The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[Dirk1540]

But yes, there are discussions on how fast evolution can occur. Paleontologists cant distinguish very fine rates of transition because, like i said above, we dont have billions of fossils to work with. Biologists seem to have a good understanding of possible rates, but as in all fields of science, information is always being discovered. People also always have biases, so you might find some scientists who are strong gradualists, while others might suggest a punctuated evolution mixed with gradualism. But really its all just...nit picky. Its like debating how round the earth is. At the end of the day its round and we all agree, but people like to spice things up by talking about mountains and valleys.

I don’t have a problem seeing a progression from simple to complex. I’ll skip the talk about punctuated equilibrium regarding sea to land transitions. If even 100 generations is too soon for punctuated equilibrium than my problem has always been with homo sapien survival in a transitional state (of even as little as 3 generations).

Physically speaking Homo Sapiens are cream puffs. We need clothing, artificial shelter, we need to make fire because we can’t just eat a dead animal or we’ll get sick, we need tools & weapons to make up for our lack of claws/sharp teeth/speed/strength/durability. Basically we’re dead without creative intelligence.

How could we survive even 3 generations of punctuated equilibrium if we lack both the physical traits we’d need to compete with in the wild (like apes) and our creative intelligence at the same time? That’s where I get stuck. As smart as monkeys are, their craftiness utilizes their physical traits (and even the incredibly smart ones on YouTube videos only got that way because humans trained them).

Unless...the creative intelligence happened first, and over many generations we became less & less physically intimidating. Perhaps literally starting out as a ‘God breathed’ Planet of the Apes at first.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don’t have a problem seeing a progression from simple to complex. I’ll skip the talk about punctuated equilibrium regarding sea to land transitions. If even 100 generations is too soon for punctuated equilibrium than my problem has always been with homo sapien survival in a transitional state (of even as little as 3 generations).

Physically speaking Homo Sapiens are cream puffs. We need clothing, artificial shelter, we need to make fire because we can’t just eat a dead animal or we’ll get sick, we need tools & weapons to make up for our lack of claws/sharp teeth/speed/strength/durability. Basically we’re dead without creative intelligence.

How could we survive even 3 generations of punctuated equilibrium if we lack both the physical traits we’d need to compete with in the wild (like apes) and our creative intelligence at the same time? That’s where I get stuck. As smart as monkeys are, their craftiness utilizes their physical traits (and even the incredibly smart ones on YouTube videos only got that way because humans trained them).

When it comes to human evolution, I usually look at skulls.

http://phylo.wikidot.com/fun-with-hominin-cranial-capacity-through-time

I think you are right that mankind is relatively fragile. But we have had relatively large skull capacities for what appears to be millions of years. Chimp skulls run on average around 400cc, and we passed that point maybe 2 million years ago, so I would suspect that we have thrived utilizing our minds since then. And really, thats probably why we are so soft. They say if you dont use it, you lose it. Well, if we dont use our muscles and claws and tails and large canines and fur, then inevitably we lose it. Why wouldnt we use these things? Presumably because we lose the need to. Our intelligence stepped in and we began making tools and using fire, replacing the need for incredible strength, claws, large canines and fur.

 

[Job 33:6]

To clarify, i dont think there was ever a time in which we had neither physical fitness nor intelligence. I would say we had one (bronze), then it was exchanged for another (intelligence).

And this is actually common in evolution where resources and energy are focused into certain aspects, and other lesser used traits are lost because they take up energy and provide no real benefit. ie, large muscles would provide no real benefit if we had tools, so the energy historically used to maintain that mass was instead transferred into energy used to operate and grow our brain. Now look at us, our brain consumes a ridiculous amount of energy and someone can become exhausted just after reading a complex research article on subatomic physics. Biologists could probably speak more on this than i could.

Unless we go back to say, early mammalian times. If you really want to get into it, as far as we can tell, we were small mammals, similar to mice. In that case, we wouldnt have had big muscles or intelligence. But mice survive just fine without either of such. But that would have been long ago, maybe 50 some odd million years in the past.

