Waiting for Pagano, A Play in Many, Many Acts
C. Thompson
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J29614C42
Pagano said:
> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
> sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
> function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
> vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
> please.
Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire bats had
molar teeth.
There was no response then.
More recently, when Pagano returned to T.O., I asked again:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E642C42
Pagano replied:
> Virtually all the organs and structures that have been characterized
> as "vestigial" were later found to have some function. That is, the
> vestigial argument is an argument from man's ignorance. While the
> vestigial argument occassionally crops up in this forum it is not
> often found in the popular secular literature as a defense of
> neoDarwinian evolution. Sheesh.
I maintain that it does not matter where the argument takes place. And in
fact, vestigial structures are cited as evidence of evolution in all the
Biology texts I have read- including Curtis & Barnes, Solomon et al., and
Campbell.
What is Pagano's reply to *the substance* of my argument- not his reply to
who talks about vestigial structures?
*****
Interestingly, Pagano never answered another question I posed quite some
time ago. I simply asked Pagano, since he is on record as claiming there
are no transitional species, if he thought a species was NOT transitional if
it arose from a different species, and gave rise to a third species.
Inquiring minds want to know.
David Sienkiewicz
> In:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J29614C42
>
> Pagano said:
>
> > It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
> > sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
> > function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
> > vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
> > please.
>
> Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire bats had
> molar teeth.
It is comical to read this quote from Tony followed by your statement,
Chris, because the fact is that the burden for the support in this
issue rests entirely with the "unteachable" Mister Pagano.
You see, the original claim - going back some years - is HIS.
Tony claimed that most of the structures formerly thought to be
vestigial were, in fact, not.
Tony claimed that the structures and organs previously thought to have
NO FUNCTION did, in fact, display a function.
Of course, this is a misunderstanding of what is meant by vestigial
that I must confess I shared for a time. A vestigial organ or
structure was one that served some function or another but now serves
no function.
In fact, as as has been explained in this newsgroup by those
better-versed in the subject matter, a vestigial organ or structure
can be either lacking in a function or have a function different from
the original function.
Long ago, Tony made his first claim that nearly all vestigial organs
and structures were discovered to have a function. Clearly he, like
many of us in the reading audience, did not understand the true
meaning of vestigial.
But he ALSO claimed that nearly 200 or so of these structures were
specifically identified during the Scopes trial in 1925 and were
subsequently found to have functions and, therefore, were not
vestigial.
Tony was challenged by some in this newsgroup to identify some of
these. I recall 10% as being one number bandied about. Tony was,
therefore, asked to identify 20 or so such structures or organs that
he would claim are no longer considered "vestigial" by scientists.
Not surprisingly, Tony never answered.
I seem to recall that Tony was asked to provide just a single example;
and he never did that, either.
That Tony would dodge that challenge for so many years and then
presume that the burden of proof falls to Steven J, whom I'm quite
sure can list a number of those structures and organs, is typical of
his arrogance and desire to shift the burden of proof for the claims
made in this newsgroup.
Tony would NEVER give us the examples that were requested, but he
wants to see Steven J provide examples in reverse.
That, of course, is hypocrisy.
> There was no response then.
>
> More recently, when Pagano returned to T.O., I asked again:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E642C42
>
> Pagano replied:
>
> > Virtually all the organs and structures that have been characterized
> > as "vestigial" were later found to have some function. That is, the
> > vestigial argument is an argument from man's ignorance. While the
> > vestigial argument occassionally crops up in this forum it is not
> > often found in the popular secular literature as a defense of
> > neoDarwinian evolution. Sheesh.
>
> I maintain that it does not matter where the argument takes place. And in
> fact, vestigial structures are cited as evidence of evolution in all the
> Biology texts I have read- including Curtis & Barnes, Solomon et al., and
> Campbell.
I pointed out in reply to Tony that he was wrong. Once again, I was
"pasted" by the silence of the LACK of a reply. The drubbing that I
suffered by the crickets as they chirped was most devastating.
> What is Pagano's reply to *the substance* of my argument- not his reply to
> who talks about vestigial structures?
> *****
> Interestingly, Pagano never answered another question I posed quite some
> time ago. I simply asked Pagano, since he is on record as claiming there
> are no transitional species, if he thought a species was NOT transitional if
> it arose from a different species, and gave rise to a third species.
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
Tony's incredible ignorance of all of these subjects is astounding
only in that he has been posting at least since 1996 and saying the
same things over and over again.
The only truly accurate thing he's said in all of that time is that
he's "unteachable." I think his track record proves that.
A Pagano
<rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In:
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?J29614C42
>
>Pagano said:
>
>> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
>> sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
>> function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
>> vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
>> please.
>
>Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire bats had
>molar teeth.
Pagano replies:
Identifying a structure is a start, but there should exist a
scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the molar
teeth are characterized in this manner evidence. A citation in the
scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
helpful. I will review the thread for this info.
>
>There was no response then.
Pagano replies:
I respond to suit my own time constraints and interests. If you have
the last word in a thread what is your complaint?
>
>More recently, when Pagano returned to T.O., I asked again:
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E642C42
>
>Pagano replied:
>
>> Virtually all the organs and structures that have been characterized
>> as "vestigial" were later found to have some function. That is, the
>> vestigial argument is an argument from man's ignorance. While the
>> vestigial argument occassionally crops up in this forum it is not
>> often found in the popular secular literature as a defense of
>> neoDarwinian evolution. Sheesh.
>
>I maintain that it does not matter where the argument takes place.
Pagano replies:
But it matters a great deal. The strongest arguments are usually
offered in the popular literature. Vestigial structures are rarely
offered in those works.
> And in
>fact, vestigial structures are cited as evidence of evolution in all the
>Biology texts I have read- including Curtis & Barnes, Solomon et al., and
>Campbell.
Pagano replies:
A biology text wouldn't be considered "popular" literature. However,
since you apparently have access to these texts please post the
relevent sections (along with the complete citation including edition
and publication date) so that we may see for ourselves whether or not
they are cited as evidence and to what degree.
>
>What is Pagano's reply to *the substance* of my argument- not his reply to
>who talks about vestigial structures?
Pagano replies:
As usual the substance is always somewhere else. It certainly isn't
here. But I shall review this thread for substance concerning the bat
molar teeth and for substance from the biology text.
>*****
>Interestingly, Pagano never answered another question I posed quite some
>time ago. I simply asked Pagano, since he is on record as claiming there
>are no transitional species, if he thought a species was NOT transitional if
>it arose from a different species, and gave rise to a third species.
Pagano replies:
The short answer is: NO.
For Darwin and most of his brethren after him every species after the
self-replicating molecule was considered to be either in transition or
part of a deadend evolutionary "branch." This renders the label
"transitional" as largely useless. It certainly has no diagnostic
value.
There are changes between generations within species that could be
labeled "transitional" by evolutionists. And there are changes
between species that could be labeled "transitional." And finally any
change between a predecessor and a descendent could be labeled
"transitional."
For the creationist a "transitional" would be direct observational
evidence that genuinely new structures, new systems and new creatures
arose gradually (a requirement of genetics) in prehistory. Such
evidence should exist in the fossil record but it is completely
absent. The fossil record shows structures appearing suddenly, fully
formed and mature, and remaining that way for millions of years
without much change. The fossil record shows "sudden appearance" and
"stasis" not gradual evolutionary change leading to novelty and
diversity.
Finally, the fact that one separated breeding population of
foraminifera branches into several other separated breeding
populations of foram isn't terribly interesting evidence if one is
searching for empirical evidence that populations of mesonychid
transformed into populations of whales. All the species of foram are
still foram and nothing new has arisen. It's as simple as that.
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> A citation in the
> scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
> helpful. I will review the thread for this info.
Why? Any citation to the scientific literature presupposes naturalism
which you claim is false. Why should anyone bother Tony?
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Steven J.
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:41:17 +0000 (UTC), "C. Thompson"
> <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In:
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?J29614C42
> >
> >Pagano said:
> >
> >> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
> >> sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
> >> function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
> >> vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
> >> please.
>
evidence, a supernatural event. There is, of course, no way outside
of closed axiomatic systems like geometry of proving anything to the
exclusion of all imaginable alternatives. This is the point of "Last
Thursdayism" -- it is perfectly consistent with all evidence that the
entire universe was created last Thursday with the appearance of a
previous history. Likewise, given your insistence that Bacon, Hume,
and Popper somehow proved that evidence doesn't actually mean
anything, what possible combination of facts could convince you of
anything you want not to believe?
For the record, it is no part of the definition of "vestigial" that
the organ must have served only a single function. Now, most
creationists will, as I have noted in the past, accept that the
nonfunctional wings beneath sealed wing covers in some flightless
beetles must indeed be vestiges of previously functional wings, but I
suppose that you could insist (_a la_ Last Thursdayism) that they were
created this way (along with cave fish with eyesockets but not eyes)
for the Creator's inscrutable purposes.
>
> >Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire bats had
> >molar teeth.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Identifying a structure is a start, but there should exist a
> scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the molar
> teeth are characterized in this manner evidence. A citation in the
> scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
> helpful. I will review the thread for this info.
>
They are characterized because molars are clearly designed for
chewing, but vampire bats drink (blood, of course), and don't chew.
They don't NEED chewing teeth. Other microchiropterans have molars,
and use them for chewing, and thus these teeth are inferred to be
vestiges from vampire ancestors who didn't feed exclusively on blood.
Why is this so hard to understand? Or is it that you understand
perfectly, and wish to divert attention in any direction rather than
actually have to argue you own claim?
>
> >There was no response then.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I respond to suit my own time constraints and interests. If you have
> the last word in a thread what is your complaint?
>
Your "interests" apparently do not include defending your claims,
correcting your errors, or paying attention to what your critics
actually say.
>
> >More recently, when Pagano returned to T.O., I asked again:
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E642C42
> >
> >Pagano replied:
> >
> >> Virtually all the organs and structures that have been characterized
> >> as "vestigial" were later found to have some function. That is, the
> >> vestigial argument is an argument from man's ignorance. While the
> >> vestigial argument occassionally crops up in this forum it is not
> >> often found in the popular secular literature as a defense of
> >> neoDarwinian evolution. Sheesh.
> >
> >I maintain that it does not matter where the argument takes place.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But it matters a great deal. The strongest arguments are usually
> offered in the popular literature. Vestigial structures are rarely
> offered in those works.
>
Coming from the man who for months insisted that evolutionists
identified mesonychids as the ancestors of bats, claims about what the
"popular literature" argues carry little weight. Whether vestigial
arguments are among the "strongest arguments" for evolution is
irrelevant to any claim made about them, and another instance of
dodging the issues with diversions into irrelevancies.
>
> > And in
> >fact, vestigial structures are cited as evidence of evolution in all the
> >Biology texts I have read- including Curtis & Barnes, Solomon et al., and
> >Campbell.
>
> Pagano replies:
> A biology text wouldn't be considered "popular" literature. However,
> since you apparently have access to these texts please post the
> relevent sections (along with the complete citation including edition
> and publication date) so that we may see for ourselves whether or not
> they are cited as evidence and to what degree.
> >
> >What is Pagano's reply to *the substance* of my argument- not his reply to
> >who talks about vestigial structures?
>
> Pagano replies:
> As usual the substance is always somewhere else. It certainly isn't
> here. But I shall review this thread for substance concerning the bat
> molar teeth and for substance from the biology text.
>
You have been given an opportunity to inject some substance here. Let
all parties observe that you have declined it.
>
> >*****
> >Interestingly, Pagano never answered another question I posed quite some
> >time ago. I simply asked Pagano, since he is on record as claiming there
> >are no transitional species, if he thought a species was NOT transitional if
> >it arose from a different species, and gave rise to a third species.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The short answer is: NO.
>
> For Darwin and most of his brethren after him every species after the
> self-replicating molecule was considered to be either in transition or
> part of a deadend evolutionary "branch." This renders the label
> "transitional" as largely useless. It certainly has no diagnostic
> value.
>
In short, then, when you demand a "transitional" form from the fossil
record, you have already decided that none exist, even though you
concede below that some must. Your mental processes are a wonder of
nature, Tony.
>
> There are changes between generations within species that could be
> labeled "transitional" by evolutionists. And there are changes
> between species that could be labeled "transitional." And finally any
> change between a predecessor and a descendent could be labeled
> "transitional."
>
> For the creationist a "transitional" would be direct observational
> evidence that genuinely new structures, new systems and new creatures
> arose gradually (a requirement of genetics) in prehistory. Such
> evidence should exist in the fossil record but it is completely
> absent. The fossil record shows structures appearing suddenly, fully
> formed and mature, and remaining that way for millions of years
> without much change. The fossil record shows "sudden appearance" and
> "stasis" not gradual evolutionary change leading to novelty and
> diversity.
>
Tony, this is simply a lie. You have been corrected too often and too
exhaustively for you to honestly believe what you are claiming here.
You have never explained why you should regard, e.g. the wing of
_Archaeopteryx_, with its flight feathers arranged over a virtually
unmodified theropod arm, as a "fully-formed" wing, or its toothy jaw
as a "fully-formed" beak. You have never explained why the _rete
mirabile_ in various species of early whales should be regarded as
"fully formed," when it is clearly less fully formed than the
homologous structure in modern whales. And so forth.
You have been told what "stasis" actually means. You do not learn.
But again, the mere obstinate clinging to ignorance, accompanied by
the ever-more insistant declamation of falsified generalizations, does
not somehow make your arguments any sounder than they were in the
beginning.
>
> Finally, the fact that one separated breeding population of
> foraminifera branches into several other separated breeding
> populations of foram isn't terribly interesting evidence if one is
> searching for empirical evidence that populations of mesonychid
> transformed into populations of whales. All the species of foram are
> still foram and nothing new has arisen. It's as simple as that.
>
All the species of whales are simply mammals, and, indeed, simply
artiodactyls, however greatly derived. It's as simple as that.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
C. Thompson
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:41:17 +0000 (UTC), "C. Thompson"
> <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In:
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J29614C42
>>
>> Pagano said:
>>
>>> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
>>> sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
>>> function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
>>> vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
>>> please.
>>
>> Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire
>> bats had molar teeth.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Identifying a structure is a start, but there should exist a
> scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the molar
> teeth are characterized in this manner evidence. A citation in the
> scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
> helpful. I will review the thread for this info.
Try:
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/chiroptera/chiro
ptera.phyllostomidae.html
or:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young, they nurse- like
all mammals. As adults, they drink blood. The molars are no longer
suitable since they have no grinding surfaces. Common sense indicates they
are not used for anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not require the
presence of molars.
>>
>> There was no response then.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I respond to suit my own time constraints and interests. If you have
> the last word in a thread what is your complaint?
If the last word is an unanswered question, it is unsatisfying. I am
sometimes here to "score", and I enjoy a pithy rejoinder as much as anyone,
but most of the time I am genuinely interested in the responses.
>>
>> More recently, when Pagano returned to T.O., I asked again:
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E642C42
>>
>> Pagano replied:
>>
>>> Virtually all the organs and structures that have been characterized
>>> as "vestigial" were later found to have some function. That is, the
>>> vestigial argument is an argument from man's ignorance. While the
>>> vestigial argument occassionally crops up in this forum it is not
>>> often found in the popular secular literature as a defense of
>>> neoDarwinian evolution. Sheesh.
>>
>> I maintain that it does not matter where the argument takes place.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But it matters a great deal. The strongest arguments are usually
> offered in the popular literature. Vestigial structures are rarely
> offered in those works.
Actually, the strongest arguments are in the peer-reviewed literature. That
is what scientists depend upon for their information. They might enjoy
reading popular literature, but if something catches their attention there,
they will check it in the journals.
But why should the venue matter? If it is a strong argument, it shouldn't
matter one whit where it is presented.
>> And in
>> fact, vestigial structures are cited as evidence of evolution in all
>> the Biology texts I have read- including Curtis & Barnes, Solomon et
>> al., and Campbell.
>
> Pagano replies:
> A biology text wouldn't be considered "popular" literature. However,
> since you apparently have access to these texts please post the
> relevent sections (along with the complete citation including edition
> and publication date) so that we may see for ourselves whether or not
> they are cited as evidence and to what degree.
Heh. If you expect me to transcribe entire sections of textbooks, please
think again. That would be illegal. Here is the relevant information,
though:
Keeton, W. 1980. Biological Science. 3 ed. Norton. p8.
Solomon, Martin, Berg, & Villee. 1996. Biology. 4ed. p411.
Johnson, G. 2000. The Living World. 2ed. McGraw Hill. p240.
Audesirk, Audesirk, & Byers. 2003. Life on Earth. 3ed. Prentice-Hall.
http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution3.html
The Audesirk text, by the way, specifically calls molars in vampire bats
"functionless" and "vestigial".
Knock yourself out :)
>>
>> What is Pagano's reply to *the substance* of my argument- not his
>> reply to who talks about vestigial structures?
>
> Pagano replies:
> As usual the substance is always somewhere else. It certainly isn't
> here. But I shall review this thread for substance concerning the bat
> molar teeth and for substance from the biology text.
Excellent.
>> *****
>> Interestingly, Pagano never answered another question I posed quite
>> some time ago. I simply asked Pagano, since he is on record as
>> claiming there are no transitional species, if he thought a species
>> was NOT transitional if it arose from a different species, and gave
>> rise to a third species.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The short answer is: NO.
>
> For Darwin and most of his brethren after him every species after the
> self-replicating molecule was considered to be either in transition or
> part of a deadend evolutionary "branch." This renders the label
> "transitional" as largely useless. It certainly has no diagnostic
> value.
>
> There are changes between generations within species that could be
> labeled "transitional" by evolutionists. And there are changes
> between species that could be labeled "transitional." And finally any
> change between a predecessor and a descendent could be labeled
> "transitional."
Ah. So we are agreed that species can give rise to other species. That
partially answers my question.
(Just in case I misunderstood, I will add some stuff below).
>
> For the creationist a "transitional" would be direct observational
> evidence that genuinely new structures, new systems and new creatures
> arose gradually (a requirement of genetics) in prehistory.
1. Gradualism is *not* a requirement of genetics.
2. Evolution is happening as I type this; it is not limited to prehistory.
> Such
> evidence should exist in the fossil record but it is completely
> absent. The fossil record shows structures appearing suddenly, fully
> formed and mature, and remaining that way for millions of years
> without much change. The fossil record shows "sudden appearance" and
> "stasis" not gradual evolutionary change leading to novelty and
> diversity.
I am not concerned with the fossil record at this time.
> Finally, the fact that one separated breeding population of
> foraminifera branches into several other separated breeding
> populations of foram isn't terribly interesting evidence if one is
> searching for empirical evidence that populations of mesonychid
> transformed into populations of whales. All the species of foram are
> still foram and nothing new has arisen. It's as simple as that.
Nor am I concerned with forams.
So if we have:
Species A ----> Species B ----> Species C
Species B is not a transitional species.
Just what does qualify as a transitional, if I may ask? The criteria above
are fatally flawed.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Chris
David Sienkiewicz
responses to you - in spite of your claims to the contrary. This
lends credibility to the idea that you avoid posts which you know
yourself to be incapable of answering; and helps explain a very great
deal about your tactics and motivation.
What is also interesting is how you attempt to shift the burden of
proof on this particular subject.
Let's remind you, Tony, that the claim that most vestigial structures
have later been discovered to have a function is YOUR claim; and the
examples provided to you as a challenge to you claims is a response to
that; and a challenge to you to provide some support for YOUR
assertions.
Chris doesn't have anything to prove. YOU made a claim, he challenged
YOUR claim with an example that appears to dispute your claim and
asked you if you had an explanation for it.
Let's watch how this plays out:
A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<s924suoqub61n62n3...@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:41:17 +0000 (UTC), "C. Thompson"
> <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In:
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?J29614C42
> >
> >Pagano said:
> >
> >> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
> >> sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
> >> function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
> >> vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
> >> please.
> >
> >Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire bats had
> >molar teeth.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Identifying a structure is a start, but there should exist a
> scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the molar
> teeth are characterized in this manner evidence.
It's simple, Tony. The molars in vampire bats are "characterized in
this manner" because they seem to serve no useful purpose for animals
that subsist on a liquid diet.
Molars are for crushing and chewing, after all.
So if there are no structures that can be considered vestigial - even
by YOUR understanding (which is incorrect, anyway) - why do vampire
bats have molars?
It's a simple enough question, Tony.
> A citation in the
> scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
> helpful.
Why?
> I will review the thread for this info.
Now, Tony, you KNOW that no one has actually posted a scientific
reference within this thread or any other recent thread on the
vestigial nature of the molars of vampire bats.
You're simply stonewalling and trying to give yourself rhetoric
ammunition. You know that if Chris answers this, you'll come back and
chide him for not listing a scientific reference.
I can't help but wonder, Tony, why it even matters. According to you,
"secularists" use unfair standards of evidence, anyway. So, if we
apply your standard as a demarcation point in this particular case,
that is, the presence of molars in bats that subsist on a liquid diet,
you can dismiss it (or, more likely, ignore it) because "secularists,"
after all, are using the unproven, unscientific standards of
metaphysical naturalism.
> >There was no response then.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I respond to suit my own time constraints and interests. If you have
> the last word in a thread what is your complaint?
Speaking for myself, I have no complaint, Tony.
I know that you duck away from these things because you know you have
no answer for them.
You have no answer for this specific issue, either, as is clear by
your obvious stonewalling.
If there are no vestigial structures or if most of the structures have
been declared to be functional, why do vampire bats have molars?
It's a simple enough question, Tony.
And if you claim that there are no vestigial structures, Tony, and we
can come up with ONE that meets even YOUR definition (which, of
course, you've never provided but to which you have alluded), then
that renders false any claim that they don't exist, doesn't it?
> >More recently, when Pagano returned to T.O., I asked again:
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E642C42
> >
> >Pagano replied:
> >
> >> Virtually all the organs and structures that have been characterized
> >> as "vestigial" were later found to have some function. That is, the
> >> vestigial argument is an argument from man's ignorance. While the
> >> vestigial argument occassionally crops up in this forum it is not
> >> often found in the popular secular literature as a defense of
> >> neoDarwinian evolution. Sheesh.
> >
> >I maintain that it does not matter where the argument takes place.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But it matters a great deal.
No, Tony, it doesn't.
> The strongest arguments are usually
> offered in the popular literature.
No, Tony, they're offered in the PROFESSIONAL literature.
> Vestigial structures are rarely
> offered in those works.
I showed earlier this morning that, preliminarily at least, this is
not true.
Of course, you could be referring to a non-standard application of
"rarely." One never knows with you, after all.
> > And in
> >fact, vestigial structures are cited as evidence of evolution in all the
> >Biology texts I have read- including Curtis & Barnes, Solomon et al., and
> >Campbell.
>
> Pagano replies:
> A biology text wouldn't be considered "popular" literature.
Why not?
> However,
> since you apparently have access to these texts please post the
> relevent sections (along with the complete citation including edition
> and publication date) so that we may see for ourselves whether or not
> they are cited as evidence and to what degree.
I have two comments about this, Tony.
First of all, we all know that if a reference is posted, you won't
check it out. You will drop the discussion and either move on to
something else or disappear for a time, only to return later and make
the same vague claims.
Secondly, I remind you that Chris's comments are a challenge to YOUR
claims. He doesn't have to DISPROVE you. YOU have to support what
you claim with some sort of reasonable evidence.
This is something you never do.
You claimed, among other things, that vestigial structures are simply
man's ignorance. You claimed, among other things, that these
structures likely have function that is simply unknown at the present
time.
That would normally sound quite reasonable. But coming from you, it's
simple misdirection.
You claimed, among other things, that about 200 vestigial structures
identified at the 1925 Scopes trial were later found to have
functions.
Forgetting for the moment that a vestigial structure is not
necessarily a structure without function, you have been asked to
specifically identify just a small percentage of these and you have
refused to do so.
So Chris picked up the ball on this old and tired Pagano argument.
Chris gave you a specific example and asked why molars in vampire bats
wouldn't be considered vestigial, particularly in light of your
claims.
That's all he did, Tony. That's what this boils down to.
You said, essentially, that vestigial structures don't exist.
Chris replied with, "here's one."
You ignored that for a while, but I think you've discovered that we
won't let it end with that - not as long as you're posting.
So you're trying to misdirect and stonewall.
> >What is Pagano's reply to *the substance* of my argument- not his reply to
> >who talks about vestigial structures?
>
> Pagano replies:
> As usual the substance is always somewhere else. It certainly isn't
> here.
Nor is it in ANY post that you ever put into the group, Tony.
Let's face it, Tony, you AVOID substantive posts and use the above
comment whenever you want to try to extricate yourself from a
situation. You IGNORE substantive posts and seek out posts that refer
to them, so that you can then toss in your "as usual the substance is
always somewhere else."
Part of your tactic is to get people to throw up their hands and give
up. Then you can pretend that they ran from you and you have even
tried to represent that they did.
Some of us aren't fooled by that, Tony, and some of us have patience
and the time to expose you. Some of us don't get angry at you, Tony -
you're far too pathetic for that.
There will always be some of us who will expose these tactics for what
they are.
So why not just answer the question or admit that you don't have an
answer?
Wouldn't that be a lot simpler, even for someone who is "unteachable?"
> But I shall review this thread for substance concerning the bat
> molar teeth and for substance from the biology text.
And you know you won't find it. You're stonewalling.
If there are no vestigial structures, why do vampire bats have molars,
Tony?
That's the question here.
> >Interestingly, Pagano never answered another question I posed quite some
> >time ago. I simply asked Pagano, since he is on record as claiming there
> >are no transitional species, if he thought a species was NOT transitional if
> >it arose from a different species, and gave rise to a third species.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The short answer is: NO.
The short answer is wrong.
But it does open us up for another speech, doesn't it, Tony?
To wit:
> For Darwin and most of his brethren after him every species after the
> self-replicating molecule was considered to be either in transition or
> part of a deadend evolutionary "branch." This renders the label
> "transitional" as largely useless. It certainly has no diagnostic
> value.
When did Darwin ever talk about "the self replicating molecule?"
Your claim isn't true, Tony. Yes, some consider all species to be
transitional; but not everyone does. What is or is not transitional
can depend on the viewpoint of the scientist, I suppose, which makes
"transitional" just as fluid in terms of what it means as "species."
But that doesn't render it useless.
Biology tells us that there will be transitional species. Logic tells
us that there will be evidence of these species; and history tells us
that these will be relatively rare.
That doesn't mean that they don't exist and it doesn't mean that the
label is useless.
> There are changes between generations within species that could be
> labeled "transitional" by evolutionists. And there are changes
> between species that could be labeled "transitional." And finally any
> change between a predecessor and a descendent could be labeled
> "transitional."
Yes, this does seem to be the case. So what?
You're not answering Chris's point, Tony.
> For the creationist a "transitional" would be direct observational
> evidence that genuinely new structures, new systems and new creatures
> arose gradually (a requirement of genetics)
How is this a requirement for genetics?
> in prehistory.
In other words, a "creationist" would be the one to render the word
"transitional" into something useless through standards that are
either vague, unknown, based on ignorance or on unreasonable
requirements that don't actually exist within a discipline (such as
"arose gradually" being a "requirement of genetics").
Would that be about right?
> Such
> evidence should exist in the fossil record but it is completely
> absent.
No, that's false.
The fossil record has a number of transitionals - the most famous
being Archaeopteryx, which has transitional features and even "nascent
structures" such as the often-mentioned fusion occurring in the wrist
bones as a precursor to the more advanced wings of later birds.
That looks like something that "arose gradually," Tony, and was
certainly governed by the creature's genetics.
So why doesn't Archaeopteryx fill the bill as a transitional?
> The fossil record shows structures appearing suddenly, fully
> formed and mature, and remaining that way for millions of years
> without much change.
The fossil record shows this SOME OF THE TIME. But then there's that
pesky Archaeopteryx again, isn't there?
> The fossil record shows "sudden appearance" and
> "stasis" not gradual evolutionary change leading to novelty and
> diversity.
The fossil record actually shows both - and then some. There are a
number of examples of gradual change and there are examples of sudden
appearance.
> Finally, the fact that one separated breeding population of
> foraminifera branches into several other separated breeding
> populations of foram isn't terribly interesting evidence if one is
> searching for empirical evidence that populations of mesonychid
> transformed into populations of whales. All the species of foram are
> still foram and nothing new has arisen. It's as simple as that.
Are you off on THAT again, Tony?
Elsberry destroyed your arguments along these lines quite some time
ago and more than once.
And who in the WORLD would try to match up foram evolution with those
of the mesonychids?
Oh, I'm sorry...I forgot.
YOU would.
No one with an ounce of sense would look at foram evolution and try to
make any claims about the mesonychids, Tony. The paragraph I quoted
above had to rank as one of the dumbest I've ever seen from you.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
We seem to be done.
Okay, Tony, the question is:
"If there are no vestigial structures or if most structures previously
thought to be vestigial have proven to have function, why do vampire
bats have molars?"
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by A Pagano
<anthony...@verizon.net>:
<snip>
>...there should exist a
>scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the molar
>teeth are characterized in this manner evidence. A citation in the
>scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
>helpful.
An obvious troll. Pagano has stated repeatedly that the
naturalistic assumptions of science aren't valid, which
makes any citation in a scientific journal worthless. Nice
try though...
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Alan Barclay
David Sienkiewicz <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote:
>It's simple, Tony. The molars in vampire bats are "characterized in
>this manner" because they seem to serve no useful purpose for animals
>that subsist on a liquid diet.
>
>Molars are for crushing and chewing, after all.
Obviously it's for when the bats are eating particularly chewy blood.
David Sienkiewicz
What about it?
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<l6u5su02d8paa663s...@4ax.com>...
David Sienkiewicz
> <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In:
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?J29614C42
> >
> >Pagano said:
> >
> >> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
> >> sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
> >> function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
> >> vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
> >> please.
> >
> >Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire bats had
> >molar teeth.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Identifying a structure is a start, but there should exist a
> scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the molar
> teeth are characterized in this manner evidence. A citation in the
> scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
> helpful. I will review the thread for this info.
Tony, Bob Casanova asked you a very good question about this.
Since you view science as suspect because it uses methods that are
"indistinguishable" from "metaphysical naturalism," what good would a
citation do?
A scientific citation would come from periodicals or references that
assume naturalism - something you reject and, in fact, criticize
science for "assuming."
So what good would it do to provide a "citation in the scientific
literature" when you would otherwise automatically reject such things?
Seems to me that this was just another rather poor attempt to dodge
the point.
And, of course, not surprisingly, you've disappeared from this thread
anyway.
C. Thompson
That's because he's finished drubbing us, I guess.
Chris
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
I used the term "troll" in its true sense; he's even boasted
about not answering posts because he's only providing
education and guidance for the hoi polloi here in t.o.
He's a troll in the purest sense of the term; he's also a
pompous windbag with delusions of adequacy.
A Pagano
>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some organ had a
>>>> sole function at some point in time, somehow stopped performing that
>>>> function (or became partially disfunctional), and became either
>>>> vestigial or started some new never-performed function. Examples
>>>> please.
>>>
>>> Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that vampire
>>> bats had molar teeth.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> Identifying a structure is a start, but there should exist a
>> scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the molar
>> teeth are characterized in this manner evidence. A citation in the
>> scientific literature documenting its vestigial nature would be
>> helpful. I will review the thread for this info.
>
>Try:
>
>http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/chiroptera/chiro
>ptera.phyllostomidae.html
>
>or:
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
Pagano replies:
The link offered by Thompson points to a Web page by John Hopkins
University Press (specifically "Walker's Mammals of the World") which
provides some general descriptive and systematics information
concerning the family, Phyllostomidae (American Leaf-nosed bats) and
the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat). The brief descriptive
information concerned only extant genera and offered no evolutionary
evidence concerning the teeth of Desmodontinae or the evolution of
their dietary habits. I suggest Thompson reread what the
reports-----he is supposed to provide----are supposed to illustrate
(please see above). I'm afraid this link doesn't provide anthing
required.
>
>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young, they nurse- like
>all mammals. As adults, they drink blood. The molars are no longer
>suitable since they have no grinding surfaces. Common sense indicates they
>are not used for anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
>entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not require the
>presence of molars.
Pagano replies:
It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging. According to
the link Thompson provided, "In the subfamily Desmodontinae...The
cheek teeth are greatly reduced, and all traces of crushing surfaces
are absent." This indicates that none of the individuals contained
within the genera under this subfamily have any "molars." If they
have no molars what vestigial structure is Thompson referring to.
There is no mention in the linked to Web page that any of the teeth
are vestigial or functionless.
While common sense is a good guide it varies depending upon one's
assumptions and presuppositions and it is hardly infallible. And it
is certainly not a substitute for empirical evidence combined with
logical argument. At least that's what secularists keep telling me.
Thompson's claim that the Desmodus genus has "lost" molars is also
question begging and a "lost" structure is not a "vestigial"
structure.
This is pathetic. I certainly gave Thompson a chance and plenty of
time too while I disposed of Baldwin and Rogers in the Naturalism
threads. As a result of this complete failure I see no reason to
waste time responding to the rest of Thompson's post.
But no need to stamp your feet Thompson since I shall give you the
last word in this thread.
I'm done.
Regards,
T Pagano
Traklman
>"vestigial"
>From: A Pagano anthony...@verizon.net
>Date: 11/8/2002 8:06 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <b02psuo6g64bcprjp...@4ax.com>
I suggest Pagano take a clear and honest stance on what exactly the argument
about vestigial organs is. I believe the original context was your refusal to
accept vestigial organs as evidence for evolution on the grounds that they are
not demonstrably vestigial. Now you seem to be saying that in order to
demonstrate that they are vestigial, they must first be shown to have evolved.
You can't have it both ways and still have any kind of real argument.
>>
>>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young, they nurse- like
>>all mammals. As adults, they drink blood. The molars are no longer
>>suitable since they have no grinding surfaces. Common sense indicates they
>>are not used for anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
>>entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not require the
>>presence of molars.
>
> Pagano replies:
>It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
>Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging. According to
>the link Thompson provided, "In the subfamily Desmodontinae...The
>cheek teeth are greatly reduced, and all traces of crushing surfaces
>are absent." This indicates that none of the individuals contained
>within the genera under this subfamily have any "molars." If they
>have no molars what vestigial structure is Thompson referring to.
Uh, the cheek teeth? What function do you suppose they have?
>There is no mention in the linked to Web page that any of the teeth
>are vestigial or functionless.
>
You're being obtuse. You know what kind of diet they have, and common sense
should tell you they don't use their teeth to chew their liquid diet. I'm sure
that you also understand that greatly reduced teeth without the appropriate
surfaces aren't very useful for chewing much of anything. If the teeth aren't
being used to chew, what are they being used for? Dazzling prospective mates
with your pretty bat smile? Probably not. Under the circumstances, referring
to them as functionless or vestigial is probably superfluous.
>While common sense is a good guide it varies depending upon one's
>assumptions and presuppositions and it is hardly infallible.
It doesn't have to be. Science doesn't require that its evidence or methods be
infallible, only that they be sufficiently reliable to be useful. Using
comparative anatomy to identify a structure as a version of a bat molar isn't a
terribly large stretch, especially when one has plenty of other bats with
perfectly good molars to compare Desmodus to, and all the relevant anatomical,
biochemical, and developmental details can be studied (possibly genomic as
well, but I don't know if the state of bat genomics is up to this).
>And it
>is certainly not a substitute for empirical evidence combined with
>logical argument. At least that's what secularists keep telling me.
>
>Thompson's claim that the Desmodus genus has "lost" molars is also
>question begging and a "lost" structure is not a "vestigial"
>structure.
>
>This is pathetic. I certainly gave Thompson a chance and plenty of
>time too while I disposed of Baldwin and Rogers in the Naturalism
>threads. As a result of this complete failure I see no reason to
>waste time responding to the rest of Thompson's post.
>
Why not? You wasted time responding to the first part of his post. And it
*was* a waste of time.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Elmer Bataitis
> I certainly gave Thompson a chance and plenty of
> time too while I disposed of Baldwin and Rogers in the Naturalism
> threads.
Bwahgahaha!
Say Tony, I must have missed this thread where you disposed of Baldwin
and Rogers. Are you posting non-naturally again?
Mike Dunford
>>>> Pagano said:
>>>>> It would be interesting to see Steven J prove that some
>>>>> organ had a sole function at some point in time, somehow
>>>>> stopped performing that function (or became partially
>>>>> disfunctional), and became either vestigial or started some
>>>>> new never-performed function. Examples please.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I am not Steven J, but at that time, I mentioned that
>>>> vampire bats had molar teeth.
>>>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> Identifying a structure is a start, but there should exist a
>>> scientific report or reports which offer discussion of why the
>>> molar teeth are characterized in this manner evidence. A
>>> citation in the scientific literature documenting its
>>> vestigial nature would be helpful. I will review the thread
>>> for this info.
>>
>>Try:
>>
>>http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/chiro
>>ptera/chiro ptera.phyllostomidae.html
>>
>>or:
>>
>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
>
> Pagano replies:
> The link offered by Thompson points to a Web page by John
> Hopkins University Press (specifically "Walker's Mammals of the
> World") which provides some general descriptive and systematics
> information concerning the family, Phyllostomidae (American
> Leaf-nosed bats) and the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire
> bat). The brief descriptive information concerned only extant
> genera and offered no evolutionary evidence concerning the teeth
> of Desmodontinae or the evolution of their dietary habits.
While such a discussion would be both interesting and educational, it
is not directly relevant to the issue at hand. Your initial claim
was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact have
a function. It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or not it
serves some function.
> I
> suggest Thompson reread what the reports-----he is supposed to
> provide
Actually, you are the one who made the initial positive assertion, so
you are the one who should bear the responsibility of providing
evidence. After all, it should be far easier to demonstrate that the
molars of vampire bats have a purpose than to prove that they have
none.
>----are supposed to illustrate (please see above). I'm
> afraid this link doesn't provide anthing required.
That does not appear to be the case.
>>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young, they
>>nurse- like all mammals. As adults, they drink blood. The
>>molars are no longer suitable since they have no grinding
>>surfaces. Common sense indicates they are not used for
>>anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
>>entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not
>>require the presence of molars.
>
> Pagano replies:
> It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
> Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging.
No. It is a commonly used classification for teeth in a certain
position.
> According to the link Thompson provided, "In the subfamily
> Desmodontinae...The cheek teeth are greatly reduced, and all
> traces of crushing surfaces are absent." This indicates that
> none of the individuals contained within the genera under this
> subfamily have any "molars." If they have no molars what
> vestigial structure is Thompson referring to. There is no
> mention in the linked to Web page that any of the teeth are
> vestigial or functionless.
Pagano needs to read for comprehension, or learn to ask for help when
he does not understand what he is reading:
"The dental formulas for the three genera of vampire
bats are: Desmodus, (i 1/2, c 1/1, pm 2/3, m 0/0) × 2
= 20; Diaemus, (i 1/2, c 1/1, pm 1/2, m 2/1) × 2 = 22;
and Diphylla, (i 2/2, c 1/1, pm 1/2, m 2/2) × 2 = 26."
That passage is taken from the paragraph quoted by Pagano, and in
fact occurs within the quoted passage, so he has definitely seen it.
(I would hope that you omitted the material simply because you didn't
understand it, and not because you understood that it directly
contradicted your claim.)
The m in those formulas is shorthand for "molar". We see that one of
the three genera (_Desmodus_) of vampire bats in fact has no molars
at all, while the other two (_Diaemus_ & _Diphylla_) have some (6 & 8
respectively). Pagano may prefer to evade the question at hand by
claiming that those teeth are not actually molars because they are
"greatly reduced, and all traces of crushing surfaces are absent",
but such a claim represents a retreat into empty verbalistic
quibbling rather than a good faith effort to address the real
question.
For convienience, I will rephrase the question: What purpose do m-
position teeth serve in a blood drinking animal?
Such teeth are located too far back in the mouth to assist in
incising the flesh, and blood is generally not characterized as
"chewey". It is true that the cited website does not specifically say
that those teeth serve no purpose. That is unsurprising. Most readers
should be able to reach that conclusion on their own, rather than
needing the technical textbook to lead them there by the hand.
> While common sense is a good guide it varies depending upon
> one's assumptions and presuppositions and it is hardly
> infallible. And it is certainly not a substitute for empirical
> evidence combined with logical argument. At least that's what
> secularists keep telling me.
In this case, the common sense argument would appear to rest firmly
on the available empirical evidence. Molars (m-position teeth) are
not used by vampire bats to inflict a wound. Inflicting the wound is
the only part of the feeding process a vampire bat uses teeth for.
(Blood is not chewey.) Therefore, it is difficult to conceive of a
possible purpose for the m-position teeth in the vampire bats.
The ball is clearly in your court at the moment, Pagano. You were the
one who made the initial claim, and you are the one who has failed to
even attempt to defend your position. Either provide a purpose (with
references) for the m-position teeth of the vampire bats, or
acknowledge that as far as anyone can tell, they do not appear to
serve any useful function.
--Mike Dunford
--
From now on it is only through a conscious choice and through a
deliberate policy that humanity can survive.
--Pope John Paul II
A Pagano
>>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> The link offered by Thompson points to a Web page by John
>> Hopkins University Press (specifically "Walker's Mammals of the
>> World") which provides some general descriptive and systematics
>> information concerning the family, Phyllostomidae (American
>> Leaf-nosed bats) and the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire
>> bat). The brief descriptive information concerned only extant
>> genera and offered no evolutionary evidence concerning the teeth
>> of Desmodontinae or the evolution of their dietary habits.
>
>While such a discussion would be both interesting and educational, it
>is not directly relevant to the issue at hand.
Pagano replies:
Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For without such
historical evidence the assertion that some existing structure in a
descendent population is vestigial (a) in relation to the predecessor
population and (b) as a result of the neoDarwinian process is nothing
more than story telling.
Also we should be clear that the purported change of a structure with
a useful function in some predecessor population to a different but
useful function in a descendent population does not make the structure
in the predecessor population "vestigial."
>Your initial claim
>was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact have
>a function.
Pagano replies:
More or less. I argue:
1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will "become"
vestigial and as a result it does not predict their existence in the
fossil record or the living world. It predicts the emergence of
nascent structures and their existence in the living world..
2. That as far as I know all claims that a structure is vestigial
have been arguments from man's ignorance of their actual function.
And that there is often little if any evidence that some purported
"vestigial" structure arose via a neodarwinian process (as opposed to
a Mendelian one).
3. A shift in function of a particular structure between predecessor
and descendent population is not prima facie evidence that the
structure in the descendent is vestigial. A vestigial structure is
one which has little or no utility.
>It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
>evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or not it
>serves some function.
Pagano replies:
Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I asked for
some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary biology,
systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become branches of
philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence and logical
argument devoid of question begging.
And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
establish that a structure or organ
(1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
(2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
history which did perform a useful function, and
(3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That the
teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't have
crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that they they serve
no useful function (in relation to the predecessor structures or not)
or that this change was the result of a neoDarwinian process as
opposed to a Mendelian process.
>> I
>> suggest Thompson reread what the reports-----he is supposed to
>> provide
>
>Actually, you are the one who made the initial positive assertion, so
>you are the one who should bear the responsibility of providing
>evidence. After all, it should be far easier to demonstrate that the
>molars of vampire bats have a purpose than to prove that they have
>none.
>
>>----are supposed to illustrate (please see above). I'm
>> afraid this link doesn't provide anthing required.
>
>That does not appear to be the case.
>
>>>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young, they
>>>nurse- like all mammals. As adults, they drink blood. The
>>>molars are no longer suitable since they have no grinding
>>>surfaces. Common sense indicates they are not used for
>>>anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
>>>entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not
>>>require the presence of molars.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
>> Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging.
>
>No. It is a commonly used classification for teeth in a certain
>position.
Pagano replies:
I consulted three dictionaries one of which was "The Dictionary of
Modern Biology" (Barron's, 1997) and they seem to disagree. The label
"molar" has at least three diagnostic characteristics:
1. location of the tooth
2. size of the tooth and crown
3 and function of the tooth
If the cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae subfamily of vampire bats are
vestigial molars from some predecessor population then we need to see
some physical historical evidence that the change is neoDarwinian.
