tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post5016556971688715389..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: 10 Evidences for Biblical Creation: Part 5RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-9934812957892133312016-02-09T07:20:56.861-05:002016-02-09T07:20:56.861-05:00Steven J,
The cecal valve may not have been obser...Steven J,<br /><br />The cecal valve may not have been observed in Italian wall lizards but I would hesitate to call it novel because it is present in other species of reptiles. Not having observed it doesn't mean it never existed in this species. It's entirely possible that it existed latent in the population and became express when a few members were introduced to a new environment. We've seen similar things happen in other cases and when the adapted animals are returned to the general population, the adaptation usually disappears in a few generations.<br /><br />As to the evolution of the hand, I know you don't believe the hand was designed but simply restating your theory isn't a very compelling rebuttal. Design and purpose are characteristics of created things. When people see complex design in nature, it is evidence there is a Creator behind it. It all goes back to what I've said before – same evidence, different explanations. I think my theory explains design better than yours.<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-25123144875641584962016-02-09T00:00:12.101-05:002016-02-09T00:00:12.101-05:00I brought up cecal valves in Italian wall lizards,...I brought up cecal valves in Italian wall lizards, and the ability to metabolize citrate in <i>E. coli</i>. Are these or are they not "novel traits?" Why or why not?<br /><br />Well, the last common ancestor of mammals and plants was a single-celled organism, probably colorless, so at least to that extent blue and green colors must have evolved separately in separate lineages. There's nothing particularly weird or contrary to theory in the idea of one lineage losing some trait or ability (the GULO pseudogene is an example of such a case among catarrhine primates). On the one hand, it has been suggested that partial colorblindness among most mammals has removed selective pressures for new fur colors. On the other hand, note that blues and greens in most animals are <i>not</i> the results of pigments, but are structural: microscopic structures in a blue jay's feathers, for example, make them appear blue, but there is no actual blue pigment. The lack of blue fur may represent some basic limitation in the structure of hairs. As for blue feathers or blue scales, these most likely evolved independently several times in different lineages.<br /><br />The hand is the result of millions of generations of natural selection on mutations; natural selection is, of course, the antithesis of chance or "dumb luck." At the end of the day, it's obviously a modified forefoot, complete with modified claws (modified in a way seen also in monkeys and apes). It's a prime example of what Darwin called "similar structures used for dissimilar functions" (parahomology), and not what we'd expect from custom design of a unique creation, really.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-6603106391642098062016-02-08T13:25:31.461-05:002016-02-08T13:25:31.461-05:00Steven J,
I admit that defining terms can be a th...Steven J,<br /><br />I admit that defining terms can be a thorny issue. I've said before, and will again, that defining what would be a “novel trait” can be frustrating – especially since I understand the importance of using terms correctly. My suggestion has always been to give me some examples of novel traits appearing and we'll discuss them. For evolution to be true, novel traits have to appear with a good of amount of regularity. In my opinion, we shouldn't be able to turn on the light in a lab without seeing a new example. As it stands, trait adding mutations are scarce or non-existent. Most examples of evolution printed in the text books involve the removal of traits via natural selection.<br /><br />I would consider a green or blue dog to be an example of a truly novel trait. There are examples of blue creatures among plants, insects, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. If mammals share a common ancestor with any of these groups (which, according to your theory, they do) there really is no reason we don't find any blue mammals. Either blue evolved independently in all of these groups (which means you really can't say we wouldn't expect mammals to evolve blue skin/fur) or mammals simply do not have a trait that must have been present in some supposed common ancestor (which we wouldn't expect if your theory were true).<br /><br />And speaking of definitions, I've often voiced a similar complaint against evolutionists. Some of you define “macroevolution” as evolution beyond the level of species but that definition is practically worthless because of the vague definition of species. So, before you quibble over my definitions, please remove the beam from your own eye first.<br /><br />Finally, to your point on design, perhaps spotting design is a learned trait. Maybe we recognize a sculpture because we've seen other sculptures. Maybe we would recognize an unusual item as a tool because we've seen other tools. Maybe we can distinguish created things from natural things because we've learned the characteristics of created things. Ok, for the sake of argument, I'll grant that identifying design is a learned trait rather than instinct. So what is your point? The hand is more useful and versatile than any tool we've ever designed. Are you saying that because the hand is so superior to anything we've ever built that we just can't see that it's the product of dumb luck? You stick to that argument and I'll stick to mine.