In this esoteric article (for me, anyway), the author explores evolution and looks at the question that's been raised here before... How is it that cephalopod eyes and human eyes seemed to have evolved on completely different paths, yet are so similar? The approach of this article (which debunks the notion of creationism) actually makes the point that there is at least one significant difference...

Neither Intelligent nor Design (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/intelligent-design.html)

A-freakin'-men.

:notworth:

All relatively sound, but... I still don't get how ceph eyes are so similar to human eyes, notwithstanding the fact that we don't have eyes on the sides of our heads... which would be kinda cool, btw...

:cyclops: (<---- 2nd occassion to use this smiley in last 10 minutes)

Cornea, iris, lens, retina. Same basic structures doing the same basic jobs, but no common ancestor of cephs and vertebrates could've had anything remotely like a complex eye of this type. There are still tons of differences in the details, of course.

:cyclops:

Agreed... you might say the devil's in the details! :mrgreen:

I still marvel at how we're symmetrical... split us down the middle, we're the same on both sides... two feet, two eyes, two lungs, kidneys, all that.. but liver and appendix and pancreas, not so symmetrial... heart... kinda, but not quite...

Weird stuff that I don't have much education on.

That is very interesting, isn't it? I've been trying to catch up on the 9 years of biology I missed so that I can understand that kind of stuff. That, and how those pesky chromatophores evolved.


Agreed... you might say the devil's in the details! :mrgreen:

:lol:

My two cents:

Reading this article made me realize that the subject of Mississippi vs. Scopes is still very much an issue here in the ‘States. It also sadly demonstrates the lack of knowledge in what religion and science each are, and their roles in our world.

I know this will provoke ire, but it should be noted that arguments of “intelligent design” and “scientific creationism” tend to do a disservice to both the sciences and religions.

The focus of science is to discover empirical truths; i.e. that which can be quantified or otherwise measured by scientific means (the scientific method). It is a tool for the gathering of knowledge, despite any consequences or moral implications. Religion, on the other hand, is based in faith. Most religions are tools for the moral or ethical path of life and thus are based on philosophies not based in science. Though these esoteric concepts of ethics, love, and good and evil clearly exist, they are best defined by nonscientific means. Boiling the concept down to its base components, faith is about in what one believes and cannot prove. Religion is faith in action.

Certain creation-vs.-evolution-based religious arguments say that science says that there is no creator, or god. Such statements are ridiculous. By its very definition science cannot make that statement because the existence of the metaphysical cannot be proven by scientific means, and therefore it falls outside the realm of science. And it should be noted that science cannot prove nor disprove the validity of religious beliefs, so the realm of “scientifically based atheism” is, in an interesting twist of fate, a belief system. In the end it’s a faith to believe that a given religion or religions are wrong.

Oh, and out the octopus eye thing? It’s just the way things are. Similar needs, similar tools. Believe what you will, but keep in mind that certain “designs” are favored whether by evolution, God, or both.

Sushi and Sake (proof of the divine Inari)

John

As long as we avoid anything remotely approaching theocracy, I'll be happy.

John's absolutely right. Obviously, since our ignorance is unbounded, faith is going to enter into the picture at some point, whether we're talking about science or religion. Science, ideally, allows faith to be more fluid than does religion. If God is proven to exist, then science will forbid atheism. Atheists choose not to believe in the unproven (which is no fun). Actually, they should call themselves agnostic (like me) if they claim their views are based on science.

What bothers me is when "creationists" attempt to justify rejection of evolution on similar grounds. OK, so maybe you can't "unequivocally" prove evolution (in the broadest sense) unless you find a way to keep records for a really long time. To say that there is not enough evidence to teach it as scientific fact in schools is silly. Let's take certain born-again governors of certain bible-belt states who've had no problem allowing scores of executions. The folks on death row have not, in general, been proven guilty as thoroughly as evolution has been proven true. Nobody would ever concede that the condemned were sentenced to death based on simple faith in their guilt. There was no reasonable doubt, right?. If, as a religious society, we are going to live by that rule in the arena of dispensing with human life, then I think it should also apply in the classroom.

