Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Evolution is supposed to be able to produce whole new organs, biological systems etc If evolution is occurring now , we should be able to see this.

Do you have any examples of half completed organs or biological systems which are evolving in-progress presently?

The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in survival and reproduction?-success for some, death without offspring for others?-and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants. Excess population growth drives the competitive struggle. Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.

So much for one part of the evolutionary process, known as anagenesis, during which a single species is transformed. But there's also a second part, known as speciation. Genetic changes sometimes accumulate within an isolated segment of a species, but not throughout the whole, as that isolated population adapts to its local conditions. Gradually it goes its own way, seizing a new ecological niche. At a certain point it becomes irreversibly distinct?-that is, so different that its members can't interbreed with the rest. Two species now exist where formerly there was one. Darwin called that splitting-and-specializing phenomenon the "principle of divergence." It was an important part of his theory, explaining the overall diversity of life as well as the adaptation of individual species.

The evidence, as he presented it, mostly fell within four categories: biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology. Biogeography is the study of the geographical distribution of living creatures?-that is, which species inhabit which parts of the planet and why. Paleontology investigates extinct life-forms, as revealed in the fossil record. Embryology examines the revealing stages of development (echoing earlier stages of evolutionary history) that embryos pass through before birth or hatching; at a stretch, embryology also concerns the immature forms of animals that metamorphose, such as the larvae of insects. Morphology is the science of anatomical shape and design. Darwin devoted sizable sections of The Origin of Species to these categories.

Biogeography, for instance, offered a great pageant of peculiar facts and patterns. Anyone who considers the biogeographical data, Darwin wrote, must be struck by the mysterious clustering pattern among what he called "closely allied" species?-that is, similar creatures sharing roughly the same body plan. Such closely allied species tend to be found on the same continent (several species of zebras in Africa) or within the same group of oceanic islands (dozens of species of honeycreepers in Hawaii, 13 species of Galápagos finch), despite their species-by-species preferences for different habitats, food sources, or conditions of climate. Adjacent areas of South America, Darwin noted, are occupied by two similar species of large, flightless birds (the rheas, Rhea americana and Pterocnemia pennata), not by ostriches as in Africa or emus as in Australia. South America also has agoutis and viscachas (small rodents) in terrestrial habitats, plus coypus and capybaras in the wetlands, not?-as Darwin wrote?-hares and rabbits in terrestrial habitats or beavers and muskrats in the wetlands. During his own youthful visit to the Galápagos, aboard the survey ship Beagle, Darwin himself had discovered three very similar forms of mockingbird, each on a different island.

Why should "closely allied" species inhabit neighboring patches of habitat? And why should similar habitat on different continents be occupied by species that aren't so closely allied? "We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout space and time," Darwin wrote. "This bond, on my theory, is simply inheritance." Similar species occur nearby in space because they have descended from common ancestors.

Paleontology reveals a similar clustering pattern in the dimension of time. The vertical column of geologic strata, laid down by sedimentary processes over the eons, lightly peppered with fossils, represents a tangible record showing which species lived when. Less ancient layers of rock lie atop more ancient ones (except where geologic forces have tipped or shuffled them), and likewise with the animal and plant fossils that the strata contain. What Darwin noticed about this record is that closely allied species tend to be found adjacent to one another in successive strata. One species endures for millions of years and then makes its last appearance in, say, the middle Eocene epoch; just above, a similar but not identical species replaces it. In North America, for example, a vaguely horselike creature known as Hyracotherium was succeeded by Orohippus, then Epihippus, then Mesohippus, which in turn were succeeded by a variety of horsey American critters. Some of them even galloped across the Bering land bridge into Asia, then onward to Europe and Africa. By five million years ago they had nearly all disappeared, leaving behind Dinohippus, which was succeeded by Equus, the modern genus of horse. Not all these fossil links had been unearthed in Darwin's day, but he captured the essence of the matter anyway. Again, were such sequences just coincidental? No, Darwin argued. Closely allied species succeed one another in time, as well as living nearby in space, because they're related through evolutionary descent.

Embryology too involved patterns that couldn't be explained by coincidence. Why does the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile? Why is one of the larval forms of a barnacle, before metamorphosis, so similar to the larval form of a shrimp? Why do the larvae of moths, flies, and beetles resemble one another more than any of them resemble their respective adults? Because, Darwin wrote, "the embryo is the animal in its less modified state" and that state "reveals the structure of its progenitor."

