Living Fossils, a disproof of evolution?

[TheFiveSolas]

If evolution happens by means of accidental mutations that "change the frequence of alleles" in a "population over time." Why then do we find creatures that are virtually unchanged dating back into the hundreds of millions of years?

For example, the Coelacanth (by no means the only example of this sort) is essentially (as far as shape and bone structure, the same as 300+ million years ago.



"It flourished for more than 300 million years, but was thought to have gone extinct 80 million years ago," said Dr. John McCosker, senior scientist and chair of Aquatic Biology at the California Academy of Sciences...We know that it's an extraordinary fish and its ancestry goes back 380 million years. It hasn't changed that dramatically, at least in external appearance or bone structure..."

http://www.enn.com/features/1999/12/121099/fossil_7406.asp

What I want to focus on in this thread are two main points:

1) The time-frame for the existence of the above fish goes back @380 million years. Life is said to have arisen @3.5 billion years ago which is only ten times as long as the above time frame.

Note: In one-tenth the time that it allegedly took to go from a "simple" (at the molecular level it is FAR from simple) cell to ALL the various species observed today we find a Coelacanth being changed into a........
Coelacanth!

2) Mutations are alleged to provide the new information for novel functions and structures to arise. Mutations happen due to random copying errors. Therefore, during the 380+ million years of Coelacanth's reproducing we should predictably (according to NDT) find some major changes in the species since copying errors are inevitable. Yet, we find very little change.

Note: Random copying errors are supposed to cause changes, some of which are claimed to bring about new information and structures. In one-tenth the entire time-frame of "goo-to-you" evolution we would predict, if the theory were true, major changes to have occurred.

What gives? :shrug:

[WinAce]

You do know that the modern Coela is a different genera than the ones going back millions of years ago? :teeth:

[Socratism]

Today @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90371#post90371)
WinAce:

You do know that the modern Coela is a different genera than the ones going back millions of years ago? :teeth:

Darn, you beat me to it.

I was going to say that reasons can always be invented to explain anything that the theory would predict because the theory itself does not predict that anything in particular will ever happen.

So any evidence that does not fit the previous subjective rationalizations can always be explained away by another subjective rationalization.

That is whythe only "theory of evolution" (scientific one that is) is the one Dan defined and that one is so trivial it is stretching it to refer to it as a scientific theory.

[RufusAtticus]

If anyone is near Boston, the Harvard Museum of Natural History has a nice display which demonstrates how different the modern coecanths are from the ancient ones.

[Bald Ape]

Socratism,

You do realize there is a difference between a theory that is able to expalin anything that could be found, and a theory which is able explain everything that has been found, don't you? The latter is something all true scientific theories have in common; and it is quite easy to prove via demonstration that all life on the planet is of common descent is not the former:

Find a sequence of nucleotides in human DNA which
1) strongly resembles the genetic code for a viral protein (90% similar)
2) has a near identical copy (90% similar) at the same location in gorillas and
3) has no copy at that location in chimps.
Bam. Common descent falsified. Game over.


Excavate a human skull buried 10 feet deep in the stone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon (you know, amongst all of the fossils of the other vertebrates we supposedly coexisted with 6,000 years ago). Boom. We're done here - time to pack up and go to church.

You honestly sound like you are making the argument that because nobody can seem to find anything that falsifies a scientific thoery, it is not falsifiable. Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that evolution hasn't been falsified yet not because it's not falsifiable, but rather because it's not false? Just wondering.

[Duvenoy]

For some good info and great pics, go here:

http://www.dinofish.com/testframemain.html

This is the site of a conservation effort dedicated to 'Ol' Four Legs'. Coincidently, I'm wearing a Dinofish tee even as we speak.

So called living fossils are not all that uncommon. Crocodiles, ants and cockroaches saw the dinosaures come and go. Horseshoe crabs are very ancient, as are sharks. The surviving species have all evolved very little. Crocs and sharks have gotten smaller than their ancestors, and most of the stranger species have gone extinct, but beyond that and a diversification of species, they're basicly the same.

I would not consider 'living fossils' (I've never liked that term. It's a contradiction) to be a disproof of the ToE. Rather, the design of the animal was well enough suited for it's ecological niche early in it's history.

Which is not to say that subspices didn't evolve from the coelacanth we know and love. The chances are that they did, but failed to survive. The modern coelacanth is marvelously equiped to do what it does: mainly hang out in deep-water caves.

Do enjoy the Dinofish site.

doov

[Bald Ape]

The theory of evolution predicts that dramatic physiological changes will occur as populations adapt to changing or disappearing ecological niches over long periods of time. If adaptations don't happen quickly enough, or the niche changes or disapperas too quickly, the species will go extinct.

Thus, if the coelacanth were not well adapted to its current ecological niche (deep caves), or if it could be demonstrated that for some extended period in the past 300 million years, this ecological niche did not exist anywhere on earth, AND STILL no dramatic physiological changes occured, TFS would have the grounds to make an argument.

Odd thing is - unless I read his post too fast - I kind of missed him making those points.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape,

The main problem with your rebuttal is that mutations don't happen due to the organism living or not living in an ecological niche. Mutations happen due to copying errors and therefore occur whether species are "well adapted" or not.

[Rusty T]

But doesn't the evironment determine the success or failure of any changes made by mutation?

[TheFiveSolas]

Tizzi,
Yes, mutations that benefit the organism might have a selective advantage. My point, though was that mutations will occur whether the environment selects them or not. If I remember correctly the known/measured copying error rate (for any particular nucleotide) is on average between about one every billion to ten billion transcriptions. In humans, for example, that would mean that there would, on average, be approximately six nucleotide error for every offspring.

A site that has some interesting details on this can be found at:
http://web.utk.edu/~jwolf2/popgen/10.pdf

[Bald Ape]

But if the ceolacanth has a physiology optimized for its niche in deep caves, any mutations that cause dramatic physiological changes will be deleterious - those organsims which are born with such mutations will not fare as well as their brethren (who also have mutation, but just not ones causing dramatic physiological changes), and thus will not pass on the physiology-changing mutations to their offspring.

Thus, the DNA of today's coelacanth IS vastly different, and many aspects of its physiology are probably subtly different. I just don't see the puzzle here - could you explain it more clearly?

EDIT: Please back up the following [indirectly asserted] premise: There exists a number 'n', such that after 'n' mutations, the skeletal structure of an organism will have changed dramatically (if at all).

Keep in mind
1) changing an adenenine to a guanine, then back to an adenine constitutes 2, not 0, mutations
2) GAT and GAC are translated identically, but are separated by a mutation.
3) The amino acid sequence of a single, small protein in mice (cytochrome c), can be generated by any one of 1 billion, billion, billion, billion different genomic sequences.
4) Many large chunks of DNA exist which seem utterly unaffected by complete removal, much less massive numbers of mutations.

[biter]

I have never understood why someone knowledgible in this topic would use this argument.

There is no requirement that all lineages must experience grand morphological change over time.

There are a great number of things that can or couldchange over time and we would have no way of knowing about it - aspects of cellular physiology, for example. These are things that evolution affects as well, but most seem to be preoccupied with outward apprearance.

And as has been pointed out, "virtually" unchanged does not mean "completely" unchanged.

[TheFiveSolas]

biter:
I have never understood why someone knowledgible in this topic would use this argument.


I don't understand why someone knowledgeable in this topic would deny the inevitability of mutations changing amino acid sequences, in turn changing the proteins produced, necessarily producing changes in the species over time (the greater the time, the more probable the accumulated mutations would cause greater changes.)

In addition, even single point mutations have been observed to produce drastic changes such as in sickle cell anemia.

Therefore, since point mutations (copying errors) are inevitable, it necessarily follows that accumulated point mutations over hundreds of millions of years would drastically change a species.

Also, I won't even go into the problem of genetic drift occuring in small isolated populations.

[TheFiveSolas]

BaldApe:
...the DNA of today's coelacanth IS vastly different...


I'll simply point out that no DNA comparisons have been made, therefore this assertion is utterly without evidence.

Of course, if you find DNA from a creature allegedly several hundred million years old I'll use it as evidence against the old age interpretation. DNA just doesn't last that long, nor anywhere near it.



BaldApe:
Keep in mind
1) changing an adenenine to a guanine, then back to an adenine constitutes 2, not 0, mutations


Such a change would indeed count as two mutations. However, such a "feat" has worse odds than winning the same pick-6 lottery twice. In other words a random point mutation at the same position in the nucleotide sequence has odds in the billions. In addition, changing back to the original nucleotide rather than one of the other three increases the improbability.



BaldApe:
4) Many large chunks of DNA exist which seem utterly unaffected by complete removal, much less massive numbers of mutations.


The key words in the above assertion is "seem uttery unaffected." In addition, such an assertion assumes that certain sequences in the DNA are junk, having no use or purpose whatsoever. However, in a recent issue of Nature* a pseudogene was shown to have a regulatory effect (i.e., it stabilized protein synthesis) on its corresponding gene in another chromosome. In other words, things that were once thought as "vestigial" are turning out to have functions that we didn't realize.

*See the article by Shinji Hirotsune, M.D., Ph.D., Division of Neuro-Science, Research Center for Genomic Medicine, Saitama Medical School, Japan, in the May 1st issue of Nature Note: Hirotsune collaborated with Anthony Wynshaw-Boris, M.D., Ph.D., UCSD associate professor of pediatrics and medicine.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92207#post92207)
TheFiveSolas:
The key words in the above assertion is "seem uttery unaffected." In addition, such an assertion assumes that certain sequences in the DNA are junk, having no use or purpose whatsoever. However, in a recent issue of Nature* a pseudogene was shown to have a regulatory effect (i.e., it stabilized protein synthesis) on its corresponding gene in another chromosome. In other words, things that were once thought as "vestigial" are turning out to have functions that we didn't realize.

Have you even read the paper? They did not find a function for a "vestigal" pseudogene, i.e. a unary pseudogene. In fact, what they observed could not occur with unary pseudogenes.


Therefore, since point mutations (copying errors) are inevitable, it necessarily follows that accumulated point mutations over hundreds of millions of years would drastically change a species.

You do remember that modern coelcanths are distinct from their ancient relatives? The idea that they have remained unchanged is a popular myth.

[HippoCrates]

05-07-2003 @ 09:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90361#post90361)
TheFiveSolas:

If evolution happens by means of accidental mutations that "change the frequence of alleles" in a "population over time." Why then do we find creatures that are virtually unchanged dating back into the hundreds of millions of years?

Natural selection.


For example, the Coelacanth (by no means the only example of this sort) is essentially (as far as shape and bone structure, the same as 300+ million years ago.


http://www.enn.com/features/1999/12/121099/fossil_7406.asp

What I want to focus on in this thread are two main points:

1) The time-frame for the existence of the above fish goes back @380 million years. Life is said to have arisen @3.5 billion years ago which is only ten times as long as the above time frame.

Note: In one-tenth the time that it allegedly took to go from a "simple" (at the molecular level it is FAR from simple) cell to ALL the various species observed today we find a Coelacanth being changed into a........
Coelacanth!

Yes, that population seems to have been unusually stable. How that poses a problem for evolutionary theory, I'm not really sure. The rate of change in allele frequencies is not going to be constant once you factor in natural selection.


