tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post4591919130643477740..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: `the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved ... to support a crawling vertebrate' (Broom)Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-623950150733816012007-02-19T17:14:00.000+09:002007-02-19T17:14:00.000+09:00Unguided>Two points:>> 1. You quote Broome: "...Unguided<BR/><BR/>>Two points:<BR/>><BR/>> 1. You quote Broome:<BR/> "The coincidences seem far too remarkable to have been due to accident" (my emphasis).<BR/>><BR/>> How is this any more credible than someone stating that they do not seem far to remarkable? That to them it seems perfectly unremarkable (even if they have no other evidence)? Isn't it just pure opinion?<BR/><BR/>No. First, I have not finished presenting all of Broom's evidence, which I will do so in further posts)in this series.<BR/><BR/>Second, as I quoted Broom (paraphrased), only *one* line of fish only developed additional, front and back limbs within fins, that were of no particular use to the fish themselves (they in fact all went extinct) but the four limbs were in fact of use millions of years down the track to *all* land vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds).<BR/><BR/>Moreover, as Broom pointed out, that line of fish which had "the crawling limb" was *also* the "type of fish that had a better brain, a higher evolved heart than the other fishes, and most probably it had lungs" and he therefore concluded that, "The coincidences seem far too remarkable to have been due to accident." (Broom, R., "The Coming of Man: Was it Accident or Design?," H.F. & G. Witherby: London, 1933, p.213).<BR/><BR/>An agnostic, the late Gordon Rattray Taylor, when considering a part of the fish to man transition, the construction of the mammalian inner ear, echoes Broom (even though there is no evidence that Taylor had ever read Broom's argument) that, "existing structures have been profoundly modified and even shifted to another position in a progressive series of changes which certainly *look more like the refinement of a plan than the result of a series of happy accidents*" (my emphasis):<BR/><BR/>"With all this, of course, went improvements in the brain, most notably the power to compare the times at which signals from one source reach each ear, thus providing a method of estimating the direction in which the source lies. Thus, in the course of evolution, there were six major developments, two of which occurred in the fishes, two in the amphibia and two in mammals. ... In contrast with the case of the eye, where undifferentiated cells were specialised into the required forms, here existing structures have been profoundly modified and even shifted to another position in a progressive series of changes which certainly look more like the refinement of a plan than the result of a series of happy accidents. But the insoluble problem is how and why did a balance organ become an organ of hearing? ... After describing the last part of this process, the adaptation of the bones linking the jaw to the skull into a chain of ossicles linking the eardrum to the inner ear, Ernst Mayr sweepingly remarks: 'Not all the steps in this process are yet entirely apparent, but I think little doubt is left as to the principle involved.' If by 'principle' one means merely progressive remodelling, the statement is a truism. But if 'principle' means that chance selection brought about these elaborate changes, then there must be very great doubt indeed. … Mayr does not seem to appreciate the elementary point that demonstrating the occurrence of a sequence of events does not explain why they happened. But what kind of mutations could bring about the major changes I have described? Could cause a tube to roll up into a helix? Could cause other tubes to form semi-circular canals accurately set at right angles to each other. Could grade sensory hairs according to length? Could cause the convenient deposit of a crystal in the one place it will register gravity? Even more amazingly, some fishes do not trouble to secrete a crystal but incorporate a bit of sand or stone. What kind of mutation could achieve this - when and only when a natural crystal is not formed? The purpose is fulfilled, the means are unimportant. It just doesn't make sense." (Taylor G.R., "The Great Evolution Mystery," Abacus: London, 1983, pp.105-106)<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that, as Behe points out, "in the presence of manifest design, the onus of proof is on the one who denies the plain evidence of his eyes":<BR/><BR/>"A crucial, often-overlooked point is that the overwhelming appearance of design strongly affects the burden of proof: in the presence of manifest design, the onus of proof is on the one who denies the plain evidence of his eyes. For example, a person who conjectured that the statues on Easter Island or the images on Mount Rushmore were actually the result of unintelligent forces would bear the substantial burden of proof the claim demanded. In those examples, the positive evidence for design would be there for all to see in the purposeful arrangement of parts to produce the images. Any putative evidence for the claim that the images were actually the result of unintelligent processes (perhaps erosion shaped by some vague, hypothesized chaotic forces; would have to clearly show that the postulated unintelligent process could indeed do the job. In the absence of such a clear demonstration, any person would be rationally justified to prefer the design explanation." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, 2006, pp.265-266)<BR/><BR/>> 2. You also quote Broome<BR/> "As Broom noted above, "the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved not specially to benefit the fishes, but because it would presently be required to support a crawling vertebrate" (my emphasis)!<BR/>><BR/>> There are various theories as to how lobes benefit fish. These include assiting to move through vegetation, helping move through very shallow water and even to assist with accessing the surface for breathing.<BR/><BR/>All fully naturalistic "theories" because design is not even *allowed* to be considered!