So, what about the Wollemi Pine?

[Vance]

I was told that the Wollemi Pine somehow is an argument against evolution, but I am not sure why this is.

I see that it is a species that was believed to be extinct and now they have found some. And, so . . .?

Is the argument that this proves things don't become extinct? That we will someday find the dinosaurs and the Dodo (and the millions of other species which are in the fossil record, but we don't see around any more) in some remote valley?

Finding living examples of a species thought to be extinct only means that we could not find any, so thought it had gone extinct, and now we found some and know they have not. I don't get the point.

 

[Ark Guy]

Living Fossils destroy evolutionISM

 

[Vance]

Um, no, they don't. It simply means one of two things have occured:

1. they are so well adapted to their environment that there are no evolutionary pressures to change; and/or

2. they have not changed morphologically because their morphology is perfectly suited to the environment (mobility, method of food gathering, etc), but internal changes have occured to better adapt to certain pressures in the environment but these would not show in fossil.

Living fossils have not been shown to be any challenge to evolution in the least. With the Billions of species that have lived on the earth, we would expect a certain percentage to remain exactly the same, that is just the odds. When they are found, therefore, it is no surprise at all.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Living Fossils destroy evolutionISM

Do explain why.

 

[notto]

Actually, I think the Wollemi Pine would be a great confirmation of the theory of evolution. This tree is only found in I think 3 places and these places are.

1) extremely isolated from changes in climate such as drought and the environment (a valley surrounded by mountains) prevents the spread of the tree to other environments.
2) extremely sparce and the tree is better suited than competing trees to use the resources available (they can grow in sparce environments)

The fossil record shows that these trees once covered a much larger area of habitat and now they only survive is a very few isolated areas that they are well suited to survive in.

Much like the coeleanth.

The individual trees that have been studied have also shown that there is little to no genetic variation between them. As we all know, a population cannot evolve without genetic variation so it would be expected that these trees would show little evolution. Due to this minimal genetic variation, the trees would simply become extinct as environments change instead of adpating to the new environment, which would explain why they can only be found now in very few, isolated niches.

http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/peakall_group/Rod/wollemi.html
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Rod Peakall[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]The discovery of the Wollemi Pine, Wollemia nobilis in 1994 made international headlines. The relictual conifer belongs to the ancient conifer family the Araucariaceae, and is only known from 2 small populations. I am currently conducting a study of genetic variation in this species along with representatives of the only other extant genera in the family, Agathis and Araucaria. So far, within the Wollemi Pine no allozyme variability has been found at 13 allozymes loci. Furthermore, no variability has been detected at more than 800 loci, visualised by the AFLP method. While the absence of allozyme variability is know for other rare species, the lack of AFLP variation is unexpected, since this method normally reveals polymorphic loci, even when allozyme variation is absent. This suggests exceptionally low genetic diversity in the Wollemi Pine. Long term isolation, small population size and clonality may have contributed to this pattern. Preliminary data in Agathis, while showing some variation, may indicate that genetic variability is low in the family as a whole. The Araucariaceae may thus provide an opportunity to explore the cause and evolutionary consequences of low genetic diversity, both of which remain important empirical issues in conservation biology[/font]

 

[notto]

" We can, perhaps, on these views, understand some facts which will be again alluded to in our chapter on geographical distribution; for instance, that the productions of the smaller continent of Australia have formerly yielded, and apparently are now yielding, before those of the larger Europaeo-Asiatic area. Thus, also, it is that continental productions have everywhere become so largely naturalised on islands. On a small island, the race for life will have been less severe, and there will have been less modification and less extermination. Hence, perhaps, it comes that the flora of Madeira, according to Oswald Heer, resembles the extinct tertiary flora of Europe. All fresh-water basins, taken together, make a small area compared with that of the sea or of the land; and, consequently, the competition between fresh-water productions will have been less severe than elsewhere; new forms will have been more slowly formed, and old forms more slowly exterminated. And it is in fresh water that we find seven genera of Ganoid fishes, remnants of a once preponderant order: and in fresh water we find some of the most anomalous forms now known in the world, as the Ornithorhynchus and Lepidosiren, which, like fossils, connect to a certain extent orders now widely separated in the natural scale. These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition."

The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Chapter 4 - Natural Selection

How can 'living fossils' be a problem for evolution when it was Darwin who coined the term and describes their existence in the first place? They would simply be an example of the predictive power of Darwins theory. Score one for Darwin.

 

[Ark Guy]

Do explain why.

...No problem. read on.

Living fossils such as the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs do an enormous amount of damage to the evolutionary theories. These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts. The question is, how did these "living fossils"...animals and plants ...survive the many millions upon millions of years with virtually no change? Perhaps they could last a few hundred thousand years unchanged, but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions upon millions of years.

