Evolution’s Hopeful Monster

[Zaius137]

Even if evolutionists never find that “Hopeful Monster” they will never give up on evolution. In every species observed in the fossil record, there is stasis, yet they are unpersuaded.


“Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism. This has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists -- but they have made it clear that they will not be dissuaded by the mere lack of evidence, nor will they turn to a Creator to explain this enigma. Rather, evolutionists hope that monsters may come to their rescue!”

The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution by David Menton

Is this just being stubborn or is this an indication that evolution has attained the status of a religion? I firmly believe the latter.

“All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are not preceded by continuous transitional stages.”

No one can disagree with this statement unless with ignorance of the evidence. Appeal to a hope beyond hope but simply stated evolution is impossible.

Even though evolutionists can speculate all they want to on common descent, they are completely dumbfounded by lack of real scientific evidence.

 

[Blayz]

Might be a bit more believable, and I do mean just a tiny tiny bit, if you cdesign proponentists ever generated any data of your own instead of whinging and moaning about ours.

 

[Elendur]

I like how it's published in "St. Louis' christian news and events publications".
St. Louis MetroVoice April 2012 On-line Edition

And that's pretty much the only think I like.

Evolution doesn't state anything different than:
“All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are not preceded by continuous transitional stages.”

That's quite the strawman to say it doesn't.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

archaeopteryx, ambulocetus. [/thread]

 

[Jazer]

Even if evolutionists never find that “Hopeful Monster” they will never give up on evolution. In every species observed in the fossil record, there is stasis, yet they are unpersuaded.

There is still micro evolution so they think they can say that as long as there is micro then there must be macro because a lot of micros add up to a macro. NO it does NOT work that way. WHY? Glad you ask. Because God puts limits on things. Now that we have DNA it is pretty much end of the story for the theory of macro evolution. Because before you could take any two skeltons (Lucy for example) say they sort of look alike so one MUST have evolved into the other. DNA is beginning to show now that did not happen.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Species found in the fossil record are static? Imagine that! What else do you expect to find? A VHS embedded in the rock?

 

[thaumaturgy]

The great thing about it is that "micro evolution" was so overwhelmingly proven that Creationists ultimately had to concede that point. Now they just want to park it at "no Macro evolution!" and be done with it.

For every single transition fossil you show a Creationist they automatically want 2 more (one on either side).

It is a game that no one can win. Except that evolution is shown in so many different areas of biology from cladisitcs to vestigial forms in animals, even to things like (as one poster already noted) ambulocetus etc.

But the more troubling aspect of the creationist debate is that they had to accept microevolution which shows change in life to adapt to things. So we have a mechanism and a reason for the change, yet Creationists will not stand for those changes to accumulate or be large in any way.

As Jazer stated:

WHY? Glad you ask. Because God puts limits on things.

This is precisely the summation of Creationism's battle. They cannot win scientifically so they have to tell us what GOD is doing. As if God is only looking out for their personal views, and not the other way round.

These creationists who know so little about science know so much about God. And clearly if THEY like God then God must not like science! So they trot out the God card when it suits them.

As for Jazer's Genetic arguments I will point him to the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, specifically:

The genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential. Genotype specifies possible phenotypes, therefore, phenotypic change follows genetic change. This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes. Confirmation:

Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).
Potential Falsification:

Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism's genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible (Lewin 1999).(SOURCE)

Just as a pointer for creationists who want to "sound" like scientists, you will do much better if you work with things like "falsifiability criteria". Tests of the hypothesis should have built into them some way to falsify it if found.

Oh, wait, sorry, another poster was right: seems all you folks want to do is whine about other people's data and not produce any of your own.

That's so much easier. I guess the new saw is: "Those who can, do, those who can't simply work to generate doubt for doubt's sake".

Can I ask the creationists on the board how it feels to basically be peddlers of doubt? Is that enough for you?

Doubt is your currency and the only thing of value to you.

Must be reassuring.

Once you have instilled enough Doubt then you can get God into the discussion.

