What do the fossils say?

[busterdog]

And yet the entirety of science depends on being able to test the predictions made by alternative hypotheses. All working theories in science have risen or fallen based upon how their predictions have held up to empirical testing. Dismissing the power of prediction as you do is a pretty shortsighted thing to do, methinks. Neocreationists claim not to reject science (e.g., http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/04/do-creationists-reject-science), but statements like this make it pretty clear that they do!

Well, not all of us are afraid be up front about it.

At least to the extent that the we suggest that science is able to answer the ultimate questions about specifically how species were created.

I dont think creation science has made too many claims in that respect.

There are two kinds of science: 1. constructing a model for how everything happened; and 2. demonstrating the limitations in (or trashing) other scientists models. A number of evolutionists here have given some appreciate for Jon Sarfati. Apparently he does science.

Chimaeras.

As originally formulated, Darwinism implicitly predicted the same, which allowed the merciless hammering meted out by creationists. The non-survivability of bizarre mutations was a principal issue for creationists. Neodarwinism removes the issue from consideration, or tries to. In doing so, I again argue, evolution now has a neater theory that is more consistent with what we see. However, most of the evidence is now consistent with both evolutionary theory and creationist dogma (which is now microevolutionary).

Random distribution of life in the fossil record.
Discordance between phenotype and genotype.

Both are consistent with creationism, but evolutionary theory is also made to fit the evidential mold.

You dont have random distribution on the sea floor now, for example. If you assume everything in the Cambrian layer is of a certain age, well, then it wouldnt follow from your assumption that it is random.

As for phenotype and genotype, Mendel neither supports nor refutes either camp.

There are many ways to prove Darwin's theory of common descent via natural selection was wrong. And yet no one has been able to do it yet.

What do you mean by natural selection? Doesnt self-organizing limit the importance of natural selection. We all agree that Natural selection happens. But ....

"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

-- Stanely Salthe

So much for "prediction" as a test of integrity. Turns out the prediction of "natural selection" is shaky. Darwin's mechanism, however, has been disproven by the very scientists who remain so dogmatically Darwinist.

Now, this predictive issue doesnt answer the ultimate question. It is a rhetorical touche for the creationists, but so what? I wonder whether creationists or neoDarwinists were the first to predict that natural selection and random mutation were insufficient engines of creation. I think creationists were probably the first to popularize such ideas in their constituency. However, that is not proof on the ultimate question. It is some evidence for the proposition that you can walk and chew gum, scientfically speaking. In other words, you have some integrity in what you are doing, but you could still miss it all by a mile.

 

[busterdog]

You'd be surprised how much of a luxury that can be.

If everything was like litmus paper, I suppose there would be less point to graduate school. How many likely lads would then be able to skip the indignity of surviving on Ramen noodles and caffeine.

Actually yes, four-eyed lizards and double notochords would be a little bit of a trouble for evolution.

But for me the big one would be chimerae. A faun, or a satyr, or a hippogriff, or even a good old (hexapedal!) dragon. Anything that messes up the vertebrate twin nested hierarchies would be a pretty big blow to evolution.

You may think it is funny to speak of such things. But, there are any number of invertebrates in Congress. And now look where we are! Nancy Pelosi doesnt have hair. That is an exoskeleton.

 

[busterdog]

But the fact of later discovery of so many predicted transitionals (as well as no transitionals not predicted) is much more compelling, as is the fact that DNA and conserved molecules give the same phylogenies to a high degree of precision.

Why wouldn't "creation" of living beings "after his kind" be as predictive, but just as unsatisfactory to the those who require the removal of all doubt on the question?

It's what science does. You might find it "a pretty slim reed", but it has one saving grace; it works. Works better than anything else used to understand the physical universe.

As a learned man equally expert in economics (where I have been the last month or so), genetics, cosmology, physics, and theology , I would remind you that the most learned financial geniuses on the planet just built the entire world economy on a few IOUs run though the photocopier a few trillion times. Perhaps an appeal to relative human excellence receives less of a premium than it did prior to 2008.

Rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits. Mammals with feathers. I'm sure if you thought about it, you could think of many more.

I am imagining right now the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury in a Cambrian deposit.

No theory is "proven." However, the mass of evidence makes it foolish to deny it.

You see no irony in that statement?

 

[Mallon]

There are two kinds of science: 1. constructing a model for how everything happened; and 2. demonstrating the limitations in (or trashing) other scientists models. A number of evolutionists here have given some appreciate for Jon Sarfati. Apparently he does science.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I also don't know too many scientists who think Sarfati knows what he's talking about, either. I appreciate his ability to play chess, but he clearly has no understanding of evolution (which isn't surprising, given that he's a chemist by training).