 

[Dirk1540]

If you really want to get into it, as far as we can tell, we were small mammals, similar to mice. In that case, we wouldnt have had big muscles or intelligence. But mice survive just fine without either of such. But that would have been long ago, maybe 50 some odd million years in the past.

Even barring size & strength I think that physically small animals still put humans to shame. A mouse caught in a glue trap will fight non-stop for days to break free, will even chew it’s own leg off to get off of it then scurry away. Just survival durability and endurance alone is so lame for Homo Sapiens. Like you say use it or lose it. I think humans are also on the bottom of the list for ability to handle pain.

 

[Job 33:6]

Feel free to ignore that pandas thumb link that i had originally quoted. Unfortunately the topic has become so publicized that anything you good automatically turns into a discussion about creationism. I just wanted to depict some figures for an easier understanding of the topic.

 

[Dirk1540]

To clarify, i dont think there was ever a time in which we had neither physical fitness nor intelligence. I would say we had one (bronze), then it was exchanged for another (intelligence).

It seems then that creative intelligence must come first...

Unless...the creative intelligence happened first, and over many generations we became less & less physically intimidating. Perhaps literally starting out as a ‘God breathed’ Planet of the Apes at first.

Because the creative intelligence would have to be put in place first or else there couldn’t be any ‘Use it or lose it’ to take place because without the creative intelligence we would never stop using it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then it's no wonder you think God creating the earth with oil reservoirs is Last Thursdayism.

Do you even know what is meant with Last Thursdayism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you even know what is meant with Last Thursdayism?

Do you even know what is meant by Embedded Age?

Last Thursdayism is maturity with history.
Embedded Age is maturity without history.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you even know what is meant by Embedded Age?

Yes: the equivalent of Last Thursdayism......

Last Thursdayism is maturity with history.

No, it's not.

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

Yes. Like Last Thursdayism.
The idea that everything was created last thursday, looking like it's much older then last thursday.

 

[lifepsyop]

If there is a biological barrier preventing evolution beyond a certain degree of change then what is it?

The barrier? It's called Natural Selection. Perhaps you've heard of it? Mess with an animal's essential physiology and it tends to lose fitness in a hurry. That's what Natural Selection actually does... it actually RESISTS Evolution. But then evolutionists summon pure magic into natural selection and now it's a mystical creative force.

Of course this argument means very little when you have a blind unquestioning faith in the power of nature to magically sculpt hearts and brains and sex and every other piece of living anatomy from disorganized chemicals. In this case, a simple story about how it happened is sufficient.

If you want to argue that there are discontinuities in biology indicating separately created life forms, then where are they?

Put something on the table.

This is so funny, because there have been countless arguments put forth on how unlikely it is for an animal to cross a certain threshhold of modification before its fitness plummets.

This is when evolutionists offer an imagined stepwise pathway that mystical natural forces took to "evolve" new complex anatomical systems (usually saying little or nothing about how the animal populations actually survived such radical changes).... With zero evidence that natural processes can even come close to sustaining such changes, the evolutionists then step back and say "Prove it can't happen! Prove there's a barrier!" ... Oh, and that's only after banning any opposition from the discourse, forcing the debate to internet forums because they're afraid to deal with it in the open.

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea that everything was created last thursday, looking like it's much older then last thursday.

"Looking like" being the operative phrase here.

In embedded age, it "looks like" because it "is."

In Last Thursday, it only "looks like."

 

[DogmaHunter]

The barrier? It's called Natural Selection. Perhaps you've heard of it? Mess with an animal's essential physiology and it tends to lose fitness in a hurry. That's what Natural Selection actually does...

Yes, natural selection is the concept that the best equipped to survive and reproduce, will have the most chances of doing so.

That indeed means that those who, due to genetic changes, have a reduction in fitness, will likely not be the one that spreads his/her genes.

That, however, ALSO means that those who, due to genetic changes, have an increase in fitness, will have more success to spread their genes as compared to their peers.

it actually RESISTS Evolution

It can, but only during periods of, what in genetic algoritms is called, "local optimum".
This can be viewed as a period of stability where all species are as "optimised as can be" for the niche they inhabit in the eco-system. In the sense that there are no longer any evolutionary pathways towards notable improvement.