So why does your God need so much doubt to function?

Seems kinda sad actually.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Species found in the fossil record are static? Imagine that! What else do you expect to find? A VHS embedded in the rock?

Wiccan did you know that there has NEVER BEEN A MOTION PICTURE or "MOVIE" ever made by humans! Nope! If you look at a movie all you see are individual pictures!

IT'S A LIE! A GIANT LIE!

Only GOD can make movies!

 

[Blackwater Babe]

archaeopteryx, ambulocetus. [/thread]

PROTOCERATOPS, [/END THREAD]!

 

[Zaius137]

PROTOCERATOPS, [/END THREAD]!

Archaeopteryx was a true bird that appeared suddenly in the fossil record.

Ambulocetus had no fins or webbed feet. As usual the evolutionist plays fast and lose with body and leg forms.

The real Ambulocetus: The legs are real legs, not ‘fins,’ and there are no imaginary webs between its toes such as National Geographic had added. (Picture from Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 335)



PROTOCERATOPS

Trott claims that Monoclonuis and Protoceratops were evolutionary precursors of Triceratops, a three-horned dinosaur. Well, which is it Trott, Monoclonuis or Protoceratops? They both cannot be the ancestor.[12] As a matter of fact, neither was. Monoclonuis was a one-horned dinosaur,[13] complete at its first appearance,[14] and no evolutionary paleontologist that I know of suggests that it was ancestral to Triceratops.[15] Protoceratops had no horns at all, and is really misnamed. Romer (Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., p 163) states, "Protoceratops belies its name, for horns are not present."[16] Weishampel, Dodson, and Osmolska (The Dinosauria, University of California Press, 1990, p. 610) concerning the protoceratopsids, writes of the "presumed ancestry for ceratopsids."[17] How could the protoceratopsids be ancestral to Triceratops when they were contemporaneous with Triceratops? [18] In fact, Weishampel and co-authors state (p. 610) "Late Maastrichtian 'Lepoceratops gracilis,' one of the most primitive protoceratopsids, was one of the last dinosaurs in North America."[19] On that same page they state that "There is a sharp discontinuity in size and correlative allometric features between protoceratopsids and ceratopsids, and there is never confusion between members of one family and members of the other."[20] Thus, the horned dinosaurs, just as is the case with duckbilled dinosaurs, stegosaurids, and all other dinosaurs, appear fully formed, with no transitional forms.[21]

Duane Gish and Creationism at Rutgers: Gish Responds

Morphology is a poor method for classifying a species. Take a group of random selected animals and usually you can line them up into some kind of order or categories that are purely fictitious.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Trott claims that Monoclonuis and Protoceratops were evolutionary precursors of Triceratops, a three-horned dinosaur. Well, which is it Trott, Monoclonuis or Protoceratops? They both cannot be the ancestor.[12]

Right. Like your mother and grandmother can't BOTH be your ancestors, right?

*sigh*

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/thread]?

 

[Zaius137]

Right. Like your mother and grandmother can't BOTH be your ancestors, right?

*sigh*

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/thread]?

Not unless your grandmother was, Swedish and you mother Chinese. I see your point.

 

[Zaius137]

Right. Like your mother and grandmother can't BOTH be your ancestors, right?

*sigh*

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/thread]?

Or your mother a chimp and your grandmother an orangutan? Mine was a orangutan like my grandmother.

 

[Zaius137]

Right. Like your mother and grandmother can't BOTH be your ancestors, right?

*sigh*

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/thread]?

I really do not get your point about most recent ancestry particularly in the “Monoclonuis or Protoceratops” argument.

 

[TheReasoner]

If you will allow me to be so bold:

Ribotyping
[/thread]

Alternately

Ribotyping+fossil record
[/thread]

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I really do not get your point about most recent ancestry particularly in the “Monoclonuis or Protoceratops” argument.

Its pretty simple, the dude you quoted said two different critters can't both be the ancestor of a third type of critter.

My point is that of course they can.

