What do the fossils say?

[MiserableSinner]

The constraints of historical contingency. Evolutionary developmental canalization.

You're talking generalizations. I'm talking exceptions. Answer what I ask, please.

Are you seriously positing...???

If you have a meaningful response, don't waste time with incredulity. Thanks.

gluadys already explained to you that convergence would not result in homologous structures

What are you babbling about? Convergence doesn't disprove evolution. Horizontal transfer doesn't either. They are part of evolution. Obviously, the combination of the two would explain a chimeric organism, just as descent with modification explains homology. Stop tilting at windmills.

Btw, how would you falsify Newton? (Yes, it's a trick question.)

 

[Jpark]

OK I need to take this one head on. Are there reasonable grounds to suspect that the current scientific consensus on fossils is mistaken and they cannot be used to prove evolution.

5) FOSSIL FORMATION BETTER EXPLAINED BY FLOOD
Way fossils are formed e.g by water and embedding in sediment. Of the trillions of creatures lives lived only a small sample got fossilised. The best explanation for these is flood geology.

Now I really like that. That's why some believe dinosaurs still exist.

 

[Mallon]

You're talking generalizations. I'm talking exceptions. Answer what I ask, please.

I did answer what you asked. You asked what would prevent two distantly-related species from converging on the exact same phenotype. I answered evolutionary contingency. "Phylogenetic constraint" is another term for the same thing.

If you have a meaningful response, don't waste time with incredulity. Thanks.

It is a meaningful response. Are you seriously positing that we could laterally transfer the wings of a bird onto a horse and still have them develop as bird's wings? It's a serious question and I hope you won't simply pass it off with a wave of the hand. Perhaps you can point me to a case in the literature where something similar has been done in a pair of vertebrates.

What are you babbling about? Convergence doesn't disprove evolution. Horizontal transfer doesn't either. They are part of evolution. Obviously, the combination of the two would explain a chimeric organism, just as descent with modification explains homology. Stop tilting at windmills.

A combination of convergent evolution and lateral gene transfer can never, by definition, account for Frankenstein's monsters (chimaeras). Evolution could never produce a beast with the head of a snake, the wings of a bird, and the tail of a fox. It might be able to produce something that looks superficially similar, but that wouldn't be a true chimaera.

Btw, how would you falsify Newton? (Yes, it's a trick question.)

Please answer my question first because I asked first. How would you falsify evolution?

 

[gluadys]

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

Actually it does. When a new structure is developed in an existing species, the past evolutionary history of the species will impact its formation. Different evolutionary histories will necessarily provide a different environment for the development of a new convergent structure. And so one will have identifiable differences in the structure.

Or, as mallon said more succinctly: historical contigencies.

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.

However, the beetle did not become a chimera of beetle and wolbachia as a consequence. The transfer of some genetic material from the endosymbiont acts as a mutation in the DNA of the beetle. And that is expressed in the beetle as greater resistance to pesticides. It is not expressed as giving the beetle morphological features of the wolbachia.

I would agree with mallon that you need a better understanding of evolutionary development. An interesting read for a layperson is Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll.

 

[gluadys]

What are you babbling about? Convergence doesn't disprove evolution. Horizontal transfer doesn't either. They are part of evolution.

Of course they are.

Obviously, the combination of the two would explain a chimeric organism, just as descent with modification explains homology.

No, they wouldn't because they would not eliminate the existing homologies. Birds, bats and pterodactyls all developed flight, all converged on wings. But because they did so independently, they all converged on the wing from different starting points. And not only was each wing structured differently---but the rest of the organism's features clearly indicated its separate place in the phylogenic tree. Birds have dinosaurian features not found in either pterodactyls or bats. Bats have mammalian features not found in birds or pterodactyls. Each is a winged vertebrate, but none are chimeras borrowing features from a different taxon.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks, gluadys. You do a much better job of explaining these things than I do. I wish I were blessed with your patience.

