The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[Subduction Zone]

And once life got here, evolution was inevitable. If someone cannot understand the relatively simple evidence that shows evolution have occurred what chances are there that this person will understand the much more difficult questions of abiogenesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The funny thing is I have seen several evolutionists on this forum insist that there is a "magical barrier" blocking minor trait convergences and reversals. The reason they have to contradict themselves like this is to make phylogenetic analysis seem more reliable.

That can be explained. I will be glad to do so once you either show us this magical barrier or admit that there is no such thing.

"Change over time" is called evolution.

Conclusion: "Evolution" is a completely useless descriptor. It is actually one of the most ambiguously useless terms in all of science. But that is no surprise as evolution theory has always relied upon extreme equivocation.

No, it is often ambiguous when used by creationists. It is fairly obvious what is meant when people that understand the theory of evolution discuss it. You are trying to create a false barrier where none exists. That may be why it seems ambiguous to you. The problem is not in the use of the term by scientists, the problem lies in your inability to understand. Sadly your inability is in all likelihood self imposed.

 

[lifepsyop]

This particular problem just simply does not exist outside of certain breeds of dinosaur. The misclassification was made due to a very specific issue with frilled dinosaurs. It by no means implicates the entire rest of the fossil record.

Um... no, that is something you just made up out of thin air.

Only an extremely limited sample of dinosaurs was even checked. Horner even admitted in the presentation that we don't know how widespread the problem may be because most people in possession of dinosaur samples don't bother to check.

Why don't you?

That's a question you'd rather not know the answer to, isn't it? You really have no idea how wrongly extinct animals may be classified and don't want to think about it.

By the way, do you realize how many models of supposed evolution are based on only tiny bone fragments?

You seem interested in knowing these things, why not go out and do a little bit of research? However, a big hint is that this sort of major change to skull structure over time is exceedingly rare among all known species, essentially being shared by certain breeds of dinosaur and certain breeds of bird.

Right, and you know it's "exceedingly rare" because.... oh that's right, you have a crystal ball in which you can study the life-cycles of extinct types of animals. You've also used your X-Ray vision to scan all other dinosaur fossils in museums around the world to confirm there are no other bone-density discrepancies confounding age placement. Looks like Horner's admitted concern that nobody has bothered to check all those other dinosaur samples is no longer necessary.

There's no logical reason to assume that this problem actually extends past the very specific group of dinosaurs in question.

Let's see, the problem was found among only a tiny sample of dinosaurs that were pretty much the only ones checked. That would be pretty lucky if just by chance Horner nailed the only trouble-makers across the entire order of dinosauria. Horner admits that it is a "dinosaur problem" in general, not a a "specific breed" problem like you have conjured up out of nowhere.

Are you going to do this every time it turns out you misquoted a scientist? Like, Hans Thewissen, who apparently disagrees quite firmly with you on whales. Is he now just "toeing the line"? At what point will you simply admit that these people do not agree with you?

That video is pretty amazing. And not in a good way for your position. I'd encourage everyone to watch it.

By the way, Thewissen has already admitted on the other video that the ambulocetus ear morphology is ambiguous. It is basically just a lump only loosely resembling and lacking the clear distinctions found in whale-like ear characteristics. And as far as I can tell he is pretty much basing his case around that trait. At least that's all he ever talks about.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, it is often ambiguous when used by creationists. It is fairly obvious what is meant when people that understand the theory of evolution discuss it. You are trying to create a false barrier where none exists. That may be why it seems ambiguous to you. The problem is not in the use of the term by scientists, the problem lies in your inability to understand. Sadly your inability is in all likelihood self imposed.

Amazing... so you don't feel that "change over time" is an ambiguous definition. Why am I not surprised...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Amazing... so you don't feel that "change over time" is an ambiguous definition. Why am I not surprised...

That was not my definition, that was your strawman. It is one description of what evolution is. You keep trying to make strawman arguments. I am merely pointing out your errors.

 

[lifepsyop]

And once life got here, evolution was inevitable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That can be explained. I will be glad to do so once you either show us this magical barrier or admit that there is no such thing.

Uh... What? Did you miss the last page?

The last page where claims were made about who said what while we all ignore what the video actually said??

Can the "DNA code barrier" be demonstrated to exist? Also, "random gene shuffling" is not the only thing that happens in mutation. Either way, you're simply wrong. We have observed speciation on numerous occasions.

Even your own source doesn't agree with you.

