What Do Vestigial Salamander Eyes Prove?
Science
| July 22, 2008
| Tim
Oddly enough, they prove Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins should not be taken at all seriously by intelligent, intellectually honest people.
It seems to me that most atheistic arguments (and possibly also many theistic ones) are mainly for the benefit of those already within the church. Preaching to the choir, as it were. Why? Because they don't even understand what the other side is saying, or believes. You can't show the other side how wrong they are if you can't first get their argument right.
This fantastically stupid rebuttal to "intelligent design" by Christopher Hitchens (with a walk-on cameo by Richard Dawkins) is a classic example. Referring to blind cave salamanders (of which your author has encountered not a few), Dawkins is quoted as saying:
Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?
Had Dawkins & Hitchens been answering "young-earth" creationists (of the "Answers in Genesis" sort, who believe that God created each animals species *poof* at all once, in an instant) this might have at least been an understandable (though wrong, see below) response.
But the little, tiny problem here is that Hitchens & Dawkins imagine this is a rebuttal to intelligent design arguments -- showing clearly they haven't even understood the position they imagine they're refuting. And of course, that begs the next question: If you can't even correctly repeat the arguments of your opponents, how in the world do you imagine you've refuted them?
All you're doing is jousting straw men.
(And cheering at your own alleged prowess thereat!)
Apparently, Hitchens & Dawkins lack access to the "internets" -- else they might have easily ascertained that ID proponents have no problem nor disagreement with the idea that one species came from another:
If [by "evolution"] one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.
Furthermore, ID proponents frequently point out that many or most significant "adaptations" are a result of loss of genetic information or abilities -- and this example would illustrate that argument quite well.
But what makes this situation even funnier is that the cave salamander is still a kind of salamander -- and thus not even an example of speciation. None of H&D's opponents, not even the "young earth" crowd, deny change and adaptation over time within species boundaries. So it's not even a sensible rebuttal to the AiG'ers.
The irony here is that I'm not in agreement with the "young earth" crowd, and also don't believe that "intelligent design" is, strictly speaking, a scientific proposition. (Don't laugh, Darwinists -- much of your stuff is even less so, using the exact same metric.) But at least I understand the arguments I reject.
Which is much more than I can say for these two clowns.
"If [by "evolution"] one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory."
Then what is the differance between evolution and ID? Basically that would be the backbone of the theory of evolution... except the common descent part- that would be an inferance.
"Furthermore, ID proponents frequently point out that many or most significant "adaptations" are a result of loss of genetic information or abilities -- and this example would illustrate that argument quite well."
Duh! It is easier to loss abilities than to gain them. It isn't trivial though- abilities require energy. Parasites are an excellent example of this phenomena.
"But what makes this situation even funnier is that the cave salamander is still a kind of salamander -- and thus not even an example of speciation. None of H&D's opponents, not even the "young earth" crowd, deny change and adaptation over time within species boundaries. So it's not even a sensible rebuttal to the AiG'ers."
And the differance between "inside species" and "outside" is... what? To my knowledge it is only a matter of degree- once you pass a certain point the two populations are incapable of interbreeding in the wild and producing fertile offspring.
"Various parts of this definition are there to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
* Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
* Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for whatever reason.
* Animals whose offspring are normally sterile. For example, mules and hinnies have rarely produced further offspring (only one documented case for hinnies, and seven for mules) when mated with a creature of the same type (a mule with a mule, or a hinny with a hinny)."
Salamander is a group of species, not a single species. In addition, it is unlikely this form is capable of mating with its ancestral form- the lack of eyes would probably prove to be a barrier.
"The irony here is that I'm not in agreement with the "young earth" crowd, and also don't believe that "intelligent design" is, strictly speaking, a scientific proposition. (Don't laugh, Darwinists -- much of your stuff is even less so, using the exact same metric.) But at least I understand the arguments I reject."
No you don't. You thought Salamander was a species and blasted them for not showing speciazation!
In addition, "Darwinism" is testable AND refutable. ID? Not so much- after all, if there is counter evidence, that life "has the ability to change", but it doesn't do huge leaps because we haven't seen them... these people need a geology class. We don't see mountains erode, there are only "minor" changes... wait- they were refuted the same way creationism was refuted.
In addition, "Darwinism" is testable AND refutable. ID? Not so much
This seems to be what Tim has already said. ID isn't a scientific proposition. The problem is that you have people claiming to have refuted ID. If ID is non-falsifiable, then those folks who claim to have falsified it must be confused, right? We can't have it both ways and disprove the disprovable theories.
No you don't. You thought Salamander was a species and blasted them for not showing speciazation!
To understand what Tim is saying, you'll have to switch gears and think like a modern creationist. Creationists have a unique twist to their own taxonomy where they believe in kinds
which are certain prototypical ancient animals from which large groups of modern animals are evolved, but only via degradation of genetic information. I'm not agreeing with the creationists, of course. But Tim seems to be correct in stating that folks like Dawkins don't understand the theories of those who they're trying to disprove.
This may be a better review of what is meant by "kinds"
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« LA Times' Executive Privilege Amnesia |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Gary Condit (D): History in the (Re-)Making »
|
"If [by "evolution"] one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory."
Then what is the differance between evolution and ID? Basically that would be the backbone of the theory of evolution... except the common descent part- that would be an inferance.
"Furthermore, ID proponents frequently point out that many or most significant "adaptations" are a result of loss of genetic information or abilities -- and this example would illustrate that argument quite well."
Duh! It is easier to loss abilities than to gain them. It isn't trivial though- abilities require energy. Parasites are an excellent example of this phenomena.
"But what makes this situation even funnier is that the cave salamander is still a kind of salamander -- and thus not even an example of speciation. None of H&D's opponents, not even the "young earth" crowd, deny change and adaptation over time within species boundaries. So it's not even a sensible rebuttal to the AiG'ers."
And the differance between "inside species" and "outside" is... what? To my knowledge it is only a matter of degree- once you pass a certain point the two populations are incapable of interbreeding in the wild and producing fertile offspring.
"Various parts of this definition are there to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
* Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
* Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for whatever reason.
* Animals whose offspring are normally sterile. For example, mules and hinnies have rarely produced further offspring (only one documented case for hinnies, and seven for mules) when mated with a creature of the same type (a mule with a mule, or a hinny with a hinny)."
Salamander is a group of species, not a single species. In addition, it is unlikely this form is capable of mating with its ancestral form- the lack of eyes would probably prove to be a barrier.
"The irony here is that I'm not in agreement with the "young earth" crowd, and also don't believe that "intelligent design" is, strictly speaking, a scientific proposition. (Don't laugh, Darwinists -- much of your stuff is even less so, using the exact same metric.) But at least I understand the arguments I reject."
No you don't. You thought Salamander was a species and blasted them for not showing speciazation!
In addition, "Darwinism" is testable AND refutable. ID? Not so much- after all, if there is counter evidence, that life "has the ability to change", but it doesn't do huge leaps because we haven't seen them... these people need a geology class. We don't see mountains erode, there are only "minor" changes... wait- they were refuted the same way creationism was refuted.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner on August 1, 2008 11:27 AM