Looking for all the missing links

[good brother]

I would like to offer, here, a beautiful dissertation written by a friend of mine on the CARM website, regarding the work of Dr. Henry Gee on cladistics:

It's almost like he read the letter at the beginning of this thread. Allow me to quote him a few time from the passage you gave us.

We cannot say that this fossil was the ancestor to that fossil;

we cannot even try to legitimize it by saying that this fossil represents the ancestral species represented by that fossil.

As he says in the infamous quote, we cannot infer cause and effect from fossils. We do not have enough of them,

we do not know if the individual that became the fossil ever reproduced or not,

we cannot legitimately create a line of fossils, call them ancestors and descendants,

and also call it science.

It is not science because we cannot test such a claim: it cannot be falsified.



But here’s the thing: while it is not legitimate to infer lines of descent from fossils, and construct scenarios about why such and such a lineage grew legs/grew big brains, we can in fact construct testable hypotheses about the relationships of one fossil species to another. We can reconstruct the evolutionary history—the phylogeny--of any group of organisms, as long as there are more than two,

Gee’s point, though, is that when we get into Deep Time, we do not have all the members of the family we would require to construct an ancestor-descendant lineage,

we only have occasional bits of information in the form of individual fossils.

We know that there are ancestors, that had descendants; we do not know what those specific ancestors were.

​

I am sure there is more meat in there, but I have to go for now.

In Christ, GB

 

[GrannyM]

It's almost like he read the letter at the beginning of this thread. Allow me to quote him a few time from the passage you gave us.

We cannot say that this fossil was the ancestor to that fossil;

we cannot even try to legitimize it by saying that this fossil represents the ancestral species represented by that fossil.

As he says in the infamous quote, we cannot infer cause and effect from fossils. We do not have enough of them,

we do not know if the individual that became the fossil ever reproduced or not,

we cannot legitimately create a line of fossils, call them ancestors and descendants,

and also call it science.

It is not science because we cannot test such a claim: it cannot be falsified.



But here’s the thing: while it is not legitimate to infer lines of descent from fossils, and construct scenarios about why such and such a lineage grew legs/grew big brains, we can in fact construct testable hypotheses about the relationships of one fossil species to another. We can reconstruct the evolutionary history—the phylogeny--of any group of organisms, as long as there are more than two,

Gee’s point, though, is that when we get into Deep Time, we do not have all the members of the family we would require to construct an ancestor-descendant lineage,

we only have occasional bits of information in the form of individual fossils.

We know that there are ancestors, that had descendants; we do not know what those specific ancestors were.

​

I am sure there is more meat in there, but I have to go for now.

In Christ, GB

What we have is the overwhelming weight of the evidence, in the science of cladistics, that evolution happens.

 

[createdtoworship]

As I couldn't keep up with the threads here, I had to take a step back.

It's interesting to see how Astrid posts.

She quotes a lot of references. A lot of these don't support her arguments. E.g. she posts links showing that the phylogenetic tree has been modified over the years as more evidence has come in and better theories to explain evolution has come in. She tries to paint this quite normal procedure as indicating something "wrong" with evolution, but doesn't actually say what it is that is "wrong" or why we should be concerned if the phylogenetic tree is refined and improved over time.

She does bluster a bit. E.g. she posted the John Sanford link. I looked into it, found problems, found a sophisticated analysis of his work, read some more, and figured out what was wrong with it. When I posted my response, I received a blustering "get over it". But, Astrid didn't actually address my points concerning why Sanford's simulations were based on poor models of mutation and variation to the point where the predictions of his model mean nothing. But she hasn't addressed these issues. And personally I'm not convinced that she can. She posts a lot of scientific looking links, but I don't think she really understands the content of her links, and hence can't construct an argument based on them. She can only post, and bluster. I'd be happy to be proved wrong here, but that's all I'm seeing so far.

She's done some similar blustering with the Vitamin C example. The point was raised as to why humans have only the first few steps of vitamin C synthesis present, but the last step doesn't work. Why would a God make us work that way? But Astrid suddenly posts a link to a paper about mammals being able to synthesise or not synthesise Vitamin C, again with a blustering put-down. I looked at the paper and I can't see how it supports her argument.

It does look like Astrid is posting something that has the surface appearance of a scientific argument, but which lacks the underlying logic.

That's my analysis, anyhow.

talking about people is gossiping. Talking to people is conversation. Just so you know.

 

[Norman321]

What we have is the overwhelming weight of the evidence, in the science of cladistics, that evolution happens.

Perhaps you would like to share a little bit of that overwelming weight of evidence with us.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

talking about people is gossiping. Talking to people is conversation. Just so you know.

Gossiping is talking behind people's backs. This is hardly that. In your mind, are people not allowed to comment on another person's contributions to this forum?

 

[GrannyM]

Perhaps you would like to share a little bit of that overwelming weight of evidence with us.

Of course. You have heard of the nested hierarchy, have you not? This system was first devised by Carl Linnaeus, a good Christian, to classify all living beings. He did this before the science of DNA was perfected but even in its primitive form, it allowed scientists to place organisms in relation to one another, based on their common characteristics. It was Linnaeus who placed humans with the other great apes in a common taxa.