And we need to see some current zoological evidence that the cheek
teeth of the extant subfamily of vampire bats have no useful function.
Failing this you crash and burn with Thompson. Dunford's up to bat.
snip
more to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
Bigdakine
>"vestigial"
>Date: 11/8/02 4:43 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <20021108214833...@mb-cj.aol.com>
Dumb question here... but how do Vampire bats get at the blood?
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Traklman
>"vestigial"
>Date: 11/9/2002 2:10 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20021109151634...@mb-mv.aol.com>
gen2rev
They have really nasty-looking canines... and the two front upper
incisors look worse... Check out
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~wjh101/hedbone/Vampire/vampire.htm
Von Smith
pontificate, rather than stick around in the current one, I decided to
pull his latest response, with my commentary, right back into this
thread where it belongs:
A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<a5hqsuo1r2so0pcsf...@4ax.com>...
> >>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
> >>
<snip>
Why are you starting a new thread? Why not bring this back into the
thread where it belongs? It's not like it was becoming too long.
> >While such a discussion would be both interesting and educational, it
> >is not directly relevant to the issue at hand.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For without such
> historical evidence the assertion that some existing structure in a
> descendent population is vestigial (a) in relation to the predecessor
> population and (b) as a result of the neoDarwinian process is nothing
> more than story telling.
>
> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a structure with
> a useful function in some predecessor population to a different but
> useful function in a descendent population does not make the structure
> in the predecessor population "vestigial."
>
>
> >Your initial claim
> >was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact have
> >a function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> More or less. I argue:
> 1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will "become"
> vestigial and as a result it does not predict their existence in the
> fossil record or the living world.
Actually, it does. Given the fact that the genetic code is
degenerate, accumulated mutations in the absence of selective
pressures in favor of maintaining the function of a given structure
are just as likely to lead to impaired or decreased function of that
structure over time. Hence the neo-Darwinian model not only predicts
the existence of such degenerate structures, it suggests the
circumstances under which they are likely to appear. Vampire bats are
descended from creatures who had and used molars. They and their more
immediate descendants did not use their molars, so these have
degenerated over time. The prediction is that the reduction of molars
will coincide with a change in the bats' diet, and probably in its
whole environment.
It predicts the emergence of
> nascent structures and their existence in the living world..
and mordant structures and their existence in the living world..
> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a structure is vestigial
> have been arguments from man's ignorance of their actual function.
Actually, they are arguments based on inferences about where these
apparently functionless structures came from. Blind cave-fish have
strikingly eye-like features in exactly the same place most other fish
have their eyes. What are these structures if they are not eyes, and
if they *are* eyes, why can they not see? That they are vestiges
inherited from fish ancestors with normal eyes represents an inference
to best explanation; anyone who wishes to challenge it needs to either
provide evidence that it is wrong or furnish a more compelling
explanation for the structures in question.
> And that there is often little if any evidence that some purported
> "vestigial" structure arose via a neodarwinian process (as opposed to
> a Mendelian one).
Perhaps you could explain what this means. If you wish to say that
accumulated genetic change in the absence of relevant selective
pressures isn't really a neo-Darwinian process, you may be correct;
however, if your real goal is to dispute the role of evolution in the
shaping of life as we see it today, that isn't really a very
interesting quibble.
> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between predecessor
> and descendent population is not prima facie evidence that the
> structure in the descendent is vestigial. A vestigial structure is
> one which has little or no utility.
>
You are committing yourself the claim here that structures that were
once functional never cease to have some sort of function, even if it
is not the same as it was earlier. That is a positive claim, and you
need to be able to back it up. Can you?
>
> >It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
> >evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or not it
> >serves some function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I asked for
> some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary biology,
> systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become branches of
> philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence and logical
> argument devoid of question begging.
>
> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
> establish that a structure or organ
> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> history which did perform a useful function, and
> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
>
I don't see how (3) is a requirement. If a structure meets
requirements (1) and (2), what is it, if not vestigial? How does the
question of whether the change is the result of neo-Darwinian
evolution as opposed to neutral drift matter?
> Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That the
> teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't have
> crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that they they serve
> no useful function (in relation to the predecessor structures or not)
> or that this change was the result of a neoDarwinian process as
> opposed to a Mendelian process.
>
>
> >> I
> >> suggest Thompson reread what the reports-----he is supposed to
> >> provide
> >
> >Actually, you are the one who made the initial positive assertion, so
> >you are the one who should bear the responsibility of providing
> >evidence. After all, it should be far easier to demonstrate that the
> >molars of vampire bats have a purpose than to prove that they have
> >none.
> >
> >>----are supposed to illustrate (please see above). I'm
> >> afraid this link doesn't provide anthing required.
> >
> >That does not appear to be the case.
> >
> >>>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young, they
> >>>nurse- like all mammals. As adults, they drink blood. The
> >>>molars are no longer suitable since they have no grinding
> >>>surfaces. Common sense indicates they are not used for
> >>>anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
> >>>entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not
> >>>require the presence of molars.
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
> >> Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging.
> >
> >No. It is a commonly used classification for teeth in a certain
> >position.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I consulted three dictionaries one of which was "The Dictionary of
> Modern Biology" (Barron's, 1997) and they seem to disagree. The label
> "molar" has at least three diagnostic characteristics:
> 1. location of the tooth
> 2. size of the tooth and crown
> 3 and function of the tooth
>
> If the cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae subfamily of vampire bats are
> vestigial molars from some predecessor population then we need to see
> some physical historical evidence that the change is neoDarwinian.
> And we need to see some current zoological evidence that the cheek
> teeth of the extant subfamily of vampire bats have no useful function.
They don't have functional grinding surfaces and the creatures that
have them don't have a diet that requires cheek teeth. They probably
aren't much good for fighting or anything else teeth are normally used
for, either. That makes a strong enough case for their status as
vestigial organs that anyone saying they aren't carry their own burden
of proof. Is it really reasonable to insist that they *do* still have
a function, if no one can find any, and all the obvious candidates are
out the window?
catshark
<gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Traklman wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: NO evidence, question begging, and confusion between "lost" and
>> >"vestigial"
>> >From: bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
>> >Date: 11/9/2002 2:10 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <20021109151634...@mb-mv.aol.com>
>> >
>> >>Subject: Re: NO evidence, question begging, and confusion between "lost" and
>> >>"vestigial"
>> >>From: trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>> >>Date: 11/8/02 4:43 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: <20021108214833...@mb-cj.aol.com>
>> >>
>> >>>Subject: Re: NO evidence, question begging, and confusion between "lost"
>> >and
>> >>>"vestigial"
>> >>>From: A Pagano anthony...@verizon.net
>> >>>Date: 11/8/2002 8:06 PM Central Standard Time
>> >>>Message-id: <b02psuo6g64bcprjp...@4ax.com>
>> >>>
[snip]
>> >
>> >Dumb question here... but how do Vampire bats get at the blood?
>> >
>> Not sure, but I think they have *front* teeth.
>
>They have really nasty-looking canines... and the two front upper
>incisors look worse... Check out
>http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~wjh101/hedbone/Vampire/vampire.htm
And, IIRC, their saliva contains an anticoagulant, so once they use
those needle shap canines to make puncture wounds (mostly in cattle)
they keep the blood flowing until they have drunk their fill.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
Steven J.
> >>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> The link offered by Thompson points to a Web page by John
> >> Hopkins University Press (specifically "Walker's Mammals of the
> >> World") which provides some general descriptive and systematics
> >> information concerning the family, Phyllostomidae (American
> >> Leaf-nosed bats) and the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire
> >> bat). The brief descriptive information concerned only extant
> >> genera and offered no evolutionary evidence concerning the teeth
> >> of Desmodontinae or the evolution of their dietary habits.
> >
> >While such a discussion would be both interesting and educational, it
> >is not directly relevant to the issue at hand.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For without such
> historical evidence the assertion that some existing structure in a
> descendent population is vestigial (a) in relation to the predecessor
> population and (b) as a result of the neoDarwinian process is nothing
> more than story telling.
>
missed many of your threads) that you have ever addressed the point
that the chief evidence for common descent is *not* the fossil record
(and I can't think of what else would count as "historical evidence"),
but the nested hierarchy of living things. Consistent nested
hierarchies of homologous features (features whose similarities are
not required by similar function) are found in languages, recopied
copies of manuscripts, and other groups of objects (including living
things) which are copied or copy themselves with modification. They
are *not* found in nonliving features of nature like minerals, or in
groups of human artifacts.
Vampire bats fall into a group of bats all of whom have cheek teeth,
but those in vampire bats are simplified, reduced, and apparently
functionless. The cheek teeth are a homology of clearly functional
teeth in other bats (and indeed in other mammals), and just as common
descent is a reasonable explanation for this homology, "vestigiality"
is a reasonable explanation for the apparently nonfunctional condition
of unneeded teeth.
>
> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a structure with
> a useful function in some predecessor population to a different but
> useful function in a descendent population does not make the structure
> in the predecessor population "vestigial."
>
If you wish to simply define "vestigial" structures out of existence,
you may, I suppose, but then you'd need some new term for the
characteristic. Vestigial structures are an example of what Darwin
cited as "similar structures used for dissimilar purposes." They are
simply an extreme case of the seemingly pointless (but explicable on
grounds of common descent) sort of similarity seen between the vampire
bat's wings and the dolphin's flippers -- detailed similarities in
design that aren't at all called for by great similarities in
function. In the case of vestigial organs, the function itself seems
dispensible, or only a fraction of the function of the homolog in
similar species.
>
> >Your initial claim
> >was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact have
> >a function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> More or less. I argue:
> 1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will "become"
> vestigial and as a result it does not predict their existence in the
> fossil record or the living world. It predicts the emergence of
> nascent structures and their existence in the living world..
>
NeoDarwinism (I will take that to mean the modern synthetic theory of
evolution) predicts vestigial organs to exactly the extent that it
predicts "nascent" organs (I will take that to mean organs only
slightly adapted to the function to which they are put -- like the
flap of skin between the fore and hind limbs of flying squirrels, or
the feathered, lengthened theropod arm of _Archaeopteryx_).
Strictly speaking, neoDarwinism does not predict that such organs will
develop at all; Darwin expected most lineages to spend most of their
time undergoing no significant morphological change, and in principle
this "stasis" could extend indefinitely (think silverfish, among
insects, or bacteria). OTOH, adaption by mutation and natural
selection would invariably lead not only to old structures being
reshaped to be more useful to whatever new purposes they were put
(e.g. the theropod arm being reshaped into a proper bird's wing), but
to old structures which no longer served any such purpose being
reduced and eliminated. A mammal returning to the seas has no pressing
need for hind limbs, or external ears, and can expect to lose them.
Any drastic change over time virtually demands that organs become
vestigial.
>
> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a structure is vestigial
> have been arguments from man's ignorance of their actual function.
> And that there is often little if any evidence that some purported
> "vestigial" structure arose via a neodarwinian process (as opposed to
> a Mendelian one).
>
Given that not all vestigial structures are in fact believed to be
functionless -- some continue to serve some fraction of their original
function -- obviously vestigiality is not inferred merely because no
function is known. And, of course, while the assumption that no known
function equates simply to no function at all may well be premature,
the counterassumption that there must be some vital function to every
feature is equally an argument from ignorance -- "you can't prove this
is functionless, so I can say it has a function."
By a "Mendelian" one, I assume you mean mutations that result in a
reduction and simplification of structure (a "loss of information").
But such mutations would be strongly selected against, if they
impaired the organism's chances of survival. Thus only if the organ
is no longer needed, at least for its original purpose, could such
mutations spread through the population -- this is, precisely, a
neoDarwinian process. And, often, of course, there would be a
selective advantage to such a reduction in a structure, since it would
save resources that could be shifted to other uses.
For that matter, how important is it that the process by which a
structure becomes vestigial be "neoDarwinian?" Vestigial structures
are primarily evidence of common descent, and evidence of mechanism
only to the extent that they imply a mechanism that cannot immediately
delete a structure that is no longer needed in a lineage's new
ecological niche. The question of common descent is separate from the
question of mechanism -- Darwin deduced common descent before he
thought of natural selection as a means to produce it, and some ID
proponents accept common descent without accepting neoDarwinian
mechanisms as adequate to explain it.
>
> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between predecessor
> and descendent population is not prima facie evidence that the
> structure in the descendent is vestigial. A vestigial structure is
> one which has little or no utility.
>
It is one that has utility for fewer purposes than the ancestral
structure.
>
> >It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
> >evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or not it
> >serves some function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I asked for
> some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary biology,
> systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become branches of
> philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence and logical
> argument devoid of question begging.
>
Yes, but again, the history of a feature is typically inferred from
comparisons with other extant species within the nested hierarchy of
life. Even fossils serve essentially the same purposes -- they may
show more primitive forms of features (but then, all bats with
functional molars show more primitive forms of the vampire bat's cheek
teeth), but ancestor-descendant relationships between any fossil and
any living form cannot be proved. Even a very plausible ancestoral
fossil may be as much a collateral branch as any living relative.
>
> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
> establish that a structure or organ
> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> history which did perform a useful function, and
> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
>
In other words, if we cannot prove that:
(1) a structure or organ not merely lacks any obvious function, but
lacks any unknown function, and
(2a) that a direct ancestor-descendant relationship exists between the
organism with this structure and some fossil with the homologous
structure, and
(2b) that the fossil homolog had some useful function, and
(3) that mutation and natural selection, rather than mutation and
genetic drift, or space aliens, or elf magic, produced this change,
then you don't have to admit that cheek teeth, in a bat that doesn't
chew food, or embryonic teeth, in a baleen whale that neither has nor
needs teeth after birth, or so forth and so on, are precisely the
sorts of things we would expect mutation and natural selection to
produce as organisms evolved into niches where former structures were
no longer needed.
I recall that you used this same method -- demand evidence of a
calibre that there was every reason to expect would not exist even
were the theory completely correct, and then treat the failure to meet
them as some contradiction of the theory by the evidence -- in your
discussion of transitional fossils.
>
> Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That the
> teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't have
> crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that they they serve
> no useful function (in relation to the predecessor structures or not)
> or that this change was the result of a neoDarwinian process as
> opposed to a Mendelian process.
>
They are exactly the sort of feature we would expect if the theory of
common descent by "neoDarwian" mechanisms were correct. And the fact
that something serves no discernable purpose is, precisely, "prima
facie" evidence that, in fact, it serves no function ("prima facie"
means, after all, "on the face of things," or "at first look" -- it
could be misleading, but that's the way the evidence actually looks).
Such homologies, which surely are not demanded by any sort of common
function, are not the most obvious mark of intelligent design -- but
then, the key mark of intelligent design is that no one seems able to
say what it would look like. Of course, arguing using terms and
concepts you refuse to define -- even the distinction you wish to make
between "neoDarwinian" and "Mendellian" processes -- is almost a
trademark of yours.
The location of the tooth is the same. The whole point of
"vestigiality" isthat one would expect a reduction of tooth size and
crown complexity, and of function.
>
> If the cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae subfamily of vampire bats are
> vestigial molars from some predecessor population then we need to see
> some physical historical evidence that the change is neoDarwinian.
>
The physical evidence is the nested hierarchy of morphology and
biochemistry among living bats, which is explicable by common descent,
but follows no discernable method of common design (nor, of course, is
there any idea of how many "created kinds" the Chiroptera comprise, or
what genera they comprise). The bats that share the most homologies
(the most closely related, by inference) with desmodontinins have
molars. Desmodontinins have these little cheek teeth that are in the
right place to be molars, but don't chew, or do anything else that
anyone can discern. Given that mammals other than bats tend to have
molars, and also fit into the sort of nested hierarchy that is
produced by common descent (and no other process) it is inferred that
the last common ancestor of vampires and other bats had functional
molars, which vampire bats lost.
Again, your demand for "physical historical evidence that the change
is neoDarwinian" seems like a demand for evidence you are sure could
not exist, *no matter how true the theory is*. The principle evidence
is that [a] we know that the mechanisms (mutation and natural
selection) on which neoDarwinian explanations depend actually exist,
and [b] there is nothing in the anatomy of vampire bat jaws and teeth
that cannot be explained readily in terms of small, incremental
modifications of preexisting structures similar to those existing in
the vampire bats' closest relatives.
>
> And we need to see some current zoological evidence that the cheek
> teeth of the extant subfamily of vampire bats have no useful function.
> Failing this you crash and burn with Thompson. Dunford's up to bat.
>
Cheek teeth are normally used for chewing. They can, of course, be
modified for slicing or shredding. Given, yet again, that vampire
bats subsist on an exclusively liquid diet that requires no such
functions, the cheek teeth perfrom at least one fewer function than is
typical of such teeth, and their reduced size and complexity reflects
this diminishment of function.
Come, Tony. How can you so boldly declare that your opponents "crash
and burn" when they provide less than absolute and airtight proof of
their claims, while you can provide no shred of evidence for yours?
Nothing can be proved to the exclusion even of unreasonable doubts.
You cannot show any even alleged function for the cheek teeth of
vampire bats, or any reason to establish vampire bats in a "created
kind" separate from bats with functional molars. Your entire case for
the nonexistence of vestigial organs, as for the existence of
"supernatural causes," rests on tossing the burdern of proof for
refuting your claims on your opponents, and demanding standards of
evidence that could never be met, no matter what the facts.
>
> snip
>
> more to follow if time permits
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Joe Cummings
Hooray! Tony's going to entertain us again with some waffle
about "nascent structures!"
This is one of his favourite topics, where he flounders quite
spectacularly.
This is one of those topics which invite floods of replies,
and where Tony betrays an asinine ignorance.
Here's how he defined nascency last year:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rnum=1&selm=3B705CAA.E06F324F%40fast.net
we find this:
A "nascent" structure is quite simply a structure which is
somewhere between its very birth and its fully formed and mature
state.
And in
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B71DBC9.F072CA46%40fast.net
I USE "NASCENT" TO MEAN IMMATURE AND INCOMPLETE [Original in
capitals]
This intrigued me and I sent a reply:
7th. August 2001
I've had quite a bit of fun reading the answers to Pagano's
"Re: Nascent Structures Explained again."
The responses are perfectly clear in their correction of
Pagano's naive ideas of "full maturity,"
What intrigued me was his stab at a definition of "nascency."
It's commonly understood that birth is a process - sometimes a
prolonged and painful process - and when a new organism is coming into
being "nascent" can be applied to this being.
Now let's see what Tony delivers himself of (sorry for the
obstetric connotations):
>A "nascent"
>structure is quite simply a structure which is somewhere between its
>very birth and its fully formed and mature state.
Are we to understand that Tony believes birth to be an
instantaneous process? Do we describe small children and rebellious
adolescents as "nascent?" . After all, they aren't fully formed and
mature.
I was quite distressed to find that Tony wasn't able to reply.
Maybe he'll try to do better this time. I doubt it, however.
Look, for instance, at his dumbness over the Fatima affair.
Here was a golden opportunity to demonstrate the way in which the
supernatural can irrupt into the natural world. But from Tony,
silence.
Here was an opportunity to show how his supernatural
"science" can study one-off events. But from Tony, silence.
However, when it comes to his quite glaring ignorance of
biology, he'll waffle all day.
Ah, well.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
David Sienkiewicz
> >>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> The link offered by Thompson points to a Web page by John
> >> Hopkins University Press (specifically "Walker's Mammals of the
> >> World") which provides some general descriptive and systematics
> >> information concerning the family, Phyllostomidae (American
> >> Leaf-nosed bats) and the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire
> >> bat). The brief descriptive information concerned only extant
> >> genera and offered no evolutionary evidence concerning the teeth
> >> of Desmodontinae or the evolution of their dietary habits.
> >
> >While such a discussion would be both interesting and educational, it
> >is not directly relevant to the issue at hand.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential.
Actually, it isn't.
Tony, your original claim with respect to vestigial structures is that
those structures thought to be vestigial - including some 200
allegedly presented at the Scopes Trial - are now known to have
function
That was YOUR original claim and it and your other associated claims
are what prompted the current discussion.
In light of YOUR claim, you were asked about the molars in vampire
bats.
What function do they serve?
Chris provided a reference that shows that they are, indeed, vestigial
as the word is commonly used and understood in the scientific
community.
Someone else last night - I can't remember who - actually posted a
link showing pictures of the skull of the vampire bat. The cheek
teeth - another term for molars and premolars - are clearly visible.
You were challenged repeatedly to explain the function and you
reversed the challenge. You created a straw man in order to avoid the
fact that you can't answer the question.
You can't tell us what function the cheek teeth have - if any.
You didn't even KNOW that cheek teeth are molars and premolars and any
HONEST person would have admitted that when it was pointed out (you
didn't).
You're telling us that vestigial structures are structures with little
or no function (that's wrong) and now you're moving the goalposts
still further.
But let's continue.
> For without such
> historical evidence the assertion that some existing structure in a
> descendent population is vestigial (a) in relation to the predecessor
> population and (b) as a result of the neoDarwinian process is nothing
> more than story telling.
Neither (a) nor (b) are necessarily required for us to determine if a
structure or an organ is vestigial.
(a) would be nice; and we have SOME indications from other species of
bats. Fruit-eating bats have molars and they use them. Carnivorous
bats have molars and they use them, too. These species have diets
consisting of solid food.
The vampire bat subsists on a liquid diet. It has no use for molars
and premolars, yet they exist in reduced and degenerate form.
The question put to you is "why," Tony.
Your claim is that there are no vestigial structures. Yet, clearly we
have something going on in the vampire bat. It doesn't matter that we
might not know (and I'm not sure we don't, but neither you nor I are
experts on bats) much about the evolutionary history of the vampire
bat. We obviously have some sort of degenerate structure that is at
least homologous to the molars in related species.
So why do they exist in vampire bats?
> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a structure with
> a useful function in some predecessor population to a different but
> useful function in a descendent population does not make the structure
> in the predecessor population "vestigial."
Actually, it does.
According to professional biologists who do not have a religious
agenda, Tony, a vestigial structure is a structure with no apparent
purpose or one that is different from the original function.
Redefining terms to suit your argument is a form of "straw man
argumentation," Tony.
But even if we accept YOUR definition, what "different but useful
function" do the cheek teeth serve in vampire bats?
That IS the question put to you, after all.
> >Your initial claim
> >was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact have
> >a function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> More or less. I argue:
> 1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will "become"
> vestigial and as a result it does not predict their existence in the
> fossil record or the living world. It predicts the emergence of
> nascent structures and their existence in the living world.
Wrong.
Tony, I won't spend years asking you think neodarwinism is or what it
entails. Others have tried that and you have ducked the question, no
doubt because you want to represent that clearly defining terms causes
confusion in conversation, as you have said.
But you clearly have no idea what neodarwinism requires or predicts.
The fact is that degenerate, reduced and vestigial structures are
clearly consistent with what one would expect in neodarwinian
mechanisms.
Care to debate this?
> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a structure is vestigial
> have been arguments from man's ignorance of their actual function.
Yes, yes, you've said this before and I challened it then. Others did
as well and you were asked about the functions of certain specific
structures and organs and, as usual, you failed to deliver the goods.
So, as usual, you are simply repeating your same, old unsubstantive
speeches and failing, as usual, to deliver the goods.
> And that there is often little if any evidence that some purported
> "vestigial" structure arose via a neodarwinian process (as opposed to
> a Mendelian one).
What is the difference between a "neodarwinian process" and a
"Mendealian one," Tony?
MY understanding of neodarwinism is that it is a synthesis that takes
Mendellian genetic mechanisms into account.
> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between predecessor
> and descendent population is not prima facie evidence that the
> structure in the descendent is vestigial.
Speaking as one very familiar with the concept of prima facie
evidence, I can tell you that you're wrong, Tony.
Given the standard definition, as I understand it, of a vestigial
structure - one that is degenerate or reduced or has a different
function - it serves quite well as prima facie evidence.
> A vestigial structure is
> one which has little or no utility.
So why do vampire bats have cheek teeth?
Why do whales have pelvic bones? For that matter, why do boas?
What is the function of the human appendix? Why do we have tail
bones?
You see, Tony, even if we accept your definition, you STILL have a lot
to explain if you're going to claim that there are no vestigial
structures or organs.
Your appeal to ignorance - asserting that we simply don't know the
function - is wishful thinking.
Of course, we know that this is par for the course for you. You
reject evolution in general and you tell us that most scientific
theories over the centuries eventually were proven false and that's
how you approach evolution. You can't tell us WHY it wil be proven
false, of course, because you don't know. You simply wish it will
happen and extrapolate that to the history of scientific theories in
general.
Here, you're using wishful thinking in a more specific sense. You
don't know the function of the cheek teeth in vampire bats, but you
are fervently hoping that a function might be discovered and you
redefine terms in the meantime.
Wishful thinking isn't going to work, Tony. Grow up. I wish I was
shorter and younger but that's not going to happen.
> >It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
> >evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or not it
> >serves some function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I?
Pretty much, yes. Maybe not the ENTIRE history, but you are certainly
placing unreasonable requirements that I'm sure you know can't be met.
> I asked for
> some empirical evidence.
You got it. Vampire bats have cheek teeth. That you didn't know that
cheek teeth are molars and premolars is significant in that you were
once again caught making haughty, pompous and arrogant assertions
about an issue that you are clearly ignorant about. That did a number
to your credibility for any reasonable person, Tony. But aside from
that, you have clear evidence that vampire bats have a structure in
their jaws that serves no apparent function.
> And unless evolutionary biology,
> systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become branches of
> philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence and logical
> argument devoid of question begging.
The only one begging the question is you, Tony. However, I would
think of it more as "moving the goalposts" in order to avoid the
challenge put to YOU as a result of YOUR assertions.
> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
> establish that a structure or organ
> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
Okay, so what function do the cheek teeth in vampire bats serve?
No one here seems to know; and there seems to be no indication that
these are used in any of the literature. Therefore, as far as ANY of
us can tell, cheek teeth in vampire bats serve no function.
Based on that, your assertions that there are no vestigial structures
was answered using vampire bats as an example; and you were asked to
provide the function.
Since you cannot answer, it must be that the cheek teeth in vampire
bats are vestigial, and you are too immature and intellectually
dishonest to admit it.
I report...everyone else decides.
> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> history which did perform a useful function, and
There is no necessary requirement in this regard since the scarcity of
a fossil record - particularly in this case - must be taken into
account. We DO have some evidence and we do have modern bats and
fossil bats with molars and premolars that are not reduced as they are
in vampire bats. From this, we can theorize about the diets of
ancestors but we don't have to do that with extant species - we can
OBSERVE this in them.
We don't observe the same things in vampire bats.
> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
In order for a structure or organ to be declared "vestigial," it MUST
be shown to be the "result of neoDarwinian evolution?"
Why?
Let's assume for the moment that you DO have an understanding of
neodarwinism, Tony.
I know you don't, but let's assume that you do.
Why must it be demonstrated that the proposed vestigial structure or
organ is "the result of neoDarwinian evolution?"
Frankly, even an amateur like me can come up with a neodarwinian
scenario that would explain the vestiges of cheek teeth in vampire
bats.
But, really, we've wasted enough time. You've tried very hard to
dodge the burden of proof for YOUR claim, Tony, as you always do. But
the fact is that there is no apparent function for cheek teeth in
vampire bats, and your claim was that there are NO vestigial
structures.
This presumes a degree of ominscience with regard to the subject. It
means that we can ask about any alleged vestigial structure and you
SHOULD have an answer.
You don't.
> Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That the
> teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't have
> crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that they they serve
> no useful function (in relation to the predecessor structures or not)
> or that this change was the result of a neoDarwinian process as
> opposed to a Mendelian process.
You're repeating yourself, Tony. Repeating wrong things doesn't make
them right.
Why?
> And we need to see some current zoological evidence that the cheek
> teeth of the extant subfamily of vampire bats have no useful function.
We have that. The vampire bats have never been observed to use the
cheek teeth.
> Failing this you crash and burn with Thompson. Dunford's up to bat.
Nope. Too bad, Tony, but you've dumped another creationist biplane.
Mike Dunford
>>>>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V15F64B21
>>>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> The link offered by Thompson points to a Web page by John
>>> Hopkins University Press (specifically "Walker's Mammals of
>>> the World") which provides some general descriptive and
>>> systematics information concerning the family, Phyllostomidae
>>> (American Leaf-nosed bats) and the subfamily, Desmodontinae
>>> (vampire bat). The brief descriptive information concerned
>>> only extant genera and offered no evolutionary evidence
>>> concerning the teeth of Desmodontinae or the evolution of
>>> their dietary habits.
>>
>>While such a discussion would be both interesting and
>>educational, it is not directly relevant to the issue at hand.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For without
> such historical evidence the assertion that some existing
> structure in a descendent population is vestigial (a) in
> relation to the predecessor population and (b) as a result of
> the neoDarwinian process is nothing more than story telling.
This is an interesting set of requirements. Essentially, your claim
now seems to be that in order to demonstrate that a specific
structure is vestigal, I must first prove to your level of
satisfaction that evolution takes place, and second demonstrate,
again to your satisfaction, the entire evolutionary history for that
structure. Of course, should I do that, I would then be precluded
from using vestigal structures as evidence for evolution, thus
mooting this entire chain of argument.
I respectfully decline your invitation to divert onto that circular
path.
A "structure" (to borrow your vague term) is not "asserted" to have
no useful function. The same "structure" is not "asserted" to have a
useful function in other, similar species of the same family. Those
determinations are simply and easily made through observation of
currently living organisms.
Further, your claim was that vestigal structures actually do have
useful functions. Are you now arguing that there are some structures
which do not have functions, but that such useless structures should
not be called vestigal? If so, that would seem to be a descent into
unadulturated verbalism, since it would be making a distinction
without a difference. If that is not your argument, then your
argument would seem to be that there are no functionless structures.
If your argument is the former, I will humor you. For the sake of
this argument, I will from now on refrain from using the term
'vestigial'. Darwin used the term "rudimentary organs". Out of
respect for the principle of descent with modification, I will call
them "rudimentary structures" for the duration of this argument. If
you object to that term as well, we can call them "xyzzy structures"
instead. It does not matter what we call an organ or structure which
an organism does not serve a useful purpose in an organism. Whatever
word we use, the implications remain unchanged.
What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you deny
that the m-position teeth of the two species of Desmodontinae which
posess them are rudimentary, please explain what purpose they serve.
> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
> structure with a useful function in some predecessor population
> to a different but useful function in a descendent population
> does not make the structure in the predecessor population
> "vestigial."
Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts. Using
"rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the purposes of
this argument anyway.
>>Your initial claim
>>was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact
>>have a function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> More or less.
Fine. Then tell me what purpose m-position teeth serve in the
Desmodontinae.
> I argue:
> 1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will "become"
> vestigial and as a result it does not predict their existence in
> the fossil record or the living world. It predicts the
> emergence of nascent structures and their existence in the
> living world..
Darwin did not agree. He pointed out that since the development of
any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources, natural
selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
eliminated unimportant features. In addition, as he pointed out, many
organs and structures are subject to diseases, infections, etc. There
again natural selection tends to favor the elimination or reduction
of features not being used by an organism.
Evolution predicts that disused organs will tend to be reduced or
eliminated. Creationism provides no explanation for the presence of
any organ not being used.
> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a
> structure is vestigial have been arguments from man's ignorance
> of their actual function.
Address the specifics. What actual function do teeth serve when they
are not used in any part of the process of obtaining and chewing
food? In particular, what function do the m-position teeth serve in
the two species of Desmodontinae which posess them. Since all three
species feed in a virtually identical fashion, explain why only two
have those teeth, and why they have different numbers of them.
> And that there is often little if any
> evidence that some purported "vestigial" structure arose via a
> neodarwinian process (as opposed to a Mendelian one).
This statement is meaningless. (Hint: What did the "Neodarwinian
Synthesis" bring together into a single theory?)
> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between
> predecessor and descendent population is not prima facie
> evidence that the structure in the descendent is vestigial. A
> vestigial structure is one which has little or no utility.
Again, this is not common usage, but since we are, in the case of the
Desmodontinae, referring to a structure which has little or no
utility, and since I have agreed to describe the structure as
"rudimentary", this does not seem to be important at the moment.
>>It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
>>evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or
>>not it serves some function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I
> asked for some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary
> biology, systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become
> branches of philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence
> and logical argument devoid of question begging.
I cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man, but that does not make
rainbows any less real. Likewise, I expect that a similar efort would
be required to get you to concede that there is physical evidence
that the molars of the Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose. Again,
that does not make the evidence any less real.
> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one
> must establish that a structure or organ
> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to infict
a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood. Molars and
premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the possible
exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid which is chewed.
The molars of the vampire bat have little or no utility. The presence
of organs of little or no utility is predicted by evolution and is
inexplicable under creationism.
> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> history which did perform a useful function, and
It is not necessary to examine any predecessor to see this -- other
bats have and use teeth in that position to chew their food, as do
other mammals.
> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
Here you are demanding that I prove evolution to you before you will
permit me to present to you a category of evidence for evolution.
This seems to be a common tactic of yours, and one which is
despicably dishonest.
> Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That
> the teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't
> have crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that they
> they serve no useful function (in relation to the predecessor
> structures or not)
That is correct. The evidence that the m-position teeth of the
Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose is not that they lack crushing
surfaces. Rather, the evidence comes from the direct and indirect
observation of the feeding habits of these creatures. We know that
the teeth serve no useful function because we know how the animals
eat. These are not fossil organisms we are speaking of. They are
living organisms which can be (have been, and are being) observed
directily.
> or that this change was the result of a
> neoDarwinian process as opposed to a Mendelian process.
Again: What did the neodarwinian SYNTHESIS fuse together?
>>> I
>>> suggest Thompson reread what the reports-----he is supposed to
>>> provide
>>
>>Actually, you are the one who made the initial positive
>>assertion, so you are the one who should bear the responsibility
>>of providing evidence. After all, it should be far easier to
>>demonstrate that the molars of vampire bats have a purpose than
>>to prove that they have none.
And there was an uncomfortable pause in the conversation...
>>>----are supposed to illustrate (please see above). I'm
>>> afraid this link doesn't provide anthing required.
>>
>>That does not appear to be the case.
>>
>>>>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young,
>>>>they nurse- like all mammals. As adults, they drink blood.
>>>>The molars are no longer suitable since they have no grinding
>>>>surfaces. Common sense indicates they are not used for
>>>>anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
>>>>entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not
>>>>require the presence of molars.
>>>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
>>> Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging.
>>
>>No. It is a commonly used classification for teeth in a certain
>>position.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I consulted three dictionaries one of which was "The Dictionary
> of Modern Biology" (Barron's, 1997) and they seem to disagree.
> The label "molar" has at least three diagnostic characteristics:
> 1. location of the tooth
> 2. size of the tooth and crown
> 3 and function of the tooth
The reason for this is that almost all mammals use their molars to do
essentially the same thing, so they typically share many common
characteristics. As I pointed out in the portion of my response just
below that, calling the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae
something other than molars does not suddenly make them more useful.
Call them "molars", call them "m-position teeth", call them "rocks",
call them ";hsdf;l", call them anything else you like. It makes no
difference, other than to satisfy your need to indulge in meaningless
verbalism.
There are teeth in the "m-position" in vampire bats. These "rocks"
teeth are not used -- cannot be used do to their position in the
mouth -- to incise the flesh of the bat's source of nutrition. Making
such an incision is the only thing vampire bats use their teeth to
do. They do not ingest flesh, they do not chew flesh, they cannot
digest flesh. These ";hsdf;l" teeth have no known use -- and our
observations of their feeding habits are good enough that if they had
a use, we should have determined it by now. In addition, since the
"molars" are entirely absent in one species, despite the identical
feeding habits shared by all three species, one is forced to wonder
how important -- how useful -- they are.
> If the cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae subfamily of vampire
> bats are vestigial molars from some predecessor population then
> we need to see some physical historical evidence that the change
> is neoDarwinian.
No. I don't need to prove evolution before I can present evidence for
evolution. You need to explain what use the m-poisition teeth have in
the Desmodontinae, or why the presence of a useless structure is not
problematic for creationism.
> And we need to see some current zoological
> evidence that the cheek teeth of the extant subfamily of vampire
> bats have no useful function.
That has been presented.
> Failing this you crash and burn
> with Thompson. Dunford's up to bat.
>
> snip
>
> more to follow if time permits
--Mike Dunford
--
The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact.
--Thomas H. Huxley
Mike Dunford
news:20021109151634...@mb-mv.aol.com:
>>Subject: Re: NO evidence, question begging, and confusion
>>between "lost" and "vestigial"
>>From: trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>>Date: 11/8/02 4:43 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20021108214833...@mb-cj.aol.com>
[snip]
>>You're being obtuse. You know what kind of diet they have, and
>>common sense should tell you they don't use their teeth to chew
>>their liquid diet. I'm sure
>>that you also understand that greatly reduced teeth without the
>>appropriate surfaces aren't very useful for chewing much of
>>anything. If the teeth aren't being used to chew, what are they
>>being used for? Dazzling prospective mates with your pretty bat
>>smile? Probably not. Under the circumstances, referring
>>to them as functionless or vestigial is probably superfluous.
>
> Dumb question here... but how do Vampire bats get at the blood?
The front teeth are used to make a small wound, typically 3-6 mm
wide, 5-10 mm long, and 1-5 mm deep. In many cases, the teeth are
sharp enough and the wound small enough that the animal actually
remains asleep. The bottom and sides of the tongue are grooved, and
the blood is essentially sucked up the grooves into the mouth.
--Mike
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
--Douglas Adams
A Pagano
>> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For without
>> such historical evidence the assertion that some existing
>> structure in a descendent population is vestigial (a) in
>> relation to the predecessor population and (b) as a result of
>> the neoDarwinian process is nothing more than story telling.
>
>This is an interesting set of requirements. Essentially, your claim
>now seems to be that in order to demonstrate that a specific
>structure is vestigal, I must first prove to your level of
>satisfaction that evolution takes place, and second demonstrate,
>again to your satisfaction, the entire evolutionary history for that
>structure. Of course, should I do that, I would then be precluded
>from using vestigal structures as evidence for evolution, thus
>mooting this entire chain of argument.
Pagano replies:
The problem here is that Dundord wants to use the theory to justify
the observation of vestigial rather than use the observation to
corroborate the theory.
Quite honestly if we are to characterize the cheek teeth of the
individuals classified under the Desmodontinae subfamily as vestigial
then there must be proof that the change from the homologous
structures in the predecessor populations were "neoDarwinian
evolutionary changes. Why is this so?
The characterization of "vestigial" is not an isolated characteristic
but is supposed to be directly related to a homologous structure in
some predecessor population via a series of neoDarwinian
transformations. In other words a structure is ONLY vestigial in
relation to a lineal history of that same structure.
>I respectfully decline your invitation to divert onto that circular
>path.
Pagano replies:
Obviously the evidence doesn't exist. And asking that you produce the
historical evidence required to establish the cheek teeths' vestigial
character is hardly circular.
>A "structure" (to borrow your vague term) is not "asserted" to have
>no useful function. The same "structure" is not "asserted" to have a
>useful function in other, similar species of the same family.
Pagano replies:
Not sure what Dunford is referring to here. A vestigial structure is
one which has little or no utility, but which in some predecessor
population did perform a useful function.
>Those
>determinations are simply and easily made through observation of
>currently living organisms.
Pagano replies:
But things are not quite as simplistic as Dunford implies. Since
Dunford and his evolutionist buddies assume that neoDarwinism is true
they use the theory to justify the teeth as vestigial. In this
situation the only requirement for vestigial status is that it be
considered larely non-functional or without known function.
Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not surprising
that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased with
increasing knowledge and scientific study.
>
>Further, your claim was that vestigal structures actually do have
>useful functions.
Pagano replies:
I haven't seen any convincing argument that neoDarwinism entails the
existence of vestiges. As such I don't know that vestigial structures
or organs exist at all.
> Are you now arguing that there are some structures
>which do not have functions, but that such useless structures should
>not be called vestigal?
Pagano replies:
Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not surprising
that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased with
increasing knowledge and scientific study.
Recall that 200+ organs and structures were entered into the Scopes
Trial record as vestigial and as strong evidence for evolution and
against special creation. As far as I none of them are so held today.
Do you really contend that the vampire bat teeth have no function?
And how long will this claim last before investigation discovers that
it is mistaken?
> If so, that would seem to be a descent into
>unadulturated verbalism, since it would be making a distinction
>without a difference. If that is not your argument, then your
>argument would seem to be that there are no functionless structures.
Pagano replies:
Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not surprising
that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased with
increasing knowledge and scientific study.
As a matter of history all (or most) claims that a structure was
vestigial have fallen. As a result if I asserted that there were no
functionless organs or structures history would be on my side.
>
>If your argument is the former, I will humor you. For the sake of
>this argument, I will from now on refrain from using the term
>'vestigial'. Darwin used the term "rudimentary organs". Out of
>respect for the principle of descent with modification, I will call
>them "rudimentary structures" for the duration of this argument. If
>you object to that term as well, we can call them "xyzzy structures"
>instead. It does not matter what we call an organ or structure which
>an organism does not serve a useful purpose in an organism. Whatever
>word we use, the implications remain unchanged.
Pagano replies:
I am only interested in empirical evidence which you have declined to
provide.
>
>What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
>organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you deny
>that the m-position teeth of the two species of Desmodontinae which
>posess them are rudimentary, please explain what purpose they serve.
Pagano replies:
But creationists don't assert that functionless structures or organs
exist. As a result there is no need for them to explain what does not
exist. Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure
would clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not
surprising that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased
with increasing knowledge and scientific study.
>
>> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
>> structure with a useful function in some predecessor population
>> to a different but useful function in a descendent population
>> does not make the structure in the predecessor population
>> "vestigial."
>
>Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
>vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts. Using
>"rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the purposes of
>this argument anyway.
Pagano replies:
Unfortunately the quote of mine to which you refer I describe what
"vestigial" does NOT mean. Next I suggest you and the others reread
Chapter XIV of "The Origin of the Species." Darwin uses the label
"rudimentary" to cover several different kinds of observations.
Rudimentary refers to structures which have no utility, as a
characteristic of establishing lineal relationships with populations
containing homologous organs, a characterization when the organ isn't
performing its "proper" function but does perform some "non proper"
but useful function, and a characterization when a previous functional
organ "atrophied" and no longer provided that function.
Dunford may use "rudimentary" however he wishes. I prefer to use the
common usage found in most english language dictionaries in most
modern biology dictionaries. Darwin's usage of "rudimentary"
encompasses the common modern usage of "vestigial" but it also
includes structures that "vestigial" does not.
It is interesting to note that Darwin considered that a "rudimentary"
organ could also be nascent. Isn't that interesting?
snip
more to follow if time permits.
Regards,
T Pagano
Bigdakine
>"vestigial"
>Date: 11/9/02 1:41 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3DCD9E86...@crosswinds.net>
Ouch!
Joe Cummings
> Pagano replies:
>Unfortunately the quote of mine to which you refer I describe what
>"vestigial" does NOT mean. Next I suggest you and the others reread
>Chapter XIV of "The Origin of the Species." Darwin uses the label
>"rudimentary" to cover several different kinds of observations.
>Rudimentary refers to structures which have no utility, as a
>characteristic of establishing lineal relationships with populations
>containing homologous organs, a characterization when the organ isn't
>performing its "proper" function but does perform some "non proper"
>but useful function, and a characterization when a previous functional
>organ "atrophied" and no longer provided that function.
>
>Dunford may use "rudimentary" however he wishes. I prefer to use the
>common usage found in most english language dictionaries in most
>modern biology dictionaries. Darwin's usage of "rudimentary"
>encompasses the common modern usage of "vestigial" but it also
>includes structures that "vestigial" does not.
>
>It is interesting to note that Darwin considered that a "rudimentary"
>organ could also be nascent. Isn't that interesting?
>
>
>snip
>
>more to follow if time permits.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
<Snip Tony's comical attempts to wriggle out of having to give
a function for the vampire bat's vestigial teeth>
There's a useful glossary by W.S.Dallas appended to "Origins
of Species:"
Here are two definitions:
Rudimentary: Very imperfectly developed.