 

[busterdog]

I would agree with mallon that you need a better understanding of evolutionary development. An interesting read for a layperson is Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll.

We always seem to come back to this argument. Essentially, a philosophical disagreement about evolution can only be resolved by a repetitive exposure to detail. It doesnt matter how many times the detail work repeats the same pattern and yields the same philosophical questions. Yet more detail will conquer all.

It has already been said on this thread that absolute proof doesnt exist for this theory. That is the pattern. Evolutionists accept it. Miserablesinner made a more sophisticated presentation of that principle. Now you seem to want to change the subject.

The essential debate is just a question of the strength of an essentially unprovable argument (and are we now talking about how many times the argument needs to be repeated).

Thus, the appeal to repetition, with the charge that Miserable sinner doesnt get it. This is why the thread goes in circles.

 

[shernren]

We always seem to come back to this argument. Essentially, a philosophical disagreement about evolution can only be resolved by a repetitive exposure to detail. It doesnt matter how many times the detail work repeats the same pattern and yields the same philosophical questions. Yet more detail will conquer all.

It has already been said on this thread that absolute proof doesnt exist for this theory. That is the pattern. Evolutionists accept it. Miserablesinner made a more sophisticated presentation of that principle. Now you seem to want to change the subject.

The essential debate is just a question of the strength of an essentially unprovable argument (and are we now talking about how many times the argument needs to be repeated).

Thus, the appeal to repetition, with the charge that Miserable sinner doesnt get it. This is why the thread goes in circles.

How is it repetitive? As far as I can see, the "detail" gluadys is referring to is detail that hasn't even been brought to bear on MS's opinions. It's not repetition if it hasn't been heard up to that point.

Wouldn't it be funny if you were a defense lawyer?

Defense: The defendant is clearly innocent. Nothing you say can prove that he is guilty.
Prosecution: On the night of the crime, the defendant was seen walking away from the scene of the crime about ten minutes after the estimated time of the crime by no less than five witnesses -
Defense: You can't prove that he is guilty! Because, well, I said so!
Prosecution: - not only that, the defendant's fingerprints were found on the weapon used, which had previously been in the defendant's possession for more than five years -
Defense: Good grief, more detail? Are you trying to bore us to death with repetition? I already know you think my client was guilty, but you can't possibly prove it, because I say so, so shut it already.
Judge: To the bench. Now.
Defense: Aww look, now he's curtailing my right to free speech.

 

[busterdog]

How is it repetitive? As far as I can see, the "detail" gluadys is referring to is detail that hasn't even been brought to bear on MS's opinions. It's not repetition if it hasn't been heard up to that point.

It is repetition if it is different data illustrating the same principles that are on the table.

The fact that we are even speaking of chimeras in the context of YEC v. Evolution makes it pretty clear to me that the broad philosophical concerns, of which falsifiability is one, or at least related. I mean really, chimeras? The suggestion that misapplication of the a hypothetical creature tells us whether we understand basic genetics is a bit of a stretch to me. Going deeper into the latter detail is hardly a way to render clarity.

It would be one thing if you were arguing against spontaneous generation or some ancient greek concept. But we arent. I cant even really think of a modern scientific model that competes with Darwinism (except perhaps neo Darwinism).

The fact that there is only one scientific model should tell us something the breadth of the terms being discussed and its philosophical emphasis.

The circularity of the whole argument is also emphasized by the fact that the type of transference suggested in the example is also offered as a basis for new morphologies in new genomes. Essentially, this is done by analogy. Polyploidy has been used to make the analogy. That is, it is not an observed mechanism, but it is similar enough for an inference to be made, according to some. How then does the notion of a chimera become a test for anything at all in this hypothetical construct?

The notion of a chimera is just a word for a morphology that doesnt work, while all the time you are assuming that significant morphological changes happen. That would appear to be what a tautology is.