2) Mutations are alleged to provide the new information for novel functions and structures to arise. Mutations happen due to random copying errors. Therefore, during the 380+ million years of Coelacanth's reproducing we should predictably (according to NDT) find some major changes in the species since copying errors are inevitable. Yet, we find very little change.

At the gross anatomical level. Which tells us extremely little about what, if any, differences there are at the genetic level.


Note: Random copying errors are supposed to cause changes, some of which are claimed to bring about new information and structures. In one-tenth the entire time-frame of "goo-to-you" evolution we would predict, if the theory were true, major changes to have occurred.

What gives? :shrug:

Again, you seem to be forgetting about natural selection.

[geochron]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the YEC viewpoint was that a lot of evolution had gone on since the ark (just not changing things from one kind into another) - in effect aren't they just compressing the geological record into 6000 years rather than billions?

If so, isn't preservation of the coelocanth (inter alia) as big a problem for them as for old earth types? Why wasn't it subjected to this rapid diversification?

[biter]

05-09-2003 @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92118#post92118)
TheFiveSolas:



I don't understand why someone knowledgeable in this topic would deny the inevitability of mutations changing amino acid sequences, in turn changing the proteins produced,
There is no inevitability when one considers selection.
necessarily producing changes in the species over time (the greater the time, the more probable the accumulated mutations would cause greater changes.)
Mere assertions premised, it seems, on a shallow understanding of evolutionary theory.


In addition, even single point mutations have been observed to produce drastic changes such as in sickle cell anemia.
And yet there is no speciation involved, is there? No major outward phenotpyic changes, are there?
I am fully aware that single point mutatins can cause phenotypic change, but to assert repeatedly that there necessarily must be large-scale change due to mutation over time is an exercise in futility.


Therefore, since point mutations (copying errors) are inevitable, it necessarily follows that accumulated point mutations over hundreds of millions of years would drastically change a species.

Illiogical and a non sequitur. This, of course, neglects/ignores the possibility of non-outward phenotypic changes taking place. Evolution does not perform the way you need it to in order for your arguments to have merit.


Also, I won't even go into the problem of genetic drift occuring in small isolated populations.

Thats good. If your treatment of that issue is on par with what you have written thus far on this topic, I suspect that i would havce to spend some time debunking your claims on that issue as well.

[DunnySaze]

I don't understand why someone knowledgeable in this topic would deny the inevitability of mutations changing amino acid sequences, in turn changing the proteins produced,


There is no inevitability when one considers selection.

But selection has nothing to do with the occurence of mutations. It merely selects from the pool of variation formed by mutation. Mutations have been directly observed to occur, spontaneously and randomly.



necessarily producing changes in the species over time (the greater the time, the more probable the accumulated mutations would cause greater changes.)


Mere assertions premised, it seems, on a shallow understanding of evolutionary theory.

If something changes continually over time due to spontaneous and random factors, it seems to follow logically that with more time, more changes would result. What would you say is the correct understanding of evolutionary theory then?




In addition, even single point mutations have been observed to produce drastic changes such as in sickle cell anemia.


And yet there is no speciation involved, is there? No major outward phenotpyic changes, are there?

No, there’s not speciation there, and there was never a claim to such. Nor was a claim made toward drastic outward phenotypic changes. But it’s certainly a drastic ‘inward’ phenotypic change, isn’t it? Evolution just doesn’t happen on the parts we can see. Anyway, this is a good example of the profound change that even a tiny amount of mutation can have on an organism.


I am fully aware that single point mutatins can cause phenotypic change, but to assert repeatedly that there necessarily must be large-scale change due to mutation over time is an exercise in futility.

How so? It seems to me that if small changes happen over very long periods of time, they inevitably lead to big changes. It’s well known for example that the current rates of mutation are more than sufficient to accommodate the amount of macroevolution seen in the fossil record. Do you know of a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating?



Therefore, since point mutations (copying errors) are inevitable, it necessarily follows that accumulated point mutations over hundreds of millions of years would drastically change a species.



Illiogical and a non sequitur. This, of course, neglects/ignores the possibility of non-outward phenotypic changes taking place. Evolution does not perform the way you need it to in order for your arguments to have merit.

But the poster never insisted the changes be ‘outward’. They just said the species would drastically change. This change could mean for example a change in the immune system, a soft organ or a change in color, something that would not necessarily show up in the fossil record. I’m not sure how you perceive Evolution as performing. How does it in your view?






Also, I won't even go into the problem of genetic drift occuring in small isolated populations.



Thats good. If your treatment of that issue is on par with what you have written thus far on this topic, I suspect that i would havce to spend some time debunking your claims on that issue as well.

Actually most of your statements were simple assertions the poster was wrong, and miss-statements of the rest. There was very little “debunking” that I could see.

[TheFiveSolas]

Dunnysaze,

Excellent post! Again, glad to have you at TWeb. :cheers:

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 07:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98775#post98775)
TheFiveSolas:

Dunnysaze,

Excellent post! Again, glad to have you at TWeb. :cheers:

Hope I didn't step on your toes by answering that post.

:cheers:

[Bald Ape]

Dunny,

As I understand it, the argument is that the skelatal structure of the ceolacanth hasn't changed much from its ancestor that lived 150 million years ago - thus evolution is false.

This is laughable when viewed from a sligtly different angle: Evolution optimizes organisms for ecological niches. 200 million years ago (or whenever), the ceolacanth's ancestor "moved" into the underwater cave niche. By 150 million years ago (or so), the ceolocanth had a body structure optimized for its underwater cave niche. Rephrased: by 150 million years ago, evolution had solved the puzzle of "what skeletal structure BEST suits the ceolacanth for living in underwater caves"? .

Now, what TFS for some reason just cannot see is the blatantly obvious fact: over the past 150 million years, any major deviations in this optimized "deep-cave-niche" skeletal structure would, by definition, be sub-optimal. Thus, for the past 150 million years, since the ecological niche has not changed in any major way, natural selection has been favoring those descendants which deviate the least from the skeletal structure best suited for that niche.

I assure you, as a result of mutations, there have probably been many descendants of the 150-million-year-ago ceolacanth with skeletal structures greatly deviating from the optimized structure. They either stayed in the deep cave, where their brothers and sisters had superior skeletal structures (and subsequently starved to death). Or there was a nearby niche which it WAS more suited to than their ceolocanth brothers and sisters, and an eventual speciation break occured - leaving the original ceolacanths still unchanged.

Furthermore, this kind of thing happens all the time! Ants, turtles, sharks, crocodiles, mice, cockroaches, etc, etc, are all animals which settled comfortably into an ecological niche long ago, and have been constrained by natural selection from any major physiological alterations since.

I am honestly stunned that a concept so simplistic continues to elude so many people...

[TheFiveSolas]

DunnySaze:
Hope I didn't step on your toes by answering that post.


Not in the least. I started this thread in order to spark discussion between others, not just myself.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape,

Are you asserting that the Coelacanth is the ultimate, last link in the evolutionary chain for species that dwell in deep-water caves (which is only one area that they are found, by the way). In other words, are you asserting that evolution can optimize such a creature no more than it allegedly already has?

Also, are you claiming that any creature that were to be placed in (or evolve in) the same environment would inevitably evolve into a Coelacanth-type creature?

If not, it would seem that your argument is a non sequitur. It would seem that ANY morphological change that benefited the Coelacanth in its natural enviroment would be one that would have been selected. In other words, there should be MANY different forms that can be considered "optimal" in terms of survival value. Or to put it another way, there exist other creatures that have features "optimally" designed and are found in similar environments.

[WinAce]

Well, the modern coelacanth is quite different from the ancient one, enough to be placed in its own genera, so I don't see what the question is about.

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98757#post98757)
DunnySaze:

It seems to me that if small changes happen over very long periods of time, they inevitably lead to big changes. It’s well known for example that the current rates of mutation are more than sufficient to accommodate the amount of macroevolution seen in the fossil record. Do you know of a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating?

First of all, many evolutionist question whether macro-evolution can be extrapolated from micro-evolution.

Even more importantly, it misses the creationist argument. Informed creationists discourage the use of micro- and macro- distinction. The issue is not the amount of change, but whether the change increases genetic information. Evolutionists can provide a million examples of change, such as sickle-cell anemia, wingless beetles and eyeless fish in caves, but none of these is in the direction required for evolution from goo to you via the zoo. Rather, they are in the opposite direction. And the goo-to-you theory, or the GTE as defined by eminent British biologist Gerald Kerkut and leading Italian paleontogist Roberto Fondi, is what's in dispute — no creationist (as opposed to deceitful evolutionist caricature of a creationist) denies that gene frequency changes over time.

See The evolution train's a-comin' (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_train.asp) and Beetle bloopers: even a defect can be an advantage sometimes (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp).

[Socrates]

05-10-2003 @ 01:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92516#post92516)
geochron:Perhaps I'm mistaken, That would hardly be a first :teeth: ... but I thought the YEC viewpoint was that a lot of evolution had gone on since the ark (just not changing things from one kind into another)You thought wrongly :tongue:. Lots of diversification within a kind, due to much heterozygosity in the Ark cargo and possibly Altruistic Genetic Elements as proposed by the geneticist Dr Todd Wood. I.e. all the varieties of dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. probably came from a single pair of wolves on the Ark. This has nothing to do with goo turning into you via the zoo, since no new genetic information is needed. ... in effect aren't they just compressing the geological record into 6000 years rather than billions?No they are not, since they are not proposing that all the GTE happened then.If so, isn't preservation of the coelocanth (inter alia) as big a problem for them as for old earth types? Why wasn't it subjected to this rapid diversification? The coelacanth is a fish, so was not on the Ark :hrm: And the ~4500 years is a lot less than the 65 million years since the coelacanth allegedly became extinct, as was thought. And the land vertebrates on the Ark would have been rapidly separated into small populations by the montane topography, and found lots of vacant ecological niches. So the conditions were totally different for the coelacanth. It means that living fossils are what creationists should expect, but evolutionists have to explain them away.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Today @ 01:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99280#post99280)
Socrates:


The issue is not the amount of change, but whether the change increases genetic information.
See The evolution train's a-comin' (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_train.asp) and Beetle bloopers: even a defect can be an advantage sometimes (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp).

I have read these AIG articles, as well as several other AIG articles on the subject. One thing that stands out is that I have never seen AIG provide a rigorous definition of genetic information. What is it? How do we measure it? How would it manifest itself across a single generation, or a few generations? We have to know these things before we can determine whether or not information increased.

FK

[Socrates]

05-08-2003 @ 08:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90371#post90371)
WinAce:

You do know that the modern Coela is a different genera [sic] than the ones going back millions of years ago? :teeth:

You do know that the bottlenosed dolphin and false killer whale are different genera? No, probably not, since WinAce is not a scientist but merely a dilettante desperately trying to justify intellectually his adolescent rebellion against God. Yet these two creatures can produce a fertile offspring called a wholphin, so they are really a single biological species. See Ligers and wholphins? What next? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp)

Actually, it's quite common for members of the different genera in the same family to at least hybridize, e.g. in the Anitidae family of birds. So the created kind often corresponds to the man-made taxon of the "family'.

In fossil creatures, there is an even bigger tendency to taxonomic splitting, so it's even more likely that the created kind in fossil creatures corresponds to the "family".

