On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> PZ Myers is going to Glasgow to lecture on evolution.Here is how I, with only a little study, would respond:
> Dembski is asking his fans there to attend Myers' lecture and pose the
> 10+1 Questions for Professor Myers:
In light of Intelligent design, can you explain the reasoning behind
> 1) In light of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, can you account for
> the observation that the eggs [sic; "embryos"?] of the five classes ofSize and the amount of yolk has a great deal to do with the
> vertebrate (i.e. fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) begin
> markedly different from each other? While the cleavage patterns in four
> of the five classes show some general similarities, the pattern in
> mammals is very different.
differences, which are not as great as you claim. Evolution of mammals
from terrestrial organisms that had already evolved such terrestrial
specializations as the amniotic sac also has an important role.
> Furthermore, in the gastrulation stage, a"Very different" is in the eye of the beholder. All vertebrates form
> fish is very different from an amphibian,while both are starkly
> different from reptiles, birds and mammals, which are somewhat similar
> to each other.
guts asshole first through invagination (the blastopore in amphibians,
the primitive groove in birds, reptiles, and mammals). Fish, as
exemplified by the zebrafish (PZ has some familiarity with this
organism ;-) produces a dorsal thickening (the embryonic shield) that
is the functional equivalent of the dorsal blastopore lip of
amphibians. "If one conceptually opens a Xenopus blastula at the
vegetal pole and stretches the opening into a marginal ring, the
resulting fate map closely resembles that of the zebrafish embryo at
the stage when half of the yolk has been covered by the blastoderm."
IOW, most of the *differences* are a consequence of egg and yolk size
and the shape of the invagination site rather than any fundamental
difference. Apparently IDiots cannot understand topological homology.
> Doesn’t Darwinism predict a pattern wherein the earliestCan you provide the empirical or theoretical reasoning behind the
> stages are the most similar and the later stages are the most different?
> 2) Kalinka et al. (2010) have documented that the developmental
above assumption? Does ID provide an alternative testable explanation
for whatever you think you mean for whatever examples you mean? Or
does it, like the God of the Gaps it is, simply say that whatever
happens is due to the dyslexic doG?
> would you please explain how you would accountCan you give some examples of what you mean?
> for this observation in terms of evolutionary rationale?
> 3) Could you please explain the sheer lack of congruence between
> Moreover, not only are there different embryological (i.e.That is a claim without examples as stated. Can you provide specific
> non-homologous) processes and different genetic mechanisms to apparently
> homologous organs. But there is also the conundrum of homologous genetic
> mechanisms for analogous (i.e. non-homologous) organs. And then there is
> also the problem of homologous structures arising from different
> embryological sources, utterly undermining the evolutionary explanation.
> Isn’t the most straightforward reading of these facts that the adult
> organs have not been derived from a common ancestor? Why is it that you
> are happy to use those instances where embryological development and
> adult similarities are consistent as evidence of common descent, but set
> aside those instances where they are not consistent?
examples of what you mean?
> 4) Could you please explain the near-total absence of evidence forCan't creationists wrapped in the cheap tuxedo of ID come up with
> evolutionarily relevant (i.e. stably heritable) large-scale variations
> in animal form, as required by common descent? “Near-total”, that is,
> because losses of structure are often possible. But common descent
> requires the generation of anatomical novelty. Why is it the case that
> all observed developmental mutations that might lead to macroevolution
> (besides the loss of an unused structure) are harmful or fatal?
anything but the old, tired, "evolution must work by magically poofing
some large change into existence or it is impossible"? Especially
when *their* explanation is that "some dyslexic doG magically poofed
some large change into existence." The fact is that all major changes
observed in modern vertebrate structure (like wings or hands) are
modifications of pre-existing vertebrate structures. So, again, what
*specific* examples are they talking about?
Why do you think that evolution requires that the timing of
> 5) Would you please explain why the purported embryological evidence for
development of a tissue must be the same as the timing of its
evolution? Oh, I see. IDiots seem to be stuck in the idea that
modern evolutionists all believe that "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny" is a universal law. I hate to Haeckel you, but "It ain't
> 6) Would you please explain instances of species which possess similarPerhaps the best example is direct development as opposed to pluteus
> adult forms but different immature forms, which could conform with
> recapitulation only if the species evolved convergently?
development in sea urchins. Ans: Egg size has a lot to do with it.
What other examples do you propose? BTW, Rudy Raff has done a lot of
this work. Hasn't shaken his understanding that evolution explains
> Related to thisAgain, no specificity. If you expect an actual response, you need to
> is the observation that similar phylotypic stages and/or adult
> morphologies may be attained by very different developmental routes.
> Don’t such observations demonstrate that the view of development being
> an exclusively divergent process of increased specialisation is false?
do better than simply make a broad claim/assertion as if it were
'truth'. And again you seem to have this idea that modern evolution
and evo-devo is nothing but warmed over Haeckel.