Nascent: Commencing development.
Let's compare these definitions with Tony's:
Joe Cummings
Sorry, I hit the wrong button.
> Pagano replies:
>Unfortunately the quote of mine to which you refer I describe what
>"vestigial" does NOT mean. Next I suggest you and the others reread
>Chapter XIV of "The Origin of the Species." Darwin uses the label
>"rudimentary" to cover several different kinds of observations.
>Rudimentary refers to structures which have no utility, as a
>characteristic of establishing lineal relationships with populations
>containing homologous organs, a characterization when the organ isn't
>performing its "proper" function but does perform some "non proper"
>but useful function, and a characterization when a previous functional
>organ "atrophied" and no longer provided that function.
>
>Dunford may use "rudimentary" however he wishes. I prefer to use the
>common usage found in most english language dictionaries in most
>modern biology dictionaries. Darwin's usage of "rudimentary"
>encompasses the common modern usage of "vestigial" but it also
>includes structures that "vestigial" does not.
>
>It is interesting to note that Darwin considered that a "rudimentary"
>organ could also be nascent. Isn't that interesting?
>
>
>snip
>
>more to follow if time permits.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
<Snip Tony's comical attempts to wriggle out of having to give
a function for the vampire bat's vestigial teeth>
There's a useful glossary by W.S.Dallas appended to "Origins
of Species:"
Here are two definitions:
Rudimentary: Very imperfectly developed.
Nascent: Commencing development.
Let's compare these definitions with Tony's:
" A 'nascent' structure is quite simply a structure which is
somewhere between its very birth and its fully formed and mature
state."
"I USE "NASCENT" TO MEAN IMMATURE AND INCOMPLETE [Original in
capitals]"
So Tony is saying that an imperfectly developed organ could be
starting its development? Hmm.
I don't think it would be a good idea to tell him that Darwin
also spoke about nascent species, it would confuse him and divert him
from his demonstration of the function of the vampire bat's vestigial
molars.
It's interesting to compare his verbosity here with his total
silence on his favourite supernatural event, Fatima.
What he's ignorant of, he'll talk about until the cows come
home, about what he believes in, Fatima, he won't say a word.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Andy Groves
>
> Pagano replies:
> I am only interested in empirical evidence which you have declined to
> provide.
> >
Tony, I e-mailed you a copy of a review on eyeless cave fish on July
1st of this year. Did you ever read it?
Andy
Andy Groves
<snip>
>
> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
> establish that a structure or organ
> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> history which did perform a useful function, and
I sent you a review on eyeless cave fish on July 1st of this year. Did
you read it, and if so, do you agree that the "eyes" of these fish fit
criteria of points (1) and (2)?
> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
How on earth could one establish that? We would have to go back and
sample every generation leading to the establishment of the eyeless
fish and show the genetic changes that occurred. You know this is
impossible. You are trying to define "vestigial structures" out of
existence, just like you failed to do with "nascent structures". I
think criteria (1) and (2) are perfectly good to demonstrate the
vestigial nature of a structure.
Andy
David Sienkiewicz
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For without
> >> such historical evidence the assertion that some existing
> >> structure in a descendent population is vestigial (a) in
> >> relation to the predecessor population and (b) as a result of
> >> the neoDarwinian process is nothing more than story telling.
> >
> >This is an interesting set of requirements. Essentially, your claim
> >now seems to be that in order to demonstrate that a specific
> >structure is vestigal, I must first prove to your level of
> >satisfaction that evolution takes place, and second demonstrate,
> >again to your satisfaction, the entire evolutionary history for that
> >structure. Of course, should I do that, I would then be precluded
> >from using vestigal structures as evidence for evolution, thus
> >mooting this entire chain of argument.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The problem here is that Dundord wants to use the theory to justify
> the observation of vestigial rather than use the observation to
> corroborate the theory.
I don't see that he's doing that at all, Tony.
Care to elucidate further?
< snip repetitious and refuted claims > '
> >I respectfully decline your invitation to divert onto that circular
> >path.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Obviously the evidence doesn't exist.
The evidence DOES exist, as produced by Chris and explained even
further by Mike.
< snip more refuted but repeated assertions >
> Pagano replies:
< snip >
> Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
> clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not surprising
> that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased with
> increasing knowledge and scientific study.
Has it?
Well, you have said (and you repeat in this message) that, in fact,
200 such structures noted at the Scopes Trial NEARLY 80 YEARS AGO are
now known to have function.
Yet you can never seem to cite even ONE such structure.
Hold that thought. We'll get back to it.
> >Further, your claim was that vestigal structures actually do have
> >useful functions.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I haven't seen any convincing argument that neoDarwinism entails the
> existence of vestiges. As such I don't know that vestigial structures
> or organs exist at all.
"I haven't seen..."
Tony, how can we expect you to admit that you've ever seen a
"convincing argument" when you have said that you are "unteachable?"
You're relying on smoke and mirrors, Tony.
You clearly don't understand neodarwinism - it's clear when you make
statements that seemingly contrast it with "Mendellian" mechanisms.
You have worked feverishly to duck the vestigial issue.
Yet you're "unteachable" by your own admission. Someone who is
"unteachable" cannot be convinced - by definition.
That's why no one will ever expect you to admit that you've been shown
anything YOU would consider a "convincing argument." No one really
cares what YOU would consider a "convincing argument."
< snip challenge and repeated assertion >
> Recall that 200+ organs and structures were entered into the Scopes
> Trial record as vestigial and as strong evidence for evolution and
> against special creation. As far as I none of them are so held today.
So why is it that you cannot cite even ONE of these alleged
strucutures?
We all know about this claim of yours, Tony. You've made it several
times. In light of recent exchanges, I have a question.
When Chris challenged you on the issue of vestigial molars in vampire
bats, you demanded evidence (and got it). When Baldwin issued you a
challenge, you demanded "cut-and-pastes" (and got them).
It's funny that when YOU are asked for evidence or specific
information, you never seem to want to provide it.
Why is that, Tony? Why do people have to keep asking you for
specifics whenever you make some vague claim, as you did directly
above?
You say that over 200 organs and structures were claimed as vestigial
at the Scopes trial. You claim that none of these 200 structures are
considered vestigial today.
You have been asked for as many as 10% of these structures and as few
as 1.
You have, to my knowledge, NEVER provided them.
Why is that, Tony? Is it because you know it is an empty claim? Is
it because you know you can't support this statement?
Is it because you're lying?
> Do you really contend that the vampire bat teeth have no function?
The contention is not that the "vampire bat teeth" have no function,
Tony. It's that CERTAIN teeth - specifically, the molars and
premolars (the "cheek teeth") have no function.
That's what the challenge was all about in these threads in the first
place.
YOU contend that they DO. That's quite clear.
All that was asked was that you tell us the function.
All of your verbose dancing since has been to get around that simple
challenge.
> And how long will this claim last before investigation discovers that
> it is mistaken?
Ah, here it is. Any function for these structures has yet to be
discovered. That's the deal, eh, Tony?
So you base your entire argument on wishful thinking - again.
You never COULD tell us what function the cheek teeth in vampire bats
serve.
I knew that all along.
< snip Mike's challenge and Tony's repeated and unsubstantive
assertion >
> As a matter of history all (or most) claims that a structure was
> vestigial have fallen.
Give us ONE example, Tony.
That will do for a start.
Until you actually show the courage to do that, your claim is empty
and without substance.
> As a result if I asserted that there were no
> functionless organs or structures history would be on my side.
In your dreams, Tony.
< snip >
> Pagano replies:
> I am only interested in empirical evidence which you have declined to
> provide.
One: It is not true that evidence has NOT been provided.
Two: YOU never provide evidence for YOUR assertions, Tony.
Why is that?
< snip remainder of Tony's evasions >
Elmer Bataitis
> I am only interested in empirical evidence which you have declined to
> provide.
Bwahahaha! Tony, I spilled my coffee on this one ;-)
Say Tony, since you claim naturalism is false, why should
"naturalisitic" evidence mean anything at all to you???
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
Mike Dunford
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For
>>> without such historical evidence the assertion that some
>>> existing structure in a descendent population is vestigial (a)
>>> in relation to the predecessor population and (b) as a result
>>> of the neoDarwinian process is nothing more than story
>>> telling.
>>
>>This is an interesting set of requirements. Essentially, your
>>claim now seems to be that in order to demonstrate that a
>>specific structure is vestigal, I must first prove to your level
>>of satisfaction that evolution takes place, and second
>>demonstrate, again to your satisfaction, the entire evolutionary
>>history for that structure. Of course, should I do that, I would
>>then be precluded from using vestigal structures as evidence for
>>evolution, thus mooting this entire chain of argument.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The problem here is that Dundord wants to use the theory to
> justify the observation of vestigial rather than use the
> observation to corroborate the theory.
I said in the passage just above, "I would then be precluded from
using vestigal structures as evidence for evolution." When I wrote
that, I believed that it clearly indicated that I feel that such
structures are evidence for evolution, and are not "justified" by the
theory. Apparently I was too optimistic when I believed that such a
plain statement would be correctly interpreted.
As Darwin and others over the last couple of centuries have pointed
out, creationism does not predict the existence of structures or
organs with little to no function. In fact, so far as creationism
predicts anything, it would seem to predict that such structures
should not exist. There is no possible creationist explanation for a
useless structure such as the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae
other than that it pleased the creator to do things that way -- and
that is not an explanation, but (to borrow a phrase from Darwin) is
"only restating the fact in dignified language."
If creatures are evolving, structures may take on new uses, or may be
used less, or not at all. Natural selection predicts, as Darwin
pointed out, that anything which is not being used will tend to be
reduced or eliminated from the organism. Such a structure wastes
valuable resources and may be prone to injury or infection, and since
it is not serving a useful function, reducing or eliminating that
structure will benefit the organism by increasing its efficiency and
reducing the risk of damage caused by the unused structure -- as long
as it remains relatively useless.
> Quite honestly if we are to characterize the cheek teeth of the
> individuals classified under the Desmodontinae subfamily as
> vestigial then there must be proof that the change from the
> homologous structures in the predecessor populations were
> "neoDarwinian evolutionary changes. Why is this so?
That would seem to be a very good question -- or rather, one without
a very good answer. Why should I need to prove, to your level of
satisfaction, that evolution occurs through a specific mechanism, and
provide historical evidence for that in each specific case before I
can present evidence which would appear to contridict the reasonable
expectations of creationism, and which supports evolution? Such a
requirement is patently unreasonable. In essense, it is an invitation
for me to engage in a circular argument.
I have explained to you why I believe that the presence structures
with little or no function supports evolution, and why I think that
such structures are problematic for creationists. You certainly
appear to agree with the latter, since you argue so strongly (yet
with so little in the way of facts) that there are no useless
structures. I still find it unnecessary to present the history of a
structure to demonstrate that it has little or no function. After
all, the presence or absence of a history does not make the mere
existence of the structure less problematic for your creationist
viewpoint.
> The characterization of "vestigial" is not an isolated
> characteristic but is supposed to be directly related to a
> homologous structure in some predecessor population via a series
> of neoDarwinian transformations. In other words a structure is
> ONLY vestigial in relation to a lineal history of that same
> structure.
No. The structure can be "vestigial" in relationship to the same
structure in other similar organisms. In addition, this is again
really irrelevant. It makes no difference what we call a structure
with little or no useful function. Such structures are very
problematic for the creationist view no matter what is or is not
known about their origin.
>>I respectfully decline your invitation to divert onto that
>>circular path.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Obviously the evidence doesn't exist. And asking that you
> produce the historical evidence required to establish the cheek
> teeths' vestigial character is hardly circular.
As I pointed out before, the circularity arises from your demand that
I demonstrate a phylogeny, and show that the phylogeny arose via the
particular evolutionary mechanism of "neoDarwinism" (however you are
currently choosing to define it), _BEFORE_ I can use the m-position
teeth of the Desmodontinae as evidence of evolution.
And again, it is completely unnecessary for me to demonstrate any
historical evidence for the origin of m-position teeth in the
Desmodontinae in order to demonstrate that they currently have little
or no function. Such determinations can in fact only be made by
looking at the extant organism. And, again, the mere presence of a
structure with little or no function is problematic for creationists.
The absence of a detailed historical overview does not make the
current lack of useful function any less of a problem.
>>A "structure" (to borrow your vague term) is not "asserted" to
>>have no useful function. The same "structure" is not "asserted"
>>to have a useful function in other, similar species of the same
>>family.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not sure what Dunford is referring to here. A vestigial
> structure is one which has little or no utility, but which in
> some predecessor population did perform a useful function.
The determination of the current utility or lack thereof of any
structure or organ cannot be made through historical comparisons. It
can only be made by observing the extant organism. The presence of a
structure which has no current function is a problem for creationism
no matter what the history is. And again, it is not reasonable to
demand that I prove evolution to you to your satisfaction before I
can present evidence of evolution.
>>Those
>>determinations are simply and easily made through observation of
>>currently living organisms.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But things are not quite as simplistic as Dunford implies.
> Since Dunford and his evolutionist buddies assume that
> neoDarwinism is true they use the theory to justify the teeth as
> vestigial. In this situation the only requirement for vestigial
> status is that it be considered larely non-functional or without
> known function.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is not the case. Let me see if
I can make it clearer:
1: IF evolution is taking place, organs (structures) will not
necessarily remain unchanged indefinitely
2: IF natural selection is A mechanism of evolutionary change, organs
(structures) will tend to remain unchanged only if they are well
suited to the organism at that time. Structures which are not very
well suited to the organism will tend to be modified.
3: (Again IF natural selection is A mechanism of evolutionary change)
Modifications to other structures and/or changes in habit/environment
may make a previously useful structure less useful or even
unnecessary.
4: IF natural selection is A mechanism of evolutionary change, then
structures which are not useful will tend to be reduced in size or
eliminated altogether. This is predicted because such structures are
not conferring any significant benefit on the organism, and therefore
any variation which reduces or eliminates the structure will conserve
resources and may eliminate a potential cause of infection or injury.
5: Therefore, IF evolution occurs and IF natural selection is A
mechanism of evolutionary change, we expect that we may find
organisms with structures which have little or no function, AND we
expect that such structures will, unless they have only recently
become useless, be greatly reduced in form as compared with similar
organisms which use the same structure.
6: The m-position teeth -- molars -- of the Desmodontinae match both
those predictions. They are not used at all in the feeding process,
having little or no function, and are greatly reduced compared to the
teeth in the same position in other members of the same family.
Please note that nowhere have I used the theory to justify calling
the m-position teeth anything. I have detailed the predictions made
by the theory, and presented the m-position teeth of the
Desmodontinae as an example of a case which matches those
predictions. This example does not, in and of itself, prove that
evolution has occurred, of course. It is simply another example of a
case where something has been observed in nature which matches the
predictions of natural selection, but which is a problematic anomaly
for creationists
> Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
> clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not
> surprising that the list of vestigial organs has greatly
> dicreased with increasing knowledge and scientific study.
Even if this is true in general, it is not necessarily true in all
cases. It certainly has no bearing whatsoever on the question of
whether or not the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae currently
serve a useful purpose.
>>Further, your claim was that vestigal structures actually do
>>have useful functions.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I haven't seen any convincing argument that neoDarwinism entails
> the existence of vestiges.
See above for the detailed explanation.
> As such I don't know that vestigial structures or organs exist at
> all.
You do know that the existance of a structure with little or no
useful function is problematic for creationism no matter what it is
called. You should also know that the presence or absence of such a
structure is a matter to be determined by direct observation. You do
not need to know what "neoDarwinism" does or does not entail in order
to see how a vampire bat eats.
>> Are you now arguing that there are some structures
>>which do not have functions, but that such useless structures
>>should not be called vestigal?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
> clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not
> surprising that the list of vestigial organs has greatly
> dicreased with increasing knowledge and scientific study.
Repeating that statement does not make it any more compelling, or any
more necessarily true than it was a few lines back. Nor does it make
the statement any more relevant to the specific question of what
function any specific organ or structure may serve.
> Recall that 200+ organs and structures were entered into the
> Scopes Trial record as vestigial and as strong evidence for
> evolution and against special creation. As far as I none of
> them are so held today.
I cannot recall what I do not know. I have not read the record of the
Scopes Trial, and therefore do not know how many (if any) were
entered into evidence, or which specific ones were. Presumably, you
do. I would be grateful if you could post a list of some of them,
along with the purposes they have since been found to have.
> Do you really contend that the vampire bat teeth have no
> function?
As I have pointed out before, given that you are the one who has made
the positive claim, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. It
is your responsibility to demonstrate that they do serve a useful
purpose.
However, since those teeth are not used anywhere in obtaining or
digesting food, and since they are totally absent in one species of
the three without any apparent ill effects, I do think that a
compelling case exists that they serve no useful purpose.
> And how long will this claim last before investigation
> discovers that it is mistaken?
How long will the claim that objects fall last before it is found to
be mistaken? Or the claim that the sun will shine tomorrow? Claiming
that we might find a purpose someday is hardly a compelling reason to
believe that it has a purpose. If you want to claim that the m-
position teeth of the Desmodontinae serve a useful purpose, present
empirical evidence that this is the case.
>> If so, that would seem to be a descent into
>>unadulturated verbalism, since it would be making a distinction
>>without a difference. If that is not your argument, then your
>>argument would seem to be that there are no functionless
>>structures.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
> clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not
> surprising that the list of vestigial organs has greatly
> dicreased with increasing knowledge and scientific study.
As was the case the first two times you made this statement in this
post, a handwaving general statement does nothing to address the
specifics of any given case. The list of vestigial structures may or
may not have decreased over time. That does nothing to indicate
whether or not any particular structure (the m-position teeth of the
Desmodontinae, for example, or the teeth present only in the calf
embryo) has any purpose.
> As a matter of history all (or most) claims that a structure was
> vestigial have fallen. As a result if I asserted that there
> were no functionless organs or structures history would be on my
> side.
I see. According to you, I need to present detailed empirical
evidence not only demonstrating that the m-position teeth of vampire
bats serve no purpose, but also detailed "historical evidence"
documenting that an ancestral population used those teeth to do
something, and evidence that the change took place via a given
mechanism before I can use the structure as evidence of evolution.
You, on the other hand, feel that you need merely _assert_ that there
are no functionless organs, without ever addressing any specific case
presented to you, because "history would be on my side." (Without, I
would add, ever answering anyones request that you even show evidence
that history really is on your side.) Hypocrisy is very ugly.
>>If your argument is the former, I will humor you. For the sake
>>of this argument, I will from now on refrain from using the term
>>'vestigial'. Darwin used the term "rudimentary organs". Out of
>>respect for the principle of descent with modification, I will
>>call them "rudimentary structures" for the duration of this
>>argument. If you object to that term as well, we can call them
>>"xyzzy structures" instead. It does not matter what we call an
>>organ or structure which an organism does not serve a useful
>>purpose in an organism. Whatever word we use, the implications
>>remain unchanged.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I am only interested in empirical evidence which you have
> declined to provide.
Of course. It would obviously bee too much to expect for you to be
interested in the empirical evidence which you have declined to
provide. It is your claim that the m-position teeth of the
Desmodontinae serve some useful function. Support your claim. After
all, if you can do so, it would completely moot any historical
evidence I might be able to put forward anyway.
>>What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
>>organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you
>>deny that the m-position teeth of the two species of
>>Desmodontinae which posess them are rudimentary, please explain
>>what purpose they serve.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But creationists don't assert that functionless structures or
> organs exist. As a result there is no need for them to explain
> what does not exist.
Since creationists assert that functionless structures do not exist,
there is a real need for them to explain what function a specific
organ serves. After all, you cannot assert that the Desmodontinae do
not have m-position teeth. Therefore, according to you they must have
a purpose. I can reasonably ask you to explain what purpose m-
position teeth, which are not used in biting or chewing, serve.
> Since ignorance of the function of any
> organ or structure would clearly favor its being classified as
> vestigial, it is not surprising that the list of vestigial
> organs has greatly dicreased with increasing knowledge and
> scientific study.
Again, the trend of the list does not address the specific example
you have been presented with. (Not that you have ever bothered to
support your assertion that the list has decreased, of course.)
>>> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
>>> structure with a useful function in some predecessor
>>> population to a different but useful function in a descendent
>>> population does not make the structure in the predecessor
>>> population "vestigial."
>>
>>Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
>>vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts.
>>Using "rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the
>>purposes of this argument anyway.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Unfortunately the quote of mine to which you refer I describe
> what "vestigial" does NOT mean.
As I have pointed out, your discription runs counter to common usage,
and has been disputed by others. It is, however, irrelevant in this
case since I do not know of anyone who has claimed that the m-
position teeth of the Desmodontinae serve any useful function at all.
To make sure that we are clear: your definition is wrong, but that
does not matter because this example fits your incorrect definition
anyway.
> Next I suggest you and the
> others reread Chapter XIV of "The Origin of the Species."
> Darwin uses the label "rudimentary" to cover several different
> kinds of observations. Rudimentary refers to structures which
> have no utility, as a characteristic of establishing lineal
> relationships with populations containing homologous organs, a
> characterization when the organ isn't performing its "proper"
> function but does perform some "non proper" but useful function,
> and a characterization when a previous functional organ
> "atrophied" and no longer provided that function.
Here, again, the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae appear to have
no utility, thereby fitting the first part of the definiton. You can
call it whatever you want -- I am willing to use "xyzzy structure" if
it will end your verbalistic maneuvering. It makes no difference.
Natural selection predicts the presence of structures of limited or
no utility, it predicts that they will be reduced over time,
creationism does not predict even the presence of structures of
little or no utility and as far as creationism can predict anything
it predicts that no such things exist. The m-position teeth of the
Desmodontinae match the predictions of natural selection in this
regard, and they do not match those of creationism.
> Dunford may use "rudimentary" however he wishes. I prefer to
> use the common usage found in most english language dictionaries
> in most modern biology dictionaries. Darwin's usage of
> "rudimentary" encompasses the common modern usage of "vestigial"
> but it also includes structures that "vestigial" does not.
No, it includes structures which you claim "vestigial" does not.
AFAIK, the two are pretty much synonymous. Again, however, all that
is irrelevant since the m-position teeth of the vampire bat meet the
requirements of your erroneous definiton.
> It is interesting to note that Darwin considered that a
> "rudimentary" organ could also be nascent. Isn't that
> interesting?
Actually, it is a pretty obvious implication of natural selection. A
structure which is present, but which is not important for the
current survival of the organism, is available for modification to a
new purpose. It's essentially standing around on the side of the road
waving a "will work for food" sign. It can be converted much more
easily to serve a new purpose than can an organ that is already doing
something important.
Steven J.
>
Tony, you show a truly marvelous (and deliberate?) incomprehension of
Dunford's excellent and lucid post.
>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> Not only is it relevent it is absolutely essential. For without
> >> such historical evidence the assertion that some existing
> >> structure in a descendent population is vestigial (a) in
> >> relation to the predecessor population and (b) as a result of
> >> the neoDarwinian process is nothing more than story telling.
> >
> >This is an interesting set of requirements. Essentially, your claim
> >now seems to be that in order to demonstrate that a specific
> >structure is vestigal, I must first prove to your level of
> >satisfaction that evolution takes place, and second demonstrate,
> >again to your satisfaction, the entire evolutionary history for that
> >structure. Of course, should I do that, I would then be precluded
> >from using vestigal structures as evidence for evolution, thus
> >mooting this entire chain of argument.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The problem here is that Dundord wants to use the theory to justify
> the observation of vestigial rather than use the observation to
> corroborate the theory.
>
observation that some structures serve fewer functions than obvious
homologs in other species. The observation that vampire bats don't
use their cheek teeth for chewing, or any other normal purpose of
teeth, needs no "justifification;" it is rather obvious from the fact
that they subsist on an entirely liquid diet. It does need an
explanation, and "evolutionary vestige" is rather better than
"creationists don't believe that the Creator gave bats nonfunctional
teeth." The fact that a theory explains some observation is a
confirmation of the theory.
>
> Quite honestly if we are to characterize the cheek teeth of the
> individuals classified under the Desmodontinae subfamily as vestigial
> then there must be proof that the change from the homologous
> structures in the predecessor populations were "neoDarwinian
> evolutionary changes. Why is this so?
>
> The characterization of "vestigial" is not an isolated characteristic
> but is supposed to be directly related to a homologous structure in
> some predecessor population via a series of neoDarwinian
> transformations. In other words a structure is ONLY vestigial in
> relation to a lineal history of that same structure.
>
substitute some other label for "vestigial." The point is, the
functional homologs exist in similar species. The nonfunctional, or
less-functional, versions, require an explanation. The nested
hierarchy of morphological and biochemical homologies is evidence for
common descent, and nonfunctional or less-functional homologs within
that nested hierarchy are especially significant. Just as one need
not "prove" common descent before adducing shared pseudogenes in
humans and other primates as evidence for that descent, one need not
"prove" it in order to adduce rudimentary, or nonfunctional, or
whatever you wish to call them, structures for the same purpose.
>
> >I respectfully decline your invitation to divert onto that circular
> >path.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Obviously the evidence doesn't exist. And asking that you produce the
> historical evidence required to establish the cheek teeths' vestigial
> character is hardly circular.
>
evidence for the proposition that evidence actually matters. You did
it in the "nascent features" and "transitional fossils" threads, and
you did in in the thread on methodological naturalism. The "vestigial
character" in dispute is that the teeth are homologous to functional
teeth in other bats, but do not serve the purposes of those teeth, or
any discernable function whatsoever. This is consistent with the idea
of common descent with modification. It is hardly consistent with the
idea that vampire bats were *designed* for their present niche.
>
> >A "structure" (to borrow your vague term) is not "asserted" to have
> >no useful function. The same "structure" is not "asserted" to have a
> >useful function in other, similar species of the same family.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not sure what Dunford is referring to here. A vestigial structure is
> one which has little or no utility, but which in some predecessor
> population did perform a useful function.
>
does not use the term "vestigial." His point is that the
nonfunctional character of vampire bat cheek teeth is observable,
apart from any theory as to why such nonfunctional teeth exist. That
the teeth performed a useful function in some ancestor is really the
only reasonable explanation for such a feature.
>
> >Those
> >determinations are simply and easily made through observation of
> >currently living organisms.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But things are not quite as simplistic as Dunford implies. Since
> Dunford and his evolutionist buddies assume that neoDarwinism is true
> they use the theory to justify the teeth as vestigial. In this
> situation the only requirement for vestigial status is that it be
> considered larely non-functional or without known function.
>
requirements for "vestigial status:" there must be homologs of the
structure with known functions in similar species, and the "vestigial"
structure must not serve that function. Neither of these conclusions
depends on assuming common descent or neoDarwinian mechanisms -- they
are *evidence* for evolutionary theory. Rather, "vestigiality" -- the
loss of a function possesed by an ancestral form of the structure, is
an explanation for the observations.
>
> Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
> clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not surprising
> that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased with
> increasing knowledge and scientific study.
>
ought to be "distinguishable empirical consequences" of the Noachic
flood. And, in neither case have you ever been able to adduce even a
single example of your claim.
You're running a crude and increasingly obvious bluff, Tony.
>
> >Further, your claim was that vestigal structures actually do have
> >useful functions.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I haven't seen any convincing argument that neoDarwinism entails the
> existence of vestiges. As such I don't know that vestigial structures
> or organs exist at all.
>
Again, "neoDarwinism" entails that existing structures will be
modified by mutation and natural selection to serve new purposes.
And, on occasion, a formerly useful part will no longer be called on
at all.
At that point, at the very least, natural selection will no longer
cull any mutations affecting that structure, and it will begin to vary
more than it did when functional. Since mutations are more likely to
reduce size, complexity, and function than the reverse, and since in
any case the resources used to construct the structure can likely be
used more beneficially to some other purpose, unused capabilities will
tend, under "neoDarwinian" processes, to be gradually lost.
Therefore the theory predicts vestigial organs. And your claim that
you don't know that there are any organs or structures that lack the
functions of their homologs in similar species is a pure argument from
ignorance.
>
> > Are you now arguing that there are some structures
> >which do not have functions, but that such useless structures should
> >not be called vestigal?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
> clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not surprising
> that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased with
> increasing knowledge and scientific study.
>
You said that already. It would take a truly astonishing feat of
scholarship to show that [a] the cheek teeth of vampire bats still
served the purpose that cheek teeth serve in bats that actually chew
food, or [b] that they serve some additional purpose *not* served by
those teeth in either species.
>
> Recall that 200+ organs and structures were entered into the Scopes
> Trial record as vestigial and as strong evidence for evolution and
> against special creation. As far as I none of them are so held today.
>
"As far as you know" wouldn't get you halfway across a biology lecture
hall. Name five organs on this list. It would be more convincing, of
course, if you could name the functions they are now held to serve,
but just some evidence that you actually knew the contents of this
list would be something. As far as I can tell, this claim is pure
bluster.
>
> Do you really contend that the vampire bat teeth have no function?
> And how long will this claim last before investigation discovers that
> it is mistaken?
>
The claim is that whatever function they serve, it is [a] at least one
function fewer than such teeth serve in bats that chew food, and [b]
that there is no obvious reason for teeth of *any* kind to exist for
whatever purpose they still serve. Of course, the assumption that
they *must* serve some purpose, although no one has any idea what it
is (and they're *teeth*, Tony -- just how obscure do you suppose the
function of teeth is to zoologists?) is an argument from ignorance.
>
> > If so, that would seem to be a descent into
> >unadulturated verbalism, since it would be making a distinction
> >without a difference. If that is not your argument, then your
> >argument would seem to be that there are no functionless structures.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure would
> clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not surprising
> that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased with
> increasing knowledge and scientific study.
>
The repetition of claims is not evidence for them.
>
> As a matter of history all (or most) claims that a structure was
> vestigial have fallen. As a result if I asserted that there were no
> functionless organs or structures history would be on my side.
>
Let's see...there are assorted pseuodgenes, embryonic teeth in baleen
whales (that have no teeth after birth), embryonic hind limb buds in
all whales (that don't have hind limbs, normally, after birth)
embryonic tusks (four of them, in elephants that only have two tusks
after birth), shriveled wings under sealed wing covers in flightless
beetles, the human plantaris muscle (which doesn't attach to the toes
its homolog controls in other primates) etc. etc....
Even creationists admit the existence of some vestigial organs,
attributing them to "loss of information" in the course of "evolution
within created kinds." If you were to claim that there were no
functionless organs or structures, even your fellow creationsts
wouldn't be on your side. Tony, this whole argument is little your
own stupid arrogant stubborness extended to tedious length. It's
precisely of a piece with your insistence, for months, that
evolutionists held that bats evolved from mesonychids.
Give it up, Tony.
>
> >If your argument is the former, I will humor you. For the sake of
> >this argument, I will from now on refrain from using the term
> >'vestigial'. Darwin used the term "rudimentary organs". Out of
> >respect for the principle of descent with modification, I will call
> >them "rudimentary structures" for the duration of this argument. If
> >you object to that term as well, we can call them "xyzzy structures"
> >instead. It does not matter what we call an organ or structure which
> >an organism does not serve a useful purpose in an organism. Whatever
> >word we use, the implications remain unchanged.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I am only interested in empirical evidence which you have declined to
> provide.
>
The reduced cheek teeth, with the location but not the surfaces or
function of molars -- with, indeed, none of the discernable functions
of molars -- *are* empirical evidence, Tony?
>
> >What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
> >organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you deny
> >that the m-position teeth of the two species of Desmodontinae which
> >posess them are rudimentary, please explain what purpose they serve.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But creationists don't assert that functionless structures or organs
> exist. As a result there is no need for them to explain what does not
> exist. Since ignorance of the function of any organ or structure
> would clearly favor its being classified as vestigial, it is not
> surprising that the list of vestigial organs has greatly dicreased
> with increasing knowledge and scientific study.
>
So your answer is, if you refuse to admit that evidence exists, you
are relieved of the obligation to explain it?
>
> >> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
> >> structure with a useful function in some predecessor population
> >> to a different but useful function in a descendent population
> >> does not make the structure in the predecessor population
> >> "vestigial."
> >
> >Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
> >vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts. Using
> >"rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the purposes of
> >this argument anyway.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Unfortunately the quote of mine to which you refer I describe what
> "vestigial" does NOT mean. Next I suggest you and the others reread
> Chapter XIV of "The Origin of the Species." Darwin uses the label
> "rudimentary" to cover several different kinds of observations.
> Rudimentary refers to structures which have no utility, as a
> characteristic of establishing lineal relationships with populations
> containing homologous organs, a characterization when the organ isn't
> performing its "proper" function but does perform some "non proper"
> but useful function, and a characterization when a previous functional
> organ "atrophied" and no longer provided that function.
>
Some of these uses overlap in meaning, of course. If an organ doesn't
perform the "proper" function of its homologs, or has no function at
all even though obvious homologs have obvious functions, then Darwin
explains this as the result of "atrophy" of its former function. At
best, you are demonstrating your deficiencies at reading for meaning
and logical reasoning. At worst, you are demonstrating a propensity
for deliberate obtuseness to avoid defending your claims.
>
> Dunford may use "rudimentary" however he wishes. I prefer to use the
> common usage found in most english language dictionaries in most
> modern biology dictionaries. Darwin's usage of "rudimentary"
> encompasses the common modern usage of "vestigial" but it also
> includes structures that "vestigial" does not.
>
Again, "vestigial" is an explanation for an observation; "rudimentary"
seems, on your own evidence, to be an excellent characterization of
that observation without the evolutionary explanation.
>
> It is interesting to note that Darwin considered that a "rudimentary"
> organ could also be nascent. Isn't that interesting?
>
Yes. In what way does it argue against the explanation of vampire bat
molars as vestigial organs.
>
> snip
>
> more to follow if time permits.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
A Pagano
snip
>What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
>organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you deny
>that the m-position teeth of the two species of Desmodontinae which
>posess them are rudimentary, please explain what purpose they serve.
>
>> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
>> structure with a useful function in some predecessor population
>> to a different but useful function in a descendent population
>> does not make the structure in the predecessor population
>> "vestigial."
>
>Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
>vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts. Using
>"rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the purposes of
>this argument anyway.
Pagano replies:
I'm not so sure that switching to the descriptor "rudimentary" does
much to save you. And Darwin used it in several different ways. But
I suspect that he used it principly to mean what neoDarwinians mean
when they use the label "vestigial." Problem for Dunford however is
that Darwin thought it probable that the main agent of the change from
a predecessor population to the rudiment in a descendent was the
result of "disuse." This Lamarckian notion has long been discredited
by neoDarwinians. How 'bout a quote from good ol' Darwin?
[BEGIN QUOTE FROM DARWIN, Chapter XIV, Rudimentary Section]
"It appears probable that disuse has been the main agent in rendering
organs rudimentary. It would at first lead by slow steps to the more
and more complete reduction of a part, until at last it became
rudimentary, ----as in the case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark
caverns, and of the wings of birds inhabiting oceanic islands, which
have sledom been forced by beastes of prey to take flight, and have
ultimately lost the power of flying."
[END QUOTE]
>
>>>Your initial claim
>>>was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact
>>>have a function.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> More or less.
>
>Fine. Then tell me what purpose m-position teeth serve in the
>Desmodontinae.
Pagano replies:
"More or less" is a probablistic answer not a definitive one. And I
listed three arguments why I believed the answer to whether or not
vestigial organs/structures existed was probably no.
The short answer to this more specific question is I don't know
specifically because I haven't done a literature search. But if the
literature proved unsuccessful to my probablistic answer history would
be on my side. If a function hasn't been found yet (and a detailed
literature search might uncover one) it will be with further
investigation.
And an even shorter answer: The claim that the cheek teeth of
creatures classified under the Desmodontinae subfamily are vestigial
is a presumptive argument from ignorance.
>
>> I argue:
>> 1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will "become"
>> vestigial and as a result it does not predict their existence in
>> the fossil record or the living world. It predicts the
>> emergence of nascent structures and their existence in the
>> living world..
>
>Darwin did not agree.
Pagano replies:
Darwinism and neoDarwinism are NOT identical frameworks. Darwin
considered "disuse" the probable main agent rendering organs
rudimentary. But neoDarwinians long ago discredited this "Lamarckian"
argument. What both frameworks agree upon is that the changes are
gradualistic over long periods of time. Where is the fossil evidence
of this? It is completely absent. This is the evidence I ask to see
as proof. Without the historical evidence evolutionists use the
theory to justify the characterization of "vestigial," it is not the
observation which corroborates the theory. And Darwin did say that
nascent structures were expected.
Darwin avered that one should not imprudently say that every
"underdeveloped" organ was necessarily "rudimentary." He claimed that
it could merely be "nascent" and progressing towards maturity with a
function. This can also be found in Chapter XIV, Rudimentary Section
of "The Origin of Species."
> He pointed out that since the development of
>any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources natural
>selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
>eliminated unimportant features.
Pagano replies:
His argument for reduction claimed that the probable main cause was
disuse. Lamarckism according to neodarwinians is false. The
neoDarwinian theory says that all (or most) of the nucleotide copying
errors which occur are unrelated to their value or disvalue to the
organism. Furthermore neoDarwinism asserts that those changes are
preserved by natural selection only to the extent that they confer
some differential survival or differential reproductive value.
Once preserved the neoDarwinian framework does not predict their
demise or atrophy. At best it might predict the extinction of the
population because the preserved organs were no longer suited to some
changed environment.
snip
more to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
Traklman
>ignorance to save his vestigial argument?
>From: A Pagano anthony...@verizon.net
>Date: 11/12/2002 8:08 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <qp92tu0p4sn62tnug...@4ax.com>
>
>[This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
It makes it difficult to follow the discussion, you know.
>snip
>
>>What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
>>organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you deny
>>that the m-position teeth of the two species of Desmodontinae which
>>posess them are rudimentary, please explain what purpose they serve.
Your lack of response to this is noted.
So what? Darwin, like his other contemporaries, didn't understand heredity
properly, so he got this part wrong. Besides, I thought you wanted vestigial
structures to be produced by *neo-*Darwinian processes.
>>
>>>>Your initial claim
>>>>was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact
>>>>have a function.
>>>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> More or less.
>>
>>Fine. Then tell me what purpose m-position teeth serve in the
>>Desmodontinae.
>
> Pagano replies:
>"More or less" is a probablistic answer not a definitive one. And I
>listed three arguments why I believed the answer to whether or not
>vestigial organs/structures existed was probably no.
>
>The short answer to this more specific question is I don't know
>specifically because I haven't done a literature search.
In other words: you don't know, you are just guessing.
But if the
>literature proved unsuccessful to my probablistic answer history would
>be on my side. If a function hasn't been found yet (and a detailed
>literature search might uncover one) it will be with further
>investigation.
>
How do you know? And how does a future event that may or may not ever happen
put history on your side?
>And an even shorter answer: The claim that the cheek teeth of
>creatures classified under the Desmodontinae subfamily are vestigial
>is a presumptive argument from ignorance.
The observation that the bats in question do not chew their food is not a
presumptive argument from ignorance; it is an observation.
The observation that the overwhelming majority of creatures with developed
cheek teeth use them for chewing is not a presumptive argument from ignorance;
it is an observation.
That the cheek teeth of these bats lack the characteristics making them
suitable for *any* known use of cheek teeth is a conclusion based on
observation of both the teeth and the bats' lifestyle.
That there are other related bats that do just fine with no cheek teeth at all
is an observation, not a presumptive argument from ignorance.
That there are still other related bats that *do* both have and use functional
cheek teeth is an observation.
That functioning cheek teeth are the norm among both modern and prehistoric
bats is an observation.
So the conclusion that the underdeveloped cheek teeth of these vampire bats are
vestigial is not simply a presumptive argument from ignorance; it is an
inference from available observation.
Since it is an inductive inference, I suppose you could challenge it. And,
yes, it *could* prove to be wrong some day. But that does not justify
labelling it a presumptive argument from ignorance.
On the other hand: "Someday, somehow, someone might prove you wrong" *is* a
presumptive argument from ignorance. A case of the pot calling the tablecloth
black.
<snip discussion of what Darwin himself thought or did not think>
>
>snip
>
>more to follow if time permits
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
Von Smith
Mike Dunford
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
>>What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
>>organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you
>>deny that the m-position teeth of the two species of
>>Desmodontinae which posess them are rudimentary, please explain
>>what purpose they serve.
>>
>>> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
>>> structure with a useful function in some predecessor
>>> population to a different but useful function in a descendent
>>> population does not make the structure in the predecessor
>>> population "vestigial."
>>
>>Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
>>vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts.
>>Using "rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the
>>purposes of this argument anyway.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I'm not so sure that switching to the descriptor "rudimentary"
> does much to save you.
In splitting your reply, you have removed an important part of the
context for this statement. I rather suspect that you knew that.
When I proposed to substitute the term "rudimentary structure" for
"vestigial structure", I explicitly stated that I was using the word
to describe a structure which has little or no useful function. I
also stated that I was doing so simply to sidestep the debate that
was threatening to erupt over whether your use of "vestigial" is
better than that in general use in biology. Finally, I pointed out
that I really didn't care what "descriptor" you used, and that you
can use the term "xyzzy structure" for all I care.
To be clear: I am presenting the m-position teeth of the
Desmodontinae as an example of a structure which has little or no
useful function. I am not trying to claim that it is "vestigial"
because it has a different function. In short, while I disagree with
your definition of vestigial, the example at hand does fit your
definition. You continue to engage in verbalistic equivocation over
what term should be used, while failing to actually address the
concept involved.
Call it whatever you want -- just explain to me how creationism
explains the m-position teeth of vampire bats.
> And Darwin used it in several different
> ways. But I suspect that he used it principly to mean what
> neoDarwinians mean when they use the label "vestigial."
I did not intend to imply that I was necessarily using the term in
the same way that Darwin did -- that is why I set the term off in
""s, and why I explicitly said that I was going to use "rudimentary
structure" rather than Darwin's "rudimentary organs".
> Problem for Dunford however is that Darwin thought it probable
> that the main agent of the change from a predecessor population
> to the rudiment in a descendent was the result of "disuse."
> This Lamarckian notion has long been discredited by
> neoDarwinians. How 'bout a quote from good ol' Darwin?
>
> [BEGIN QUOTE FROM DARWIN, Chapter XIV, Rudimentary Section]
> "It appears probable that disuse has been the main agent in
> rendering organs rudimentary. It would at first lead by slow
> steps to the more and more complete reduction of a part, until
> at last it became rudimentary, ----as in the case of the eyes of
> animals inhabiting dark caverns, and of the wings of birds
> inhabiting oceanic islands, which have sledom been forced by
> beastes of prey to take flight, and have ultimately lost the
> power of flying." [END QUOTE]
This section is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, of
course. The question of whether or not Darwin's explanation of
"rudimentary" organs was somehow "Lamarckian" does nothing at all to
address whether or not the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae
serve any useful function. As I have pointed out, the mere presence
of such a structure is problematic for creationists.
That aside, what Darwin may or may not have thought caused
"rudimentary organs" is also irrelevant. Even if you are right that
he proposed a Lamarckian mechanism which has since been discredited -
- and you are not -- you have not discussed the current state of
thought. Perhaps this passage will help:
"Vestigial organs may seem to support the Lamarckian
concept of use and disuse, but they can be explained
by natural selection. It would be wasteful to continue
providing blood, nutrients, and space to an organ that
no longer has a major function. Individuals with
reduced versions of theose organs would be favored, and
natural selection operating over thousands of
generations would tend to phase out obsolete
structures." (p.411)
Campbell, Neil A. 1996. Biology, 4th ed.
Benjamin/Cummings. Menlo Park
We see that even if Darwin believed that rudimentary organs were only
produced by now-discredited Lamarckian mechanisms, modern scientists
believe that natural selection was responsible. I could argue with
you further about your misinterpretation of Darwin, but that would
really just be yet another pointless digression from the question at
hand. How does creationism explain the m-position teeth of the
Desmodontinae?
>>>>Your initial claim
>>>>was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in
>>>>fact have a function.
>>>
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> More or less.
>>
>>Fine. Then tell me what purpose m-position teeth serve in the
>>Desmodontinae.
