RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:27   

I have been posting at ISCID and my old friend, Professor Davison, suggested, in his usual forthright style, a fellow poster, Daniel Smith, should try posting here :  
Quote
Daniel Smith

Better yet, go over to Panda's Thumb and present your views there and see just how far you will get. Look at what is happening to Martin at After The Bar Closes. It is disgusting. I tried to deal with those animals and was banned for life. Like Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb is a closed union shop. Trust me or learn for yourself.


So I extended an invitation to Daniel, confident he will receive a warm welcome.

Daniel has stated ( please correct me if I mis-state your view)that Leo Berg in "Nomogenesis" and Otto Schindewolf in "Basic Questions in Paleontology" both produce good arguments against RM and NS using the evolution of the horse as an example.

Hope to hear from you, Daniel.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:57   

Hi Alan,

I don't think that anyone here is a paleontologist. So if we're going to defend RM+NS, it will probably be on another ground.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:50   

what about Deadman?

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,19:48   

deadman is an archaeologist, last I heard.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,22:39   

Evolution? The fossils say neigh!

:p

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,17:13   

I was hoping otherwise but I wasn't sure.  It's been so long since he's been around anyway.  He may not be available.

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,22:56   

I think Dr. GH is an archaeologist. Or something. What about afarensis? Deadman's been hanging around iidb, and could probably be lured back here.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,02:13   

Hello to all,

Thanks Alan for the invitation and the thread.  I don't really know what to say here.  The reference to the evolution of the horse was one of many that Schindewolf uses in his book for his position against gradualism.

Berg essentially argues against selection using many examples from modern biological history.

I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.

I also respect immensely Dr. John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, although I must admit, much of it is over my head.

I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant.  What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the talk.origins newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone.  I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

Also, I must say that I have very little free time to devote to this discussion - probably 1 or 2 hours a week - so there might be some long delays between posts for me.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,02:48   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13)
I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

As almost every living thing that has ever existed is extinct, why would that be by design? Seems wasteful to me

What's your take on the "designed to go extinct" issue?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:17   

Hi Daniel,

So you decided to brave the lion's den.

 
Quote
I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant.  What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the talk.origins newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone.


There are many posters here who are professional scientists and can answer queries or point you to references.

 
Quote
I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.


Again, I am sure people can supply information and explanation on the scientific evidence. Science does not address anything other than observable, measurable phenomena, however, so the nature and rôle of a supreme being or creator is not available for scientific scrutiny. If you want to claim there is scientific evidence for a designer (intelligent or not) or that "Intelligent Design" can currently claim to be a scientific endeavour, then I expect you may find some disagreement.



 
Quote
Also, I must say that I have very little free time to devote to this discussion - probably 1 or 2 hours a week - so there might be some long delays between posts for me.


I too have to ration my time here. I sometimes wonder if academics have too much free time judging by some people's output.  :D

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:39   

Quote
I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.


Any chance you could just open your mind to all possibilities?  Otherwise, what's the point of even one or two hours?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,12:29   

Quote
I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

What has convinced you of this?

The key difference between science and apologetics is that scientific inquiry begins with the data and moves toward the best explanation, while apologetics begins with an "unshakeable" conclusion and finds data to support it. Cherished notions, "common sense," assumptions and "what everybody knows" are all up for examination in science. It's a human activity, so bias and error naturally occur. But because it is a widely distributed activity and its practitioners insist on transparency of method, its explanations converge, ultimately, toward the best available.

Science, therefore, seeks consilience. Whatever explanation is proposed for a set of observations must not only be the best fit for those data, it must also fit within the framework of all the other observations and conclusions drawn in the field. The data used to support preferred conclusions in apologetics are often "cherry-picked," that is, they only support the foregone answer if we ignore other, contrary, observations in the field.

Finally, when all is said and done, a scientist is allowed to return the answer "we still don't know." Intellectual honesty sometimes compels it, though it is usually deeply unsatisfying to admit ignorance when one has worked hard to explain. There are always unsolved problems, and if there weren't, there would be no need for science.

Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:20   

Quote

Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here.


What is the "scientific attitude" in your comprehension?  Taking darwinian pressupositions to the evolution of horses or what?  Do you mean that "natural selection" had been involved in the phenomenon? Because all the concept of random mutation and natural selection is nothing more as an unproved hypothesis, not the "scientific attitude" as you would like us to believe. Daniel Smith quoted prominent scientists of past like Berg and Schidewolf. Daniel might has been inspired by John Davison's Manifesto, which is an extraordinary anti-darwinian source of information.

I supported the view held by John and Daniel using the research of entomologist Franz Heikertinger who waged  war against proponents of "natural selection" more than 40 years. F. Heikertinger (himself an evolutionist)  refuted "natural selection" as the source of mimicry giving vast number of facts, observations and by darwinists neglected phenomenons.

Those great men were prominent scientists and you have no right to call anyone using their arguments that they use "pre-formed arguments" and not "scientific attitudes".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:38   

Quote
Those great men were prominent scientists and you have no right to call anyone using their arguments that they use "pre-formed arguments" and not "scientific attitudes".

No right? I beg to differ.

Davison is a crackpot. If Daniel thinks there's any merit to any of his, or your own, output, I will say again, I don't see a meaningful exchange in the future of this thread.

Now that you're here, I see it even less.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:41   

VMartin:

Thread subject: Horse evolution and whether works by Berg and Schindewolf contain evidence that undermines current evolutionary theory.

Not thread subject: Ladybirds etc.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:52   

Quote
have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.


Daniel: I assume you have come to these conclusions because of religous convictions ? I have done quite a few conventional science courses in my time (although I don't have a degree yet) but I have progressed to what are known as 3rd level courses in this country (beyond A-Level). I've also worked in the chemistry end of things for over thirty years although I'm now retired:

http://www.premier-power.co.uk/

One thing I've found out about science.....contrary to what groups like AiG claim, it does not try to convert people to Atheism. None of the courses that I have taken have done this, even the ones that had evolutionary concepts like astronomy or geology for example. In fact, in order to be successful in these disciplines they must be approached from an evolutionary viewpoint. Astronomy/cosmology for example, just doesn't make sense when viewed from a YEC perspective despite what people like Dr Jason Lisle say (even he had to learn evolutionary concepts in order to obtain his Phd). What we observe is this field certainly does not confirm a young Earth/Universe.

I've also found that one does not need to abandon conventional/mainstream science (and by that I mean evolution since it encompasses a wide range of subjects, not just biology) when one becomes a Christian. I've mentioned this exceptional lady on more than one occasion as a good example:

http://www.longman.co.uk/tt_secsci/resources/scimon/jan_01/bell.htm

http://www.royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=1481

http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/testing_god_3.htm

 
Quote
Jocelyn Bell Burnell: One of the things that I can never answer is whether my feeling that there is a god is simply some kind of neurological pattern in my brain. I have no answer to that, I just do not know. But the evidence would lead me to think otherwise, because I’m not the only person who feels this, who has the same experiences. And I can recognise what I call god in other people as well, it’s not just in me.


I think I feel the same as the above.

YECism is more likely to convert me to agnosticism rather than conventional science.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,17:43   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13)
I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.

Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,10:58   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43)
Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book?

What, somebody went and changed their mind about something? Who'd have thunk it! :p

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:07   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 20 2007,12:29)
The key difference between science and apologetics is that scientific inquiry begins with the data and moves toward the best explanation...

Science, therefore, seeks consilience. Whatever explanation is proposed for a set of observations must not only be the best fit for those data, it must also fit within the framework of all the other observations and conclusions drawn in the field.

I agree that this is what science should be.  

What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:11   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13)
I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.

Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book?

Not really.  In the first book, he doesn't really give us an alternative hypothesis; all he does is point out the many deficiencies of the currently held evolutionary theory.

In the second book, he starts to give us his own alternative: a designed universe and directed evolution.

I see no conflict.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:14   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,02:48)
As almost every living thing that has ever existed is extinct, why would that be by design? Seems wasteful to me

What's your take on the "designed to go extinct" issue?

I don't know "why" many designers do what they do.  I don't think that in any way negates the fact that their products are designed.  Do you?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:38   

Quote

What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?


What meaning of "gradualism" are you interested in? Might it be the "phyletic gradualism" described by Eldredge and Gould in 1972?

Quote

    In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as “phyletic gradualism” and identify the following as its tenets:

   (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.

   (2) The transformation is even and slow.

   (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.

   (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species’ geographic range.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:48   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 20 2007,14:52)
In fact, in order to be successful in these disciplines they must be approached from an evolutionary viewpoint. Astronomy/cosmology for example, just doesn't make sense when viewed from a YEC perspective despite what people like Dr Jason Lisle say (even he had to learn evolutionary concepts in order to obtain his Phd). What we observe is this field certainly does not confirm a young Earth/Universe.

There are many things I have yet to make up my mind about.  For instance; I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it.

My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence; not evidence that is made-to-fit the observers viewpoint.  I'm finding that hard to do - since both sides of this issue tend to color the evidence with their own interpretive brush.

The first book I read on the subject (other than my high school science books) was "Scientific Creationism" by Dr. Henry Morris, and, although he makes some good points, I found some of his views to be a bit of a stretch and recognized his attempts to fit science to the bible.

I then spent quite some time on talk.origins and did much research on the internet looking at the case for the currently held theory of evolution.  I found that much of the evidence for the theory was being interpreted under the assumption of the theory.

I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.

This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others.  First, they are true scientists - there are no religious views expressed in their books.  Second, they hold to no preconceived paradigm and they have (or had) nothing to gain by publishing their views.  Most were either ridiculed or shunned, or just put on a shelf and forgotten, but their works stand the test of time (at least so far).  These are the type of people I want to get my information from.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:53   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:38)
What meaning of "gradualism" are you interested in?

I mean the smooth, gradual, incremental, evolution of forms throughout biological history.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:38)
Might it be the "phyletic gradualism" described by Eldredge and Gould in 1972?

   
Quote

    In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as “phyletic gradualism” and identify the following as its tenets:

   (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.

   (2) The transformation is even and slow.

   (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.

   (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species’ geographic range.

Of these I'd pick 1 and 2, but not necessarily 3 or 4.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:58   

Uh, no, it's a package deal. Either you are endorsing all four of the definitional components, or you should be using another term.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,05:00   

Quote

What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?


Quote

I mean the smooth, gradual, incremental, evolution of forms throughout biological history.


So, are you asserting that there are no instances of transitional fossil sequences?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,05:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:07)
What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?

Mine is rather straightforward:
Given the billions of animal and plant species that have existed, we've only collected a very small fraction of them as fossils.

We don't expect to find most transitional forms.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,09:23   

Quote
My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence..,


This is not a problem, Daniel, this is a good thing. It is always worth trying to look at the primary evidence to see if there is error or bias in interpretation.

 
Quote
I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.

This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others.


But should you not then look at the evidence on which they base their hypotheses rather than accepting their interpretations without question? This must be especially so in the case of Berg and Schindewolf as Berg wrote "Nomogenesis" in 1922 and Schindewolf was proposing saltation as a hypothesis in the '30s. A lot of evidence, the elucidation of the genetic code, for instance, was unavailable to them.

