The book Darwin Devolves

[rogue06]

Just the principle of punctuated equilibrium is a start, showing that gradual change is not the norm, though evolution might lead us to expect small, gradual change.

As I pointed out to you in the New Bird/Dinosaur intermediate species found thread:

Not at all. As Darwin wrote "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate." IOW, evolutionary change can be very gradual or come in relatively quick (geologically speaking) bursts.

From a post I made on the pre-crash Tweb concerning Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism:

There are still papers being published on fossil data that shows that gradualistic evolutionary change is still recognized as completely legitimate: Gradual evolution in bacteria: evidence from Bacillus systematic and here is an earlier one: Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. And perhaps you might want to read this as well:

Source: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level

A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

In fact, Eldredge and Gould went out of their way to repeatedly point out that “Punk Eek” in no way supplanted gradualism but worked alongside of it as Donald Prothero notes in a review of the subject:

Source: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, pages 42-43

As Gould and Eldredge (1977) pointed out in their five-year retrospective on the debate, it's easy to pick one specific example of either gradualism or punctuation, but the important issue is one of generality. Which pattern is dominant among the species in the fossil record, since both are known to occur? If you sample all the members of a given fauna, which pattern is most common? In the twenty years since the paper, more and more case studies have been generated, and by now a pattern seems to be emerging (Gould, 1992; Stanley, 1992).

It is now clear that among microscopic protistans, gradualism does seem to prevail (Hayami and Ozawa, 1975; Scott, 1982; Arnold, 1983; Malmgren and Kennett, 1981; Malmgren et al., 1983; Wei and Kennett, 1988, on foraminiferans; Kellogg and Hays, 1975; Kellogg, 1983; Lazarus et al., 1985; Lazarus, 1986, on radiolarians, and Sorhannus et al., 1988; Fenner et al., 1989; Sorhannus,1990, on diatoms). As discussed by Gould and Eldredge (1977) and Lazarus (1983), this may be due to the fact that most of these organisms are either asexual clones, or show alternation of of sexual and asexual generations.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

So the observations actually reveal that both take place. It isn't an either-or situation but rather a complementary one. So as Prothero notes, Eldredge and Gould were aware of examples of both gradualism and PE, and like everyone else, wondered "which pattern is dominant." ... The only question that remains is which process is the dominant one.

Source: Is evolution gradual or punctuated?: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level

A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

I should also note that due to the incompleteness of the fossil record something that might appear to have changed rather suddenly may indeed have evolved gradually

Please pay particular to the last study quoted (Is evolution gradual or punctuated?: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level) which concluded that most evolutionary change is gradual with only 22% being attributed to "Punk Eek."

[lee_merrill]

A trend of what?

You seem to want to use them as evidence that a mutation that damages a gene will be adaptive to a wide variety of environments. But they don't show that. Saying "trend" over and over doesn't somehow turn them into support.

"A bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined" is what I was referring to, and it does indicate a trend.

Let's see, we have a radiation well after an earlier origin (that's the jawless fish), and the appearance of more fish with an obvious evolutionary antecedent (freshwater and jawed). All that sounds remarkably gradual.

Having jaws or not doesn't sound very gradual.

So, fragmentary indications that life might be partly capable of existing on land came millions of years before clear evidence of terrestrial adaptation. What's the word for something like that? Maybe gradual?

Maybe not! First life on land would seem to be clearly in the Silurian, without clear antecedents.

Source: Live Science

The first known plant to have an upright stalk, and vascular tissue for water transport, was the Cooksonia of the mid-Silurian deltas. This little plant was a few centimeters high with a branched structure with small bulbous tips. It lacked true leaves, suggesting that the stalk developed to disperse spores and was not itself photosynthetic. The first known air-breathing animals were arthropods. Millipedes, centipedes and the earliest arachnids first appear in the Silurian. Since arachnids are exclusively predatory, this represents the first terrestrial food web.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

There is absolutely nothing at all in that quote to indicate whether the pattern was gradual or an example of punctuated equilibrium. There has to be a first appearance in the record for everything. You can't just point to the term "first" and think it supports the idea that it means "sudden".

Well, it would seem to imply that.

I'm not arguing that there are no lineages that display a pattern consistent with punctuated equilibrium. There are. But there are definitely a lot of lineages that don't, and its relative importance in earth's history is debatable (and being debated).

Source: biology-online

The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

"A bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined" is what I was referring to, and it does indicate a trend.


Having jaws or not doesn't sound very gradual.


Maybe not! First life on land would seem to be clearly in the Silurian, without clear antecedents.