>
> Pagano replies:
> "More or less" is a probablistic answer not a definitive one.
I'm sorry. I really should have known better than to think that you
might be using the phrase in the way it is normally used; that is, to
indicate that my restatement of your claim was approximately
accurate.
> And I listed three arguments why I believed the answer to
> whether or not vestigial organs/structures existed was probably
> no.
I addressed all three. Again, however, since you claim that such
structures/organs do not exist, you need to provide an explanation
for those structures which are presented as examples. Claiming that
there are no vestigial organs does not make the m-position teeth of
vampire bats imaginary. They are real. They are present in two of the
three species of vampire. And they do nothing. Your statement that
such structures do not exist would seem to have encountered a slight
problem.
> The short answer to this more specific question is I don't know
> specifically because I haven't done a literature search.
Perhaps you should do one. Or do you think that evidence is something
that other people need to present to you, not something that you need
to be concerned with yourself?
The link presented earlier in the thread to the _Walker's_ page on
the Phyllostomidae contained a description of the feeding method of
vampire bats. You will note that their feeding method does not
involve use of any of the m-position teeth. In addition, you will
note that of the three currently extant species of vampire bat, one
does not have any teeth in that position, which would seem to
very strongly indicate that such teeth are not important to their
lifestyle.
> But if the literature proved unsuccessful to my probablistic
> answer history would be on my side.
1: Despite repeated requests from a number of different people, you
have never actually provided any evidence to support your assertion
that "history" has shown that many structures which were once
believed to be vestigial no longer are. You have, for example, never
bothered to name even one of the "200+" structures entered into the
record from the Scopes trial. I see no reason to believe that history
is truly on your side here.
2: Even you are correct as to the first point, that handwaving
dismissal still fails to address the teeth that are in front of you
now. Nor does it address any of the other structures suggested by
others, such as the eyeless cave fish suggested by Andy Groves. The
mere fact that you believe history is on your side now does not
suggest that it will remain there.
> If a function hasn't been found yet (and a detailed literature
> search might uncover one)
If you believe that, I suggest that you undertake such a search.
> it will be with further investigation.
You are arguing that a function will be found eventually because your
hypothesis is right, and therefore the lack of a known function for a
well-understood structure in a well-studied organism is not
problematic for your hypothesis. That seems to be just a tad bit
question begging, don't you think? I certainly doubt that you would
be so accepting if an evolutionist told you, "I know I'm right, so I
know the evidence will turn up later."
> And an even shorter answer: The claim that the cheek teeth of
> creatures classified under the Desmodontinae subfamily are
> vestigial is a presumptive argument from ignorance.
It seems to be more of an argument from observation to me. That is,
we have studied teeth for a long time, and we know what they do. We
have studied the different types of teeth present in mammals, and we
know what the different kinds of teeth do in the different positions
of the mouth. Vampire bats have been studied extensively, in part
because of their position in myth and legend, and we have a very good
understanding of how they feed. We also know that one of the three
extant species of vampire does not have any m-position teeth, and
suffers no apparent ill-effects from this lack. Of the remaining two
extant species, one has more m-position teeth than the other, again
without there being any noticable impact from the reduced number of
teeth. In short, our "ignorance" does not, in this case, appear to be
profound.
We are not saying, "gee, this critter has this little doohickey that
nothing else has, and we don't know what it does, so it must do
nothing." We KNOW how vampire bats feed. We KNOW what other, non-
vampire, bats use the teeth they have in the same position for. We
KNOW what other mammals with m-position teeth use _their_ m-position
teeth for. We KNOW that the vampire bat does not use those teeth the
way any other mammal does. We KNOW that one of the three species
doesn't even have any m-position teeth. We have not, to my knowledge,
ever observed either of the two remaining species to use their m-
position teeth to do anything. It hardly seems unreasonable to
conclude, at least tentatively, from this bulk of evidence that the
m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae have little or no use.
I see that my .sig randomizer has come up with a quote that appears
to be somewhat apt here:
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional
assent."
--Stephen Jay Gould
In this sense, I feel completely comfortable stating that it is a
fact that the m-position teeth of _Diaemus_youngi_ and
_Diphylla_ecudata_ are not useful.
>>> I argue:
>>> 1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will
>>> "become" vestigial and as a result it does not predict their
>>> existence in the fossil record or the living world. It
>>> predicts the emergence of nascent structures and their
>>> existence in the living world..
>>
>>Darwin did not agree.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Darwinism and neoDarwinism are NOT identical frameworks. Darwin
> considered "disuse" the probable main agent rendering organs
> rudimentary. But neoDarwinians long ago discredited this
> "Lamarckian" argument.
As I pointed out above, rudimentary organs are not now considered to
have a Lamarckian argument. I will therefore ignore as irrelevant
your misunderstanding of Darwin.
> What both frameworks agree upon is that
> the changes are gradualistic over long periods of time. Where
> is the fossil evidence of this? It is completely absent. This
> is the evidence I ask to see as proof.
I decline, once again, to demonstrate to your satisfaction that
evolution is correct before presenting any evidence for evolution. As
you have admitted, the presence of a structure without a useful
function is problematic for creationism. They are, however, predicted
by evolution.
> Without the historical
> evidence evolutionists use the theory to justify the
> characterization of "vestigial," it is not the observation which
> corroborates the theory.
Again: I do not, and have not used the theory of evolution to
_justify_ characterizing the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae as
vestigial. I am simply pointing out that the presence of such useless
structures is unexpected and problematic under a creationist model,
but easily understood and in fact predicted by an evolutionary one.
> And Darwin did say that nascent structures were expected.
Correct. We have discussed that before, and there are still a number
of legitimate questions that you have left unanswered from the
previous discussions. If you want to go there again, I will be happy
to oblige in another thread. I prefer to remain focused in this one.
> Darwin avered that one should not imprudently say that every
> "underdeveloped" organ was necessarily "rudimentary." He
> claimed that it could merely be "nascent" and progressing
> towards maturity with a function. This can also be found in
> Chapter XIV, Rudimentary Section of "The Origin of Species."
This is also correct, with the key word in this case being
"imprudently".
>> He pointed out that since the development of
>>any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources
>>natural selection would favor somewhat any variation which
>>reduced or eliminated unimportant features.
>
> Pagano replies:
> His argument for reduction claimed that the probable main cause
> was disuse. Lamarckism according to neodarwinians is false.
My explanation above, which is similar to the one I quoted earlier
from Campbell's Biology, is hardly Lamarckian.
> The neoDarwinian theory says that all (or most) of the
> nucleotide copying errors which occur are unrelated to their
> value or disvalue to the organism.
Please explain the relevance of this statement to the current
argument.
> Furthermore neoDarwinism
> asserts that those changes are preserved by natural selection
> only to the extent that they confer some differential survival
> or differential reproductive value.
>
> Once preserved the neoDarwinian framework does not predict their
> demise or atrophy. At best it might predict the extinction of
> the population because the preserved organs were no longer
> suited to some changed environment.
This is, as I pointed out to you elsewhere in this post and elsewhere
in this thread, incorrect. If there is no selective value favoring
the preservation of an organ, it will tend to be reduced in size
and/or eliminated from the organism. This is because there is an
advantage -- a positive selective pressure -- which favors the
preservation of such variations. Reducing or eliminating an unused
structure allows the organism to conserve the resources which are
used in its construction. In addition such a reduction may reduce or
eliminate a potential source of infection or injury -- again
conferring a benefit to organism which do so.
That is why evolution not only predicts the existence of unused
organs (as a consequence of changes in other structures), but also
predicts that, when preserved, such organs will typically be found in
a reduced state as compared to the same organ in species which do use
it. In short, that is why evolution predicts the m-position teeth of
the Desmodontinae.
--Mike Dunford
--
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that
apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not
merit equal time in physics classrooms.
--Stephen Jay Gould
Andy Groves
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
> >What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
> >organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you deny
> >that the m-position teeth of the two species of Desmodontinae which
> >posess them are rudimentary, please explain what purpose they serve.
> >
> >> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
> >> structure with a useful function in some predecessor population
> >> to a different but useful function in a descendent population
> >> does not make the structure in the predecessor population
> >> "vestigial."
> >
> >Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
> >vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts. Using
> >"rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the purposes of
> >this argument anyway.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I'm not so sure that switching to the descriptor "rudimentary" does
> much to save you. And Darwin used it in several different ways. But
> I suspect that he used it principly to mean what neoDarwinians mean
> when they use the label "vestigial." Problem for Dunford however is
> that Darwin thought it probable that the main agent of the change from
> a predecessor population to the rudiment in a descendent was the
> result of "disuse." This Lamarckian notion has long been discredited
> by neoDarwinians. How 'bout a quote from good ol' Darwin?
<snip>
You are confused by a Lamarckian idea of "disuse" and a Darwinian one:
Lamarck: The child of a long line of men genetically predisposed to be
muscular decides to adopt a sedentary life. His children are therefore
not muscular.
Darwin: Astyanax mexicanus is a surface dwelling fish. Over time, a
population of this species inhabits a niche of underground caves. In
the dark, there is no selective advantage to having eyes. Mutations
which cause degeneration of the eyes are not selected against, as the
loss of vision does not confer a disadvantage.
The Lamarckian idea is wrong because information cannot pass from
somatic cells to germ cells in the same individual. The Darwinian
scenario is possible. Did you read the review on eyeless cave fish I
sent you in July?
Andy
Steven J.
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
> >What possible explanation is there, under creationism, for an
> >organism to be created which has a rudimentary structure? If you deny
> >that the m-position teeth of the two species of Desmodontinae which
> >posess them are rudimentary, please explain what purpose they serve.
> >
> >> Also we should be clear that the purported change of a
> >> structure with a useful function in some predecessor population
> >> to a different but useful function in a descendent population
> >> does not make the structure in the predecessor population
> >> "vestigial."
> >
> >Others have pointed out the problems with your redefinition of
> >vestigial, so I will not waste time duplicating their efforts. Using
> >"rudimentary" makes that discussion unnecessary for the purposes of
> >this argument anyway.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I'm not so sure that switching to the descriptor "rudimentary" does
> much to save you. And Darwin used it in several different ways. But
> I suspect that he used it principly to mean what neoDarwinians mean
> when they use the label "vestigial." Problem for Dunford however is
> that Darwin thought it probable that the main agent of the change from
> a predecessor population to the rudiment in a descendent was the
> result of "disuse." This Lamarckian notion has long been discredited
> by neoDarwinians. How 'bout a quote from good ol' Darwin?
>
constantly pretend to do so while actually trying desperately to shift
the subject (and the goalposts). Dunford isn't trying to "save"
anything; he's trying to make his point clear. A "rudimentary"
structure is one which is underdeveloped compared to homologs or
analogs in other species. "Vestigial" is an explanation for why it is
"rudimentary" -- it has lost functionality that was present in the
organism's ancestors.
Darwin lacked any explanation for the origin of new variation in a
population. His observations that variation persisted even in
populations that had long been under intense selective pressure
(domestic animals) suggested that there must be some mechanism. It
didn't matter much for his purpose what it was; what mattered was that
[a] if it was random, and not subject to selection, it would tend to
"wear down" structures (and it would not be subject to selection if
the structures were no longer needed for anything), leading in time to
structures that were mere vestiges of their former form, and [b] if it
was random, but there was selective pressure to reduce a structure,
then natural selection would tend to cause structures to become
"vestigial" and vanish.
>
> [BEGIN QUOTE FROM DARWIN, Chapter XIV, Rudimentary Section]
> "It appears probable that disuse has been the main agent in rendering
> organs rudimentary. It would at first lead by slow steps to the more
> and more complete reduction of a part, until at last it became
> rudimentary, ----as in the case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark
> caverns, and of the wings of birds inhabiting oceanic islands, which
> have sledom been forced by beastes of prey to take flight, and have
> ultimately lost the power of flying."
> [END QUOTE]
>
The interesting point is that, while Darwin does seem to have accepted
the inheritance of aquired characteristics (not really the essential
feature of Lamarckianism, but what the term is commonly used to mean
-- a case of the winners, the neoDarwinians, getting to write the
dictionaries), "disuse" is held even under the modern synthesis to
lead to organs becoming rudimentary. Indeed, if you didn't know
Darwin didn't know about mutations, you'd assume he was talking about
them as the force gradually reducing and elimiating unused structures.
Again, most mutations affecting a structure will cause it to lose
functionality. If the structure is used, natural selection will
eliminate these mutations; if it isn't, these mutations will eliminate
the structure.
>
> >>>Your initial claim
> >>>was, IIRC, that every organ thought to be vestigal does in fact
> >>>have a function.
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> More or less.
> >
> >Fine. Then tell me what purpose m-position teeth serve in the
> >Desmodontinae.
>
> Pagano replies:
> "More or less" is a probablistic answer not a definitive one. And I
> listed three arguments why I believed the answer to whether or not
> vestigial organs/structures existed was probably no.
>
As I recall those three arguments, one of them was a claim, unbacked
by even a single specific assertion of fact, that uses have been found
for a lot of structures formerly regarded as vestigial. Saying this
really doesn't make it so.
>
> The short answer to this more specific question is I don't know
> specifically because I haven't done a literature search. But if the
> literature proved unsuccessful to my probablistic answer history would
> be on my side. If a function hasn't been found yet (and a detailed
> literature search might uncover one) it will be with further
> investigation.
>
Tony, how long do you think one would have to search the literature to
find a reason for a creature, that bites but doesn't chew food, to
have teeth in a position and of a type where they can't bite, and
aren't really shaped to chew food? Recall that not all mammals have
teeth, so the answer is very unlikely to be "the teeth are needed for
some other purpose." And are you really so certain of the Creator's
purposes that you can say that he would NEVER create an animal with
useless structures?
>
> And an even shorter answer: The claim that the cheek teeth of
> creatures classified under the Desmodontinae subfamily are vestigial
> is a presumptive argument from ignorance.
>
No, it is based on the fact that there are known uses for teeth, and
the cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae don't serve them. The assertion
that there *must* be some purpose -- that evolutionsts can't *show*
they're functionless -- is an argument from ignorance. For that
matter, even if they serve a purpose, there is STILL the question of
why they need to be *teeth* to serve whatever non-chewing function
they happen to fill (and note, presumably the functional molars in
other bats still serve this function also, so the vampire bat molars
still have *reduced* functionality).
>
> >> I argue:
> >> 1. neoDarwinism does not predict that structures will "become"
> >> vestigial and as a result it does not predict their existence in
> >> the fossil record or the living world. It predicts the
> >> emergence of nascent structures and their existence in the
> >> living world..
> >
> >Darwin did not agree.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Darwinism and neoDarwinism are NOT identical frameworks. Darwin
> considered "disuse" the probable main agent rendering organs
> rudimentary. But neoDarwinians long ago discredited this "Lamarckian"
> argument. What both frameworks agree upon is that the changes are
> gradualistic over long periods of time. Where is the fossil evidence
> of this? It is completely absent. This is the evidence I ask to see
> as proof. Without the historical evidence evolutionists use the
> theory to justify the characterization of "vestigial," it is not the
> observation which corroborates the theory. And Darwin did say that
> nascent structures were expected.
>
First, As noted above, Darwin counted on the inheritance of aquired
characteristics as the only mechanism he could conceive for
introducing random new variation into populations. That does not
imply even that he thought it was the only mechanism. It certainly
does not imply that mutation will not serve the purpose, and allow
Darwin's mechanism to work.
Second, "long periods of time" is a relative measure. Hundreds of
generations is a long time relative to the organsisms, but not
relative to the geological record. The fossil record is not the only,
or even primary, source of evidence about evolution; the rarity of
fossilizations, and the infintesmal fraction of the fossil record that
has been discovered and described, severely limit its usefulness.
Gould wondered about the sparseness of interspecies transitionals for
copiously-preserved lineages, but bats are not that well represented
in the fossil record. Just by comparing the vast number of living
species to the tiny number of those species known as fossils suggests
the irrelevance of the lack of specific transitional forms.
What you are doing, here, is trying to shift the argument to a ground
where you opponents have less evidence. There is no need to show the
gradual reduction of a structure in the fossil record (though this can
be done, to some extent, with the legs of snakes and whales). The
existence of nonfunctional homologs to functional structures in other
species *is* evidence for evolution in its own right. Creationism,
you seem to insist, predicts that such structures will NOT exist;
evolutionary theory predicts that they will, and explains their
presences as vestigial remnants of functional homologs.
Darwin defined "nascent" structures as those which were as yet crudely
adapted to the function to which they were put (e.g. the skin flaps of
flying squirrels). The wings, or beak, of _Archaeopteryx_ suit this
definition quite nicely. The fact that you want to define "nascent"
differently (well, actually, you want to avoid defining it at all,
while demanding that we find such structures anyway) is irrelevant to
what Darwin predicted.
>
> Darwin avered that one should not imprudently say that every
> "underdeveloped" organ was necessarily "rudimentary." He claimed that
> it could merely be "nascent" and progressing towards maturity with a
> function. This can also be found in Chapter XIV, Rudimentary Section
> of "The Origin of Species."
>
He does indeed point out the difficulty of distinguishing between
rudimentary organs which are capable of further development to enhance
their functionality ("nascent" structures), and those which are not
("vestigial" structures). Now, for my part, I can't see how teeth that
aren't used for chewing, cutting, or any other known purpose of teeth
can be "nascent" -- what possible alteration in their form would make
them better at doing what they do, except eliminating them altogether?
But their status as rudiments, and the absence of any creationist
explanation for that status (except the "argument from ignorance" of
ignoring heir rudimentary nature) remain.
>
> > He pointed out that since the development of
> >any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources natural
> >selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
> >eliminated unimportant features.
>
> Pagano replies:
> His argument for reduction claimed that the probable main cause was
> disuse. Lamarckism according to neodarwinians is false. The
> neoDarwinian theory says that all (or most) of the nucleotide copying
> errors which occur are unrelated to their value or disvalue to the
> organism. Furthermore neoDarwinism asserts that those changes are
> preserved by natural selection only to the extent that they confer
> some differential survival or differential reproductive value.
>
You are here demonstrating your other techique of argumentation --
digressing into irrelevancies. Darwinism and neoDarwinism agree that
new variation enters into populations, and that this variation is
random with respect to the needs of the organisms in the population.
In either case, we should expect new variation to tend (unless
filtered by selection) to cause a reduction in the functionality of
any structure they affect.
Note that *some* new variation will be conserved in any case. Some
allele variation is neutral -- no allele gives one an advantage or
disadvantage over any other for a particular locus, and so no
selection takes place. In that case, chance alone decides which
alleles show up in the next generation, and genetic drift takes place.
In this way, a mutation that confers no advantage and no disadvantage
can arise and spread through the population. Again, since mutations
at any locus for a large population over a long time are common, and
since must will tend to reduce functionality of the structures they
affect, genetic drift would tend to reduce structures. But of course,
a mutation to reduce a structure which is no longer used is likely to
be beneficial, since it reduces the demand for resources, and
eliminates a potential source of injury.
>
> Once preserved the neoDarwinian framework does not predict their
> demise or atrophy. At best it might predict the extinction of the
> population because the preserved organs were no longer suited to some
> changed environment.
>
This is so wrong I wonder if you've devoted a nanosecond of thought to
the assertion before making it.
>
> snip
>
> more to follow if time permits
>
If it will be no better than this, you might as well not bother.
A Pagano
snip
>Darwin did not agree. He pointed out that since the development of
>any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources, natural
>selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
>eliminated unimportant features. In addition, as he pointed out, many
>organs and structures are subject to diseases, infections, etc. There
>again natural selection tends to favor the elimination or reduction
>of features not being used by an organism.
> He pointed out that since the development of
>any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources natural
>selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
>eliminated unimportant features.
Pagano replies:
But NeoDarwinians consider Darwin's cause----disuse----to be wrong.
This is a Lamarckian idea which neodarwinians consider to be false.
The whole notion of "rudimentary" (Darwin's word) was a presumptive
argument from ignorance. Darwin's ignorance can be excused. If
disuse can't be the mechanism then what is?
It is very unclear what mechanism would cause a homologous, functional
structure in some predecessor population to "atrophy" (Darwin's word)
over time in the face of all the conservative mechanisms not the least
of which is natural selection to result in a non functional one in the
descendent population. The neoDarwinian theory says that all (or
most) of the nucleotide copying errors which occur are unrelated to
their value or disvalue to the organism. And those changes are
preserved by natural selection ONLY to the extent that they confer
some survival or reproductive advantage.
Dunford must explain the purported "vestigial" cheek teeth with that
mechanism and explain how the conservative power of natural selection
(and the other conservative genetic mechanisms) were overcome.
Perhaps Dunford could argue that some other changes attendent with the
nucleotide copying errors causing the "atrophy" conferred an
overriding survival or reproductive advantage somewhere else within
the creature. If so Dunford must produce the evidence; it cannot be
presumed. At least I'm told that scientists demand the physical
evidence.
>
>Evolution predicts that disused organs will tend to be reduced or
>eliminated. Creationism provides no explanation for the presence of
>any organ not being used.
Pagano replies:
I agree that this is what Darwin claimed but this is a feature of
Lamarckism which neoDarwinists discredited over 60 years ago.
>
>> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a
>> structure is vestigial have been arguments from man's ignorance
>> of their actual function.
>
>Address the specifics. What actual function do teeth serve when they
>are not used in any part of the process of obtaining and chewing
>food? In particular, what function do the m-position teeth serve in
>the two species of Desmodontinae which posess them. Since all three
>species feed in a virtually identical fashion, explain why only two
>have those teeth, and why they have different numbers of them.
Pagano replies:
You fail to realize that your ignorance of a function is not evidence
that it has none. The experts at the Scopes Trial entered 200+ organs
and structures considered vestigial. As far as I know none are
considered so today.
The fact that an observer doesn't see the structure being used in the
manner, degree, or way that he expects it to perform is also not
evidence that it has no function or is vestigial.
>
>> And that there is often little if any
>> evidence that some purported "vestigial" structure arose via a
>> neodarwinian process (as opposed to a Mendelian one).
>
>This statement is meaningless. (Hint: What did the "Neodarwinian
>Synthesis" bring together into a single theory?)
Pagano replies:
I agree that you didn't bring it in. You are apparently stuck in
1859. Unfortunately the neoDarwinians abandoned Darwin's disuse
argument in the 1940s.
>
>> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between
>> predecessor and descendent population is not prima facie
>> evidence that the structure in the descendent is vestigial. A
>> vestigial structure is one which has little or no utility.
>
>Again, this is not common usage,
Pagano replies:
Perhaps, but all the secular sources I consulted use "vestigial" in
this manner. Darwin used "rudimentary" in this manner as well as to
encompass other kinds of observations.
>but since we are, in the case of the
>Desmodontinae, referring to a structure which has little or no
>utility, and since I have agreed to describe the structure as
>"rudimentary", this does not seem to be important at the moment.
Pagano replies:
Not really sure how Dunford uses "rudimentary." Does he use it to
mean a structure which emerged but simply failed to "fully" develop
into a functional structure. I'm not sure. This was only one of the
meanings Darwin attached to that label, but certainly not the only
one or the most important one. Nevertheless it is obvious that the
characterization of vestigial or rudimentary(according to this
particular usage) is presumptive.
Evolutionists presume that a structure or organ is a vestige or a
rudiment if it doesn't perform as some homologous structure in another
population or if it simply has no known function. At the Scopes Trial
we discovered that this presumption was completely unreliable.
>
>>>It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
>>>evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or
>>>not it serves some function.
Pagano replies:
Never asked for the entire history. But showing some of the history
would demonstrate the emergence and arrested development if this is
indeed what is claimed.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I
>> asked for some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary
>> biology, systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become
>> branches of philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence
>> and logical argument devoid of question begging.
>
>I cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man, but that does not make
>rainbows any less real.
Pagano replies:
The analogy is flawed. An analogy requires a basis of resemblence
between the things compared. Where is the basis of resemblence
between an observable "rainbow" and the interpretive characterization
of "rudimentary?" There isn't one and so it collapses.
The rainbow can be described to the blind man in "observational,"
concrete terms regardless of whether we can explain why we see what we
see. The characteristic of "rudimentary" is not an observational term,
but an interpretative one based upon (1) observational characteristics
of a structure or organ, (2) an understanding of the neoDarwinian
framework, and (3) the presumption about how a structure or organ is
"expected" to be used. We don't have to explain why the cheek teeth
of the vampire bat exist in order to establish that they do, but to
interpret those teeth as "rudimentary" would require explanation. An
explanation which could be mistaken.
In other words Dunford WOULD have to be able to explain to the blind
man "why" the size, color, location and hardness of the vampire bat
cheek teeth added up to the non observational term of "rudimentary" in
oder to establish its existence as such. And there is every reason to
believe that explanation is false.
snip
more to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
Tracy P. Hamilton
turn on. A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> said:
>[This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
>snip
>
>
>>Darwin did not agree. He pointed out that since the development of
>>any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources, natural
>>selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
>>eliminated unimportant features. In addition, as he pointed out, many
>>organs and structures are subject to diseases, infections, etc. There
>>again natural selection tends to favor the elimination or reduction
>>of features not being used by an organism.
>
>> He pointed out that since the development of
>>any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources natural
>>selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
>>eliminated unimportant features.
>
> Pagano replies:
>But NeoDarwinians consider Darwin's cause----disuse----to be wrong.
>This is a Lamarckian idea which neodarwinians consider to be false.
>The whole notion of "rudimentary" (Darwin's word) was a presumptive
>argument from ignorance. Darwin's ignorance can be excused. If
>disuse can't be the mechanism then what is?
What Darwin said:"We have no written pedigrees; we have to make out
community of descent by resemblances of any kind. Therefore we choose
those characters which, as far as we can judge, are the least likely
to have been modified in relation to the conditions of life to which
each species has been recently exposed. Rudimentary structures on
this view are as good as, or even sometimes better than, other parts
it be the mere inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in
which an insect's wing is folded, whether the skin be covered by hair
or feathers if it prevail throughout many and different species,
especially those having very different habits of life, it assumes
high value; for we can account for its presence in so many forms with
such different habits, only by its inheritance from a common parent."
Darwin can be excused for not knowing genetics, and thus be able
to make a more correct description. However, a person with knowledge
and understanding can easily make the appropriate (and trivial)
changes.
Disuse does not *cause* the rudimentary nature,
but the the loss of the use is not selected *against*, or having
an *organ* that was present but not functioning well could even
be selected against (Darwin point this out!). Selection was the
mechanism - disuse (lack of utility) was the selection *criterion* in
some cases where the organ is a drain on resources. Kind of like
eyes in cave critters.
Have the creationists found the function of the following?
"No one will dispute that the rudimentary teeth in the upper jaws of
young ruminants, and certain rudimentary bones of the leg, are highly
serviceable in exhibiting the close affinity between Ruminants and
Pachyderms." They have only had 140+ years, so I suppose they
may be excused for not finding out yet. But have they tried?
Here's another from Darwin: "Thus in the snapdragon (antirrhinum) we
generally do not find a rudiment of a fifth stamen; but this may
sometimes be seen."
Note this is not an argument from ignorance, but an argument
of knowing what teeth, and leg bones are used for, and how many
stamens are in flowers! No, it is the argument that these have
other uses, just unknown that is based on ignorance.
NeoDarwinism is just natural selection plus genetics. It is nonsense
to argue that Darwinism or NeoDarwinism is any sort of pair to
choose from.
[more stupidity deleted]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Building Manager, Alco Hall
University of Ediacara
Elmer Bataitis
> But NeoDarwinians consider Darwin's cause----disuse----to be wrong.
> This is a Lamarckian idea which neodarwinians consider to be false.
Wow, Tony. You caught us all. We are all so wrong and have been for
150 years!
Geez Tony, you are a card. Maybe you should try reading an actual
biology book to understand that disuse in a neodarwinian sense is
*NOT* Lamarckian. But reading a book would mean you would be using
"naturalistic" means to acquire information. You claim this is false,
so I guess we'll have to hope you'll understand it supernaturally
someday ;-)
C. Thompson
Congratulations. This is one of the saddest strawmen created in recent
times. No one ever suggested that a functional structure would atrophy
in the face of natural selection. What on earth gave you this idea? Is
this deliberate obfuscation?
A structure without a function, on the other hand, would face no serious
impediment. Take for example the caecum in humans. We have a caecum,
but it has become quite reduced in size. Most other mammals that eat
vegetation have caeca that are quite large; they are used for the
digestion of cellulose- i.e., fermentation chambers. People have
suggested that the addition of meat to our diet allowed the caecum to
become reduced in size. In other words, there was no selective pressure
to maintain a caecum, so those individuals with smaller ones reproduced
as well as those with larger caeca (assuming all else is equal).
Now, we do not need to digress into a discussion of caeca. This was
just an example.
> The neoDarwinian theory says that all (or
> most) of the nucleotide copying errors which occur are unrelated to
> their value or disvalue to the organism. And those changes are
> preserved by natural selection ONLY to the extent that they confer
> some survival or reproductive advantage.
Almost correct. It isn't always that they confer some advantage. It is
enough sometime that they don't confer a disadvantage.
> Dunford must explain the purported "vestigial" cheek teeth with that
> mechanism and explain how the conservative power of natural selection
> (and the other conservative genetic mechanisms) were overcome.
I can do that. Some bats started drinking blood. They were ancestors
to what are now members of the Phyllostomidae. Some of these began to
feed exclusively on blood. These are the vampire bats, Desmodontinae.
If you read the Nowak information carefully, you no doubt saw that other
Leaf-nosed bats occasionally drink blood.
Given the sanguivorous lifestyle (Lifestyles of the rich and thirsty?)
there was no selective pressure to grow those large molar teeth. As a
matter of fact, there would be a charge to growing those teeth, in
energy, calcium, what have you. An individual who by chance had a
mutation that reduced the size of the molars would be at a selective
advantage.
See how easy that is? Natural selection all the way.
> Perhaps Dunford could argue that some other changes attendent with the
> nucleotide copying errors causing the "atrophy" conferred an
> overriding survival or reproductive advantage somewhere else within
> the creature. If so Dunford must produce the evidence; it cannot be
> presumed. At least I'm told that scientists demand the physical
> evidence.
Why would it have to be overriding? Small differences in reproductive
success over long periods of time account quite nicely, thank you. Say,
you do think the earth is a few billion years old, don't you?
> >
> >Evolution predicts that disused organs will tend to be reduced or
> >eliminated. Creationism provides no explanation for the presence of
> >any organ not being used.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I agree that this is what Darwin claimed but this is a feature of
> Lamarckism which neoDarwinists discredited over 60 years ago.
Balderdash. You know perfectly well that Lamarckian *mechanisms* were
discredited. The mechanisms were proposed to explain observed
phenomena.
> >
> >> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a
> >> structure is vestigial have been arguments from man's ignorance
> >> of their actual function.
> >
> >Address the specifics. What actual function do teeth serve when they
> >are not used in any part of the process of obtaining and chewing
> >food? In particular, what function do the m-position teeth serve in
> >the two species of Desmodontinae which posess them. Since all three
> >species feed in a virtually identical fashion, explain why only two
> >have those teeth, and why they have different numbers of them.
>
> Pagano replies:
> You fail to realize that your ignorance of a function is not evidence
> that it has none. The experts at the Scopes Trial entered 200+ organs
> and structures considered vestigial. As far as I know none are
> considered so today.
Name 2 please. With a source.
> The fact that an observer doesn't see the structure being used in the
> manner, degree, or way that he expects it to perform is also not
> evidence that it has no function or is vestigial.
Excellent. Perhaps you could tell us the way it *is* being used.
> >
> >> And that there is often little if any
> >> evidence that some purported "vestigial" structure arose via a
> >> neodarwinian process (as opposed to a Mendelian one).
>
>
>
> >
> >This statement is meaningless. (Hint: What did the "Neodarwinian
> >Synthesis" bring together into a single theory?)
>
> Pagano replies:
> I agree that you didn't bring it in. You are apparently stuck in
> 1859. Unfortunately the neoDarwinians abandoned Darwin's disuse
> argument in the 1940s.
Nonsense. Darwin knew nothing of genetics. He didn't know the
mechanisms that controlled traits. He was spot on as far as the
selective advantage of vestigial traits, though. You also might look at
his work on orchids- that is full of vestigial structures.
>
> >
> >> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between
> >> predecessor and descendent population is not prima facie
> >> evidence that the structure in the descendent is vestigial. A
> >> vestigial structure is one which has little or no utility.
> >
> >Again, this is not common usage,
>
> Pagano replies:
> Perhaps, but all the secular sources I consulted use "vestigial" in
> this manner. Darwin used "rudimentary" in this manner as well as to
> encompass other kinds of observations.
Flower petals (since I mentioned orchids) are vestigial leaves.
>
> >but since we are, in the case of the
> >Desmodontinae, referring to a structure which has little or no
> >utility, and since I have agreed to describe the structure as
> >"rudimentary", this does not seem to be important at the moment.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not really sure how Dunford uses "rudimentary." Does he use it to
> mean a structure which emerged but simply failed to "fully" develop
> into a functional structure. I'm not sure. This was only one of the
> meanings Darwin attached to that label, but certainly not the only
> one or the most important one. Nevertheless it is obvious that the
> characterization of vestigial or rudimentary(according to this
> particular usage) is presumptive.
Presumptive until such time as someone shows the molars have a
function. Care to take that on one? Didn't think so.
> Evolutionists presume that a structure or organ is a vestige or a
> rudiment if it doesn't perform as some homologous structure in another
> population or if it simply has no known function. At the Scopes Trial
> we discovered that this presumption was completely unreliable.
Evidence. You have been asked for this evidence many many times. I
think it is a figment.
> >
> >>>It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
> >>>evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or
> >>>not it serves some function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Never asked for the entire history. But showing some of the history
> would demonstrate the emergence and arrested development if this is
> indeed what is claimed.
The history is present in the other 2 species of Desmodontines.
There is no reason to think the explanation is false. No evidence has
been presented that would make anyone think these teeth serve any
function at all. The reduced size and lack of grinding surfaces in 2 of
the 3 species argues for their vestigial status. The complete lack of
cheek teeth in _Desmodus_ shows they serve no vital function.
Chris
A Pagano
snip
>> Pagano replies:
>> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I
>> asked for some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary
>> biology, systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become
>> branches of philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence
>> and logical argument devoid of question begging.
>
>I cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man, but that does not make
>rainbows any less real.
Pagano replies:
The analogy is flawed. An analogy requires a basis of resemblence
between the things compared. Where is the basis of resemblence
between an observable "rainbow" and the interpretive characterization
of "rudimentary?" There isn't one and so it collapses.
The rainbow can be described to the blind man in "observational,"
concrete terms regardless of whether we can explain why we see what we
see. The characteristic of "rudimentary" is not an observational term,
but an interpretative one based upon (1) observational characteristics
of a structure or organ, (2) an understanding of the neoDarwinian
framework, and (3) the presumption about how a structure or organ is
"expected" to be used. We don't have to explain why the cheek teeth
of the vampire bat exist in order to establish that they do, but to
interpret those teeth as "rudimentary" would require explanation. An
explanation which could be mistaken.
In other words Dunford WOULD have to be able to explain to the blind
man "why" the size, color, location and hardness of the vampire bat
cheek teeth added up to the non observational term of "rudimentary" in
oder to establish its existence as such. And there is every reason to
believe that explanation is false.
>Likewise, I expect that a similar efort would
>be required to get you to concede that there is physical evidence
>that the molars of the Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose. Again,
>that does not make the evidence any less real.
Pagano replies:
What evidence are you talking about? Hopefully not your collapsed
analogy.
Not having done any search of the literature I couldn't say
conclusively that no function has been discovered. Furthermore the
specific Web page offered as evidence by Thompson doesn't characterize
the cheek teeth as vestigial or rudimentary. And no where does the
Web page assert that the cheek teeth have no function.
>
>> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one
>> must establish that a structure or organ
>> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
>
>Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
>using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to infict
>a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood.
Pagano replies:
This is getting to be pathetic. The authors of Web page (Walker's
Mammals of the World) presented by Thompson as evidence didn't even
label the teeth as molars; they labeled them "cheek teeth." What in
the world is Dunford talking about? What evidence?
The argument that, "the vampire bat's diet is liquid therefore the
cheek teeth have no function," is a non sequitur. The authors of the
web page don't make this bad argument. Where does Dunford see this?
>Molars and
>premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
>entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the possible
>exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid which is chewed.
Pagano replies:
But they aren't molars. And since Dunford claims they are rudiments
that never developed how does he know that they would have become
molars with crushing surfaces. Dunford has deviated from both science
and logic. He is weaving if-so stories devoid of any real science or
logic.
And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush does
not mean they have no function. It is becoming obvious that
neoDarwinians look to functional homologous structures in predecessor
populations to determine what function they should expect to see and
if they fail to see this function they presume that it has none. This
is hardly thorough science.
Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
snip
more to follow
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
> structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
> ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
Ahhh, must be why the eyes in cave fish are useful in some way, yet they
are blind. Just claim we are ignorant of the reason for their blindness!
Say Tony, you wanna try to explain why cave fish are blind? Perhaps
vestigial is also descriptive of certain natural brain functions that
never get used. Oh, and also please phrase your reply in a
nonnaturalistic format ;-)
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Klivo
> Pagano replies:
> You fail to realize that your ignorance of a function is not evidence
> that it has none. The experts at the Scopes Trial entered 200+ organs
> and structures considered vestigial. As far as I know none are
> considered so today.
I've seen this before, and I've seen people asking Pagano to name
a few of these vestigial organs (which are no longer considered
vestigial), but I haven't see Pagano's response. Did I miss it?
Cleve
Steven J.
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
>
> snip
>
>
> >Darwin did not agree. He pointed out that since the development of
> >any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources, natural
> >selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
> >eliminated unimportant features. In addition, as he pointed out, many
> >organs and structures are subject to diseases, infections, etc. There
> >again natural selection tends to favor the elimination or reduction
> >of features not being used by an organism.
>
> > He pointed out that since the development of
> >any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources natural
> >selection would favor somewhat any variation which reduced or
> >eliminated unimportant features.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But NeoDarwinians consider Darwin's cause----disuse----to be wrong.
> This is a Lamarckian idea which neodarwinians consider to be false.
> The whole notion of "rudimentary" (Darwin's word) was a presumptive
> argument from ignorance. Darwin's ignorance can be excused. If
> disuse can't be the mechanism then what is?
>
Darwin. Darwin held that the ("Lamarckian") inheritance of acquired
characteristics was a mechanism for introducing new variation into a
population. NeoDarwinists deny this, holding that mutation does this,
and that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.
Note that in either case, new variation enters a population from
somewhere, and some of these variations affect disused organs. Darwin
noted, from studies of domestic animals which had long been subject to
artificial selection, that new variation was almost always present,
and concluded that there had to be *some* source for it; what it was
mattered less than what such new variation entailed.
If an structure is not being used, then natural selection will no
longer penalize variations that make it work worse. Thus, one of
Darwin's criteria for a vestigial organ (as opposed to a nascent one)
was a high degree of variability in the structure (he cited the wide
variations in size and shape noted in the human appendix, as compared
to other organs). However, as Dunford pointed out, there *is* a sense
that variations can make the unused structure work better. If it's
doing nothing anyway, variations that make it less complex, smaller,
less functional, more "rudimentary" will be favored, because they save
resources that would be wasted on a more elaborate structure.
>
> It is very unclear what mechanism would cause a homologous, functional
> structure in some predecessor population to "atrophy" (Darwin's word)
> over time in the face of all the conservative mechanisms not the least
> of which is natural selection to result in a non functional one in the
> descendent population. The neoDarwinian theory says that all (or
> most) of the nucleotide copying errors which occur are unrelated to
> their value or disvalue to the organism. And those changes are
> preserved by natural selection ONLY to the extent that they confer
> some survival or reproductive advantage.
>
If variations in a structure don't affect an organism's chances of
leaving offspring, then natural selection won't operate on those
variations. If a structure isn't used for anything important, then
the only variations that will be selected against are those that make
it more likely to get in the organism's way. Conversely, mutations
that make it less likely to get in the way will be at least slightly
favored. And since (surely you will concede this?) a mutation is more
likely to reduce a structure than build it up, even without any
selective pressure we should expect the net effect of unselected
mutations would be to reduce a structure to a rudiment, on the way to
eliminating it entirely
>
> Dunford must explain the purported "vestigial" cheek teeth with that
> mechanism and explain how the conservative power of natural selection
> (and the other conservative genetic mechanisms) were overcome.
> Perhaps Dunford could argue that some other changes attendent with the
> nucleotide copying errors causing the "atrophy" conferred an
> overriding survival or reproductive advantage somewhere else within
> the creature. If so Dunford must produce the evidence; it cannot be
> presumed. At least I'm told that scientists demand the physical
> evidence.
>
The conservative power of genetic mechanisms fails with every mutation
that shows up in an offspring -- and that tends to happen several
times with every mammal born. The conservative power of natural
selection only works if a trait is useful to survival. If the teeth
aren't used (e.g. if you live on a liquid diet and never chew
anything), mutations that shrink the teeth and eliminate their
grinding surfaces won't be selected against. The advantage to the
accumulation of mutations that reduce the structure need not be huge;
the point is that nothing stops them from building up. Surely this is
obvious?
>
> >Evolution predicts that disused organs will tend to be reduced or
> >eliminated. Creationism provides no explanation for the presence of
> >any organ not being used.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I agree that this is what Darwin claimed but this is a feature of
> Lamarckism which neoDarwinists discredited over 60 years ago.
>
Over 100 years ago, actually; Weismann showed that acquired
characteristics could not modify the germ cells at the end of the 19th
century, before mutations were generally understood. But Darwin's
point about new variation entering populations remains, regardless of
changes in theories about the mechanism for introducing that
variation.
>
> >> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a
> >> structure is vestigial have been arguments from man's ignorance
> >> of their actual function.
> >
> >Address the specifics. What actual function do teeth serve when they
> >are not used in any part of the process of obtaining and chewing
> >food? In particular, what function do the m-position teeth serve in
> >the two species of Desmodontinae which posess them. Since all three
> >species feed in a virtually identical fashion, explain why only two
> >have those teeth, and why they have different numbers of them.
>
> Pagano replies:
> You fail to realize that your ignorance of a function is not evidence
> that it has none. The experts at the Scopes Trial entered 200+ organs
> and structures considered vestigial. As far as I know none are
> considered so today.
>
In other words, Dunford's ignorance isn't evidence, but yours is? I
challenge you to produce even part of this list of "200+ organs and
structures," preferably with the functions that have been found for
them.
But no matter. Dunford's ignorance of a possible function is not his
reason for asserting that the vampire molars lack functionality. It
is, rather, his knowledge of the function of teeth in that position --
chewing food, combined with his knowledge of the vampire bats' diet --
which is entirely liquid. That is an argument from evidence; your
argument that Dunford can't prove the teeth have no function
whatsoever is, in fact, a classic argument from ignorance. I can't
prove that the teeth of fetal baleen whales drive off undersea fetus-
eating manticores, either -- is that proof that that is their
function?
>
> The fact that an observer doesn't see the structure being used in the
> manner, degree, or way that he expects it to perform is also not
> evidence that it has no function or is vestigial.
>
It's pretty good evidence, in a well-observed species, that they don't
serve any of the normal functions of teeth -- which is rather funny,
given that they are* teeth. Even if they serve some "nontraditional
dental function," what point is there in using *teeth* to serve such a
function?
>
> >> And that there is often little if any
> >> evidence that some purported "vestigial" structure arose via a
> >> neodarwinian process (as opposed to a Mendelian one).
>
> >This statement is meaningless. (Hint: What did the "Neodarwinian
> >Synthesis" bring together into a single theory?)
>
> Pagano replies:
> I agree that you didn't bring it in. You are apparently stuck in
> 1859. Unfortunately the neoDarwinians abandoned Darwin's disuse
> argument in the 1940s.
>
The answer to Dunford's question is "natural selection" (a mechanism
for filtering and accumulating variation in a population) and
"mutation" (a mechanism, replacing "Lamarckian" ones, for introducing
variation into a population). And again, neoDarwinians abandoned the
"disuse" argument *in its original, "Lamarckian" form*, before 1900.