<BR/><BR/>But the evidence is that the tetrapod limb arose *underwater* [See my post http://tinyurl.com/2ua9ps], i.e. "The first vertebrate that walked onto land didn't crawl on fish fins, it had evolved *well-turned legs millions of years beforehand*":<BR/><BR/>"Clack who works at the University of Cambridge's Museum of Zoology, discovered the bulk of _Acanthostega_'s skeleton in 1987 and has been carefully reconstructing it ever since with fellow paleontologist Michael Coates. They are just finishing up their monographs on the creature, and some of the conclusions they've drawn from its body are surprising other paleontologists. For a long time it was assumed that our limbs and feet, which work so well for walking on land, evolved for that exact purpose. But _Acanthostega_ has convinced Clack and Coates otherwise; tetrapod anatomy evolved while our ancestors lived exclusively underwater and it evolved for life underwater. The first vertebrate that walked onto land didn't crawl on fish fins, it had evolved well-turned legs millions of years beforehand." (Zimmer, C., "Coming Onto the Land," _Discover_, Vol. 16, June 1995, pp.118-127, p.120. http://tinyurl.com/ywsn4g)<BR/><BR/>and "would have spent most of its time in the water" with "a fish-like gill apparatus" such that "While it had lungs, it may not have been obliged to use them":<BR/><BR/>"Given all these obstacles, how on earth did anything emerge from the water to roam dry land? Until quite recently, the evolution of land animals was seen as a matter of necessity. In an increasingly arid world, so the thinking went, fish were forced to haul themselves out of pools that were drying up and go in search of new ponds. In the process of coping with drought, these resourceful creatures evolved the limbs, lungs and senses that made a permanent move to land possible. ... But in 1987, Ahlberg and Jenny Clack of the University of Cambridge discovered some remarkably complete fossils on the barren shores of Greenland. _Acanthostega_ is around the same age as Ichthyostega and is also a very primitive tetrapod, forcing the palaeontologists to rethink. Years of painstaking laboratory analysis have revealed that _Acanthostega_ looked similar to the panderichthyids, except that it had limbs with digits instead of lobe-fins. The big surprise, however, is that this creature would have spent most of its time in the water. `We didn't expect to find _Acanthostega_ having such a fish-like gill apparatus,' says Coates, who described the material with Clack. `While it had lungs, it may not have been obliged to use them. The gill skeleton is an important part of our interpretation of _Acanthostega_ as primarily, and primitively, aquatic,' he adds." (McLeod, M., "One small step for fish, one giant leap for us," _New Scientist_, Vol 167, No. 2252, 19 August 2000, p.28)<BR/><BR/>But even if it had some use, it was a *sledgehammer to crack a nut* for the `blind watchmaker' to evolve *limbs* complete with the bones, e.g. humerus, ulna, radius, and carpals, that would `coincidentally' be needed millions of years down the track by land vertebrates. As I quoted Broom (my emphasis), "Afew of the higher fishes have taken to crawling at times, such as the gurnards, and the climbing perches, and the Indian siluroid fish Clarias, which, when the rivers dry up, crawls for long distances over the dried mud in search of water-holes, *but none of these fishes has ever succeeded in evolving limbs*." (Broom, Ibid, p.213).<BR/><BR/>> To me these seem far more reasonable explanations as to why fish lobes evolved than something pre-determing that fish had to have them to later evolve into land based animals.<BR/><BR/>That is hardly surprising, given that your pseudonym is "Unguided"!<BR/><BR/>> If as Broome suggests the ultimate goal was man, then why didn't fish get pre-destined to walk out of the water on two legs and we could have saved a whole lot of time and achieved a much better design? Or for whales, seals and walrus, why did they have to grow four legs only to lose them again? Why not just stick with the perfectly useful tail they had. <BR/><BR/>Your first question presumes that you know that the Designer wanted to: 1) "save… a whole lot of time"; and 2) "achieve… a much better design". The point is that if in fact the Designer's "ultimate goal was man" then His design included giving critics the freedom (and partially, though inadequate, grounds) to criticise His design. As Pascal noted:<BR/><BR/>"There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them and make them inexcusable." (Pascal, B., "Pensées," 578, [1660], W.F. Trotter, Trans. http://tinyurl.com/create.php) <BR/><BR/>As for your second question above, it actually partly answers your first question, i.e. the design was intended to be *flexible*, such that some mammals could "grow four legs only to lose them again"!<BR/><BR/>Indeed, this is the answer to the late Stephen Jay Gould's fallacious question: "Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones …?":<BR/><BR/>"The second argument-that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution- strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms- the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history-the evidence of descent- is the mark of evolution. Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case." (Gould, S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory," in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes," [1983], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1986, p.258).<BR/><BR/>No doubt a human engineer (albeit using the mind that the Designer gave him!) "could design better limbs in *each* case" (my emphasis). But could (or would) a human engineer, *starting from a fish body plan*, design "better" limbs that would be so *flexible* that by variations on its theme, it could be used by *all* land vertebrates: amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (including secondarily aquatic ones) for the next *~400 million years*?<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1923517332223274682007-02-19T10:45:00.000+09:002007-02-19T10:45:00.000+09:00Stephen,Two points:1. You quote Broome: "The coin...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>Two points:<BR/><BR/>1. You quote Broome:<BR/> "The coincidences seem far too remarkable to have been due to accident" (my emphasis).<BR/><BR/>How is this any more credible than someone stating that they do not seem far to remarkable? That to them it seems perfectly unremarkable (even if they have no other evidence)? Isn't it just pure opinion?<BR/><BR/>2. You also quote Broome<BR/>"As Broom noted above, "the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved not specially to benefit the fishes, but because it would presently be required to support a crawling vertebrate" (my emphasis)! <BR/><BR/>There are various theories as to how lobes benefit fish. These include assiting to move through vegetation, helping move through very shallow water and even to assist with accessing the surface for breathing.<BR/><BR/>To me these seem far more reasonable explanations as to why fish lobes evolved than something pre-determing that fish had to have them to later evolve into land based animals. <BR/><BR/>If as Broome suggests the ultimate goal was man, then why didn't fish get pre-destined to walk out of the water on two legs and we could have saved a whole lot of time and achieved a much better design? Or for whales, seals and walrus, why did they have to grow four legs only to lose them again? Why not just stick with the perfectly useful tail they had.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com