Proposed alteration to creationtheory.org website

[Darth Wong]

Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance and development of animal features also looks like a family tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of the tree, and as you go farther along each branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this: ALWAYS) stay that way. They never, ever suddenly jump back and forth, even though there's no engineering reason that they couldn't.

Are you sure about this?

I'm just remembering this article. Or is that something different to what you're describing here?

Why do you think that a trait which is lost and then later redeveloped contradicts what I said in any way?

[Rye]

Traits change and then change back because the genes are latent? Didn't you say that doesn't happen?

[Darth Wong]

Traits change and then change back because the genes are latent? Didn't you say that doesn't happen?

Obviously, I need to clarify that passage, because someone who has no reading comprehension can somehow think that "traits don't jump back and forth between branches of the family tree" somehow means "there is no such thing as a latent trait which can redevelop". How would you suggest I reword it, then?

[Nova Andromeda]

-It may not be useful to know this, but "features" can jump from species to species under certain circumstances. For instance, numerous bacteria can pick up DNA sequences literally floating around and incorporate it into their own DNA. Often this is the result of sloppy DNA maintainance/protection/etc (when you've got billions of clones who cares if you lose some). Bacteria also swap plasmids (small DNA "modules" separate from chromosomal DNA) beteween themselves. These plasmids also exchange code with the chromosomal DNA.

[Darth Wong]

-It may not be useful to know this, but "features" can jump from species to species under certain circumstances. For instance, numerous bacteria can pick up DNA sequences literally floating around and incorporate it into their own DNA. Often this is the result of sloppy DNA maintainance/protection/etc (when you've got billions of clones who cares if you lose some). Bacteria also swap plasmids (small DNA "modules" separate from chromosomal DNA) beteween themselves. These plasmids also exchange code with the chromosomal DNA.

Well obviously, Darwin was thinking of much larger features. One could also make the argument for retroviruses. Nevertheless, if you have any suggestions for working that in or making sure it can't be used as a rebuttal, feel free (keeping in mind that this is supposed to be an introduction, not a comprehensive treatise).

[Rye]

Something like this, then? "Contemporary but distinct cousin species (like chimps and modern humans for instance) will continue to vary from one another as time progresses, they will gain new divergent traits that the other species will never receive."

The confusion I experienced is that you don't explain which direction the "jumping" is occurring in; it could be referring to shared traits jumping back and forth in time as well as between contemporary species. For instance, stick insect species A loses its wings, species B doesn't, they diverge for 50 million years, species A's genes jump back and reactivate 50 million year old genes that species B is still using.

[Darth Wong]

Something like this, then? "Contemporary but distinct cousin species (like chimps and modern humans for instance) will continue to vary from one another as time progresses, they will gain new divergent traits that the other species will never receive."

The confusion I experienced is that you don't explain which direction the "jumping" is occurring in; it could be referring to shared traits jumping back and forth in time as well as between contemporary species. For instance, stick insect species A loses its wings, species B doesn't, they diverge for 50 million years, species A's genes jump back and reactivate 50 million year old genes that species B is still using.

Even in the time spectrum, features don't "jump". They may become less prominent or more prominent over time, thus "disappearing" or "reappearing", but you don't see something just suddenly appear. Perhaps there is a need to clarify what "jump" means, but I do that later in the document.

[Ted C]

Obviously, I need to clarify that passage, because someone who has no reading comprehension can somehow think that "traits don't jump back and forth between branches of the family tree" somehow means "there is no such thing as a latent trait which can redevelop". How would you suggest I reword it, then?

"Traits that originate in one branch of the tree never, ever suddenly jump to another, even though there's no engineering reason that they couldn't."

Workable?

[Teleros]

"Traits that originate in one branch of the tree have never (ever?) been observed suddenly jumping to another branch, although previously inactive phenotypes have been observed becoming more active (and previously active ones becoming less active) over time."