"In practice, even strong adherents of the BSC use phenetic similarities and discontinuities for delimiting species. If the organisms are phenotypically similar, they are considered conspecific until a reproductive barrier is demonstrated."

EDIT: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspecific

So yes, we'll quote your own source and definitely say a DNA code barrier is demonstrated to exist - not can be.

So you are quite aware - or should be - of that reproductive barrier that can not be crossed in which delineates a species or Kind. All others if geographically separated are infraspecific taxa, subspecies, varieties, sub-varieties, breeds, or formae.

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

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

I know random gene shuffling is not the only thing that happens. Most times nothing happens - the DNA repair mechanism successfully purges the error. The other billion times it hurts or kills the host. One accidentally may benefit the host. But the new code is simply transcribed from the old code. Nothing that did not already exist within the genome was added. No new species ever arises. But you can dream all you like and pretend otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need for that. An observation of life will tell you that evolution is inevitable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No need for that. An observation of life will tell you that evolution is inevitable.

Observation of life shows Kind after Kind - with merely different varieties and breeds of that same Kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observation of life shows Kind after Kind - with merely different varieties and breeds of that same Kind.

You cannot even properly defined kind, but that is what evolution predicts too. You simply have the wrong definition.

 

[lasthero]

The last page where claims were made about who said what while we all ignore what the video actually said??

Tell you what, Justa - why don't you actually post what Horner says that backs up your claim. The EXACT quote.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They're still here.

I just noticed myself. Good to see them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just noticed myself. Good to see them.

Yes, indeed!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Atheos, how can you deny the implications such a discovery has across the entire fossil record? Especially reptilian/diapsid orders that seem to be the most prone to this phenomena. As I mentioned before, the classification problem is not only limited to animals found in different life-cycle stages, but the effects of plasticity on the same species living in significantly different environments. (another quality that reptiles are known to exhibit)

The implications are obvious. Major portions of taxonomy are probably in serious error. I'm sure that you of all people understand this.

The silence from the evolutionary community is deafening. We are always told that major scientific upsets are welcomed by scientists, but in reality that isn't true. If certain problems are considered too inconvenient to the current order of things, they will be ignored. We are witnessing that first-hand.

The reason for this is that the evolutionary community knows it is political suicide to admit how much of their classification system could very well be completely wrong. It will lend an unacceptable level of comfort to the ideological enemy. (Creationists or ID proponents) Thus the true and obvious scientific implications simply cannot be discussed. That is the reality of the academic world. Protection of the applecart.

I do not deny the impact of such research. The thing is, this is not Jack Horner announcing that he has discovered that different ontogenetic stages have been misidentified as different dinosaur species. Paleontologists understand (and have for a long time) the possibility of different ontogenetic stages or intraspacific variability being mistaken for taxonomic diversity. Dr. Horner is outlining a number of instances of this. Your post makes it sound like you think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Horner has only recently informed the paleontological community that this sort of error could occur and therefore we must question every fossil-based conclusion about evolution because who knows how many fossil taxa are valid. This is absurd because whatever you mean by " the silence from the evolutionary community is deafening", you're clearly not talking about the paleontological community. Simply typing "dinosaur ontogeny" into Google Scholar will furnish you with far more papers than you'd care to even read the titles of. I'd also challenge you to provide any evidence that Horner's work is being ignored. It is certainly being critiqued by other paleontologists, as it should. It also has mnay who are more convinced. That's how science works.

In other words, the field of paleontology has not, as you seem to imagine, been caught flat-footed by the possibility that intraspecific variation could be confused for more species diversity. There is no justification for your assumption that the entire fossil record is too full of invalid taxa to be useful in making evolutionary conclusions.

And your conspiracy theory about the suppression of this sort of research by the academic community is demonstrably false, so perhaps you should refrain from making that claim in the future.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

One wonders how Mr. Horner has concluded that this is "just a dinosaur problem". After all, Evolutionists didn't think the problem even existed in dinosaurs before someone bothered to look.

Only an extremely limited sample of dinosaurs was even checked. Horner even admitted in the presentation that we don't know how widespread the problem may be because most people in possession of dinosaur samples don't bother to check.

As I suspected when I composed my most recent post, you think that paleontologists only learned of this recently. Your italicised words in particular prove that you have not even bothered to do the most rudimentary search of the literature. Paleontologists regularly check for ontogentic stage and variation, both in dinosaurs and other groups. You also seem to be labouring under the erroneous idea that morphology is the only line of evidence paleontologists have when erecting taxa. There are a range of other facts including stratigraphic position and geographic position. For example, Triceratops horridus is only found in the lower section of the Hell Creek Formation whereas T. prorsus is found only in the upper section. Such stratigraphic separation means they cannot be different sexes, ontogenetic stages or intraspecific variants.

