established mechanisms of the endothelium (which have an exact
pump capability to keep things in balance). . . but you already knew
that.

And since the cornea had the pre-established mechanisms of endothelium
rather than merely being poofed into place by a fairy in a fairy tale,
this is a problem because...?

The corneal endothelium that might have been present (in a
growing-inward process) before the eye became a closed system would
have been dealing with nothing other than one particular salinity--
that of seawater (whether it was outside the eye or within the optic
cup). Once the eyeball became a closed system, though, we'd have to
have endothelium pump capability going on pretty much from day one (or
else the cornea would not be very clear for the fledgling organism).

Face it-- this creature is dead in the water. BLIND AS A BAT!

Corneas, of course, can become opaque
eventually, but usually only after reproductive age (when the usual
selective pressure weakens).

I'd say the creature might have a few days of clear vitreous/plasma and
clear cornea after its birthday, but shortly thereafter-- it's curtains
for old blindy. And I think it's time for you to admit it's curtains
for your dismally simple ideas of eye evolution.

So you keep claiming...without even a hint of actual evidence that it
would be a real problem.

Well, you seem to make claims about how an optic cup might have always
had a corneal covering and fluid between it and the photodetector cells
without a hint of evidence. No evolutionist I've ever encountered has
endorsed this particular just-so story. Why is your story differing
from everyone else's ?

Oh, and then there's this neat little story about a lens which just
somehow evolves into a place that had no such tissue there a number of
generations ago -- and the storyteller again avoids giving any
description of how the lens manages to maintain the proper balance of
hydration so it doesn't cloud up, or have opaque cells. There's also
no mention of the lens zonules and what created them from thin air(or
should I say vitreous fluid)or how cells could go about producing them
(after some co-opting process "pressed them into a new function").

Producing clear cells is not that hard when there is constant pressure
to keep the layers clear and even to optimize them for greater vision.
What do you think would happen if there were a mutational change that
caused a lens to become opaque?

Of course it would end up not being helpful for vision.

Indeed. So the fact that clarity is present is hardly surprising given
that any change from clarity would be selected against.

What I have a hard time swallowing here is that mutations alone can
account for forming a lens in a place where once there was no lens in
the members of the precursor population of organisms.

Your problems with swallowing are not my concern. I suggest you look
at how and from what tissue lenses are derived developmentally. Lenses
are modified ectoderm.

School textbooks are removing much of their content on recapitulation I
hope you know. Why are they doing this? It's because quite a few
people were not at all happy about all these schoolkids learning things
that just weren't true.

Lenses are still modified ectoderm even when recapitulation is removed.
I wasn't proposing this as recapitulation.

Coulda fooled me.

It is a *fact* that lenses
are modifed ectoderm.

Well, I wouldn't use the word modified. I'd use the term
"differentiated".

It developmentally derives from embryonic
ectoderm (as does the cornea) by budding off from the embryonic
ectoderm. It would be modified ectoderm if recapitualtion were true.

So then let's call it differentiated ectoderm, since it is false.

It would be modified ectoderm if recapitualtion were false.

When a major prediction of evolution is knocked down, there's never a
falsification of the theory. If the fall of recapitulation had
falsified the ToE many years ago, we'd all be calling it differentiated
ectoderm.

Do you
know *any* developmental biology of the eye? <snip>

I studied it in my college days, and I'm proud to say I got an A in
that course. Why do you ask?

Saying evolution is supported at all by prebirth development is just
not a very strong argument at all.

And the fact remains that the lens is *still* modified ectoderm.
Knowing, for example, that the retina does not need to "connect" with
the nervous system, but developmentally is derived from the developing
brain does help one to understand that some of the "problems" you claim
for the evolution of the eye are just personal ignorance on your part.

When I refer to connections, I am-- at least when referring to
mammals-- referring to the optic nerve, chiasma, and optic radiations.
See http://www.answers.com/optic%20radiations

"The optic radiations consist of axons of relay neurons in the lateral
geniculate nucleus (LGN) which run from the LGN to the visual cortex."