[Fedmahn Kassad]

As an aside (and because I just ran across it again), perhaps you could pass on some information to AIG. I know how they hate to use faulty arguments, but the following argument by Walter ReMine is blatantly false. (I guess that’s understandable, given that ReMine is not a scientist). There are many references to his argument at AIG. For example, in Batten’s article at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp we find the following:


Haldane’s Dilemma recognises the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7x1011 years of human–like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference.

This is not so much misleading as it is blatantly false. Perhaps AIG should have someone check the math on this. Please tell me how 0.001% was calculated and you will see the error. Second thing, 1667 refers to any mutation. AIG (as ReMine has frequently done) has treated them all as single nucleotide substitutions. To help you understand what is wrong with this, see ReMine’s own words on the topic:


Evolutionists do not get to assign the 1,667 mutations any way they please, say, as "regulatory genes" or as "mutations with a large effect". Nature does not work that way. Rather, the preponderance of mutations will be of the ordinary kind, with a small effect. Let me illustrate the concept with crude figures: about 1500 mutations with an ordinary small effect, 100 more for re-positioning genes on chromosomes (inversions and so forth), 60 as gene duplications, and 7 mutations to regulatory genes that have a larger effect – for a total of 1,667. Nature, not evolutionists, must dictate how these parcel out. In this sense, Pigliucci's argument scarcely affects the core issue: Is 1,667 beneficial mutations enough to create mankind's unique adaptations?

From: http://www1.minn.net/~science/pigliuc2.htm

Considering that the Human Genome Project estimated the average gene to contain 3,000 base pairs, a little math will show that ReMine’s allocation of the 1667 mutations above is orders of magnitude greater than 1667 base pair substitutions. In fact, working through the math, the 60 gene duplicates alone will contribute 180,000 base pair differences. And remember, 1667 only refers to beneficial substations. ReMine also acknowledges that 25,000 neutral mutations are allowed. This could easily add a few million base pair differences. So this argument, namely that 1667 amounts to some tiny fraction of the difference between humans and chimps (like 0.001%), falls flat on its face. AIG should be aware of this.

For a more extensive discussion on ReMine’s dilemma, see:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=5


FK

[WinAce]

Today @ 08:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99300#post99300)
Socrates:

You do know that the bottlenosed dolphin and false killer whale are different genera?

Yes, I found it quite surprising a few months ago that both were technically dolphins.


No, probably not, since WinAce is not a scientist but merely a dilettante desperately trying to justify intellectually his adolescent rebellion against God.

Cute ad hominem. Nice substitute for an argument.


Yet these two creatures can produce a fertile offspring called a wholphin, so they are really a single biological species. See Ligers and wholphins? What next? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp)

And bears, oh my?


Actually, it's quite common for members of the different genera in the same family to at least hybridize, e.g. in the Anitidae family of birds. So the created kind often corresponds to the man-made taxon of the "family'.

In fossil creatures, there is an even bigger tendency to taxonomic splitting, so it's even more likely that the created kind in fossil creatures corresponds to the "family".

Would you be willing to predict that there can exist no fossils morphologically intermediate between two different families, then? Or are you merely blowing hot air, as usual? ;)

BTW, if you think the range of variation between dolphins and killer whales can be explained with them being the same "kind", then you object to humans and chimps being the same "kind" because of ________________?

[Bald Ape]

TFS,

Before I respond to your specific points, I must ask: Do you understand how evolution works, in theory? Your statements and questions point to gross misconceptions of the very fundamentals of the the theory. In this case, it seems as though you are unaware that evolution is constrained in how it can affect populations of organisms.

Think of it in terms of the following analogy: an evolving population in an unchanging niche is like a near-sighted mountaineer who wants to climb as high as she can, but who abhors walking downhill. If you put her in a random valley in the Himalayas, she'll wander through the valley until she finds herself at the foot of a mountain, which she begins to climb. After enough time, she'll reach the peak of this mountain. She dislikes going downhill, so is willing to endure only brief downhill strolls in her search for higher ground. And all of her neutral explorations of the peak only turn up paths which go far too far downhill for her liking. Thus, she is stuck.

In much the same way, the Ceolacanth is "stuck" on a evolutionary peak. Natural selection "wants" to push it uphill, but there's nowhere to go from the peak it is on. There may be higher peaks around - but the ceolacanth can't see them, and every path it tries to use to abandon it's current peak involves walking far too far downhill.

To extend the analogy ... If the mountaineer had started in a different place in the Himalayas, she may have wound up at a different peak - maybe a taller one, maybe a shorter one. Maybe (but probably not) Mount Everest.

You impression of evolution seems similar to this, but your mountaineer is not near-sighted, could see a higher mountain 5 miles away, and would be willing to climb all of the way down from her current peak and cross through a valley in order to get to the higher peak. If I might ask, where did you get the idea that this is how evolution worked?

Anyway, hopefully an improved understanding of the theory you are attempting to falsify will make it more clear that you are merely falsifying a straw-man version of evolution.


Are you asserting that the Coelacanth is the ultimate, last link in the evolutionary chain for species that dwell in deep-water caves (which is only one area that they are found, by the way).

No more than the mountaineer, constrained by the same types of rules that constrain evolution, is guaranteed to wind up on Mount Everest. It's possible, sure, but I think it rather unlikely. This is exactly why there are so many problems with introducing foreign species to new environments - and I wouldn't be too surprised if there was a different cave-dwelling organism somewhere in the world which could be introduced into the Ceolacanth's grounds and drive it to extinction. Well, maybe a little surprised - but you get the point.


In other words, are you asserting that evolution can optimize such a creature no more than it allegedly already has?
I'm saying something quite simple: If an organism is placed in an ecoloogical niche, and that niche does not change, evolution predicts that the organism will become better adapted for that niche only by subtle, generally neutral or benefitial, changes. At some point, there will be no additional incremental improvements which help the species, and it's evolutionary path comes to a standstill.

Keep in mind, there really isn't such a thing as an ecological niche that doesn't change - the subtle changes (which do, after all, exist) in the physiology of the Ceoloacanth indicate that even the ecology of the deep underwater caverns have changed somewhat in the past 150 million years.


Also, are you claiming that any creature that were to be placed in (or evolve in) the same environment would inevitably evolve into a Coelacanth-type creature?

:juggle:
No more than you'd think that dropping the mountaineer at two different random places in the Himalayas would end up with her atop the same mountain. A low-light slug, for instance, would most likely not turn into anything looking remotelty like a Ceolacanth - not even after 150 million years.


If not, it would seem that your argument is a non sequitur. It would seem that ANY morphological change that benefited the Coelacanth in its natural enviroment would be one that would have been selected. In other words, there should be MANY different forms that can be considered "optimal" in terms of survival value. Or to put it another way, there exist other creatures that have features "optimally" designed and are found in similar environments.

Right - so you do kind of get it! Other creatures had different starting points, or chose different paths, and wound up on different peaks. But the Ceolocanth couldn't just "bump" into one of them and think "Gosh - that guy with the glowy eyes really has something... I think I'll try that with my kids!"
:wink:

Let me finish this post by pointing out that the "mountaineer" hypothesis (for lack of a better word) is not ad hoc. We can't go back 150 million years, and put a minnow, a slug, and a worm in various caves, and wait 150 millino years to see if they all become the same organism (such as a ceolacanth-like fish). But we don't need to - already we see from the way foreign species tend to strangle natives to extinction that there are often MUCH better biological "solutions" to survival in any given ecology than what is currently there (an aside - if God made all of the native creatures perfectly, then why are foreign ones better fit for their environments?).

What's more, we can simulate how random mutation, naturual selection, and genetic drift work in artificial environments. The ecological niche in these environments is actually an unchanging fitness function - and after enough generations, a stable solution always arises in the unchanging environments. And as expected, different starting points often wind up with different fixed points - some more fit than others (there is a reason GA's are seeded with a wide variety of scattered "bad" solutions, and not just one fixed point). Also, once the stable solution has been found in these simulations, it doesn't matter if you keep running the simulation for a thousand, a million, or a billion more generations - the fixed point remains fixed.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"You do know that the bottlenosed dolphin and false killer whale are different genera? No, probably not, since WinAce is not a scientist but merely a dilettante desperately trying to justify intellectually his adolescent rebellion against God."

Just wondering, but why did you think an insult was warranted here?

Further, you are a chemist by training, aren't you? How would a chemist, despite having the general title of "scientist," be any more likely to be familiar with the taxonomic classifications of marine mammals than anyone else? Aren't you falsely attacking the authority of WinAce, who made no claim to authority in his post, with an absurdly false implication of your own authority?

[James]

I think the mountaineer metaphor needs to be extended a bit further to be more applicable to reality.

In reality, there are a very large number of mountaineers starting off at different points in different mountain ranges. Furthermore, these mountain ranges have varying weather conditions and tectonic activity. A mountaineer might climb to the top of a mountain only to realize that an earthquake has just dropped her mountain to half its elevation, and that a neighboring mountain is now higher. The earthquake might even cause a few mountaineers to fall to their deaths in newly-formed crevices, lending an advantage to other mountaineers travelling the same busy paths (natural disaster causing selection pressure). There are also several paths up each mountain (corresponding to the ways in which different species find a way to survive in the same ecological niche). Several mountaineers can find their way to the top of a given mountain by different paths and strategies. Furthermore, similar paths can be taken by mountaineers starting from completely different places but heading towards the same goal (convergent evolution, where certain patterns are favored).

[Mandalorious]

05-07-2003 @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90375#post90375)
Socratism:



Darn, you beat me to it.

I was going to say that reasons can always be invented to explain anything that the theory would predict because the theory itself does not predict that anything in particular will ever happen.

So any evidence that does not fit the previous subjective rationalizations can always be explained away by another subjective rationalization.

Yeah, kind of like the creationists saying that the similarity in the physiology and genetics between humans and chimps are not evidence of common descent but rather, a "common designer".

Evolutionary theory would predict that, but the creationists were left having to explain it away!


Besides, there's no part of evolutionary theory that says that all "evolution" for each organism has to occur at the same rate!


Oh well, for some more "evolutionary predictions", see: Fundamental Unity (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html).

Potential Falsification:

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.

If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified.


Prediction 1.3: Convergence of independent phylogenies

If there is one historical historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance.
later on, as part of the evidence they give:

The stunning degree of match between even the most incongruent phylogenetic trees found in the biological literature is widely unappreciated, mainly because most people (including many biologists) are unaware of the mathematics involved (Penny et al. 1982; Penny and Hendy 1986). Penny and Hendy have performed a series of detailed statistical analyses of the significance of incongruent phylogenetic trees, and here is their conclusion:

"Biologists seem to seek the 'The One Tree' and appear not to be satisfied by a range of options. However, there is no logical difficulty in having a range of trees. There are 34,459,425 possible trees for 11 taxa (Penny et al. 1982), and to reduce this to the order of 10-50 trees is analogous to an accuracy of measurement of approximately one part in 106." (Penny and Hendy 1986, p. 414)

For a more realistic universal phylogenetic tree with dozens of taxa including all known phyla, the accuracy is better by many orders of magnitude.