What really bugs me is that creationists don't see how evolution would actually be a stronger testament to the unfathomable greatness of God. It's so much more elegant and interesting than, "Presto! Here is a blue whale I have just pulled out of my hat."

:cthulhu:

ID is largely based on 'The Arguement by Disbelief' i.e. it usually invovles the statement "I can't believe" and follows that up with things like "such a complex structure could evolve by chance", etc.

A good overview of the evolution of the eye is in Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" in Chapter 5 'The Forty-fold Path to Enlightment' (which touches on the evolution of cephalopod eyes, along with a wide range of other animals).

Emps

Regarding my cranky pre- :coffee: post above, I do believe that science should always be presented as providing (or attempting to provide) the best available interpretation of nature, given the input data. Evolution, for example, should not simply be presented as an unqualified fact. Dogmata of any sort should not be nurtured. So, not only should I be tolerant of creationism, I should welcome its challenges. Healthy science needs its exercise.

Blah, blah, blah... :)

Yo, great post John! I'm glad I read that, that's the logical clarity I couldn't bring front-of-mind on this issue!

Emps, thanks much for the reference, sounds like good reading. :read:

Um..., I myself would find it quite interesting to see someone pull a blue whale out of a hat. :shock: :D

I just assumed God had a big head. One gets that impression from perusing the Old Testament. :oops:

:x (me, burning in Hell)

I just assumed God had a big head.
:roflmao:

Agreed... you might say the devil's in the details! :mrgreen:

I still marvel at how we're symmetrical... split us down the middle, we're the same on both sides... two feet, two eyes, two lungs, kidneys, all that.. but liver and appendix and pancreas, not so symmetrial... heart... kinda, but not quite...

Weird stuff that I don't have much education on.

:feet:

Did you know that there was going to be an article related to the development of asymmetry in vertebrate embryos in the current issue of Nature (427), or is this just one of those spooky coincidence-type things? I tried to read it, but it's all gobbledegook. What I did gather from it, though, is that it isn't yet clear what initially causes symmetry breaking. The article deals primarily with events that fix the asymmetric pattern of gene expression so that it can propagate through later stages of development (I think).

Just thought I'd let you know you were in excellent company. :)

Raya, A. et al. Notch activity acts as a sensor for extracellular calcium during vertebrate left–right determination. Nature 427, 121-128 (2004) :bonk:

Very cool, I had no idea... :goofysca: ... But if you don't understand it, I'm not gonna bother... :indiffer:

:roll:
If symmetry kept going for a couple more cycles, vertebrates could have 16 legs and four heads. Would most of them move sideways by rolling sideways around their spinal axis?!?
Those maintaining a vertical spinal posture would only have eight legs (octopods?), and eight arms. They would also have eight eyes (like spiders?)

:roll:

Georgia considers banning 'evolution' (http://us.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html)

Sweet Jeezus.

[rant suppressed]

Do you live here Um...?

No, I don't. (Thankfully, because otherwise I'd be angry and not just dismayed.)

:cthulhu:

Yup thats just stupid. :roll:

Georgia considers banning 'evolution'

:lol: No more mutating in Georgia!

It's fine not teaching evolution because those creatures that need to do so seem to do fine without any lessons.

Melissa

Melissa, :notworth: .


And those who wouldn't allow lessons apparently haven't.

:lol: Well said Melissa!

And well said Um.... (the fourth dot isnt part of his name. :))

Yes, good follow-through by um, our notes crossed.

Sounds like someone needs to shine a light on Georgia.

Hey its just considering banning.

Indeed, and banning the word, but not changing the lessons otherwise. Making "evolution" something like "biologically induced change" or something laughable like that. It's a bad precedent, and a bad start. First question is, why are parents complaining about evolution being taught in schools? If you have contradictory religious beliefs, instill them via those institutions. But since we can't do much about their complaining (it's their right), the second question becomes, why on earth would the school ban the word according to their wishes??

Perhaps we should all buy up homes in Georgia and complain that the word "octopus" should be changed to "Neil Diamond" in all educational textbooks. Would they also accommodate that change with taxpayer dollars? It seems no less ridiculous.