I'd go with something like that, mainly because I don't know for certain if it is possible for such jumping or whether it has ever occurred somewhere in nature - my wording leaves open the possibility that it might. Yeah it's playing with semantics but I can be like that .

[Ted C]

"...although previously inactive phenotypes have been observed becoming more active (and previously active ones becoming less active) over time."

I'd go with something like that, mainly because I don't know for certain if it is possible for such jumping or whether it has ever occurred somewhere in nature - my wording leaves open the possibility that it might. Yeah it's playing with semantics but I can be like that .

Your statement actually doesn't ad anything, because "previously active phenotypes" that become active again aren't jumping from one branch of the tree to another.

To use a gross example, you will never, ever see a vertebrate with the sort of compound eyes found in arthropods.

[Teleros]

I was thinking of what DW said when I put that bit in:

may become less prominent or more prominent over time, thus "disappearing" or "reappearing", but you don't see something just suddenly appear.

Remember for a phenotype you need the right genetic makeup - I doubt very much that modern vertebrates have much in the way of the genes for compound eyes that you mention. On the other hand, I do recall reading a while back in New Scientist of how our greater brain size compared to apes etc may be based on a gene (or genes) that are more active in us than in them.

[Ted C]

Under What are the Main Arguments for Creationism?

"The science of [evolution/geology/astrophysics/etc] doesn't make any sense. If it's true, then we should see [insert made-up prediction here], and we don't. And how do scientists explain [insert random science question here]? It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him."

I think the sentence "If it's true, then we should see [insert made-up prediction here], and we don't" doesn't work well for you, since it's formatted as exactly the sort of statement you say should be used to disprove Evolution.

I think something more along the lines of "It can't even explain [insert as-yet unexplained observation here]." You've already said the theory can't be expected to explain everything, so I think that "Creationist talking point" is both more accurate and serves you better.

[Nova Andromeda]

A feature which leaps from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another. For example, mammals evolved from the mammal-like reptile therapsids over 200 million years ago. If a feature which developed in mammals only 10 million years ago suddenly appeared fully-formed in a reptile from the same period with no reptilian antecedent, this would be an example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another. This is quite normal in man-made systems. For example, fuel injection started in race cars and slowly developed from primitive mechanically metered injectors to sophisticated computer-controlled fuel-injection systems. But when the Ford Crown Victoria switched from carburetors to fuel injection, it did not follow this slow progression; computer-controlled fuel injection systems simply appeared in the product line one year, having jumped there from other product lines where all of this development had occurred. We have never found even a single example of such a "branch-jumping" event anywhere in the millions of species of the animal kingdom. Features slowly develop within their branch of origin, and advanced versions do not suddenly appear in other branches.

-How about this modification:
A complex feature which leaps from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another that didn't result from genetic exchange between the branches. For example, mammals diverged from reptiles over 200 million years ago. If snakes suddenly started bearing live offspring instead of being hatched from eggs, this would be an example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another. This is quite normal in man-made systems. For example, fuel injection started in race cars and slowly developed from primitive mechanically metered injectors to sophisticated computer-controlled fuel-injection systems. But when the Ford Crown Victoria switched from carburetors to fuel injection, it did not follow this slow progression; computer-controlled fuel injection systems simply appeared in the product line one year, having jumped there from other product lines where all of this development had occurred. We have never found even a single example of such a "branch-jumping" event anywhere in the millions of species of the animal kingdom. Features slowly develop within their branch of origin, and advanced versions do not suddenly appear in other branches without genetic exchange. One may note that features often jump between bacterial species, however, bacteria and many other simple oraganisms frequently exchange genetic material.

-You might consider take the last sentence and making it into a footnote.

[Darth Holbytlan]

If snakes suddenly started bearing live offspring instead of being hatched from eggs, this would be an example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another.

Some snakes do give live birth.

[Nova Andromeda]

If snakes suddenly started bearing live offspring instead of being hatched from eggs, this would be an example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another.

