Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

[Ivellious]

That particular item I don't know much about. I'm presuming they would have based it on something near the ear that other primates have that we don't, though I'm not sure if that example is still valid or not. But jlay, how do you explain the list of legitimate vestigial structures and DNA traces, the ones that aren't randomly there?

[jlay]

I,

I have read through Talk Origins Vestigial claims. Would vestigiality, if true, support Darwinism?

Let's take for example the best claims they have. That is, certain creatures who live in total darkness. They will have a vestigial eye so to speak. The eye does not function, or skin has grown over a functioning eye so that it doesn't work. Yet, there is still DNA for a functioning eye. This is an example of adaptation. Has the genetic code grown or been enhanced? The genetic code has not grown. One might hypothesize that function could return over generations is environmental pressures dictated. If evolution works this way, then humans are not at the top of the genetic code. There must have been an ancestor (for everything) that had every possible function, and then over time traits were lost. (Perhaps a giant molecular blob with wings, tail, flippers, webbed feet, claws) Of course this begs the question, where did the original ancestor and its traits come from? DNA is genetic code. I really don't care if genetic info is lost or swithced off. Tell me how DNA came to be in the first place.
These are obvious problems with vestigiality yet seem to be ignored. Devolving is not evolving. Only if we take the most basic definiation of evolve, which means change. However then we are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Change (evolution) within a species is not in and of itself evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Did you read my entire post? Let's postulate for a moment that we have solid observable evidence for human vestigiality. How does it support what is necessary for Darwinian evolution?

This would seem to be how DNA is programed. The genetic code is pre-wired for adaptation. DNA really is a miralce.

Please answer the question. Are humans with less skin pigmentation more evolved? Yes or no?

[Stu]

This would seem to be how DNA is programed. The genetic code is pre-wired for adaptation. DNA really is a miralce.

Well put.

Regards the above, I'm no biologist or geneticist but from my view each organism's DNA is a closed system. And as you have pointed out it seems DNA was programmed not only for adaptation, but diversity, and that is where the selection/mutation mechanism comes into play.
When I say closed system, I mean it is limited in the amount of mutation/changes that can occur within DNA (and so amino acids, proteins, etc.) in so far as the overarching body plan is concerned. DNA serves only as a library of info that must still conforms to and constructs the body plan. There is a certain amount of leeway (adaptation + diversity) allowed but beyond that it becomes harmful as it conflicts with the body plan.

This is another reason that the "DNA makes, makes RNA, makes man" dogma is flawed because it leaves out the evolution of the all-important blue print for life. Where exactly does that fit into the neo-Darwinian theory. It doesn't, which totally amazes me....

[zoegirl]

The whole "more evolved" or 'less evolved", especially with regards to skin pigmentation, is not accurate. With each level of pigmentation, it fits with its environment. For each phenotype we see, according to selection, each has survived, allowed for more reproduction. There is no "more evolved" at least with this example.

Vestigial organs support they idea that change can occur and that's why it has been elevated to such a position. But it doesn't show the addition of information, at least with regards to new structures that macroevolution, or evolution throughout history that is being postulated. It supports selection (which most of us would not object to), but it provides no real clue as to the development of new structures.

Remember, for selection itself does not bring new information to the table. Gene flow, sexual recombination, and mutations do that...and of those three, mutations, either chromosomal (large sections repeated or transposed) or DNA (point), are the ones that can increase the level of new structures or change them.

[jlay]

Stu,
Yes. It would seem that there is something in DNA that can turn off or on certain functions based on environmental pressures. In other words it is pre-wired. If it is pre-wired, then how and why? How would non-intelligence know to design such a switch for something that may or may not be useful in the future?

As you hinted, there is nothing within the claims of vestigiality that conflicts with a closed system.
Certainly there is nothing that I can see, regarding vestigiality, that would support Darwinism or 'goo to you' evolution.

The whole "more evolved" or 'less evolved", especially with regards to skin pigmentation, is not accurate. With each level of pigmentation, it fits with its environment. For each phenotype we see, according to selection, each has survived, allowed for more reproduction. There is no "more evolved" at least with this example.

Zoe, I understand. The problem is that pro-Darwinist are in fact holding vestigiality as evidence for that very thing. As I said, it is the common fallacy of equivocation. The connection is is being inferred.
I agree it's not accurate. I would just like to hear a Darwinist repeat what you said above. That being that Vestigiality does NOT support molecules to man evolution. If one is holding to vestigiality as supporting Darwinism, and Darwinism does defend lower life forms 'evoloving' into higher ones, then the problem is legit. Zoe, I think you'd be hard pressed to get a Darwinists to say that vestigiality doesn't support lower to higher life form evolution.