Teacher: How many hearts does Neil Diamond have?
Student: Three?
Teacher: Very good.

:lol: Exactly.

Turn on your heart lights... (or whatever)

What was that about 'evolution' being a "buzzword"? Heck, 'buzzword' is now a freakin' "buzzword".

well ill be a monkey's uncle, i guess Jimmy isnt as bad as i thought.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html

I love that bit at the end.

:notworth:, Jimmy.

Well I don't fully believe the evolution theory. Scientist Georges Cuvier argued that from fossils that domestic animals had not really changed since ancient times and that that the dissapearane of various fossils was due to the animal becoming extinct rather than evolving.

Cuvier stated that we would find fossils with gradual modifications and that species do not just turn into new ones overnight. He also disagreed on spontaneous generation (The idea that life could arise from non-living matter.), Cuvier pointed out that Life had always arisen from life, we see it being transmitted but never produced.

As for the similar structures that we can find in various animals, it is just as plausible that the similarity between their structures were created from a basic design from a common creator.

Cuvier recognised that that vestigial organs existed and should be studied. He believed that these organs were not useless leftovers of evolution and that they were useful.

The tailbone for example which is thought to be remnants of a tail is now recognised as an important point of attachments for muscles which help maintain our posture and support our intestines. Tonsils were also once considered vestigial but we now know that they are important disease fighting organs. Over 180 other organs once considered useless are now known to have important functions.

Would you really expect domestic animals to change that much, to the point of speciation, over the course of a dozen millenia? Not much in the way of selective pressure on a farm, is there, aside from selective breeding? How extensive was his evidence?

The fact that 'vestigial' organs may be more useful than previously thought does not strike me as any kind of evidence against evolution. The structures are useful, and that's why they've been kept. It's expensive to divert resources to support useless tissue, and I would be surprised if anyone found very many truly useless leftovers of evolution anywhere.

As the article that started this whole thing pointed out, if we are the product of an intelligent design, then the designer was rather inept. Doesn't sound like a good description of God to me.

A geek sent me a quote from a page promoting a theory of unintelligent design that may amuse some readers:

"But instead of being swayed by either side, we at UDN, Inc. have found a theory that effectively merges the strengths of the two theories without the weaknesses. The intelligent design people say there are too many holes in the fossil record, and that evolution is only a theory; the scientists say there's not enough evidence of intelligent design. So we say, instead, that life has indeed been designed, just not very well."

http://www.theshrubbery.com/udn/

Melissa

:lol: Love it.

Speaking on this subject, did you know whales have hip bones? That's like if a human engineer put an outboard boat motor on a city bus. I think it's clear God never went to college, and I'm thinking it's sketchy he even has his GED.

:lol:

It's great!

BOE, Carol, Steve, and Neil.

what about the appendix?

I read an interesting article on that little bugger a while back. I'll try to find it.

Im looking forward to it. :D

BOE, Steve, Neil, and Carol.
Sorry about Ink Carol.
:(

This thread would have my Mum frothing at the mouth............she's pretty much a creationist and I'm well....................not! (all that scientific training y'understand!) After a few screaming matches we agreed not to talk about it any more!!

But it brings to mind one of my favourite quotes

"If God had indeed lavished his best design on the animal created in his own image, Creationists would have to conclude that God is really a squid"

- J. Diamond (not N :D )

:lol:

j

well lookit that I'm a :meso:

well lookit that I'm a :meso:

Welcome to the giant cranchiid club.

:mesonych:

All,

Kick Valentine's Day to the curb, it's time for Darwin Day. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=572&ncid=572&e=2&u=/nm/20040212/lf_nm/darwin_dc_1)

:heee:

Clem

Hey, I think it's way past time that we brought back the Dark Ages. Name one good thing the world has produced since the 16th century. :roll:

I am utterly terrified by this:

In the United States, where a survey in 2002 found that 45 percent of the population believe an all-powerful deity created the universe and all life in it within the last 10,000 years...

:alarm:

Of interest...