But, when the environment / eco-system changes, so do the selection parameters accordingly. This pulls species out of the local optimum and once again leaves room for further increase in fitness. How much room, is dependend on how drastic the change in environment is. This chance can be anything ranging from geological activity reshaping the land (volcano's, tectonic activity, rivier formation or disappearance,...), migration of animals (loss of natural enemies, availability of more/less food,....), climate changes, asteroid impacts, desease outbreaks,................................

Ever heared of "punctuated equilibrium"? That's exact the subject that it deals with.
During periods of environmental stability, little evolution is expected (species are in their local optimum). Changes in environment, breaks this stability and then evolution accelerates.

But then evolutionists summon pure magic into natural selection and now it's a mystical creative force.

Nothing magical about it. Genetic Algoritms implement this exact logic and is being used every day as an optimisation module to evolve better systems for whatever (like more efficient fuel distribution networks in a Boeing 747).

These algoritms are commercially applied, because they work.
And you don't need a magic wand to make them work. They just work.

I'm baffled as to how you can say that "natural selection" is somehow "magical". The concept is so simple...

Of course this argument means very little when you have a blind unquestioning faith in the power of nature to magically sculpt hearts and brains and sex and every other piece of living anatomy from disorganized chemicals. In this case, a simple story about how it happened is sufficient.

No faith required. Biological evolution (mutation followed by selection in a "fitness test") demonstrably works. No magic required.

This is so funny, because there have been countless arguments put forth on how unlikely it is for an animal to cross a certain threshhold of modification before its fitness plummets.

Such as? And don't forget to mention the method by which it was determined to "unlikely", as well as a demonstration thereof.

This is when evolutionists offer an imagined stepwise pathway that mystical natural forces took to "evolve" new complex anatomical systems (usually saying little or nothing about how the animal populations actually survived such radical changes)....

What changes, again?

With zero evidence that natural processes can even come close to sustaining such changes, the evolutionists then step back and say "Prove it can't happen! Prove there's a barrier!"

Don't you think that it is sensible that if you are going to assert that there is some barrier, that you are then subsequently asked what that barrier is and how you know it exists?

... Oh, and that's only after banning any opposition from the discourse, forcing the debate to internet forums because they're afraid to deal with it in the open.

Science deals with evidence based conclusions and testable explanatory models of reality.
If you are just going to make bare assertions, call obviously natural processes "magical" and then wave a bible claiming to hold the absolute truth (which actually flies in the face of plenty of scientific facts), then don't expect to be taken seriously.

If you then subsequently come to some forum to start crying about it, don't expect any sympathy.

If you then start accusing all scientists of some giant conspiracy, encompassing just about every mentionworthy university, scientific journal and all scientists of those particular field, and that this conspiracy is happening cross generation for the past 2 centuries.... Then don't be surprised to be treated like some conspiracy nut who actually might need psychological help more then an actual education in the relevant sciences.

I don't mean to insult you, but you should really realise the absurd scope of your accusations here.

What's more likely?

That indeed MILLIONS of scientists around the world, universities and scientific journals are involved in the BIGGEST conspiracy in the history of the world with no leaks whatsoever...

Or that you are perhaps simply wrong concerning your minority fundamentalist faith based religious beliefs?

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Looking like" being the operative phrase here.

In embedded age, it "looks like" because it "is."

In Last Thursday, it only "looks like."

Playing word games is not going to help you.

If it "is", then it has history.
If it doesn't have history, then "it looks like" it has.
Can't have it both ways.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The principle of both is the exact same.

Face it. You have a Last Thursday-ish belief system.

 

[AV1611VET]

Face it. You have a Last Thursday-ish belief system.

Keep your day job.

 

[AirPo]

Keep your day job.

 

[pitabread]

The barrier? It's called Natural Selection. Perhaps you've heard of it? Mess with an animal's essential physiology and it tends to lose fitness in a hurry. That's what Natural Selection actually does... it actually RESISTS Evolution.

This is what I stated earlier: that the biological barriers are viable biological forms. And yes, natural selection tends to eliminate non-viable biological forms.