Potential Falsification:

When it became possible to sequence biological molecules, the realization of a markedly different tree based on the independent molecular evidence would have been a fatal blow to the theory of evolution, even though that is by far the most likely result. More precisely, the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance. Furthermore, we are now in a position to begin construction of phylogenetic trees based on other independent lines of data, such as chromosomal organization. In a very general sense, chromosome number and length and the chromosomal position of genes are all causally independent of both morphology and of sequence identity. Phylogenies constructed from these data should recapitulate the standard phylogenetic tree as well (Hillis et al. 1996; Li 1997).


Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors...


To put it delicately, there is a whole wonk load more of info where that came from...

[geochron]

Yesterday @ 01:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99282#post99282)
Socrates:

[quote]You thought wrongly :tongue:. Lots of diversification within a kind, due to much heterozygosity in the Ark cargo and possibly Altruistic Genetic Elements as proposed by the geneticist Dr Todd Wood. I.e. all the varieties of dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. probably came from a single pair of wolves on the Ark. This has nothing to do with goo turning into you via the zoo, since no new genetic information is needed.


Of course I know little about YEC theories, and pinning people down on details is rather difficult. Your point about the fish not being on the Ark seems odd to me, the same time has been available for diversification whether a kind was on the ark or not. Though this might be a useful area for YEC research - diversification among marine life in 6500 years vs diversification among animal life in 4500 years - I was trying to get a sense of how much diversification has occurred in these 4500 years in the YEC model.

Still, your point perhaps inadvertently prompts thought. It's a long way out of my field, of course, but the impression I've gained from my colleagues in the area is that marine habitats, especially shallow marine habitats, are just as susceptible to a massive change in sealevel as land habitats. Is it categorically excluded that Noah took fish on the Ark with him?

If you'll indulge me, btw, where do things like trilobites fit into the YEC worldview?

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 08:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99280#post99280)
Socrates:
Even more importantly, it misses the creationist argument. Informed creationists discourage the use of micro- and macro- distinction. The issue is not the amount of change, but whether the change increases genetic information.

Except of course these "informed creationists" refuse to both define information in any biologically-meaningful way and provide a method of quantifying such information.


Evolutionists can provide a million examples of change, such as sickle-cell anemia, wingless beetles and eyeless fish in caves, but none of these is in the direction required for evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

And Socrates, the unqualified non-biologist, can pontificate all he wants on this topic, but I have already described in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3504), how mutations generate new information for evolutionary processes.

TheFiveSolas,

Can you or anyone else provide a good argument that coelacanths haven't changed in tens of millions of years? I keep seeing this asserted but I haven't seen it shown. I'd like some detailed comparative anatomy arguments or at least references to scientific literature that you have personally read and found convincing.

[DunnySaze]

First of all, many evolutionist question whether macro-evolution can be extrapolated from micro-evolution.

True, to a degree. The real question is whether there are other factors in addition to micro-evolutionary processes that lead to the patterns of the macro-evolutionary record. There seems to be 2 schools of thought on this question. One is that known micro-evolutionary processes are by themselves sufficient to account for all the macroevolution seen in the fossil record. The current rates of mutation when extrapolated are more than sufficient to alone count for the accumulation of variation for example. Another school of thought is that in addition to micro-evolutionary processes, there exist yet unknown larger-scale, long-term affects that also have a role in forming the macro-evolutionary record. It’s possible there may be such effects, but no-one has identified any. However no-one (no evolutionist anyway) doubts that micro-evolutionary effects are important in the macro pattern.


Even more importantly, it misses the creationist argument. Informed creationists discourage the use of micro- and macro- distinction.

Perhaps some do, but some don’t. It’s often hard to distinguish the uninformed from the informed creationist. Is Kent Hovind informed or uninformed? AiG seems to think the latter, at least in some cases. Is Hugh Ross informed or not? How is the evolutionist supposed to know?

There is a valid distinction between the two. However, that distinction is not the public one the creationist like Hovind put out there. I mean, if Miller can speak on the public record for evolutionists, then why can’t Hovind do the same for your people?


The issue is not the amount of change, but whether the change increases genetic information.

This is not the issue at all, but a creationist smokescreen. But if you insist it is, then you’d have to have a rigorous way to quantify genetic information, or else how can you say in increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same. What is the creationist metric of genetic information? Are you using Shannon's information theory, Kolmogorov-Chaitin, or some other?


Evolutionists can provide a million examples of change, such as sickle-cell anemia, wingless beetles and eyeless fish in caves, but none of these is in the direction required for evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

What makes you think this is the required direction? Just because evolution happened one way doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened another way. Evolution doesn’t appear to have a direction as far as know, except that accumulation of mutations and relationships between organisms leads to increasing complexity, while extinctions lead to decreasing complexity of life (by decreasing life!). Neither of these processes appear headed anywhere in particular to my knowledge. I am no more ‘evolved’ than any animal in the zoo, or in the goo in the pond I passed on my way here today, although I’m certainly different. All the examples you mentioned are very good examples of evolution. What other biological reason, besides evolution by common descent, would explain a beetle have wings under a fused wing cover? As always, if the creationists have a better theory, let’s see it. Here's all the evidence you could possibly want for the existance of the reality of macroevolutionary change (i.e., common descent) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/].


Rather, they are in the opposite direction. And the goo-to-you theory, or the GTE as defined by eminent British biologist Gerald Kerkut and leading Italian paleontogist Roberto Fondi, is what's in dispute — no creationist (as opposed to deceitful evolutionist caricature of a creationist) denies that gene frequency changes over time.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea these people support your view, since you provide no references. Gerald Kerkut writes “I suggest many of the major groups of animals such as the protozoa, simple metazoa, worms, fish, reptiles, etc are groups of animals that have species that have come from simpler organisms (protozoa and bacteria and viruses) and also by simplifications from more complex animals (protozoa from coelenterates, sponges, worms). [http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evol.htm]” Doesn’t sound like he’s advocating any particular direction. Even if your characterizations of their views are accurate, and I certainly don’t grant this, then it only means there are dissenting views. The kinds of dissenting views that creationists say evolutionists aren't allowed to hold. Not sure if these are just the uninformed ones or not.

Evolution is more than just the definition of course, but the definition does delineate what is, and just as importantly, what is not evolution. Deceitful creationists may not deny the gene pool changes over time, but they make other claims on evolution that evolution does not make for itself. Claims like the important issue is that information can’t increase. If a gene is duplicated for example, and a point mutation occurs on the duplicated gene, by what measure can that NOT be seen as an increase in information?

[biter]

Today @ 03:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102186#post102186)
DunnySaze:

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea these people support your view, since you provide no references. Gerald Kerkut writes “I suggest many of the major groups of animals such as the protozoa, simple metazoa, worms, fish, reptiles, etc are groups of animals that have species that have come from simpler organisms (protozoa and bacteria and viruses) and also by simplifications from more complex animals (protozoa from coelenterates, sponges, worms). [http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evol.htm]” Doesn’t sound like he’s advocating any particular direction. Even if your characterizations of their views are accurate, and I certainly don’t grant this, then it only means there are dissenting views. The kinds of dissenting views that creationists say evolutionists aren't allowed to hold. Not sure if these are just the uninformed ones or not.

It is also interesitng to note the creationist references to Kerkut's 1960 book while they seem to ignore his more up to date website.
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/pages/scifi.htm#evolves, particularly his "evolution 2" link, wherein the first sentences are:

"1. When I wrote "The Implications of Evolution" in 1960, I firmly believed in Evolution but thought that the missing pieces were being glossed over and that students should see the points that required further research.

(see my www entry Implications of evolution under "Evolutionary chat by Gerald").

Advances have been made over the intervening 40 years and we now know a lot more. "

[biter]

05-17-2003 @ 01:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99280#post99280)
Socrates:
And the goo-to-you theory, or the GTE as defined by eminent British biologist Gerald Kerkut ...

THIS "eminent British biologist"?

"Professor Kerkut is the Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Southampton. He came to Southampton from Cambridge in 1954. During the following years up until his retirement over 80 post graduates have received their initial research training under his guidance. These include such notable scientists as Dr. John Chad, Professor Howard Wheal and Professor R.J. Walker.

Gerald Kerkut's research area has always been in the area of neuroscience and he helped develop the in- vitro invertebrate brain slice, one model being the snail Helix aspersa . He has also been interested in the development of the mammalian brain slice and spinal cord preparation as models for CNS study.

As you will see from the index page Professor Kerkut has a keen interest in evolution and has published and spoken on this subject at length. He has always been interested in the publication and dissemination of his work and ideas and his papers published by many journals are legion."

Emphases mine.


http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/gerald/gerald.htm

[biter]

05-16-2003 @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98757#post98757)
DunnySaze:


Mere assertions premised, it seems, on a shallow understanding of evolutionary theory.

If something changes continually over time due to spontaneous and random factors, it seems to follow logically that with more time, more changes would result. What would you say is the correct understanding of evolutionary theory then?
"Seems to follow" is a mere assertion.







And yet there is no speciation involved, is there? No major outward phenotpyic changes, are there?

No, there’s not speciation there, and there was never a claim to such. Nor was a claim made toward drastic outward phenotypic changes. But it’s certainly a drastic ‘inward’ phenotypic change, isn’t it? Evolution just doesn’t happen on the parts we can see. Anyway, this is a good example of the profound change that even a tiny amount of mutation can have on an organism.

I know. I am not sure who it is you think you are arguing for or against, but that was my point.




How so? It seems to me that if small changes happen over very long periods of time, they inevitably lead to big changes. It’s well known for example that the current rates of mutation are more than sufficient to accommodate the amount of macroevolution seen in the fossil record. Do you know of a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating?

No, I do not, and again, I am unsure who you are arguing against. Solas wuould doubtless not agree with you on this, for creationists believe despite there being no evidnce that this is the case. I am at a loss as to why he later praises you for this post, when the bulk of it is counter to his position, and the remainder seems to be misplaced posturing.







Illiogical and a non sequitur. This, of course, neglects/ignores the possibility of non-outward phenotypic changes taking place. Evolution does not perform the way you need it to in order for your arguments to have merit.

But the poster never insisted the changes be ‘outward’. They just said the species would drastically change. This change could mean for example a change in the immune system, a soft organ or a change in color, something that would not necessarily show up in the fossil record. I’m not sure how you perceive Evolution as performing. How does it in your view?

It would probably help if you responded ot the actual statements. The poster had expressed disbelief that the coelocanth could exist for so long without exhibiting major changes. Others had mentioned fossils that demonstrate that some outward changes had taken place, I mentioned that not all evolutionary changes ARE outward. So I think your argument is displaced.










Thats good. If your treatment of that issue is on par with what you have written thus far on this topic, I suspect that i would havce to spend some time debunking your claims on that issue as well.

Actually most of your statements were simple assertions the poster was wrong, and miss-statements of the rest. There was very little “debunking” that I could see.

Where are the "miss-statements"? As the poster had produced only assertions, I see no reason to have writtena thesis counter to them. Perhaps you are in agreement with the creationist?

[Marc Schindler]

Biter, Socrates still hasn't responded to my comments on the three Australian agronomists he posted as "experts in evolution," unless it's on another thread. So it seems to be part of his debating style, I suppose (i.e., ignore what's inconvenient)

[DunnySaze]

"Seems to follow" is a mere assertion.

No, it isn’t. There is a premise there. The conclusion logically follows from that premise.


I know. I am not sure who it is you think you are arguing for or against, but that was my point.