Also, understand, that I dont wish to appear dismissive of what Gluadys is saying. I just dont think it is useful here. It is probably a bit of a fine point to criticize here as I did, well I hope so. What she is doing is a kind of argument that lots of people use with great success. I am just not sure it as good at getting to the bottom of the issue as it is at "winning" an argument.

The fossils referenced in the OP (and expanded upon in response) are alleged to be examples of our famous nesting twins. One question is whether lots of these and more of the same really changes anything (is the gestalt approach sufficient?) and whether these alleged transitions must necessarily be transitions just because they look like transitions (tautology)?

 

[MiserableSinner]

Newtonian physics. Most of you are probably familiar with it. It is a scientific theory (much like evolution) which consistently makes accurate predictions about the world we live in. However, there are exceptions to the theory. Places it where it breaks down and no longer predicts accurately. These exceptions are few and far between, but they exist. So along comes Einstein with the theory of special relativity, which solves several of these problems. Go science. However, you'll notice that Newton is still universally taught in schools. How can this be? His theory was falsified! Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than that. See, when we speak about the exceptions (i.e., observations which falsify Newtonian physics), we do so in light of the fact that Newtonian physics is spot on for all observations made in the course of normal life. Basically this means that Newton wasn't wrong, he was just incomplete. Indeed, Einstein's equations reduce to the classical Newtonian equations when dealing with normal circumstances.

The same is true of evolution. Obviously, since a natural chimera has never been observed, the discovery of a chimera would represent a freak accident or an extreme exception to the standard evolutionary mechanisms.

Thus if a chimera were observed, it would be an exception to the rule. It would not overturn the vast array of accurate evolutionary predictions; it would not mean that evolution is wrong. It would simply mean that there are some exceptions to the standard evolutionary mechanisms; perhaps there are mechanisms we haven't discovered yet. Thus the theory would simply need an update. I hope the parallel to Newtonian physics is obvious. Any new evolutionary theory would, like Einstein's equations, reduce to the old evolutionary theory. Obviously, all the normal observations still require an explanation, and that explanation would still be evolution. Is there any part of this that's not making sense? You don't talk about "falsification" when you're dealing with theories that are essentially scientific laws. You don't throw out evolution or classical physics just because a couple of exceptions are discovered. Rather, you simply recognize that the exceptions exist, and update the theories accordingly. And in the case of chimeras, evolution would hardly even need an update. Lateral transfer explains how information from one organism could get transposed into another. We've already observed it, for crying out loud.

You asked what would prevent two distantly-related species from converging on the exact same phenotype.

Observe: "more 'perfect'" does not equal "exact same". I think I'll pass on science lessons until you demonstrate basic reading comprehension.

It is a meaningful response. [...] Perhaps you can point me to a case in the literature where something similar has been done in a pair of vertebrates.

No, it's not meaningful. Credulity is a fallacy, look it up. Anyway, are you kidding? We can make chimeras. Proof of concept, done.

A combination of convergent evolution and lateral gene transfer can never, by definition, account for Frankenstein's monsters (chimaeras). Evolution could never produce a beast with the head of a snake, the wings of a bird, and the tail of a fox.

This is just unbelievable. By definition, that is precisely what lateral transfer could do.

How would you falsify evolution?

My answer is above, but just to be safe, I'll repeat it. How would I falsify evolution? I wouldn't. In order to do that, we would have to go back and show that every correct evolutionary prediction was actually lied about. When a theory gets as far as evolution (like Newtonian physics), you simply don't talk about 'falsifying' it. I'm surprised you don't understand this. Now, we discover exceptions, sure. But those exceptions don't mean the theory is wrong. They don't mean we should throw it out. If we found an exception to descent with modification, that doesn't mean we throw out descent with modification. We simply acknowledge the exceptions and limit the scope of the theory. Please try to keep in mind that Newtonian physics is, by your definition, falsified. Yet it's still taught everywhere in schools. What does that tell you? The same would be true of evolution.