Morphology, his fourth category of evidence, was the "very soul" of natural history, according to Darwin. Even today it's on display in the layout and organization of any zoo. Here are the monkeys, there are the big cats, and in that building are the alligators and crocodiles. Birds in the aviary, fish in the aquarium. Living creatures can be easily sorted into a hierarchy of categories?-not just species but genera, families, orders, whole kingdoms?-based on which anatomical characters they share and which they don't.

All vertebrate animals have backbones. Among vertebrates, birds have feathers, whereas reptiles have scales. Mammals have fur and mammary glands, not feathers or scales. Among mammals, some have pouches in which they nurse their tiny young. Among these species, the marsupials, some have huge rear legs and strong tails by which they go hopping across miles of arid outback; we call them kangaroos. Bring in modern microscopic and molecular evidence, and you can trace the similarities still further back. All plants and fungi, as well as animals, have nuclei within their cells. All living organisms contain DNA and RNA (except some viruses with RNA only), two related forms of information-coding molecules.

Such a pattern of tiered resemblances?-groups of similar species nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single source?-isn't naturally present among other collections of items. You won't find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments, or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry don't reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biological diversity does. The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage.

Evolution is supposed to be able to produce whole new organs, biological systems etc If evolution is occurring now , we should be able to see this.

Do you have any examples of half completed organs or biological systems which are evolving in-progress presently?

real life wrote:

Evolution is supposed to be able to produce whole new organs, biological systems etc If evolution is occurring now , we should be able to see this.

Do you have any examples of half completed organs or biological systems which are evolving in-progress presently?

Populations evolve. Advantageous traits are passed on. Over time, populations change.

Do you have any examples of half completed organs or biological systems which are evolving in-progress in any given population?

If evolution is occurring today, we should see lots and lots of examples of this.

real life wrote:

Evolution is supposed to be able to produce whole new organs, biological systems etc If evolution is occurring now , we should be able to see this.

No... Evolution is supposed to produce advantages. That could mean the lack of an organ or biological system, or the addition of one. There is nothing to state that Evolution requires new organs or biological systems to be created.

real life wrote:

Do you have any examples of half completed organs or biological systems which are evolving in-progress presently?

Your question belies a misunderstanding of the process of Evolution. Changes don't half develop. You either get the mutations or you don't. It's as simple as that.

Every organ and every biological system of every living creature today was the result of evolution, according to it's proponents. Belief in the evolutionary story requires belief that this occurred and that evolution is ongoing today.

So we should see the same thing that we are told has happened countless times in the past, if the story is accurate.

To develop a new organ or biological system, aren't the changes supposed to be small , incremental ones? Not one mutation and BAM you've got a new organ, right?

The eye, for instance, would take quite a number of mutations to develop the various tissues, chemical processes and support that are needed for the eye to function, no?

Now many evolutionists believe that the eye evolved DOZENS of times independently of one another. In this interesting view, we are told that perhaps as many as 40 (or more) critters have evolved eyes without inheriting them from their forebearers.

As unlikely as it is that even 1 eye would evolve, it does seem a stretch to believe that it could happen 40 times.

The example of bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics is a poor one IMHO, and I am surprised that it is so frequently cited. These little critters start as bacteria and end as bacteria. Have any of them produced offspring that were NOT bacteria?

Do you have any examples of half completed organs or biological systems which are evolving in-progress presently?

Of course for populations to evolve, individuals must do so first.

Speciation is generally regarded to result from the splitting of a single lineage. An alternative is hybrid speciation, considered to be extremely rare, in which two distinct lineages contribute genes to a daughter species. Here we show that a hybrid trait in an animal species can directly cause reproductive isolation. The butterfly species Heliconius heurippa is known to have an intermediate morphology and a hybrid genome, and we have recreated its intermediate wing colour and pattern through laboratory crosses between H. melpomene, H. cydno and their F1 hybrids. We then used mate preference experiments to show that the phenotype of H. heurippa reproductively isolates it from both parental species. There is strong assortative mating between all three species, and in H. heurippa the wing pattern and colour elements derived from H. melpomene and H. cydno are both critical for mate recognition by males.