Fun fact: Horner recently published a paper describing how the Triceratops specimens found throughout the Hell Creek Formation show a gradation of intermediate morphologies between T. horridus at the base of the HCF and T. prosus at the top, showing that the latter evolved from the former. Horner would, I think you'll agree, be quite aware of whether these morphs represented different ontogenetic gradations, so clearly even with the confusion surrounding Triceratops the fossil record can still provide evidence of evolution.

For example, how does Mr. Horner know what extinct synapsid body-plans look like during different stages of growth? Any ideas? Could you ask him?

Horner's comment is based on the great deal of consideration given by the paleontological community to ontogenetic change in various groups including synapsids, as even a superficial googling will show you. Search "ontogeny of Permian synapsids" in google scholar and see how widespread the study of ontogeny is.

Okay, just for arguments sake, (even though logic says otherwise) lets say the problem is only constrained to dinosaurs. Even if that's the case, it still represents a major upset in biological classification. Dinosaurs are a huge group of animals. (Not to mention it transgresses into sacrosanct territory concerning dino-bird evolution models.) So even with just dinosaurs, my original point stands and I believe evolutionists know it would be a public-relations nightmare to admit it publicly. Again, instead of getting excited about a major scientific upset in their way of understanding, (like we're always told scientists are so eager to do) they are quietly sweeping the problem under the rug lest it disturb the applecart.

I'm amazed that Horner could be so flippant about it but I bet its because he knows the wrath that will come down on him if he disturbs that hornet's nest. Either way, kudos to him for shedding some light on the problem.

Again, you seem to have just assumed that the scientific community is repressing this information when this is to no degree true. Horner is not worried about any "wrath"; he thinks his conclusions are right and he says this openly in his published papers, at conferences and to the general public. Your conspiracy theory holds no water.

I would be curious what Atheos' thoughts are on the subject.

It think you've gotten them by now, but here's another summary.

Yes there are sources of intraspecific variation that can be confused for different species, but this is not remotely a new revelation. Paleontologists have for long time been studying ontogeny in a great range of fossil groups from marine invertebrates to early amniotes to dinosaurs etc. Thus your rather overstated assessment of the impact on the taxonomy of the fossil record is revealed to be the result of your lack of familiarity with the literature.

And again, despite what you imagine, there is no mainstream conspiracy trying to suppress this knowledge.

 

[The Cadet]

Atheos actually responded to most of this, but let me address this...

By the way, Thewissen has already admitted on the other video that the ambulocetus ear morphology is ambiguous.

And I wondered if the video honestly represented him, because I've seen numerous creationists dishonestly edit videos so that the question they ask does not line up with the answer given. And I got back this answer:

Jonah, yes, the interviews for those were interesting, I said all those things, but the questions were oddly phrased and thus my answers not straightforward and for the videos they were put together in an interesting way. I tried to have some fun putting a fitting answer together, and made a youtube video myself:

That video does not engage the misleading videos directly, but I did try to address all the points in the original videos

J. G. M. 'Hans' Thewissen, Ph. D.
Ingalls-Brown Professor of Anatomy
Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology
Northeast Ohio Medical University

So basically exactly what I suspected. The video, like most videos where creationist interview scientists and magically come up with an answer diametrically opposed to what even a cursory glance at the man's field of research would indicate, was not exactly an honest representation of what he said or knew about Ambulocetus.

It is basically just a lump only loosely resembling and lacking the clear distinctions found in whale-like ear characteristics. And as far as I can tell he is pretty much basing his case around that trait. At least that's all he ever talks about.

Actually, in that video, he clearly lays out that the ear, which is diagnostic for the whale, clearly points to Ambulocetus being an ancestor of a whale. That video he made in response to the creationists getting his research wrong.

The last page where claims were made about who said what while we all ignore what the video actually said??

The page where I went straight to the source and asked for clarification, and he came back and said "Nope, you're totally wrong". I'm honestly surprised I had to do this, because your interpretation of his video was so wrong that it hurt, but I did credit you and wasted this college professor's time to get the answer anyone with a brain would know was coming! Horner is talking about a problem in ontogeny specific to these particular dinosaurs. And you're still off by a factor of two.