And so one will have identifiable differences in the structure.

To repeat my question in the form of a statement: There is no concrete principle concerning the magnitude of these differences. The most you can give are vague assertions, such as the one above. You thus affirm that the answer to my question is "nothing".

However, the beetle did not become a chimera of beetle and wolbachia as a consequence. The transfer of some genetic material from the endosymbiont acts as a mutation in the DNA of the beetle. And that is expressed in the beetle as greater resistance to pesticides. It is not expressed as giving the beetle morphological features of the wolbachia.

Thank you so much, Captain Obvious. Now allow me to make an equally obvious statement: There is no principle preventing the lateral transfer of phenotypes. Thank you.

 

[Mallon]

I think it might be worth reviewing what's been said here.

You (busterdog) asked, in post 17, about how we could falsify the notion of evolution.

In response, I gave you three examples of how we might try to falsify the concept of evolution, of which chimaeras was one.

MiserableSinner asked how the existence of chimaeras would disprove evolution, given what we know about lateral gene transfer and evolutionary convergence.

Gluadys and I explained that the evolutionary constraints and canalization undergone by two distantly-related lineages would prevent these lineages from ever converging on the exact same phenotype. Thus, chimaeras (beasts like the unicorn, minotaur, griffin, etc.) could not possibly exist were evolutionary common descent true. If evolution were not true, we might posit that God could simply piece these things together like Lego blocks, using a pile of modular body parts.

That's your answer, bd. That's one way we might go about falsifying evolution, by finding just one example of a chimaera in nature. The theory of evolution could not predict the existence of such a creature because adaptation is contingent upon history that could never allow the evolution of precisely the same structures. It's really that simple. Yet now you're accusing us of being repetitive, of wanting to change the subject, and of using "greased pig terms". Come off it, man, enough with the lawyer games! You wanted an answer; we gave it to you.

 

[gluadys]

We always seem to come back to this argument. Essentially, a philosophical disagreement about evolution can only be resolved by a repetitive exposure to detail. It doesnt matter how many times the detail work repeats the same pattern and yields the same philosophical questions. Yet more detail will conquer all.

I don't think we were dealing with a philosophical question though. Miserablesinner asked why a chimera would be a problem for evolution, and then more specifically why a horse could not grow wings. The answer to that does not lie in philosophy. It lies in an understanding of the evolutionary history of the horse that allows for some kinds of changes, but not others. It does not allow for the development of wings in addition to four legs. And even a transformation of the forelegs into wings would call for a transformation not just of the legs, but of the whole body structure---and would still leave evidence that the remodeled structure was that of a horse. IOW it would still be in the horse taxon. It would not be a mix of different taxons. It would not have inherited the characteristics of a bird. It would not be a chimera.

The essential debate is just a question of the strength of an essentially unprovable argument (and are we now talking about how many times the argument needs to be repeated).

But the essential debate cannot take place in the absence of understanding key concepts. Consider that Michael Denton when comparing the proteins in animals such as a perch, a frog, a snake, a robin and a squirrel thought he had unearthed a problem for evolution when he found the differences between the latter four and the fish were all equidistant. He thought they should show increasing distance with the frog's most like the perch, then the snake somewhat more distant, then the robin and squirrel still more distant. And that error in expectation stems simply from not understanding the cladistic nature of speciation and why the data which show equidistance are to be expected.

Thus, the appeal to repetition, with the charge that Miserable sinner doesnt get it. This is why the thread goes in circles.

If one has a faulty understanding of the detail, one will not be able to properly discuss the philosophical issues. It is no contribution to a philosophical discussion if one's premises are based on factual misinformation or misunderstanding.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you so much, Captain Obvious. Now allow me to make an equally obvious statement: There is no principle preventing the lateral transfer of phenotypes. Thank you.

Lateral transfer of genetic material--which happens both naturally and artificially--is not a lateral transfer of phenotype. The genetic material introduced still has to express within the phenotype into which it has been placed. It cannot simply transfer the phenotype from which it came.