Mavarez J, Salazar CA, Bermingham E, Salcedo C, Jiggins CD, Linares M. Nature. 2006 Jun 15;441(7095):868-71.

dworkin up

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19271

I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.

real life wrote:

The example of bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics is a poor one IMHO, and I am surprised that it is so frequently cited. These little critters start as bacteria and end as bacteria. Have any of them produced offspring that were NOT bacteria?

No. But your claim was that "[n]obody observed evolution and it is not occurring now for us to observe." To refute your claim, I don't have to show you bacteria that evolve into non-bacteria to refute that. All I have to show you is a generation of bacteria featuring distinguishable differences with members of their ancestor generations. Compare Webster, definition 3b, Phylogeny: "[A] theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory".

Maybe -- but it's unknowable in advance, because evolution is not directed towards any pre-specified design goal. Instead, it's directed towards survival, no matter what physical features achieve it. Thus, our present eyes may well be half-completed infrared sensors; our arms may well be half-completed wings; our noses may well be half-completed, elephant-like trunks. I am sure that a million years in the future, some observer will look at our fossils and discover his contemporary organs in some half-completed state. But it's impossible to know in advance what they will be.

real life wrote:

Of course for populations to evolve, individuals must do so first.

No. Populations Evolve. Individuals Change. Every single individual can give rise to a different individual. Those differences can accumulate selectively within a population, resulting in evolution.

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it imply that a bacteria will give birth to a non-bacteria. And your repeated request for examples of this to prove evolution only serve to prove that you don't understand what evolution is.

Quote:

Speciation is generally regarded to result from the splitting of a single lineage. An alternative is hybrid speciation, considered to be extremely rare, in which two distinct lineages contribute genes to a daughter species. Here we show that a hybrid trait in an animal species can directly cause reproductive isolation. The butterfly species Heliconius heurippa is known to have an intermediate morphology and a hybrid genome, and we have recreated its intermediate wing colour and pattern through laboratory crosses between H. melpomene, H. cydno and their F1 hybrids. We then used mate preference experiments to show that the phenotype of H. heurippa reproductively isolates it from both parental species. There is strong assortative mating between all three species, and in H. heurippa the wing pattern and colour elements derived from H. melpomene and H. cydno are both critical for mate recognition by males.

Mavarez J, Salazar CA, Bermingham E, Salcedo C, Jiggins CD, Linares M. Nature. 2006 Jun 15;441(7095):868-71.

Here is an example of an intermediate species created from the mating of two different species to form a third. Yes, they may still be butterlifes, but they are still different species.

If my kids are taller and stronger than I and are more resistant to the flu, is it because they have 'evolved'? They show distinguishable differences with their ancestors, don't they?

What if their kids are small and prone to flu? Have they 'evolved'? For they too show distinguishable differences with their ancestors, right?

Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics need not have 'evolved' but may indeed have the ability to resist harmful environmental agents, just as we do.

Now if evolution truly is taking place, we ought also (besides all the micro examples that everybody seems to wish demonstrate the theory) be able to see some half finished organs and biological systems.

Or the lungs , half finished and without a trach?

When the first living critter supposedly popped itself together from non-living matter, it had better be instantly successful at nourishing itself, excreting waste, protecting itself against chemical destruction, reproducing itself etc.

And it had better do it in a hurry because likely it's life span was short , similar to one celled critters today.

If it wasn't instantly successful at all of these endeavors, the result is death and it's back to the ol' drawing board for Random Chance to try to 'evolve' a living being from dead matter.

There really wasn't any room for half-measures.

Evolution absolutely includes the idea that one celled critters did indeed produce multi-celled critters as their direct offspring.

It also necessitates that non-birds produced birds and non-mammals produced mammals as their direct offspring, etc.

Your continual effort to run from this very obvious consequence of evolution is quite interesting.

They are different 'species' only because we have arbitrarily decided to call them such.

All taxonomical distinctions are, by definition , arbitrary.

So, pointing to numerous similar critters and intoning , 'they are all different species' is really saying nothing.

By some definitions of 'species' , the qualifying critter cannot interbreed with a member of another 'species' . If we use that criteria, then obviously we didn't start with two 'species' here at all. Both mom and pop in your example were members of the same species , if interbreeding is the line of demarcation.

It also necessitates that non-birds produced birds and non-mammals produced mammals as their direct offspring, etc.