Fish fossil confirms origin of nostrils (http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99996607)

Georgia School Board in Court Over Evolution Flap (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=7&u=/nm/20041108/sc_nm/life_evolution_dc)

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

At first, I wanted to get angry over this. After considering it for a few minutes, however, I’m convinced that it’s actually a step in the right direction. The problem I have now is that the sticker doesn’t go nearly far enough—that textbook is probably infested with theories, not facts, regarding several aspects of living things. If not that book, I’m sure that other biology textbooks are (I own a couple). And the problem, I think, is even more pervasive than it first appears. You see, physics textbooks, too, contain theories. Why, just the other day I stumbled across a summary of the theory of general relativity in one of ‘em. Sure, there’s a mountain of evidence and successful predictions supporting that theory, and even practical applications of it in things like the ubiquitous Global Positioning System. But it’s still just a theory, and it should get a sticker, too. Come to think of it, a lot of my textbooks—and not just the scientific ones—are distressingly sparse when it comes to facts. Oh, they contain some facts, but it seems that the darned things are overflowing with page after page of interpretations, opinions, and various analyses and syntheses. True, courses that focus on critical thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html) might help obviate the constant reiteration of the caveat that knowledge is dynamic and intrinsically tentative, but teaching that stuff would take up so much precious time and require so much effort (and it might prove downright dangerous for certain political entities to have all that pesky open-minded, careful, critical consideration going on). Nah, I say we just slap a silly litte sticker on everything. Let’s start with the Holy Books, and then move on to the newspapers...


DOWN WITH DOGMA! Unless it’s mine or Kevin Smith's

Yeah, its interesting that creationists don't let little things like evidence get in the way of their beliefs. Faith can do some wonderous things, just ask the followers of Jim Jones.....

Anyone who has read a wide range of books in their life can simply work out which "theory" to believe in. An octopus doesn't even have to read anything to know that it all comes down to survival of the fittest. Instead of arguing over where we all came from, just look at the beauty of nature and feel proud that we are a part of it.

Did you guys hear about Antony Flew? He was the leading atheist for 50 years and recently changed his mind and now believes in Intelligent Design. I just finished watching the documentary (http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/) that made AP news and it was amazing. I am amazed that there are actually people out there that can look at the odds of life randomly forming and still believe that that is what happened! :smile:

Did you guys hear about Antony Flew? He was the leading atheist for 50 years and recently changed his mind and now believes in Intelligent Design. I just finished watching the documentary (http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/) that made AP news and it was amazing. I am amazed that there are actually people out there that can look at the odds of life randomly forming and still believe that that is what happened! :smile:

Well, I guess you'll have to be amazed. Go figure.:mrgreen:

I've never heard of Antony Flew, but if Wikipedia is to be believed (always an open question), his position is considerably more dubious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

I see nothing on the web site you link to that shows any sign of "AP news"-- it looks like nothing more than an ad for the DVD. At my most cynical, I would suspect that your post is really just an ad for the DVD, and you won't be back to actually interact on TONMO, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I offer:

You may find this thread interesting as well, although some folks have found it uncomfortably skewed in the evolution direction: http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4621

that is probably the best place if you are interested in an intelligent discussion, although continuing on this thread is probably fine as well.

p.s. I find the name of the producers of the DVD rather ironic: "Institute for MetaScientific Research" suggests that the research is not scientific. I find that refreshingly honest.

I am always amazed when people win lotteries. The odds are astoundingly against people winning them, yet people continue to do so. How strange. Actually, the a priori probability of the vast majority of events is effectively zero, yet events continue to happen. It could almost make your head explode.

I am always amazed when people win lotteries. The odds are astoundingly against people winning them, yet people continue to do so. How strange. Actually, the a priori probability of the vast majority of events is effectively zero, yet events continue to happen. It could almost make your head explode.

:notworth: well said. Brings to mind _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead_ and _Gravity's Rainbow_, a bit.

Of interest...

Fish fossil confirms origin of nostrils (http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99996607)

Oh my gosh, those poor fish! Imagine, always smelling your own halitosis-infested breath...eugh...:lol:

you don't?

Not when my mouth is closed...