Consider, when a Pax6 gene from a mouse was transferred into a butterfly--it did indeed produce eye tissue. But it was not the eye tissue of a mouse. It was the normal eye tissue of an insect compound eye. Genetic transfer =/= phenotypic transfer.

 

[Mallon]

Newtonian physics. Most of you are probably familiar with it. It is a scientific theory (much like evolution) which consistently makes accurate predictions about the world we live in. However, there are exceptions to the theory. Places it where it breaks down and no longer predicts accurately. These exceptions are few and far between, but they exist. So along comes Einstein with the theory of special relativity, which solves several of these problems. Go science. However, you'll notice that Newton is still universally taught in schools. How can this be? His theory was falsified! Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than that. See, when we speak about the exceptions (i.e., observations which falsify Newtonian physics), we do so in light of the fact that Newtonian physics is spot on for all observations made in the course of normal life. Basically this means that Newton wasn't wrong, he was just incomplete. Indeed, Einstein's equations reduce to the classical Newtonian equations when dealing with normal circumstances.

The same is true of evolution. Obviously, since a natural chimera has never been observed, the discovery of a chimera would represent a freak accident or an extreme exception to the standard evolutionary mechanisms.

Thus if a chimera were observed, it would be an exception to the rule. It would not overturn the vast array of accurate evolutionary predictions; it would not mean that evolution is wrong. It would simply mean that there are some exceptions to the standard evolutionary mechanisms; perhaps there are mechanisms we haven't discovered yet. Thus the theory would simply need an update. I hope the parallel to Newtonian physics is obvious. Any new evolutionary theory would, like Einstein's equations, reduce to the old evolutionary theory. Obviously, all the normal observations still require an explanation, and that explanation would still be evolution. Is there any part of this that's not making sense? You don't talk about "falsification" when you're dealing with theories that are essentially scientific laws. You don't throw out evolution or classical physics just because a couple of exceptions are discovered. Rather, you simply recognize that the exceptions exist, and update the theories accordingly. And in the case of chimeras, evolution would hardly even need an update. Lateral transfer explains how information from one organism could get transposed into another. We've already observed it, for crying out loud.

Point taken. I agree that evolution would still be a useful paradigm in which to work, even if we could show the existence of chimaeras. But evolution, as it stands, is an explanation for the origin of the whole of life's diversity. If evolutionary theory could not explain the whole of life's diversity, it would be incomplete -- and I would argue -- wrong in the original sense it was intended. Sure, we're talking semantics here, but if scientific falsifiability is the ability to distinguish between hypotheses based on how well their respective predictions agree with observation, then evolutionary common descent (and Newtonian physics) would technically be false. Again, though, I agree that doesn't make them useless if they still bear some predictive power (not that I ever said it did).

Observe: "more 'perfect'" does not equal "exact same". I think I'll pass on science lessons until you demonstrate basic reading comprehension.

The point I am trying to make is that chimaeras have the "exact same" body parts as the animals from which they are supposedly derived. Mermaids don't just have a tail that looks like that of a fish -- they have a fish's tail. Centaurs don't just have sets of legs that look like those of a horse -- they have horse's legs. Pegasus doesn't just have wings that look like those of a bird -- it has bird's wings.
So your earlier point that convergent evolution could somehow "more perfectly" produce these phenotypes is faulty. It could never produce these chimaeric phenotypes because the phenotypes don't simply look modular. They are modular.

No, it's not meaningful. Credulity is a fallacy, look it up. Anyway, are you kidding? We can make chimeras. Proof of concept, done.

1) What chimaeras are you thinking of that we've made? I assume you're speaking in context of lateral gene transfer?
2) Man-made chimaeras are not evolved chimaeras.

This is just unbelievable. By definition, that is precisely what lateral transfer could do.