Mutations, recomombination are still working with what exists. But of course that is another topic. When we get into topics like copy number variation, from reading Behe, Meyer and others, what you find is that starting points and presuppostions greatly impact how one interprets just what is happening. You and I are genetically unique. But we aren't genetically new. The fact is that we have mapped the genome. We know how to spot mutations. Mutations stand out, yet the overall body plans and blueprints don't. The fact that we can spot a mutation is as much evidence for the contrary.

Here is a link to an article critiqueing creationis objections.
http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2008/12 ... formation/
The point I want to focus on is this. Evolutionists are claiming that losses of info are as much evidence as are increases.

Evolution, or adaptation to the environment, has unquestionably occurred. But what has happened to the genomes of the organisms?

This is speaking of a loss of info regarding tail length. This is presented as if the creationist disgrees. They don't. The problem is that this is the fallacy of equivocation. Evolution, (change) did occur. So they take one agreed upon definition of the word, and then equivocate that definition to a different usage of the word all together. Evolution (change) equals Darwinism. So, they are in fact stating exactly what I am talking about above. Please tell me how pigment is any different. You and I may know it is, but that is NOT this issue. Consistency is. If one's arguments are founded in fallacy, then why trust the rest? This fallacy is so common, and deeply rooted in Darwinism that people don't even spot it.

[Ivellious]

jlay...I'll get to this later (I'm at school and don't have much time right now). But you may want to actually take a look at the Theory of Evolution and what actual scientists think about it. As you've explained, evolution is not one single idea, it is a large collection of interrelated concepts, mainly coming together to support the overall concept of one common ancestor of all life. No scientist will tell you vestigial structures and DNA themselves are arguments for macroevolution as a process...Rather, it helps us put together a tree of life where we can demonstrate how species are related. Along with the fossil record, DNA analysis/comparisons, morphological differences and similarities, etc. vestigial structures help us clearly identify the paths that evolution has taken and clearly show the inter-relatedness.

[jlay]

I,
Your post infers that I have not taken a look at the theory of evolution. Pardon me, but that sounds a little insulting. Although not a scientist, I have taken college level science, and have done more than a little reading on the theory of evolution.

No scientist will tell you vestigial structures and DNA themselves are arguments for macroevolution as a process...

REally? So, you have spoken to all scientist?
http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evol ... age12.html
Apparantly not. How many evolutionary scienctist are even distinquishing macro and micro?

vestigial structures help us clearly identify the paths that evolution has taken and clearly show the inter-relatedness.

Clearly? If you have any clear testable and observable evindece that clearly shows inter-relatedness, i'm all for seeing it.

Again you make a fallacy.
The fossil record is a record of death. The fossil record does contain evidence of extinction. Kinds that couldn't adapt, and therefore failed.
What you really have is a bunch of blurry things, then one lumps them altogether, and says, "See how clear!!" It is like the lines in the tree. Take two kinds, draw a line connecting them, and say, "See how clear evolution is?" A line is not evidence. You presume evolution (Darwinism) to have taken place. And so, the evidence is read in a way to support such. The reality is that vestigiality in no ways supports the tree. In fact, it undermines it.

[Stu]

Stu,
Yes. It would seem that there is something in DNA that can turn off or on certain functions based on environmental pressures. In other words it is pre-wired. If it is pre-wired, then how and why? How would non-intelligence know to design such a switch for something that may or may not be useful in the future?

Good question, I don't know

On a related note epigenetics is the next major stumbling block facing neo-Darwinism, as it effects the expression of genes. As with so many aspects of Darwinism we have yet another "chicken and egg" scenario with no answer seemingly forthcoming.
So like the rest the failings it's simply put aside, and hopefully forgotten, until the answer one day arrives, because of course neo-Darwinism is a fact.

In the end Darwinism is a hollow theory, it has failed to explain the most basic and fundamental aspects of life over and over again, and this increases with each new revelation of just how stunningly complex and integrated the systems that govern life are. It truly is the most spectacular house of cards I have ever come across. Until I started doing the research I thought the theory was as sound as they come. I trusted that the scientists were committed to the truth -- not a truth forced through a 'naturalist prism'. How wrong I was. It's very foundations and mechanism never observed or shown to be even close to functional, yet it's defended so vehemently more than likely as it is currently the only viable (popular) option available. At least men (who are committed to naturalism) like Gould recognised this fact and attempted to adjust the theory accordingly instead of doggedly forcing the data to fit the theory rather than the other way around.

[sandy_mcd]

I,
Your post infers that I have not taken a look at the theory of evolution. Pardon me, but that sounds a little insulting. Although not a scientist, I have taken college level science, and have done more than a little reading on the theory of evolution.

What sources exactly have you consulted?

If evolution works this way, then humans are not at the top of the genetic code.

Scientists do not make the claim that humans are the top of the genetic code. There is not even a measurement of "height" which would give a "top".

Devolving is not evolving.

Yes, it is. Losing things is as much a part of evolution as gaining things.