> 7) Would you please elaborate on how a reproductively-capable embryo canDo you mean, for example, like the neotenous salamanders (which are
> evolve by virtue of successive but slight modification while retaining
> selectable utility at every stage?
reproductively-capable embryos)? In some cases, the embryo simply
does not produce thyroxin (the hormone that triggers conversion to
adult body form) while its reproductive organs continue to mature. In
those species (axolotl), one can induce adult body form by injecting
thyroxin. In other species, there is loss of the thyroxin receptor
protein, so, even though the immature forms can produce thyroxin, they
cannot respond to it. And in yet other species, the change is
facultative and in wet areas, they produce enough thyroxin and in dry
areas they don't. Notably, the neotenous forms tend to occur in
environments where the land is dry, but there are springs that exist
year around. Some might attribute that to selective pressure. But
the genetic "switch" is pretty simple.
And I have already mentioned the pluteus-forming versus direct-
> Paul Nelson discussed the concept ofWho is misrepresenting whom here? DNA is ultimately the whole show,
> ontogenetic depth in some detail here and here. He also responded to
> your criticisms of his article, and the somewhat ironic charge of
> quote-mining, here.
> 8 ) On your blog, you have defended the central dogmatist (gene-centric)
but epigenetic phenomena (like differential methylations) do exist.
> Cells in the prospective head region of an organismPositional information from cell-cell interaction (or its lack, one of
> contain the same DNA as cells in the prospective tail region. Yet head
> cells must turn on different genes from tail cells, and they “know”
> which genes to turn on because they receive information about their
> spatial location from outside themselves — and thus, obviously, from
> outside their DNA.
the first such triggers in mammals involves whether a cell is on the
inside or the outside of the blastocyst), interaction with the
environment, or the presence of positional information molecules in
the egg is clearly important in the differentiation process. Almost
all that information acts through DNA activation or non-activation and
a cascading or spreading or chain of activity. Did you have a point?
Development and evolution *both* involve the interaction of an
organism's genome with its environment. Again, what is your point?
Are you claiming that DNA is irrelevant to some important differences?
> So an essential part of the ontogenetic programThere is a difference between "interaction" of organismal genome and
> cannot be in the organism’s DNA, a fact that conflicts with the
> DNA-centrism of neo-Darwinism. Some attempts to salvage DNA programs
> (e.g. Rinn et al.) rely on “target sequences” — molecular zipcodes, if
> you will — of amino acids that direct proteins to particular locations
> in the cell. But such “molecular zipcodes” do not create a spatial
> co-ordinate system, they presuppose it.
environment and the environment acting completely independently of the
genome to produce an organismal feature. The formation of a human
embryo is dependent on the cell(s) being inside the blastocyst (that
is, positional information). If there is no such cell inside, no
embryo forms. But the positional information "triggers" a difference
in the pattern of genetic information expressed. It doesn't create
> 9) If, as is often claimed by Darwinists, the pharyngeal pouches andAgain with the warmed over Haeckel. Ontogeny only very roughly
> ridges are indeed accurately thought of as vestigial gill slits (thus
> demonstrating our shared ancestry with fish), then why is it that the
> ‘gill-slit’ region in humans does not contain even partly developing
> slits or gills, and has no respiratory function?
correlates with phylogeny. It does not recapitulate it. Been a long
evolutionary time since mammals needed actual gills for respiration.
> In fish, theseNo. In fish, some of these embryonic structures develop *into* slits
> structures are, quite literally, slits that form openings to allow water
> in and out of the internal gills that remove oxygen from the water.
that later *become* gills used for respiration. Except for the ones
that develop *into* jaws and other structures.
> InBecause lungs are *analogous* structures, not *homologous* ones. The
> human embryos, however, the pharyngeal pouches do not appear to be ‘old
> structures’ which have been reworked into ‘new structures’ (they do not
> develop into analogous structures such as lungs).
structures homologous to lungs are swim bladders (which evolved from
primitive lungs in certain fish). Both are blood rich outgrowths of
the gut in fish that initially got oxygen from air by *swallowing*
it. Gills are not useful for oxygen extraction in terrestrial
settings (as any fish flopping on the deck could tell you). BTW,
amphibians also get a substantial amount of oxygen through their thin
skins and their lungs and associated circulatory systems tend to be
simpler than the lungs of reptiles.
> Instead, theYes. And don't forget jaws. Did you have a point?
> developmental fate of these locations includes a wide variety of
> structures which become part of the face, bones associated with the ear,
> facial expression muscles, the thymus, thyroid, and parathyroid glands
> (e.g. Manley and Capecchi, 1998).
Rather ballsy of you to include this. The question is why is the
> 10) Why do Darwinists continue to use the supposed circuitous route
testes pulled through the body wall, causing a weak spot where the
intestine can bulge through? Poor design? How does ID explain this
other than "Because the dyslexic doG wanted it that way."
> Note: I have omitted the "+1" question because it's an ad hominem
> -- Steven L.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.