Source: Live Science

The first known plant to have an upright stalk, and vascular tissue for water transport, was the Cooksonia of the mid-Silurian deltas. This little plant was a few centimeters high with a branched structure with small bulbous tips. It lacked true leaves, suggesting that the stalk developed to disperse spores and was not itself photosynthetic. The first known air-breathing animals were arthropods. Millipedes, centipedes and the earliest arachnids first appear in the Silurian. Since arachnids are exclusively predatory, this represents the first terrestrial food web.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Well, it would seem to imply that.

Source: biology-online

The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

Need sources for quotes that 'imply that.'?

[lee_merrill]

Please pay particular to the last study quoted (Is evolution gradual or punctuated?: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level) which concluded that most evolutionary change is gradual with only 22% being attributed to "Punk Eek."

That's still enough so that I can make my point, if (let's say) 20% of the fossil record contains sudden appearances of animals. This is contrary to what evolution would predict...

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

That's still enough so that I can make my point, if (let's say) 20% of the fossil record contains sudden appearances of animals. This is contrary to what evolution would predict...

Blessings,
Lee

Your 'arguing from ignorance' as to what has been found in the fossil evidence. The reality is that over time since Darwin the scientists have predicted the fossils that were intermediates in the right time frames, and over the years the fossils have been found where and when predicted.

[lee_merrill]

Parts two and three of Behe's response to his Lehigh colleagues are up...

From part two:

Source: Behe

One of the papers the reviewers reference in this section is Shen et al. (2018). (16) If you look up that paper you find that two of the four “Highlights” listed on the first page are that “Reconstruction of 45 metabolic traits infers complex budding yeast common ancestor” and “Reductive evolution of traits and genes is a major mode of evolutionary diversification.” It must take Darwinian tunnel vision to cite a paper that emphasizes how a complex ancestor gave rise to simpler yeast species by losing abilities over time as support for arguing that Darwinian evolution can build complexity.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Behe

As one group writes of mammalian development, “Our results suggest that gene loss is an evolutionary mechanism for adaptation that may be more widespread than previously anticipated. Hence, investigating gene losses has great potential to reveal the genomic basis underlying macroevolutionary changes.” Another group comments, “These findings are consistent with the ‘less-is-more’ hypothesis, which argues that the loss of functional elements underlies critical aspects of human evolution.”

© Copyright Original Source

A trend is noted in these papers...

Blessings,
Lee

[HMS_Beagle]

A trend is noted in these papers...

Yep. It's Behe bloviating, hand-waving away the solid points made against his nonsense while regurgitating his same cherry-picked bits. The usual clown circus from one of the DI's leading clowns.

[Duragizer]

With all due respect, all you Christians on this thread who accept evolution, what do you think of Jonathan Sarfati's claim that Christians who promote evolution are 'useful idiots', paraphrasing Lenin?

I think such a claim could only come from useless idiots.

[Seeker]

I think such a claim could only come from useless idiots.

Here is the full quote:

''Citing those who believe ‘God used evolution’

Lerner et al. realize that overt atheism would repel many Americans, so they are careful to advocate books by theistic evolutionists. However, this is reminiscent of Lenin’s tactic of cultivating ‘useful idiots’ in the West, who were too gullible to realize that they were undermining their own foundations. And the ones he cites, by John Haught and Kenneth Miller, present a ‘god’ nothing like the true God who reveals Himself in the Bible. It just goes to show that whenever the Bible and evolution are mixed, it’s always the Bible that is distorted. See The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies.

To see why evolution / billions of years is incompatible with the God of the Bible, see Q&A: Genesis''.

[tabibito]

To see why the Bible is incompatible with YEC misinformation - about the Bible - the way they want to read it -

Group A: 6,000 years of existence for the Earth. Physical records DOCUMENT the existence of entire civilisations before, during, and after the time that there should have been only 8 people on the entire planet (Noah and family).
Group B: 11 000 years of existence for the Earth. Says that the WRITTEN Bible chronology is wrong.

Radiocarbon dating can be calibrated accurately for NO LESS THAN 18 000 years - this calibration being assessed and verified by comparison with growth rings on trees etc. Adjustments are made taking into account fluctuations in atmospheric C14. When the radio-carbon dating is inaccurate, it invariably gives a date YOUNGER than is shown by comparison with growth rings and other testable factors.

The great age of the Earth is not needed to demonstrate that the YEC reading (whether valid or not) of scripture would render the Biblical record of the Earth's age incorrect. It only needs to be demonstrated that the Earth is more than 6 000 years old - and that is all too thoroughly demonstrated.

[Duragizer]

Here is the full quote:

''Citing those who believe ‘God used evolution’

Lerner et al. realize that overt atheism would repel many Americans, so they are careful to advocate books by theistic evolutionists. However, this is reminiscent of Lenin’s tactic of cultivating ‘useful idiots’ in the West, who were too gullible to realize that they were undermining their own foundations. And the ones he cites, by John Haught and Kenneth Miller, present a ‘god’ nothing like the true God who reveals Himself in the Bible. It just goes to show that whenever the Bible and evolution are mixed, it’s always the Bible that is distorted. See The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies.