"In practice, even strong adherents of the BSC use phenetic similarities and discontinuities for delimiting species. If the organisms are phenotypically similar, they are considered conspecific until a reproductive barrier is demonstrated."

EDIT: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspecific

So yes, we'll quote your own source and definitely say a DNA code barrier is demonstrated to exist - not can be.

"Reproductive barrier" != "DNA code barrier". The former is something that keeps the organisms from interbreeding; the latter is a term biology has abandoned since the 30s. In fact, if a reproductive barrier can be established within a population, that directly demonstrates that the DNA code barrier does not apply at the species level. And further genetic evidence makes it implausible at best at the genus, family, order, or any other level. You seem to be extremely bad at understanding the sources you cite - first you get Horner completely wrong, and now you mix up two completely different barriers.

So you are quite aware - or should be - of that reproductive barrier that can not be crossed in which delineates a species or Kind. All others if geographically separated are infraspecific taxa, subspecies, varieties, sub-varieties, breeds, or formae.

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

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

The point of that article is pointing out cases where the barrier did not exist and it then was formed. Speciation. You know, that thing you're claiming cannot happen.

I know random gene shuffling is not the only thing that happens. Most times nothing happens - the DNA repair mechanism successfully purges the error. The other billion times it hurts or kills the host. One accidentally may benefit the host. But the new code is simply transcribed from the old code. Nothing that did not already exist within the genome was added. No new species ever arises. But you can dream all you like and pretend otherwise.

And this is simply not true.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution9.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article...an-only-destroy-information.html#.VWGLV0aBp6I
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information

Et cetera, et cetera. The idea that nothing that did not already exist within the genome was added matches neither observed evidence nor what we know about mutation. Ever heard of gene duplication? For someone claiming to know genetics, you seem to be stuck on a very basic point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You cannot even properly defined kind, but that is what evolution predicts too. You simply have the wrong definition.

Says the man who's definition has 26 different definitions of species...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Tell you what, Justa - why don't you actually post what Horner says that backs up your claim. The EXACT quote.

Here - listen to it yourself:

Show me where he doesn't do away with 2 of every species found except the Triceratops in which he does away with one.

Show me where the bones did not show the distinctive growth we know occurs as animals age - bones your experts never bothered to cut up before and study them. Is Strawmen all you got, really? You haven't even watched it so have no idea what it says to start with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I do not deny the impact of such research. The thing is, this is not Jack Horner announcing that he has discovered that different ontogenetic stages have been misidentified as different dinosaur species. Paleontologists understand (and have for a long time) the possibility of different ontogenetic stages or intraspacific variability being mistaken for taxonomic diversity. Dr. Horner is outlining a number of instances of this. Your post makes it sound like you think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Horner has only recently informed the paleontological community that this sort of error could occur and therefore we must question every fossil-based conclusion about evolution because who knows how many fossil taxa are valid. This is absurd because whatever you mean by " the silence from the evolutionary community is deafening", you're clearly not talking about the paleontological community. Simply typing "dinosaur ontogeny" into Google Scholar will furnish you with far more papers than you'd care to even read the titles of. I'd also challenge you to provide any evidence that Horner's work is being ignored. It is certainly being critiqued by other paleontologists, as it should. It also has mnay who are more convinced. That's how science works.

In other words, the field of paleontology has not, as you seem to imagine, been caught flat-footed by the possibility that intraspecific variation could be confused for more species diversity. There is no justification for your assumption that the entire fossil record is too full of invalid taxa to be useful in making evolutionary conclusions.

And your conspiracy theory about the suppression of this sort of research by the academic community is demonstrably false, so perhaps you should refrain from making that claim in the future.

So you want us to believe that you got 2 of every 3 wrong with dinosaurs that lived during the same time period, but got all of them right for ones that lived at even older time periods where the fossil record is even less complete? Is this what you are asking us to accept?

Are you asking me to accept the error rate would decrease with time instead of increase?

There is a solution: Start cutting them bones apart.

 

[The Cadet]

Here - listen to it yourself:

Show me where he doesn't do away with 2 of every species found except the Triceratops in which he does away with one.

Show me where the bones did not show the distinctive growth we know occurs as animals age - bones your experts never bothered to cut up before and study them. Is Strawmen all you got, really? You haven't even watched it so have no idea what it says to start with.

Dude, come on. Cut it out. Horner himself has said this is not true.

...Oh, and you still haven't listed the species he proved didn't exist from the video. I count 4. You somehow counted 8. Not sure how that happened.