Our ears once breathed. Take 2

www.nature.com...

Our ears could have started evolutionary life as a tube for breathing, say scientists, after examining the ancestral structure in a 370-million-year-old fossil fish.

Interesting article. Definatly worth looking at.

Here's the refrence article in case anyone misses it.

www.nature.com...

Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish

Just to clear up some misunderstood definitions from the first go round...

If we see the bones of the ear as IC, then it is irreducibly complex. That is remove a bone is doesn't function. The ear has evolved by changing function and this could apply to all IC system. IC is teleogical in this regard and is a basis of the ID hypothesis.

By definition systems hypothesized to be IC show no evidence of being co-opted from other systems. Thus if the ear shows evidence of having evolved from another system, it is by definition not IC...

We discussed that definition how many times in the Testing ID thread... like a dozen maybe?

Otherwise... cool find!

Well, we have functioning gills during our embryonic development and they were right below the ear - could be..??

Originally posted by mattison0922
Just to clear up some misunderstood definitions from the first go round...

If we see the bones of the ear as IC, then it is irreducibly complex. That is remove a bone is doesn't function. The ear has evolved by changing function and this could apply to all IC system. IC is teleogical in this regard and is a basis of the ID hypothesis.

By definition systems hypothesized to be IC show no evidence of being co-opted from other systems. Thus if the ear shows evidence of having evolved from another system, it is by definition not IC...

We discussed that definition how many times in the Testing ID thread... like a dozen maybe?

Otherwise... cool find!

but if you noticed, I did say "IF we see the bones of the ear as IC", rather than "the bones of the ear ARE IC"....

this is the problem with IC, it's lack of evidence and incredulity that indicates it, nothing more.

You wrote:

Originally posted by melatonin, special emphasis by mattison0922
If we see the bones of the ear as IC, then it is irreducibly complex. That is remove a bone is doesn't function. The ear has evolved by changing function and this could apply to all IC system. IC is teleogical in this regard and is a basis of the ID hypothesis.

The point is that if there IS evidence that the system evolved via a 'change-of-function' scenario. The system is not IC... by definition.

So... in reality... you're incorrect. If there were reasonable evidence that photosynthesis was co-opted from other sytems, the system could not be defined as IC.

This statement has nothing to do with the concept of teleology... the concept of IC is not teleological in any way... The concept of IC implies no goal, or purpose; it's a hypothesis about a system based on observation.

this is the problem with IC, it's lack of evidence and incredulity that indicates it, nothing more.

Yeah... well... welcome to world of new ideas in science, where evidence is found to support a theory after they're postulated and explored via research.

And you think IDTist are 'incredulous' based on what....?

Oh yeah, that's right... all of those IDT books you've not read

Originally posted by mattison0922
You wrote:

Originally posted by melatonin, special emphasis by mattison0922
If we see the bones of the ear as IC, then it is irreducibly complex. That is remove a bone is doesn't function. The ear has evolved by changing function and this could apply to all IC system. IC is teleogical in this regard and is a basis of the ID hypothesis.

The point is that if there IS evidence that the system evolved via a 'change-of-function' scenario. The system is not IC... by definition.

So... in reality... you're incorrect. If there were reasonable evidence that photosynthesis was co-opted from other sytems, the system could not be defined as IC.

This statement has nothing to do with the concept of teleology... the concept of IC is not teleological in any way... The concept of IC implies no goal, or purpose; it's a hypothesis about a system based on observation.

this is the problem with IC, it's lack of evidence and incredulity that indicates it, nothing more.

Yeah... well... welcome to world of new ideas in science, where evidence is found to support a theory after they're postulated and explored via research.

And you think IDTist are 'incredulous' based on what....?

Oh yeah, that's right... all of those IDT books you've not read

yes, and my point was that if we didn't have evidence that the ear system evolved by function-change it 'could' be viewed as IC. Of course, it isn't and I never said it was IC...

I prefer to take my evidence from scientific peer-reviewed articles, not poorly written books based on poorly formed specious arguments. Which book have I not read....Dembksi's...well strike me down, lol.

I look forward to seeing ID/IC published in the future. The ball is in your court.

but I'm sure Produkt doesn't want his thread contaminated by ID discussion.