I think Berg was quite a polymath, producing works in geography and ichthyology, although there is a question mark as to whether he had some influence on the later disastrous ideas of Trofim Lysenko.

Michael Denton seems to have distanced himself from the Discovery Institute lately, and his current research project seems very laudable.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,11:43   

Quote
I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.


If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error.

This is how it is with this debate (if you could call it that). 99.99% of all scientists accept the age of the Earth/evolution. No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,14:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:58)
Uh, no, it's a package deal. Either you are endorsing all four of the definitional components, or you should be using another term.

OK, let me be more specific:
Gradualism is what one would expect to see if the mechanism for evolutionary change were random mutations and natural selection.  If you think that it must entail entire populations and their entire geographical range, then fine - show that by the evidence in the fossil record.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,14:37   

Quote


    In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as ?phyletic gradualism? and identify the following as its tenets:

   (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.

   (2) The transformation is even and slow.

   (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.

   (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species? geographic range.



Darwinian? If I recall correctly, Darwin suggested that evolution is apt to occur in a minority of a species, on the fringe of its territory. That stuff about it being the whole species at once was tacked on later by other scientists.

Afaik, only point 1 of those is part of the current theory as phrased above. Number 2 needs a qualifying phrase saying slow relative to the generational span of the species - i.e., that could still be fast relative to geologic eras.

Henry

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,15:01   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2007,05:02)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:07)
What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?

Mine is rather straightforward:
Given the billions of animal and plant species that have existed, we've only collected a very small fraction of them as fossils.

We don't expect to find most transitional forms.

But we have found millions of fossil remains for many types of organisms.  Why then do we still find no evidence of smooth, gradual transitions between types?  

         
Quote
"As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.

Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms"

Otto H. Schindewolf, "Basic Questions in Paleontology", pp 102-103


And later, when speaking of the sudden appearance of new structural types, Schindewolf comments:
     
Quote
" And these are by no means just isolated occurrences; these strange new forms are usually also represented by large numbers of individuals.  Nonetheless, there is no connecting link with the stock from which they derived.  The continuity of the other species gives us no reason to suspect interruptions in the deposition of the layers, or subsequent destruction of layers already deposited, which, furthermore, would be revealed by other geological criteria.  Nothing is missing here, and even drastic changes in living conditions are excluded, for the facies remain the same.

Further, when we see this situation repeated in all stratigraphic sequences of the same time period all over the world... we cannot resort to attributing this phenomenon to immigration of the new type from areas not yet investigated, where perhaps a gradual, slowly progressing evolution had taken place. What we have here must be primary discontinuities, natural evolutionary leaps, and not circumstantial accidents of discovery and gaps in the fossil record"

ibid. pp 104-105 (emphasis his)


--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,15:38   

Quote
No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.


My guess: Those who do think about that realize that they don't have an evidence based argument, so they don't go around claiming to have one. So the only ones we here from are the ones who didn't think.

Henry

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,15:41   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,15:01)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2007,05:02)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:07)
What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism?

Mine is rather straightforward:
Given the billions of animal and plant species that have existed, we've only collected a very small fraction of them as fossils.

We don't expect to find most transitional forms.

But we have found millions of fossil remains for many types of organisms.  Why then do we still find no evidence of smooth, gradual transitions between types?  

No evidence? I doubt it. I'm not a paleontologist, but I heard they can study vicariance with the fossil record. That involve fossil species that are very similar, supporting gradualism.
And I'm not sure we have fossil remains for millions of species.
Let's take hominids. Only rather recently have we discovered many of the forms that separate us from the common ancestor we have with chimps.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,17:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,14:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:58)
Uh, no, it's a package deal. Either you are endorsing all four of the definitional components, or you should be using another term.

OK, let me be more specific:
Gradualism is what one would expect to see if the mechanism for evolutionary change were random mutations and natural selection.  If you think that it must entail entire populations and their entire geographical range, then fine - show that by the evidence in the fossil record.

What does it take to convince people that they don't just get to make up their own definitions for terms that are already in use in evolutionary science? I've been running into Humpty-Dumptyism left and right ever since getting involved in these discussions.

"Gradualism" is already in use. Broadly, it means non-saltational change. There's nothing about it that requires that such properties of change occur by particular mechanisms. "Phyletic gradualism" is already in use. It means the conjunction of the four tenets listed already.

You don't have to take my word on it for either of these; consult any competent evolutionary science textbook and you'll find the same thing. That's something that can't be done for the personal connotations of terms, like Daniel's mishmash for "gradualism".

Now, as for "phyletic gradualism" being a term applicable to describing an actual stance on how the fossil record came to look the way it does, I've long said that it has a lot of the character of a strawman.

Actually, it is Daniel's claim that the fossil record is in a particular state. I'd be interested to know what experience Daniel has that would underwrite his confidence in his claim. But even more basic than that is getting some concrete idea of what the claim is... that is, I'd like to see some anchors tying the goalposts in place before going any much further with the game. As it stands, Daniel says that one doesn't see something in the fossil record, but he doesn't seem to have any clear notion of just what it is or what actual paleontologists would call it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,18:03   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,14:26)
Gradualism is what one would expect to see if the mechanism for evolutionary change were random mutations and natural selection.  If you think that it must entail entire populations and their entire geographical range, then fine - show that by the evidence in the fossil record.

You would only expect to see gradualism if natural selection pressures were relatively constant or changed only slowly.  If  selective forces change abruptly, would you not also expect to see rapid evolutionary change (and lots of extinctions)?  For example, we know that the climate in the past has changed very quickly, for example during shifts between ice ages and interglacial periods.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,18:51   

No, you'd also expect gradualism (i.e., non-saltational change) if any incremental evolutionary process is in play, which would include genetic drift.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:11)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13)
I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.

Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book?

Not really.  In the first book, he doesn't really give us an alternative hypothesis; all he does is point out the many deficiencies of the currently held evolutionary theory.

Yes, really. In the first book, he treats the reader to such dishonest misrepresentations as a "purely random process of natural selection," as well as the somewhat more sublime idiocy of his failure to understand basic taxonomic relationships, as well as the idea that conserved amino-acid residues represent functional constraints, in his laughable centerpiece of cytochrome sequences.
Quote
In the second book, he starts to give us his own alternative: a designed universe and directed evolution.

I see no conflict.

That's predictable. Do you see any evidence? I'm struck by the mind-boggling conflict between your claim to be interested in evidence, while simultaneously conflating evidence with opinion.

Have you ever read a paper from the primary biological literature--you know, those ones that have new data in them?

Has Denton ever published any data? If not, why not?

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:57   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 22 2007,11:43)
If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error.

We are talking about people here - not clocks.
If you were in a meeting, and nine out of ten people agreed with everything the boss said, but one disagreed, would you automatically go along with the 9 or listen closely to the 1?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,22:04   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,17:13)
Actually, it is Daniel's claim that the fossil record is in a particular state. I'd be interested to know what experience Daniel has that would underwrite his confidence in his claim. But even more basic than that is getting some concrete idea of what the claim is... that is, I'd like to see some anchors tying the goalposts in place before going any much further with the game. As it stands, Daniel says that one doesn't see something in the fossil record, but he doesn't seem to have any clear notion of just what it is or what actual paleontologists would call it.

My main source for my argument about paleontology is Otto Schindewolf's "Basic Questions in Paleontology".  

I'm pretty sure Schindewolf qualifies as an "actual paleontologist".  

Did you read the quotes I supplied from that book in any of my posts so far?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,00:24   

Quote

We are talking about people here - not clocks.
If you were in a meeting, and nine out of ten people agreed with everything the boss said, but one disagreed, would you automatically go along with the 9 or listen closely to the 1?

Except there is no authority here; if you follow the scientific method properly, there is no boss. I wouldn't use the clocks as an example, it reminds me of the fallacy: "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong". The truth is that most scientists do use some sort of Bayesian approach to new claims, since there is a lot that we already know.
   
Quote
"As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.

This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing.
   
Quote

Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms"

This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:07   

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,00:24)
     
Quote
"As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.

This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing.

Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.
   
Quote
and to see such a process is very unlikely.
But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?
           
Quote
   
Quote

Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms"

This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find.

Schindewolf had no arguments against whale evolution to my knowledge.  He did point out that - despite their similar habitats, ichthyosaurs and whales remained reptiles and mammals respectively and did not revert to "the organizations found in fish".  

You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:12   

Daniel,
Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record?

I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:14   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 22 2007,21:05)
Has Denton ever published any data?


Have a look.

Have you?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:22   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2007,04:12)
Daniel,
Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record?

I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize?

No idea.  

I have a question for you:
What % of transitional versus non-transitional forms are fossilized?

Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,05:40   

Quote
Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.

I'm sure he understood the process of fossilization and I've seen his data (although I'm surprised with the amount of life that's inhabited the planet compared to the number of fossils, he would be so shocked to see gaps in the fossil record. I guess he wanted a poster child for the transition). He could have spent 250 pages and it still wouldn't make a difference, this is not 1950. He used the evidence that he had at the time to construct an argument and made a case.  Now we have something like this:

And here
       
Quote

But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?

Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here!
Quote
You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views.

Sure, and his ideas were shown through observation to be incomplete, and in most cases incorrect.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,06:40   

Quote
We are very lucky to have fossils at all. After an animal dies many conditions have to be met if it is to become a fossil, and one or other of those conditions usually is not met. Personally, I would consider it an honor to be fossilized but I don't have much hope of it. If all the creatures which had ever lived had in fact been fossilized we would be wading knee deep in fossils. The world would be filled with fossils. Perhaps it is just as well that it hasn't happened that way.

Because it is particularly difficult for an animal without a hard skeleton to be fossilized, most of the fossils we find are of animals with hard skeletons - vertebrates with bones, mollusks with their shells, arthropods with their external skeleton. If the ancestors of these were all soft and then same offspring evolved a hard skeleton, the only fossilized animals would be those more recent varieties. Therefore, we expect fossils to appear suddenly in the geologic record and that's one reason groups of animals suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.

There are rare instances in which the soft parts of animals are preserved as fossils. One case is the famous Burgess Shale which is one of the best beds from the Cambrian Era (between 500 million and 600 million years ago) mentioned in this quotation. What must have happened is that the ancestors of these creatures were evolving by the ordinary slow processes of evolution, but they were evolving before the Cambrian when fossilizing conditions were not very good and many of them did not have skeletons anyway. It is probably genuinely true that in the Cambrian there was a very rapid flowering of multicellular life and this may have been when a large number of the great animal phyla did evolve. If they did, their essential divergence during a period of about 10 million years is very fast. However, bearing in mind the Stebbins calculation and the Nilsson calculation, it is actually not all that fast. There is some recent evidence from molecular comparisons among modern animals which suggests that there may not have been a Cambrian explosion at all, anyway. Modern phyla may well have their most recent common ancestors way back in the Precambrian.