Some evolutionist will argue that these species found a special "ecological niche" and despite the enourmous amount of mutations that they say would have occurred naturally in those millions of years they were somehow not exposed to the pressures presented by normal evolutionary change.

According to the old earth uniformitarian theory the whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when a big time major world wide ecological "niche" changing event happened after a meteorite slammed into the earth, ...but, some how, species such as the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs apparently weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event.
Despite this catastrophic event it is amazing that the evolutionist still claim that these living fossils conformed to their very own particular ecological niche. Some how they were able to pass through this world wide niche changing catastrophic event at the K/T boundary. It was at this time, 65 million years ago, that the evolutionist claim that 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings on the land, in the skies and under the seas were wiped out forever.
It's interesting to note that each of the above mentioned living fossils are claimed to have pre-dated this catastrophic event by tens of million years with virtually no change prior to or after the catastrophic event.

Certainly after an event such as the supposed mass extinction mentioned above, the changed environment, disappearing food chains on land and in the seas, tsunamis crashing into continents, fire scorched landscapes, sun blocked "winters" and their temperature changes would have caused the tempo of evolution to increase all over the surface of the globe, in the air and under the seas. This increased evolutionary tempo would have allowed for the selection of new beneficial mutations while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental biomes created on the land, in the air and under the seas.

Despite the argument that time coupled with mutations, and the normal pressures of evolutionary change should have been more than enough to introduce major morphological change into the living fossils. Considering the above, the event surrounding the K/T boundary and the massive change to the earth and the insignificant changes to the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs make the likelihood of living fossils impossible and unfounded.

To perplex the issue even more, besides the mutational/natural selective changes mentioned above that should have occurred during the last 65 million years there is yet another mechanism that the evolutionist claim introduces major morphological changes into animals. This mechanism is Genetic Drift. Apparently in the last 65 + million years this process also produced no significant change where according to their theories a considerable change should have occurred to the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs as their niches were upset.

The evolutionist say that change does happen. Shortly after the catastrophic event that supposably happened 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, in a period of less than 50 million years a four legged wolf like animal Andrewsarchus (or what ever the latest evolution scenario is) is claimed to have evolved into a sleek sea creature. In this time period Andrewsarchus lost its legs as they turned into flippers, developed a spout with a new breathing system that contained special valves for shutting the nostrils, echo location system, blubber and other whale like features.....all while the living fossil Crocodile watched from the swamp as the Tuatara peeped his head out of his borrow under the shade of a the Ginko tree and Wollemi Pine. Meanwhile, the Horseshoe crabs scurried along the bay floors and the Coelacanth swam by in the oceans and didn't change outside of their normal genetic variations ...despite the morphological mutations and genetic drift that would have occurred over the millions upon millions of years as the species felt the massive environmental change to the fauna in it's biome at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that the evolutionist tell us happened 15 million years prior.

The existence of the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree, Wollemi Pine, Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs are great example of creation. It shows that animals reproduce after their "kind" and don't really change in the fashion in which the evolutionist claim. It seem as if the DNA and genetic code for the Coelacanth, Tuatara, Ginko tree,Wollemi Pine. Crocodiles and Horseshoe crabs has been resistant to change through out it's history....as expected.

It tells us that scientist should view the geological column and the animals trapped in the fossil record as contemporanious rather than seperated by long time frames.

 

[notto]

Darwin predicted organisms like th Wollemi Pine that show little genetic variation between individuals (and he did this even before we discovered DNA).

The logical fallacy that the above argument uses is one of an unrepresentative sample. If you find one or two organism with little genetic diversity, it does not mean that all oranisms have little genetic diversity. Guess what, there are organisms out there that show more genetic diversity than the one used in this sample.

The Wollemi Pine matches the 'living fossil' model that Darwin discussed.

1) Little genetic diversity between individuals and from generation to generation
2) Isolated environment

Now, if it could be shown that ALL organism show little genetic diversity between individuals, then you would have something. Otherwise, it is just a poor appeal by creationists without critically examining the evidence related to the organisms they discuss.

Evolution does not demand that ALL organism populations much change over time and certainly explains stasis and living fossils as well. The claims by the above article that evolution demands change are a strawman of the theory.

 

[Ark Guy]

Notto, Didn't you read my post? It already refuted your post.

 

[notto]

Notto, Didn't you read my post? It already refuted your post.

How exactly.

The Pine has all of the characteristics Darwin predicted for these 'living fossils'. What exactly was refuted? Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.

 

[Ark Guy]

How did the pine survive the catastrophic event I described above?

How was the environment not changed?

What about 65+ years of mutations that the evos claim would have occured?

What about genetic drift over 65+ MY's

After all 65+ MY is an awful long time, coupled with the reasonings presented in my post presents quite a problem for the evos.

 

[notto]

How did the pine survive the catastrophic event I described above?