Some snakes do give live birth.

-Bad wording on my part (the eggs are actually retained inside the animal, it isn't actually the same as mammalian birth as far as I know).

How about this:
If snakes suddenly started giving birth like mammals instead of being hatched from eggs, this would be an example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another

[Lusankya]

If snakes suddenly started bearing live offspring instead of being hatched from eggs, this would be an example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another.

Some snakes do give live birth.

-Bad wording on my part (the eggs are actually retained inside the animal, it isn't actually the same as mammalian birth as far as I know).

How about this:
If snakes suddenly started giving birth like mammals instead of being hatched from eggs, this would be an example of a feature jumping from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another

Lactating would possibly be a better example. After all, monotremes like the platypus and the echidna lay eggs, while marsupials have their young grow inside a pouch for a period of time after birth, so using distinction of "live birth" versus "laying eggs" might be confusing.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Coop D'etat]

I don't know if you can use this or not, but an excellent arguement against the complexity of life requiring a designer is that in protein engineering one of the, if not the, best methods to get a protein with a desired function is to preform directed evolution on it. Basically this involves causing random mutations to the protein sequence, selecting the most effective new sequences and then "mate" them by making combinations of said sequences. Repeat this process many times and, just like evolutionary theory predicts, you can get a functional protein structure that works far better than one you could have designed completely from scratch.

Any argument that this doesn't aply to larger systems like organs is complete hooey because pratically every feature of an organism is related to protein function in some way since proteins are pretty much the only way to express genetic information (we could talk about RNA ribozymes but they have only a small role and their sequence and structure are subject to the same evolutionary pressures as proteins).

[lPeregrine]

Hopefully this isn't old enough to be considered necromancy:

Point #1 (Attacking Empiricism) under "A Question of Philosophy" is actually kind of a mis-quote of Hume's argument. The conclusion isn't that we should throw out all predictions of sunrise, it's that we can't justify them by reason alone. All logic without observation can do is tell us what a hypothetical sunrise might be, we can't be sure that hypothetical sunrise actually exists until we build a pattern of observation. So it's really an argument in favor of empiricism, not against it.

While Hume claims that supporting the principle of induction requires some circular logic, he also clearly states that the "it's what works" argument is a very strong one and that it is far better than any alternative. So any creationist who tries to use Hume, one of the earliest supporters of empricism, to attack empiricism is guilty of not only bad philosophy but outright lying.

[Darth Wong]

Hopefully this isn't old enough to be considered necromancy:

Point #1 (Attacking Empiricism) under "A Question of Philosophy" is actually kind of a mis-quote of Hume's argument. The conclusion isn't that we should throw out all predictions of sunrise, it's that we can't justify them by reason alone. All logic without observation can do is tell us what a hypothetical sunrise might be, we can't be sure that hypothetical sunrise actually exists until we build a pattern of observation. So it's really an argument in favor of empiricism, not against it.

That's a nice spin on what he's saying, but it actually means that the conclusion of sunrise tomorrow is irrational, which is nonsense. Even with a pattern of observation, Hume declares it irrational to make that conclusion.

While Hume claims that supporting the principle of induction requires some circular logic, he also clearly states that the "it's what works" argument is a very strong one and that it is far better than any alternative.

But he basically describes it as a form of intuition, not logic.

So any creationist who tries to use Hume, one of the earliest supporters of empricism, to attack empiricism is guilty of not only bad philosophy but outright lying.

Not really. Hume declares that it is an IRRATIONAL conclusion to predict sunrise tomorrow morning, because he believes that induction itself is irrational.

[lPeregrine]

Hopefully this isn't old enough to be considered necromancy:

Point #1 (Attacking Empiricism) under "A Question of Philosophy" is actually kind of a mis-quote of Hume's argument. The conclusion isn't that we should throw out all predictions of sunrise, it's that we can't justify them by reason alone. All logic without observation can do is tell us what a hypothetical sunrise might be, we can't be sure that hypothetical sunrise actually exists until we build a pattern of observation. So it's really an argument in favor of empiricism, not against it.