As I said, we're actually lucky to have fossils at all. In any case, it is misleading to think that fossils are the most important evidence for evolution. Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* We would be in the position of a detective who comes upon a crime after the fact. You can't see the crime being committed because it has already happened. But there is evidence lying all around. To pursue any case, most detectives and most courts of law are happy with 2-3 clues that point in the right direction.
(*my emphasis)

Richard Dawkins

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,06:44   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2007,04:12)
Daniel,
Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record?

I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize?

And multiply that by the % of fossils that are actually found by paleontologists.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,06:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:07)
But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  

What do you mean by different "types". Something like fishes and tetrapods, saurians and mammals, dinosaurs and birds...?

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:31   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:14)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 22 2007,21:05)
Has Denton ever published any data?


Have a look.


No data that pertain to his two books. Why is that, Daniel? If he has any real passion about the subject(s) of his two books, why not test their assumptions, such as his idiotic assumption that conservation of a residue represents a functional constraint?

Quote
Have you?

Of course, and in better journals to boot. More pertinently, I've published more data relevnt to Denton's assumptions than he has. Why is that?

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,22:04)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,17:13)
...As it stands, Daniel says that one doesn't see something in the fossil record, but he doesn't seem to have any clear notion of just what it is or what actual paleontologists would call it.

My main source for my argument about paleontology is Otto Schindewolf's "Basic Questions in Paleontology".  

But that's a book, not the primary literature. Were you deliberately misleading us when you claimed to be interested in evidence?
Quote
I'm pretty sure Schindewolf qualifies as an "actual paleontologist".

But the opinions of an actual paleontologist aren't actual evidence.  
Quote
Did you read the quotes I supplied from that book in any of my posts so far?

But quotes aren't evidence, either.

You didn't answer my other pointed question: have you ever read a paper from the PRIMARY literature? I mean those papers with actual, new data in them--we real scientists often read them by looking at the figures and tables, because unlike you, we value evidence over opinion.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:43   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2007,04:12)
Daniel,
Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record?

I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize?

No idea.

Then you have no basis for claiming that the incomplete nature of the fossil record represents a problem for modern evolutionary theory. 

I suggest that you look for the relevant evidence. Here's a place to start: passenger pigeons used to be common, now they are extinct. Has anyone ever found a fossilized one?

Quote
I have a question for you:
What % of transitional versus non-transitional forms are fossilized?

You'd have to know the answer, as well as the answer to oldman's question, to come to the conclusion you've already asserted.

Quote
Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts?

Are they more "resistant"? How would the concept of "resistance" work anyway, since the issue is one of sampling?

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,16:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:07)
Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,00:24)
     
Quote
"As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.

This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing.

Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.
     
Quote
and to see such a process is very unlikely.
But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?
           
Quote
   
Quote

Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms"

This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find.

Schindewolf had no arguments against whale evolution to my knowledge.  He did point out that - despite their similar habitats, ichthyosaurs and whales remained reptiles and mammals respectively and did not revert to "the organizations found in fish".  

You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views.

See, that is the kind of goal post moving Wesley is talking about. Going from land living artiodactyls to ocean going whales is a significant transition, one, I might add, that we have plenty of evidence for. We show him a transition between orders and he demands one between classes. Okay, the reptile mammal transition, which is quite well documented with transitional forms displaying a wide variety of transitional anatomy.

Although Schindewolf may have been a paleontologist, I doubt he had a very solid understanding of the fossilization process. Taphonomy - the study of fossilization - is a very young science. Efremov coined the term in the 1940's but the field didn't take off till the 1970's and 1980's. This is not to say that paleontologists were ignorant of how fossils form and the way the fossil record can be biased, rather we have progressed a good deal since then.

Daniel is mistaken if he thinks Schindewolf is presenting unbiased and unadulterated evidence. Schindewolf had his own theoretical preconceptions that he used to interpret the evidence. Seems to me that if he really wanted to see the evidence he would be looking at the fossils and not the interpretations of Schindewolf and Berg...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:02   

Quote
Daniel Smith
Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts?


One problem with trying to answer that is that there is no sharp dividing line between "transitional" and "non-transitional". A species is "transitional" if it (or a close relative) produces descendants significantly different than itself; that isn't even a property of the species itself at the time of fossilization, it's a historical occurance afterward.

Quote
oldmanintheskydidntdoit, posted 9/23/07 3:12 AM
Daniel,
Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record?

I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize?


I recall reading a few years ago that the number of fossil finds that had been studied was around 250 to 500 million. Since quite a few species have multiple finds, the number of species represented would be a good bit less than that.

I wonder how many species have lived in the last 500 million years - would that be more or less than 500 million?

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:04   

Quote
Are they more "resistant"? How would the concept of "resistance" work anyway, since the issue is one of sampling?


Resistance is futile. :p

Henry

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:17   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:37)

But that's a book, not the primary literature.

But the opinions of an actual paleontologist aren't actual evidence.  

But quotes aren't evidence, either.

How about opinions quoted from a book by Richard Dawkins?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:37)

But that's a book, not the primary literature.

But the opinions of an actual paleontologist aren't actual evidence.  

But quotes aren't evidence, either.

How about opinions quoted from a book by Richard Dawkins?

They don't constitute original research either, but at least they are arguments. Not like some "John Do says that the fossil record disproves gradualism".
If you want to disprove the current theory, you have to provide some new evidence or a better interpretation of the observations.

You first need to define what you call "transitional species" between "types".

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:48   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 23 2007,17:02)
I recall reading a few years ago that the number of fossil finds that had been studied was around 250 to 500 million. Since quite a few species have multiple finds, the number of species represented would be a good bit less than that.

I wonder how many species have lived in the last 500 million years - would that be more or less than 500 million?

Henry

500 million fossils would probably represent at most a million of species, perhaps much less.
Given speciation rates and estimations of current biodiversity, hundreds of billions of species may have lived since the cambrian. I'm not sure if there is an estimation of that number.
What would be interesting is an estimation of the total number of fossil specices for a given group (say animals with skeleton) and a given time range of 1-5 million years. For instance, from -125 to -100 million years. I guess this number is always WAY smaller that the number of known living species of the same group.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,18:29   

So I haven't been keeping up so much recently and this is a new thread to me.

Daniel, it seems that you are arguing that there is some bound that constrains evolutionary transition.  I am curious as to why you assume this must be.  As I see it, you either accept that speciation occurs, or it doesn't.  If you accept that it does, then the supposed macro-micro boundary dissolves instantly (indeed, it is a figment of imagination, suriving in the literature because it is a useful fiction for narrative exposition, like any other model).  Why do you invoke boundaries, unless you are wedded to a phenotypical model of evolution?

So you ask about 'transitional forms'.  I can point to several instances of speciation observed and/or reconstructed that do not involve transitional forms.  I would start by pointing out the speciation events that involve contact between lineages of Helianthus sunflowers (see Rieseberg, Nature a few years ago) or the ecological speciation event in Rhagoletis dipterans.  There is no transition.  This does not deny Wesley's point about the gradual process, but it does invoke a question "At what temporal scale do we intend 'gradual' to refer to", I believe this has been addressed above.  The argument against transitional forms or lineages boils down to an assertion that Zeno's Paradox is a true problem.

[Edited to add] And we know that it is not, because I just went to the store.  And I returned as well.

So the saltational opinion can be resolved with the gradualist opinion by virtue of considering that the terms are not necessarily referential to an absolute scale.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,20:18   

Daniel wrote:

"I have a question for you:
What % of transitional versus non-transitional forms are fossilized?

Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts?"

Does this make sense? The only thing that distinguishes transitional vs non-transitional is order of find, isn't it? A fossil is a fossil; if you find two and then later find a third that seems to be a transition between them, that doesn't make them different as far as fossilization, just how the third fits into the already existing collection. Or am I missing something?

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,22:01   

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,05:40)
I'm sure he understood the process of fossilization and I've seen his data (although I'm surprised with the amount of life that's inhabited the planet compared to the number of fossils, he would be so shocked to see gaps in the fossil record. I guess he wanted a poster child for the transition). He could have spent 250 pages and it still wouldn't make a difference, this is not 1950. He used the evidence that he had at the time to construct an argument and made a case.  Now we have something like this:

And here

The saltational events that Schindewolf proposed would go where the dotted lines are on your chart - the part subtitled "suggested lines of descent".             
Quote

Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here!

I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,22:37   

Quote
...so I'll have to get back to you on that.


You do that Daniel don't take too long...or change the subject *Snicker*.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,04:52   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2007,06:40)
       
Quote
We are very lucky to have fossils at all. After an animal dies many conditions have to be met if it is to become a fossil, and one or other of those conditions usually is not met. Personally, I would consider it an honor to be fossilized but I don't have much hope of it. If all the creatures which had ever lived had in fact been fossilized we would be wading knee deep in fossils. The world would be filled with fossils. Perhaps it is just as well that it hasn't happened that way.

Because it is particularly difficult for an animal without a hard skeleton to be fossilized, most of the fossils we find are of animals with hard skeletons - vertebrates with bones, mollusks with their shells, arthropods with their external skeleton. If the ancestors of these were all soft and then same offspring evolved a hard skeleton, the only fossilized animals would be those more recent varieties. Therefore, we expect fossils to appear suddenly in the geologic record and that's one reason groups of animals suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion.

There are rare instances in which the soft parts of animals are preserved as fossils. One case is the famous Burgess Shale which is one of the best beds from the Cambrian Era (between 500 million and 600 million years ago) mentioned in this quotation. What must have happened is that the ancestors of these creatures were evolving by the ordinary slow processes of evolution, but they were evolving before the Cambrian when fossilizing conditions were not very good and many of them did not have skeletons anyway. It is probably genuinely true that in the Cambrian there was a very rapid flowering of multicellular life and this may have been when a large number of the great animal phyla did evolve. If they did, their essential divergence during a period of about 10 million years is very fast. However, bearing in mind the Stebbins calculation and the Nilsson calculation, it is actually not all that fast. There is some recent evidence from molecular comparisons among modern animals which suggests that there may not have been a Cambrian explosion at all, anyway. Modern phyla may well have their most recent common ancestors way back in the Precambrian.

As I said, we're actually lucky to have fossils at all. In any case, it is misleading to think that fossils are the most important evidence for evolution. Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* We would be in the position of a detective who comes upon a crime after the fact. You can't see the crime being committed because it has already happened. But there is evidence lying all around. To pursue any case, most detectives and most courts of law are happy with 2-3 clues that point in the right direction.
(*my emphasis)

Richard Dawkins

Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record.  Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it.

I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach.  I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it.

From the same lecture:
       
Quote
These are all domestic dogs (Slide 1) except the top one which is a wolf. The point of it is, as observed by Darwin, how remarkable that we could go by human artificial selection from a wolf ancestor to all these breeds - a Great Dane, a Bulldog, a Whippet, etc. They were all produced by a process analogous to natural selection - artificial selection. Humans did the choosing whereas in natural selection, as you know, it is nature that does the choosing. Nature selects the ones that survive and are good at reproducing, to leave their genes behind. With artificial selection, humans do the choosing of which dogs should breed and with whom they should mate.