I was merely saying that the poster (TFS) was not talking about speciation or the formation of significant outward change. From the quote you posted, he was only saying that small mutational changes can have signifcant effect.


No, I do not, and again, I am unsure who you are arguing against. Solas wuould doubtless not agree with you on this, for creationists believe despite there being no evidnce that this is the case. I am at a loss as to why he later praises you for this post, when the bulk of it is counter to his position, and the remainder seems to be misplaced posturing.

I was answering TFS’s postings, those which were contained in yours and your responses to them. Whether or not the bulk of TFS’s position is counter to mainstream evolutionary theory is immaterial in this instance. I’m only commenting specifically on what you posted there, which I agree with. Now it’s certainly possible that the context from your perspective is different than mine, perhaps even the exact opposite. That you are looking at his posts in a way that I am not. When one reads that post in isolation, it can appear as if HE is the evolutionist and YOU are the creationist. It's certainly possible that I'm miss-understanding the thread of this argument because I have't read far enough back. If so, my boo-boo. Anyway, it does not follow that I agree with his position on other matters not specifically mentioned in this post.


It would probably help if you responded ot the actual statements. The poster had expressed disbelief that the coelocanth could exist for so long without exhibiting major changes. Others had mentioned fossils that demonstrate that some outward changes had taken place, I mentioned that not all evolutionary changes ARE outward. So I think your argument is displaced.

I did respond to the actual statements, which were about mutations in general. Again, that I agree with the statements in one post by no means I agree with the statements in others. I would say the fact there exist ‘living fossils’ is in no way a problem for evolutionary theory. There are many other examples; sharks, crocodiles, bats. Squirrels of all things have remained virtually unchanged for 35,000,000 years.


Where are the "miss-statements"? As the poster had produced only assertions, I see no reason to have writtena thesis counter to them. Perhaps you are in agreement with the creationist?

I think it’s pretty clear that I am a supporter of the mainstream evolutionary viewpoint. However, just because a creationist says something I don’t feel the need to automatically show it wrong. Sometimes they have good points, and good objections. This isn’t a contest to see who is the winning debater based on aggression, force of argument and rhetoric. The enemy here is not the creationists, its ignorance.

[Duvenoy]

Trying to get this back to the oiginal question. Dunno if'n I can do it....

So called, 'living fossils'? There are so many! where does one begin?

How ‘bout starting with a couple of dead fossils (extinct sharks):


Some time ago, Darren Naish posted to the Shark mailing list on two new bizarre fossil species of shark. One just looked weird, but the other was truly weird; several anatomical features suggest it could have shocked you with an electrical field! I'll let Darren explain (with a few additions of mine in brackets):

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bz050/HomePage.weirdfossil.html

The Tuatara:


Tuatara means "spiny back" in Maori. Tuataras are reptiles but they are very different to lizards, crocodiles and amphibians (frogs, salamanders). Tuatara have a primitive body structure that supports the theory that they are one of the oldest and most un-evolved species, having hardly changed in the past 220 million years.
Tuatara have a scaly loose skin which is soft to the touch. They have a variable body temperature which enables them to survive in cold climates. They live in burrows and are nocturnal, hunting at night just outside their burrow entrance. They feed on wetas, worms, lizards, millipedes and small seabirds.


More Tuatara:


The tuatara is the last representative on Earth of reptiles which appeared at the same time the dinosaurs were evolving, around 220 million years ago. For this reason it is often called a "living fossil". But this does not mean, say scientists working with the tuatara, that it is a primitive animal which is itself about to become extinct. On the contrary, they say.


http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/001~Native-Animals/Tuatara.asp

Spiders:


The most primitive and oldest known spider, Attercopus, from the middle Devonian of New York ("pas.html" \l "newyork"), occurs in a typical early terrestrial biota, including other arachnids. It seems, therefore, that spiders were amongst, or emerged shortly after, the first animal colonizers of land in mid-Palaeozoic times. Further work on this material is in progress, in collaboration with W. A. Shear (Virginia). Later Palaeozoic spiders are confined to Coal Measure strata; research is being conducted on these by P. Selden. It is now apparent that some Carboniferous specimens described as Araneae are not spiders, and that the remainder belong to the suborder Mesothelae, sister group to all other spiders (suborder Opisthothelae), which include the oldest mesothele spider (Selden 1996a, "pas.html" \l "araneomorph"), and the primitive living genus Liphistius.


http://www.earth.man.ac.uk/research/projects/1/site/project.html

And Scorpions. I especially recommend this site:


The early Devonian saw the first steps towards the evolution of specialized gnathobases (chewing limbs) at the bases of the first and second walking legs, which appear to have evolved as an adaptation to external digestion in a terrestrial habitat. The early true Scorpion Branchioscorpio is perhaps the first to have evolved them, though still retaining a primitive type of aquatic respiratory apparatus. This transitional genus would represent a type from which the later terrestrial scorpions evolved. It is interesting that similar fringed, comb-like outer branched appendages characterized the gigantic "../Eurypterida/Hibbertopterina.html" Eurypterid Cyrtoctenus.

http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Scorpionida/Scorpionida.htm

And lungfish. This site too, is well worth reading in it’s entirety.


The lungfish (Dipnoi) are freshwater fish. There are three surviving genera, one each in South America, Africa, and Australia. They live in freshwater lakes, rivers, and wetlands, living on the bottom and using their powerful jaws to crush shellfish and plant material. The African lungfish live in areas subject to periodic drying and normally obtain about 90% of oxygen from the air, using the lungs. The Australian lungfish live in areas which are wet all the time and obtain most of their oxygen from the water. According to Radinsky (The Evolution of Vertebrate Design), there are fossil lungfish burrows over 300 million years old. Lungfish which live in areas subject to periodic drying can form burrows and aestivate, living in a state of suspended animation for several years. The ancient burrows indicate that this is not a recent adaptation.

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160/19_verts1.html

Hagfish and Lampreys, and another site well worth looking over:


Subphylum Vertebrata
One of the next groups of chordates to evolve was the jawless fish (Agnatha). Modern representatives of this group are the hagfishes and lampreys. Hagfishes are generally deep-water marine scavengers. They burrow into the mud, sticking their heads out until they detect waterborne odors of food such as decaying flesh. Then they travel along the odor gradient until they find their food, whereupon they use a rasping tongue to burrow into the flesh. When threatened or attacked, hagfish have the ability to secrete a skin-derived compound that immediately swells into a large ball of slime. This leads to their common name - slime-eels.
Hagfish are clearly an evolutionary intermediate between lancelets and fish. Although better swimmers than lancelets, they lack the jaws, paired fins and gill covers of true fishes, having instead no jaws, a fin-like flap of skin along the body, and only simple pore openings for the gill chamber. The affinities between Cephalochordates and the hagfish/lamprey group are most striking when viewing the larva of the lamprey (ammocoetes larva). These larvae strongly resemble lancelets, with the addition of a pumping gill chamber. Although hagfish and lampreys do not have a segmented vertebral column, their notochord is somewhat calcified, and they are considered the most primitive members of the third major group of chordates - Subphylum Vertebrata.

http://ebiomedia.com/prod/BOchordates.html

I can keep this going clear into next week, but I’m tired of cut & paste. The point is that there are a vast number of ancient species still around today. This in no way refutes evolution. Virtually all of these animals, although they still have their same, basic form, have evolved, a lot or a little, and they continue to do so, as any survivor must. They have simply proven themselves to have superior survival traits to other species at the time of their origins and beyond. They are here today, therefore there is nothing primitive about them, speaking from evolution‘s point of view.

Will our species do the same? Will we, in the fullness of time, become a ‘living fossil’ (damn, but I despise that term! It just ain‘t right!)? Stay tuned, folks....... :juggle:

doov

[Socratism]

I would say the fact there exist ‘living fossils’ is in no way a problem for evolutionary theory.

Of course you are correct, mainly because there is no such thing as a coherent "evolutionary theory". All there is really is a few obvious "principles" such as "things change" backed up by a large number of secondary assumptions, rationalizations, explanations, whatever you wish to call them, that are used in specific situations, many of them diametrically opposed to others.
The "trick" is to select the ones appropriate to a specific case from a very broad menu. The whole mess is called "evolutionary theory"and can be seen to be absolute hogwash from a broad point of view despite the fact that pieces here and there come from valid work.

Few see this because few are trained in taking such broad views of large scale problems and this is compounded by the almost unbelievable number of facts that need to be considered when such a broad view is attempted.

Thus, the vast majority of researchers take it for granted that the paradigm is secure and simply do detailed studies in narrow disciplines using the simplistic paradigm along with the menu of subjective explanations to "explain" anything that at first glance does not "fit".

The parallel with the Galileo affair as well as the "theory of combustion" is quite obvious. Once a paradigm takes firm hold and becomes the norm taught in all venues as gospel it takes quite something to pry it loose. I don't expect creationists to accomplish this, but they may be able to make some limited headway on a few freethinkers who do not automatically follow the maddening crowd.

Evolution appears to me to be "the mother of all fads".

[Duvenoy]

Evolution appears to me to be "the mother of all fads".

(chuckle)

doov

[QED]

That was deep, Socratism.

On the bright side, many of these living fossils show us what some of the transitional species between fish/amphibians, amphibians/reptiles, etc would look like with the flesh on, and make it harder for creationists to pretend they couldn't have existed...

[Socratism]

05-07-2003 @ 05:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90392#post90392)
Bald Ape:

Socratism,

You do realize there is a difference between a theory that is able to expalin anything that could be found, and a theory which is able explain everything that has been found, don't you? The latter is something all true scientific theories have in common; and it is quite easy to prove via demonstration that all life on the planet is of common descent is not the former:

Find a sequence of nucleotides in human DNA which
1) strongly resembles the genetic code for a viral protein (90% similar)
2) has a near identical copy (90% similar) at the same location in gorillas and
3) has no copy at that location in chimps.
Bam. Common descent falsified. Game over.


Excavate a human skull buried 10 feet deep in the stone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon (you know, amongst all of the fossils of the other vertebrates we supposedly coexisted with 6,000 years ago). Boom. We're done here - time to pack up and go to church.

You honestly sound like you are making the argument that because nobody can seem to find anything that falsifies a scientific thoery, it is not falsifiable. Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that evolution hasn't been falsified yet not because it's not falsifiable, but rather because it's not false? Just wondering.

You seem to think that because you have invented something that you are quite sure won't be found (because of experience with past patterns we already are aware of) that your theory qualifies as "falsifiable"

What is ironic is that people are continually finding things in nature that are said to be "a great surprise", and yet explanations are forthcoming very quickly and with apparent great ease about things that would never have been predicted in advance (which is the only true definition of a "prediction").

The theory of evolution "predicts" nothing, except possibly that no matter what is found an explanation can be devised that "predicts" the finding.

[Duvenoy]

Soc-ism, you really need to do some research did Noah have Acanthostega aboard the Ark?

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/origins/comingonto.html

doov

[QED]

Socratism, tell me what bit of evolutionary theory tells us we can never expect a species to retain a similar overall morphology in at least one lineage for long periods of time? Or which bit should tell us that? Really?