As originally formulated, Darwinism implicitly predicted the same

Darwin didn't predict chimaeras, if that's what you're saying. If you think otherwise, I would ask that you would provide your source. Chimaeras are consistent with special creation (which is likely why the Bible mentions unicorns), but not evolution.

Both are consistent with creationism, but evolutionary theory is also made to fit the evidential mold.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a theory predicting the evidence and a theory that retroactively accommodates evidence. A theory that can predict future discoveries will always be of more value than one that simply espouses ad hoc explanations of evidence. This is why we've seen leaps in evolutionary science since the Synthesis and no production or advances in understanding from creation "science" since it's inception in the 60's.

You dont have random distribution on the sea floor now, for example.

Nope. But a violent, global flood would produce a much less ordered distribution of fossils than that actually seen in the fossil record. That is what we see in floods today, after all.

As for phenotype and genotype, Mendel neither supports nor refutes either camp.

Genetics absolutely supports the theory of evolution. That's why cladograms built using genes usually match those using morphology alone.

What do you mean by natural selection?

You keep picking on Darwin, but Darwin's contribution to the field of biology wasn't that evolution happens. Biologists figured that out well beforehand. Darwin's contribution was the explanation of natural selection. So if you're going to insist on picking on "Darwinism" all the time, then your problem must surely be with natural selection. That is, unless you really have no idea what you're arguing against and are simply using Darwin as a scapegoat.

Now, this predictive issue doesnt answer the ultimate question. It is a rhetorical touche for the creationists, but so what? I wonder whether creationists or neoDarwinists were the first to predict that natural selection and random mutation were insufficient engines of creation. I think creationists were probably the first to popularize such ideas in their constituency. However, that is not proof on the ultimate question. It is some evidence for the proposition that you can walk and chew gum, scientfically speaking. In other words, you have some integrity in what you are doing, but you could still miss it all by a mile.

Still not sure what you're saying here. You sound like a lawyer.

 

[gluadys]

So much for "prediction" as a test of integrity. Turns out the prediction of "natural selection" is shaky.

I think you are confusing divination with logic. Unfortunately "prediction" can be used of either.

No, we cannot divine the future pathway that an evolving species will take.

Yes, we can logically predict the existence and even a good deal of the morphology of an undiscovered transitional fossil.

 

[MiserableSinner]

I have never quite understood why chimeras would "disprove" or even be a "problem" for evolution. Might someone enlighten me?

 

[Mallon]

I have never quite understood why chimeras would "disprove" or even be a "problem" for evolution. Might someone enlighten me?

Chimaeras are creatures with a mix of separate evolutionary lineages, like a man with a horse's legs, or a horse with bird's wings. While there is nothing about evolutionary theory that says horse's can't grow wings, such structures would have to be exapted using parts of the horse's current anatomy. According to evolutionary theory, a horse could never grow distinctly bird's wings.
Copiche?

 

[gluadys]

I have never quite understood why chimeras would "disprove" or even be a "problem" for evolution. Might someone enlighten me?

Descent with modification requires a distribution of characters that fits into a nested hierarchy. Chimeras violate a nested hierarchy. A taxon defined by four limbs (tetrapoda) can modify the forelimbs into legs (horses), flippers (whales) or wings (birds), but it cannot produce a six-limbed winged Pegasus. There is nothing in the tetrapod body that can be modified into that extra set of limbs needed to have both forelegs and wings.

The same is true in other details as well. One never finds feathers on a mammal and one never finds mammalian ear structure or mammary glands in a bird.

Even when one finds a trait that goes across various lineages (e.g. eyes) one finds distinct differences in them. Mammals and octupi both have camera-type eyes, but the nerves are arranged differently.

So character sets fall into "family groupings" as one would expect in a system of descent. Chimeras combine character sets from different "family groupings" in a way that is not consistent with descent.

 

[MiserableSinner]

Let's stick with the example of a winged horse.

First, I need to understand what you're saying: I don't know what qualifies as a "distinctly" bird wing. Do you mean feathers? Please be specific. Would you say that a horse with feathered wings would "disprove" evolution?

Second, I fail to see why a "horse could never grow distinctly bird's wings."

Third, what about horizontal gene transfer and convergent evolution? It seems to me that the combination of those two things can explain any sort of chimera, even if descent with modification "can't".

 

[sfs]

A number of evolutionists here have given some appreciate for Jon Sarfati.

Really? I've missed that. I have interacted with Sarfati, and have an extremely low opinion of him and of his science, at least as it relates to evolution.