These plants (Slide 2) are all members of the same species. They are all descended quite recently from the wild cabbage Brassica olearacea and they are very different cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli, etc. This great variety of vegetables, which look completely different, has been shaped - they have been sculpted - by the process of artificial selection from the same common ancestor.

The problem with Dawkins' logic here is that it doesn't match reality:

(As you and I have discussed before), artificial selection is not "analogous to natural selection", as Dawkins argues. Artificial selection only works by shielding organisms from natural selection.

Throw all domesticated dogs back into the wild and watch as all these breeds go away - to be replaced by mutt dogs which will gradually lose many of their unique, bred-for characteristics and more and more closely resemble the wolf from which they came.

The same goes for these cultivated plants.  Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear.

These things can be verified in your own back yard.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2778
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,06:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52)
Throw all domesticated dogs back into the wild and watch as all these breeds go away - to be replaced by mutt dogs which will gradually lose many of their unique, bred-for characteristics and more and more closely resemble the wolf from which they came.

The fact that dogs under artificial selection have one set of characters, and another set of characters when they are feral and subject to a different kind of selective pressure, is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is, in fact, a prediction of that theory.

Do you have any testable predictions from your theory (whatever it is at the moment) that would lead to a different outcome than that predicted by evolutionary theory?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:44   

Daniel, it is also not true.  the genetic milieu is changed by selection (artificial is just another form, and it's not really artificial is it?  unless you are arguing it is sooooopernatcheral).

offspring of different lineages (or hybrids if you will) can have phenotypes that are completely outside the range of variation in the parents.  if there is any positive selective pressure on those traits then they will persist.  if there is then a mate preference, they will diverge.  it is that simple, and 'throwing dogs into the wild and they all turn back into wolves' is just wrong for a litany of reasons.  think about why that might be.  no way can a chihuaha turn 'back into' a wolf.  for one, it never was one.

fancy types of lettuce don't go back to being one single muddy lettuce, there is a quantitative legacy of mutation and selection.  same as the dogs.  new traits can be formed from recombination during contact between different lineages (See the Helianthus sunflower examples, it blows your contentions out of the water in the first paragraph)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,09:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,05:52)
(As you and I have discussed before), artificial selection is not "analogous to natural selection", as Dawkins argues. Artificial selection only works by shielding organisms from natural selection.

So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:58   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52)
     
Quote
Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.*
Richard Dawkins

Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record.

You're quote mining, Daniel, and avoiding the real evidence.

He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:
 
Quote
The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern.


Quote
Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it.

He's saying that other sources are more complete and more than sufficient. That's why creationists generally avoid discussing the sequence evidence, and when they do, they grossly misrepresent it.

How many trees have you constructed from sequences (evidence) using tools like CLUSTAL and BLAST, Daniel?

 
Quote
I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach.


That's because you're afraid of grappling with evidence for yourself. If you any real confidence in your position, you'd be discussing evidence instead of quote mining.

 
Quote
I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it.

What part of this don't you understand?
 
Quote
If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other.

 
Quote
The same goes for these cultivated plants.  Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear.

These things can be verified in your own back yard.

And have you done so?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,11:05   

Crikey Daniel has extensive experience 'in the wild'
Quote
These things can be verified in your own back yard.


We don't stand a chance.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,13:10   

Uf, it seems you are having hard time here. Your arguments refuting Adam Smith's opinions are very weak I would say.

1) If you think that Schindewolf was wrong, do you think the same about Gould and Eldredge? You know their conception of Punctuated Equilibria. Do you really think that Schindewolf was as wrong as was Gould?

Gould 1987:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….



2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Btw. the great Dawkins seeing the picture from 19 century painted by 17 years old yougster came to this ridiculous conclusion:

   
Quote

Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard?


Bernard has never carried a cask of brandy. It is only in Dawkins imagination that he "is strong enough" to carry it. Maybe he would be surprised if he checked it in reality.

Another Dawkins fantasy - I can discuss it in detail at another thread if you like - is his explanation of origin of mimicry. He often offers only his imagination instead of facts .

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,14:00   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,14:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

It seems obvious that artificial selection pressures have resulted in a wide variation of dog phenotypes in a very short amount of time.  Whether or not these are "species" by any rigorous definition is irrelevant.  The point is that selection pressures can produce physical variation.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,14:54   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,10:58)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52)
         
Quote
Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.*
Richard Dawkins

Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record.

You're quote mining, Daniel, and avoiding the real evidence.

It wasn't my quote so how could I be "mining" it?
 
Quote

He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:
     
Quote
The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern.

Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.  No one disputes this. What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.  For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.

   
Quote
Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it.

He's saying that other sources are more complete and more than sufficient. That's why creationists generally avoid discussing the sequence evidence, and when they do, they grossly misrepresent it.

How many trees have you constructed from sequences (evidence) using tools like CLUSTAL and BLAST, Daniel?

None.  And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online.  I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure.
   
Quote
   
Quote
I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach.


That's because you're afraid of grappling with evidence for yourself. If you any real confidence in your position, you'd be discussing evidence instead of quote mining.

I didn't quote mine.  And I'm happy to discuss any evidence you want to discuss.  It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance.
Quote

     
Quote
I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it.

What part of this don't you understand?
     
Quote
If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other.

I understand all of it.  None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.  
Quote

     
Quote
The same goes for these cultivated plants.  Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear.

These things can be verified in your own back yard.

And have you done so?

No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments.  His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,14:59   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,14:54)
the PEH

not the PEH surely?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:02   

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,05:40)
Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here!

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.  The passage you quoted was from the chapter on taxonomy and he was discussing phylogenetic classification (which he deemed subjective) as opposed to morphological classification (which he called objective).  

You seem to be arguing as if he denied common descent or evolution in general.  He denied neither.  His contention was with the mechanism of evolution.

Schindewolf proposed that evolution proceeded according to patterns.  He gave the example of the marsupial and placental wolves.  These obviously unrelated animals developed eerily similar features quite independently of each other.  

He also proposed that evolution proceeded as if constrained by a goal.  He gives the example of the evolution of the one-toed foot on the horse - which began long before the horse moved onto the plains and the one-toed foot became advantageous.

He also proposed that evolution occurred during ontogeny and gave several examples of ammonoid suture and coral septal apparatus evolution to support his views.

Again, I'm not sure what you are arguing against.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:06   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Martin,
You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:14   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06)
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Martin,
You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you?

I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:21   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,16:14)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Martin,
You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you?

I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind?

I'm pretty sure creationists are the only people claiming that there has been massive speciation from dogs over the past few thousand years.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:23   

To me it seems at least possible that dog breeders were primarily interesting in getting particular features in their breeds. Obtaining a speciation event was probably not their goal. I wonder if speciation would even be consistent with the usual goals of breeders, since it would limit the possibility of crossing their breed with another in order to import different genes.

Henry

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:35   

The only aspect of "artificial" selection in dogs that's really artificial is the fact that theoretically any breed of canis familiaris can produce viable offspring with any other. We've artficially suppressed speciation.

But how long would it take a population of chihuahuas and a population of great danes to fully speciate in wild conditions?

As a rule, creationists abuse the concept[s] of speciation.
Ring Species are illustrative of the complexities that are always ignored in this type of argument.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:38   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 24 2007,15:35)
The only aspect of "artificial" selection in dogs that's really artificial is the fact that theoretically any breed of canis familiaris can produce viable offspring with any other. We've artficially suppressed speciation.

But how long would it take a population of chihuahuas and a population of great danes to fully speciate in wild conditions?

That's an instance of mechanical isolation. They certainly can't mate and could be considered as true species.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:47   

That's kind of analogous to ring species, but without the geographic aspect of it.

Henry

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:50   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,15:14)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Martin,
You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you?

I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind?

It seemed to me you were looking for some speciation event, not especially in dogs.

But you remark was irrelevant. Evolution "in Darwinian way" is not synonymous with speciation.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:55   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2007,15:47)
That's kind of analogous to ring species, but without the geographic aspect of it.

Henry

That's what I think.
I wonder if there is a review paper about it. If not, some expert should publish one.
Apparently, speciation in dogs races is hardly studied.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,16:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,14:54)
It wasn't my quote so how could I be "mining" it?

Very easily.
 
Quote
 
Quote
He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:
           
Quote
The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern.

Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other.

Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.
Quote
No one disputes this.

Which is why you employ it as a straw man.
Quote
What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.

Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer.

If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS.
Quote
For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.

No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush.
Quote
None.

Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence?
Quote
And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online.

That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature?
Quote
I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure.

So why do you consider your uninformed conclusions to be more correct than mine?
Quote
And I'm happy to discuss any evidence you want to discuss.

Let's discuss this paper, then:
http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.
Quote
It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance.

Sorry, but you're supposed to familiarize yourself with the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion.
Quote
Quote
What part of this don't you understand?
I understand all of it.  None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.      

I don't think you understand it at all, since you blew it off as mere similarity.
Quote
No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments.  His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based.

To know that, you'd have to be familiar with the evidence, not just that someone offered citations. Are you familiar with these data, or are you faking it? Do you realize that science is not about appraising arguments, but about predicting and grappling with the actual evidence, not what anyone says about it?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,16:38   

Quote
Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design".
For instance, why do all primates share a non-functional copy of a gene normally involved in the production of vitamin C? And why do the phylogeny of this useless pseudo-gene reflects phylogenies of coding regions?

And also, why are we more genetically close to the coelacanth than it is close to the trout?
The irony is that the fossil record, which according to you disproves the ToE, predicted that.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,16:58   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38)
Quote
Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design".

That's what I'm trying to do with the cannabinoid receptor paper.
Quote
For instance, why do all primates share a non-functional copy of a gene normally involved in the production of vitamin C? And why do the phylogeny of this useless pseudo-gene reflects phylogenies of coding regions?

That might be too complex, as well as getting into Daniel's likely misconceptions about pseudogenes and "junk" DNA.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,17:58   

Holy shit. Another one.

Daniel starts with this admission:
 
Quote
I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant. What little I know has been self taught.

Full Stop.

Daniel: based upon your own self-description, we need no longer give the slightest attention to your thoughts on evolutionary biology. You don't know shit from Shinola on the topic, by your own admission. Plus your wingtips stink.

Daniel admits abject ignorance of contemporary evolutionary science, yet nevertheless feels qualified to reject a priori the hard won findings of a community of thousands of scientists laboring over decades in an attempt to better understand the history of life on earth. Moreover, he prefers a priori a handful of crackpots and outliers who "work" outside the scientific community and whose ideas have been ridiculed, shunned, and forgotten by that community. In short, although he claims interest in the work of scientists who themselves operate "free of preconceptions," he freely admits being motivated by the biased assumptions and foregone conclusions of science denial. A position that emerged from his admitted ignorance.  

Daniel: I now invite you to abandon the pretense of "objective, direct consideration of the evidence, free of preconceptions," to which your own self-descriptive statements (and subsequent posts) utterly give the lie, stop holding forth on a topic of which you are self-admittedly utterly ignorant, and tell us what is motivating your anti-science stance.