They are connected together to relay information from the eyes to the
visual cortex. To say I'm somehow "ignorant" because the word
connections had been used is sounding a little desperate there, Howard.

The optic vesicle contacts overlying ectoderm
and induces it to invaginate to generate the lens placode (initially a
hollow ball, which fills in as the cells elongate to form first primary
lens fibers). After the initial contact, the optic vesicle recedes to
form the optic cup. *Any* ectoderm can be induced to form a lens if it
comes in contact with the tissue of the optic vesicle at the right
stage, including a lens on yer arse, so to speak. In fact, if you
remove the lens from a salamander, the lens will regenerate from the
surrounding iris ectoderm. A lens *is* modified ectoderm.

It certainly has to come about via a process, I'd agree with you there.
But I'd also point out that there's a blueprint for this masterfully
designed equipment like the lens (and all the other parts).

Where is this blueprint and what does it look like?

Ever heard of the double helix which contains encoded instructions? If
you are in one breath going to call me ignorant, at least ask smart
questions in the next breath.

Modifying
pre-existing material is what evolution does.

Prebirth development involves specialization of cells with all sorts of
potential, directed by genetic instructions. Evolution is basically an
inference that requires much more than observation of how a zygote or
fetus develops. There is a faith involved.

And whining "Ain't so." is not a very impressive argument. Evolution,
of course, *has* to be consistent with development. And development
can be such a jury-rigged, illogical process that it would make the
idea of such a manufacturing process being "designed" a slur on the
competence of the designer.

I'll let you take that up with your Creator sometime down the road.
I'm not going to argue about your perceptions of what's somehow wrong
with the development stages creatures go through.

To me, I think they were set up the way they were to throw a wrench
into blind-processes expectations where commonly descended creatures
would be thought to have ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, and an
easily seen pattern of evolving (ie. ToE).

It is creationism and
its *** and abandoned child, ID, (at least creationists keep
claiming that ID is not their child, despite Judge Jones' determination
of paternity) that think that lenses poof into existence.

Well, then we'll just say it-- in the evolutionary viewpoint-- had to
have come from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence over the
course of many, many generations, and leave it at that.

Again, I'll point you to the trilobites (with well-arranged eyes) which
generally show up without precursors in the fossil record.

Do you think it would persist in the
population (assuming vision had selective value)?

I don't think lenses would ever have a chance of forming at all. But
if you want to believe that, I'd say that's fine. People believe all
sorts of things without any observational data. . .

I do not have to believe that lenses are modified ectoderm.

No, but you have to believe that a creature that used to have no lens
had offspring a number of generations later which DID have crystalline
lenses.

I can certainly see a pathway of increasing doable step-like
improvement by which overlying ectoderm can *become* a modern lens.

But without the inherent instructions in the genome to make such a
lens, wouldn't a rare random mutation making a crystalline lens be
incredibly more likely to make it way too big or small, or not to be a
shape that helps vision at all, or maybe sitting in front of the iris
instead of behind the iris and thus block the anterior chamber fluid
flow (again raising the intraocular pressure to a very dangerous
level)? To me there's a lot more that can go wrong with one of these
major-change-in-structure mutations than can go right.

I do not see a modern lens simply poofing into existence. A creationist
does.

You're in denial about what certain aspects of evolution would have to
do, then. See what I wrote a moment ago about the sudden coming into
being of the crystalline lens.

Developmental biology show me it is. I have *observational data* that
says that lenses are nothing but modified overlying ectoderm.

I have evidence that it takes genetic instructions to build that
structure in a way that isn't going to ruin other systems and other
structural development.

So, for the lens, what genetic instructions would that be?

Do you want me to name the gene(s), or would a
DNA-code-to-make-the-lens suffice?

Where is
your evidence that some fairy poofed lenses into existence at some
unspecified place and time?

I'd say that's more of a question for you to answer, because according
to the theory of Evolution things that used to not be there can--over
many generations-- spring forth naturalistically.