>
> >> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between
> >> predecessor and descendent population is not prima facie
> >> evidence that the structure in the descendent is vestigial. A
> >> vestigial structure is one which has little or no utility.
> >
> >Again, this is not common usage,
>
> Pagano replies:
> Perhaps, but all the secular sources I consulted use "vestigial" in
> this manner. Darwin used "rudimentary" in this manner as well as to
> encompass other kinds of observations.
>
I think Dunford's point was that "vestigial" referred to *diminished*
functionality, not, strictly, "little or no" functionality.
>
> >but since we are, in the case of the
> >Desmodontinae, referring to a structure which has little or no
> >utility, and since I have agreed to describe the structure as
> >"rudimentary", this does not seem to be important at the moment.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not really sure how Dunford uses "rudimentary." Does he use it to
> mean a structure which emerged but simply failed to "fully" develop
> into a functional structure. I'm not sure. This was only one of the
> meanings Darwin attached to that label, but certainly not the only
> one or the most important one. Nevertheless it is obvious that the
> characterization of vestigial or rudimentary(according to this
> particular usage) is presumptive.
>
I think even you may be bright enough to figure out what Dunford means
by "rudimentary" -- the teeth are just developed enough to be
recognizable as teeth, but not sufficiently to be much use for
anything. Again, given that the teeth don't bite, don't slash, and
certainly don't chew (since the bat chews nothing), their description
as "rudimentary" is quite reasonable.
>
> Evolutionists presume that a structure or organ is a vestige or a
> rudiment if it doesn't perform as some homologous structure in another
> population or if it simply has no known function. At the Scopes Trial
> we discovered that this presumption was completely unreliable.
>
Given that the Scopes trial did not consider the scientific evidence
at all (this is quite a famous fact about the trial -- the judge
limited the issues to the simple question of whether Scopes had in
fact taught evolution), I don't see how this presumption could have
been shown unreliable there. And again, you seem to be ignoring the
relevant point that the vampire bat's (or fetal baleen whale's) teeth
don't function as teeth, whatever else they might function as (and
surely, again, the assumption that they must function as *something*
is a pure argument from ignorance).
>
> >>>It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
> >>>evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or
> >>>not it serves some function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Never asked for the entire history. But showing some of the history
> would demonstrate the emergence and arrested development if this is
> indeed what is claimed.
>
As Andy Groves asked, does your back ever ache from dragging those
goal posts hither and yon?
What is claimed is that the structures are homologous to functional
structures in some other organism, clearly don't perform the function
of their homologs, and don't seem to do much else, either. Special
creation can "explain" such features only in the sense that it can
"explain" absolutely any fact of nature -- "Goddidit, and don't ask
questions." Evolution can explain it in terms of modification of
structures needed in a former ecological niche, but not in the one the
species currently inhabits.
>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I
> >> asked for some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary
> >> biology, systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become
> >> branches of philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence
> >> and logical argument devoid of question begging.
> >
> >I cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man, but that does not make
> >rainbows any less real.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The analogy is flawed. An analogy requires a basis of resemblence
> between the things compared. Where is the basis of resemblence
> between an observable "rainbow" and the interpretive characterization
> of "rudimentary?" There isn't one and so it collapses.
>
The cheek teeth of vampire bats are observable. The fact that teeth
in that position, in other bats, are used to chew and grind food, is
observable. The fact that those teeth, in vampire bats, cannot serve
these functions, is observable, as is, of course, the fact that the
bats drink blood, which doesn't have to be chewed, ground, or whatnot.
This is no more (or less) a matter of "interpretation" than the fact
that the rainbow isn't just another patch of blue sky.
>
> The rainbow can be described to the blind man in "observational,"
> concrete terms regardless of whether we can explain why we see what we
> see. The characteristic of "rudimentary" is not an observational term,
> but an interpretative one based upon (1) observational characteristics
> of a structure or organ, (2) an understanding of the neoDarwinian
> framework, and (3) the presumption about how a structure or organ is
> "expected" to be used. We don't have to explain why the cheek teeth
> of the vampire bat exist in order to establish that they do, but to
> interpret those teeth as "rudimentary" would require explanation. An
> explanation which could be mistaken.
>
Point (2) is wrong; the idea that the teeth are rudimentary can be
derived from (1) and (3) in the absence of any explanatory framework.
Such organs can be used as evidence for common descent (and note: they
are offered as evidence for common descent more than for any
particular mechanism of such descent), precisely because they can be
recognized without recourse to the theory.
Point (3) is not wrong, exactly, but it's astonishingly obtuse. What
do you imagine teeth are *for*, Tony? What are eyesockets "for" --
and does that have any relevance, in a reasonable person's point of
view, to the functionality lf such sockets in eyeless cave fish? The
notion of expecting molars in vampire bats to serve the purpose of
molars in other mammals, if they have any purpose at all, is not
"presumptuous" or an "argument from ignorance," unless it is
"presumptuous" to presume that the Creator is not a prankster playing
tricks on His creations.
>
> In other words Dunford WOULD have to be able to explain to the blind
> man "why" the size, color, location and hardness of the vampire bat
> cheek teeth added up to the non observational term of "rudimentary" in
> oder to establish its existence as such. And there is every reason to
> believe that explanation is false.
>
If there is *every* reason, why can you not give us *any* reasons?
You cannot name a function for any allegedly vestigial organ, nor give
any reason why a Creator would create, to perform entirely mysterious
functions, obvious homologs to structures with obvious and well-known
functions in similar species.
>
> snip
>
> more to follow if time permits
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
elsewhere]
>
> >Likewise, I expect that a similar efort would
> >be required to get you to concede that there is physical evidence
> >that the molars of the Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose. Again,
> >that does not make the evidence any less real.
>
> Pagano replies:
> What evidence are you talking about? Hopefully not your collapsed
> analogy.
>
Desmodontinae are nonfunctional, to someone determined not to accept
that.
I'm not sure why you have so much trouble on this, by the way. Most
creationists accept the idea of "created kinds," larger than species,
and allowing the possibility of speciation and adaption (with loss of
"information" and presumably of functionality) in the process. That
is, they could in principle accept that vampire bats evolved from some
sort of ancestral "kind" that chewed solid food, but "lost this
information."
>
> Not having done any search of the literature I couldn't say
> conclusively that no function has been discovered. Furthermore the
> specific Web page offered as evidence by Thompson doesn't characterize
> the cheek teeth as vestigial or rudimentary. And no where does the
> Web page assert that the cheek teeth have no function.
>
Does it establish, to your satisfaction, that these teeth actually
exist?
>
> >> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one
> >> must establish that a structure or organ
> >> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> >
> >Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
> >using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to infict
> >a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is getting to be pathetic. The authors of Web page (Walker's
> Mammals of the World) presented by Thompson as evidence didn't even
> label the teeth as molars; they labeled them "cheek teeth." What in
> the world is Dunford talking about? What evidence?
>
Tony, think very hard. Vampire bats get blood. They eat no solid
food; they feed on nothing which can be chewed, ground, cut, or
otherwise processed by the normal functions of teeth. They get blood
by slicing open the skin of the animals on whose blood they feed. For
this purpose, they need teeth at the front of the mouth (which they
have), not in their cheeks (which are not positioned to cut the skin
of their prey).
The web page shows that these teeth exist. Everything else relevant
about them can be deduced from the vampire bats' mode of feeding.
These cheek teeth do not cut the skin to release blood. They do not
cut, or chew, or crush the blood itself. They do not do anything to
help the bat in feeding. They do not do what teeth do in other
species of bats, or mammals, or most animals generally.
>
> The argument that, "the vampire bat's diet is liquid therefore the
> cheek teeth have no function," is a non sequitur. The authors of the
> web page don't make this bad argument. Where does Dunford see this?
>
Tony, think hard. What do most animals do with their teeth? Is there
any way that the cheek teeth of vampires can do these things? Is
there any reason you can think of, other than descent from ancestors
that actually used these teeth to chew food, that vampire bats should
have obvious teeth that obviously can't be used for the typical
functions of teeth? Even if they serve *some* purpose, there is no
reason to suppose that that purpose is not served by the functional
molars of other bats, so the vampire molars have less functionality.
>
> >Molars and
> >premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
> >entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the possible
> >exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid which is chewed.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But they aren't molars. And since Dunford claims they are rudiments
> that never developed how does he know that they would have become
> molars with crushing surfaces. Dunford has deviated from both science
> and logic. He is weaving if-so stories devoid of any real science or
> logic.
>
Dunford's claim is simpler. The teeth exist in the position of molars
in other bats that actually chew food. The vampire bat does not chew
food, and its cheek teeth are not well adapted to chewing anyway. So
why does it have *any* sort of tooth in this position? The teeth are
evidence for the theory of evolution, because that theory can answer
that question. Your version of creationism, with its "it probably has
some unknown function" doesn't explain the evidence; it merely tries
to explain it away.
>
> And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush does
> not mean they have no function. It is becoming obvious that
> neoDarwinians look to functional homologous structures in predecessor
> populations to determine what function they should expect to see and
> if they fail to see this function they presume that it has none. This
> is hardly thorough science.
>
You're missing the point. The *wings* of vampire bats are obviously
functional, and equally obviously homologs of, e.g. the primate arm,
the mole forelimb, and the cetacean flipper. All these homologs are
functional, but the question of why they share so much structure when
they have such different functions from the bat's wing (and why those
wings don't more closely resemble, e.g. the wings of birds, with which
they share common function) remains. Likewise, even if the vampire
bat's cheek teeth are functional, they are certainly not functional in
the same way that cheek teeth in other bats are functional -- which
raises the question of why the Creator decided to design them as teeth
in the first place.
>
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
> structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
> ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
>
You have never shown that any alleged vestigial organ has any actual
function. Now, even if you could, it would not answer the question of
why it lacks the function of its homologs in other species, but the
point is you toss around quite a lot of the ignorance and posturing
you accuse others of.
>
> snip
>
> more to follow
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
"distinguishable empirical consequences" entailed by the creation
model, which has also been extensively requested. Unfortunately, I
can't seem to locate that post on Google.
>
> Cleve
-- Steven J.
Mike Dunford
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
>>Darwin did not agree. He pointed out that since the development
>>of any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources,
>>natural selection would favor somewhat any variation which
>>reduced or eliminated unimportant features. In addition, as he
>>pointed out, many organs and structures are subject to diseases,
>>infections, etc. There again natural selection tends to favor
>>the elimination or reduction of features not being used by an
>>organism.
>
>> He pointed out that since the development of
>>any feature requires the organism to use valuable resources
>>natural selection would favor somewhat any variation which
>>reduced or eliminated unimportant features.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But NeoDarwinians consider Darwin's cause----disuse----to be
> wrong. This is a Lamarckian idea which neodarwinians consider to
> be false. The whole notion of "rudimentary" (Darwin's word) was
> a presumptive argument from ignorance. Darwin's ignorance can
> be excused. If disuse can't be the mechanism then what is?
First of all, you made precisely these claims in another part of your
response to my post, and I have already addressed them. Once again,
your habit of splitting your reply into many parts has resulted in
you repeating a claim that has already been addressed in replies
elsewhere. Of course, since you change the subject heading
significantly on each of your replies, you do tend to mask the fact
that you are replying behind the current part of the argument.
Second, there is a key phrase in the paragraph just above which you
seem to be missing: "natural selection would favor". As I have
already pointed out, there is no need to resort to any type of
Lamarckian explanation to explain the reduction or loss of unused
organs. If an organ is not being used, any variation which reduces or
eliminates it will definitely conserve resources, and will eliminate
a potential source for infection or injury -- both obvious benefits
to the organism. As a result, natural selection favors the reduction
and/or elimination of unused or little used organs/structures.
In my earlier (and thus far ignored) reply, I quoted a passage from
page 411 of the 4th edition of Campbell's widely used textbook
_biology_:
"Vestigial organs my seem to support the Lamarckian
concept of use and disuse, but they can be explained
by natural selection. It would be wasteful to
continue providing blood, nutrition, and space to an
organ that no longer has a major function.
Individuals with reduced versions of theose organs
would be favored, and natural selection operating
over thousands of generations would tend to phase
out obsolete structures."
It is Pagano who is centuries behind the times in claiming that a
Lamarckian mechanism is needed to explain the effects of "disuse".
> It is very unclear what mechanism would cause a homologous,
> functional structure in some predecessor population to "atrophy"
> (Darwin's word) over time in the face of all the conservative
> mechanisms not the least of which is natural selection to result
> in a non functional one in the descendent population.
Natural selection. Sometimes, there is a value involved in not using
an organ. Darwin cited as an example of this the beetle populations
of Madiera. The windy conditions on the islands favor the survival of
two types of flying insects -- those that fly the best, and those
that fly the least. As Darwin pointed out, an insect which doesn't
fly has greatly reduced its chances of being blown out to sea. That
is one example of a case where natural selection would favor
organisms which do not use or have useless variants of a particular
structure. Once a structure loses its function, natural selection is
no longer a conservative mechanism, but, as I have repeately pointed
out, a mechanism favoring a reduction in or loss of that structure.
It is also possible that changes in one organ can result in another
becoming unnecessary. A shift from, for example, a solid to a liquid
diet would tend to render some structures (grinding teeth, for
example) much less useful than they were before. This is likely the
case with the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae. Here again, once
a structure loses function, natural selection tends to reduce it
rather than conserve it.
> The
> neoDarwinian theory says that all (or most) of the nucleotide
> copying errors which occur are unrelated to their value or
> disvalue to the organism.
This is one of your favorite statements. It does not appear to have
any relevance here.
> And those changes are preserved by
> natural selection ONLY to the extent that they confer some
> survival or reproductive advantage.
I do not expect that useless teeth confer much of a survival or
reproductive advantage.
> Dunford must explain the purported "vestigial" cheek teeth with
> that mechanism and explain how the conservative power of natural
> selection (and the other conservative genetic mechanisms) were
> overcome. Perhaps Dunford could argue that some other changes
> attendent with the nucleotide copying errors causing the
> "atrophy" conferred an overriding survival or reproductive
> advantage somewhere else within the creature.
I have repeatedly explained this to you. You have never acknowledged
any of those cased, much less addressed them. I have done so
elsewhere in this post.
> If so Dunford
> must produce the evidence; it cannot be presumed. At least I'm
> told that scientists demand the physical evidence.
I have explained to you that both the existance of unused structures
and the existance of such structures in a reduced form are
_predicted_ by evolution via natural selection. I have presented the
m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae as physical evidence which
matches this prediction.
>>Evolution predicts that disused organs will tend to be reduced
>>or eliminated. Creationism provides no explanation for the
>>presence of any organ not being used.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I agree that this is what Darwin claimed but this is a feature
> of Lamarckism which neoDarwinists discredited over 60 years ago.
I have explained several times exactly why natural selection predicts
the reduction or elimination of disused organs. Natural selection,
Pagano, is not a Lamarckian mechanism. I have also provided, twice
now, a quote from a fairly recent, widely used biology textbook which
demonstrates that modern scientists agree that natural selection
favors the reduction or elimination of disused organs. That should be
enough to bury your claim that I am calling on a discredited
Lamarckian mechanism.
I would further note that, yet again, you have failed to address the
point that the existance of a species with an unused structure is
problematic for creationists NO MATTER WHAT THE EXPLANATION.
>>> 2. That as far as I know all claims that a
>>> structure is vestigial have been arguments from man's
>>> ignorance of their actual function.
>>
>>Address the specifics. What actual function do teeth serve when
>>they are not used in any part of the process of obtaining and
>>chewing food? In particular, what function do the m-position
>>teeth serve in the two species of Desmodontinae which posess
>>them. Since all three species feed in a virtually identical
>>fashion, explain why only two have those teeth, and why they
>>have different numbers of them.
You have, I am unsurprised to note, again refused to address or
acknowledge any of the specifics.
> Pagano replies:
> You fail to realize that your ignorance of a function is not
> evidence that it has none.
You are once again repeating an argument which has already been
responded to.
There is substantial cause to think that these teeth have no
function. We know what all the other bats with teeth in that
postition use those teeth for -- chewing. Coincidentally enough, that
is the same thing that pretty much every mammal with teeth in that
position uses those teeth for. We know, from observation, that the
vampire bats do not chew blood. We know, from observation, that the
m-position teeth are not used in vampire bats for biting or any other
part of consuming food. We know that these teeth do not differ in
structure substantially from other teeth -- that is, there is nothing
about them that would indicate that they do something other teeth do
not. We also know that, of the three species of vampire bat, all have
fewer m-position teeth than other bats, and one has none at all.
The empirical evidence presented above, as a whole, strongly
indicates that those teeth serve no useful function. That is, we can
be very confident that the teeth do not serve the same function that
they do in other bats and mammals, and we can be very confident that
the teeth are not equiped to do something different than the task
they perform in other bats and mammals. We are not arguing that they
serve no valuable function out of ignorance, but as a result of our
investigations -- our knowledge -- of both bats and teeth.
> The experts at the Scopes Trial
> entered 200+ organs and structures considered vestigial.
So you have stated before. You have not, however, managed to respond
to any of the requests for more information on this.
> As far as I know none are considered so today.
You have stated this frequently, and I do believe you are being
technically honest. I just wonder whether "as far as you know"
indicates that you haven't bothered to actually try to find out. To
put it another way, would it be accurate to say that *as far as you
know* most of the structures on that list _are_ still considered to
be vestigial?
> The fact that an observer doesn't see the structure being used
> in the manner, degree, or way that he expects it to perform is
> also not evidence that it has no function or is vestigial.
There is a distinction between saying that we don't see it being used
the way we expect and saying that we see that it is not being used in
the way we expect. With these particular teeth, it is a case of the
latter.
>>> And that there is often little if any
>>> evidence that some purported "vestigial" structure arose via a
>>> neodarwinian process (as opposed to a Mendelian one).
>
>>
>>This statement is meaningless. (Hint: What did the "Neodarwinian
>>Synthesis" bring together into a single theory?)
>
> Pagano replies:
> I agree that you didn't bring it in. You are apparently stuck
> in 1859. Unfortunately the neoDarwinians abandoned Darwin's
> disuse argument in the 1940s.
You did not answer the question, and your statement
("neodarwinian...as opposed to a Mendelian") is still entirely
meaningless. You need to show that there is a difference between the
two.
>>> 3. A shift in function of a particular structure between
>>> predecessor and descendent population is not prima facie
>>> evidence that the structure in the descendent is vestigial. A
>>> vestigial structure is one which has little or no utility.
>>
>>Again, this is not common usage,
>
> Pagano replies:
> Perhaps, but all the secular sources I consulted use "vestigial"
> in this manner. Darwin used "rudimentary" in this manner as
> well as to encompass other kinds of observations.
There was certainly an active dispute over your usage of the term.
Under those circumstances it seemed reasonable to use another term.
In retrospect, I should have gone with "xyzzy" from the start, since
at least then you wouldn't have been able to digress onto how Darwin
happened to use the term.
>>but since we are, in the case of the
>>Desmodontinae, referring to a structure which has little or no
>>utility, and since I have agreed to describe the structure as
>>"rudimentary", this does not seem to be important at the moment.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not really sure how Dunford uses "rudimentary."
Then perhaps you should reread the whole post you are replying to
instead of just fragments, because I made that crystal clear. I
stated that I would use it to refer to structures which currently
serve little or no useful function. That was made explicit from the
start.
> Does he use it
> to mean a structure which emerged but simply failed to "fully"
> develop into a functional structure. I'm not sure.
See above. And again, if you are not sure, review the entire article
which you are claiming to respond to.
> This was
> only one of the meanings Darwin attached to that label, but
> certainly not the only one or the most important one.
I made it clear, from the start, that I was not using the term the
way Darwin did.
> Nevertheless it is obvious that the characterization of
> vestigial or rudimentary(according to this particular usage) is
> presumptive.
How can you be so sure that the use is presumptive when you just
claimed that you were not sure what my particular usage was?
> Evolutionists presume that a structure or organ is a vestige or
> a rudiment if it doesn't perform as some homologous structure in
> another population or if it simply has no known function.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, and as you have repeatedly refused
to address, this is not a case where the teeth do not perform the
same function that homologous structures do in other organisms. It is
also, as I have again pointed out repeatedly, not a case where the
teeth _simply_ have no known function. This is a case where a great
deal of study and observation indicates that the structure has no
function.
> At
> the Scopes Trial we discovered that this presumption was
> completely unreliable.
Here, once again, Pagano demonstrates that a claim, in his opinion,
needs to be supported only if someone else is making it. He has been
asked repeatedly, over the course of at least months, to provide some
support for his claim.
>>>>It would hardly seem necessary to outline the entire
>>>>evolutionary history of a "structure" to determine whether or
>>>>not it serves some function.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Never asked for the entire history. But showing some of the
> history would demonstrate the emergence and arrested development
> if this is indeed what is claimed.
I don't know what you mean by "arrested development". Nor, as I have
stated before, do I find your argument that historical evidence is
required to be at all compelling. I am arguing that the current
presence of a structure with little or no current function is
evidence favoring evolution. Nothing more, nothing less. Historical
evidence is clearly not relevant to the determination of current
function.
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I
>>> asked for some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary
>>> biology, systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become
>>> branches of philosophy one is entitled to see physical
>>> evidence and logical argument devoid of question begging.
>>
>>I cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man, but that does not
>>make rainbows any less real.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The analogy is flawed.
The analogy was obscured by your deceptive edit of context. The full
paragraph initially read as followed:
"I cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man, but that
does not make rainbows any less real. Likewise, I
expect that a similar efort would be required to get
you to concede that there is physical evidence that
the molars of the Desmodontinae serve no useful
purpose. Again, that does not make the evidence any
less real."
As anyone with even a functional grasp of reading comprehension can
tell, my "analogy" had absolutely nothing to do with comparing
rainbows and rudimentary structures, but instead compared the effort
needed to explain a rainbow to a blind man with the effort needed to
convince Pagano that "there is physical evidence that the molars of
the Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose". Please note that I did
not use either "rudimentary" or "vestigial" in that statement.
Pagano has given every indication that his reading skills are at
least adequate for the common activities of daily living. Ordinarily
I attempt to give people every conceivable benefit of the doubt
before accusing them of dishonesty, but I see no other viable option
here. Pagano's edit was deliberately crafted to obscure my actual
comparison, and his response to my now "flawed" analogy is a
deliberate, dishonest strawman.
Pagano, earlier today you informed Cummings that misleading others is
a grave offense. Please reflect on that statement and you post here.
> An analogy requires a basis of
> resemblence between the things compared. Where is the basis of
> resemblence between an observable "rainbow" and the interpretive
> characterization of "rudimentary?" There isn't one and so it
> collapses.
Yes. I will agree that you have collapsed your deliberately dishonest
strawman. You failed, of course, to address what I had actually (and
clearly) written.
[remainder of strawman's demise snipped]
--Mike Dunford
--
We are prodding, challenging, seeking contradictions or small,
persistent residual errors, proposing alternative explanations,
encouraging heresy. We give our highest rewards to those who
convincingly disprove established beliefs.
--Carl Sagan
Mike Dunford
You included all this in an earlier response, and as I pointed out
then, my "analogy" had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
"rudimentary". It only referred to the amount of effort needed to
convince you that there is physical evidence that a structure serves
no current function.
>>Likewise, I expect that a similar efort would
>>be required to get you to concede that there is physical
>>evidence that the molars of the Desmodontinae serve no useful
>>purpose. Again, that does not make the evidence any less real.
>
> Pagano replies:
> What evidence are you talking about? Hopefully not your
> collapsed analogy.
Give me a break, Pagano, your reading comprehension skills are not so
poor that you couldn't figure out that your version of my "analogy"
was a pitiful strawman.
> Not having done any search of the literature I couldn't say
> conclusively that no function has been discovered.
Does your repeated assertion that "as far as you know" none of the
structures presented as vestigial at the Scopes trial are now
consitered vestigial rest on a similarly aggressive
> Furthermore
> the specific Web page offered as evidence by Thompson doesn't
> characterize the cheek teeth as vestigial or rudimentary. And
> no where does the Web page assert that the cheek teeth have no
> function.
The web page does assume that the reader has at least a limited
understanding of biology. Anyone with even a minimal understanding of
biology should be able to figure it out for themselves given the
information presented there.
>>> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one
>>> must establish that a structure or organ
>>> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
>>
>>Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
>>using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to
>>infict a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is getting to be pathetic.
Yes you are.
> The authors of Web page
> (Walker's Mammals of the World) presented by Thompson as
> evidence didn't even label the teeth as molars; they labeled
> them "cheek teeth."
Your point being? In deference to your willingness to retreat into
quibbles over the definition of terms, I have been trying to avoid
referring to the teeth as molars, but as m-position teeth. As I have
repeatedly pointed out, the usefulness of the teeth does not vary in
relationship to the word used to describe them. They are as useless
if they are ";sdht9oqw" teeth as they are if they are molars.
> What in the world is Dunford talking about? What evidence?
Refer back to my real comparison.
> The argument that, "the vampire bat's diet is liquid therefore
> the cheek teeth have no function," is a non sequitur. The
> authors of the web page don't make this bad argument. Where
> does Dunford see this?
The argument is not a non sequitur.
1: Vampire bats have "cheek teeth" (by whatever name you want to call
them).
2: Vampire bats feed by making a small incision in their victim using
their "*FRONT*" teeth, NOT their cheek teeth.
3: The bat then feeds by drinking the blood that flows from this
wound.
The cheek teeth are not used by vampire bats anywhere in the process
of obtaining food, and to the best of our ability to determine, based
on massive amounts of study over many years, the only function of
cheek teeth (whatever you want to call them) is in obtaining food.
>>Molars and
>>premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
>>entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the
>>possible exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid
>>which is chewed.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But they aren't molars.
They are teeth which sit in the same position in the mouth as molars.
They are not positioned to be able to do anything different than the
molars do in other animals. They certainly are not used in inflicting
the wound to produce blood, and they are certainly not used to chew.
I can state with some degree of confidence that they do not act as an
organ for gas exchange, some form of gland, or as a significan part
of the nervous system. In short, they look like teeth, their basic
structure indicates that they are teeth, but they are not used as
teeth.
> And since Dunford claims they are
> rudiments that never developed how does he know that they would
> have become molars with crushing surfaces.
I do not claim that they "never developed", and I don't claim that
they "would have become" anything. My "claims" relate _only_ to their
current structure and function (or obvious lack thereof).
> Dunford has deviated
> from both science and logic. He is weaving if-so stories devoid
> of any real science or logic.
>
> And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush
> does not mean they have no function.
Of course not. It is possible, if only hypothetically, that there is
some other, still unknown, function of teeth. However, observation of
the animals does not reveal any other function for these teeth, and
the total absence of the teeth in one of the three genera of vampire
bat argues strongly against them having any other function --
certainly not any important one.
> It is becoming obvious
> that neoDarwinians look to functional homologous structures in
> predecessor populations to determine what function they should
> expect to see and if they fail to see this function they presume
> that it has none. This is hardly thorough science.
It is hardly an adequate or accurate description of the argument. I
have not during this argument ever made reference to any predecessor
population. In fact, I have repeatedly argued that such references
are irrelevant and unnecessary, and that the question involves _only_
the extant organism.
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that
> some structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments
> from ignorance.
I have responded to this assertion numerous times in this thread
already; I will not do so again here.
> It's awful hard to argue against this.
Actually, it's been fairly easy so far.
C. Thompson
You are attempting to utilize naturalistic investigational techniques to
examine these phenomena. Your failure simply points out the bankruptcy of
such endeavors.
Chris
C. Thompson
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
[snip]
>
> Not having done any search of the literature I couldn't say
> conclusively that no function has been discovered. Furthermore the
> specific Web page offered as evidence by Thompson doesn't characterize
> the cheek teeth as vestigial or rudimentary. And no where does the
> Web page assert that the cheek teeth have no function.
Having searched some of the literature, I can assure you that I have not
found anything that lists a function for the molars in Desmodontines. The
web page I cited states unequivocally: "The cheek teeth are greatly reduced,
and all traces of crushing surfaces are absent." It is intuitively obvious
to the most casual reader that this means they are no longer capable of
performing their function: grinding and crushing food. Incisors and canines
are meant to tear and rip pieces of food from a larger piece; molars are
used to grind and crush it into smaller pieces. This is 3rd grade biology,
Tony.
>>
>>> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one
>>> must establish that a structure or organ
>>> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
>>
>> Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
>> using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to infict
>> a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is getting to be pathetic. The authors of Web page (Walker's
> Mammals of the World) presented by Thompson as evidence didn't even
> label the teeth as molars; they labeled them "cheek teeth." What in
> the world is Dunford talking about? What evidence?
Wrong, wronger, wrongest. Again, quoting directly from the web page: "The
dental formulas for the three genera of vampire bats are: Desmodus, (i 1/2,
c 1/1, pm 2/3, m 0/0) × 2 = 20; Diaemus, (i 1/2, c 1/1, pm 1/2, m 2/1) × 2 =
22; and Diphylla, (i 2/2, c 1/1, pm 1/2, m 2/2) × 2 = 26." The letter 'i'
stands for incisor, 'c' for canine, 'pm' for premolar, and 'm' for (you got
it!) MOLAR. The web page states clearly that _Desmodus_ has no molars,
while the other 2 species have some.
>
> The argument that, "the vampire bat's diet is liquid therefore the
> cheek teeth have no function," is a non sequitur. The authors of the
> web page don't make this bad argument. Where does Dunford see this?
Right in front of him. Unlike some people, who would not acknowledge a
speeding locomotive bearing down on them, if it upset a pet conviction.
>> Molars and
>> premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
>> entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the possible
>> exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid which is chewed.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But they aren't molars. And since Dunford claims they are rudiments
> that never developed how does he know that they would have become
> molars with crushing surfaces. Dunford has deviated from both science
> and logic. He is weaving if-so stories devoid of any real science or
> logic.
Your argument is nonsense, and you know it. It is a failed attempt to evade
the simple fact that vampire bats have vestigial molars.
This is a distinguished mark, if you stop to think about it. I doubt there
are many other people on the planet who would atttempt to resist this simple
idea.
>
> And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush does
They are not used to rip.
> not mean they have no function. It is becoming obvious that
> neoDarwinians look to functional homologous structures in predecessor
> populations to determine what function they should expect to see and
> if they fail to see this function they presume that it has none. This
> is hardly thorough science.
That is ridiculous on the face of it- and a bald-faced lie at worst.
Co-opting existing structures for novel purposes is exactly what happens in
evolution. S.J. Gould had a famous analogy: "Did you ever open a locked
classroom with a credit card?" I have opened doors with credit cards; you
are taking a structure and using it for a new purpose. Think *feathers*,
Tony. Feathers, as in thermoregulatory structures, later being used for
flight.
Think *hair*. Hair, as in thermoregulatory structures being used for
communication (What is *your* response when you see your neighbor's
Rottweiller standing there staring at you, with its hairs all standing
erect? Not that I can blame it- I bet most of us are feeling that way
toward you as a result of these obfuscations;)
Think *gill arch*. Gill arch as in *jawbone*. Or sesamoid bones giving
pandas a "thumb".
This is stupid and below you, Tony.
>
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
> structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
> ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
You are trying to conflate this to the level of "I have faith the sun will
rise tomorrow morning" or "I have faith the lead weight will fall".
The difference is that we have thousands of observations of these phenomena.
You won't provide any evidence for your assertion. I believe the operative
modifier, therefore, is "baseless".
Chris
"Cheek teeth" takes on new and sinister meanings if you have your head up
your butt.
Tracy P. Hamilton
turn on. "C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> said:
>"Cheek teeth" takes on new and sinister meanings if you have your head up
>your butt.
Building Manager, Alco Hall
University of Ediacara
Andy Groves
<snip>
>
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
> structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
> ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
Tony, the review article I have now sent you twice on blind cavefish
describes:
1. A species of cavefish in which a surface-dwelling and cave-dwelling
form exist.
2. Evidence that the cave-dwelling fish are blind
3. Evidence that the eye of cavefish develops embryonically, but
subsequently arrests and then degenerates'
4. Evidence that at least part of the reason for this degeneration is
a genetic change that is expressed in cells of the lens, as a
surface-dwelling fish lens transplanted to a cavefish will stimulate
development of the eye.
I know you have a penchant for using dictionary definitions to play
your little verbalistic games with. Here is a definition of "vestige"
from Merriam-Webster:
"2 : a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or
imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an
earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely
related forms"
Why does the eye of cave dwelling forms of Astyanax mexicanus not
vestigial under this definition?
Andy
cc'd to prevent Tony missing this.
syvanen
This may be true in some instances but there is much simpler
explanation for the loss of vestigial organs -- ie simple mutational
pressure and loss of selection for the organ. This would be fully
expected under the neutral theory of evolution.
Mike Syvanen
David Sienkiewicz
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> Never asked for the entire evolutionary history. Did I? I
> >> asked for some empirical evidence. And unless evolutionary
> >> biology, systematics, zooology, and paleontology have become
> >> branches of philosophy one is entitled to see physical evidence
> >> and logical argument devoid of question begging.
> >
> >I cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man, but that does not make
> >rainbows any less real.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The analogy is flawed.
The analogy is not flawed, Tony. The reason you can try to get away
with making it appear to be flawed is through your judicious use of
rhetoric and the means by which you are breaking up the message,
renaming the thread, and working to confuse the issues.
< snip misdirection >
> >Likewise, I expect that a similar efort would
> >be required to get you to concede that there is physical evidence
> >that the molars of the Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose. Again,
> >that does not make the evidence any less real.
>
> Pagano replies:
> What evidence are you talking about? Hopefully not your collapsed
> analogy.
The evidence that there are teeth in the vampire bat that have no
apparent function.
> Not having done any search of the literature I couldn't say
> conclusively that no function has been discovered.
You can't say that it HAS, either; and it was YOU who claimed that ALL
structures and organs previously thought to be vestigial are now KNOWN
to have a function.
The thought that any of them were vestigial was simply ignorance on
the part of human knowlege, according to you.
But Tony, what you are trying to mask through all of the verbiage and
misdirection is that if you are going to make claims about ALL such
structures and organs, it's reasonable for us to expect that if we ask
about a function in a structure previously thought to be useless,
you'd have an answer.
(Okay, it's NOT reasonable because it is, after all, YOU that is
making the claim; but I'm referring to this in a more general sense.)
Let's refocus.
Tony, YOU said that there are no vestigial structures, that is, no
structures (or organs) "with little or no utility" which is, of
course, YOUR definition.
As a corollary, you have said that ALL (or most) structures and organs
previously thought to be vestigial are now known to have a function.
You claimed that structures thought to be vestigial were thought so
only because of ignorance.
You even later changed that - probably unwittingly - to ALL. You left
out "(or most)."
That implies that you should be able to provide a function for any
example we provide.
So if the literature shows that there are cheek teeth rudiments of
cheek teeth, vestigial cheek teeth - whatever you want to call them -
in a creature that is KNOWN not to use them, it's fair to ask you what
function they serve.
It is also fair to expect you to answer without blessing us and the
"confused christians" with message after message that moves the
goalposts, dodges the issue, quibbles over definitions of terms,
imposes incredible and irrelevant standards and requirements, and
redefines terms to suit the argument.
You admit above that you haven't done a literature search and then you
tell us that you can't say that no function has been discovered.
We have people in this newsgroup much better informed than either of
us, Tony, who are telling us precisely that.
NO FUNCTION HAS BEEN DISCOVERED.
Mike, I believe, has added that these critters have been extensively
studied.
NO FUNCTION HAS BEEN DISCOVERED.
Your entire argument has been based on your own childish inability to
admit that you are wrong. You spent MONTHS telling us that the
evolution of bats from mesochynids was a "common" belief among
evolutionists.
That was such an incredible claim, Tony, and entirely untrue. You
could never support it, but you claimed it for months.
No one EVER believed that bats were descended from mesochyids, Tony,
but YOU insisted that they did. Frankly, I'm not sure you ever really
retracted the claim, but I read that you did. If so, you took an
awful long time to do it.
You were wrong then and you're wrong now.
Your entire line of "reasoning" is based on wishful thinking. You
have made an assertion and you don't have the grace, the humility or
the integrity to retract it, and you're doing everything that you can
to get around the fact that you were issued a very simple challenge
and you cannot deal with it directly or honestly.
> Furthermore the
> specific Web page offered as evidence by Thompson doesn't characterize
> the cheek teeth as vestigial or rudimentary. And no where does the
> Web page assert that the cheek teeth have no function.
You're squirming again, Tony.
The article to which Chris referred us doesn't need to be that
specific, does it?
It gives us a dental formula for the vampire bats, showing that they
DO have cheek teeth - molars and premolars.
Then it describes the mechanism of feeding, explaining that the bats
have a LIQUID diet.
Anyone who knows anything about this knows that cheek teeth are used
for grinding, chewing and crushing food.
Most of us don't need this all spelled out, Tony; but it seems that
you like your "truth" to be spoon-fed to you.
It's interesting that your first criticisms of this reference were
that they didn't refer to molars. Instead, they referred to cheek
teeth, which YOU DIDN'T know were molars and premolars.
(You've been trying to get around THAT, too.)
Tony, the more you try to cover your ignorance, the more it seems to
be exposed.
> >> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one
> >> must establish that a structure or organ
> >> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> >
> >Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
> >using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to infict
> >a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is getting to be pathetic.
You're projecting again, Tony.
> The authors of Web page (Walker's
> Mammals of the World) presented by Thompson as evidence didn't even
> label the teeth as molars; they labeled them "cheek teeth." What in
> the world is Dunford talking about? What evidence?
One more time, Tony:
Cheek teeth are molars and premolars.
Mike has already explained how these are classified.
Are you being "unteachable" again?
> The argument that, "the vampire bat's diet is liquid therefore the
> cheek teeth have no function," is a non sequitur.
Non sequitur means "it does not follow."
I submit that it DOES follow.
The bat has a liquid diet. A creature on a liquid diet does not CHEW,
GRIND, or CRUSH the liquid. The bat doesn't do these things, either.
They have been observed to feed. They have NOT been observed to take
in solid food. They don't chew, crush or grind food. They don't use
the cheek teeth.
It follows perfectly.
> The authors of the
> web page don't make this bad argument. Where does Dunford see this?
It's not a bad argument, Tony, just because you don't understand it or
refuse to accept it.
> >Molars and
> >premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
> >entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the possible
> >exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid which is chewed.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But they aren't molars.
Cheek teeth are molars and pre-molars.
You're quibbling, Tony, and trying to avoid the issue. We have teeth
in an "m-position," and they are identified as rudimentary, vestigial
or whatever you want to call them when compared to structures in
related species.
> And since Dunford claims they are rudiments
> that never developed how does he know that they would have become
> molars with crushing surfaces. Dunford has deviated from both science
> and logic. He is weaving if-so stories devoid of any real science or
> logic.
No, he is showing that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're on
about.
> And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush does
> not mean they have no function.
So what function do they have?
That IS the question posed to YOU, after all.
And if you can't answer that question, you lose.
> It is becoming obvious that
> neoDarwinians look to functional homologous structures in predecessor
> populations
Or related populations.
> to determine what function they should expect to see and
> if they fail to see this function they presume that it has none. This
> is hardly thorough science.
You'll forgive me, Tony, if I don't look to you as a judge of what is
"thorough science."
But I'll put it to you, Tony: How would you improve the process?
Then you can tell us what function these "rudiments" have.
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
> structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
> ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
It's easy to argue against it, because it's a substanceless claim made
by you that you have been completely incapable of supporting.
You can't even provide ONE example, Tony.
Or can you?
David Sienkiewicz
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
< snip Tony's deliberate confusing comments about Darwinism and
Lamarkism >
> Pagano replies:
> You fail to realize that your ignorance of a function is not evidence
> that it has none. The experts at the Scopes Trial entered 200+ organs
> and structures considered vestigial. As far as I know none are
> considered so today.
So why can't you name even ONE of these structures?
> The fact that an observer doesn't see the structure being used in the
> manner, degree, or way that he expects it to perform is also not
> evidence that it has no function or is vestigial.
In the case of vampire bats, Tony, we're not talking about "an
observer." We're talking about a well-studied creature that has never
shown a function.
Before we stray too far afield - as your threads generally go - let's
remember that the original claim, that there are no vestigial
structures, is yours.
You added that all such structures thought to be vestigial were later
found to have a function.
Effectively speaking, you were asked about the molars of vampire bats
- a generic reference to species that have rudiments in the m-position
in the dental formula.
You have not been able to answer that question. You have dodged it
(rather badly) and tried very hard to make people forget that the
original challenge was issued because of claims that YOU made.
< snip more misdirection about neodarwinism and what constitutes
"rudimentary" >
> Evolutionists presume that a structure or organ is a vestige or a
> rudiment if it doesn't perform as some homologous structure in another
> population or if it simply has no known function. At the Scopes Trial
> we discovered that this presumption was completely unreliable.
How did we discover THAT, Tony?
< snip redundant speech-making >
Andy Groves
I think the post was entitled "Pagano gives an example of a nascent
structure". Try searching for that.
Andy
A Pagano
snip
>Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
>using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to infict
>a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood. Molars and
>premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
>entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the possible
>exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid which is chewed.
Pagano replies:
But they aren't molars. Dunford claims they are rudimentary molars
that never sufficiently developed. But if they never sufficiently
developed how does he know that they would have become molars? A
molar is a label describing more than just the position of the tooth.
And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush does
not mean they have no function. It is becoming obvious that
neoDarwinians look to functional homologous structures in predecessor
populations to determine what function they should expect to see and
if they fail to see this function they presume that it has none. This
is hardly thorough science.
Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
>The molars of the vampire bat have little or no utility.
Pagano replies:
The cheek teeth have no crushing surfaces so how could they be
characterized as molars? The authors of the web page presented as
evidence by Thompson didn't characterize them as molars and didn't say
they had no utility. Even if we assume that the vampire bat's diet is
purely liquid this does not preclude the cheek teeth from having some
function other than chewing, tearing or crushing. Surely this is
obvious.
>The presence
>of organs of little or no utility is predicted by evolution and is
>inexplicable under creationism.
Pagano replies:
Darwin thought that vestiges were principly cased by disuse but
neoDarwinians "proved" that this Lamarckian notion is false. Darwin
also thought that rudimentary organs should be numerous, but modern
biologists know that this is not true either.
And lastly neoDarwinism explains that structures, organs and creatures
are presevered by natural selection only to the extent that they
confer a survival or reproductive advantage. How exactly does a non
functional organ or structure do this? At best NeoDarwinism predicts
the extinction of populations with non functional organs which do not
confer a survival or reproductive advantage.
The history of secular claims concerning vestigial organs is not
promising to your case. Most of the purported examples were later
found to have functions, just not the ones they expected.
Let's recap: Darwin's thoughts about rudiments were mostly wrong.
NeoDarwinism doesn't predict that non functional structures will be
preserved unless they confer some survival or reproductive advantage
which doesn't seem too likely. Most of the vestigial claims were
later found to be false. The creation model doesn't predict vestiges
and since there are no unambiguous examples extant what exactly must
they explain?
>> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
>> history which did perform a useful function, and
>
>It is not necessary to examine any predecessor to see this -- other
>bats have and use teeth in that position to chew their food, as do
>other mammals.
Pagano replies:
The historical evidence----if it existed and was favorable to
Dunford's position-----would confirm that the changes are in fact
neoDarwinian rather than Mendelian. If the information for the cheek
teeth already existed in the predecessor populations then those cheek
teeth cannot be rudiments or vestiges.
>
>> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
>
>Here you are demanding that I prove evolution to you before you will
>permit me to present to you a category of evidence for evolution.
>This seems to be a common tactic of yours, and one which is
>despicably dishonest.
Pagano replies:
Simply because you have faith in some speculative process which cannot
be directly observed doesn't mean that its opponents must exhibit the
same faith. Dunford and evolutionists claim that vestigial structures
and organs are evidence of neoDarwinism. Unfortunately we cannot know
that the structures are vestigial without first presupposing the truth
of neoDarwinian evolution. But if the truth of neoDarwinism is the
issue then we can't very well assume its truth without resorting to
circular logic.