And so, as new fossils and new organisms were found, they were placed in this nested hierarchy, and, lo and behold, everything fit, just as evolutionary biology predicted that it would.

Just recently, the science of DNA and genomics has come into its own, and scientists can compare the genomes of many disparate life forms. This has led to some adjustments in the Tree of Life, but not so many as you would suppose - and, wonder of wonders, it supports every prediction evolutionary biology makes. Every life form on earth fits into this nested hierarchy - every one!!

Just google up Tree of Life Web project, and jump anywhere: Follow the lines wherever you want to. You will never find a crocodile giving birth to a horse; you will always find exactly what evolution predicts.

 

[createdtoworship]

Gossiping is talking behind people's backs. This is hardly that. In your mind, are people not allowed to comment on another person's contributions to this forum?

if you have a problem with someone on the forum, it's best to speak face to face about it, not to others. Thats what I mean by Gossip.

it the Bible it's called backbiting, and it's got some severe repercussions if you look it up.

 

[Davian]

if you have a problem with someone on the forum, it's best to speak face to face about it, not to others. Thats what I mean by Gossip.

Since AnotherAtheist was clearly and openly addressing the content of astridhere's posts, it was not gossip. I concur with many of his points, and even in this thread have asked for her to clarify her views.

it the Bible it's called backbiting, and it's got some severe repercussions if you look it up.

Perhaps your concerns for astridhere are misdirected. No, we are not discussing your recent posts behind your back, gradyll. At least, I'm not.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

if you have a problem with someone on the forum, it's best to speak face to face about it, not to others. Thats what I mean by Gossip.

it the Bible it's called backbiting, and it's got some severe repercussions if you look it up.

You're reading far too much into this, in your routine quest to find lots of things wrong with whatever atheists or agnostics say on any matter whatsoever.

His comment about Astrid was spoken about her in the third person, but it was clearly directed for her to reply. The poster was also seeing if anyone else felt the way he did when he interacted with her. I have felt the exact same way (and have communicated many concerns to Astrid directly), so I concurred with his post.

Enjoy your pedestal, though, if that's what you want.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're reading far too much into this, in your routine quest to find lots of things wrong with whatever atheists or agnostics say on any matter whatsoever.

His comment about Astrid was spoken about her in the third person, but it was clearly directed for her to reply. The poster was also seeing if anyone else felt the way he did when he interacted with her. I have felt the exact same way (and have communicated many concerns to Astrid directly), so I concurred with his post.

Enjoy your pedestal, though, if that's what you want.

Pedestals are mega rad, so are soap boxes, and pulpits.

 

[createdtoworship]

Since AnotherAtheist was clearly and openly addressing the content of astridhere's posts, it was not gossip. I concur with many of his points, and even in this thread have asked for her to clarify her views.

Perhaps your concerns for astridhere are misdirected. No, we are not discussing your recent posts behind your back, gradyll. At least, I'm not.

Just taking care of business, gossip is what it is.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Pedestals are mega rad, so are soap boxes, and pulpits.

Surprised that you took my accusation of arrogance on your part as a compliment

But who cares, let's get back to the missing links.

My position: we don't need a single fossil to confirm common ancestry, because the genetic evidence is so strong. So this thread is a non-issue, really, if one is trying to doubt evolution by attacking fossils.

 

[createdtoworship]

Surprised that you took my accusation of arrogance on your part as a compliment

But who cares, let's get back to the missing links.

My position: we don't need a single fossil to confirm common ancestry, because the genetic evidence is so strong. So this thread is a non-issue, really, if one is trying to doubt evolution by attacking fossils.

If we say a man evolved from an ape, there are missing links.

and no fossils...

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

If we say a man evolved from an ape, there are missing links.

and no fossils...

There are fossils, and they're icing on the cake. The genetic evidence is that strong.

 

[Norman321]

The genetic evidence is that strong.

Science is a long way off from being able to explain the genetic evidence. Perhaps the very evidence that you cling to for hope will end up showing that descent with modification is not true. If you say modern man shows up 50,000 years ago. Then what modification has taken place in that time?

 

[razeontherock]

Every life form on earth fits into this nested hierarchy - every one!!

Just google up Tree of Life Web project, and jump anywhere: Follow the lines wherever you want to. You will never find a crocodile giving birth to a horse; you will always find exactly what evolution predicts.

It cracks me up that educated people who should know better, actually think this means something other than our own ability to create patterns ...

And refuse to see what it says about the Creator's similar ability

 

[Norman321]

own ability to create patterns ...

Not so much as form follows function. Design is based more on the materials and the structure of those materials. For example, snow flakes look the way they do, because that is the structure of Ice when it becomes a crystal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It cracks me up that educated people who should know better, actually think this means something other than our own ability to create patterns ...

And refuse to see what it says about the Creator's similar ability

Creationist's denial is sad rather than amusing. It is also very revealing, though probably not in a way they'd like.

 

[Norman321]

you will always find exactly what evolution predicts.

Newton's theory of gravity made some pretty good predictions also. They got the job done up until advanced forms of transportation came along. Then they needed a new theory to keep up with the changing times. Einstein working in the Patient office saw this need.

 

[razeontherock]

Creationist's denial is sad rather than amusing. It is also very revealing, though probably not in a way they'd like.

Who you talkin about? Get yer facts straight, bub!