Which is not the mechanism of magical poofing. Lenses exist *because*
there is a pathway by which doable step-wise events (starting with a
clear overlying ectoderm) can improve the lens-like function in ways
that some environments favor. If there were no such pathway or no such
environments favoring such events, lenses could not exist.

I'd say that if there were no such code for the lens, lenses could not
exist.

All we have is a nice little story so kids and true believers can get
indoctrinated about how blind processes are an amazing tool utilized by
nature.

All this from a short journalistic account, not the actual paper.

I'll give you a challenge, Howard. Show me an actual paper that does
anything other than speculate with words like "might have", "could be",
and vague "co-opted it" statements. Show me an actual paper that
addresses the things Sean Pitman brought up above.

Sean Pitman is an expert at creating strawmen that he can demolish.
Alas, demolishing strawmen will not get you a spot on an amateur boxing
card, much less a bout with a contender.

No strawmen here. Just accounting for details that can't be shoved
under the rug.

A hodge-podge of claims that all the features of a modern eye must poof
into existence in one swell foop is a strawman argument.

The argument has its basis in reality, which is a far cry from your
feeble overly optimistic scenarios for eye come-uppance.

Any good scientific paper that deals with things that must be inferred
from evidence and knowledge of how things work today *should* be
phrased in words like "might have" and "could be". It is only papers
that propose supernatural entities doing things for which there is NO
evidence whatsoever

Again, see the evidence in my sig.

that seem to imply that they actually *know* the
answer with such certain that they have no need for such qualifiers.

ID deals in probabilities, not absolutes.

ID deals in false dichotomies, bogus ordering of tests, and using their
favorite superstition as a "fall-back" explanation rather than the
equivalent "We don't know."

It's not a superstition. Did you read through the evidence in my sig
yet?

When an identification of
"intelligently designed" is stated, it definitely should be prefaced
with a mention that science is tentative, and that the analysis is only
an inferred indication of a good probability that it would have to be
something that's designed (with a consideration of how long the Earth
has been in existence employed in the analysis).

And, of course, the strawman argument against pure non-step-wise
simultaneous multiple changes or its equivalent.

There's nothing strawman-like about pointing out certain points in the
stages of alleged evolution of the eye where rather big jumps would
have to pop up.

If any of you here find that description/story to be a convincing or
impressive display of "science", I'd say you are gullible. Learn more
about the eye, and you'll see it's incredibly more difficult to arrange
the tissue and molecular components than they are making it out to be
in that video.

It's like this: Evolutionists say, "Hey, if we can convince elementary
school children to think evolution on a macro scale is a fact, we won't
have to worry about them later when that which threatens the belief
system might present itself to them. They'll already be brainwashed
enough to not give it any credence."

And such is the state of so-called "science" in our present day. . .

Only if you think that pedagogical simplifications and journalistic
accounts represent science in our present day rather than representing
pedagogical simplifications and journalistic accounts. *snip*

The journalistic or "youtube" accounts may, on the surface, seem less
scientific, but once you see the speculation involved in the science
literature it doesn't take long to realize that they are all on the
same abominable level.

As opposed, of course, to the clearly nonspeculative fully evidenced
idea that some sort of unseeable and unknowable something did something
at some time and some place by some unknowable mechanism to poof into
existence whatever the asserter of such things wants to be poofed into
existence?

Sig time, Howard.

Steve
---
Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind?

Chapters 1 and 2 have your answer:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html

.

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: noctiluca
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: Kleuskes & Moos

• References:
  • Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: Logos
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: ave1
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: hersheyhv
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: ave1
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: hersheyhv
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: ave1
  • Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
    • From: hersheyhv

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: OT: What is this thing with Andy Coulter
• Next by Date: Re: NEWS: How Life Began: New Research Suggests Simple Approach
• Previous by thread: Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
• Next by thread: Re: Results of the Great Evolutionist/ID Debate Thread
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

We are proud to have Web Hosting and Rack Housing from 9 Net Avenue Deutschland.
(11)