Apparently he does science.

He may do chemistry, but I'm not aware of any biology he's done.

As for phenotype and genotype, Mendel neither supports nor refutes either camp.

Genetics provides powerful support for common descent, and provides strong evidence that natural selection occurs frequently and has a considerable role in shaping species. What it doesn't do is provide much evidence that natural selection has been responsible for most of the changes in the history of life. It seems to be an adequate mechanism, but there is insufficient evidence to show that it was actually responsible -- historical reconstruction always involves limited data.

What do you mean by natural selection? Doesnt self-organizing limit the importance of natural selection.

Not really. Natural selection is one of the forces driving self-organization in biology, and lower-level self-organization (e.g. of folded proteins, or of lipid membranes) provide material for natural selection to work on.

 

[Mallon]

Let's stick with the example of a winged horse.

First, I need to understand what you're saying: I don't know what qualifies as a "distinctly" bird wing. Do you mean feathers? Please be specific.

A bird's wing is made of a skeletal structure (humerus, radius + ulna, semi-lunate carpal, fused digits, alula, etc.) and the feathers that emanate from this structure.

Would you say that a horse with feathered wings would "disprove" evolution?

Yes, because it would break the morphological hierarchy of life, as gluadys explained.

Second, I fail to see why a "horse could never grow distinctly bird's wings."

Because horses belong to a distinctly separate evolutionary lineage apart from birds (their last common ancestor lived approx. 340 mya). The successive aptations (adaptation + exaptation) that evolved to form the bird wing (e.g., forelimb elongation, fused digits, flight feathers, etc.) are unique to the lineage leading to birds. Short of some inexplicable miracle, these features could never be expected to evolve independently in horses because they simply do not have the necessary building blocks. It would be like a human sprouting leaves on her fingertips. Evolution does not allow for these things.

Third, what about horizontal gene transfer and convergent evolution?

Horizontal gene transfer is largely a feature of asexually reproducing bateria and not metazoans.
Convergence is a possibility, as already explained. It is not impossible, in theory, for horses to grow wings superficially similar to those of a bird. They would not be entirely homologous to birds wings, however, because of the contingency of evolution. Horse's simply do not have the same building materials to form wings as did birds back in the Jurassic. They certainly wouldn't have true feathers, as these features are unique to the bird lineage.

 

[busterdog]

I have never quite understood why chimeras would "disprove" or even be a "problem" for evolution. Might someone enlighten me?

I am with you. I am not convinced by the big words associated with this issue. Ironically enough, it seems the jump is too unlikely and too large, which is reminiscent of the creationist position. Words like "nested" dont add to the obvious.

So, what exactly would God have to do to make creature that are distinctly created according to kinds? There isnt a rational method of proof that could ever satisfy scientific standards.

The similarity in design between species is a very simple concept. The notion that it favors a particular scientific theory is a pretty underwhelming basis for any theory. Getting a better focus on the steps (if that is what neodarwinism has done with "self-organization") hardly proves the point, which has been acknowledged in the thread by evolutionists. I keep seeing tautologies myself. It is like asking whether the sky was designed to be blue or whether it happened that way by some evolutionary process involving the nebular hypothesis. Increasing detail in your model hardly answers the question. It does, however, make it harder to argue against the nebular hypothesis to some extent, which is, again, not a complete victory.

 

[gluadys]

Let's stick with the example of a winged horse.

First, I need to understand what you're saying: I don't know what qualifies as a "distinctly" bird wing. Do you mean feathers? Please be specific. Would you say that a horse with feathered wings would "disprove" evolution?

Second, I fail to see why a "horse could never grow distinctly bird's wings."

It is remotely possible that a horse's forelegs could be modified into wings, but they would not be bird wings because a horse is a mammal, not a bird. (Just as a whale is a mammal, not a fish). And your modified horse would be bipedal, not a four-footed creature. We do, of course, already have a large group of winged mammals: bats. So it is not a case that winged mammals, per se are impossible. But for horses to become winged mammals, there would need to be a large-scale modification of the whole body so that they would become more bat-like.

Furthermore, the difference between a bat and a bird wing is not just a matter of feathers. The underlying skeletal arrangement is different. In birds, the three remaining finger bones have become fused and the wing extends from the whole forearm, including the fused fingers. In bats, the forearm has been reduced in size, the fingers--all five of them--have been extended and the wing is stretched over the fingers.

What is not possible is the Pegasus-style horse with four legs + wings (feathered or not), because there is no possibility of those wings being derived from the modification of any existing part of the horse's body. You can stick the wings on with imagination or art. You cannot grow them from nothing.

