Preadaptation: A Blow to Irreducible Complexity?

ACTS & FACTS ^ | November 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

[PapaBear3625]

The otter spends a lot of time in the water, and has evolved a webbed foot:

which is good for swimming, while still allowing it to walk on land fairly well.

A mammal which spends much more time in the water, like the seal:

has much more prounced webbing on its limbs.

And you finally get to full fins like dolphins have.

[PapaBear3625]

It's interesting to consider food bearing plants compared to weeds. Evolution would seem to be entirely selfish so why in the world would a tomato or a carrot or a potato evolve. They spend all of their energy making very nutricious fruits that do them no good at all. Compare that to the weeds that grow along with the plants. If you don't keep up with the weeds the food bearing plants don't have a chance. Why would a plant bother to evolve that way?

A number of plants spread their seeds over a wide area by having the fruit eaten by animals. The seed is indigestible and passes out of the animal's digestive system a long distance away from the plant that produced it, conveniently surrounded by a nice pile of fertilizer.

For the case of potatoes, they are perennials. The underground part contains nutrients that allow the plant to grow quickly in the spring, getting a head start on other plants in the race to establish itself.

Also, keep in mind that these plants have been cultivated for thousands of generations -- only plants which produced food would have their survival enhanced through cultivation by humans.

[tacticalogic]

An argument in favor of evolution should posit Bayesian probability and specific complex systems theory rather than pure, blind, chance such as Combinatorix. That argument is mathematically untenable.

Isn't it fun and easy to fault Darwin for failing to employ mathematical theorums that were just coming into use at the time he was developing his own theories?

[Natural Law]

"So you went to college at Answers.com?"

Answers.com didn't exist when I went to college or grad school. One thing I did learn in school and after leaving school was that solid information and data, regardless of the source, is far superior to emotionally driven drivel pulled from one's a$$, as is so often flogged on FR as authoritative. As I have stated many times, if you or anyone want to discuss the content and voracity of posts say so. If you would rather act like a 9th grade English teacher try a different forum or venue.

While you are at it, why don't you tell us all how information actually get posted to Answers.com, wikipedia and other such sites.

[Natural Law]

"An argument in favor of evolution should posit Bayesian probability and specific complex systems theory rather than pure, blind, chance such as Combinatorix. That argument is mathematically untenable."

It isn't untenable, it is just not as definitive as others. Bayesian probability theory, like a number of other probability theories, all provide mathematical support for evolution and Intelligent Design. Another and possibly better method, would be to consider Schramm–Loewner evolution, (also known as Stochastic Loewner Evolution or SLE). I've actually done some work with this to "evolve" complex design models as opposed to using simple or Taguchi orthagonal arrays. This has resulted in significant reduction in the amount of time consumed during the finite element analysis phase of design modeling.

[betty boop]

Bayesian probability theory, like a number of other probability theories, all provide mathematical support for evolution and Intelligent Design.

Indeed. But to say as much is to miss the main distinction between Bayesian and combinatorics statistical methods: the Bayesian theory admits human "learning." Combinatorics does not.

[Natural Law]

"But to say as much is to miss the main distinction between Bayesian and combinatorics statistical methods..."

I believe we are violently agreeing. The point I was trying to make is that probability theory, by its very definition, attempts to take possible solutions and assign a probability to them. None are 100% accurate and none arrive at a 100% probability. Only when used in combination or synergistically can the probability coefficient be raised (or lowered). As a proponent of Intelligent Design (Theistic Evolution) my concern is that all parties to the discussion, whether purely naturalistic or creationist, remain factual.

[Ira_Louvin]

Your statements show that you lack a basic understanding of science, you are correct in stating that a cow will never be a precursor to a sheep, what you fail to acknowledge is the fact that a cow and a sheep share a common ancestor.

Your straw man will not work here.

If it is possible for man to change a Wolf into a Chihuahua in a few hundred years, why is it so difficult for you to understand what nature can do with random mutations given 4 billion years?

[ColdWater]

Extrapolation is not science, no shifting here. Extrapolation is a mathematical function. sorry.

When you get to the 10th grade you will know that extrapolation is a science.

[ColdWater]

You see, ID is the camels nose method of saying that Creation is what happened. Christians can not have Creation taught, so it gets rebadged, “Intelligent Design” is more palatable, as it sidesteps, for now, the idea that God was involved. Not anti-Creation at all, but thanks for your concern.

Ok. ID says the Intelligent Designer did it, NOT God. In addition, ID says that organisms developed on their own from the primordial soup WITHOUT help from the ID and man evolved over hundreds of millions of years from the primordial soup and ID says that God the ID most probably is dead. That is ok with you creationists?

[ColdWater]

“Intelligent Design” is more palatable, as it sidesteps, for now, the idea that God was involved.

Oh. So you really think that it is really God and this ID stuff is really a sham perpetuated by the creationists. Thanks for admitting it.

[ColdWater]

Something “big” with a “big tail” written in a story book is not a dinosaur.

That 'big tail' is another part of the anatomy.

[tongass kid]

Having been a student of comparative vertebrate anatomy for many decades I must inform you that your example does in no way support the theory of evolution. The ancient view that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is totally out of date. Homologous structures are just that and nothing more and your example in light of gene mapping is without merit. We know that structures may be comparatively homologous but often are not genetically homologous. For evolution to occur the structures must be genetically similar and they are not.

[csense]

...if you or anyone want to discuss the content and veracity of posts say so. That's exactly what I was doing. The nature of the dispute you had with metmom was not about the definition of extrapolation, but it's relationship to science. My complaint with you is not in the accuracy of what you wrote, but how you represented it. By using someone else's words, and considering the clarity and detail, you gave readers the potential impression that you were speaking from authority, which is an important point given the dispute. That's called plagiarism, and it aught not be tolerated in a debating environment such as this. Had you simply cited the quote properly, I would have said nothing.

If you think I'm being unfair to you regarding that, then feel free to correct me.

[ColdWater]

I think you totally do not understand evolution.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, we are "violently agreeing."

My claim was that combinatorix is untenable to argue in favor of evolution.

Bayes' theorem or law on the interpretation of probability was raised in contrast to combinatorix which is completely ignorant, i.e. all possibilities are equally probable.

Especially for stochastic geometric modeling in physics, SLE (planar) is very promising.

[ColdWater]

Having been a student of comparative vertebrate anatomy for many decades I must inform you that your example does in no way support the theory of evolution. The ancient view that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is totally out of date. Homologous structures are just that and nothing more and your example in light of gene mapping is without merit. We know that structures may be comparatively homologous but often are not genetically homologous. For evolution to occur the structures must be genetically similar and they are not.

Google notes that you have been visiting the creation websites to get your quotes.

[70times7]

So a neutral mutation occurred. But somehow, while offering no selective advantage, came to predominate in the offspring. Then other neutral mutations occurred, each one individually offering no selective advantage, but also came to predominate in the DNA. But then the neutral mutations came together and built a better mousetrap. Is that it?

Yup! You got it. Seems simple enough. I can buy that. Kind of like... various parts randomly show up in a junkyard. They just keep showing up; more and more of them. And then one day a tornado comes through and, whallah! A DC-10 is formed! Why does anyone have trouble believing this?

[tongass kid]

I do not know your views and they are not important to me. My recent post is accurate and I assume you agree with it because you do not dispute it. A supporter of the theory of evolution should make sure that post that are inaccurate in the support of the theory should be corrected.