[edit on 22-1-2006 by melatonin]

I am a programmer and many times I have to make really complex programs that they seem irreducibly complex: one part can not operate without the other. But I make them by first emulating one part, then making the other, and making the emulated part.

The same thing happens in nature: under specific circumstances, a specific output of a subsystem forces other subsystems to adapt to it, and then the subsystem changes to another form, still producing similar output. Thus the system may seem irreducibly complex, but it is not.

Originally posted by masterp
I am a programmer and many times I have to make really complex programs that they seem irreducibly complex: one part can not operate without the other. But I make them by first emulating one part, then making the other, and making the emulated part.

The same thing happens in nature: under specific circumstances, a specific output of a subsystem forces other subsystems to adapt to it, and then the subsystem changes to another form, still producing similar output. Thus the system may seem irreducibly complex, but it is not.

Programs are perfect examples of ID processes. YOU personally must author these subsystems. Subsystems may change or adapt... but subsystems DO NOT spontaneously appear... they don't encode themselves without some sort of 'coding' from an intelligent agent.

The operative words in your post are of course: " I make them...."

Perfect example of an ID system...

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by masterp
I am a programmer and many times I have to make really complex programs that they seem irreducibly complex: one part can not operate without the other. But I make them by first emulating one part, then making the other, and making the emulated part.

The same thing happens in nature: under specific circumstances, a specific output of a subsystem forces other subsystems to adapt to it, and then the subsystem changes to another form, still producing similar output. Thus the system may seem irreducibly complex, but it is not.

Programs are perfect examples of ID processes. YOU personally must author these subsystems. Subsystems may change or adapt... but subsystems DO NOT spontaneously appear... they don't encode themselves without some sort of 'coding' from an intelligent agent.

The operative words in your post are of course: " I make them...."

Perfect example of an ID system...

Schneiders Ev simulation....a perfect example of IC systems developing by mechnaisms of natural selection.

Originally posted by melatonin
yes, and my point was that if we didn't have evidence that the ear system evolved by function-change it 'could' be viewed as IC. Of course, it isn't and I never said it was IC...

Okay... so you admit that because the ear shows evidence of evolving via change of function, and is thus, by definition not IC. You claim to understand the definition of IC, but bring it up in a context where it obviously isn't relevant, ie: when something evolved via change of function. What purpose does this serve?

I prefer to take my evidence from scientific peer-reviewed articles, not poorly written books based on poorly formed specious arguments.

Well, I kind much agree with you here... except for the fact that major scientific theories are not the generally the subject of peer-reviewed articles. Occasionally, you'll see a 'review' on a sub-topic of a major theory. But scientific theories, being complex things, are generally not the subject of a 30 page journal article. With their literally hundreds of references, and dozens to hundreds of pages of documentation, description, and supporting evidence, scientific theories are distinctly out of the realm of peer-reviewed articles. Generally they are marketed as edited editions, etc., but they are basically books. You should learn to add this form of info to your repetoire. They're information rich, well documented and generally try to pull the basic ideas you read in articles together into coherent theories. They store a lot better than journal articles to. They've been a big hit for centuries now.

So while I certainly do my fair share of reading of peer-reviewed articles, I refuse to completely ignore the concept of 'books.' Your PI probably even has stacks of 'books' in his office as well... perhaps you take up the issue with him/her also.

Of course... poorly written is a completely subjective viewpoint... but I DO believe I am on record in this forum as stating that I don't think Dembski is very well written... so you have my sympathy. However... and this is just me... often, if I think something could have scientific value... I'll tough it out and see if I can't make some sense of something that's not well written. I do the same thing at conferences... if the speaker sucks, but his topic seems important or relevant to me... I'll usually try to stay awake. Again, this is just me.

Which book have I not read....Dembksi's...well strike me down, lol.

Well... so far, we've established that you don't read Dembski, we also established that you 'tried' to read DBB, but dismissed it. This is of course after having more-or-less admitted to me that you don't really understand too much molbio, and weren't able to address my specific arguments. My arguments of course, being written pretty much on the fly are much less well put together and not generally too thoroughly documented. I wonder why you couldn't dismiss my simple discussions, but were somehow able to dismiss Behe's more complex and well documented arguments from molbio contained in DBB.

However, you should feel free to round out the list of books you've not read as necessary.

I look forward to seeing ID/IC published in the future. The ball is in your court.