What commitments and what community identification account for your stance?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,18:32   

Quote
I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant. What little I know has been self taught.

I'm still waiting for him to figure out what advances have been made in molecular genetics since 1950. Oh well.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,00:03   

Quote

Daniel admits abject ignorance of contemporary evolutionary science, yet nevertheless feels qualified to reject a priori the hard won findings of a community of thousands of scientists laboring over decades in an attempt to better understand the history of life on earth. Moreover, he prefers a priori a handful of crackpots and outliers who "work" outside the scientific community and whose ideas have been ridiculed, shunned, and forgotten by that community. In short, although he claims interest in the work of scientists who themselves operate "free of preconceptions," he freely admits being motivated by the biased assumptions and foregone conclusions of science denial. A position that emerged from his admitted ignorance.


These words remind me how Giordano Bruno was wellcommed in Oxford. Pundits there ridiculed him considering themselves to be brilliant scientists. Giordano Bruno was only a layman who knew nothing about movement of planets in their eyes.

I can see the same is now happening to ideas of Schindewolf, Berg and Davison. Their supporters are ridiculed as well. (But you are too ignorant to adress also entomologist Punnett or Heikertinger, who called your alike "Hypothetiker" and who showed that natural selection play no role in evolution of insect forms and coloration).
   

But do not be so sure in your convictions. It doesn't mean if you dismiss their ideas that you are right.

You are operating with very funny arguments:
we are so many, so we are right.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,00:06   

What is your argument, VMartin?

That you are anti-establishment, thereby you are right?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,01:15   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,18:51)
No, you'd also expect gradualism (i.e., non-saltational change) if any incremental evolutionary process is in play, which would include genetic drift.

Not much time to keep up here.  Just like to say that I'm obviously using the terminology incorrectly.  What I was trying to say is that rate of evolution under RM+NS is not necessarily slow and constant.  I was under the impression that this was the model of evolution Daniel was working under.  Periods of rapid gradualistic change might not be captured by the fossil record if resolution is poor, thus resulting in the appearance of saltation.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,01:58   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2007,06:12)
The fact that dogs under artificial selection have one set of characters, and another set of characters when they are feral and subject to a different kind of selective pressure, is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is, in fact, a prediction of that theory.

I didn't know the theory had any predictions.
Quote

Do you have any testable predictions from your theory (whatever it is at the moment) that would lead to a different outcome than that predicted by evolutionary theory?

Since my view holds that selection is a conservative function, my statements about dogs and cabbage would probably qualify as predictions.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:11   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2007,08:44)
Daniel, it is also not true.  the genetic milieu is changed by selection (artificial is just another form, and it's not really artificial is it?  unless you are arguing it is sooooopernatcheral).
It's artificial in the sense that it's not natural - man selects the breeding partners - not nature.  
Quote

offspring of different lineages (or hybrids if you will) can have phenotypes that are completely outside the range of variation in the parents.  if there is any positive selective pressure on those traits then they will persist.  if there is then a mate preference, they will diverge.  it is that simple, and 'throwing dogs into the wild and they all turn back into wolves' is just wrong for a litany of reasons.  think about why that might be.  no way can a chihuaha turn 'back into' a wolf.  for one, it never was one.

I never predicted that a chihuahua would "turn into" a wolf.  Chihuahuas and great danes would probably be the first breeds to go extinct - due to a lack of reproductive partners.  Medium sized dogs would have more partners to breed with and dog size would most likely gravitate towards that median.  All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well.
Quote


fancy types of lettuce don't go back to being one single muddy lettuce, there is a quantitative legacy of mutation and selection.  same as the dogs.  new traits can be formed from recombination during contact between different lineages (See the Helianthus sunflower examples, it blows your contentions out of the water in the first paragraph)

No idea what sunflower example you're talking about.  Perhaps a link?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:16   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 24 2007,09:12)

So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd.

Come on now.  You're really can't be that dense, can you?
I said artificial selection (that's the part where people actively protect their dogs from breeding with any other breed of dogs) works by shielding (i.e.: protecting) the dogs from natural selection (that is, what would happen if the dogs got out and just ran the streets, breeding with any dog they felt like).

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:46   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,01:58)
I didn't know the theory had any predictions.

Predictions

Start here

EDIT: And Darwin himself made predictions about his theory that were later confirmed.
Here and here

I expect this is more to your taste however.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,03:08   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,16:02)
             
Quote

Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other.

Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.
           
Quote

Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Lots of designed objects fit into nested hierarchies.  One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.
               
Quote
             
Quote
What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.

Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer.

If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS.
Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?
               
Quote
         
Quote
For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.

No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush.
What claim did he backtrack on?
Denton's last book supports directed evolution.
               
Quote

Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence?

So, in order to show that I'm interested in evidence, I must construct trees?
             
Quote
         
Quote
And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online.

That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature?
I guess I don't know what you mean by "primary literature".  Is that only peer-reviewed journals?
         
Quote
           
Quote
I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure.

So why do you consider your uninformed conclusions to be more correct than mine?
Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.
           
Quote

Let's discuss this paper, then:
http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.

Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, :D then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing?
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.
               
Quote
           
Quote
It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance.

Sorry, but you're supposed to familiarize yourself with the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion.
But I've reached no firm conclusion as of yet.  Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction.
               
Quote
               
Quote

I understand all of it.  None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.      

I don't think you understand it at all, since you blew it off as mere similarity.
Similarities and differences can be mapped out into a neat hierarchal pattern.  What part of that is inconsistent with evolution by law?
               
Quote
           
Quote
No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments.  His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based.

To know that, you'd have to be familiar with the evidence, not just that someone offered citations. Are you familiar with these data, or are you faking it? Do you realize that science is not about appraising arguments, but about predicting and grappling with the actual evidence, not what anyone says about it?

Berg spent years in the field documenting case after case that confounded those he called "Selectionists".  I respect his findings because they are not arguments but are documented observances.  Many here and at talk.origins who fervently hold to the evolution by RM+NS (and drift and horizontal transfer) seem to be more interested in theoretical arguments than documented field work.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,03:33   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38)
         
Quote
Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design".

How about this?
         
Quote
"The new view transforms our view of the genomic fabric," explained Dr Tim Hubbard, from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, "The majority of the genome is copied, or transcribed, into RNA, which is the active molecule in our cells, relaying information from the archival DNA copy to the cellular machinery. This is a remarkable finding, since most prior research suggested only a fraction of the genome was transcribed."

"But it is our new understanding of regulation of genes that stands out. The integrated approach has helped us to identify new regions of gene regulation and altered our view of how gene regulation occurs."...

The team showed that transcription of DNA is pervasive across the genome, and that RNA transcripts overlap known genes and are found in what were previously thought to be gene 'deserts'.(all emphasis mine)



I am especially interested in these overlapping coding areas.  What that means, as near as I can tell, is that the coding in DNA is more elaborate and more sophisticated than previously thought - with regions that code for regulatory RNA overlapping (sharing parts of the same code with) regions that code for proteins.

If this is true (and it looks like it is), it would seem to be a nightmare for any theory based on random mutations - since one mutation would have to not only improve the protein produced, but the RNA as well.

Of course those of us who hold to a designed life theory have been predicting that there is no such thing as "junk DNA" all along.

I'm sure, however, that many of you will say that the ToE predicts this as well.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,05:07   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33)
Of course those of us who hold to a designed life theory have been predicting that there is no such thing as "junk DNA" all along.

I'm sure, however, that many of you will say that the ToE predicts this as well.

So, if "junk" DNA is in fact found then that will, to your complete satisfaction, disprove the "designed life theory"?


If not, well you can't have it both ways can you?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,06:51   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 25 2007,01:03)
But do not be so sure in your convictions. It doesn't mean if you dismiss their ideas that you are right.

You are operating with very funny arguments:
we are so many, so we are right.

VMartin: however funny my argument, you failed to grasp it. I'll simplify:

1) Daniel Smith claims to be interested in evidence gathered free of bias and preconception.

2) But Daniel himself, per his own frank and repeated self-description, is operating from a decisive bias (one you appear to endorse), specifically that he prefers to learn from those who have been ignored, laughed at and shunned. This massive bias, and its accompanying a prior assumption that mainstream scientists have nothing to offer to him, renders 1) absurd.

3) I'd like him to publicly abandon 1), given 2). I'd also like him to articulate the origins of his bias. I'm not interested in a reply couched in terms of some biological challenge or other, because he has already confessed his abject ignorance of the field, as well as this self-same bias.

Rather, I'd like to hear about his commitments and community identifications, a description of the non-scientific allegiances from which his biases arise.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,08:25   

'junk' is a sloppy term that covers many different phenomenon.  we prefer non-coding.  there is a lot of repetition in there, daniel, and it acts as if it were selectively neutral.  or, as if it were doing nothing but accumulating dust.

sunflower hybrid speciation here

punchline?  new traits evolve from lineage contact that promote ecological divergence and reproductive isolation via selection.  you are completely wrong.  

your 'super specialized' breeds have different ecological niches.  chihuahas and terriers would do just fine in a habitat where they could nail mice and dig burrows.  pit bulls hunt in packs.  I, uh, don't know if you have noticed, but every place is not like every other place.  Things vary.  This matters.

It all boils down to my fundamental biologic law:  Shit varies.  It matters.  Sometimes.

Now, we are waiting to hear what makes you doubt the findings of hundreds of thousands of biologists, since it is very clearly not the evidence (perhaps your unfamiliarity with the evidence...).  It could be that you just prefer the German mystical archetype position, but this was refuted in the 20s 30s and 40s (although VMartin may not have access to those journals in the caves he lives in).  Phenotypes may very quickly surpass the range exhibited by parentals, and there is a ton of evidence to show this.  For god's sake look at the work of Dolph Schluter.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,02:11)
All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well.

The gene pool would be enriched. Domesticated dogs have high homozygosity from inbreeding, not low.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:31   

Here's a snapshot of Daniel's level of comprehension:
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:08)
...evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.
           
One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.
               
Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?

Similarities and differences can be mapped out into a neat hierarchal pattern.  What part of that is inconsistent with evolution by law?

Many here and at talk.origins who fervently hold to the evolution by RM+NS (and drift and horizontal transfer) seem to be more interested in theoretical arguments than documented field work.

Edit: formatting snafu

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38)
         
Quote
Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design".

How about this?

This has hardly anything to do with my objection. JAM was right about your misconception regarding pseudognes and junk DNA.
Regions of unknown functions (what you like to call “junk”) may actually have some phenotypic effects. And, guess what? This is tested by building phylogenies on those regions, and detecting evidence of selection acting on them.

In a typical gene, synonymous mutations are far more frequent that non-synonymous ones. (To give you an example, the 30 point mutations that separate two species of aphids that I study at a 700 bp locus are all synonymous).
These kinds of observations have been the primary argument of Kimura, who first formulated the neutral theory of evolution.
We know that synonymous mutations lead to the same proteins, and are very unlikely to have a significant effect on the organism. Hence they are not eliminated by natural selection.
Same goes for pseudogenes, once they are knocked-out (typically by a frame shift or a stop mutation), we notice an acceleration of their mutation rates. This is expected if they are no longer active.
So again, why do related species share mutations that have no effect?