Third, what about horizontal gene transfer and convergent evolution? It seems to me that the combination of those two things can explain any sort of chimera, even if descent with modification "can't".

Convergent evolution is a matter of similar adaptations showing up independently in different lineages. And as I indicated, there are usually significant structural differences that indicate the convergences are not a result of shared heredity. The nerve structure of an octupus eye is radically different from that of a mammal eye. The skeletal structure of a dolphin's flipper is significantly different from that of a fish's fin.

Lateral transfer is significant in some unicellular populations but because it is a cellular phenomenon, it is not significant in the phylogeny of complex organisms.

 

[gluadys]

The similarity in design between species is a very simple concept.

Indeed, but reducing phylogeny to "similarity" is also too simplistic. It is not just that species have similarities; nor that they also have differences. It is the distribution of similarities and differences in groups of character sets that gives us a nested hierarchy.

In most cases of known design (i.e. human designed things), such a distribution of similarities and differences does not exist, and a classification in the form of a nested hierarchy is not possible.

 

[Mallon]

I am with you. I am not convinced by the big words associated with this issue. Ironically enough, it seems the jump is too unlikely and too large, which is reminiscent of the creationist position. Words like "nested" dont add to the obvious.

Do you understand what we're talking about when we refer to 'nested hierarchies' of morphological or genetic similarity?

 

[MiserableSinner]

There are usually significant structural differences that indicate the convergences are not a result of shared heredity. The nerve structure of an octupus eye is radically different from that of a mammal eye.

Evolution doesn't necessitate such differences. What, in principle, is there to prevent a more 'perfect' convergence?

Horizontal gene transfer is largely a feature of asexually reproducing bateria and not metazoans.

That's not a response: Genome fragment of Wolbachia endosymbiont transferred to X chromosome of host insect. Clearly it can happen, even if it's not necessarily widespread.

I just don't see how a chimera would disprove evolution. It should simply demonstrate that lateral transfer and/or convergence are more important evolutionary mechanisms than previously thought. As far as chimeras breaking the nested hierarchy, sure, but that's exactly what you'd expect from lateral transfer and convergence. Updating evolution != disproving it.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution doesn't necessitate such differences. What, in principle, is there to prevent a more 'perfect' convergence?

The constraints of historical contingency. Evolutionary developmental canalization. There's an entire body of literature out there on this subject alone. You should give it a read. Gould might be a good place to start.

That's not a response: Genome fragment of Wolbachia endosymbiont transferred to X chromosome of host insect. Clearly it can happen, even if it's not necessarily widespread.

Are you seriously positing that if we transplanted the genes that control the development of the bird wing into a horse, we would get a horse with bird wings, feathers and all??? This seems like a mighty simplistic understanding of development.

I just don't see how a chimera would disprove evolution. It should simply demonstrate that lateral transfer and/or convergence are more important evolutionary mechanisms than previously thought.

gluadys already explained to you that convergence would not result in homologous structures. A convergent homologous structure is, by definition, an oxymoron. Nature doesn't produce Frankenstein monsters.

As far as chimeras breaking the nested hierarchy, sure, but that's exactly what you'd expect from lateral transfer and convergence. Updating evolution != disproving it.

How would you go about falsifying evolution, MiserableSinner? You seem to have a fundamentally different understanding of the subject than most evolutionary creationists here.

 

[busterdog]

Do you understand what we're talking about when we refer to 'nested hierarchies' of morphological or genetic similarity?

Does it help if I say that only creationists like me do? Probably not.

Its another series of greased pig terms. The harder you try to grip them, the more tautologically unwieldy they become.

 

[Mallon]

Does it help if I say that only creationists like me do? Probably not.

Its another series of greased pig terms. The harder you try to grip them, the more tautologically unwieldy they become.

Not sure why you think the organization of life within a nested hierarchy is tautological. But I'll ask again in the hopes that I'll get a clearer answer from you: Do you understand what we're talking about when we refer to 'nested hierarchies' of morphological or genetic similarity? If you want me to explain what it means, I will explain it.

 

[busterdog]

Not sure why you think the organization of life within a nested hierarchy is tautological. But I'll ask again in the hopes that I'll get a clearer answer from you: Do you understand what we're talking about when we refer to 'nested hierarchies' of morphological or genetic similarity? If you want me to explain what it means, I will explain it.

Its ok, I can read. It just baffles me that evolutionists are impressed with this idea as persuasive evidence of anything. Frankly, its the kind of thing that makes me lose interest. Its like saying that six day creation of kinds is more likely to give rise to chimeras. The evidence just says whatever you want it to say.