No, it's not. See gluadys' explanation above. You cannot transplant the genes of one organism into another and still have them express the original phenotype. That's not how either lateral gene transfer or development works. If I were to implant the genetic information to build a fish fin into my genome, I would not ultimately produce the original fish fin.

How would I falsify evolution? I wouldn't. In order to do that, we would have to go back and show that every correct evolutionary prediction was actually lied about.

Not necessarily.
Just as broken clocks are right twice a day, even a false hypothesis can still make correct predictions once in a while (which is why we still hold on to Newtonian physics even though it only holds in limited circumstances). But if the hypothesis is false, there still ought to be at least some circumstances in which its predictions do not hold. Assuming you agree that evolution does make predictions about what we should find in nature, what observations could we make that evolution couldn't possibly predict? If we're going to claim evolution as a scientific theory, it must make falsifiable predictions.

 

[busterdog]

In response, I gave you three examples of how we might try to falsify the concept of evolution, of which chimaeras was one.

Lets think more carefully about what you are falsifying. Evolution here is offered to show that there was no six day creation of "kinds" subject to microevolution. It is not just evolution you should be dealing with, but origin of species. The notion of chimaeras is no more apt to address one theory or the other, unless you assume that God would have been thinking something different had he decided not to go with an evolutionary mechanism. Since you require such an assumption, how does this help? You might just as well posit that because we have no real Xmen that you have made your case.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, bd, I can't decipher your question. Can you please rephrase?

 

[shernren]

Newtonian physics. Most of you are probably familiar with it. It is a scientific theory (much like evolution) which consistently makes accurate predictions about the world we live in. However, there are exceptions to the theory. Places it where it breaks down and no longer predicts accurately. These exceptions are few and far between, but they exist. So along comes Einstein with the theory of special relativity, which solves several of these problems. Go science. However, you'll notice that Newton is still universally taught in schools. How can this be? His theory was falsified! Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than that. See, when we speak about the exceptions (i.e., observations which falsify Newtonian physics), we do so in light of the fact that Newtonian physics is spot on for all observations made in the course of normal life. Basically this means that Newton wasn't wrong, he was just incomplete. Indeed, Einstein's equations reduce to the classical Newtonian equations when dealing with normal circumstances.

The same is true of evolution. Obviously, since a natural chimera has never been observed, the discovery of a chimera would represent a freak accident or an extreme exception to the standard evolutionary mechanisms.

Thus if a chimera were observed, it would be an exception to the rule. It would not overturn the vast array of accurate evolutionary predictions; it would not mean that evolution is wrong. It would simply mean that there are some exceptions to the standard evolutionary mechanisms; perhaps there are mechanisms we haven't discovered yet. Thus the theory would simply need an update. I hope the parallel to Newtonian physics is obvious. Any new evolutionary theory would, like Einstein's equations, reduce to the old evolutionary theory. Obviously, all the normal observations still require an explanation, and that explanation would still be evolution. Is there any part of this that's not making sense? You don't talk about "falsification" when you're dealing with theories that are essentially scientific laws. You don't throw out evolution or classical physics just because a couple of exceptions are discovered. Rather, you simply recognize that the exceptions exist, and update the theories accordingly. And in the case of chimeras, evolution would hardly even need an update. Lateral transfer explains how information from one organism could get transposed into another. We've already observed it, for crying out loud.

Utterly phenomenal. I'm going to quibble about a few technical details in a bit but first I must say that I'm always very happy to see someone moving beyond naive Popperian falsificationism. Have you ever heard of the Duhem-Quine thesis? It sounds amazingly like what you're talking about here, sans a few key concepts (notably that of the auxiliary hypothesis). Also see the wonderful Asimov article The Relativity of Wrong.

Within the evolutionary context, it seems to me that the twin nested hierarchy is a key test of the following bundle of hypotheses:

1. The (neo-)Darwinian theory of evolution.
2. The Central Dogma (since phyletic and genetic hierarchies should track together).
3. No natural lateral genotype or phenotype transfer between eukaryotic life. (We observe plenty of it in prokaryotes. More on that later.)