 

[Zaius137]

Its pretty simple, the dude you quoted said two different critters can't both be the ancestor of a third type of critter.

My point is that of course they can.

You would of course be assuming evolution by vertical descent and Duane Gish is claiming here that even the morphological appearance of common descent looks illogical if both were common ancestors. In other words, either one or the other is a morphological match for an ancestor but they both cannot be.

 

[metherion]

Easy. Look at the years given for monoclonius, protoceratops, and triceratops.

Monoclonius is given at 75 MYA, protoceratops at 75-71 MYA, and triceratops at 68-65 MYA.

So, Monoclonius is the grandma, Protoceratops is the Mom, and triceratops is the daughter.

Also, your whole deal about the archaeopteryx being a bird ignores the WHOLE DARN POINT. OF COURSE it's a bird! And of course archaeopteryx fossils appeared 'suddenly', there weren't archaeopteryx all throughout the history of the planet! What's important is just how many traits that are now reptile traits which current birds lack that it has. Also, what traits it lacks that modern birds have. What's ALSO important is how many dinosaurs there were that are related to it that were reptiles with traits that only true birds now have, and what traits modern reptiles have that they lack. Saying 'archaeopteryx is just a bird' misses the WHOLE POINT!

Ambulocetus doesn't have fins. It doesn't need to have fins, and it's not necessarily even claimed as having fins. It's shown as having legs when hung up in museums:
http://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ambulocetus1.jpg
That's a picture of one hanging up in Tokyo. Sorry that you have to click on it, I tried using the img tags but it was HUGE.

Do you even know what traits make it a whale ancestor? It's not because of fins or webs. And would skin webs even fossilize?

I also find it highly amusing that when you link to the response by Duane Gish, you gave a page that has two links on it to the point by point response, and the numbers scattered throughout the paragraph and individual links to refutations of that specific point? Doesn't seem the best way to argue against something, to have each point you make linked to its specific rebuttal.

Metherion

 

[Blackwater Babe]

You would of course be assuming evolution by vertical descent and Duane Gish is claiming here that even the morphological appearance of common descent looks illogical if both were common ancestors. In other words, either one or the other is a morphological match for an ancestor but they both cannot be.

of course they can be!

grandmother->mother-> you

protoceratops->Monoclonuis->triceratops

how hard was that?

 

[Zaius137]

Easy. Look at the years given for monoclonius, protoceratops, and triceratops.

Monoclonius is given at 75 MYA, protoceratops at 75-71 MYA, and triceratops at 68-65 MYA.

So, Monoclonius is the grandma, Protoceratops is the Mom, and triceratops is the daughter.

Also, your whole deal about the archaeopteryx being a bird ignores the WHOLE DARN POINT. OF COURSE it's a bird! And of course archaeopteryx fossils appeared 'suddenly', there weren't archaeopteryx all throughout the history of the planet! What's important is just how many traits that are now reptile traits which current birds lack that it has. Also, what traits it lacks that modern birds have. What's ALSO important is how many dinosaurs there were that are related to it that were reptiles with traits that only true birds now have, and what traits modern reptiles have that they lack. Saying 'archaeopteryx is just a bird' misses the WHOLE POINT!

Ambulocetus doesn't have fins. It doesn't need to have fins, and it's not necessarily even claimed as having fins. It's shown as having legs when hung up in museums:
http://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ambulocetus1.jpg
That's a picture of one hanging up in Tokyo. Sorry that you have to click on it, I tried using the img tags but it was HUGE.

Do you even know what traits make it a whale ancestor? It's not because of fins or webs. And would skin webs even fossilize?

I also find it highly amusing that when you link to the response by Duane Gish, you gave a page that has two links on it to the point by point response, and the numbers scattered throughout the paragraph and individual links to refutations of that specific point? Doesn't seem the best way to argue against something, to have each point you make linked to its specific rebuttal.

Metherion

Monoclonius is given at 75 MYA, protoceratops at 75-71 MYA… so they lived about the same time frames.

Therefore, they interbreed. How do you know they could?