And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:58   

D: Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

JAM:That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other.

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.
[quote][quote]Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.[/quote]
Lots of designed objects fit into nested hierarchies.[/quote]
They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
         
Quote
One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.

But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.                            
Quote
Quote
Quote
What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.

Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer. If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS.
Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?

Probably because you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance.
Quote
Quote
Quote
For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.

No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush.

What claim did he backtrack on?

The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted.
Quote
Denton's last book supports directed evolution.

Evidence supports positions, not books. You don't give a damn about evidence, do you?
Quote
Quote
Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence?

So, in order to show that I'm interested in evidence, I must construct trees?

Since the relationships between these sequences represent the overwhelming evidence favoring MET that make fossils unnecessary, it would be the inevitable prediction for someone who claimed an interest in evidence.
Quote
Quote
Quote
And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online.

That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature?
I guess I don't know what you mean by "primary literature".  Is that only peer-reviewed journals?

Within most journals, there are both primary (those with new data) and secondary (reviews). Usually, only the former are peer-reviewed. So I'll ask again: have you ever read a paper from the primary literature--meaning one that reports data that have never been reported before?
                       
Quote
Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.

Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Let's discuss this paper, then:
http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.

Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, :D then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice

No, those were already sequenced.
 
Quote
and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing?

Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences. What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?
 
Quote
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.

It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?
                           
Quote
But I've reached no firm conclusion as of yet.

Read all the conclusions you advanced above.
 
Quote
Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction.

That's because you haven't looked at evidence. Look at how you misrepresented the tree as "theoretical" above.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,11:07   

Daniel Smith:
Quote
Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

You don't know Joe Gallien, do you?  If you don't mind me asking, could you define a nested hierarchy for us?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,13:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:16)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 24 2007,09:12)

So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd.

Come on now.  You're really can't be that dense, can you?
I said artificial selection (that's the part where people actively protect their dogs from breeding with any other breed of dogs) works by shielding (i.e.: protecting) the dogs from natural selection (that is, what would happen if the dogs got out and just ran the streets, breeding with any dog they felt like).

I'm not being dense.  You've completely disregarded the element of selection.  You seem to think that Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, Great Danes, etc. would all eventually spring forth from wolves with no selection whatsoever.  This is ridiculous.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:03   

Quote

It could be that you just prefer the German mystical archetype position, but this was refuted in the 20s 30s and 40s (although VMartin may not have access to those journals in the caves he lives in).  Phenotypes may very quickly surpass the range exhibited by parentals, and there is a ton of evidence to show this.


It was refuted only in darwinian heads of course. The tactic is the same - first darwinists pretend that unpleasant facts do not exists. After 50 years they declare their victory over "outdated" facts.
 

This has happend many times. The great research done
by Theodor Eimer (the main proponent of here discussed orthogenesis) and his opus magnum has never been translated into English. Of course observed rules governing the change of color patterns on skin of lizards or evolution of color patterns on butterfly wings has nothing to do with "natural selection".

The same for Franz Heikertinger whose work on mimicry has never been translated into English. His own research and comparisions refuted the darwinian pressupositions about aposematism very clearly.

The research of McAtee from US Department of agriculture where many thousands of birds stomachs was put under scrutiny and shows that all preconceptions of "aposematism" and "mimicry" are often only armchairs theories of "selectionists" that has nothing to do with facts. The research made Poulton very unhappy - but behold, it is forgotten and selectionists continue to spread nowadays their theories of aposematism of ladybirds, wasps etc.. as the research never exist.

I am afraid that in caves live those who do not recognize antiselectionists scientific materials that is older than 1 year.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:16   

Quote

I am afraid that in caves live those who do not recognize antiselectionists scientific materials that is older than 1 year.


Martin, would you share with us what you think the correct explanation is? Any idea at all?

And while you're at it, do you accept common descent between apes and humans?

As someone who supposedly does not live in a cave, I'm sure you're willing to answer.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:23   

Vmartin, do you recognize the difference between 'selectionist' and 'panadaptationist'?  

you might find that i agree with you that there is no fundamental reason that any particular trait must be adaptive.  but this does nothing to undermine the importance of natural selection.  it sure as hell doesn't imply the existence of a mystical organizing differentiating force.  

Here is my theory.

Shit Varies.  It Matters.  Sometimes.

Now, you could clear up this discussion IMMENSELY and earn your laurel wreaths if you would just get to work and translate Eimer and Heikertinger into English.  But beware the evil darwinist materialist from ATBC conspiracy, they might try to blow up your cave or something.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:53   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,01:58)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2007,06:12)
The fact that dogs under artificial selection have one set of characters, and another set of characters when they are feral and subject to a different kind of selective pressure, is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is, in fact, a prediction of that theory.

I didn't know the theory had any predictions.

You'd like to think that you're immune, it's so hard
You're gonna have to face it you're addicted to...

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:00   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 18 2007,19:48)
 
Quote
skeptic Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:50
 
Quote
jeannot Posted: Sep. 18  
Hi Alan,

I don't think that anyone here is a paleontologist. So if we're going to defend RM+NS, it will probably be on another ground.
what about Deadman?

deadman is an archaeologist, last I heard.

maybe he's a paleontologist now? My neighbor was a banker last year and he's an insurance risk analyzer now.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:01   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 22 2007,11:43)
Quote
I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.


If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error.

This is how it is with this debate (if you could call it that). 99.99% of all scientists accept the age of the Earth/evolution. No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.

Duh! Bible says "don't think".

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:18   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2007,16:01)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 22 2007,11:43)
Quote
I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.


If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error.

This is how it is with this debate (if you could call it that). 99.99% of all scientists accept the age of the Earth/evolution. No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.

Duh! Bible says "don't think".

FTK solves the problem by accepting massive conspiracies as an everyday fact of life in all the sciences.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,23:56   

Daniel said  
Quote
I didn't know the theory had any predictions.

Indeed it does. That is one of the things needed for a theory to be called a theory. It is also one of the reasons why Intelligent Design is not a theory.

Daniel: you seem to be under the impression that artificial selection and natural selection are two quite different processes. What I want to know is how do cabbages, or even dogs, perceive the difference between the two? After all, in both cases they basically breed with whatever partner is available. The only difference is that in one case the available partners are narrowed down by diseases and other stresses, in the other case there's also a person involved saying "By golly, that looks a good un".

With regards to the nested hierarchies, I have some sympathy towards your misunderstanding. The point is that, although it is possible to make a nested hierarchy describing designed objects such as cars and trucks, it would be a forced affair and no two people would come up with the same hierarchy. With evolved organisms, however, not only does everyone come up with essentially the same hierarchy (there will always be a few fuzzy areas) but hierarchies drawn up using just one aspect of an organism (e.g. cytochrome, mitochondrial DNA, reproductive system) will match to an impressive degree.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,04:39   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 25 2007,10:18)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33)

How about this?

This has hardly anything to do with my objection. JAM was right about your misconception regarding pseudognes and junk DNA.
Regions of unknown functions (what you like to call “junk”) may actually have some phenotypic effects. And, guess what? This is tested by building phylogenies on those regions, and detecting evidence of selection acting on them.

In a typical gene, synonymous mutations are far more frequent that non-synonymous ones. (To give you an example, the 30 point mutations that separate two species of aphids that I study at a 700 bp locus are all synonymous).
These kinds of observations have been the primary argument of Kimura, who first formulated the neutral theory of evolution.
We know that synonymous mutations lead to the same proteins, and are very unlikely to have a significant effect on the organism. Hence they are not eliminated by natural selection.
Same goes for pseudogenes, once they are knocked-out (typically by a frame shift or a stop mutation), we notice an acceleration of their mutation rates. This is expected if they are no longer active.
So again, why do related species share mutations that have no effect?

First, I don't use the term "junk" to describe any sequence of DNA.  I am against the use of that term - as are most ID proponents.  I've always said that there's no such thing as junk DNA, so saying that I "like to call" it junk is untrue.

Second, I'm arguing that these so-called "junk" regions are important - that they likely do have an effect (something it appears you are noticing too).  The ENCODE study shows that that's true - since it shows that "most" (their word - no idea what the percentage is) of the genome is transcribed.

So to answer your question: Related species share mutations (if that's what they are) that most likely do have an effect.      
Quote


And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?
Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.  Perhaps, once they get the entire genomes sorted out, they'll find this to be true.  For now, with the concentration seemingly focused on coding regions - it appears not to be true.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:01   

Thanks for you clarification Daniel. Indeed, you didn't use the term "junk".

I agree that much of this DNA can have a function. However, we do know that many (most) mutations are neutral.
So you're not really answering my question, about the fact that related species tend to share neutral mutations.

Regarding my other objection, I'll get back to it when I have more time.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:01   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,10:58)

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.

Can you supply that quote from Darwin?
 
Quote

They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
...
But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.

That's not true.  Most components can also be organized into nested hierarchies. Speaking from experience (since my job involves troubleshooting and repairing very large, complex, industrial CNC machinery) I can verify that the parts of a machine evolve right along with the machine and can be placed in separate but superimposable NHs.
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.
   
Quote

The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted.

Where did Denton assume a ladder?  I don't remember that part.
     
Quote
     
Quote

Denton's last book supports directed evolution.

Evidence supports positions, not books. You don't give a damn about evidence, do you?

Like I said, I'm willing to look at any and all evidence.  I'm less interested in opinions though.
     
Quote

Since the relationships between these sequences represent the overwhelming evidence favoring MET that make fossils unnecessary, it would be the inevitable prediction for someone who claimed an interest in evidence.

Fossils are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fossils are empirical, observable evidence don't you?                
Quote
 
Within most journals, there are both primary (those with new data) and secondary (reviews). Usually, only the former are peer-reviewed. So I'll ask again: have you ever read a paper from the primary literature--meaning one that reports data that have never been reported before?

I don't subscribe to the journals and their online articles all seem to require a subscription.  I've been consigned to reading mostly abstracts and summations of these articles.        
Quote
       
Quote

Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.

Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.

OK,
       
Quote

you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance... so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Does that qualify?
       
Quote
       
Quote
       
Quote

Let's discuss this paper, then:
http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.

Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, :D then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice

No, those were already sequenced.

OK my bad.
       
Quote
       
Quote

and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing?

Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences.

OK
       
Quote

What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?

When was it designed or when was it implemented?  I have no idea when it was designed, but when it was first implemented can be found out I guess - if you find the earliest fossil evidence for that fish.                
Quote
       
Quote

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.

It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?

I don't know the answers to those questions but I'm not afraid of them - I just need to figure out what you're asking and how you're arriving at your conclusions.  I need to see the evidence for myself - I won't just take your word for it.      
       
Quote
       
Quote

Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction.

That's because you haven't looked at evidence. Look at how you misrepresented the tree as "theoretical" above.