<br /><br />Finally, I understand the concept of specified complexity. But when you're talking about design, I don't know how much complexity has to be present before we recognize the characteristics of design. We can tell the difference between an arrowhead and a rock, for example, even though an arrow head isn't very complex. If an alien visited earth and found nothing but a nut and a bold, I'm sure he would immediately recognize them as being the product of intelligent design.<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentley RKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-85170161574857612352016-02-07T23:26:40.249-05:002016-02-07T23:26:40.249-05:00We recognize Mount Rushmore as designed because we...We recognize Mount Rushmore as designed because we recognize it as a sculpture, and we know from experience that sculptures are designed. We infer that it has the same origin as a life-sized portrait bust, even if it's on a vastly larger scale. By the same principle, we conclude that the diversity and complexity of life results from a scaled-up version of the same processes that produce novel breeds of dogs or goldfish: we explain both in terms of causes actually observed and largely understood.<br /><br />Note that you want to speak of "specified complexity" rather than merely "complexity." William Dembski, who introduced the term, defined "complexity" basically as "improbability," while Richard Dawkins has suggested that it be defined in terms of the minimum length of a detailed description of a thing. Note that a full description of a pile of wind-blown sand might be very long, as you describe all the fine particles of a very irregular shape. Conversely, take a well-shuffled poker deck and deal yourself five cards: whatever you got is fairly improbable (one in over 300 million), but relatively few of these myriad possibilities are "good" poker hands (which are improbable and specified).<br /><br />You don't want to emphasize complexity alone. After all, as even the arch- and ur-proponent of intelligent design, William Paley, noted, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator wouldn't <i>need</i> complexity. Humans make things complex because we are unable to achieve the desired results in some simpler fashion, but presumably omnipotence could bestow intelligence, mobility, and the ability to sense and manipulate its surroundings on a rock or a mud puddle. Specified complexity argues powerfully for a finite, constrained designer (and, given the differences among, e.g. bird, pterosaur, and bat wings, or octopus eyes and mammalian eyes, a designer unable to simply copy and re-use designs but forced to "re-invent the wheel" repeatedly).Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-15069786275728881372016-02-07T23:11:15.860-05:002016-02-07T23:11:15.860-05:00What is a "kind?" What is a "novel...What is a "kind?" What is a "novel trait?" <br /><br />As I mentioned a post or two back, Italian wall lizards stranded on the island of Pod Mrcaru gave rise to descendants that had cecal valves in their intestines that the lizards had originally lacked (though some lizards have them). Is this a "novel trait?" Given that the inability to make use of citrate is often listed as a diagnostic trait of <i>E. coli</i> bacteria, is the ability to digest citrate that arose in Lenski's experiments a "novel trait?" I suppose we may ignore discovered mutations that make human bones denser and harder to break, or that reduce vulnerability to atherosclerosis, since they don't make their bearers look noticeably different. <br /><br />You identify green fur on dogs as a conceivable novel trait. I note that mammals in general are notably devoid of green (or blue, or bright yellow, etc.) fur: the range of colors in human hair is pretty much the range of colors in mammals, period, implying that no novel colors (such as we see in some bird feathers) has arisen in a couple of million centuries. Indeed, all the evolutionary change needed to turn, e.g. a common ancestor into whales and giraffes (never mind the change needed to turn a common ancestor into humans and gorillas) requires neither a novel sort of integument nor a novel fur color. <br /><br />Note that hamsters (Syrian golden hamsters, the common pet store variety), while not producing any green hamsters, have produced a number of new coat colors that were not present in the founding population (the members of a single litter from a single captured female). These are the products of mutations combined with selective breeding. Please stop discussing evolution as though one of these factors were missing or as though you could only discuss one while ignoring the other. If you pretend that mutations don't exist, well, yes, it is hard to explain how novel traits could arise (though note that selection can combine traits that originally occur separately and rarely as both spread though the population, and this in turn can produce novel phenotypes without further mutations.<br /><br />As for "kinds," John Ray in the 17th century (who gave the word "species" its modern biological meaning) and Karl von Linne in the 18th century both assumed that the biblical kinds were species (e.g. lions and tigers, or brown bears and polar bears, would be different "kinds." Charles Darwin noted that when he spoke to farmers about selection, they assumed that every breed of cattle was a separate "kind," and mocked Darwin's suggestion that they were all one species. Nowadays, many creationists insist that horses and zebras are the same "kind" (despite being more genetically different than humans and chimpanzees, who of course must be different "kinds"). Many YECs identify "kinds" that comprise entire families or even suborders (again, they accept humans who belong to the same family as gorillas and the same suborder as rhesus monkeys). Oh, and sheep and goats, the most commonly distinguished "kinds" in the Bible, belong to the same subfamily of the family Bovidae. <br /><br />The amount of difference two organisms can possess and still be considered the same "kind" are extremely subjective and have varied over time, so saying that we don't see one "kind" changing into another is well-nigh meaningless.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com