This is why I ask for historical EMPIRICAL evidence. I don't expect
all the evidence, but it is NECESSARY to produce a sufficient
sampling.
>> Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That
>> the teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't
>> have crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that they
>> they serve no useful function (in relation to the predecessor
>> structures or not)
>
>That is correct. The evidence that the m-position teeth of the
>Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose is not that they lack crushing
>surfaces. Rather, the evidence comes from the direct and indirect
>observation of the feeding habits of these creatures. We know that
>the teeth serve no useful function because we know how the animals
>eat. These are not fossil organisms we are speaking of. They are
>living organisms which can be (have been, and are being) observed
>directily.
Pagano replies:
If the structure doesn't perform the function the evolutionist expects
or there is no known function then the evolutionist simply presumes
that there is no function. This is certainly not a deductive
conclusion. The expectation could be wrong, biology has exceptions to
virtually every rule, and presuming that a structure has no function
simply because it is unknown is an argument from ignorance.
>
>> or that this change was the result of a
>> neoDarwinian process as opposed to a Mendelian process.
>
>Again: What did the neodarwinian SYNTHESIS fuse together?
Pagano replies:
You seem to be implying that the characterization of rudimentary or
vestigial are independent of the neoDarwinian process. This is not
the case. This is why historical empirical evidence is so important.
If the genetic information for the cheek teeth as they are found in
the extant populations already existed within the predecessor
populations in history then their existance now is not the result of a
neoDarwinian process. If this is the case then the cheek teeth are
neither vestiges nor rudiments.
>
>>>> I
>>>> suggest Thompson reread what the reports-----he is supposed to
>>>> provide
>>>
>>>Actually, you are the one who made the initial positive
>>>assertion, so you are the one who should bear the responsibility
>>>of providing evidence. After all, it should be far easier to
>>>demonstrate that the molars of vampire bats have a purpose than
>>>to prove that they have none.
Pagano replies:
Nonsense. It is neoDarwinism which is held up as the best
explanation. It is its adherents who must produce the evidence.
Thompson held up the web page as evidence. But the authors neither
characterized the teeth in question as molars, vestiges or non
functional.
>
>And there was an uncomfortable pause in the conversation...
Pagano replies:
????
>
>>>>----are supposed to illustrate (please see above). I'm
>>>> afraid this link doesn't provide anthing required.
>>>
>>>That does not appear to be the case.
>>>
>>>>>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young,
>>>>>they nurse- like all mammals. As adults, they drink blood.
>>>>>The molars are no longer suitable since they have no grinding
>>>>>surfaces. Common sense indicates they are not used for
>>>>>anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the molars
>>>>>entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids does not
>>>>>require the presence of molars.
>>>>
>>>> Pagano replies:
>>>> It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
>>>> Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging.
>>>
>>>No. It is a commonly used classification for teeth in a certain
>>>position.
Pagano replies:
The authors of the web page didn't call them molars or vestiges of
molars or rudimentary molars.
>>
>> Pagano replies:
>> I consulted three dictionaries one of which was "The Dictionary
>> of Modern Biology" (Barron's, 1997) and they seem to disagree.
>> The label "molar" has at least three diagnostic characteristics:
>> 1. location of the tooth
>> 2. size of the tooth and crown
>> 3 and function of the tooth
>
>The reason for this is that almost all mammals use their molars to do
>essentially the same thing, so they typically share many common
>characteristics.
Pagano replies:
This is evolutionist double speak. The tooth must meet all the
characteristics to be characterized as vestigial. The authors of the
web page held up as evidence by Thompson didn't call them molars
either.
> As I pointed out in the portion of my response just
>below that, calling the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae
>something other than molars does not suddenly make them more useful.
Pagano replies:
Thompson called them molars because he claimed that predecessor
populations did have genuine molars and the cheek teeth of the
Desmodontinae were non functional vestiges of those predecessors. The
authors of the web page he offered as evidence made no such claim.
The authors of the web page also didn't claim that the cheek teeth of
the Desmodontinae were structures which emerged but simply failed to
sufficiently develop into molars (Dunford's apparent use of Darwin's
label "rudimentary").
And finally the authors of the web page offered as evidence of the
existence of vestigial organs never claimed that the cheek teeth were
non functional. Dunford assumed that they had no function because
they didn't preform the function that he expected. This is not
deductive science but an argument from ignorance.
>Call them "molars", call them "m-position teeth", call them "rocks",
>call them ";hsdf;l", call them anything else you like. It makes no
>difference, other than to satisfy your need to indulge in meaningless
>verbalism.
Pagano replies:
The cheek teeth were certainly not molars and the authors of the web
page didn't label them as such. Thompson claimed that the cheek teeth
of the Desmodontinae were vestiges of molars and Dunford claimed that
they were rudimentary (underdeveloped) molars. The authors of the web
page offered as evidence by Thompson made no such claim. Dunford
offered no physical evidence. He only offered a presumptive argument
from ignorance.
>
>There are teeth in the "m-position" in vampire bats. These "rocks"
>teeth are not used -- cannot be used do to their position in the
>mouth -- to incise the flesh of the bat's source of nutrition. Making
>such an incision is the only thing vampire bats use their teeth to
>do. They do not ingest flesh, they do not chew flesh, they cannot
>digest flesh. These ";hsdf;l" teeth have no known use -- and our
>observations of their feeding habits are good enough that if they had
>a use, we should have determined it by now. In addition, since the
>"molars" are entirely absent in one species, despite the identical
>feeding habits shared by all three species, one is forced to wonder
>how important -- how useful -- they are.
>
>> If the cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae subfamily of vampire
>> bats are vestigial molars from some predecessor population then
>> we need to see some physical historical evidence that the change
>> is neoDarwinian.
>
>No. I don't need to prove evolution before I can present evidence for
>evolution. You need to explain what use the m-poisition teeth have in
>the Desmodontinae, or why the presence of a useless structure is not
>problematic for creationism.
Pagano replies:
Already presented and answered.
>
>> And we need to see some current zoological
>> evidence that the cheek teeth of the extant subfamily of vampire
>> bats have no useful function.
>
>That has been presented.
Pagano replies:
It certainly wasn't presented by the authors of the web page. They
only described the physical characteristics of the teeth and the diet
of the Desmodontinae, they made no claim that the cheek teeth were non
functional. To these facts Dunford added the premise that if the
cheek teeth aren't used for the function he expects then therefore
they can have no other function. This is a non sequitur.
>
>> Failing this you crash and burn
>> with Thompson. Dunford's up to bat.
Pagano replies:
Dunford usually does his homework, but he didn't do so this time. I
opine that he crashed and burned with Thompson. I report...you
decide. Now on to Groves.
Regards,
T Pagano
David Sienkiewicz
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
< snip >
> >No. I don't need to prove evolution before I can present evidence for
> >evolution. You need to explain what use the m-poisition teeth have in
> >the Desmodontinae, or why the presence of a useless structure is not
> >problematic for creationism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Already presented and answered.
Really!
Where and when, Tony?
I'm pretty sure I've read all of the exchanges (Dunford is having your
lunch over this, by the way) and I haven't seen you answer this at
all.
< snip >
David Sienkiewicz
>
> snip
< snip a whole lot of vague and unsubstantive repeated claims that
have already been rebutted and refuted >
> Pagano replies:
> Dunford usually does his homework, but he didn't do so this time.
Oh, but he DID, Tony.
All you could do in response is beg the question, move the goalposts,
dodge the issue, duck the challenge, quibble about semantics and
generally do what you always do - you failed to deliver the goods.
The summary:
You claimed that there were no vestigial structures. You claimed that
ALL structures previously believed to be vestigial, in fact, had a
function.
Chris Thompson asked what function is served by the molars in vampire
bats; and some of us echoed that challenge.
You have NEVER identified a function for the rudimentary, vestigial,
degenerate - or whatever word you want to use to describe them - cheek
teeth in vampire bats.
In other words, YOU DON'T KNOW what function - if any - they have.
You never did.
You made your claim out of ignorance and out of ignorance, stupidity
and dishonesty, you dragged out the threads, split responses and
generally tried to confuse the issue so that your poor, pathetic
"confused christians" could be fooled into thinking that there was
anything to your arguments.
You claimed that there were no vestigial structures and told us that
they all have functions; but when asked about a specific structure and
what function it had - IN RESPONSE TO *YOUR* CLAIM - you effectively
wanted all of us to prove to you that the teeth had no function.
It was pretty pathetic, Tony - even for you.
> I opine
You OPINE?
That's pretty funny, Tony.
> that he crashed and burned with Thompson.
Nope. He thoroughly and completely debunked you and exposed you.
> I report...you
> decide.
Ah, but you don't "report," Tony. That's just another one of your
lies.
> Now on to Groves.
This should be good.
It's pretty clear to me, Tony, that you sure do want to continue
getting your drubbing.
DO continue. It's most entertaining.
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
> And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush does
> not mean they have no function.
< snip >
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
> structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
> ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
Tony, take a look at this link:
http://www.geocities.com/hdsienkiewicz/vampire_bat_skull_1.jpg
This is a skull of a vampire bat.
Note the white circle. I added that for our edification and ease of
viewing.
See those structures in the circle? Those are the cheek teeth.
You claimed that all structures thought to be vestigial are now known
to have a function.
Vampire bat cheek teeth have been long thought to be vestigial, but if
what you say is correct, they are known to have a function.
What is that function?
< snip >
Mike Dunford
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
[snip of section repeated verbatim from Pagano's previous post]
>>The molars of the vampire bat have little or no utility.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The cheek teeth have no crushing surfaces so how could they be
> characterized as molars?
You are once again ignoring what I said: it is completely unimportant
and irrelevant as to what you call the teeth in the m-position -- no
matter what their name, they have little or no utility. They are not
used to bite, they are not used to chew. They do not exchange gasses,
secrete substances, or anything else that we can come up with. Call
them "cheek teeth", call them "m-position teeth", call them
"asfghaslkduyfgtqweo", it makes no difference to me.
> The authors of the web page presented
> as evidence by Thompson didn't characterize them as molars and
> didn't say they had no utility.
The authors of the cited page assume that their readers have a basic,
relatively minimal, understanding of biology. For example, they
expect that the reader understands that the "m" in a dental formal
stands for "molar". They did not explicitly state that "the molars
have no utility", but they did describe the feeding process of those
two species (inflict wound, drink blood). Even the most obtuse of
readers should be able to understand the lack of a role for the m-
position teeth in this case.
> Even if we assume that the vampire bat's diet is purely liquid
We don't "assume" that, we observe it.
> this does not preclude the
> cheek teeth from having some function other than chewing,
> tearing or crushing. Surely this is obvious.
You are welcome at any time to suggest another function. Thus far,
none has been found, and the one species of the three which lacks
those teeth entirely does not seem to suffer from any lack -- in
fact, it is the most common of the bunch.
>>The presence
>>of organs of little or no utility is predicted by evolution and
>>is inexplicable under creationism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Darwin thought that vestiges were principly cased by disuse but
> neoDarwinians "proved" that this Lamarckian notion is false.
This has been asked and answered repeatedly. There is, as the quote I
have provided in two other posts demonstrates, a selective benefit.
Syvanen has also pointed out that the neutral theory of evolution
also provides an explanation. Lamarckism is unnecessary.
> Darwin also thought that rudimentary organs should be numerous,
> but modern biologists know that this is not true either.
This is a variation on a claim you have been asked in the past to
support. You do not do so here.
> And lastly neoDarwinism explains that structures, organs and
> creatures are presevered by natural selection only to the extent
> that they confer a survival or reproductive advantage. How
> exactly does a non functional organ or structure do this?
That is why the theory predicts that such structures will, when
found, typically be reduced as compared to similar animals which use
similar structures. The cheek teeth of other bats, for example are
used for chewing and can be described as molars. The cheek teeth of
vampire bats are present in reduced numbers as compared with other
bats and entirely absent in one species, and when present occur not
only in a reduced number but also a reduced form as compared to the
cheek teeth of other bats. In short, non-functional organs are not
being "preserved" by natural selection, but reduced and eliminated.
> At
> best NeoDarwinism predicts the extinction of populations with
> non functional organs which do not confer a survival or
> reproductive advantage.
This is incorrect. It predicts that selection will no longer act to
preserve a non-functional organ. Unless the non-functional organ
renders the organism unable to adequately compete, it does not
predict the extinction of the population.
> The history of secular claims concerning vestigial organs is not
> promising to your case. Most of the purported examples were
> later found to have functions, just not the ones they expected.
Yet more unsupported assertions.
> Let's recap: Darwin's thoughts about rudiments were mostly
> wrong.
If so, so what? My argument has not rested even lightly on Darwin's
work.
> NeoDarwinism doesn't predict that non functional
> structures will be preserved unless they confer some survival or
> reproductive advantage which doesn't seem too likely.
The structures are not being "preserved". As you have pointed out,
the cheek teeth of the vampire bat lack crushing surfaces.
> Most of the vestigial claims were later found to be false.
Most does not equal all. And remember, you claim induction is
invalid. (And, once again, you have declined to even attempt to
support this bald assertion.)
> The creation
> model doesn't predict vestiges and since there are no
> unambiguous examples extant what exactly must they explain?
The example presented is not unambiguous. We have observed the bats,
and the teeth. They are not used. They are reduced in size and number
compared to teeth in the same position of the jaw in other non-
vampire bat species. Engaging in verbalistic quibbling over whether
such teeth should be classified as "molars" or whether "rudimentary"
is a good description, claiming that you are right therefore there
must be some function, and asserting that history is somehow on your
side all represent attempts to muddy the water. They do not
constitute "ambiguity".
>>> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in
>>> evolutionary history which did perform a useful function, and
>>
>>It is not necessary to examine any predecessor to see this --
>>other bats have and use teeth in that position to chew their
>>food, as do other mammals.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The historical evidence----if it existed and was favorable to
> Dunford's position-----would confirm that the changes are in
> fact neoDarwinian rather than Mendelian.
What was fused together in the neoDarwinian synthesis? What is the
difference between a neoDarwinian and a Mendelian process?
> If the information for
> the cheek teeth already existed in the predecessor populations
> then those cheek teeth cannot be rudiments or vestiges.
The presence or absence of some sort of "information" to produce
these teeth does not grant them a current purpose. Therefore, your
statement is irrelevant.
>>> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
>>
>>Here you are demanding that I prove evolution to you before you
>>will permit me to present to you a category of evidence for
>>evolution. This seems to be a common tactic of yours, and one
>>which is despicably dishonest.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Simply because you have faith in some speculative process which
> cannot be directly observed doesn't mean that its opponents must
> exhibit the same faith. Dunford and evolutionists claim that
> vestigial structures and organs are evidence of neoDarwinism.
> Unfortunately we cannot know that the structures are vestigial
> without first presupposing the truth of neoDarwinian evolution.
> But if the truth of neoDarwinism is the issue then we can't very
> well assume its truth without resorting to circular logic.
The following is reproduced from an earlier response of mine:
[begin]
1: IF evolution is taking place, organs (structures) will not
necessarily remain unchanged indefinitely
2: IF natural selection is A mechanism of evolutionary change, organs
(structures) will tend to remain unchanged only if they are well
suited to the organism at that time. Structures which are not very
well suited to the organism will tend to be modified.
3: (Again IF natural selection is A mechanism of evolutionary change)
Modifications to other structures and/or changes in habit/environment
may make a previously useful structure less useful or even
unnecessary.
4: IF natural selection is A mechanism of evolutionary change, then
structures which are not useful will tend to be reduced in size or
eliminated altogether. This is predicted because such structures are
not conferring any significant benefit on the organism, and therefore
any variation which reduces or eliminates the structure will conserve
resources and may eliminate a potential cause of infection or injury.
5: Therefore, IF evolution occurs and IF natural selection is A
mechanism of evolutionary change, we expect that we may find
organisms with structures which have little or no function, AND we
expect that such structures will, unless they have only recently
become useless, be greatly reduced in form as compared with similar
organisms which use the same structure.
6: The m-position teeth -- molars -- of the Desmodontinae match both
those predictions. They are not used at all in the feeding process,
having little or no function, and are greatly reduced compared to the
teeth in the same position in other members of the same family.
[end]
Please examine this. I have looked at the theory of evolution, and
used the theory to make predictions. I have then noted that, based on
observational evidence, the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae
meet these predictions. I therefore feel that, since the m-position
teeth of the Desmodontinae run counter to the predictions of
creationism but meet the predictions of evolution, they are evidence
favoring evolution. The argument is not circular.
> This is why I ask for historical EMPIRICAL evidence. I don't
> expect all the evidence, but it is NECESSARY to produce a
> sufficient sampling.
It is irrelevant.
>>> Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That
>>> the teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't
>>> have crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that
>>> they they serve no useful function (in relation to the
>>> predecessor structures or not)
>>
>>That is correct. The evidence that the m-position teeth of the
>>Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose is not that they lack
>>crushing surfaces. Rather, the evidence comes from the direct
>>and indirect observation of the feeding habits of these
>>creatures. We know that the teeth serve no useful function
>>because we know how the animals eat. These are not fossil
>>organisms we are speaking of. They are living organisms which
>>can be (have been, and are being) observed directily.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If the structure doesn't perform the function the evolutionist
> expects or there is no known function then the evolutionist
> simply presumes that there is no function. This is certainly
> not a deductive conclusion. The expectation could be wrong,
> biology has exceptions to virtually every rule, and presuming
> that a structure has no function simply because it is unknown is
> an argument from ignorance.
As I have repeatedly pointed out in replies to you over the last
several days, we are not arguing that it has no function because we
do not see it do anything, but because we have observed the organism
and the structure in detail, and have seen that it does not do
anything.
>>> or that this change was the result of a
>>> neoDarwinian process as opposed to a Mendelian process.
>>
>>Again: What did the neodarwinian SYNTHESIS fuse together?
>
> Pagano replies:
> You seem to be implying that the characterization of rudimentary
> or vestigial are independent of the neoDarwinian process. This
> is not the case. This is why historical empirical evidence is
> so important.
First of all, I do not imply but state that the characterization of
whether or not a particular structure serves a useful function in a
particular organism is determined through observation. At least, it
is determined through observation by scientists. You, on the other
hand, determine through religious beliefs that it must have a
function.
> If the genetic information for the cheek teeth as they are found
> in the extant populations already existed within the predecessor
> populations in history then their existance now is not the
> result of a neoDarwinian process. If this is the case then the
> cheek teeth are neither vestiges nor rudiments.
This is simultaneously irrelevant and meaningless -- an impressive
combination. You have managed to once again avoid recognizing that
"Mendelian" processes are part of the "neoDarwinian" synthesis. You
have managed to once again use the phrase "genetic information"
without attempting to define "information", doubtlessly inducing
emesis in a significant portion of the readership. You have again
ignored the obvious fact that whether or not a structure should be
called a "vestige" or a "rudiment" does not grant the organ a
function. I could go on, but I think this is sufficient.
>>>>> I
>>>>> suggest Thompson reread what the reports-----he is supposed
>>>>> to provide
>>>>
>>>>Actually, you are the one who made the initial positive
>>>>assertion, so you are the one who should bear the
>>>>responsibility of providing evidence. After all, it should be
>>>>far easier to demonstrate that the molars of vampire bats have
>>>>a purpose than to prove that they have none.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Nonsense.
No. The negative cannot, as you have so gleefully continued to point
out, be proven. The positive, on the other hand, should be easy to
prove.
> It is neoDarwinism which is held up as the best
> explanation. It is its adherents who must produce the evidence.
Which is what I am attempting, in a small way, to do here.
> Thompson held up the web page as evidence. But the authors
> neither characterized the teeth in question as molars, vestiges
> or non functional.
Your inability to grasp things which are clearly implicit in the text
does not make your point stronger.
>>And there was an uncomfortable pause in the conversation...
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> ????
>
>>>>>----are supposed to illustrate (please see above). I'm
>>>>> afraid this link doesn't provide anthing required.
>>>>
>>>>That does not appear to be the case.
>>>>
>>>>>>However, vampire bats live entirely on liquids. As young,
>>>>>>they nurse- like all mammals. As adults, they drink blood.
>>>>>>The molars are no longer suitable since they have no
>>>>>>grinding surfaces. Common sense indicates they are not used
>>>>>>for anything. More tellingly, _Desmodus_ has lost the
>>>>>>molars entirely, indicating that a diet solely of liquids
>>>>>>does not require the presence of molars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pagano replies:
>>>>> It would seem to me that referring to any teeth within the
>>>>> Desmodontinae subfamily as "molars" is question begging.
>>>>
>>>>No. It is a commonly used classification for teeth in a
>>>>certain position.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The authors of the web page didn't call them molars or vestiges
> of molars or rudimentary molars.
You said that. I answered that.
>>> Pagano replies:
>>> I consulted three dictionaries one of which was "The
>>> Dictionary of Modern Biology" (Barron's, 1997) and they seem
>>> to disagree. The label "molar" has at least three diagnostic
>>> characteristics: 1. location of the tooth
>>> 2. size of the tooth and crown
>>> 3 and function of the tooth
>>
>>The reason for this is that almost all mammals use their molars
>>to do essentially the same thing, so they typically share many
>>common characteristics.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is evolutionist double speak.
No, it is not.
> The tooth must meet all the characteristics to be characterized
> as vestigial. The authors
> of the web page held up as evidence by Thompson didn't call them
> molars either.
Tony, why would the tooth need to meet all your requirements for a
"molar" before it could be considered "vestigial"?
>> As I pointed out in the portion of my response just
>>below that, calling the m-position teeth of the Desmodontinae
>>something other than molars does not suddenly make them more
>>useful.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Thompson called them molars because he claimed that predecessor
> populations did have genuine molars and the cheek teeth of the
> Desmodontinae were non functional vestiges of those
> predecessors. The authors of the web page he offered as
> evidence made no such claim.
The page was offered as evidence that the teeth serve no useful
function -- a piece of observational evidence which you have
repeatedly failed to address.
> The authors of the web page also didn't claim that the cheek
> teeth of the Desmodontinae were structures which emerged but
> simply failed to sufficiently develop into molars (Dunford's
> apparent use of Darwin's label "rudimentary").
I would love to know what thought processes lead you to believe that
this was my usage. Not only did I explicitly state that I was using
"rudimentary" to refer to a structure which currently serves no
useful function, I also never made any statements regarding how the
structure emerged.
> And finally the authors of the web page offered as evidence of
> the existence of vestigial organs never claimed that the cheek
> teeth were non functional. Dunford assumed that they had no
> function because they didn't preform the function that he
> expected. This is not deductive science but an argument from
> ignorance.
This is, once again, laughable. Not only do they not perform the
expected function of teeth, but they also have not been observed to
do anything different, and they do not have any modifictations which
would appear to permit them to do anything different. Further, one of
the three species lacks them altogether, without ill effects, and the
other two species are not very different in form, function, or habit.
>>Call them "molars", call them "m-position teeth", call them
>>"rocks", call them ";hsdf;l", call them anything else you like.
>>It makes no difference, other than to satisfy your need to
>>indulge in meaningless verbalism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The cheek teeth were certainly not molars and the authors of the
> web page didn't label them as such.
As has been pointed out, this statement is called into question by
the dental formulas whih the authors presented.
> Thompson claimed that the
> cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae were vestiges of molars and
> Dunford claimed that they were rudimentary (underdeveloped)
> molars.
Incorrect.
> The authors of the web page offered as evidence by
> Thompson made no such claim. Dunford offered no physical
> evidence. He only offered a presumptive argument from
> ignorance.
Your failure to admit that there is physical evidence (for example,
the observation and anatomical study of the organisms) does not make
it go away. See my unanswered paragraph below.
>>There are teeth in the "m-position" in vampire bats. These
>>"rocks" teeth are not used -- cannot be used do to their
>>position in the mouth -- to incise the flesh of the bat's source
>>of nutrition. Making such an incision is the only thing vampire
>>bats use their teeth to do. They do not ingest flesh, they do
>>not chew flesh, they cannot digest flesh. These ";hsdf;l" teeth
>>have no known use -- and our observations of their feeding
>>habits are good enough that if they had a use, we should have
>>determined it by now. In addition, since the "molars" are
>>entirely absent in one species, despite the identical feeding
>>habits shared by all three species, one is forced to wonder how
>>important -- how useful -- they are.
>>
>>> If the cheek teeth of the Desmodontinae subfamily of vampire
>>> bats are vestigial molars from some predecessor population
>>> then we need to see some physical historical evidence that the
>>> change is neoDarwinian.
>>
>>No. I don't need to prove evolution before I can present
>>evidence for evolution. You need to explain what use the
>>m-poisition teeth have in the Desmodontinae, or why the presence
>>of a useless structure is not problematic for creationism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Already presented and answered.
No, you did not answer that. You asserted (circularly) that you fully
expect that a function will be found. You did not present a function.
>>> And we need to see some current zoological
>>> evidence that the cheek teeth of the extant subfamily of
>>> vampire bats have no useful function.
>>
>>That has been presented.
>
> Pagano replies:
> It certainly wasn't presented by the authors of the web page.
> They only described the physical characteristics of the teeth
> and the diet of the Desmodontinae, they made no claim that the
> cheek teeth were non functional.
Your inability to grasp anything not explicitly stated is
embarassingly apparent here.
>To these facts Dunford added
> the premise that if the cheek teeth aren't used for the function
> he expects then therefore they can have no other function. This
> is a non sequitur.
That was not my claim. I pointed out that if the teeth serve a
different function, we should see evidence of it in either the
structure of the teeth or through observations of the organism, but
we have not, despite the fact that these legendary organisms have
been extensively studied. Further, the absence of the teeth in one of
these three very similar organisms is additional evidence of the lack
of useful function for the teeth in the other two.
>>> Failing this you crash and burn
>>> with Thompson. Dunford's up to bat.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Dunford usually does his homework, but he didn't do so this
> time. I opine that he crashed and burned with Thompson. I
> report...you decide.
On this newsgroup, Pagano, you are the Snoopy of pilots -- a legend
in your own imagination.
> Now on to Groves.
Of course. Far be it for you to actually engage any of my replies to
your post -- replies that predated this part of your chopped up
reply, and which in many cases had already addressed claims you
repeated here. Honest debate is obviously not something you are fond
of.
--Mike Dunford
--
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that
apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not
merit equal time in physics classrooms.
--Stephen Jay Gould
Steven J.
> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>
> snip
>
>
> >Vampire bats exist on a diet of blood. They obtain this blood by
> >using their specialized front teeth (incisors and canines) to infict
> >a small wound in their victim. They then drink the blood. Molars and
> >premolars are normally used by mammals to chew food once it has
> >entered the mouth. Blood is not chewed. In fact, with the possible
> >exception of Guinness, I cannot think of any liquid which is chewed.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But they aren't molars. Dunford claims they are rudimentary molars
> that never sufficiently developed. But if they never sufficiently
> developed how does he know that they would have become molars? A
> molar is a label describing more than just the position of the tooth.
>
depend on the teeth being "molars" in every sense of the word; in a
sense it depends on them NOT being "complete" molars. The teeth are
in the same position as molars in other subfamilies of bats. And
Dunford's claim is not that they "never sufficiently developed" to
become molars, but that they aren't sufficently developed to be much
of anything, except teeth (that don't cut, slice, stab, grind, crush,
or shred) in the same position as molars. The point is, what possible
explanation can there be for teeth that don't do any of the normal
things that teeth do, in the same position as functional teeth in
other species of bats?
>
> And simply because the teeth are not used to chew, rip, or crush does
> not mean they have no function. It is becoming obvious that
> neoDarwinians look to functional homologous structures in predecessor
> populations to determine what function they should expect to see and
> if they fail to see this function they presume that it has none. This
> is hardly thorough science.
>
Dunford can't prove that the teeth have no function whatsoever, and
therefore they must have one. But note that Dunford does not and need
not claim that the teeth have NO function whatsoever. Does it bother
you even the teensiest, tiniest bit that they pretty clearly don't
have any of the functions we normally associate with, and expect of,
teeth? That, by the way, not total absence of a function, is the
point of the example.
Yet again, "vestigial/rudimentary" structures are a special case of a
more general Darwinian argument -- the argument of "similar structures
used for dissimilar purposes" (even while dissimilar structures --
e.g. the bat and bird wings -- are often used for similar purposes).
Whatever mysterious function the cheek teeth of vampire bats might
serve, it surely isn't the same one teeth in this position normally
serve in bats (or, if teeth serve some function other than those
normally noticed, then at least the cheek teeth of vampires serve
fewer functions than those of other bats -- this is "reduced
functionality" and is the criterion for vestigiality).
Such structures defy obvious explanation in terms of common design.
Why should ther NOT be common design for many shared purposes (from
pterosaur wings and condor wings to the differences in cytochrome-c
between different families of organisms), while common design is seen
for unrelated purposes, whether the wings of bats and the flippers of
whales, or the teeth of bats that chew food, and those of vampire bats
that do ... whatever you think they do?
>
> Finally the history of science has shown that all claims that some
> structure or organ is vestigial are presumptive arguments from
> ignorance. It's awful hard to argue against this.
>
It's trivially easy. Your claim is wrong. The argument that some
structures are vestigial does not derive from ignorance, but from
considering the implications of observations -- there exist homologs
to various structures that exhibit obvious functions, but those
structures themselves neither have those functions, nor any other
obvious ones. That is an argument from knowledge, not ignorance. As
for "the history of science has shown..." if you can come up with that
legendary list of "200+ vestigial structures" and the functions that
many of them were later shown to serve, feel free to post it. Until
then, I'll feel free to suppose that it's mere bluster on your part --
an argument, not from ignorance, but from self-delusion.
>
> >The molars of the vampire bat have little or no utility.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The cheek teeth have no crushing surfaces so how could they be
> characterized as molars? The authors of the web page presented as
> evidence by Thompson didn't characterize them as molars and didn't say
> they had no utility. Even if we assume that the vampire bat's diet is
> purely liquid this does not preclude the cheek teeth from having some
> function other than chewing, tearing or crushing. Surely this is
> obvious.
>
You could assume the vampire bats diet is purely liquid, or you could
actually observe them in captivity and in the wild, and see that it
is. Whether the cheek teeth are "molars," or merely molar homologs in
the sense that the vampire bat's wings are dolphin flipper homologs,
is not a matter of any import. The question of what they're doing
there, in a molar position (because it surely isn't any of the usual
purposes of teeth).
And, one more time, "vestigial" means that a structure has lost some,
not necessarily all, of its former functionality; Dunford introduces
the term "rudimentary" to indicate no judgement about functionality in
ancestors, but simply compares the functionality to that of homologs
in similar species. Perhaps teeth do something for bats besides
grind, crush, shred, slice, and stab (although note, please, the
variation in tooth number among different kinds of vampire bats --
whatever they do, they seem to do as well regardless of exactly how
many the bat has; how many functional structures is that true of?).
If so, the homologous molars of other bats presumably serve the same
function, so, again, the vampire cheek teeth show reduced (if not
absent) functionality.
>
> >The presence
> >of organs of little or no utility is predicted by evolution and is
> >inexplicable under creationism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Darwin thought that vestiges were principly cased by disuse but
> neoDarwinians "proved" that this Lamarckian notion is false.
>
"Disuse" means simply that the structures are not used by the
organism, and therefore are no longer adaptions, and therefore
mutations (or whatever source of new random variation Darwin may have
imagined) which alter or degrade these structures are no longer
selected against. Darwin's proposed source of new variation was
Lamarckian, but the source of the variation is not relevant to the
argument, as long as there is some source.
>
> Darwin also thought that rudimentary organs should be numerous, but modern
> biologists know that this is not true either.
>
You rank very, very low as an authority on what modern biologists
know. You don't rank all that high as an authority on what Darwin
thought, either.
>
> And lastly neoDarwinism explains that structures, organs and creatures
> are presevered by natural selection only to the extent that they
> confer a survival or reproductive advantage. How exactly does a non
> functional organ or structure do this? At best NeoDarwinism predicts
> the extinction of populations with non functional organs which do not
> confer a survival or reproductive advantage.
>
Do you do some sort of mental exercises to avoid thinking clearly? A
nonfunctional organ or structure does not confer a survival advantage.
Vestigial structures are structures on their way to disappearing;
they have become reduced because mutations that degrade their
structure are no longer selected against (because the organism doesn't
use them), or even because such mutations are selected *for* (because
there are resource costs in growing and maintaining these structures).
The point of vestigial structures is that populations take up new
ecological niches; aquiring a new ability often means that some old
ability, and the structures that supported it, are no longer needed
(e.g. feeding on blood, and chewing, respectively). The old
structures will persist for a while, because mutations are random; a
mutation reducing or erasing a no-longer-needed structure is unlikely
to pop up in the first generation after the structure stops being used
for its former purpose.
>
> The history of secular claims concerning vestigial organs is not
> promising to your case. Most of the purported examples were later
> found to have functions, just not the ones they expected.
>
Examples, please.
Of course, if you find some examples, you still have the problem that
all the claimed vestigial organs are clear examples of "similar
designs being used for disimilar purposes," like a dinosaur forelimb
adapted as a bird's wing in _Archaeopteryx_, or an obvious tooth being
adapted for some necessarily non-toothlike function in (if your ideas
are right) the vampire bats. Given the plethora of dissimilar designs
available for dissimilar purposes, such "desings" call for an
explanation. Common descent with modification provided one.
>
> Let's recap: Darwin's thoughts about rudiments were mostly wrong.
> NeoDarwinism doesn't predict that non functional structures will be
> preserved unless they confer some survival or reproductive advantage
> which doesn't seem too likely. Most of the vestigial claims were
> later found to be false.
>
All of this is false, for the reasons stated above.
>
> The creation model doesn't predict vestiges and since there are no unambiguous > examples extant what exactly must they explain?
>
Are you sure the creation model doesn't predict vestiges? You have
stated in another thread that the creation model assumes the creation
of "kinds" with the potential to differentiate into separate species.
You have suggested that all the "information" necessary for such
differentiation is "probably" present in the ur-species of these
"created kinds." This seems to imply that some "kinds" could produce
species which lose functionality. That is, the vampires could be one
branch of an original kind with functional molars, which "lost this
information" while "microevolving" after the fall to drink blood.
There are creationists who advocate precisely such a position, in an
apparent attempt to coopt the "vestigial organ" argument for
creationists. It's consistent with everything else you've said about
the "creation model." I think you're wrong here, and motivated by the
same obstinate refusal to modify a refuted position that you showed,
for so long, on the "bats are alleged to hve evolved from mesonychids"
claim you advanced. You don't help the "confused Christians" much if
you do things that merely make you look obstinate and foolish.
>
> >> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> >> history which did perform a useful function, and
> >
> >It is not necessary to examine any predecessor to see this -- other
> >bats have and use teeth in that position to chew their food, as do
> >other mammals.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The historical evidence----if it existed and was favorable to
> Dunford's position-----would confirm that the changes are in fact
> neoDarwinian rather than Mendelian. If the information for the cheek
> teeth already existed in the predecessor populations then those cheek
> teeth cannot be rudiments or vestiges.
>
This is at least borderline gibberish. What do you mean by "the
information for the teeth already existed?" Do you mean, if the
ancestors had cheek teeth? But that is the whole point of the present
reduced teeth being "vestiges" -- that they have been inherited, in
reduced form, from ancestors. Or do you mean that the ancestors, as
far back as they existed, had only these "rudimentary" sort of cheek
teeth? But in that case, there would be no change at all, "Darwinian"
or "Mendellian."
And, for that matter, what do you imagine the difference between
"Mendellian" and "Darwinian" processes to be? "Mendellian" cannot
mean anything here except changes in gene frequency, which is [a]
evolution, and [b] requires some mechanism. If not Darwinian, I can't
imagine what that mechanism would be except random genetic drift --
and such drift would be tolerated only if the teeth in fact were not
needed in their capacity as molars, so the problem raised by the teeth
in the first place remains.
Or perhaps you mean simply that all the relevant alleles were present
at the beginning, and did not originate by mutation. That would be an
odd and counterhistorical use of "Mendellian" -- until the modern
synthesis of neoDarwinism with mutation theory, "Mendellianism" was
used as a synonym for "mutationism." Or perhaps you don't mean
anything coherent at all.
>
> >> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
> >
> >Here you are demanding that I prove evolution to you before you will
> >permit me to present to you a category of evidence for evolution.
> >This seems to be a common tactic of yours, and one which is
> >despicably dishonest.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Simply because you have faith in some speculative process which cannot
> be directly observed doesn't mean that its opponents must exhibit the
> same faith. Dunford and evolutionists claim that vestigial structures
> and organs are evidence of neoDarwinism. Unfortunately we cannot know
> that the structures are vestigial without first presupposing the truth
> of neoDarwinian evolution. But if the truth of neoDarwinism is the
> issue then we can't very well assume its truth without resorting to
> circular logic.
>
Tony, "vestigial" is an evolutionary explanation for something that
can be observed without the slightest assumption of evolutionary
theory. You yourself have noted what that observation is: there are
structures in living organisms whose homologs in otherwise very
similar species have obvious functions, but which don't have such
functions themselves, and often seem to have no other function either.
You don't need to accept "neoDarwinism" to notice this about the
cheek teeth of vampire bats, for example. You don't even have to
accept "neoDarwinism" to see that "neoDarwinism" explains this feature
of bat anatomy -- which thereby becomes evidence for the truth of that
theory. You can always fall back on the "no degree of confirmation
can show that any theory is true" line of defense, Tony. Give this
up. You've been beaten bloody on this.
>
> This is why I ask for historical EMPIRICAL evidence. I don't expect
> all the evidence, but it is NECESSARY to produce a sufficient
> sampling.
>
No, it is not. The fossil record has never been the strongest source
of evidence for common descent, much less for neoDarwinian mechanisms
for it. The argument can be advanced on the basis of comparisons of
living species.
>
> >> Dunford seems to believe that this is a trivial problem. That
> >> the teeth of the subfamily, Desmodontinae (vampire bat) don't
> >> have crushing surfaces is hardly prima facie evidence that they
> >> they serve no useful function (in relation to the predecessor
> >> structures or not)
> >
> >That is correct. The evidence that the m-position teeth of the
> >Desmodontinae serve no useful purpose is not that they lack crushing
> >surfaces. Rather, the evidence comes from the direct and indirect
> >observation of the feeding habits of these creatures. We know that
> >the teeth serve no useful function because we know how the animals
> >eat. These are not fossil organisms we are speaking of. They are
> >living organisms which can be (have been, and are being) observed
> >directily.
>
> Pagano replies:
> If the structure doesn't perform the function the evolutionist expects
> or there is no known function then the evolutionist simply presumes
> that there is no function. This is certainly not a deductive
> conclusion. The expectation could be wrong, biology has exceptions to
> virtually every rule, and presuming that a structure has no function
> simply because it is unknown is an argument from ignorance.
>
You seem to be substituting repetition for actual argument here.
Every item here has been answered above -- including your truly
bizarre take on what is an "argument from ignorance."
>
> >
> >> or that this change was the result of a
> >> neoDarwinian process as opposed to a Mendelian process.
> >
> >Again: What did the neodarwinian SYNTHESIS fuse together?
>
> Pagano replies:
> You seem to be implying that the characterization of rudimentary or
> vestigial are independent of the neoDarwinian process. This is not
> the case. This is why historical empirical evidence is so important.
>
You are wrong here.
>
> If the genetic information for the cheek teeth as they are found in
> the extant populations already existed within the predecessor
> populations in history then their existance now is not the result of a
> neoDarwinian process. If this is the case then the cheek teeth are
> neither vestiges nor rudiments.
>
This seems exceptionally stupid, even by your standards.
"Information" in this case can only refer to variant alleles, but
"neoDarwinian process" refers mainly to what sorts among alleles,
eliminating some and conserving and accumulating others. If all the
alleles existed in the first place, this in no way diminishes the
importance of natural selection. Indeed, it must enhance it, since
with mutation, the degradation of functionality can be attributed to
mutation in the absence of natural selection. Either will serve for
the argument at hand.
>
> >>>> I
> >>>> suggest Thompson reread what the reports-----he is supposed to
> >>>> provide
> >>>
> >>>Actually, you are the one who made the initial positive
> >>>assertion, so you are the one who should bear the responsibility
> >>>of providing evidence. After all, it should be far easier to
> >>>demonstrate that the molars of vampire bats have a purpose than
> >>>to prove that they have none.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Nonsense. It is neoDarwinism which is held up as the best
> explanation. It is its adherents who must produce the evidence.
> Thompson held up the web page as evidence. But the authors neither
> characterized the teeth in question as molars, vestiges or non
> functional.
>
The authors were presumably of the opinion that it would be read by
intelligent life forms. All this has been gone over before; you're
repeating yourself, and this line of argument was worthless the first
time around.
>
-- [snip of idiocy too tedious to comment on]
>
> Pagano replies:
> Dunford usually does his homework, but he didn't do so this time. I
> opine that he crashed and burned with Thompson. I report...you
> decide. Now on to Groves.
>
You've reported, and I've decided. You can't read for meaning. You
can't think, even within the limits of the "creation model" you defend
so belligerently but cluelessly. You prattle and pontificate and
celebrate your imagined triumphs over opponents who've just hammered
you into the ground.
You've lost two arguments, and, unsatisfied, set yourself up to lose a
third.
A Pagano
(Andy Groves) wrote:
>A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<a5hqsuo1r2so0pcsf...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
>> establish that a structure or organ
>> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
>> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
>> history which did perform a useful function, and
>
>I sent you a review on eyeless cave fish on July 1st of this year. Did
>you read it, and if so, do you agree that the "eyes" of these fish fit
>criteria of points (1) and (2)?
Pagano replies:
This is exactly what I suspected and why Dunford and Thompson both
crashed. I dispute the characterization of vestigial because the
characterization is raised up as an observable corroboration of
neoDarwinian evolution. In order for the structure or organ to be
characterized as "vestigial" it must have "evolved" to that condition
via the neoDarwinian mechanism.
If that condition arose via some other process-----like say a
Mendelian one or a process regulated by other genes-----then the organ
or structure is NOT evidence of neoDarwinian evolution.
>
>> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
>
>How on earth could one establish that? We would have to go back and
>sample every generation leading to the establishment of the eyeless
>fish and show the genetic changes that occurred. You know this is
>impossible. You are trying to define "vestigial structures" out of
>existence, just like you failed to do with "nascent structures". I
>think criteria (1) and (2) are perfectly good to demonstrate the
>vestigial nature of a structure.
Pagano replies:
It is not necessary that every generation be sampled. And (1) and (2)
are only good enough if (3) is accepted as true a priori. But this
is exactly what is at issue. A significant number of people including
non creationists don't accept (3) as true a priori. We are looking
for genuine scientific tests of its verisimilitude.
If Groves now admits that there is no way to demonstrate that some
purported organ "became" vestigial as the result of the neoDarwian
process then the hypothesis that vestigial organs are predicted by
neoDarwinian evolution is not testable. Guess what buckaroo...that
makes the claim unscientific.
And guess what this ends the game. If the Cave Fish document only
discusses (1) and (2) and assumes (3) to be true a priori then this is
not evidence that the structure or organ is corroborative of
neoDarwinian evolution. This is the whole dispute.
The game will be over early unless Groves steps up to the plate.
Possibly Groves is out without ever having thrown a single pitch.
Regards,
T Pagano
Traklman
>Untestable and therefore Unscientific. Ga,me Ov
>From: A Pagano anthony...@verizon.net
>Date: 11/16/2002 12:49 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <imcdtu8uhti46l3o0...@4ax.com>
>
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:47:54 +0000 (UTC), gro...@cco.caltech.edu
>(Andy Groves) wrote:
>
>>A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:<a5hqsuo1r2so0pcsf...@4ax.com>...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
>>> establish that a structure or organ
>>> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
>>> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
>>> history which did perform a useful function, and
>>
>>I sent you a review on eyeless cave fish on July 1st of this year. Did
>>you read it, and if so, do you agree that the "eyes" of these fish fit
>>criteria of points (1) and (2)?
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is exactly what I suspected and why Dunford and Thompson both
>crashed.
In other words: No, you did not read it, and are therefore not in any position
to discuss the evidence or arguments it presents.