[Socratism]

05-07-2003 @ 05:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90392#post90392)
Bald Ape:

Socratism,

You do realize there is a difference between a theory that is able to expalin anything that could be found, and a theory which is able explain everything that has been found, don't you? The latter is something all true scientific theories have in common; and it is quite easy to prove via demonstration that all life on the planet is of common descent is not the former:

Find a sequence of nucleotides in human DNA which
1) strongly resembles the genetic code for a viral protein (90% similar)
2) has a near identical copy (90% similar) at the same location in gorillas and
3) has no copy at that location in chimps.
Bam. Common descent falsified. Game over.


Excavate a human skull buried 10 feet deep in the stone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon (you know, amongst all of the fossils of the other vertebrates we supposedly coexisted with 6,000 years ago). Boom. We're done here - time to pack up and go to church.

You honestly sound like you are making the argument that because nobody can seem to find anything that falsifies a scientific thoery, it is not falsifiable. Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that evolution hasn't been falsified yet not because it's not falsifiable, but rather because it's not false? Just wondering.

You seem to think that because you have invented something that you are quite sure won't be found (because of experience with past patterns we already are aware of) that your theory qualifies as "falsifiable"

What is ironic is that people are continually finding things in nature that are said to be "a great surprise", and yet explanations are forthcoming very quickly and with apparent great ease about things that would never have been predicted in advance (which is the only true definition of a "prediction").

The theory of evolution "predicts" nothing, except possibly that no matter what is found an explanation can be devised that "predicts" the finding.

[AtheistArchon]

You seem to think that because you have invented something that you are quite sure won't be found (because of experience with past patterns we already are aware of) that your theory qualifies as "falsifiable"

- Yes, exactly. It's possible, you agree. That makes it possible to be shown false. The fact that it hasn't been is hardly OUR fault. Falsifiability and being true or false are, of course, two different things.

- Creationism, for example, is nonfalsifiable. Who can argue against the invisible, the immaterial, the noncorporeal? Evolution, in so many ways, can be shown to be 100% false. Just because you cannot do so does not mean it isn't possible. And that's all falsificationism requires.

- Sometimes I think creationists take plays specifically out of our own playbook because they work so well.


What is ironic is that people are continually finding things in nature that are said to be "a great surprise", and yet explanations are forthcoming very quickly and with apparent great ease about things that would never have been predicted in advance (which is the only true definition of a "prediction").

- What's the problem here? Do you expect a scientist to know everything?


The theory of evolution "predicts" nothing,

- Heh. Which theory? Perhaps we can get into specifics.


except possibly that no matter what is found an explanation can be devised that "predicts" the finding.

- No no, we're talking about science here, not religion! LOTS of new findings in science completely destroy previously held theories. That's the difference: we are looking at the evidence first and coming up with the theory afterwards, rather than beginning with a conclusion and running out in search of evidence which may agree with it. Science does the former, creationism (and ID, and every other form of creationism out there) does the latter.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103410#post103410)
AtheistArchon:



- Yes, exactly. It's possible, you agree. That makes it possible to be shown false. The fact that it hasn't been is hardly OUR fault. Falsifiability and being true or false are, of course, two different things.

I would argue that evolutionary theory never specifically claims that human skulls could never be found in lower sediments. However it would not be expected from our prior experience with the fossil record. Whenever a lifeform is found in layers earlier than ever seen before, the only consequence is that the drawings of what have been found to date are revised and any "trees" derived from such drawings are then also revised accordingly. An extreme case as you posit, if verified by additional findings, would simply cause a revision in drawings, but the paradigm would not be "falsified.


- Creationism, for example, is nonfalsifiable. Who can argue against the invisible, the immaterial, the noncorporeal?

This is an example of extremely poor logic on your part. One of the major objectives of evolutionists on this forum is to give evidence that falsifies creationism. Do you want it both ways?


Evolution, in so many ways, can be shown to be 100% false. Just because you cannot do so does not mean it isn't possible. And that's all falsificationism requires.

I have already falsified it in so many ways, but people don't agree because they can come up with all sorts of reasons why they think it hasn't been falsified.


Sometimes I think creationists take plays specifically out of our own playbook because they work so well.

Your mention of "playbook" is quite apt, because it does resemble a game with you people. Unfortunately the "game" comes to an end when we die and at that point everyone faces the music.


- What's the problem here? Do you expect a scientist to know everything?

I expect a good theory to have a sound foundation. Evolution doesn't, because "random mutation plus natural selection" has never been shown to have the power to transform a primitive replicating hypothetical protocell into a human being, regardless of how many trillion years would be available. Such an idea is currently in the realm of science fiction or even science fantasy.


- No no, we're talking about science here, not religion! LOTS of new findings in science completely destroy previously held theories.

I agree. However, the mistake you are making here is in then concluding that evolution must be science because it has never been falsified. I don't get the logic behind such an argument. The fact that some [most?] scientific theories are eventually falsified would seem to say only that the odds are against evolution surviving into the far future.


That's the difference: we are looking at the evidence first and coming up with the theory afterwards, rather than beginning with a conclusion and running out in search of evidence which may agree with it.

Creationism is ultimately the handiwork of a spiritual being that revealed what He did by inspiration of ancient people. We can then look at the evidence and see if what we seee naturally follows. Creationists believe it does in a broad sense, although there are some details still in dispute. The ageement would be remarkable if the account was not inspired, which is why many of us conclude that it must have been. How could unaided ancient people guess so many things so accurately?


Science does the former,

Science may, but evolution doesn't. Evolution picks and chooses from a menu of contradictory explanations to solve "surprising" new findings.

It is not a coherent theory.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 01:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103394#post103394)
Socratism:



You seem to think that because you have invented something that you are quite sure won't be found (because of experience with past patterns we already are aware of) that your theory qualifies as "falsifiable"

It's a deal. I'll make a list of things which would falsifiy evolution and will be easy to find. But before I do, please name a falsification for the theory that the moon is orbitting the planet earth. Make sure it's not one of those things "you are quite sure won't be found."

Also, the theory that the moon orbits around the sun does not "predict" that lunar eclipses will happen. Do lunar eclipses thus falsify the theory that the moon orbits the earth?


What is ironic is that people are continually finding things in nature that are said to be "a great surprise", and yet explanations are forthcoming very quickly and with apparent great ease about things that would never have been predicted in advance (which is the only true definition of a "prediction").
Indeed. In the same way, if I studied the moon from an observatory, and after years of copious measurments and observations, slowly came to the conclusion that it orbitted the earth - I'd be very surprised to see it temporarily vanish from sight. Should I abandon the original theory altogether, or see if it can be tweaked or expanded in such a way that it explains both all of my previous observations AND the new observation?


The theory of evolution "predicts" nothing, except possibly that no matter what is found an explanation can be devised that "predicts" the finding.

Same with the moon-orbit theory. Oh sure, I could predict that a possible falsification would be "the moon will never collide with the earth", but that's not really a falsification, because I'm "quite sure" it's not going to happen. Should we conclude that the theory that the moon orbits the earth is not a scientific theory?

[Marc Schindler]

Duvenoy, I appreciate your attempt to keep us apprised of so-called "living fossils." The tuatara is especially well-known as the only living descendant of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately all six of your URL's bombed. But ironically I used to go to church right across the Rideau Canal from Carleton University, which is in Ottawa ON, where I lived for 12 years. And I've seen a lungfish preserved at the Royal Tyrrell Palaeontological Museum in Drumheller AB, in Dinosaur Provincial Park.

In any case, your point is valid. Creationists show their ignorance of evolution when they point to living fossils, so-called, as supposed evidence against evolution. If an animal can find an ecological niche, it will thrive there. The idea of a continuous push towards "advanced" species is not part of evolution -- but it is often part of people's misconceptions about evolution, I've found.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103378#post103378)
Socratism:

The theory of evolution "predicts" nothing, except possibly that no matter what is found an explanation can be devised that "predicts" the finding.

Appearantly, Socratism, you have already forgotten that other thread in which I gave you clear examples of what evolutionary theory predicts.

[Duvenoy]

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103607#post103607)
Marc Schindler:

Duvenoy, I appreciate your attempt to keep us apprised of so-called "living fossils." The tuatara is especially well-known as the only living descendant of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately all six of your URL's bombed. But ironically I used to go to church right across the Rideau Canal from Carleton University, which is in Ottawa ON, where I lived for 12 years. And I've seen a lungfish preserved at the Royal Tyrrell Palaeontological Museum in Drumheller AB, in Dinosaur Provincial Park.

In any case, your point is valid. Creationists show their ignorance of evolution when they point to living fossils, so-called, as supposed evidence against evolution. If an animal can find an ecological niche, it will thrive there. The idea of a continuous push towards "advanced" species is not part of evolution -- but it is often part of people's misconceptions about evolution, I've found.

Links didn't work? Drat! Guess the thing to do is to paste them in the addy bar and go in from there.

Sorry.

doov

[HippoCrates]

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103607#post103607)
Marc Schindler:

Duvenoy, I appreciate your attempt to keep us apprised of so-called "living fossils." The tuatara is especially well-known as the only living descendant of the dinosaurs.

Descendant of the dinosaurs? Really? Is the tuatara even an archosaur? I was fairly certain that no living reptile had a dinosaurian hip arrangement.


In any case, your point is valid. Creationists show their ignorance of evolution when they point to living fossils, so-called, as supposed evidence against evolution. If an animal can find an ecological niche, it will thrive there. The idea of a continuous push towards "advanced" species is not part of evolution -- but it is often part of people's misconceptions about evolution, I've found.

It was a part of some theories of evolution - Lamarck's for example. But then, that's one of the reasons that those theories were discarded.

[Marc Schindler]

HippoCrates: don't hold me to the classification of tuataras as "dinosaurs" in the strictest sense of the term -- but they are commonly considered to be the only living dinosaur in lay language.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 02:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103745#post103745)
Marc Schindler:

HippoCrates: don't hold me to the classification of tuataras as "dinosaurs" in the strictest sense of the term -- but they are commonly considered to be the only living dinosaur in lay language.

True enough, but they are only related to the dinos in that they are reptiles. The hip arrangment is indeed different. The tuatara is splayed out like a lizard or a crocodilian, while the dinos had their legs under them, much as modern mammals do.

Lay language sucks. Why can't they tell it as it is?

Edited to add: The tuatara was a contempory of the dinosaurs, but not one of them. It seems that the popular idea of those days is that nothing but dinos existed at the time. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There was a wonderous diversity of species, many (most?) of which we'll never have the joy of knowing their fossils.

doov

[Socratism]

The idea of a continuous push towards "advanced" species is not part of evolution -- but it is often part of people's misconceptions about evolution, I've found.

Evolutionists have no one to blame but themselves for such a "misconception", because they continually talk about "primitive" and "advanced" species as well as promoting the absurd idea that all life on Earth evolved from a hypothetical "primitive protocell".

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 02:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103388#post103388)
QED:

Socratism, tell me what bit of evolutionary theory tells us we can never expect a species to retain a similar overall morphology in at least one lineage for long periods of time? Or which bit should tell us that? Really?

Evolution has both (all?) possibilities covered, which is why it cannot by its very nature specifically predict anything that would happen.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104339#post104339)
Socratism:



Evolutionists have no one to blame but themselves for such a "misconception", because they continually talk about "primitive" and "advanced" species as well as promoting the absurd idea that all life on Earth evolved from a hypothetical "primitive protocell".


True. This is a misconception going back a farther than I can remember. Modern evolutionists seem to make little effort to set it straight.