I look forward to it too. Though given the political environment, it's questionable whether that will ever happen. And as far as the ball being in my court, well... let's just say that we've got start-up and funding for a couple of years... a couple of grants in the pipeline, ie: under review, with some other stuff being actively authored. I need to get my own stuff published to try and get tenure... so IC and ID will have to wait. If the landscape ever changes, and I feel like my program is well established... who knows, I may publish some stuff that seems to have design implications... until the witch hunt stops though... forget about it.

but I'm sure Produkt doesn't want his thread contaminated by ID discussion.

It's possible... though he did seem to be pretty enthusiastic about ragging on the ID crowd in the first thread. Ironically though... now that this thread has turned into an ID discussion it's appropriate for the forum where it was originally posted.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt though... he may not want us to hijack this thread. If you want we can continue the discussion you and I were having in that other thread that you 'didn't have time for.'

[edit on 22-1-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 22-1-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by melatonin
Schneiders Ev simulation....a perfect example of IC systems developing by mechnaisms of natural selection.

Gosh... I'm sorry these two concepts are so elusive.

1. Programs, human designed 'evolutionary algorithms,' computer simulations, etc., are better tests of ID than they are of 'evolutionary processes.' How can you not note such things are products of Intelligent Design. I'm sorry this is so hard for you, but there is no getting around it. These things don't encode themselves. There is information guiding some aspect of the system. The information was put in place by a human being, hence computer programs, human designed 'evolutionary algorithms,' computer simulations, are examples of IDT, not evolution/abiogenesis.
   
   
2. I tried to point this out in the other thread multiple times. IDT doesn't have a problem with natural selection. NS is an established fact, a description of an observed phenomena... IDT doesn't take issue with modeling NS.
   
   IDT is concerned with how systems became available for selection, not how NS acts on them once in place... big difference...

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
yes, and my point was that if we didn't have evidence that the ear system evolved by function-change it 'could' be viewed as IC. Of course, it isn't and I never said it was IC...

Okay... so you admit that because the ear shows evidence of evolving via change of function, and is thus, by definition not IC. You claim to understand the definition of IC, but bring it up in a context where it obviously isn't relevant, ie: when something evolved via change of function. What purpose does this serve?

I prefer to take my evidence from scientific peer-reviewed articles, not poorly written books based on poorly formed specious arguments.

Well, I kind much agree with you here... except for the fact that major scientific theories are not the generally the subject of peer-reviewed articles. Occasionally, you'll see a 'review' on a sub-topic of a major theory. But scientific theories, being complex things, are generally not the subject of a 30 page journal article. With their literally hundreds of references, and dozens to hundreds of pages of documentation, description, and supporting evidence, scientific theories are distinctly out of the realm of peer-reviewed articles. Generally they are marketed as edited editions, etc., but they are basically books. You should learn to add this form of info to your repetoire. They're information rich, well documented and generally try to pull the basic ideas you read in articles together into coherent theories. They store a lot better than journal articles to. They've been a big hit for centuries now.

So while I certainly do my fair share of reading of peer-reviewed articles, I refuse to completely ignore the concept of 'books.' Your PI probably even has stacks of 'books' in his office as well... perhaps you take up the issue with him/her also.

Of course... poorly written is a completely subjective viewpoint... but I DO believe I am on record in this forum as stating that I don't think Dembski is very well written... so you have my sympathy. However... and this is just me... often, if I think something could have scientific value... I'll tough it out and see if I can't make some sense of something that's not well written. I do the same thing at conferences... if the speaker sucks, but his topic seems important or relevant to me... I'll usually try to stay awake. Again, this is just me.

Which book have I not read....Dembksi's...well strike me down, lol.

Well... so far, we've established that you don't read Dembski, we also established that you 'tried' to read DBB, but dismissed it. This is of course after having more-or-less admitted to me that you don't really understand too much molbio, and weren't able to address my specific arguments. My arguments of course, being written pretty much on the fly are much less well put together and not generally too thoroughly documented. I wonder why you couldn't dismiss my simple discussions, but were somehow able to dismiss Behe's more complex and well documented arguments from molbio contained in DBB.

However, you should feel free to round out the list of books you've not read as necessary.

I look forward to seeing ID/IC published in the future. The ball is in your court.