The tree is theoretical in that it is just a graphic representation of a proposed relationship.  How do you know these genes are not convergent?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:24   

By the way, Daniel:

1) You claim to be interested in evidence gathered free of bias and preconception.

2) But, per your own frank and repeated self-description, you are operating from a decisive bias, specifically that you prefer a priori to learn from those who have been ignored, laughed at and shunned. This massive bias, and its accompanying assumption that mainstream scientists have nothing to offer to you, renders 1) absurd. Not the least because your self-described ignorance of the field renders you ill-equipped to evaluate the work of these outliers, their methods, and their data.

3) I'd like you to publicly abandon 1), given 2). I'd also like you to articulate the origins of your bias. I'm not interested in a reply couched in terms of some biological challenge or other, because you have already confessed your abject ignorance of the field, as well as this self-same bias.

Rather, I'd like to hear about your commitments and community identifications, a description of the non-scientific allegiances from which your biases arise.

C'mon Daniel - this is the one subject you actually know something about (yourself).

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,07:01)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,10:58)

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.

Can you supply that quote from Darwin?

Here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:42   

Quote

Fossils are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fossils are empirical, observable evidence don't you?


<cop drama>

Lt. DS: The lab boys failed to retrieve any fingerprints in this case. We'll have to file it as unsolved.

Lt. JAM: Why would we do that? The lab boys did find the perp's hair at the scene. We got an excellent DNA match to a guy with a motive and no alibi. The fingerprints are unnecessary.

Lt. DS: Fingerprints are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fingerprints are empirical, observable evidence don't you?

[Rest of people in room look at Lt. DS, jaws dropping  in amazement.]

</cop drama>

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,07:54   

Daniel:  
Quote
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.

But will any of this new technology be used in any machines made by any other company? Or in any machines made by your company to do other things? Because in biology that is not the case. A new technology, say mammary glands, that is successful in one group of organisms is never picked up by another group, fish for example. You will never find a fern with flowers or a treefrog with dragonfly wings. The one exception is in some micro-organisms, in which the transfer of genetic material is well-established.

BTW, although fossils loom large in the general public's mind (and I include creationists and IDers here) as far as biologists are concerned they form a minor part of the evidence for the theory of evolution. This has been the case right from Origin of Species.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,08:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,05:39)
Quote
And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?
Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.  Perhaps, once they get the entire genomes sorted out, they'll find this to be true.  For now, with the concentration seemingly focused on coding regions - it appears not to be true.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I love this part.  "Of course the evidence is against me now.  But imaginary, contradictory evidence that has yet to be discovered will certainly support my argument."  This, more than anything else, drives home the hopelessness of trying to reason with creationists.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:44   

Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:45   

[quote]   [quote]Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.[/quote]
Can you supply that quote from Darwin?[/quote]
Already done. Please explain how his prediction was wrong.
       [quote]  [quote]They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
...
But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.
[/quote]
That's not true.[/quote]
     
Quote
 Most components can also be organized into nested hierarchies.

No, very few can. As Richard pointed out, many will be identical and others will be outsourced to other companies. We don't see either of those things in biology. We get (allowing for systematic and experimental errors) a single, identically-branching nested hierarchy when we look independently at either functional or nonfunctional differences.
       
Quote
Speaking from experience (since my job involves troubleshooting and repairing very large, complex, industrial CNC machinery) I can verify that the parts of a machine evolve right along with the machine and can be placed in separate but superimposable NHs.

Then show us the data.
       
Quote
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.

Yes, but that isn't remotely close to showing that they and their components will fit into a single NH.
             
Quote
     
Quote

The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted.

Where did Denton assume a ladder?  I don't remember that part.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
Read the last half of part III.
     
Quote
Like I said, I'm willing to look at any and all evidence.  I'm less interested in opinions though.

Then why have you offered nothing but opinions?
     
Quote
     
Quote
 
Quote
Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.

Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.

OK,    
Quote
you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance... so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Does that qualify?

No, because there's not a single name in there.
[quote]    
Quote
 
Quote
Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences.

OK

Then why do you go back on that below?
   
Quote
   
Quote

What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?

When was it designed or when was it implemented?  I have no idea when it was designed, but when it was first implemented can be found out I guess - if you find the earliest fossil evidence for that fish.

Fossils aren't needed for this. This provides much more detail than fossils. And you can do both design and implementation. Just give me a date that explains the relationships between these sequences. MET explains this beautifully.
   
Quote
   
Quote
   
Quote

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.

It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?

I don't know the answers to those questions but I'm not afraid of them - I just need to figure out what you're asking and how you're arriving at your conclusions.

My conclusions don't matter--what matters is whether your hypothesis can explain this evidence and make predictions about evidence you haven't seen yet.
   
Quote
I need to see the evidence for myself - I won't just take your word for it.

I'm showing you evidence and you are denying that it is evidence.     
   
Quote
The tree is theoretical in that it is just a graphic representation of a proposed relationship.

Daniel, now you're just lying. There is nothing theoretical about that tree; it simply shows the mathematical relationships between the sequences. It is evidence. So, my question is, what hypothesis do YOU advance that explains these relationships and predicts the relationship of other data to these data?
   
Quote
How do you know these genes are not convergent?

If they had converged, they wouldn't be predicted to have this mathematical relationship with each other. However, for you to understand that, you'd have to grasp the concept of NESTED hierarchy, and you clearly don't.

Again, MET explains this relationship and makes predictions about where new sequences will be placed--before we have them.

Your job is to propose a hypothesis. Instead, I predict that you will continue to falsely claim that these trees are theoretical.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:47   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

That's a much more lucid explanation than the TO page to which I pointed Daniel, thanks.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,06:42)
     
Quote

Fossils are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fossils are empirical, observable evidence don't you?


<cop drama>

Lt. DS: The lab boys failed to retrieve any fingerprints in this case. We'll have to file it as unsolved.

Lt. JAM: Why would we do that? The lab boys did find the perp's hair at the scene. We got an excellent DNA match to a guy with a motive and no alibi. The fingerprints are unnecessary.

Lt. DS: Fingerprints are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fingerprints are empirical, observable evidence don't you?

[Rest of people in room look at Lt. DS, jaws dropping  in amazement.]

</cop drama>



The another drama about fossils proving evolution of man:

Somewhere in England. Medieval castle. JAM is making lecture to an audience standing in front of a big human skull.


JAM: And here we see the skull of the nobleman George Brave.

The audience adjourns to the next room. There is a small skull.  

JAM: And here we see the skull of the nobleman George Brave.

DS: But we have seen it in the previous room!

JAM: Yes, but this the skull when George Brave was a child.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:23   

Martin, since you reject the 'Darwinian' account of the evolution of horses, would you share with us what you think the correct explanation is?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:29   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2007,09:47)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
 
Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

That's a much more lucid explanation than the TO page to which I pointed Daniel, thanks.

Still, judging from that page, Cyt C gives some unexpected results. The carp should be closer to us than the lamprey.
And Sordaria is a fungus, isn't it? If so, it should also be closer to us than maize.
Probably, distance-based phylogenies are less reliable than cladistics. Or maybe this has something to do with Cyt C.

EDIT: it's Neurospora, not Sordaria.
Anyway, the problem remains. Yeasts (Saccharomyces) and Neurospora are ascomycetes. They should have a similar genetic distance compared to us. How can maize be between the two?

EDIT2: the problem is solved when considering the distance between Neurospora and yeast (that is quite high however).

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:41   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 26 2007,12:29)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2007,09:47)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
 
Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

That's a much more lucid explanation than the TO page to which I pointed Daniel, thanks.

Still, judging from that page, Cyt C gives some unexpected results. The carp should be closer to us than the lamprey.
And Sordaria is a fungus, isn't it? If so, it should also be closer to us than maize.
Probably, distance-based phylogenies are less reliable than cladistics. Or maybe this has something to do with Cyt C.

VMartin, what's your take on that?

:p

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,06:01)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,10:58)

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.

Can you supply that quote from Darwin?
     
Quote

They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
...
But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.

That's not true.  


So you claim.  Can you do it?

Let me choose automobiles, from the present and from the past (since I know nothing of your machines and I can presume you know something about automobiles).

Make a nested hierarchy of

Vega (1971, 1977)
El Camino (1959, 1987)
Model T (1908, 1927)
Model A (1903)
Model A (1927)
Corvair (1960, 1969)
Corvette (1953, 2007)
Porsche 911 (1964)
Altima (1993, 2007)
Avalon (1995, 2007)
S-10 (1982, 2004)
F150 (1948, 2007)
Metropolitan (1954, 1962)
Stanley Steamer (1903, 1923)
Edsel (1958)
Murano (2003, 2007)
Coupe Deville (1949, 1993)
Crossfire (2004, 2007)
Miata (1989, 2007)

Be sure to tell us what it is based on:
safety equipment, engine design, number of doors, etc.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:17   

Quote

The another drama about fossils proving evolution of man:


A fairly major difference between our little dialogues is that I can show the various points of analogy that were retained in mine.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:30   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 26 2007,08:27)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,05:39)
 
Quote
And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?
Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.  Perhaps, once they get the entire genomes sorted out, they'll find this to be true.  For now, with the concentration seemingly focused on coding regions - it appears not to be true.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I love this part.  "Of course the evidence is against me now.  But imaginary, contradictory evidence that has yet to be discovered will certainly support my argument."  This, more than anything else, drives home the hopelessness of trying to reason with creationists.

Well, he said  
Quote
I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.
???
Daniel, why not trust the evidence?
From the fossil record, we expected the lungfish and coelacanths to be more closely related to us than they are to the trout and other teleosts.
Why is that? Simply because many transitional fossils undoubtedly indicate that tetrapods descent from earlier sarcopterigian fishes (lungfish, coelacanth) during the devonian, while teleosts (ancestors of the trout and most common fishes) have been existing for a long time. This means they diverged earlier from sarcopterigians.
The fossil record also confirms the molecular phylogeny of human, trout and shark.

The same can be said about cetaceans, which diverged from other (cet)artiodactyls rather recently, and birds that diverged from earlier theropods, resulting also in a bunch of transitional fossils.
So why you think that the fossil record contradicts the current theory, I wonder.

At least, you admit that molecular data contradict you view. Most IDers would have ignored my objection.
I don't expect phylogenies based on non-coding sequences to be different. First, it will be hard do select regions that are conserved enough between those distant taxa.
We already have the complete genomes of human and zebrafish (teleost). I don't know about the lungfish or any other related group.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:36   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 26 2007,12:21)
The another drama about fossils proving evolution of man:

Martin, we'd love to hear your views on the evolution of man in the dedicated thread.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5188
See you there!  :)

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:52   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 26 2007,15:02)
Make a nested hierarchy of

Vega (1971, 1977)...
Be sure to tell us what it is based on:
safety equipment, engine design, number of doors, etc.

As a former owner of a '74, I would group the Vega with fecal matter in an evolutionary hierarchy based on a number of common characteristics. Of course, nothing can be grouped with the aluminum engine's legendary oil consumption. I still remember what I said after it was T-boned at an intersection: "God, I hope this thing is totaled."

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,01:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,06:42)
<cop drama>
</cop drama>

I have my own cop drama for you.