Are we, having only been around for a few milloin years, superior to the horseshoe crab, of an all but unchanged form dating back hundreds of millions of years? The ToE says, "not hardly."

As for the other, why not? Talk Origins, that "gutter" site has some excellent essays on this very subject.

doov

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104366#post104366)
Socratism:



Evolution has both (all?) possibilities covered, which is why it cannot by its very nature specifically predict anything that would happen.
So hold on a second, let's say I take a die and roll throw it onto a bumpy, irregular surface. If scientists were unable to accurately predict what I would roll, does that invalidate physics? Does that one example mean that physics cannot be used to predict anything? I think your fundamental misunderstanding arises from the fact that in practice, evolution of a species is a highly complex process based on a tremendous quantity of variables scientists cannot always know (like one would find when rolling a die onto a tremendously complex surface). As a result of these unknowns, all scientists can say about results in the field is that they are either consistent or not consistent with the theory of evolution. Similarly, all physicists could say about the rolling die is whether its behavior is consistent or not consistent with the laws of physics. If at one point in its roll it stopped, hovered in mid-air, and then took off in a new direction, our current notions of physics would be invalidated. Simply put, failure to be able to make specific predictions about highly complex scenarios does not mean that the theory allows for anything to happen. It also does not mean that certain specific aspects of the theory cannot be used to predict outcomes of controlled experiments in the lab (such as with bacteria, fruitflies, computer simulations, etc).

[DunnySaze]

“ I would say the fact there exist ‘living fossils’ is in no way a problem for evolutionary theory. ”



Of course you are correct, mainly because there is no such thing as a coherent "evolutionary theory"

No, it's because evolution doesn't predict every organism must change over time no matter what! It explains how they change over time, it doesn't demand that they do.


Thus, the vast majority of researchers take it for granted that the paradigm is secure and simply do detailed studies in narrow disciplines using the simplistic paradigm along with the menu of subjective explanations to "explain" anything that at first glance does not "fit".

Fom what I've read, the researches say evolution is strongly supported, and from their own fields.


The parallel with the Galileo affair as well as the "theory of combustion" is quite obvious. Once a paradigm takes firm hold and becomes the norm taught in all venues as gospel it takes quite something to pry it loose. I don't expect creationists to accomplish this, but they may be able to make some limited headway on a few freethinkers who do not automatically follow the maddening crowd.

It's an understatment to suggest creationists might not accomplish this. Who eventually discovered the truth in these episodes? Creationists? I don't think so. It was other scientists, who toppled the existing paradigm BY POSITING BETTER MODELS. Models that explained the facts better and made testable predictions that provided further support, eventually replacing the old systems.

[Socratism]

It was other scientists, who toppled the existing paradigm BY POSITING BETTER MODELS. Models that explained the facts better and made testable predictions that provided further support, eventually replacing the old systems.

You are quite correct that evolutionary theory persists because scientists have proposed nothing better. The problem is that most scientists buy into the idea that any model of origins must be naturalistic.

Thus, they are doomed from the start to wallow in their ignorance of the truth.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 09:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104767#post104767)
Socratism:



You are quite correct that evolutionary theory persists because scientists have proposed nothing better. The problem is that most scientists buy into the idea that any model of origins must be naturalistic.

Thus, they are doomed from the start to wallow in their ignorance of the truth.

The ToE persists because noboby has come up with any model that explains the evidence better. You see the ToE is not the be-all, end-all. It can easily be falsified. All you need to do it is find a dimetrodon fossil in amongst the diplodicus. Or a human next to either. I don't see this happening, but maybe it could?.

If such or similiar should be discovered, I'd drop the ToE in a heartbeat, and forget the foolish thing ever existed.

doov

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104767#post104767)
Socratism:
You are quite correct that evolutionary theory persists because scientists have proposed nothing better. The problem is that most scientists buy into the idea that any model of origins must be naturalistic.

Thus, they are doomed from the start to wallow in their ignorance of the truth.

You are quite correct that germ theory persists because scientists have proposed nothing better. The problem is that most scientists buy into the idea that any model of disease must be naturalistic.

Thus, they are doomed from the start to wallow in their ignorance of the truth.

[WinAce]

Speaking of which,

Antibiotic Effectiveness: a Critical Review (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/antibiotic_probs.htm) by the Institute for Demonology Research. :teeth:

[QED]

Yesterday @ 09:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104767#post104767)
Socratism:



You are quite correct that evolutionary theory persists because scientists have proposed nothing better. The problem is that most scientists buy into the idea that any model of origins must be naturalistic.

Thus, they are doomed from the start to wallow in their ignorance of the truth.

Oh oh! can I give it a try?

You are quite correct that the theory of the atomic strong force persists... blah.. blah.... blah.....

[hat's off to rufus]

[biter]

Yesterday @ 08:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104705#post104705)
DunnySaze:
No, it's because evolution doesn't predict every organism must change over time no matter what! It explains how they change over time, it doesn't demand that they do.

Funny, I wrote something intimating essentially the same thing and I was rebuffed:
"If something changes continually over time due to spontaneous and random factors, it seems to follow logically that with more time, more changes would result. What would you say is the correct understanding of evolutionary theory then?"

Guess it all depends on which day it is!

[DunnySaze]

You are quite correct that evolutionary theory persists because scientists have proposed nothing better. The problem is that most scientists buy into the idea that any model of origins must be naturalistic.

Thus, they are doomed from the start to wallow in their ignorance of the truth.

That is not the reason evolutionary theory persists. The reason it persists is that it explains the facts and makes testable predictions. The tests so far have verified the predictions and supported the theory. I am NOT saying this is a poor theory but it's the best we can do at this time untill something better come along. It happens to be a superb theory, one enormously successful. I am saying that whenever a paradigm is overturned, it's always overturned in favor of a better paradigm. This holds for any theory, from the theory of disease to the theory of the atom.

Also, scientists do not 'buy into the idea' that any model of origins must be natuaralistic. Some scientists might hold such a view as a personal matter, but it is by no means a requirement. It's quite possible such a model may be supernatural in nature.

It is possible for example that the first living cell was formed in a supernatural manner. But how can we know this using science, an activity based on observation within nature? The efforts that I have seen to date that it must be, such as those by Behe and Dembski fall well short in my view.

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 10:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108163#post108163)
DunnySaze:

It is possible for example that the first living cell was formed in a supernatural manner. But how can we know this using science, an activity based on observation within nature?
Exactly! Silly scientists and their materialistic faith...it's simply a matter of common sense that they should cease all questioning into origins and just assume a priori as absolute truth the teachings of the Koran. Or wait, was that the Talmud? Oh, I remember now, the right one is the Bible...unless the Norse had it right. Hmmm, perhaps the NSF should simply give scientists funding to read various religious texts as obviously that's the only place they will be able to find the answers they seek. [/sarcasm]

[Marc Schindler]

Lobstrosity and DunnySaze: that could very well be why evolution doesn't (contrary to popular misconception) even try to explain the origin of life itself. There are a number of scientific proposals, but they are nowhere being theories. The best-known one is the panspermia "theory" (it's only called that because of the ubiquity of the word "theory" but it's not deserving of the name).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Marc, I am sorry but that is just fundamentally flawed and misleading. Perhaps narrowly defined it does not, but in the general sense of course it does. And that is why there are scientific hypothesis on the issue. Your statement makes it seem as if that is why a line is drawn. Your statement that there are "proposals" and "does not even TRY" are in mutual opposition.

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108684#post108684)
Marc Schindler:

Lobstrosity and DunnySaze: that could very well be why evolution doesn't (contrary to popular misconception) even try to explain the origin of life itself.

It does, according to the definition of evolution by Kerkut and Fondi, which is paraphrased as "from goo to you via the zoo". And this is why materialistic origin of life theories are often called "chemical evolution". And it's laughable how the conclusion that chemical evolution is responsible for life is already accepted, and all they are doing is desperately trying to find a way around the mega-hurdles, e.g. those raised at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp


There are a number of scientific proposals, but they are nowhere being theories. The best-known one is the panspermia "theory" (it's only called that because of the ubiquity of the word "theory" but it's not deserving of the name).

You're right there. And it really shows how desperate materialists are to cling to their faith in chemical evolution that they have to resort to loopy ideas like directed panspermia (e.g. the rabid atheist Crick).

[Lobstrosity]

I'm sorry, Dee Dee, but I have to disagree (assuming I am correctly interpreting what you're criticizing Marc for). The theory of evolution, which details how the mechanism of evolution works, is wholely independent of the origins of life and says absolutely nothing about how lifeless molecules might have naturally organized into the self-replicating structures that characterize life. The first life could have been brought here by aliens or magicked into existence by the tooth fairy--it wouldn't make a difference. All evolution is concerned with is the process by which organisms will change over time (not, as Socrates likes to oversimplistically point out, the mere fact that organisms do change over time)--the theory takes as a given the fact that already life exists. Initial conditions of life on Earth are as irrelevant to the theory of evolution as initial conditions of matter in the universe are to the theory of gravity.

Now, that said, scientists do attempt to apply the theory of evolution in a historical context (utilizing evidence from the fossil record), looking backwards in time to reconstruct the evolutionary pathways life would have taken as it changed under the mechanisms proposed by the theory. In this historical context, the assumption is made that life originated from the oldest forms we have evidence for (which happen to be the simplest life we know about, not surprisingly), but once again, this has isn't the theory of evolution itself, it is only an application of that theory. This singular application to one historical scenario (namely life on Earth) is simply the theory of evolution put into practice to attempt to describe a highly complex world in which hardly any of the true variables are known (much in the same way police detectives put into practice forensic science to try to reconstruct the elements of a crime). As one final example to illustrate the point I'm trying to make, a description of the formation and past history of our Milky Way galaxy isn't the "theory of gravity," it is an attempt to apply the theory to one specific real-world example.

Abiogenensis (should a viable theory for such a process one day be formulated) and evolution are two completely separate domains. They are simply two independent theories (once again, should someone actually come up with a theory for abiogenesis), that, when combined, would hold the key to materialistically explaining the path life took on Earth throughout the course of Earth's history.

Basically, the take-home lesson is this: even if life on Earth was supernaturally created, given what we know about reproduction and natural selection, evolutionists would still argue that organisms on this planet are evolving now and will evolve in the future. On top of this, there is no barrier that limits how far such change can go; the notion that DNA mutations can only result in a loss of information is ludicrous.

The theory of evolution is not a function of the initial conditions of life on Earth!

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 02:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108790#post108790)
Socrates:

It does, according to the definition of evolution by Kerkut and Fondi, which is paraphrased as "from goo to you via the zoo".
Once again, I think you're having trouble grasping the difference between what is meant by the definition of a theory and the implications of a theory when applied to a specific context.



And it's laughable how the conclusion that chemical evolution is responsible for life is already accepted
Ah, but is it not also laughable how the conclusion that supernatural creation is responsible for life is already accepted by people like you? See, that's the difference between you and me...you assume you have all the answers already and "laughably" jump to conclusions about things you have no knowledge of. I, on the other hand, admit we have excruciatingly little knowledge as to how life originated, and thus will make no absolute declarations on the subject. All I will say is that I personally think it is more likely than not that the origins of life have a materialistic explanation given the fact that everything else in science has materialistic explanation--I see no reason why this should be any different. Given how little we know about abiogenesis, there is absolutely no reason not to explore the subject scientifically to see whether such inquiries bear fruit. I don't understand how a scientist such as yourself could be so opposed to actual science.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Socrates, during this time of heavy moderation, let's avoid the use of descriptives like "rabid" unless there are some supporting quotes provided to support such a descriptive.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


It does, according to the definition of evolution by Kerkut and Fondi, which is paraphrased as "from goo to you via the zoo".