How was the environment not changed?

What about 65+ years of mutations that the evos claim would have occured?

What about genetic drift over 65+ MY's

After all 65+ MY is an awful long time, coupled with the reasonings presented in my post presents quite a problem for the evos.

Many things survived the event.

The environment has changed, but not in every niche (the Coelecanth for instance is only found in very deep water - a very stable environment - how has its environment changed?). The pine is no longer growing in places where the environment changed. It is only found in 3 small, protected areas. Where its environment changed drastically, it died out.

The pine show very little genetic variety from one individual to another, it experiences very little genetic drift and variatioin.

There are no problems for the evos. All of this was hypothesized by Darwin (and he did a great job of it considering that DNA hadn't been discovered yet) and this find matches his predictions.

You are using a strawman of evolution. Evolution does not say that change MUST happen, it accurately describes the reasons for change and this find matches what is predicted.

Can you show us where evolution says that all things MUST change?
Can you show us where evolution says that all things had to change after the K/T event? (I notice that your source doesn't say that all things were wiped out).

 

[Ark Guy]

Why do you claim these areas didn't change? Do you have any references?

Why would such an event as mentioned above not have changed the 3 location the tree exist?

Remember 65+ MY ia an awfully long time.

 

[Ark Guy]

Please stop dodging the question

 

[ThePhoenix]

Why do you claim these areas didn't change? Do you have any references?

Why would such an event as mentioned above not have changed the 3 location the tree exist?

Remember 65+ MY ia an awfully long time.

Because obviously there were no beneficial mutations.
Maybe the "living fossils" are perfectly adapted to their enviroments (see: Shark; cochroach) maybe the gene pool is too limited for genetic drift and robust selection (dodo). Maybe there were simply no beneficial mutations in that period of time.

P.S. How is 65 million year old unevolved trees evidence for a YOUNG earth?

 

[Ark Guy]

Come on, all those trees, with all those mutations and all that genetic drift and all that time with the up set environment...and no change?

lets face reality. There was no 65 MY ago...the earth is young.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Come on, all those trees, with all those mutations and all that genetic drift and all that time with the up set environment...and no change?

lets face reality. There was no 65 MY ago...the earth is young.

Come on, trees in isolated ecological niches have no impetus to evolve, so they don't. Sorry.

 

[notto]

Come on, all those trees, with all those mutations and all that genetic drift and all that time with the up set environment...and no change?

lets face reality. There was no 65 MY ago...the earth is young.

You seem to be missing the point. These trees show little genetic diversity between individuals. In order to evolve, a population needs to have genetic diversity. The trees are somewhat unique in their genetic diversity and it is very limited. There are no 'all those mutations'. This is unusual in populations and that is why this is such a unique find. Unlike most other populations, there is little genetic diversity for natural selection to act on, therefore, there is little evolution. The tree can only survive in the small areas that are still suitable for it. That is why it is not more widespread and it has become extinct in most of its habitat.

If this tree DID show large amounts of genetic diversity between individual specimens, and it did not evolve, then you would be on to something, but as it turns out, this is not a surprise to evolution at all now that the genetic nature of the tree is knows.

If a species survived by cloning and did a good job of it, there would be little genetic diversity for the environment to select on, and therefore, we would not expect that species to evolve. Clonalism plays a role in this trees reproductive cycle.

You need to look at the details a bit closer before making broad statements about this somehow being a problem for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory covers this and predicts this quite well.

You should read Darwin. He covers this quite well and predicted just this type of organism.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ark Guy - I take it you have sequenced the DNA of a modern Tuatara and of a 100 million year old one and established that there has been little or no genetic change?

Genotype != Phenotype. Moreover, these "living fossils" have changed - just not radically. The modern Coelocanth is not a species known from the fossil record, although it is remarkably similar in general morphology.
Similarly, the Tuatara is a living representative of a group that is largely known only from the fossil record. What Creationism needs to answer is why there were once so many species like it, and now there is only the one. Did Noah only get the Tuatara, and missed out on all the other members of its Order?

 

[Vance]

Another point is that the existence of some virtually unchanged species are what evolution would expect to see. When you have billions and billions of species, you would expect to have a spectrum of the degree of change. Some will have changed constantly and fairly rapidly (in geological terms) and others less so. With that broad spectrum, you would expext a very small percentage, say half a percent or even less, would be virtually unchanged. That is just the odds. And, with billions of species, even that tiny percentage could come out to a large number. We probably have not even found all the species yet which have shown very little change.

This is simply another example of the "aha!" nature of YEC'ism. Since they can not show systematically how evolution can not work (in fact, they need it to work for their own purposes), they rely on these isolated events and arguments to discredit the concept. It is like taking a brick out of the Wall of China. Most of the time, as here, they can't even get the brick out.