I think by that same argument we should credit the first hominid to use (invent) fire with rocket engines and spaceflight. Likewise the wheel and its numerous applications.
This isn’t foresight, it’s simply a good idea.
3 Likes
I don’t know why you resort to this argument for it is irrelevant to what I said about enzymes. Anyway, to double down, your argument is wrong. A designer, let say an engineer, can have in mind to design a system that is optimally versatile so that it can then be fine-tuned to a number of different contexts. I would say that the vertebrate limb layout is a case in point.
Not sure this is universally true regarding evolution. Anyway, note that the same expectation applies also to design, as shown by the bicycle example.
This seems a superfluous explanation. I still do not see a convincing argument that evolutionary adaptation cannot account for the tetrapod limb layout.
3 Likes
11 posts were split to a new topic: Re: Shroud of Turin
Why would he do that? If he was worth his salt, he would design different things from the ground up that were optimized for different contexts.
To be clear: Are you saying that every single tetrapod is descended from a common ancestor that lived in the sea, and all of these new species arose thru unguided evolution, because the original form was so well “optimized”?
[quote=“Giltil, post:102, topic:16777”]
Not sure this is universally true regarding evolution. [/quote]
By all means, then, give some examples to which it does not apply.
Really. You would “expect” that there would never be a completely new technology that revolutionizes an industry. And that’s why I am typing this on a computer that is the size of Yankee stadium using vacuum tube technology. Because it would be completely “unexpected” for a designer to develop and use solid state technology, instead. Too bad, that would have been so much more convenient.
(That said, here is a picture of my hifi setup, mostly using 1930’s technology:)
1 Like
“optimally versatile” sounds like an oxymoron. Optimal implies some sort of peak outcome, whereas versatility implies the opposite of that.
Regardless, without a proper definition and a means of measuring this, we have no way of determining whether the vertebrate limb is optimal for anything. Mere assertion doesn’t get us anywhere useful.
6 Likes
I disagree. A designer main objective can be to design a system where property P would be optimal. Versatility is a property of a system. Therefore, a designer objective can be to design a system where versatility would be optimal.
How would you define and measure versatility as a property of a system, and how would you determine whether that measure of versatility was optimal?
5 Likes
What use does a designer have for versatility if he must design the versatility to begin with? The sort of versatility you describe essentially maximizes evolvability, but at the same time you are claiming this sort of versatility couldn’t have evolved in the first place because of a rugged fitness landscape. That strikes me as self-contradictory.
It’s not clear to me why, if the tetrapod limb is maximally optimized for future adaptation, it couldn’t have evolved to begin with. The fitness landscape for versatility is extremely smooth near the top of the hill such that different phenotypes that employ it(for locomotion in water, walking on land, flying etc.) can be easily switched between, but rugged around the base, so that the top of the hill is extremely difficult to reach?
It’s so patently obvious you’re just making this stuff up. It’s grasping at straws. You have zero actual data that supports any of these claims (neither that it is optimized, nor your claims about the overall shape of the landscape).
6 Likes
“A designer['s] main objective can be” anything the designer can conceive of. For example, “a designer['s] main objective can be” to design everything to be pink.
Therefore, your claim about the designer’s intent is nothing but pure, unmitigated, untethered speculation.
Unless and until you can present your hypothetical designer to to testify as to their intent, this claim is worthless.
Further, as @AnEvolvedPrimate pointed out, in the part of his comment that you carefully avoided responding to:
For this, and similar reasons, everything you, Miller and Burgess have said on this topic would appear to be “mere assertion” – empty vacuous rhetoric, lacking any probative value.
3 Likes
He could, but why? This versatility only works in an evolutionary context, in which the original system is ancestral to all its subsequent developments. Why would a designer limit his designs in such a way? All that about one bone, then two, then many has been abandoned in many species. like horses, and even more so in snakes. Why not start with the configuration you mean to end with? Your designer seems oddly limited, in just the same way that natural selection is limited.
5 Likes
Ridiculous. Say a designer is creating appliances for a kitchen. Would he start with something that is sort of a fridge, and kind of an oven, and could maybe serve as a toaster, or a dishwasher or a food processor? And then gradually modify it for a specific purpose?
Of course not. He would design each appliance from scratch, optimized for their given function.
This cannot happen in the evolutionary process, however. Evolution can only occur thru the modification of previously existing structures and systems. This is why biology is full of systems that are messy, redundant and inefficient. The wings and engines of a fighter jet are not modeled on the fins of a fish, are they?
5 Likes
Excellent point. This is an example of how creationists, and ID proponents in particular, have no concern for creating a coherent theoretical framework. They just spit ball random beliefs that, they hope, can undermine evolution, even if those beliefs contradict one another.
7 Likes
As before, pointing out your lack of understanding of a term fundamental to YOUR argument is not an argument itself.
I am overwhelmed by the evidence you present.
I would not, but then I have some understanding of vertebrate developmental biology, while you do not; moreover, you have not offered even a shred of evidence to support your empty assertion.
3 Likes
You’re plain wrong. Versatility often figures among the specifications of a designed system.
So what?
Now note two things
- the wings of birds are far superior than the wings of any device designed by humans.
- an entire fields of study is called biomimetic
I plainly agree. The only point maybe is that I would have speak of developmental context instead of evolutionary context for I tend to see the unfolding of life mainly as a programmed process where versatility at some points was intended by the designer.
What is your argument that the paper I’ve referred to regarding the new dating method of the shroud of Turin belong to the pseudoscience category beside the fact that it supports a conclusion you don’t like?
Am I correct that, contrary to my prior understanding, we are in agreement on universal common descent? Unfortunately, “development” is the wrong word, as it refers to the transformation of a zygote into an adult organism. Perhaps you refer to something like pre-programmed evolution, though there seems no mechanism that would cause such a thing, and it seems odd that this programming would produce adaptations to the species’s environment without any influence from that environment. Or that the programming should be limited in extent in just the way natural selection is limited.
1 Like
What is your source for this claim? Keeping in mind that the previously cited Burgess paper does not support this claim.
1 Like
So you say. But ‘versatility’ is not mentioned on that page, is it?