>I dispute the characterization of vestigial because the
>characterization is raised up as an observable corroboration of
>neoDarwinian evolution.
>In order for the structure or organ to be
>characterized as "vestigial" it must have "evolved" to that condition
>via the neoDarwinian mechanism.
>
What is the source for this definition? Can you provide an entry from any
dictionary or biology textbook that specifically defines vestigial (in part) as
"having evolved via neoDarwinian evolution"? Even if you can provide such a
source, does it give this as the only or even primary definition?
If an apparently vestigial structure had actaully evolved via genetic drift, or
even some form of neo-Lamarckian evolution, would it not really be vestigial?
Even if it weren't would it not nonetheless be evidence that evolution had
happened?
Keep in mind that Darwin and his contemporaries were not neo-Darwinian, yet
they studied comparative anatomy and identified certain structures as
vestigial, or if you prefer to insist on Darwin's terminology: "rudimentary".
It is obviously impossible that they meant anything that evolved via
neo-Darwinian processes, since such processes were as yet unknown to them, yet
naturalists in Darwin's time had no trouble identifying such structures and
adducing them as evidence for evolution.
So obviously there *is* at least one viable sense of the word "vestigial" (as a
synonym for what Darwin meant by "rudimentary") that does not require
demonstration of evolution via neo-Darwinian processes, and there is no reason
why we can not use the concept in the same sense that Darwin himself might have
used it, and it is organs that are vestigial in this sense that are considered
to be evidence that evolution has happened.
>If that condition arose via some other process-----like say a
>Mendelian one or a process regulated by other genes-----then the organ
>or structure is NOT evidence of neoDarwinian evolution.
But it *would* be evidence of evolution, period, which need not be
neo-Darwinian.
And I would like to know what the differences are among what you mean by: a)
a neo-Darwinian process; b) a Mendelian process, and c) a process regulated by
"other genes".
>>
>>> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
>>
You have yet to show that this requirement for demonstrating "vestigiality"
derives from any source other than your rectum.
>>How on earth could one establish that? We would have to go back and
>>sample every generation leading to the establishment of the eyeless
>>fish and show the genetic changes that occurred. You know this is
>>impossible. You are trying to define "vestigial structures" out of
>>existence, just like you failed to do with "nascent structures". I
>>think criteria (1) and (2) are perfectly good to demonstrate the
>>vestigial nature of a structure.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>It is not necessary that every generation be sampled. And (1) and (2)
>are only good enough if (3) is accepted as true a priori. But this
>is exactly what is at issue. A significant number of people including
>non creationists don't accept (3) as true a priori. We are looking
>for genuine scientific tests of its verisimilitude.
>
No one except you requires demonstration of 3) at all as a requirement for
identifying a structure as vestigial. If a structure that meets only the first
two requirements isn't vestigial, what is it?
It is the sort of structure we expect to see, where and when we tend to see it,
if evolution is occuring; they are not something one could predict or explain
otherwise. Neo-Darwinian processes are a proposed mechanism that is adequate
to the observed data about such structures and which renders them intelligible.
>If Groves now admits that there is no way to demonstrate that some
>purported organ "became" vestigial as the result of the neoDarwian
>process then the hypothesis that vestigial organs are predicted by
>neoDarwinian evolution is not testable. Guess what buckaroo...that
>makes the claim unscientific.
And since this strawman claim is yours and yours alone, guess what buckaroo,
that makes your strawman unscientific.
>
>And guess what this ends the game. If the Cave Fish document only
>discusses (1) and (2)
1) and 2), along with what we know about the organism, its environment, and
those of similar organisms, are sufficient to support the *inference* that
evolution has occured. That is the whole point. In this thread, you have not
even addressed that this line of inference exists, let alone discussed its
merits.
>and assumes (3) to be true a priori
No one assume 3) to be true a priori, they infer it from 1), 2) and other
available evidence.
It is you who are assuming that there is no such inference. Since you do not
seem to have read the cave fish article, you cannot know what lines of evidence
and reasoning its authors and readers might have used to conclude that the eyes
in question are vestigial. And thus, you cannot refute such an inference,
since you don't really know what it is.
>then this is
>not evidence that the structure or organ is corroborative of
>neoDarwinian evolution. This is the whole dispute.
>
>The game will be over early unless Groves steps up to the plate.
The game has not even started unless you address the line of reasoning used to
infer evolution from what we observe (1 and 2). All you have done is assert
that the use of the term "vestigial" requires the a priori assumption that it
be produced by neo-Darwinian processes. You have never supported this
assertion, and nobody here even knows what you're talking about when you assert
it. Until you establish this claim, there is no game for Groves or anyone else
to play, and you will just be playing with yourself.
>Possibly Groves is out without ever having thrown a single pitch.
>
In baseball, at least, one does not normally throw pitches when one steps up to
the plate. Nice mixture of metaphors.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
>Regards,
>T Pagano
Mark Isaak
Hamilton) wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:37:09 +0000 (UTC), We get signal. Main screen
>turn on. "C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>>"Cheek teeth" takes on new and sinister meanings if you have your head up
>>your butt.
Seconded.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
Don't read everything you belive.
Dick
Excuse me for butting in, but the vestigial question and the
perfection of god question bothers me.
I don't believe in the old god of Genesis who was the perfectionist.
I see the universe as a vast experimental laboratory in which,
starting with BB ideas were tested and some discarded. When we get
to life, I am intrigued by the presence of a stable programmable means
to alter life.
Why would we expect the intelligence manipulating life forms to clean
out the data base and start over each time? Why not allow harmless
residue, or why not forget to remove non functional material?
In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
ID throws out potential answers.
catshark
wrote:
Remind me *not* to have you design my next car.
>
>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
>
>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
>ID throws out potential answers.
Exactly what potential *answers* are you talking about? You keep
saying this but you are no better than Pagano is at giving anything we
can evaluate.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
Matt Silberstein
<di...@christophers.net>:
[snip]
>Excuse me for butting in, but the vestigial question and the
>perfection of god question bothers me.
>
>I don't believe in the old god of Genesis who was the perfectionist.
FWIIW the God of Genesis is not perfect, not if you actually read
the text.
>I see the universe as a vast experimental laboratory in which,
>starting with BB ideas were tested and some discarded. When we get
>to life, I am intrigued by the presence of a stable programmable means
>to alter life.
>
>Why would we expect the intelligence manipulating life forms to clean
>out the data base and start over each time? Why not allow harmless
>residue, or why not forget to remove non functional material?
IOW you propose some unknown unevidenced entity or entities with
unknown abilities and unknown goals. And you think that is a
useful explanation. And, btw, this entity or entities do not act
like human designers. Human design shows many examples of
cross-fertilization. Computers, for example, show up fully formed
as a feature in cars. We find a multiply connected network in
human design, we find a tree in biology.
>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
So given you complete lack of knowledge about this designer you
want to start ignoring evidence when figuring out what the
designer did or wants. Sorry, but that sounds like a bad idea to
me.
>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
>ID throws out potential answers.
Give us an example of such a potential answer.
--
Matt Silberstein
Observation favors the stable, the persistent
David Sienkiewicz
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:47:54 +0000 (UTC), gro...@cco.caltech.edu
> (Andy Groves) wrote:
>
> >A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<a5hqsuo1r2so0pcsf...@4ax.com>...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
> >> establish that a structure or organ
> >> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> >> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> >> history which did perform a useful function, and
> >
> >I sent you a review on eyeless cave fish on July 1st of this year. Did
> >you read it, and if so, do you agree that the "eyes" of these fish fit
> >criteria of points (1) and (2)?
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is exactly what I suspected and why Dunford and Thompson both
> crashed.
Tony, you DO have quite an imagination.
Thompson and Dunford had your lunch over this issue; and a lot of us
who are not as well-versed in the subject learned something as a
result.
In that sense, you do have your uses; but it's almost pathetic how you
once again showed just how "unteachable" you are.
< snip >
> In order for the structure or organ to be
> characterized as "vestigial" it must have "evolved" to that condition
> via the neoDarwinian mechanism.
>
> If that condition arose via some other process-----like say a
> Mendelian one or a process regulated by other genes-----then the organ
> or structure is NOT evidence of neoDarwinian evolution.
Tony, what's the difference between a neodarwinian mechanism and a
Mendelian mechanism?
< snip >
Traklman
>put to Tony Pagano
>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>Date: 11/16/2002 3:50 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <vbfdtucf669qajo24...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 07:04:03 +0000 (UTC), david.si...@attbi.com
>(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>
>>A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:<b49btugipf9j291ga...@4ax.com>...
>>> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>>
>>< snip >
>
>
>Excuse me for butting in, but the vestigial question and the
>perfection of god question bothers me.
>
I believe the main point about vestigial structures isn't that they aren't
"perfect". Even good functional organs aren't perfect.
The point is that vestigial organs appear to serve little or no purpose at all,
and can even be something of a nuisance to the organism that has them. From a
design standpoint, they are not merely suboptimal, they appear downright
incongruous, as would a reduced, non-functioning turntable on your new stereo
system, or a reduced, non-function card-reader on your Macintosh.
>I don't believe in the old god of Genesis who was the perfectionist.
>
>I see the universe as a vast experimental laboratory in which,
>starting with BB ideas were tested and some discarded. When we get
>to life, I am intrigued by the presence of a stable programmable means
>to alter life.
>
I am intrigued at what leads you to believe that such a thing exists. What
does it mean to say that something is "programmable". What is "programmable"
about life? How do you know that it is "programmable"?
And why do you think that this programming is stable? The evidence suggests
that our genetic code inevitably degenerates, and that life is constantly
changing.
>Why would we expect the intelligence manipulating life forms to clean
>out the data base and start over each time? Why not allow harmless
>residue, or why not forget to remove non functional material?
>
Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
about any appearance you could name, or not.
>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
>
>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
>ID throws out potential answers.
Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
vestigial structures.
We live in a world littered with the traces of events from life's history.
Among these are the vestigial structures we find in life forms: fascinating,
surprising, and potentially informative traces of past biological events.
Mainstream scientists seem to think that studying traces such as these and
trying to interpret them might be the best source, possibly the only relevant
source, for clues about the processes by which we came to be.
Positing the existence of an intelligent designer who could at any time
confound our expectations of how nature might act would greatly dilute the
usefulness of this evidence. How does this help us in considering all the
answers? What new vistas open up before us if we make the habit of saying
about any potential piece of evidence: "Oh, but that doesn't necessarily mean
anything; it could just as well have been rigged up that way by clever
bioengineers from Vega, or by the God of Abraham et al."?
If there is any strong evidentiary support for an intelligent designer out
there, I am confident that scientists left to their own devices will find it,
quite possibly within a decade or so, given the current rate of research and
discovery in the life sciences. But if we proceed from the position that the
evidence can't necessarily be interpreted to mean anything, which is basically
what your position on vestigial structures boils down to, scientists won't be
able to find very many answers at all. And that is just about the most
effective means I can think of of throwing out potential answers, and ensuring
that they remain thrown out.
Steven J.
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:47:54 +0000 (UTC), gro...@cco.caltech.edu
> (Andy Groves) wrote:
>
> >A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<a5hqsuo1r2so0pcsf...@4ax.com>...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
> >> establish that a structure or organ
> >> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> >> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> >> history which did perform a useful function, and
> >
> >I sent you a review on eyeless cave fish on July 1st of this year. Did
> >you read it, and if so, do you agree that the "eyes" of these fish fit
> >criteria of points (1) and (2)?
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is exactly what I suspected and why Dunford and Thompson both
> crashed. I dispute the characterization of vestigial because the
> characterization is raised up as an observable corroboration of
> neoDarwinian evolution. In order for the structure or organ to be
> characterized as "vestigial" it must have "evolved" to that condition
> via the neoDarwinian mechanism.
>
it must have evolved (been inherited with modifications) from some
functional ancestral structure, period. The structure is a "vestige"
or remnant of some primitive functional precursor. How it lost its
functionality is, strictly, irrelevant to its vestigial character.
>
> If that condition arose via some other process-----like say a
> Mendelian one or a process regulated by other genes-----then the organ
> or structure is NOT evidence of neoDarwinian evolution.
>
Vestigial structures (or, more precisely, rudimentary homologs of
functional structures in otherwise similar species) are a prediction
of, and evidence for, common descent, rather than of any particular
mechanism for common descent.
There is, indeed, a question as to whether these structures are better
explained as the result of natural selection -- mutations which make
the structures less expensive in resourcs (now that they aren't needed
for anything) giving a reproductive advantage (because resources can
be diverted to other needs) -- or whether the *lack* of selection is
sufficient explanation (because natural selection ignores any
variations that affect the structure, and most possible alleles will
reduce and degrade the structures).
Aside from the fact that you don't, and probably could not to save
your life, explain what difference you discern between "Mendellian"
explanations and "neoDarwinian" ones, the modern synthesis includes
Mendellian mechanisms. But again, the cause of evolutionary change is
a secondary issue; common descent can be demonstrated apart from any
ideas regarding its mechanism. Darwin, for example, deduced common
descent before he came up with natural selection.
>
> >> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
> >
> >How on earth could one establish that? We would have to go back and
> >sample every generation leading to the establishment of the eyeless
> >fish and show the genetic changes that occurred. You know this is
> >impossible. You are trying to define "vestigial structures" out of
> >existence, just like you failed to do with "nascent structures". I
> >think criteria (1) and (2) are perfectly good to demonstrate the
> >vestigial nature of a structure.
>
> Pagano replies:
> It is not necessary that every generation be sampled. And (1) and (2)
> are only good enough if (3) is accepted as true a priori. But this
> is exactly what is at issue. A significant number of people including
> non creationists don't accept (3) as true a priori. We are looking
> for genuine scientific tests of its verisimilitude.
>
As noted above, this is wrong. If a structure was functional in an
ancestor, but is not functional in its descendant (and this is what
[1] and [2] state) then the structure is vestigial by definition.
Vestigial structures are not offered as evidence of mechanism
(although they imply limits on the sorts of mechanisms which could
explain the change -- it must work only by incremental modifications
of existing structures), much less as proof of whatever phantasm you
imagine to be "neoDarwinism." They are offered principally as
evidence of common descent. If you concede that the eyeless cave fish
share a common ancestor with the fish with functional eyes, then you
must concede that the nonfunctional eyes are vestigial.
>
> If Groves now admits that there is no way to demonstrate that some
> purported organ "became" vestigial as the result of the neoDarwian
> process then the hypothesis that vestigial organs are predicted by
> neoDarwinian evolution is not testable. Guess what buckaroo...that
> makes the claim unscientific.
>
This is surely wrong, on two separate counts.
In the first place, yet again, the vestigial structures are offered as
evidence of common descent by some mechanism, which might not be
"neoDarwinian." The existence of nonfunctional or less-functional
homologs of obviously functional structures in related species is
evidence of common descent, which explains such structures as
evolutionary vestiges. It is not clear that creationism can explain
such structures, except by borrowing evolutionary explanations and
trying to limit them to within "created kinds." In any case, a
structure is vestigial purely by virtue of having lost functionality
in the course of descent with modification, regardless of the
mechanism involved.
In the second place, it is astonishing that the man (you) who has so
often noted that theories are underdetermined by the evidence should
fail to note that a theory might predict something, without being the
only possible theory that would make that prediction. The modern
synthesis (of mutation theory and natural selection) clearly implies
that some structures will become unused, and that unused structures
will become vestigial. The existence of (apparently) vestigial
structures is a confirmation of this theory (and of any other theory
that makes the same predictions). One can certainly test to see if
any such structures (as described above) actually exist.
>
> And guess what this ends the game. If the Cave Fish document only
> discusses (1) and (2) and assumes (3) to be true a priori then this is
> not evidence that the structure or organ is corroborative of
> neoDarwinian evolution. This is the whole dispute.
>
But (3) is not assumed a priori; it is not relevant to the vestigial
status of these organs. Now, it may be that you have been conducting
this entire argument on the basis of a misunderstanding, and that you
would have no objection to vestigial organs if they did not
automatically imply the hated "neoDarwinian mechanisms." Granted,
there is amply evidence that the mechanisms (mutations, including
beneficial mutations, and mutations that increase the total number of
genes, and mutations that accumulate to produce "irreducibly complex"
systems), and natural selection, but it is, of course, rather
difficult to show that these mechanisms were operating in any
particular past evolutionary event. All that can be shown is that the
results were compatible with the mechanisms.
>
> The game will be over early unless Groves steps up to the plate.
> Possibly Groves is out without ever having thrown a single pitch.
>
Why should he pitch, when the evidence suggests you never even showed
up at the batter's box?
Dick
wrote:
That is how I see DNA. The entire "code" needed to form a replicate
of the organism represented by the genes.
>And why do you think that this programming is stable? The evidence suggests
>that our genetic code inevitably degenerates, and that life is constantly
>changing.
The major classification: bird, reptile, fish, mammal, insect have
remain functionally intact. We know one when we see one.
Modification happen, but most fail to speciate as I understand the
process. So, I consider the programming stable.
>
>>Why would we expect the intelligence manipulating life forms to clean
>>out the data base and start over each time? Why not allow harmless
>>residue, or why not forget to remove non functional material?
>>
>
>Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
>same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
>course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
>because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
>That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
>about any appearance you could name, or not.
I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
require completion before having a function that can add to a
creatures successful testing against the environment.
Evolutionists have had some rather fanciful explanations over the
years, man has a creative imagination.
>
>>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
>>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
>>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
>>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
>>
>>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
>>ID throws out potential answers.
>
>Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
>incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
>of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
>vestigial structures.
Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
been rejected by those speaing for ID. I suggested an alternative
explanation. Vestigial structures are open to debate. I don't know
that anyone is defending one explanation over another.
>
>We live in a world littered with the traces of events from life's history.
>Among these are the vestigial structures we find in life forms: fascinating,
>surprising, and potentially informative traces of past biological events.
>Mainstream scientists seem to think that studying traces such as these and
>trying to interpret them might be the best source, possibly the only relevant
>source, for clues about the processes by which we came to be.
>
>Positing the existence of an intelligent designer who could at any time
>confound our expectations of how nature might act would greatly dilute the
>usefulness of this evidence. How does this help us in considering all the
>answers? What new vistas open up before us if we make the habit of saying
>about any potential piece of evidence: "Oh, but that doesn't necessarily mean
>anything; it could just as well have been rigged up that way by clever
>bioengineers from Vega, or by the God of Abraham et al."?
>
>If there is any strong evidentiary support for an intelligent designer out
>there, I am confident that scientists left to their own devices will find it,
>quite possibly within a decade or so, given the current rate of research and
>discovery in the life sciences.
Surprise, I agree. If there is a designer, research will discover it
and its nature.
> But if we proceed from the position that the
>evidence can't necessarily be interpreted to mean anything, which is basically
>what your position on vestigial structures boils down to, scientists won't be
>able to find very many answers at all. And that is just about the most
>effective means I can think of of throwing out potential answers, and ensuring
>that they remain thrown out.
If you throw out any form that suggests ID, then the research will
never discover its existence even if it is present. If we cannot show
a path for the IC systems to be explained, then one possible answer
would be ID. The pity is until we accept the possibility no one will
be looking for a mechanism for intervention. We can go on explaining
it all happens by accidental mutations, or consider that there might
be intelligence in the mutations.
Andy Groves
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:47:54 +0000 (UTC), gro...@cco.caltech.edu
> (Andy Groves) wrote:
>
> >A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<a5hqsuo1r2so0pcsf...@4ax.com>...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> And in order to sustain a characterization of "vestigial" one must
> >> establish that a structure or organ
> >> (1) currently serves no function or has little or no utility,
> >> (2) resembles the structure of its predecessors in evolutionary
> >> history which did perform a useful function, and
> >
> >I sent you a review on eyeless cave fish on July 1st of this year. Did
> >you read it, and if so, do you agree that the "eyes" of these fish fit
> >criteria of points (1) and (2)?
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is exactly what I suspected and why Dunford and Thompson both
> crashed. I dispute the characterization of vestigial because the
> characterization is raised up as an observable corroboration of
> neoDarwinian evolution. In order for the structure or organ to be
> characterized as "vestigial" it must have "evolved" to that condition
> via the neoDarwinian mechanism.
This is not the first time that Tony had made this simple mistake, but
it bears pointing out again: To label something as "vestigial",
"nascent" , "obese" or "depressed" says *nothing* about the mechanism
by which the thing came to be vestigial, nascent, obese or depressed.
Darwing could actually have made "The Origin of Species" a rather
short pamphlet if he had wanted to. It could have summarised his
theory in a few paragraphs and left things at that. Instead, the bulk
of his book is a list of things that his theory predicted, and his
careful observation of such features in nature. Vestigial structures
are such a feature of living things. The presence of a vestigial
structure does not demonstrate that the structure, or any other part
of the animal arose by evolutionary mechanisms. It is simply
consistent with that idea. It is also consistent with divine
intervention (which has the ability to explain anything, and
therefore, nothing) or intelligent design (likewise). The presence of
vestigial structures in living tings is simply one piece of evidence
that Darwin amassed in support of his theory.
> If that condition arose via some other process-----like say a
> Mendelian one or a process regulated by other genes-----then the organ
> or structure is NOT evidence of neoDarwinian evolution.
How is "a Mendelian process" or "a process regulated by other genes"
different from neoDarwinian evolution? Could Tony please explain this
apparent howler?
> >> (3) that this change is the result of neoDarwinian evolution.
> >
> >How on earth could one establish that? We would have to go back and
> >sample every generation leading to the establishment of the eyeless
> >fish and show the genetic changes that occurred. You know this is
> >impossible. You are trying to define "vestigial structures" out of
> >existence, just like you failed to do with "nascent structures". I
> >think criteria (1) and (2) are perfectly good to demonstrate the
> >vestigial nature of a structure.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> It is not necessary that every generation be sampled.
How many generations, Tony? Please be clear about this.
> And (1) and (2)
> are only good enough if (3) is accepted as true a priori.
Not true. 1 and 2 are perfectly good criteria of something being
labelled "vestigial". Point 3 is just you shifting goalposts.
> But this
> is exactly what is at issue. A significant number of people including
> non creationists don't accept (3) as true a priori. We are looking
> for genuine scientific tests of its verisimilitude.
....and it's rather convenient that the test, cannot be done, right?
You have been defeated at least twice now on your claim that vestigial
structures are not actually vestigial. You are now trying to re-define
the argument to include extra conditions that you know cannot be
fulfilled to divert attention from the fact that your argument has
been proved wrong. If you can't argue the evidence, argue the
law......
> If Groves now admits that there is no way to demonstrate that some
> purported organ "became" vestigial as the result of the neoDarwian
> process then the hypothesis that vestigial organs are predicted by
> neoDarwinian evolution is not testable. Guess what buckaroo...that
> makes the claim unscientific.
Errr....... no. Vestigial organs are predicted by Darwin's theory.
That is not the only theory which predicts vestigial strctures, so why
should we require that a vestigial structrue HAS to arise by strict
natural selection. As Steven J has pointed out, the existence of
vestigial structures is much more strongly in favour of common descent
than they are of strict natural selection.
> And guess what this ends the game. If the Cave Fish document only
> discusses (1) and (2) and assumes (3) to be true a priori then this is
> not evidence that the structure or organ is corroborative of
> neoDarwinian evolution. This is the whole dispute.
No Tony. What was in dispute is that you claimed that vestigial
structures aren't in fact vestigial. And we have proved you wrong. Try
and separate a label from a mechanism and you'll do better.
Andy
Matt Silberstein
<di...@christophers.net>:
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:52:03 +0000 (UTC), trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>wrote:
>
[snip]
>>And why do you think that this programming is stable? The evidence suggests
>>that our genetic code inevitably degenerates, and that life is constantly
>>changing.
>
>The major classification: bird, reptile, fish, mammal, insect have
>remain functionally intact. We know one when we see one.
>Modification happen, but most fail to speciate as I understand the
>process. So, I consider the programming stable.
You need to keep clear two quite distinct things: the genetic
code, which is the mapping from DNA to product, and the other the
thing coded for. One is the "language", the other the "program".
That said, realize that, for example, birds come from dinosaurs.
That may be "functionally intact", whatever that means, but it is
a big change. A change *far* large than mere speciation.
[snip]
>>Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
>>same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
>>course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
>>because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
>>That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
>>about any appearance you could name, or not.
>
>I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
>clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
>locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
>require completion before having a function that can add to a
>creatures successful testing against the environment.
What is the interesting question there? And you really should
learn about these systems. IIANM even Behe has withdrawn both
clotting and "the" flagellum (there are several) from the IC
category. The flagellum was probably some kind of excretion
system, clotting has simpler forms. And what about flight (which
system, bats, birds, petradons, or insects) is IC?
[snip]
>>Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
>>incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
>>of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
>>vestigial structures.
>
>Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
>consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
>been rejected by those speaing for ID. I suggested an alternative
>explanation. Vestigial structures are open to debate. I don't know
>that anyone is defending one explanation over another.
ID is a proposed *answer* to a question, it is not a question.
Saying that some unknown unevidenced designer with unknown
abilities and unknown motives did some unknown thing at some
unknown time is, bizarrely enough, proposed as an answer. If the
question is "how did this system develop", biology already asks
that.
[snip]
>> But if we proceed from the position that the
>>evidence can't necessarily be interpreted to mean anything, which is basically
>>what your position on vestigial structures boils down to, scientists won't be
>>able to find very many answers at all. And that is just about the most
>>effective means I can think of of throwing out potential answers, and ensuring
>>that they remain thrown out.
>
>If you throw out any form that suggests ID, then the research will
>never discover its existence even if it is present. If we cannot show
>a path for the IC systems to be explained, then one possible answer
>would be ID. The pity is until we accept the possibility no one will
>be looking for a mechanism for intervention. We can go on explaining
>it all happens by accidental mutations, or consider that there might
>be intelligence in the mutations.
Until you say what ID actually means it is as good an answer as
"It happened".
--
Matt Silberstein
Stupendous -
The only word that starts off as an insult and ends up as a compliment...
Except, of course, for "Jerking"
Tony Martin
catshark
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:52:03 +0000 (UTC), trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Let's see if we can get a straight answer to a direct question
>>>put to Tony Pagano
>>>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>>>Date: 11/16/2002 3:50 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <vbfdtucf669qajo24...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 07:04:03 +0000 (UTC), david.si...@attbi.com
>>>(David Sienkiewicz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>A Pagano <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:<b49btugipf9j291ga...@4ax.com>...
>>>>> [This is a continuing reply to Dunford.]
>>>>
[snip]
>>>
>>
>>Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
>>same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
>>course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
>>because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
>>That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
>>about any appearance you could name, or not.
>
>I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
>clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
>locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
>require completion before having a function that can add to a
>creatures successful testing against the environment.
>
>Evolutionists have had some rather fanciful explanations over the
>years, man has a creative imagination.
This is rich, coming from someone who, on the basis of absolutely *no*
evidence at all, posits a "corporate" intelligent designer . . .
But it does show what your real agenda is here. ID can simply ask
"interesting questions" which consist of: 'evolution cannot explain
how X arose' but, when scientists say, 'well, here are ways that could
happen' *that's* "fanciful". And, furthermore, when we add the
evidence (say the fossils showing early feathers) indicating how those
supposedly IC systems arose, *you* say 'oh, that's not *enough*
evidence'. IOW, no amount of reasonably available evidence will
suffice. According to you, nothing less than reproducing the *entire*
evolutionary history of life on Earth in the laboratory, will do.
You might just as well come out and admit that you will not accept any
science that contradicts your (ideosyncratic) metaphysics and be done
with it. The only reason why you won't, that I can think of, is the
fact that *no one* would pay an instant's attention to your
metaphysical ideas unless you make outrageous statements about science
first. It is rather pathetic, really. And it makes you a troll.
Von Smith
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:52:03 +0000 (UTC), trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
> wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Let's see if we can get a straight answer to a direct question
> >>put to Tony Pagano
> >>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
> >>Date: 11/16/2002 3:50 PM Central Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <vbfdtucf669qajo24...@4ax.com>
<snip some attributions long-gone>
> >>>< snip >
> >>>< snip >
and snip
> >>I see the universe as a vast experimental laboratory in which,
> >>starting with BB ideas were tested and some discarded. When we get
> >>to life, I am intrigued by the presence of a stable programmable means
> >>to alter life.
> >>
> >I am intrigued at what leads you to believe that such a thing exists. What
> >does it mean to say that something is "programmable". What is "programmable"
> >about life? How do you know that it is "programmable"?
> >
> That is how I see DNA. The entire "code" needed to form a replicate
> of the organism represented by the genes.
Perhaps you did not understand my questions. I asked you "what leads
you to believe...how do you know..." sort of questions. Simply
restating your belief is not an answer. So let's try again:
What leads you to believe that a stable, programmable means to alter
life exists? How do you know it is "programmable"?
>
> >And why do you think that this programming is stable? The evidence suggests
> >that our genetic code inevitably degenerates, and that life is constantly
> >changing.
>
> The major classification: bird, reptile, fish, mammal, insect have
> remain functionally intact. We know one when we see one.
> Modification happen, but most fail to speciate as I understand the
> process. So, I consider the programming stable.
I take it, then, that you reject the chronology of the fossil record?
Because it does not bear out what you say, regardless of how you
interpret the fossils themselves. A comparison of birds, mammals, and
reptiles from 200 million years ago, 100 mya, 50 mya, 10 mya, in some
cases 1 mya shows that their forms have been anything but stable. For
example, in the day of Archaeopteryx, the "birds" we find have teeth,
claws on their forelimbs, and a bony tail. You don't see too many
birds meeting that description these days. Earlier than that, some
220 mya, we find no proper birds at all, but dinosaur-like critters
like Longisquama, which may or may not have had feathers.
Regardless of how you interpret individual forms, it is hard to make
the case that the diverse forms of life have been "stable", or that
the appearance of new species is somehow uncommon, based on the
evidence.
As for failure to speciate, answer me this: how many species
identified in the fossil records from 100 mya exist today?
> >
> >>Why would we expect the intelligence manipulating life forms to clean
> >>out the data base and start over each time? Why not allow harmless
> >>residue, or why not forget to remove non functional material?
> >>
> >
> >Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
> >same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
> >course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
> >because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
> >That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
> >about any appearance you could name, or not.
>
> I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
> clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
> locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
> require completion before having a function that can add to a
> creatures successful testing against the environment.
>
There are no questions worth answering that biology does not already
ask, except for ones which it couldn't answer anyway, such as: "What
is the meaning/purpose of life?" or "Which phenomenon can we interpret
as an unexplainable mystery today?" or "Wouldn't it be cool if
evolution were wrong and we could claim support for our
non-scientifically-based preconceptions?"
> Evolutionists have had some rather fanciful explanations over the
> years, man has a creative imagination.
>
They also have evidence to support many of those explanations,
including ones that were predicted before the evidence came to light.
That scientists use their creativity in brainstorming explanations for
phenomena they observe is hardly a criticism; it is an important part
of science, as it is for many other problem-solving ventures. And
often a novel suggestion will seem "rather fanciful" at first, and
will probably continue to seem so to those ignorant of the field. It
is how well a theory fits what we know and observe, not how it strikes
us superficially, that determines whether or not it is to be deemed
"rather fanciful" or sound.
> >
> >>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
> >>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
> >>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
> >>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
> >>
> >>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
> >>ID throws out potential answers.
> >
> >Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
> >incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
> >of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
> >vestigial structures.
>
> Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
> consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
> been rejected by those speaing for ID.
You suggested above that vestigial structures would be meaningless if
ID were correct. I would say that qualifies as rejecting a line of
inquiry or evidence.
>I suggested an alternative explanation.
No, you suggested that following vestigial structures might be
meaningless. How is that an explanation?
>Vestigial structures are open to debate. I don't know
> that anyone is defending one explanation over another.
>
> >
> >We live in a world littered with the traces of events from life's history.
> >Among these are the vestigial structures we find in life forms: fascinating,
> >surprising, and potentially informative traces of past biological events.
> >Mainstream scientists seem to think that studying traces such as these and
> >trying to interpret them might be the best source, possibly the only relevant
> >source, for clues about the processes by which we came to be.
> >
> >Positing the existence of an intelligent designer who could at any time
> >confound our expectations of how nature might act would greatly dilute the
> >usefulness of this evidence. How does this help us in considering all the
> >answers? What new vistas open up before us if we make the habit of saying
> >about any potential piece of evidence: "Oh, but that doesn't necessarily mean
> >anything; it could just as well have been rigged up that way by clever
> >bioengineers from Vega, or by the God of Abraham et al."?
> >
> >If there is any strong evidentiary support for an intelligent designer out
> >there, I am confident that scientists left to their own devices will find it,
> >quite possibly within a decade or so, given the current rate of research and
> >discovery in the life sciences.
>
> Surprise, I agree. If there is a designer, research will discover it
> and its nature.
>
But you cannot explain how. Apparently you think they cannot do it by
studying vestigial structures, which basically means you dismiss
comparative anatomy. Judging by your ignorance of the fossil record,
you must not think this will help either. And anything that DNA does
cannot be meaningfully distinguished from programming. That doesn't
leave very many lines of inquiry, does it?
> > But if we proceed from the position that the
> >evidence can't necessarily be interpreted to mean anything, which is basically
> >what your position on vestigial structures boils down to, scientists won't be
> >able to find very many answers at all. And that is just about the most
> >effective means I can think of of throwing out potential answers, and ensuring
> >that they remain thrown out.
>
> If you throw out any form that suggests ID, then the research will
> never discover its existence even if it is present.
No one has thrown out any forms except perhaps you. Almost every time
IDers point to some structure and say: "Evolutionists can't explain
this; the literature is silent on this", it turns out to be incorrect.
Often there is a good deal of research on the subject, with proposed
evolutionary explanations for the supposedly unexplainable structure,
and promising lines of evidence pointing to said evolutionary
explanations.
Consider your recent discussion about feathers: You have insisted
that feathers strike you as IC, and suggest that they are hard to
explain via evolution. You ignore evidence that feathers are *not*
IC. That simpler feather structures not only can exist but *do*
exist, even today. That they appear to benefit even birds that cannot
fly. That plenty of critters can fly without them. That apparent
intermediates between reptile scales and feathers appear in the
appropriate order in the fossil record. That a gene can go from
coding for feathers to coding for scales (and so presumably back
again) with a simple point mutation. And you dismiss evolutionary
explanations consistent with all this evidence as "rather fanciful".
Which one of us is throwing out relevant lines of evidence and
inquiry?
>If we cannot show
> a path for the IC systems to be explained, then one possible answer
> would be ID.
One problem with this is that we often *can* show paths for these
systems, so positing ID isn't necessary or even very compelling.
Another is that saying that an unknown designer made these structures
using unknown means for inscrutable purposes isn't really much of an
improvement over saying: "I don't know"; in fact it is worse, since
we end up deluding ourselves into seeing an answer where there is
really an unsolved problem calling for further investigation. When
conducting any honest inquiry, knowing when to say: "I don't know" is
a good thing. Grasping at easy answers is not.
>The pity is until we accept the possibility no one will
> be looking for a mechanism for intervention.
Unless someone can tell us what it is we're looking for, we aren't
really missing anything. On the other hand, if the mechanism is
there, we should eventually find it whether we are looking for it or
not.
>We can go on explaining
> it all happens by accidental mutations, or consider that there might
> be intelligence in the mutations.
>
We can consider that there might be intelligence in top quarks or
gravity, too. I'm not sure that I see what sort of useful answers
this provides for anything, though.
Don1
> >Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
> >incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
> >of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
> >vestigial structures.
>
> Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
> consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
> been rejected by those speaing for ID. I suggested an alternative
> explanation. Vestigial structures are open to debate. I don't know
> that anyone is defending one explanation over another.
>
as saying that vestigial structures are a farce. Are you saying that you
disagree with Pagano's strong stance, because he leaves no chance for
the validity of vestigial structures?
Dick
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from Dick
><di...@christophers.net>:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:52:03 +0000 (UTC), trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>>wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>
>>>And why do you think that this programming is stable? The evidence suggests
>>>that our genetic code inevitably degenerates, and that life is constantly
>>>changing.
>>
>>The major classification: bird, reptile, fish, mammal, insect have
>>remain functionally intact. We know one when we see one.
>>Modification happen, but most fail to speciate as I understand the
>>process. So, I consider the programming stable.
>
>You need to keep clear two quite distinct things: the genetic
>code, which is the mapping from DNA to product, and the other the
>thing coded for. One is the "language", the other the "program".
>That said, realize that, for example, birds come from dinosaurs.
Not everyone is so sure:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1036937.stm
"But in June, scientists at Oregon State University and colleagues
came up with an alternative theory. After examining every detail of
the fossils, which include most of the skeleton, they said they
believed the unusual appendages showed some of the most recognizable
features of a modern-day feather.
Longisquama probably glided, they said, rather than flew, using its
long aerodynamic forelimbs for steering.
The new analysis is unlikely to be the final word in the debate.
No-one has yet come up with a convincing explanation for what the
scale-like structures did.
The Canadian team believe Longisquama could have used its scales to
frighten predators or to attract a mate.
Other experts say the appendages could have been a "missing link"
between scales and feathers. "
>That may be "functionally intact", whatever that means, but it is
>a big change. A change *far* large than mere speciation.
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
>>>same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
>>>course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
>>>because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
>>>That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
>>>about any appearance you could name, or not.
>>
>>I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
>>clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
>>locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
>>require completion before having a function that can add to a
>>creatures successful testing against the environment.
>
>What is the interesting question there? And you really should
>learn about these systems. IIANM even Behe has withdrawn both
>clotting and "the" flagellum (there are several) from the IC
>category. The flagellum was probably some kind of excretion
>system, clotting has simpler forms. And what about flight (which
>system, bats, birds, petradons, or insects) is IC?
I am more persuaded by Michael Denton, microbiologist, "Evolution"
1985. I hear rumors of his changing his mind on some things, but have
not read anything attributable to him.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
>>>incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
>>>of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
>>>vestigial structures.
>>
>>Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
>>consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
>>been rejected by those speaing for ID. I suggested an alternative
>>explanation. Vestigial structures are open to debate. I don't know
>>that anyone is defending one explanation over another.
>
>ID is a proposed *answer* to a question, it is not a question.
>Saying that some unknown unevidenced designer with unknown
>abilities and unknown motives did some unknown thing at some
>unknown time is, bizarrely enough, proposed as an answer. If the
>question is "how did this system develop", biology already asks
>that.
>
Strange most people seem to criticize ID for not supplying answers.
As I read several of the books, they all seem to ask questions.
>[snip]
>
>>> But if we proceed from the position that the
>>>evidence can't necessarily be interpreted to mean anything, which is basically
>>>what your position on vestigial structures boils down to, scientists won't be
>>>able to find very many answers at all. And that is just about the most
>>>effective means I can think of of throwing out potential answers, and ensuring
>>>that they remain thrown out.
>>
>>If you throw out any form that suggests ID, then the research will
>>never discover its existence even if it is present. If we cannot show
>>a path for the IC systems to be explained, then one possible answer
>>would be ID. The pity is until we accept the possibility no one will
>>be looking for a mechanism for intervention. We can go on explaining
>>it all happens by accidental mutations, or consider that there might
>>be intelligence in the mutations.
>
>Until you say what ID actually means it is as good an answer as
>"It happened".
I have heard this message and agree, careful definition of
"intelligence" would be useful. I would like someone to suggest a
mechanism for intervention. If there is "intelligence" in the
universe creation a whole new area of stuff would open up. What
purpose does the intelligence see in this creation? Are we guinea
pigs, or partners?
Dick
I don't "know" it, I speculate. DNA appears to be a program. As it
is obviously modified, it is then "programmable." As far as stable, I
pointed to the very stable basics to fish, insects, birds and mammals.
Didn't Darwin insist that mutations be incremental, doesn't that
suggest stability?
>>
>> >And why do you think that this programming is stable? The evidence suggests
>> >that our genetic code inevitably degenerates, and that life is constantly
>> >changing.
>>
>> The major classification: bird, reptile, fish, mammal, insect have
>> remain functionally intact. We know one when we see one.
>> Modification happen, but most fail to speciate as I understand the
>> process. So, I consider the programming stable.
>
>I take it, then, that you reject the chronology of the fossil record?
>Because it does not bear out what you say, regardless of how you
>interpret the fossils themselves. A comparison of birds, mammals, and
>reptiles from 200 million years ago, 100 mya, 50 mya, 10 mya, in some
>cases 1 mya shows that their forms have been anything but stable. For
>example, in the day of Archaeopteryx, the "birds" we find have teeth,
>claws on their forelimbs, and a bony tail. You don't see too many
>birds meeting that description these days. Earlier than that, some
>220 mya, we find no proper birds at all, but dinosaur-like critters
>like Longisquama, which may or may not have had feathers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1036937.stm
"But in June, scientists at Oregon State University and colleagues
came up with an alternative theory. After examining every detail of
the fossils, which include most of the skeleton, they said they
believed the unusual appendages showed some of the most recognizable
features of a modern-day feather.
Longisquama probably glided, they said, rather than flew, using its
long aerodynamic forelimbs for steering.
The new analysis is unlikely to be the final word in the debate.
No-one has yet come up with a convincing explanation for what the
scale-like structures did."
>Regardless of how you interpret individual forms, it is hard to make
>the case that the diverse forms of life have been "stable", or that
>the appearance of new species is somehow uncommon, based on the
>evidence.
>
>As for failure to speciate, answer me this: how many species
>identified in the fossil records from 100 mya exist today?
I specified major classifications. Speciation is establish fact as
far as I am concerned. Incremental modifications of superficial
features does not alter the major classes.
I have no answer. I know the Lung fish is considered a living fossil,
but I don't know how far back it dates. Since we have no impressions
from soft tissue early life forms would have no record. Well, I guess
some evidence of protein has been found 350 mya.
>
>
>> >
>> >>Why would we expect the intelligence manipulating life forms to clean
>> >>out the data base and start over each time? Why not allow harmless
>> >>residue, or why not forget to remove non functional material?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
>> >same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
>> >course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
>> >because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
>> >That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
>> >about any appearance you could name, or not.
>>
>> I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
>> clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
>> locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
>> require completion before having a function that can add to a
>> creatures successful testing against the environment.
>>
>
>There are no questions worth answering that biology does not already
>ask, except for ones which it couldn't answer anyway, such as: "What
>is the meaning/purpose of life?" or "Which phenomenon can we interpret
>as an unexplainable mystery today?" or "Wouldn't it be cool if
>evolution were wrong and we could claim support for our
>non-scientifically-based preconceptions?"
No, it wouldn't be "cool" nor possible to prove evolution as wrong.
What might be cool is to discover there is a mechanism for
intervention. On the social level I think what is called
"inspiration" may be intervention. By inspiration I mean sudden
awareness of information, explanations, importance of another person.
Musicians, scientists, authors, businessmen, etc. experience such
events. I have heard interviews with major CEOs of trusting their gut
response. We all form instant opinions of new contacts. Falling in
love is one of the more important sensations we humans have.
I don't know if intervention is needed to explain inspirations, but if
such pathways exists, we could at least keep our minds open to the
possibility.
>
>> Evolutionists have had some rather fanciful explanations over the
>> years, man has a creative imagination.
>>
>They also have evidence to support many of those explanations,
>including ones that were predicted before the evidence came to light.
>That scientists use their creativity in brainstorming explanations for
>phenomena they observe is hardly a criticism; it is an important part
>of science, as it is for many other problem-solving ventures. And
>often a novel suggestion will seem "rather fanciful" at first, and
>will probably continue to seem so to those ignorant of the field. It
>is how well a theory fits what we know and observe, not how it strikes
>us superficially, that determines whether or not it is to be deemed
>"rather fanciful" or sound.
>
I know, be practical. Ignore fanciful ideas. Produce, don't
question, grow up. Old sounding ideas.
>> >
>> >>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
>> >>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
>> >>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
>> >>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
>> >>
>> >>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
>> >>ID throws out potential answers.
>> >
>> >Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
>> >incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
>> >of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
>> >vestigial structures.
>>
>> Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
>> consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
>> been rejected by those speaing for ID.
>
>You suggested above that vestigial structures would be meaningless if
>ID were correct. I would say that qualifies as rejecting a line of
>inquiry or evidence.