What you are saying seems to be that in the event of the discovery of a natural chimera, we would most naturally discard hypothesis 3 while leaving hypotheses 1 and 2 essentially alone. On a theoretical level, that is fairly sound reasoning. However, when it comes down to technicalities, I think I can demonstrate to you that this would be the least likely outcome (hypotheses 1 and 2 emerging unscathed); the most likely outcome would be that all three hypotheses would be subjected to ferocious scrutiny and implacable suspicion thereafter.

I say this based on the fact that we have independent verification of hypothesis 3. To begin with, we can forget about any kind of transfer of phenotype that does not also involve a genotype transfer. That would violate the Central Dogma, which would go against your stated aim (to see how evolutionists would adjust the theory of evolution without toppling too much of the rest of biology over). So let's reduce the problem to one of successful lateral genotype transfer. Of course, once we had that, it would still be extremely difficult to ensure that the phenotype transferred properly; but who knows? Hox genes have been doing crazy things for a while and they might just save the day. Anyhow, genotype transfer has enough problems of its own.

Consider, first, that all the entry points into a horse are tightly guarded. The nasal cavities and pulmonary spaces are lined with mucus; the digestive tract has all sorts of nasty acids and enzymes awaiting whatever enters it. You certainly don't expect to grow chicken feathers after eating chicken; that's because animal DNA rarely survives the ride through your stomach, let alone incorporating itself into your cells.

So some kind of accidental ingestion of animal DNA isn't going to cut it. We are going to require the existence of some kind of transanimal vector that is capable of drawing out the gene complex responsible for a given phenotypic feature and then injecting it into another animal.

Note that there are plenty of these vectors available on the microscopic level: (domesticated) phages and plasmids will do the job, and sometimes even simple ingestion will suffice. But when you get to eukaryotes it's a different story altogether: the genetic material in a eukaryote is packaged in the nucleus. The only way nucleic acids can get across into the nucleus is by active transport. To have an entire gene get in there unscathed is difficult enough; and a structural component such as a wing requires way too many genes for such a transgenic invasion to be possible.

Furthermore, to create a viable chimeric species, one would need an infection not just anywhere but in the germ line. That's hard enough physiologically (there's a reason why they're called "privates" ;P). And even if one could somehow against all odds smuggle the requisite gene complex into the genome, you would then have to ensure that the organism's developmental mechanisms somehow reconfigure to properly incorporate the introduced genes. (You wouldn't want those wings growing out of a pegasus' belly, right?)

All in all this means that the 3rd hypothesis really is as unassailable as the first 2 before the introduction of any contradictory evidence. What would likely happen is that all three hypotheses would be quite severely damaged by the emergence of any kind of chimera.

 

[mindlight]

I did read peoples responses and many of them are too involved for my level of expertise to respond to. I was struck by a number of comments.

1). The view that the level of humanoid skeletal diversity in the fossil record was greater than that between humans alive today.

Two possible answers for this that I have not seen discussed are -i) genetic diversity may declined massively as a result of the wipe out of the flood and that the post flood humans did not have the genetic richness of the preflood humans because of this. This would be an alternate explanation for the reduction in lifespans also to the view that mans environment was less conduicive to life.
ii). Some of the supposedly humanoid skeletal remains are actually not human at all but belong to a similarly greater genetic diversity that existed in other species before the flood.

2) The view that Creationist science has contributed little new to research on our origins since Creationists started to think that it might be important to articulate their ancient doctrines and interpretations in a scientific way.

My view here would be that progress that merely entrenches a lie is not progress at all. One of the essential views of Creationism is that it is almost impossible to argue in a scientific manner about things that cannot really be argued scientifically due to the utter uniqueness of the events described , the paucity or degraded nature of the evidence and the inappropriateness of argument by analogy or prediction for things that have already happened many thousands of years ago and for which no real verification can be provided.