Are humans with less skin pigmentation more evolved? Yes or no?

Scientists don't use "more evolved" in that context. [I did a search in the literature and the first 2 pages of results had no biological references.]

reality is that vestigiality in no ways supports the tree. In fact, it undermines it.

How so? It is perfectly consistent with evolution, as zoegirl explained above.

one is holding to vestigiality as supporting Darwinism, and Darwinism does defend lower life forms 'evoloving' into higher ones, then the problem is legit. Zoe, I think you'd be hard pressed to get a Darwinists to say that vestigiality doesn't support lower to higher life form evolution,

Scientists don't talk about lower and higher life forms evolving. I googled that and found Creationist sites except for one scientist who said this:

Wade makes one of the most fundamental errors of evolutionary thinking when he writes about "higher" and "lower" on the "evolutionary scale."

This is presumably why Ivellious suggested you read what scientists say about evolution.



Out of curiosity, just how do you explain the fossil record? Did all life forms basically exist at one time and the unadaptable ones subsequently die off in various calamities? or what? Did man coexist with dinosaurs?

[Stu]

Yes, it is. Losing things is as much a part of evolution as gaining things.

As with everything in life be it biological, mechanical or otherwise; breaking or losing components is significantly easier to accomplish than building or gaining a trait.

Is devolution part of evolutionary theory. Yes. But you cannot point to loss of function as proof of gain of function, or macro-evolution. They form part of the wider evolutionary theory but proceed in opposite directions.

Out of curiosity, just how do you explain the fossil record?

What is it exactly about the fossil record that puzzles you from a creationists perspective?

[jlay]

Scientists do not make the claim that humans are the top of the genetic code. There is not even a measurement of "height" which would give a "top".

My wording was poor. Sandy, I apologize for being sloppy in some of the terms. I'm not writing this for peer review. I understand that evolutionists do not require complexity, nor would they use terms such as top of the genetic code. But, I will show in a moment that the implications are all within the foundational bricks of the theory itself. I understand that depending on the context of the conversation science will or will not use certain terms. But this is an issue of semmantics. This wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if we all spoke in tech talk. We can examine the official terms and discuss it in practical matters.

When we look at humans and their complex body types, evolution theory is proposing a tree (bottom up) that originates with the simple and thru natural processes arrives at the more complex. This being that every living thing today evoloved from a simpler form. It says that the simplest (I'd say lowest, and so would Darwin BTW) early life form, through NS, gene drift, mutation, eventually led to the complex. (highest) Now, before you scream foul. I am not saying that science is saying this is always immediately successive. I understand that they are saying that there can be neutral, negative and positive change. But at the end of the day we have humans. At the beginning, no humans. And (According to Darwinism) this started with a lower, simpler form of life. And that now today, humans, chimps and at some more distant branch the mole rat, are all descended. Therefore the tree is an ascension of complexity from lower to higher.
I understand the implications of saying highest and lowest. A banana is not higher than a mole rat per se. But certainly before racial implications were taboo and not PC there was certainly dabbling in the consequences I am referring to.

Do we have any evidence of starting with the simplest life form, losing information, and producing a unique Phylum, Kingdom? Can a loss move us to more complexity? Vestigiality can perhaps account for a loss. But how does it account for the complexity of what is now being lost? Loss of information will not support anything other than perhaps speciation at the most and diveristy within species at the least. Speciation is a flatline. Vestigiality requires that those complex structures already exist. Unless you consider an eye simple. Let's say an appendix is the result of atrophy. How does this in any way account for the origins of the appendix in the first place? Hint: It doesn't. But you are saying it's consistent. Throw it in the "change" pot and stir it all together. Consistency? hardly. Saying that the loss of a complex organ is consistent with the origination of a complex organ is well, inconsistent.

Is a human without an appendix more complex or less complex? Are they less human? How about pigmentation?

Scientists don't use "more evolved" in that context.

Well, we can argue semmantics if you like.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145336.htm
"The Great Oxidation Event is what irreversibly changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible," says research team member Dominic Papineau of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory

I guess you've never read Darwin's book, the descent of man. Chapter one: Chapter I - The Evidence of the Descent of Man from some Lower Form
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... nt_of_man/
Maybe in your world the terms more complex, advanced, and higher don't have the same meaning they do in mine. So, I apologize for saying, "more evolved." It was a poor choice of words. But it doesn't negate the implications of the actual terms being used.

How so? It is perfectly consistent with evolution, as zoegirl explained above.

I'll let Zoe speak for herself. As for you, you seem to be committing the same fallacy. Vestigiaity is an example of change. (evolution) So what? Saying it is consistent is not the same as showing it is consistent. All that is doing is equivocating. That being that "change", any change, is a check in the box for the theory of evolution. Sorry, but that reasoning doesn't hold up, scientifically speaking.