To see why evolution / billions of years is incompatible with the God of the Bible, see Q&A: Genesis''.

Like I said, useless idiots. Useless idiots enslaved to useless cultic dogma.

[Roy]

Maybe not! First life on land would seem to be clearly in the Silurian, without clear antecedents.

Source: Live Science

The first known plant to have an upright stalk, and vascular tissue for water transport, was the Cooksonia of the mid-Silurian deltas. This little plant was a few centimeters high with a branched structure with small bulbous tips. It lacked true leaves, suggesting that the stalk developed to disperse spores and was not itself photosynthetic. The first known air-breathing animals were arthropods. Millipedes, centipedes and the earliest arachnids first appear in the Silurian. Since arachnids are exclusively predatory, this represents the first terrestrial food web.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Once again, refuting creationist garbage requires nothing more than reading the source they misrepresent:

Source: ibid

Bryophytes such moss, hornworts and liverworts first appeared in the late Ordovician.

© Copyright Original Source

It's also trivial to find articles about Ordovician land animal trace fossils. The first stalked plant may be Silurian, but the first life on land was earlier.

[Roy]

It's getting tiresome pointing out that Dory's own sources contradict his claims.

[rogue06]

Here is the full quote:

''Citing those who believe ‘God used evolution’

Lerner et al. realize that overt atheism would repel many Americans, so they are careful to advocate books by theistic evolutionists. However, this is reminiscent of Lenin’s tactic of cultivating ‘useful idiots’ in the West, who were too gullible to realize that they were undermining their own foundations. And the ones he cites, by John Haught and Kenneth Miller, present a ‘god’ nothing like the true God who reveals Himself in the Bible. It just goes to show that whenever the Bible and evolution are mixed, it’s always the Bible that is distorted. See The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies.

To see why evolution / billions of years is incompatible with the God of the Bible, see Q&A: Genesis''.

The full quote doesn't change anything. It's like repeating a claim seeking to use it as evidence to support the claim.

[rogue06]

And if we're gonna play a quoting game...

Arguably two of the most highly regarded and respected Christian theologians and scholars alive today would have to be William Lane Craig (often simply known as WLC) and NT Wright^[1]. You won't find many Christians who would not include one and likely both in a list of their top five or at least ten even if they might not agree with every single thing they say.

What is interesting is that both of these widely respected Bible scholars pretty much think that young earth creationism (YEC) is a bad joke. Now that isn't a quote but as we'll see below it is an accurate depiction of their views.

For instance, in the case of WLC, he finds folks like the current grand poobah of the YEC movement, Ken Ham, to be an embarrassment to Christianity. In a recent interview Craig made the following statement at about the 1 minute 50 second mark:

"Yes, I've seen a comparable statistic that says that over 50% of evangelical pastors
think that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Now when you think about that, Kevin,
that is just hugely embarrassing. That over half of our ministers really believe that the
universe is only around 10,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it’s nonsense, and
yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It’s really quite shocking
when you think about it."

YEC is "hugely embarrassing" and "scientifically, it’s nonsense." Listen for yourself at the absolute contempt in his voice for those YEC leaders who expound that view.

That this is an accurate portrayal of Craig's view is confirmed by the fact that Creation Ministries International (CMI) angrily characterized the remark as an "attack [on] the biblical creationist view on the days of Genesis 1."

As for Wright (who is, for instance, hailed by Newsweek as "the world's leading New Testament scholar"), he says in his book Surprised by Scripture that YEC is a false teaching, not a viable scientific claim, and it actually makes it harder for Christians to be taken seriously by the world, because YEC tells everyone that their position is the Christian position, when in reality it’s not:

"I wonder whether we are right even to treat the young-earth position as a kind of allowable if regrettable alternative, something we know our cousins down the road get up to but which shouldn’t stop us getting together at Christmas ... And if, as I suspect, many of us don’t think of young-earthism as an allowable alternative, is this simply for the pragmatic reason that it makes it hard for us to be Christians because the wider world looks at those folks and thinks we must be like that too? Or is it — as I suggest it ought to be — because we have glimpsed a positive point that urgently needs to be made and that the young-earth literalism is simply screening out? That’s the danger of false teaching: it isn’t just that you’re making a mess; you are using that mess to cover up something that ought to be brought urgently to light.

Did you catch that? "are right even to treat the young-earth position as a kind of allowable if regrettable alternative"? Those are the words of a man wondering whether something is heresy and needs to be stamped out IMHO, that goes too far but should be an eye-opener to those who sneeringly think that everyone who isn't YEC isn't a True Christian™








1. What a delightfully appropriate name for a New Testament scholar