That's a nice spin on what he's saying, but it actually means that the conclusion of sunrise tomorrow is irrational, which is nonsense. Even with a pattern of observation, Hume declares it irrational to make that conclusion.

While Hume claims that supporting the principle of induction requires some circular logic, he also clearly states that the "it's what works" argument is a very strong one and that it is far better than any alternative.

But he basically describes it as a form of intuition, not logic.

So any creationist who tries to use Hume, one of the earliest supporters of empricism, to attack empiricism is guilty of not only bad philosophy but outright lying.

Not really. Hume declares that it is an IRRATIONAL conclusion to predict sunrise tomorrow morning, because he believes that induction itself is irrational.

I'll have to get back to this later with some exact quotes, but the point he makes is that it may be irrational, but it's still useful. That example was written in a context of "this is useful and a fundamental part of how human thought works, but why?", not "should we use induction?". That he fails to find a purely rational justification for it is a criticism of reason without observation, not empiricism.

But knowing the context would help... where did this argument come from? Is it from your own reading and dislike of Hume's work, or is it quoted by creationist opponents?

[Darth Wong]

I'll have to get back to this later with some exact quotes, but the point he makes is that it may be irrational, but it's still useful. That example was written in a context of "this is useful and a fundamental part of how human thought works, but why?", not "should we use induction?". That he fails to find a purely rational justification for it is a criticism of reason without observation, not empiricism.

Do you not understand what it means to conclude that something is irrational? It means it's nonsense. It means you may as well resort to reading tea leaves or praying to sky fairies for your answers. And sure enough, guess what kind of people quote Hume.

But knowing the context would help... where did this argument come from? Is it from your own reading and dislike of Hume's work, or is it quoted by creationist opponents?

It's quoted not just by creationists, but by ANYONE who opposes empiricism in all its forms, because it reduces all of science to the same level of "it's not logical but I know it works for me" that religious idiots have been using since the dawn of time.

[lPeregrine]

I'll have to get back to this later with some exact quotes, but the point he makes is that it may be irrational, but it's still useful. That example was written in a context of "this is useful and a fundamental part of how human thought works, but why?", not "should we use induction?". That he fails to find a purely rational justification for it is a criticism of reason without observation, not empiricism.

Do you not understand what it means to conclude that something is irrational? It means it's nonsense. It means you may as well resort to reading tea leaves or praying to sky fairies for your answers. And sure enough, guess what kind of people quote Hume.

I think the difference is Hume makes a distinction between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact", while you're combining the two into a general "rationality". It's a difference of historical context, Hume's arguments are an attack on a logic-without-observation philosophy that isn't taken seriously today. Remember, his work was written at a time when empiricism was far from accepted, and a dominant opinion was that we could look at the sun and reason our way to a sunrise without ever witnessing one. Now that we, in our modern society, have accepted empiricism as part of rationality, the obsolete terms are kind of misleading.

Besides, Hume himself says, "none but a fool or madman will ever pretend to dispute the authority of experience". Even if Hume failed to find justification besides "it works" (an impossible task, try to prove the rules of logic without using any rules of logic), he definitely argued that it was far better than any alternative.

But knowing the context would help... where did this argument come from? Is it from your own reading and dislike of Hume's work, or is it quoted by creationist opponents?

It's quoted not just by creationists, but by ANYONE who opposes empiricism in all its forms, because it reduces all of science to the same level of "it's not logical but I know it works for me" that religious idiots have been using since the dawn of time.

And I find that surprising, since the context I've seen Hume quoted in is in support of empiricism. From my understanding and everything I've heard from my philosophy student friends, Hume would be very surprised to find his work being used to attack empiricism.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, religious idiots just can't resist a good strawman.