Out of curiosity, just how do you explain the fossil record? Did all life forms basically exist at one time and the unadaptable ones subsequently die off in various calamities? or what? Did man coexist with dinosaurs?

You will have to be more specific. The fossil record is a record of death. No one witnessed it's formation. But we do know that it is global. We know that geological strata that contain the record are consistent globally, with local anomalies. Limestone, shale, sandstone, etc. Without catastrophy there wouldn't be a fossil record as we know it. When nature takes her course, dead animals and plants are scanenged and decayed, not prerserved in the way the fossil record reveals. Slow gradual processes are not good at supporting such results. Rapid deposition does.

As with the fallacies, another tactic is to try and discredit your critics. Twice now it has been hinted that my knowledge is substandard. In other words, if you don't subscribe to Darwinism then you are simple minded, unread, or uneducated. This says a lot more about Sandy and Ive, IMO. Fortunatley my sister and bro-n-law are both PHDs in the science fields. So, I am able to be quized at a high level. I'm certainly no biologist, nor do I claim to be. I read a lot less now than in the past, but used to read Science Daily, Talk Origins, and other material regarding the basics of evolution.

[zoegirl]

Vetigial organs would be a prime example of selection, but it does not show the development of new structures.

So as support for selection, it's great. I don't think it's the best to show macroevolution. Those structures that are not needed for survival or reproduction are prone to selection. If there is a mutation that affects the function of the eye, in normal populations, those organisms would not survive. But in populations where the eye is not going to be selected for, then those animals survive.

[sandy_mcd]

I'll speculate at the end of all of these questions.

Do we have any evidence of starting with the simplest life form, losing information, and producing a unique Phylum, Kingdom?

I don't understand this question. What is the simplest life form? Tapeworms developed from more complex predecessors. But they did not develop directly from whatever "the simplest lifeform" might mean.

Can a loss move us to more complexity?

I don't understand what this refers to. Who ever made such a claim?

Vestigiality can perhaps account for a loss. But how does it account for the complexity of what is now being lost?

I don't understand the reason for this question. I have never heard that vestigiality is supposed to produce complexity.

say an appendix is the result of atrophy. How does this in any way account for the origins of the appendix in the first place? Hint: It doesn't.

I don't understand the need for this reformulation of the above question. No one has ever claimed this.

Consistency? hardly. Saying that the loss of a complex organ is consistent with the origination of a complex organ is well, inconsistent.

I don't understand why you ask this. There is no reason the explanation for the loss of something has to have anything to do with the explanation for its origin.

Is a human without an appendix more complex or less complex? Are they less human? How about pigmentation?

I don't understand what is meant by "complex" here.

I'll let Zoe speak for herself.

And here is what she says in the next comment, which makes perfect sense.

Vetigial organs would be a prime example of selection, but it does not show the development of new structures.

So as support for selection, it's great. I don't think it's the best to show macroevolution. Those structures that are not needed for survival or reproduction are prone to selection. If there is a mutation that affects the function of the eye, in normal populations, those organisms would not survive. But in populations where the eye is not going to be selected for, then those animals survive.

Very brief explanation of evolution by a non-biologist (this process could be naturalistic or theistic):
Precursor: life started via abiogenesis
Life evolved through changes. Since life obviously (abiogenesis assumed, supported by relative simplicity of earliest fossils) had to start simple, the first changes would have to be to essentially more complex forms.
Once complex forms developed, simpler forms could originate (cf: tapeworms).

There is nothing in evolutionary theory which says that subsequent forms have to be more complex than earlier ones. So the development of tapeworms is not precluded.

From what I have gathered from jlay's posts, his concern is with the development of complexity. Loss of function is consistent with evolution, but it certainly doesn't lead to any increase in complexity. There is no reason it should. Evolution does not require that every process leads to an increase in complexity. The concept of vestigiality does not explain the origin of complexity. No scientist has ever claimed that it does. But vestigiality is still consistent with the evolutionary process.

Evolution is a concise explanation for observations made of the real world, fossils, life forms, genetic information, etc.

[wrain62]

Vestigial organs and remnant features are not really evidence for growing complexity but instead for common descent. One of the cornerstones in evolution theory for the more higher order organisms.

[Stu]

Precursor: life started via abiogenesis
Life evolved through changes. Since life obviously (abiogenesis assumed, supported by relative simplicity of earliest fossils) had to start simple, the first changes would have to be to essentially more complex forms.
Once complex forms developed, simpler forms could originate (cf: tapeworms).

Well that's the point isn't it. Nothing about life, even it's so-called "evolutionary beginning", is simple.
It's the reason abiogenesis has failed over and over, from the Miller-Urey Experiment to the RNA World Hypothesis, to account for the complex integrated systems that govern biological life.

What are these "simple" fossils that are referred to?