Lobstrosity: Once again, I think you're having trouble grasping the difference between what is meant by the definition of a theory and the implications of a theory when applied to a specific context.And I think you're having trouble actually mounting a coherent argument. Fact is, the dispute is about the GTE sensu Kerkut, not about whether gene frequency can change over time!

Socrates:


And it's laughable how the conclusion that chemical evolution is responsible for life is already accepted.

Lobstrosity: Ah, but is it not also laughable how the conclusion that supernatural creation is responsible for life is already accepted by people like you?Hey, I've always admitted that I'm biased, and so does AiG. I think I have good reason for my bias, e.g. the Resurrection of Jesus (compared to the founders of other religions who rotted in their graves), but bias it is. My purpose was to expose the bias of evolutionists, who generally tell the general public that they are unbiased followers of the evidence regardless of where it leads. Not to mention the hypocrisy of chiding creationists for having preconceived ideas, which is the main reason I raised this.

Lobstrosity: See, that's the difference between you and me...you assume you have all the answers already and "laughably" jump to conclusions about things you have no knowledge of. :bow: Oh right, right, a Ph.D. chemist like me has no knowledge of the chemical hurdles of chemical evolution, and a non-chemist like you can instruct me. Umm, OK :shy:

:hrm: And as an atheist, you wouldn't happen to have a teensy-weensy bit of bias there yourself would you? :teeth:

Lobstrosity: I, on the other hand, admit we have excruciatingly little knowledge as to how life originated, and thus will make no absolute declarations on the subject.But no matter what the chemical difficulties, you already have FAITH that chemical evolution occurred. Similarly, the origin-of-life researchers who have already made up their mind that chemical evolution occurred. The worst thing about it is that money is coerced from taxpayers to support research designed to support a belief system.

Lobstrosity: All I will say is that I personally think it is more likely than not that the origins of life have a materialistic explanation given the fact that everything else in science has materialistic explanation.Lots of question-begging here. And once more, a materialistic explanation is ASSUMED, and non material ones excluded a priori

Lobstrosity: --I see no reason why this should be any different. Given how little we know about abiogenesis, there is absolutely no reason not to explore the subject scientifically to see whether such inquiries bear fruit. I don't understand how a scientist such as yourself could be so opposed to actual science.I'm not. That's why I don't oppose real science like the Law of Biogenesis, amply supported by observation with not a single known exception. It's the materialists who are opposed to this REAL science because it contradicts their faith.

[Marc Schindler]

DeeDee

[post#75 ]
Marc, I am sorry but that is just fundamentally flawed and misleading. Perhaps narrowly defined it does not, but in the general sense of course it does. And that is why there are scientific hypothesis on the issue. Your statement makes it seem as if that is why a line is drawn. Your statement that there are "proposals" and "does not even TRY" are in mutual opposition.



It's not misleading and is not meant to be splitting hairs. It really is a common misconception. See, e.g. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

You misstate my proposal when you say it is in opposition to another. I said scientists don't even try...to make a theory out of various proposals for the origin of life, because none of them have the modelling ability of a theory.

[Marc Schindler]

Socrates

You are quite correct that evolutionary theory persists because scientists have proposed nothing better. The problem is that most scientists buy into the idea that any model of origins must be naturalistic.

Of course. Science does not address teleological or transcendent questions so must be limited to naturalistic answers.



It does, according to the definition of evolution by Kerkut and Fondi, which is paraphrased as "from goo to you via the zoo". And this is why materialistic origin of life theories are often called "chemical evolution".
I have never heard of Kerkut and Fondi. Now, perhaps more to the point, why should I have heard of them? I've heard of Dr. Seuss. And I've heard of Dawkins, Miller, Gould, Whiting, et. al. Tell me why you think Kerkut and Fondi support a concept you don't, and why I should side with them.

[Marc Schindler]

Socrates, just did a quick google search on Kerkut and Fondi and all it brought up was creation sites.

Isn't that a bit like quoting the devil to teach gospel?

In rhetoric it's known as a straw man argument.

[DunnySaze]

Marc, I am sorry but that is just fundamentally flawed and misleading. Perhaps narrowly defined it does not, but in the general sense of course it does. And that is why there are scientific hypothesis on the issue. Your statement makes it seem as if that is why a line is drawn. Your statement that there are "proposals" and "does not even TRY" are in mutual opposition.



I think we need to consider the difference between what we can study in evolution, and the history of how life actually arose and changed and is now changing, because they are not necessarily the same thing. Allow me to go back once again to the definition of biological evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population over time.

What I want to emphasize here is not so much what the definition says, but what is does not say. It does not say that the origin of life is at issue, only how that life changes over time. By this definition it is irrelevant how initial life arose on Earth. Evolution simply assumes that it did arise at some point. It may have arisen de novo from molecules of non-living source; it may have come as an entity from space, or may have arisen as an act of divine creation, or perhaps some other mechanism.

But as far as the study of evolution as defined is concerned, it does not matter. However it arose, evolution as defined above is only concerned with how life has changed in the past and is changing today. This is what Kerkut called the “special theory of evolution” [his quote marks], and he concurs that there is a great deal of evidence for it. We ('we' meaning mainstream scientists) define it this way not because we don’t think the origin of life is important, but because we have no idea exactly how it happened. To quote Paul Amos Moody who baldly says in his book, Introduction to Evolution (1970), “How did life in earth begin? The answer is that we do not know and probably never will”. However, not knowing how life on Earth began in no way prevents us from studying how it has changed since that time. In the way of analogy, a doctor can tell you a great deal about the development of the human body without knowing a thing about how conception happens.

BUT, this then does not mean that how life arose is entirely irrelevant to the actual process of evolution, as opposed to its study. Kerkut also mentions a more “general theory of evolution” [again his quotes] and mentions that indeed this is far less well known. To understand what Kerkut meant we have to realize that it is clear that however life arose, the structure of the life that was so formed must also be consistent within evolutionary theory if evolutionary theory (i.e. common descent) is correct. Just as our doctor ignorant of conception nevertheless knows that however that happens, it must be consistent with what he knows of later development.

For instance, if someone claims to have found a complete theory of biogenesis in which organisms have a genetic code based on substituted polysiloxanes, then that is going to be a big problem, as we know existing organisms have a polynucleotide genetic code. Our present knowledge of evolution therefore constrains the possibilities of how life could have arisen, but that knowledge is not enough to define what the actual process was. It could still be any of the above. But we do recognize that our knowledge of how life has changed is on a great deal better observational and theoretical footing than how it arose.

How can we find out which process gave rise to life? To quote Adrian Woolfson, Life Without Genes, 2000, pg. 107: “The question then is whether we can construct a plausible account of the chemical events that occurred between the formation of the first rocks 4.6 billion years ago and the origin of cellular life around 3.6 billion years ago. For it is at some time during this apparently cell-free age, which we will call the Hadean, that the pre-cellular ‘proto-life’ scaffolding for the cellular life of the Archaean was assembled. It is important to emphasize that this is not the same as asking whether it is possible to trace the exact historical pathways that were taken by proto-life. It is indeed unlikely that we will ever be able to infer the actual historical meanderings through the space of chemical possibility. It might nevertheless be possible to establish the broad co-ordinates of these pathways. But this level of historical detail need not concern us at the present. What is important is that we are able to construct any reasonable account of how cellular life might have originated at all.”

Now we of course an consider the candidates and decide which is the most reasonable. Panspermia theory has several drawbacks. Setting aside the difficulties in a living thing traversing even interplanetary let alone interstellar space, there is very little evidence for the theory, and what there is of that is hotly disputed. Also, it’s not very satisfying philosophically, since all it does is remove the question of life origins to some other place that is even more difficult to study than Earth. Besides, what evidence we do have suggests there were both sufficient time and sufficient materiel for life to have arisen on Earth naturally. More plausible mechanisms are being elucidated every day. That is not to say that the third possibility of a supernatural creation is therefore ruled out. The problem with this scenario is that there is no way it can be studied scientifically. While a powerful tool, science does have limits. So while we don’t rule such a thing out, there does not seem to be a compelling reason that it must be ruled in either, that nature cannot accomplish this task all on its own.

So yes, we can study evolution just fine, in Kerkut’s ‘special’ sense, without reference to the origin of life. Good thing too, as it’s quite likely (although not impossible) that we will never be able to answer that question. However, the ultimate goal would be to bring origin of life theory together with evolution theory into a coherent whole as per Kerkut's 'general' theory, that is if (a very big IF) we can ever determine whatever the exact mechanism was by which life arose.

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108838#post108838)
Socrates:

Socrates:

:bow: Oh right, right, a Ph.D. chemist like me has no knowledge of the chemical hurdles of chemical evolution, and a non-chemist like you can instruct me. Umm, OK :shy:

Once again, let's remind the viewers at home that you know nothing about me or my qualifications. If you want, you can boast to us of your studies into the plausibility of abiogenesis, complete with descriptions of your experiments and full sets of references, but try not to just broadly wield your Ph.D. as some sort of blunt weapon. I proclaim that at this time no one has any real information as to how the first self-replicating molecules might have formed that goes beyond mere speculation. Similarly, no one can make a valid argument that shows with any validity that such molecular formation is impossible. So yes, as a subset of "everyone," you have no useful knowledge. Of course there are hurdles...there would have to be to explain why the number of times life is thought to have abiotically formed in the past four billion years is on the order of unity. Remember now, though, hurdles != impossible. Particles incident on a potential barrier see this as a hurdle, yet there is a non-zero probability for each to tunnel through.



And once more, a materialistic explanation is ASSUMED, and non material ones excluded a priori
As it must be by science. Theists don't need labs to assume God did it. Scientists can't use labs to prove God did it. As such, scientists will look for materialistic solutions, and it is by no means clear a priori that no such materialistic solution exists for abiogenesis. As such, scientists will look. You can hardly fault them for not all believing your book, especially when your book has led true science astray in the past. You may dispute this last point, but at the very least one must concede that people like you who think they know what the Bible is saying have led science astray in the past.



I'm not. That's why I don't oppose real science like the Law of Biogenesis, amply supported by observation with not a single known exception. It's the materialists who are opposed to this REAL science because it contradicts their faith.
Come on, Soc, you know the law of biogenesis isn't a "law." That's something they teach you when you're fourteen and taking your first biology class because they want to keep the concepts simple. The law of biogenesis is built solely on observation of existing life and has absolutely no bearing on possible abiotic formations of life. What you're doing here is analagous to making the naive statement that Newton's laws forbid massive particles from producing diffraction patterns in double-slit experiments. Laws are only "laws" in certain regimes--you know this just as well as I do.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 05:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108771#post108771)
Dee Dee Warren:

Marc, I am sorry but that is just fundamentally flawed and misleading. Perhaps narrowly defined it does not, but in the general sense of course it does.

In no sense does the theory of evolution attempt to explain the origin of life. What you're offering up is a popular misconception that has no bearing on what the actual science is.