> I've been away in California for the Mere Creation conference and
> some subsequent work with Bill Dembski and Steve Meyer; hence
> my delay in answering Mike's post. I think we've pretty well
> exhausted this topic, so this will be my last post.
And this, then, will be my last post. All my questions should be taken
as rhetorical.
Paul wrote:
> I agree that (so far as I know) no one has investigated the
> functional significance of the loop.
Untrue- if you mean whether anyone has investigated whether the loop
has a function. It is very easy to do. Nerve function is very well
understood. Nerves send signals either to or from tissues. All one
has to do is to trace the recurrent larngeal nerve to see whether its
sends off any nerves to any tissues. It has been done many times.
Answer: zip. I've got my hands bloody doing the tracing myself. I
also found no tributaries. Conclusion: The loop has no function.
(Strictly speaking we should say it has no known function. I cannot
rule out the possibility that the loop communicates telepathically
with the heart, but until someone provides evidence and a mechanism
for the a function it is perfectly rational for biologists to
stick to the above conclusion.
Paul wrote:
> But not looking for a structure's function does not mean that the
> structure does not have a function.
Does anyone claim otherwise?
Paul wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested in this explanation if Mike could explain some
> > of the macroevolutionary transitions involved (e.g., the invention,
> > de novo, of the amniotic egg).
>
> Mike replied:
>
> >This sounds like changing the subject.
>
Paul responded:
> Not at all. It couldn't be more relevant. Suppose a bank was
> robbed in Shanghai yesterday. This morning, I come to my office to
> find Chinese detectives waiting to interrogate me as a suspect.
> "We found some papers belonging to you at the scene," they say.
> That may be true, I protest, but how could I have possibly flown to
> Shanghai, robbed the bank, and flown back to Chicago in the time
> available? When all the relevant considerations are weighed, it's
> unlikely in the extreme that I could have been the robber. There
> is no actual mechanism to transport me in the time available. >
I like your analogy, but I would change some details to make it fit
the evolutionary scene better. You claim you were in California for
the Mere Creation conference. Could you provide detailed (I mean
down to the last millisecond) evidence of your whereabouts during
the conference? For part of the time you could. There are witnesses,
no doubt, of your heckling and badgering the speakers. Similarly, the
fossil record provides us with good documentation of the transitions
involving Ophiacodon, Haptodus, Tetraceratops, Biamosuchus,
Procynasuchus, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus,Probaingnathus,
Diarthrognathus and Morganucodon to name a few examples.
But what about between sessions? I doubt whether you could account
for every millisecond. Similarly, the evolutionary record is patchy
in places. The evolution of the amniotic egg and hair for example.
There are difficulties with the mammalian inner ear, but in broad
outline it's evolution is becoming understood.
Evolution is a very big story involving millions of creatures over
millions of years.. To demand that every step in the process is known
and understood before one can accept "historical explanations" is
rather like me demanding of Paul that he document every millisecond
of his whereabouts before I will accept the hsitorical explanation
that he was at a conference in California.
> That's why these sort of suboptimality arguments get me so
> steamed. Instead of addressing the questions which really need
> to be answered -- i.e., instead of providing a testable theory of
> macroevolution -- many evolutionary biologists take the shortcut
> of saying, "God wouldn't have done it that way, therefore evolution."
A testable theory of macroevolution has been provided which yields
many predictions about the fossil record, geographical
distribitution etc. These have to a very large extent been met. To take just
one example, a prediction of evolution is that island biotas will be
rich in morphological diversity, but poor in taxa, and this is
exactly what we find.
>
> For what it's worth, I think local suboptimality is real. I need glasses
> (myopia), am balding slightly, and have been hospitalized for
> cardiac arrythmias. My daughters see a speech therapist. No one will
> lose any money betting I won't live to see 2096. But I think a theory
> of created design can make sense of these local suboptimalities.
This is assertion, of course.
> What I don't think anyone can make sense of, however, are counterfactual,
> ideal animals (e.g., the perfect panda, the perfect route for the recurrent
> laryngeal nerve) postulated as endpoints on a metric of optimality. All
> such claims devolve to someone's authority or aesthetics.
I tend to agree with you over ideal animals. I'm interested that you
accept that local suboptimality is real. How is it that you are able
to do this without, I take it, appealing to authority or aesthetics?
When does optimality become local? Why are you able to accept a
myopic eye, but not a "myopic" nerve?
> Thanks for the exchance, Mike.
Thanks to you too.
> Sorry if I got huffy.
You're forgiven.>
Mike
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________
Mike L Anderson, PhD
Director: Christian Academic Network
mla@iafrica.com
78 Balfour Road, Rondebosch, 7700