On the contrary, if the DNA is programmable for the convenience of
"intelligence" then I would suggest it would make sense to turn
function on and off rather than always reprogramming. I was just
reading today about experiments with the berry and apple flies. After
discovering heat rather than diet was making them different, the berry
flies were raised in an elevated temperature comparable to what the
apple flies experienced due to difference in seasonal temperatures.
To everyone's surprise, the features of the apple fly, such as penis
length appeared. The genes were present but turned off until exposed
to the higher temperature.
How many "mutations" might really be reactions to a change in
environment? Nothing to do with ID, except to show how much may be
possible if the DNA can be manipulated externally.
Traklman
>put to Tony Pagano
>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>Message-id: <m2titu0jc38puiep7...@4ax.com>
>
>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:12:28 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
>Smith) wrote:
>
>>Dick <di...@christophers.net> wrote in message
>news:<c05gtu4oh19cfndaq...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:52:03 +0000 (UTC), trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Subject: Re: Let's see if we can get a straight answer to a direct
>question
>>> >>put to Tony Pagano
>>> >>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>>> >>Date: 11/16/2002 3:50 PM Central Standard Time
>>> >>Message-id: <vbfdtucf669qajo24...@4ax.com>
>>
>><snip some attributions long-gone>
<snip>
>>> That is how I see DNA. The entire "code" needed to form a replicate
>>> of the organism represented by the genes.
>>
>>Perhaps you did not understand my questions. I asked you "what leads
>>you to believe...how do you know..." sort of questions. Simply
>>restating your belief is not an answer. So let's try again:
>>What leads you to believe that a stable, programmable means to alter
>>life exists? How do you know it is "programmable"?
>>
>I don't "know" it, I speculate. DNA appears to be a program.
So you speculate based on superficial appearance. Thank you for being honest
about this.
>As it
>is obviously modified, it is then "programmable." As far as stable, I
>pointed to the very stable basics to fish, insects, birds and mammals.
>
So "programmable" and "stable" mean "changing" and "unchanging?" I'm confused
by your usage here.
>Didn't Darwin insist that mutations be incremental, doesn't that
>suggest stability?
>
What Darwin insisted on or not is irrelevant. He certainly knew nothing about
modern genetics.
I read this, too, and in fact I had it in mind. As I said, Longisquama may or
may not have had feathers.
>
>>Regardless of how you interpret individual forms, it is hard to make
>>the case that the diverse forms of life have been "stable", or that
>>the appearance of new species is somehow uncommon, based on the
>>evidence.
>>
>>As for failure to speciate, answer me this: how many species
>>identified in the fossil records from 100 mya exist today?
>
>I specified major classifications. Speciation is establish fact as
>far as I am concerned.
That isn't what you seemed to say earlier:
begin quote:
>>> Modification happen, but most fail to speciate as I understand the
>>> process. So, I consider the programming stable.
end quote.
>Incremental modifications of superficial
>features does not alter the major classes.
>
Incremental modifications of "superficial" features are *exactly* what alters
the major classes. You have read descriptions of a series of forms that differ
only "superficially" from one another, from early theropods to birds.
Incremental changes from feather-like thingies that may actually have been
scales to simple feathers to somewhat more complicated feathers to contour
feathers. Incremental changes to the skeleton to make it more and more
pneumatic. Incremental changes in dentition and the shape of the jaw. You
have not acknowledged them.
>
>I have no answer. I know the Lung fish is considered a living fossil,
>but I don't know how far back it dates.
"Lungfish" does not designate a species, any more than "rodent", "primate", or
"coelacanth" do.
http://www.neosys.ne.jp/neo/english/HG01.html
is a web site that lists a few lungfish. There are photographs six different
species of lungfish from two different families and three different genera.
>Since we have no impressions
>from soft tissue early life forms would have no record. Well, I guess
>some evidence of protein has been found 350 mya.
<snip>
>>> >That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce
>just
>>> >about any appearance you could name, or not.
>>>
>>> I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
>>> clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
>>> locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
>>> require completion before having a function that can add to a
>>> creatures successful testing against the environment.
>>>
>>
>>There are no questions worth answering that biology does not already
>>ask, except for ones which it couldn't answer anyway, such as: "What
>>is the meaning/purpose of life?" or "Which phenomenon can we interpret
>>as an unexplainable mystery today?" or "Wouldn't it be cool if
>>evolution were wrong and we could claim support for our
>>non-scientifically-based preconceptions?"
>
>No, it wouldn't be "cool" nor possible to prove evolution as wrong.
It would indeed be possible to demonstrate that the predictions that common
descent entail are false. The twin nested hierarchy of life forms, and the
significant convergence of various molecular and comparative-anatomy
morphologies that we observe would be vanishingly unlikely if common descent
were false.
It would be possible to demonstrate that DNA testing and cladistics based on
molecular data are not accurate tools for determining ancestry if they actually
weren't. It would be possible to present evidence that populations do not
change genetically over time, or that selection plays little or no role in
these changes, or that mutations-plus-selection cannot modify structures so as
to change their functions if any of these things were the case. It just so
happens that the evidence consistently indicate that all of these things
actually happen.
It should also be possible to demonstrate that no viable evolutionary pathways
exist for certain structures. Contrary to what IDers complain, there *are*
structures that scientists wouldn't be able to explain, such as snakes growing
out of a woman's head, or horses with giant birds' wings growing out of their
backs, or trees that can talk, or geese growing from barnacles.
The point is we don't see them, and evolution can explain why it is that we
won't see them. ID can't. In fact, since these are all what Dembski would
call "specifications" (they are all independently-given or previously
"specified" in folklore), they are exactly the sort of beings that ID theorists
should be looking for if they really want to find confirmation for their
theories. When someone does point to an actual structure found in nature, such
as feathers or flagella, and claim that they are similarly impossible to
explain by evolution scientists are able to point out that they really aren't.
They'd be hard pressed to do that with geese growing from barnacles.
<snip folk psychology>
>>
>>> Evolutionists have had some rather fanciful explanations over the
>>> years, man has a creative imagination.
>>>
>>They also have evidence to support many of those explanations,
>>including ones that were predicted before the evidence came to light.
>>That scientists use their creativity in brainstorming explanations for
>>phenomena they observe is hardly a criticism; it is an important part
>>of science, as it is for many other problem-solving ventures. And
>>often a novel suggestion will seem "rather fanciful" at first, and
>>will probably continue to seem so to those ignorant of the field. It
>>is how well a theory fits what we know and observe, not how it strikes
>>us superficially, that determines whether or not it is to be deemed
>>"rather fanciful" or sound.
>>
>I know, be practical. Ignore fanciful ideas. Produce, don't
>question, grow up. Old sounding ideas.
>
Huh?! How does that follow from anything I said?
>>> >
>>> >>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
>>> >>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
>>> >>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
>>> >>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
>>> >>
>>> >>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
>>> >>ID throws out potential answers.
>>> >
>>> >Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In
>fact,
>>> >incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire
>lines
>>> >of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did
>with
>>> >vestigial structures.
>>>
>>> Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
>>> consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
>>> been rejected by those speaing for ID.
>>
>>You suggested above that vestigial structures would be meaningless if
>>ID were correct. I would say that qualifies as rejecting a line of
>>inquiry or evidence.
>
>On the contrary, if the DNA is programmable for the convenience of
>"intelligence" then I would suggest it would make sense to turn
>function on and off rather than always reprogramming.
Huh? This doesn't seem even to be a response to anything I wrote.
<snip rest of irrelevant response>
>>
>>>I suggested an alternative explanation. >>
>>No, you suggested that following vestigial structures might be
>>meaningless. How is that an explanation?
>>
Still no answer to this question, I see.
No answer to this either. Or to anything that follows. Perhaps Dick intends
to address this in another post, as this thread is getting long.
<snip rest>
Matt Silberstein
Did you have a point here? Other, of course, than to show that
you can read about evidence against your own position and not
notice it. Yes, it is slightly possible that the birds branched
off a bit sooner than we had thought. This does not mean that
some unknown unevidenced undefined entity did some unknown
unspecified thing at some unknown time to make the feathers. It
means that feathers evolved.
>
>>That may be "functionally intact", whatever that means, but it is
>>a big change. A change *far* large than mere speciation.
>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>Pointing out that vestigial structures are possible given a designer is not the
>>>>same thing as demonstrating that your hypothesis can explain it. It is of
>>>>course true that vestigial organs are possible according to ID. That is
>>>>because anything is possible according to ID, except, apparently, evolution.
>>>>That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce just
>>>>about any appearance you could name, or not.
>>>
>>>I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
>>>clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
>>>locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
>>>require completion before having a function that can add to a
>>>creatures successful testing against the environment.
>>
>>What is the interesting question there? And you really should
>>learn about these systems. IIANM even Behe has withdrawn both
>>clotting and "the" flagellum (there are several) from the IC
>>category. The flagellum was probably some kind of excretion
>>system, clotting has simpler forms. And what about flight (which
>>system, bats, birds, petradons, or insects) is IC?
>
>I am more persuaded by Michael Denton, microbiologist, "Evolution"
>1985. I hear rumors of his changing his mind on some things, but have
>not read anything attributable to him.
So do some research and find out. But that is an argument from
authority, what did he say that persuaded you? That said, if you
don't understand and/or don't care about IC, don't bring it up.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In fact,
>>>>incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire lines
>>>>of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did with
>>>>vestigial structures.
>>>
>>>Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
>>>consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
>>>been rejected by those speaing for ID. I suggested an alternative
>>>explanation. Vestigial structures are open to debate. I don't know
>>>that anyone is defending one explanation over another.
>>
>>ID is a proposed *answer* to a question, it is not a question.
>>Saying that some unknown unevidenced designer with unknown
>>abilities and unknown motives did some unknown thing at some
>>unknown time is, bizarrely enough, proposed as an answer. If the
>>question is "how did this system develop", biology already asks
>>that.
>>
>Strange most people seem to criticize ID for not supplying answers.
>As I read several of the books, they all seem to ask questions.
I criticize them because they say nothing. They offer answers
that are not answers ("God did it" or "The Designer did it"
answers nothing). They don't ask questions, they say that we
don't (currently) have complete answers, and propose that we give
up looking.
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> But if we proceed from the position that the
>>>>evidence can't necessarily be interpreted to mean anything, which is basically
>>>>what your position on vestigial structures boils down to, scientists won't be
>>>>able to find very many answers at all. And that is just about the most
>>>>effective means I can think of of throwing out potential answers, and ensuring
>>>>that they remain thrown out.
>>>
>>>If you throw out any form that suggests ID, then the research will
>>>never discover its existence even if it is present. If we cannot show
>>>a path for the IC systems to be explained, then one possible answer
>>>would be ID. The pity is until we accept the possibility no one will
>>>be looking for a mechanism for intervention. We can go on explaining
>>>it all happens by accidental mutations, or consider that there might
>>>be intelligence in the mutations.
>>
>>Until you say what ID actually means it is as good an answer as
>>"It happened".
>
>I have heard this message and agree, careful definition of
>"intelligence" would be useful. I would like someone to suggest a
>mechanism for intervention. If there is "intelligence" in the
>universe creation a whole new area of stuff would open up. What
>purpose does the intelligence see in this creation? Are we guinea
>pigs, or partners?
Ok, so what does ID actually mean? Do you propose some amorphous
non-corpreal "intelligence" or do you mean some actual physical
entity?
Dick
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I hate to encourage sarcasm, but you raise some reasonable questions
which I no way to answer now or maybe never. You and many others in
this group have a fight with YEC. In this I am on your side. I think
the Christian church has hindered scientific research for centuries
and civilization has suffered. The Church has promoted warfare for
nothing but their selfish ends. They politically have aligned
themselves for political advantages such as state of the Vatican.
So, I am equally against church involvement in political and
educational institutions. That said, I do tend to believe their is
intelligence in the evolution of the universe. My reasons are many
and may have no importance to others. I am not here to change minds.
I am exploring for my own advantage. IC clearly sets a goal of asking
for examination of some biological systems that appear to need all the
parts present at the same time for the structure to have a survival
benefit. The mouse trap analogy is a good one for me.
Recently I was asked to define this "intelligence." I hadn't realized
that I had taken such a significant concept so much for granted. I do
not have a way to define the concept as I use it. I rely on knowing
it when I see it. Not a position I want to defend, but all I have at
this moment. One I see taken by those that find the bird/dinosaur
relationship.
As to the last question. If there is intelligence, I find no way to
believe in a singular force. In fact looking at some of the features
some animals have, I suspect some grad students having fun in the
laboratory. The DNA, if accessible and programmable by yet to be
found mechanisms, then wouldn't all of the various species make some
sense. Trial and error punctuated by humor, lots of error, and many
trials does seem indicated.
Again, I am proposing nothing but find my speculations far more
humorous and fitting than an old know it all god or some in personal
series of accidents which left a poor sampling of the process.
Dick
wrote:
Not understanding your objection. DNA can be modified. Humans do it
every day. Stability is seen in the major life classifications. I
know a fish when I see it (well usually), I know a bird (also
usually), etc. Stability in major classifications. My care is
stable, but when I drive it many changes happen continually. Even the
major change of running out of gas does not alter its "carness."
As to the DNA, genes do get altered. Man can alter genes. The
changes man makes to the DNA are not made to change the DNA, but to
effect a change in the organism. To me this constitutes
programmability.
Speciation is demonstrable in particular features, behaviors, but
major classifications do not seem to be altered. If a human is born
with two heads, no one expects that to become a new species.
>
>begin quote:
>
>>>> Modification happen, but most fail to speciate as I understand the
>>>> process. So, I consider the programming stable.
>
>end quote.
>
>>Incremental modifications of superficial
>>features does not alter the major classes.
>>
>
>Incremental modifications of "superficial" features are *exactly* what alters
>the major classes. You have read descriptions of a series of forms that differ
>only "superficially" from one another, from early theropods to birds.
>Incremental changes from feather-like thingies that may actually have been
>scales to simple feathers to somewhat more complicated feathers to contour
>feathers. Incremental changes to the skeleton to make it more and more
>pneumatic. Incremental changes in dentition and the shape of the jaw. You
>have not acknowledged them.
You are speculating. No proof of scales to feathers that I have read.
At best hair to down may be possible, but down has none of the
qualities other than weight needed to be flight capable.
>
>>
>>I have no answer. I know the Lung fish is considered a living fossil,
>>but I don't know how far back it dates.
>
>"Lungfish" does not designate a species, any more than "rodent", "primate", or
>"coelacanth" do.
>
>http://www.neosys.ne.jp/neo/english/HG01.html
>
>is a web site that lists a few lungfish. There are photographs six different
>species of lungfish from two different families and three different genera.
>
In the snip I said nothing about lung fish as a species. Out of
context I don't recall my point.
What was your intent in proving several species of lung fish?
>>Since we have no impressions
>>from soft tissue early life forms would have no record. Well, I guess
>>some evidence of protein has been found 350 mya.
>
><snip>
>
>>>> >That is precisely the problem with ID as an hypothesis. It could produce
>>just
>>>> >about any appearance you could name, or not.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. ID merely ask questions worth answering. Whether the "blood
>>>> clotting system", "the flight system of a bird," or the "Flagelum"
>>>> locomotor, all raise difficult to expain systems that appear to
>>>> require completion before having a function that can add to a
>>>> creatures successful testing against the environment.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There are no questions worth answering that biology does not already
>>>ask, except for ones which it couldn't answer anyway, such as: "What
>>>is the meaning/purpose of life?" or "Which phenomenon can we interpret
>>>as an unexplainable mystery today?" or "Wouldn't it be cool if
>>>evolution were wrong and we could claim support for our
>>>non-scientifically-based preconceptions?"
>>
>>No, it wouldn't be "cool" nor possible to prove evolution as wrong.
>
>It would indeed be possible to demonstrate that the predictions that common
>descent entail are false. The twin nested hierarchy of life forms, and the
>significant convergence of various molecular and comparative-anatomy
>morphologies that we observe would be vanishingly unlikely if common descent
>were false.
>
Funny, I would think common descent, not biblical from Adam and Eve,
but from a singular cell beginning is part and parcel of "Evolution."
I don't like having to defend myself from untrue assumptions. I never
would nor could argue from the christian bible. I reject that as a
source from anything except interesting philosophy and, at times, good
literature. In any case, fictional. So let's keep those notions off
the table, please.
>It would be possible to demonstrate that DNA testing and cladistics based on
>molecular data are not accurate tools for determining ancestry if they actually
>weren't. It would be possible to present evidence that populations do not
>change genetically over time, or that selection plays little or no role in
>these changes, or that mutations-plus-selection cannot modify structures so as
>to change their functions if any of these things were the case. It just so
>happens that the evidence consistently indicate that all of these things
>actually happen.
>
And?
>It should also be possible to demonstrate that no viable evolutionary pathways
>exist for certain structures. Contrary to what IDers complain, there *are*
>structures that scientists wouldn't be able to explain, such as snakes growing
>out of a woman's head, or horses with giant birds' wings growing out of their
>backs, or trees that can talk, or geese growing from barnacles.
>
>The point is we don't see them, and evolution can explain why it is that we
>won't see them. ID can't. In fact, since these are all what Dembski would
>call "specifications" (they are all independently-given or previously
>"specified" in folklore), they are exactly the sort of beings that ID theorists
>should be looking for if they really want to find confirmation for their
>theories. When someone does point to an actual structure found in nature, such
>as feathers or flagella, and claim that they are similarly impossible to
>explain by evolution scientists are able to point out that they really aren't.
> They'd be hard pressed to do that with geese growing from barnacles.
Feathers and flagella do seem to have to be complete to perform their
applications.
Snakes of a woman's head? Trees that can talk? What is your point?
Are you familiar with Michael Denton? I never have understood the
Dembski "specifications" line of reasoning. I can't think of anything
I read in Denton that didn't make sense to . Can you argue about
Denton's materials?
>
>
><snip folk psychology>
>
>>>
>>>> Evolutionists have had some rather fanciful explanations over the
>>>> years, man has a creative imagination.
>>>>
>>>They also have evidence to support many of those explanations,
>>>including ones that were predicted before the evidence came to light.
>>>That scientists use their creativity in brainstorming explanations for
>>>phenomena they observe is hardly a criticism; it is an important part
>>>of science, as it is for many other problem-solving ventures. And
>>>often a novel suggestion will seem "rather fanciful" at first, and
>>>will probably continue to seem so to those ignorant of the field. It
>>>is how well a theory fits what we know and observe, not how it strikes
>>>us superficially, that determines whether or not it is to be deemed
>>>"rather fanciful" or sound.
>>>
>>I know, be practical. Ignore fanciful ideas. Produce, don't
>>question, grow up. Old sounding ideas.
>>
>Huh?! How does that follow from anything I said?
Sorry if I read too much into your comments. I like to imagine and
think out side of the box. Being practical is often the antidote
suggested.
>
>>>> >
>>>> >>In such a case, following vestigial structures would be meaningless.
>>>> >>Perhaps all they mean is a coded DNA which was close to what the
>>>> >>experimenter wanted had some features which were switched off, but not
>>>> >>removed, the potential was present but the growth switch off.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>This is where the "intelligence" question becomes critical. Rejecting
>>>> >>ID throws out potential answers.
>>>> >
>>>> >Actually, I think incorporating ID throws out potential answers. In
>>fact,
>>>> >incorporating ID in the manner you suggest effectively throws out entire
>>lines
>>>> >of inquiry and evidence as irrelevant or meaningless, as you just did
>>with
>>>> >vestigial structures.
>>>>
>>>> Adding possible answers is not the same as blocking their
>>>> consideration, as I see it. I know of no inquiry or evidence that has
>>>> been rejected by those speaing for ID.
>>>
>>>You suggested above that vestigial structures would be meaningless if
>>>ID were correct. I would say that qualifies as rejecting a line of
>>>inquiry or evidence.
>>
>>On the contrary, if the DNA is programmable for the convenience of
>>"intelligence" then I would suggest it would make sense to turn
>>function on and off rather than always reprogramming.
>
>Huh? This doesn't seem even to be a response to anything I wrote.
Ok, I missed a few steps. Vestigial structures have some significance
to evolutionists as indicators of relationship. Bush and his
Hawthorne fruit flies demonstrated that not normally exhibited
characteristic by the Hawthorne fly, (but common to the apple fly)
could exhibited if the Hawthorne fly was incubated at the temperature
normally experienced by the apple fly. So, the features were present
all the time, but not turned on. Leap to programmable DNA. If we
agree the DNA is programmable (when we alter DNA we are not doing so
just to change the DNA, but to alter some downstream event or
feature), then how many inactive features are potentially available to
be turned on if we know which gene sequence to select?
Perhaps what we find as vestigial structures have been in the DNA but
a growth gene wasn't turned on.
Yeah, it is 4 pm my time, and this was the last response to
yesterday's posts I have answered. I have got to find a way to be
more selective, but I get fascinated by the comments and enjoy taking
a stab at responding. I know there are those that would say I am
ignorant, but I will claim I am less ignorant every day.
Traklman
>put to Tony Pagano
>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>Message-id: <bfaltucv6m6egf14h...@4ax.com>
>
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:13:10 +0000 (UTC), trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Let's see if we can get a straight answer to a direct question
>>>put to Tony Pagano
>>>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>>>Date: 11/18/2002 5:29 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <m2titu0jc38puiep7...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:12:28 +0000 (UTC), drea...@hotmail.com (Von
>>>Smith) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dick <di...@christophers.net> wrote in message
>>>news:<c05gtu4oh19cfndaq...@4ax.com>...
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:52:03 +0000 (UTC), trak...@aol.com (Traklman)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>Subject: Re: Let's see if we can get a straight answer to a direct
>>>question
>>>>> >>put to Tony Pagano
>>>>> >>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>>>>> >>Date: 11/16/2002 3:50 PM Central Standard Time
>>>>> >>Message-id: <vbfdtucf669qajo24...@4ax.com>
>>>>
>>>><snip some attributions long-gone>
>>Dick wrote:
>><snip>
>>
but programmable.>
Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know how interesting that is for the
current debate, though.
<snip Longisquama stuff Dick didn't add anything to in his last post>
No, not "proof". Evidence. And you supplied it yourself with the link to the
article about Longisquama. Paleontologists can't agree about whether these
structures were scales, feathers, or something in between. Sounds like
precisely the sort of intermediate you say isn't.
>At best hair to down may be possible, but down has none of the
>qualities other than weight needed to be flight capable.
No one ever suggested that it did. And no one except you seems to think that
this is crucial to the question of whether or not feathers could have evolved.
>
>>
>>>
>>>I have no answer. I know the Lung fish is considered a living fossil,
>>>but I don't know how far back it dates.
>>
>>"Lungfish" does not designate a species, any more than "rodent", "primate",
>or
>>"coelacanth" do.
>>
>>http://www.neosys.ne.jp/neo/english/HG01.html
>>
>>is a web site that lists a few lungfish. There are photographs six
>different
>>species of lungfish from two different families and three different genera.
>>
>In the snip I said nothing about lung fish as a species. Out of
>context I don't recall my point.
>
>What was your intent in proving several species of lung fish?
>
You mentioned lungfish in response to my asking if you knew of any species that
existed 100 mya that still exist today. My point was that "lungfish" isn't a
species.
snip
>>It would indeed be possible to demonstrate that the predictions that common
>>descent entail are false. The twin nested hierarchy of life forms, and the
>>significant convergence of various molecular and comparative-anatomy
>>morphologies that we observe would be vanishingly unlikely if common descent
>>were false.
>>
>Funny, I would think common descent, not biblical from Adam and Eve,
>but from a singular cell beginning is part and parcel of "Evolution."
>I don't like having to defend myself from untrue assumptions. I never
>would nor could argue from the christian bible. I reject that as a
>source from anything except interesting philosophy and, at times, good
>literature. In any case, fictional. So let's keep those notions off
>the table, please.
>
That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Are you reading comprehension
skills really that abysmal?
>
>>It would be possible to demonstrate that DNA testing and cladistics based on
>>molecular data are not accurate tools for determining ancestry if they
>actually weren't. It would be possible to present evidence that populations
do not
>>change genetically over time, or that selection plays little or no role in
>>these changes, or that mutations-plus-selection cannot modify structures so
>as to change their functions if any of these things were the case. It just so
>>happens that the evidence consistently indicate that all of these things
>>actually happen.
>>
>
>And?
And this puts the lie to your claim that it wouldn't be possible to prove
evolution as wrong.
>
<snip discussion of specifications, and Dick's response that this is irrelevant
since he doesn't subscribe to Dembski's ideas>
>Are you familiar with Michael Denton? I never have understood the
>Dembski "specifications" line of reasoning. I can't think of anything
>I read in Denton that didn't make sense to . Can you argue about
>Denton's materials?
Yes, but I don't see the point. You are working with claims Denton himself has
since modified or retracted. And at any rate, you've been using the term IC a
lot lately, a term that belongs to Behe's or Dembski's terminology rather than
Denton's.
>
>>
>>
>><snip folk psychology>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Evolutionists have had some rather fanciful explanations over the
>>>>> years, man has a creative imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>They also have evidence to support many of those explanations,
>>>>including ones that were predicted before the evidence came to light.
>>>>That scientists use their creativity in brainstorming explanations for
>>>>phenomena they observe is hardly a criticism; it is an important part
>>>>of science, as it is for many other problem-solving ventures. And
>>>>often a novel suggestion will seem "rather fanciful" at first, and
>>>>will probably continue to seem so to those ignorant of the field. It
>>>>is how well a theory fits what we know and observe, not how it strikes
>>>>us superficially, that determines whether or not it is to be deemed
>>>>"rather fanciful" or sound.
>>>>
>>>I know, be practical. Ignore fanciful ideas. Produce, don't
>>>question, grow up. Old sounding ideas.
>>>
>>Huh?! How does that follow from anything I said?
>
>Sorry if I read too much into your comments. I like to imagine and
>think out side of the box.
So do scientists. But when evolutionary biologists think outside the box of
what *you* are able to imagine, you reject their suggestions and call them
"rather fanciful". I guess we all only have a limited number of boxes we can
think outside of.
>Being practical is often the antidote
>suggested.
>
<snip rest for now. I'll deal with vestigial structures and apple maggot flies
later>
Dick
wrote:
I see no basis to argue with the existence of vestigial structures.
Dick
wrote:
Nor do I. I am quite surprised that people are so interested in
contesting what I say. I form my own opinions. I don't believe I
have reached any final conclusions, nor do I expect to do so in this
life time.
I almost look forward to death if I will be able to ask unlimited
questions.. The first will be why did I go through all this?!!
I mentioned lungfish because several times I have read it referred to
as a living fossil. It is a presumed link between fish and lizard as
I understand it. I have read that it has not changed since the first
fossils.
>
>snip
>
>>>It would indeed be possible to demonstrate that the predictions that common
>>>descent entail are false. The twin nested hierarchy of life forms, and the
>>>significant convergence of various molecular and comparative-anatomy
>>>morphologies that we observe would be vanishingly unlikely if common descent
>>>were false.
>>>
>>Funny, I would think common descent, not biblical from Adam and Eve,
>>but from a singular cell beginning is part and parcel of "Evolution."
>>I don't like having to defend myself from untrue assumptions. I never
>>would nor could argue from the christian bible. I reject that as a
>>source from anything except interesting philosophy and, at times, good
>>literature. In any case, fictional. So let's keep those notions off
>>the table, please.
>>
>
>That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Are you reading comprehension
>skills really that abysmal?
Yes, my reading skill in this case was absolutely abysmal! I got
"common descent confused with the YEC Adam and Eve story. Sorry.
>>
>>>It would be possible to demonstrate that DNA testing and cladistics based on
>>>molecular data are not accurate tools for determining ancestry if they
>>actually weren't. It would be possible to present evidence that populations
>do not
>>>change genetically over time, or that selection plays little or no role in
>>>these changes, or that mutations-plus-selection cannot modify structures so
>>as to change their functions if any of these things were the case. It just so
>>>happens that the evidence consistently indicate that all of these things
>>>actually happen.
>>>
>>
>>And?
>
>And this puts the lie to your claim that it wouldn't be possible to prove
>evolution as wrong.
Maybe its the hour or the booze. Your last statement doesn't reach my
thought processes. Can you reword?
>
>>
>
><snip discussion of specifications, and Dick's response that this is irrelevant
>since he doesn't subscribe to Dembski's ideas>
>
>>Are you familiar with Michael Denton? I never have understood the
>>Dembski "specifications" line of reasoning. I can't think of anything
>>I read in Denton that didn't make sense to . Can you argue about
>>Denton's materials?
>
>Yes, but I don't see the point. You are working with claims Denton himself has
>since modified or retracted. And at any rate, you've been using the term IC a
>lot lately, a term that belongs to Behe's or Dembski's terminology rather than
>Denton's.
You are right. It is Dembski that i can understand ("Intelligent
Design") and Behe i find obscure. Thanks for catching my error.
Traklman
>put to Tony Pagano
>From: Dick di...@christophers.net
>Message-id: <50gotu4f0j4lgd8fo...@4ax.com>
>>>><snip>
<snip>
Me:
>>>>It would indeed be possible to demonstrate that the predictions that
>common
>>>>descent entail are false. The twin nested hierarchy of life forms, and
>the
>>>>significant convergence of various molecular and comparative-anatomy
>>>>morphologies that we observe would be vanishingly unlikely if common
>descent
>>>>were false.
<snip>
Still me:
>>>>It would be possible to demonstrate that DNA testing and cladistics based
>on
>>>>molecular data are not accurate tools for determining ancestry if they
>>>actually weren't. It would be possible to present evidence that
>populations
>>do not
>>>>change genetically over time, or that selection plays little or no role in
>>>>these changes, or that mutations-plus-selection cannot modify structures
>so
>>>as to change their functions if any of these things were the case. It just
>so
>>>>happens that the evidence consistently indicate that all of these things
>>>>actually happen.
Dick:
>>>And?
Me:
>>And this puts the lie to your claim that it wouldn't be possible to prove
>>evolution as wrong.
>
Dick:
>Maybe its the hour or the booze. Your last statement doesn't reach my
>thought processes. Can you reword?
You had seemed to state in a passage long since snipped that you didn't think
evolution couldn't be falsified. I was holding forth on all the possible cases
in which it could be. This thread has become a rather tangled skein, so it's
not surprising if you got confused about what I was responding to. (Hint: It
helps if you trim parts of messages you're not going to address).
Alistair W Smith
>
> >Actually, the whole thread was started here by David S. who quoted Pagano
> >as saying that vestigial structures are a farce. Are you saying that you
> >disagree with Pagano's strong stance, because he leaves no chance for
> >the validity of vestigial structures?
>
> I see no basis to argue with the existence of vestigial structures.
I thought the debate was on the explanation of their existence.
Al.
A Pagano
(Andy Groves) wrote:
Pagano replies:
In the context of evolutionary biology the labels "vestigial" and
"nascent" take on specific meanings. I've never heard the labels
"obese" or "depressed" used within that context.
Now Groves apparently denies that vestigial structures and organs are
the result of the neoDarwinian process? This would mean that
vestigial structures are not corroborative of neoDarwinian evolution.
That would be fine with me and game over. And if he is simply
hedging to insulate himself from having to produce empirical evidence
testing the claim that neoDarwinism was the process then game over.
>Darwing could actually have made "The Origin of Species" a rather
>short pamphlet if he had wanted to. It could have summarised his
>theory in a few paragraphs and left things at that. Instead, the bulk
>of his book is a list of things that his theory predicted, and his
>careful observation of such features in nature. Vestigial structures
>are such a feature of living things. The presence of a vestigial
>structure does not demonstrate that the structure, or any other part
>of the animal arose by evolutionary mechanisms.
Pagano replies:
Either vestiges are the result of the neoDarwinian process or they are
not. Darwin didn't claim mere consistency he claimed that they were
predicted by his theory. In 1925 at the Scopes Trial one or more
experts enterred statements that characterized vestigial organs in
humans and in the animal kingdom as strong evidence in favor of
Darwinian evolution and inconsistent with special creation. These
arguments from evolutionists continued in force until the late 1970s
and early 80s.
If Groves concedes that vestiges are not the result of neoDarwinian
evolution then it matters little to me whether they exist or not. And
the game is over.
>It is simply
>consistent with that idea. It is also consistent with divine
>intervention (which has the ability to explain anything, and
>therefore, nothing) or intelligent design (likewise).
Pagano replies:
I doubt that there is any creationist consensus that genuine vestiges
exist. And there hasn't been any serious attempt to explain apparent
vestiges. I have a sizable creationist library and subscribe to two
creationist journals. Game over.
>The presence of
>vestigial structures in living tings is simply one piece of evidence
>that Darwin amassed in support of his theory.
Pagano
If so then offer a test and produce the empirical evidence. Otherwise
game over. There's not much point in reviewing the cave fish document
when I can dispose of your position by simply evaluating your
underlying position.
Either I'm getting better or my usual opponents are getting worse.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Tracy P. Hamilton
He specifically mentioned that this could happen as both the result
of neutral evolution or from selection (two *different* mechanisms).
It is YOU who has added conditions (shifted the goalposts) from the
1) and 2) above that YOU proposed.
I report, you lose.
[snip]
> Pagano replies:
>I doubt that there is any creationist consensus that genuine vestiges
>exist. And there hasn't been any serious attempt to explain apparent
>vestiges. I have a sizable creationist library and subscribe to two
>creationist journals. Game over.
Pagano tells us that creationists are not seriously dealing with the
arguments for vestigial organs. Game forfeited by the
creationists.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Building Manager, Alco Hall
University of Ediacara
Steven J.
>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> This is exactly what I suspected and why Dunford and Thompson both
> >> crashed. I dispute the characterization of vestigial because the
> >> characterization is raised up as an observable corroboration of
> >> neoDarwinian evolution. In order for the structure or organ to be
> >> characterized as "vestigial" it must have "evolved" to that condition
> >> via the neoDarwinian mechanism.
>
> >This is not the first time that Tony had made this simple mistake, but
> >it bears pointing out again: To label something as "vestigial",
> >"nascent" , "obese" or "depressed" says *nothing* about the mechanism
> >by which the thing came to be vestigial, nascent, obese or depressed.
>
> Pagano replies:
> In the context of evolutionary biology the labels "vestigial" and
> "nascent" take on specific meanings. I've never heard the labels
> "obese" or "depressed" used within that context.
>
of a species, and "depressed" with reference to the normal emotional
state. In that respect, both have meaning, like "nascent" and
"vestigial," only relative to other things. Now, Darwin recognized
"nascent" structures by how imperfectly adapted they were to their
current purpose, which can only be assessed by comparing them to more
perfect adaptions to the same end (e.g. the skin flaps of flying
squirrels vs. the wings of bats). And "vestigial" structures likewise
can be recognized by comparing them to functional homologs in similar
species.
>
> Now Groves apparently denies that vestigial structures and organs are
> the result of the neoDarwinian process? This would mean that
> vestigial structures are not corroborative of neoDarwinian evolution.
> That would be fine with me and game over. And if he is simply
> hedging to insulate himself from having to produce empirical evidence
> testing the claim that neoDarwinism was the process then game over.
>
optimistically) tried to spell out explicitly: that the "neoDarwinian
process" comprises two separate ideas.
One of these is (branching) common descent, by the incremental
modification of preexisting structures. This is the process that
gives rise to the nested hierarchy of life, and is subject to testing,
confirmation, and potential falsification by seeing if the actual
characteristics of life fall into such a consistent nested hierarchy.
Each structure in each living thing should be a modification of some
ancestral structure, and thus detectable as a modified from of some
structure in allied species. If an organism doesn't *need* some
structure in its current lifestyle, but its nearest allies have it, it
is likely that it will possess a homologous structure in reduced form.
Common descent explains such structures as "vestiges" of the same
functional structure similar species possess.
Darwin concluded, by 1836, that common descent was correct, and
explained the problem of homologies and vestigial structures. Other
people had come to this conclusion before him, although rarely as
clearly as he had. What he lacked was an explanation for common
descent itself, a way to modify species that drastically in the course
of descent. By 1838, he settled on "natural selection" of "random
variations" arising from unknown (although he suspected "Lamarckian")
causes. The modern synthesis incorporated mutations as the source of
new variation into the theory of natural selection.
But the evidence, including vestigial structures, for common descent
does not much depend on any particular mechanism for common descent.
One can accept, as Darwin did for a couple of years, the former while
having no idea, or a non-Darwinian idea, about what provides the
latter.
>
> >Darwing could actually have made "The Origin of Species" a rather
> >short pamphlet if he had wanted to. It could have summarised his
> >theory in a few paragraphs and left things at that. Instead, the bulk
> >of his book is a list of things that his theory predicted, and his
> >careful observation of such features in nature. Vestigial structures
> >are such a feature of living things. The presence of a vestigial
> >structure does not demonstrate that the structure, or any other part
> >of the animal arose by evolutionary mechanisms.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Either vestiges are the result of the neoDarwinian process or they are
> not. Darwin didn't claim mere consistency he claimed that they were
> predicted by his theory. In 1925 at the Scopes Trial one or more
> experts enterred statements that characterized vestigial organs in
> humans and in the animal kingdom as strong evidence in favor of
> Darwinian evolution and inconsistent with special creation. These
> arguments from evolutionists continued in force until the late 1970s
> and early 80s.
>
Now, I note that you contrast "Darwinian evolution" with "special
creation." That is, you are distinguishing between common ancestry
for different "kinds" and unrelated, individually created "kinds." At
most, you are arguing for a contrast between common descent by *any*
naturalistic mechanism with no long- term direction, and the expected
results of some sort of "intelligent design."
>
> If Groves concedes that vestiges are not the result of neoDarwinian
> evolution then it matters little to me whether they exist or not. And
> the game is over.
>
Again, this is surely not true. I hardly think you would be happy
with the idea that you share common ancestry with howler monkeys,
merely because some mechanism other than differential survival of
variant offspring propelled the changes from that common ancestor,
especially if that mechanism was so unteleological that it left
useless little relics of past stages of evolution littering your body.
>
> >It is simply
> >consistent with that idea. It is also consistent with divine
> >intervention (which has the ability to explain anything, and
> >therefore, nothing) or intelligent design (likewise).
>
> Pagano replies:
> I doubt that there is any creationist consensus that genuine vestiges
> exist. And there hasn't been any serious attempt to explain apparent
> vestiges. I have a sizable creationist library and subscribe to two
> creationist journals. Game over.
>
I provided you with one reference myself. Now, as to what "consensus"
exists among creationists (who can't agree on the age of the earth, or
whether there was a vapor canopy, or whether God or Satan retrofitted
hordes of vegetarians as carnivores after the Fall), it is hard to
say. But surely the whole idea of "evolution within kinds" and "loss
of information" (in the course of mutation and natural selection)
stronly imply that some structures (like the wings of flightless
beetles) are truly vestigial.
But that isn't Groves's point, of course. The point is, if a YEC can
explain isochron dates indicating a vast age to the Earth by
suggesting that God might have altered radioisotope decay rates (in
perfect unison, with additional miracles to avoid consequences like
melting the planet), he can explain *any* data set by invoking God's
inscrutable will and wisdom. You yourself have come very close to
this, with your insistence that it is reasonable to suppose that, e.g.
vampire bat cheek teeth and the unseeing eyes of cave fish must serve
some function, without being able to give the slightest hint of what
it is, or even any evidence aside from your own dogma that there must
be some purpose.
Creationism can "explain" anything, since there is no way to predict
what the
Creator might choose to do, or how He might choose to do it. The
theory is impossible to test scientifically.
>
> >The presence of
> >vestigial structures in living tings is simply one piece of evidence
> >that Darwin amassed in support of his theory.
>
> Pagano
> If so then offer a test and produce the empirical evidence. Otherwise
> game over. There's not much point in reviewing the cave fish document
> when I can dispose of your position by simply evaluating your
> underlying position.
>
The existence of structures with no discernable function (even if,
perhaps, they have some undiscernable function), but with obviously
functional homologs in other species *is* empirical evidence. The
theory (whether common descent rather than special creation, or
specifically "neoDarwinism" rather than any comprehensible system of
intelligent design) predicts that such structures wil exist. Special
creation can't explain such structures, except by borrowing and trying
to limit (to within "kinds") neoDarwinian mechanisms, or by insisting
that "God did it, and stop asking questions" is an explanation.
>
> Either I'm getting better or my usual opponents are getting worse.
>
Or you're getting so much worse you can't see how badly you're doing.
>
> snip
C. Thompson
Well, Tony, in game parlance: "Strike three! You're out!"
1. Andy Groves wrote no such thing. As usual, the only argument you can
refute is the one you contrive for your opponent.
2. Vesitigal structures are evidence of evolution- whether by selection (as
has been *PAINSTAKINGINGLY* described to you) or drift, nor nonrandom
mating- what have you.
3. Andy Groves has no need to insulate himself from anything. The
structures are vestigial; they themselves are the evidence; and you are one
of maybe a dozen computer owners on the planet who deny that.
>> Darwing could actually have made "The Origin of Species" a rather
>> short pamphlet if he had wanted to. It could have summarised his
>> theory in a few paragraphs and left things at that. Instead, the bulk
>> of his book is a list of things that his theory predicted, and his
>> careful observation of such features in nature. Vestigial structures
>> are such a feature of living things. The presence of a vestigial
>> structure does not demonstrate that the structure, or any other part
>> of the animal arose by evolutionary mechanisms.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Either vestiges are the result of the neoDarwinian process or they are
> not. Darwin didn't claim mere consistency he claimed that they were
> predicted by his theory. In 1925 at the Scopes Trial one or more
> experts enterred statements that characterized vestigial organs in
> humans and in the animal kingdom as strong evidence in favor of
> Darwinian evolution and inconsistent with special creation. These
> arguments from evolutionists continued in force until the late 1970s
> and early 80s.
Tony, you are getting mixed up. This paragraph belongs in the post you made
to alt.history.fabricated. It certainly has no bearing on the current
discussion.
> If Groves concedes that vestiges are not the result of neoDarwinian
> evolution then it matters little to me whether they exist or not. And
> the game is over.
That is your phrase, it is meaningless, and you refuse to define
"neoDarwinian evolution". They are evidence of evolution; they arose by
some mechanism. Because you refuse to integrate this simple relationship is
not cause for the rest of the planet to ignore evidence. And common sense.
And rational thought patterns.
>> It is simply
>> consistent with that idea. It is also consistent with divine
>> intervention (which has the ability to explain anything, and
>> therefore, nothing) or intelligent design (likewise).
>
> Pagano replies:
> I doubt that there is any creationist consensus that genuine vestiges
> exist. And there hasn't been any serious attempt to explain apparent
> vestiges. I have a sizable creationist library and subscribe to two
> creationist journals.
There is no creationist consensus on *anything*, Tony. From the flood to
which hominids are humans and which apes, you can't find 2 creationista to
agree on all points.
> Game over.
Finally, you concede. Glad to see you've finally come to your senses about
these things.
>
>
>> The presence of
>> vestigial structures in living tings is simply one piece of evidence
>> that Darwin amassed in support of his theory.
>
> Pagano
> If so then offer a test and produce the empirical evidence. Otherwise
> game over. There's not much point in reviewing the cave fish document
> when I can dispose of your position by simply evaluating your
> underlying position.
In other words, "I don't want to hear about evidence that contradicts my
preconceptions". Pretty sad, Tony. Not examining evidence that is handed
to you on a platter like that? That is supposed to be science? That is an
open mind?
What it is, is pathetic and ridiculous. A refusal to examine evidence that
someone sent you- SENT TO YOU- shreds whatever tattered remnants of
credibility you once enjoyed. As you say- game over.
>
> Either I'm getting better or my usual opponents are getting worse.
You're not getting better; you're hallucinating.
C. Thompson
PS: Still waiting on those useful molars here, Tony.
>
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
John Drayton
Sorry, I missed where he said that Tony. Could you be more specific?
Is this what you are referring to?
'To label something as "vestigial" ... says *nothing*
about the mechanism by which the thing came to be
vestigial'
I find it difficult to believe that this is what you are referring
to, as I'm can't believe that you would wish to look that stupid.
So just where is this implication, Tony?
--
John Drayton