I look forward to it too. Though given the political environment, it's questionable whether that will ever happen. And as far as the ball being in my court, well... let's just say that we've got start-up and funding for a couple of years... a couple of grants in the pipeline, ie: under review, with some other stuff being actively authored. I need to get my own stuff published to try and get tenure... so IC and ID will have to wait. If the landscape ever changes, and I feel like my program is well established... who knows, I may publish some stuff that seems to have design implications... until the witch hunt stops though... forget about it.

but I'm sure Produkt doesn't want his thread contaminated by ID discussion.

It's possible... though he did seem to be pretty enthusiastic about ragging on the ID crowd in the first thread. Ironically though... now that this thread has turned into an ID discussion it's appropriate for the forum where it was originally posted.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt though... he may not want us to hijack this thread. If you want we can continue the discussion you and I were having in that other thread that you 'didn't have time for.'

[edit on 22-1-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 22-1-2006 by mattison0922]

I made my points clear in that thread Matt. Live with it. I have better things to do than to play games with you.

originally posted by mattison
I didn't know if I didn't change my mind you'd stop playing.

Originally posted by melatonin
I made my points clear in that thread Matt. Live with it. I have better things to do than to play games with you.

"Live with it..." I don't have a problem with it... Feel free to abandon any and all ID discussions we might have. It's a free board, right?

However, expect me to call you on it, if I think you're misrepresenting the ideas, are unclear about some definitions, or just appear to be taking opportunities to belittle ID concepts in an inappropriate fashion. Like I said, it's a free board.

originally posted by mattison
I didn't know if I didn't change my mind you'd stop playing.

Welllll... I was pretty surprised to learn that you'd expect me to change my mind even though I had valid reasons for disagreeing with your 'arguments.' That's not generally how I operate... otherwise I would've converted long ago.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
I made my points clear in that thread Matt. Live with it. I have better things to do than to play games with you.

"Live with it..."

I don't have a problem with it... Feel free to abandon any and all ID discussions we might have. It's a free board, right?

However, expect me to call you on it, if I think you're misrepresenting the ideas, are unclear about some definitions, or just appear to be taking opportunities to belittle ID concepts in an inappropriate fashion. Like I said, it's a free board.

originally posted by mattison
I didn't know if I didn't change my mind you'd stop playing.

Welllll... I was pretty surprised to learn that you'd expect me to change my mind even though I had valid reasons for disagreeing with your 'arguments.' That's not generally how I operate... otherwise I would've converted long ago.

I made many valid points in that thread, isn't my fault you don't see that. .

[edit on 22-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 22-1-2006 by melatonin]

Keep the topic on track, folks... and not snark at each other, okay?


As was pointed out, this article is highly speculative. They have suggested it (just as many mechanisms were suggested for the Great Extinctions of the Permian and Cambrian and Devonian) -- but they haven't found a "smoking gun."

Scientists do speculate and do write aricles about this speculation. This is the fuel of scientific debate. But unless you have a lot of different people confirming the evidence and adding weight to the evidence, it is simply an "interesting discussion" and should not be taken to be confirmed.

Originally posted by melatonin
I made many valid points in that thread, isn't my fault you don't see that. .

Ummmmm.... I didn't say you made no valid points. I said I had valid reasons for disagreeing with your points... things like your 'source' obviously is misreading Dembski, and missing the point of his work, etc. Again... these are distinct ideas.

As per Byrd's request...

Not being much of a physiologist, or paleontologist... is there any idea how this finding fits in with the currently existing theories of ear development?

For example, if I recall correctly, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have a middle ear with just a single bone. Also, if I recall correctly, ears are thought to have arisen more than once in evolutionary history. I believe sometime last year this conclusion was reached when a monotreme with only a single bone in the middle ear was discovered. If I recall correctly, this animal possessed certain features in its jaw that suggested that the jaw bones in this species were not co-opted and 'changed' to fufill a new role...ie: this animal possesses both an ear with three bones, and the bones thought to have been co-opted and subjected to a 'change of function' suggesting that ears evolved at least twice in mammals. But who the heck knows... it is a monotreme.

Despite these convergent events... the similarities in the two varieties of mammalian ear are nothing short of astonishing... almost unbelievable.

[edit on 22-1-2006 by mattison0922]