That said, it takes only a cursory glance at modern life to see the wide variety of viable biological forms that do exist.

This is so funny, because there have been countless arguments put forth on how unlikely it is for an animal to cross a certain threshhold of modification before its fitness plummets.

Care to put forth an example?

This is when evolutionists offer an imagined stepwise pathway that mystical natural forces took to "evolve" new complex anatomical systems (usually saying little or nothing about how the animal populations actually survived such radical changes).... With zero evidence that natural processes can even come close to sustaining such changes, the evolutionists then step back and say "Prove it can't happen! Prove there's a barrier!" ... Oh, and that's only after banning any opposition from the discourse, forcing the debate to internet forums because they're afraid to deal with it in the open.

It sounds like you're just making an argument from incredulity, especially given the evidence we do have available to support that bio-forms do evolve over time (claiming "zero evidence" is quite silly given that all hypotheses are tested on the basis of gathered evidence).

Thus, if you are going to argue the opposite and especially that there is a biological barrier in nature preventing changes, then what it is? You've alluded to plummeting fitness of organisms which undergo changes, but do you have anything specifically to support this?

 

[Turkana]

The barrier? It's called Natural Selection. Perhaps you've heard of it? Mess with an animal's essential physiology and it tends to lose fitness in a hurry. That's what Natural Selection actually does... it actually RESISTS Evolution. But then evolutionists summon pure magic into natural selection and now it's a mystical creative force.

Of course this argument means very little when you have a blind unquestioning faith in the power of nature to magically sculpt hearts and brains and sex and every other piece of living anatomy from disorganized chemicals. In this case, a simple story about how it happened is sufficient.

I think you have no idea what natural selection actually means.
A bit odd for a person who feels entitled to criticize it.

Your whole contention about it is basically a strawman. I'm sure you can do better.

Natural selection means adaptation in phenotype to the environmental living conditions a particular organism experiences. Phenotype the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest).

Normally when those living conditions don't change, any change in phenotype indeed tends to be reducing fitness. Which implies less survival and/or reproduction chance which will cause such unlucky individual more likely to die without leaving offspring, thus removing the change from the species' gene pool.

But things are quite different when the environmental conditions change. For instance a wet environment gets more arid due to climate change. Species living there who are well fit for such wet living conditions now experience stress. so in order to survive they must adapt. Because their current phenotype doesn't match the old living conditions any more. It's called adaptive pressure.

In such cases any change towards a phenotype that fits more arid conditions is providing more fitness and the more severe the aridification, the more pressure there is to change and adapt.

And that is what natural selection is all about. Since Darwin, no later. I am wondering how someone could have missed this when this piece of information is 160 years old.

 

[tas8831]

I really do not believe it is an "out." I honestly and truly believe there is such a thing as evolution, but only within kinds. I believe that it is small, genetic changes, like skin tone, freckles, hair color, etc. Gene mutations causing deformities or other abnormalities that can be passed on. I do not believe there is evidence of interspecies evolution because I do not believe interspecies evolution exists. In that sense, I believe that you are right in saying there is a catch-22 because there is no evidence that can be provided of interspecies evolution to satisfy the creationists request.

What actual evidence leads you to "believe" that?

 

[tas8831]

And there is another catch 22. Christians believe that God can create through the power of His word, non Christians do not. We could go in circles about it, but if someone does not believe in God, they cannot believe in his omnipotence. Some say “magic.” I say “The power of the living God.” I wonder sometimes why Christians and non-Christians debate the origins of the universe because it seems to me that it is the wrong place to start when it comes to God. Before someone can comprehend creation as told in the Bible, they need to understand who God is or it ends up being a series of catch 22s.

Other than question begging, can you produce evidence that God's Word has the power you ascribe to it?

 

[tas8831]

This is the kind of thing that leads me to say science is a religion. Evolution is a religion. It takes greater faith than Christians to believe in this stuff. The wind blows and you don't see where it comes from or where it is going.

This is silly. Creationists like to claim that things they do not understand are 'religions' so as to bring it down to the level of believing ancient middle eastern tales. There is a great deal of evidence for evolution, and even the more sensible and educated creationist Christians admit this.