There is only one surviving eyewitness to the creation and the flood- the rest is the attempt to argue from broken fragments that will never form a convincing whole.

For me I only need to prove credible reasons to doubt the evidence provided I do not need to prove my case.
These reasons are there and admitted by the more credible scientists. We can argue only the levels of plausibility of the different interprewtative models. We do not argue proofs in the scientific pursuit of our origins.

 

[Mallon]

1). The view that the level of humanoid skeletal diversity in the fossil record was greater than that between humans alive today.

Two possible answers for this that I have not seen discussed are -i) genetic diversity may declined massively as a result of the wipe out of the flood and that the post flood humans did not have the genetic richness of the preflood humans because of this. This would be an alternate explanation for the reduction in lifespans also to the view that mans environment was less conduicive to life.

We've already tested that hypothesis. There is zero evidence for a genetic bottleneck at the time of the Flood.

ii). Some of the supposedly humanoid skeletal remains are actually not human at all but belong to a similarly greater genetic diversity that existed in other species before the flood.

YECs have tried suggesting this before. Only problem is, the similarity between humans and other hominoid fossils are so great that the YECs cannot agree which fossils are human and which aren't. In fact, Duane Gish has flip-flopped on the issue a few times. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

My view here would be that progress that merely entrenches a lie is not progress at all.

If evolution were a lie, it wouldn't work, and we would be able to make no progress at all. The fact that it does work and that we are able to make progress suggests that evolution, in fact, isn't a lie. The opposite scenario holds true for neocreationism. It has not provided any further understanding of our world since its inception in the 20's and revival in the 60's.

One of the essential views of Creationism is that it is almost impossible to argue in a scientific manner about things that cannot really be argued scientifically due to the utter uniqueness of the events described , the paucity or degraded nature of the evidence and the inappropriateness of argument by analogy or prediction for things that have already happened many thousands of years ago and for which no real verification can be provided.

What do you think about creation 'science' societies like Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research that all argue we can support YECism scientifically?

 

[mindlight]

We've already tested that hypothesis. There is zero evidence for a genetic bottleneck at the time of the Flood.

No the fossils themselves are the evidence. This is another way of looking at them.

YECs have tried suggesting this before. Only problem is, the similarity between humans and other hominoid fossils are so great that the YECs cannot agree which fossils are human and which aren't. In fact, Duane Gish has flip-flopped on the issue a few times. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

The bare bones do not give enough they are not even the complete human hardware. Let alone the distinctive operating systems and software that would make them human. Bones are not enough evidence to make the distinctions in many extreme cases. No wonder people are confused. The bible adds that the people before the flood were deeply wicked - for all I know they were advanced enough to have played around with genetic manipulation and produced all sorts of slave species that looked human but were not really.

There is not enough evidence to say.

If evolution were a lie, it wouldn't work, and we would be able to make no progress at all. The fact that it does work and that we are able to make progress suggests that evolution, in fact, isn't a lie.

Since progress is defined as anything that fits the general theory and the general theory is now a consistent way of positioning all finds I am hardly surprised that you are finding stuff which is suitable for the places you have hypothesised for them. Accept the theory and the evidence glows with the same rose tinted glasses.

The opposite scenario holds true for neocreationism. It has not provided any further understanding of our world since its inception in the 20's and revival in the 60's.

Hey creationism is as old as judeao christianity. The attempt to argue it in a way that fits modern science is what dates from the 1920s.

What do you think about creation 'science' societies like Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research that all argue we can support YECism scientifically?

Well ultimately I think that they like you are missing the point when it comes to arguing origins. But I like to hear what they say as much as I listen to you because its important to think about these things. Its all guess work in the end though. I admit I hold to the ancient teachings of the church by faith.
I am not sure these teachings can be proven scientifically nor disproved either because no arguments by analogy are possible, because the evidence is limited and degraded and because of the time distance.