Lt. DS: The lab boys found the murder weapon with the fingerprints of a known ex-con on it, plus a broken window with size 12 boot prints leading in and out of the house through it.  We'll have to arrest this man for the murder of this woman.

Lt. JAM: Why would we do that? The lab boys also found the husband's DNA all over the house and even on the wife's body.  He had obviously had recent contact with her.  Besides everyone knows that the husband always murders the wife in these cases. The fingerprints, weapon and bootprints are unnecessary.

Lt. DS: Fingerprints are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fingerprints are empirical, observable evidence don't you?

Lt. JAM: It doesn't matter - we've got the DNA!

[Rest of people in room look at Lt. JAM, jaws dropping  in amazement at his excellent police work.]

OK, now that we've dispensed with that foolishness, can we get back to talking about the evidence?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,03:05   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 26 2007,07:54)
Daniel:                          
Quote
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.

But will any of this new technology be used in any machines made by any other company? Or in any machines made by your company to do other things?

You are right that different designers can have different hierarchies - and so the superimposability will not match exactly.  Many manufacturers tend to stick with the same suppliers for quite some time however, and when they do, you can track the evolution of the various parts - right alongside the evolution of the machine's design.                      
Quote

Because in biology that is not the case. A new technology, say mammary glands, that is successful in one group of organisms is never picked up by another group, fish for example. You will never find a fern with flowers or a treefrog with dragonfly wings. The one exception is in some micro-organisms, in which the transfer of genetic material is well-established.
You will also never find a CD player with a microwave oven in it, or a dresser with a 357 chevy motor... but that's another argument.

A possible reason that the nested hierarchy in nature is more perfect than that of other designed objects is for the simple reason that nature might just be the result of a single designer.  

If every part of a machine was designed by a single designer who could not borrow from any other designs or consult with any other designers, but could only refine and build upon his own ideas, we'd see a set of completely superimposable hierarchies for all the various components of a machine and for the machine itself.

This is what we see in nature - correct?

You are right about biological lineages; they do not borrow from one another (although many arrive at similar places) - they do seem to proceed as though constrained along a certain path though.  Once they get lungs, they don't lose them.  They don't ever revert back to an earlier lung-less state.  Schindewolf made many arguments from the evidence in the fossil record for the irreversibility of evolution and for it's procession down a seemingly defined pathway.  Berg also showed that organisms seem to develop features as if by law - and not through the arbitrary process of minute variations and selection.

If the nested hierarchy proves anything, it proves that higher order taxonomic groups came first, then proceeded to differentiate into lower and lower orders until finally arriving at the species level.  If differentiation started at the species level (as Darwin predicted), the higher orders would come last because - at their root - they would be almost exactly alike.  So you'd have species gradually becoming genuses that would gradually become families, then orders,... etc., until the most recent organisms would define the domain.

This is why the fossil record does not match Darwin's illustration.  The fossil record (from what I've seen, if you remove all the dotted lines - which are theoretical organisms anyway), looks like a grove of bushes - not one single bush.  If you take Darwins illustration and cover up the bottom half, it will look much closer to the graph that creeky belly supplied earlier in this thread.

Let me ask you - and all the other members here:
Does the process of cell differentiation during ontogeny produce superimposable nested hierarchies?

Because I think that ontogeny is a perfect model of how directed evolution would unfurl.

Schindewolf and Davison also championed this view and it makes perfect sense - since it reconciles the rapid differentiation found at the beginning of the fossil record with the overall genetic continuity that flows throughout.

       
Quote

BTW, although fossils loom large in the general public's mind (and I include creationists and IDers here) as far as biologists are concerned they form a minor part of the evidence for the theory of evolution. This has been the case right from Origin of Species.

I'd guess that the fossil record would be a major part of the case for the theory of natural selection if it wasn't so ambiguous in its support of it.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,03:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

You seem to be saying that the rate of mutational change is the same for all species over time.  Is that correct?

But we know that bacteria, fruit flies and mice - due to their rapid reproduction rates - will have more mutational changes over time than animals with slower reproduction rates.  That's why we use them for such studies isn't it?

So how do you reconcile these two seemingly polar opposite realities?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,03:24   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 26 2007,06:24)
I'd like to hear about your commitments and community identifications, a description of the non-scientific allegiances from which your biases arise.

OK.

You first.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,04:44   

Hi Daniel

First, my apologies for being off-topic with my Dawkins quote. I originally only wanted to post the bit in bold:    
Quote
Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.

as the (for instance) biochemical arguments for common descent are so convincing (to me, at least) and complementary to the fossil evidence, but the surrounding passage seemed quite apt.

You once asked me (of Berg's "Nomogenesis"): "Have you even read the book?" The answer is no. Neither have I read "Origin of Species". But I'll strike a bargain with you. I will get and read a copy of "Nomogenesis" if you will get and read a copy of "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins.

You wrote:    
Quote
A possible reason that the nested hierarchy in nature is more perfect than that of other designed objects is for the simple reason that nature might just be the result of a single designer.


Ignoring for the moment the implication in your remark that a nested hierarchy is an example of a designed object, you appear to suggest that evidence for common descent is also evidence for common design.

The most convincing evidence of common descent for me is at the sub-cellular level: all life-forms based on carbon chemistry, chirality, universal* genetic code, common metabolic pathways, etc,. etc., but I guess you will say this is evidence for a common designer. So finding and presenting evidence will be fruitless if you see design where others see common descent.

(*with a few significant exceptions)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,05:30   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 25 2007,06:51)
But Daniel himself, per his own frank and repeated self-description, is operating from a decisive bias (one you appear to endorse), specifically that he prefers to learn from those who have been ignored, laughed at and shunned.

That's right.  I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority.  The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum.  Always has, always will.  They're the reason radio stations play the same songs over and over and over - they never want to hear new things.   They suck at the teet of mediocrity.

Me, I've always been this way.  When everyone was listening to ABBA, The Steve Miller Band, and all the other "happy, party, one-beat-fits-all" bands, I was listening to Black Sabbath - a band that cut against the grain and made people uncomfortable.  I liked that.  I was a social outcast and I liked it that way.  People who can't think for themselves gravitate towards the lowest common denominator.  They have to look around and see what everyone else is doing before they'll take a "stand" on anything.  They're afraid of being made fun of and they poke fun at anyone who doesn't "go along".  They're into whatever is "in" at the moment. I hate that.

I don't give a crap what any of you think of me either.  Laugh, shun - who cares.  I don't see any of you coming out with original ideas.  Most of you are probably committed atheists who need science to validate your belief system (or lack thereof).  You not only can't tolerate the thought of "a God", (oh my!), but you must make sure that science never reaches anything but atheistic conclusions.  So you laugh at and shun anyone who dares to bring a different interpretation to the evidence - any interpretation that makes you feel uncomfortable (weez), any interpretation that opens the door - even just a crack - to something remotely theistic.  No, anything like that  has to immediately be ridiculed.  Then you can all pat each other on the back and say "My don't we all think alike!".  It's sad because your minds are closed to anything new or different.  Majority rules!  Better stay safe - stick with whatever the MAJORITY says!

So, yeah, when the majority say one thing, I'm looking for a guy who's saying another.  Guys like Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, Bateson, Goldshmidt, Denton, Spetner - all of them.  These are guys who have the cahonas to take a real stand (without having to look around first).  

I don't think that's a bad way to be.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,05:41   

So, shall I cancel my order to Amazon, Daniel?

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,06:35   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2007,09:45)
   
Quote
 
Quote
you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance... so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Does that qualify?

No, because there's not a single name in there.

I guess - since you didn't actually call me an arrogant, ignorant liar, but only implied that I'm an arrogant, ignorant liar - technically I cannot say you called me names.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for accusing you of being a name-caller.  You're obviously only a name-implier.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,06:38   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 27 2007,05:41)
So, shall I cancel my order to Amazon, Daniel?

Leo Berg was a biologist who traveled the world collecting samples and analyzing flora and fauna.  He then proposed his own theory of evolution based on his years of observations in the field.

What has Dawkins done?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,06:52   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 27 2007,06:30)
...So, yeah, when the majority say one thing, I'm looking for a guy who's saying another...

I don't think that's a bad way to be.

You forgot one part:

1) You claim to be interested in evidence gathered free of bias and preconception.

But you are not. You said so before, and you just said so again. You said so loud and clear, undeniably, in statements interpretable by atheists, theists, deists, and fundamentalist Christians alike without the slightest ambiguity: You are committed to a particular, decisive bias motivated by very specific religious preconceptions.

Therefore it is time for you to retract your various statements of 1) above. They are demonstrably, even defiantly false.

BTW, your bias isn't subtle. Because science is essentially a distributed, community activity that is self-correcting by a combination of empirical and consensus-based feedback mechanisms (e.g. public hypothesis testing, peer review), your stance guarantees that you will adopt positions inconsistent with the most secure findings in any given science, and similarly ignore the most compelling evidence.

Thanks for being forthcoming. Take care of that little detail above, and you're done.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,07:10   

BTW, Daniel, A 2007 Gallup poll showed that as much as 66% of the US population believe "the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," while another significant segment believe that God was involved in directing evolution or otherwise designing the current state of affairs. Only a minority of Americans (~20%, IIRC) understand and accept our current understanding of biological and human evolution (e.g. as a natural phenomenon), and just a tiny minority describe themselves as atheists.

Why doesn't your defiant nonconformity and disinterest in herd mentality result in your becoming an atheist who accepts evolution?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,07:13   

there are examples of lineages that have gained and subsequently lost lungs.  you'll have to look them up.  i'll give you a hint...  nahhh, forget it.  tetrapod is all you get.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,07:34   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 27 2007,07:10)
Why doesn't your defiant nonconformity and disinterest in herd mentality result in your becoming an atheist who accepts evolution?

This is an excellent point. What defines what "herd" you choose the opposite POV of Daniel?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,08:34   

Saying you want to be like Bateson is kinda dumb.  Bateson completely misunderstood both Galton's theory (which he attempted to build upon) and the consequences of the discovery of mendelian heredity.  Goldschmidt misunderstood this as well.  Davison is a verified nutcase, there is nothing to see there (I love it so!).

The 'tree of life' is more likely a web.  Bush is perhaps a bit better, but the strict bifurcating model is a bit simplistic because we KNOW that lateral gene transfer is important, not only in bacteria world but in plants and animals (see sunflower example I provided, check out the 50 years of research on Louisana iris hybridization)

You can get out of actually reading any of this, just stop and think about what happens at any branch on the tree:  if lineages split automatically and completely (which they don't, Schindewolf and Bateson and the saltationists were mostly wrong), then you have a branch.  But if the bifurcation takes any amount of time whatsoever, in a sympatric or parapatric population with gene flow, then you have a reticulating pattern.  We know this happens because gene trees show coalescence when considering multiple markers.  We also know this happens from many many many studies in nature:  pay attention and stop whining about the democratic fallacy.  (See Grant and Grant Science 296 Apr 2002).

Trees are NOT THEORETICAL GODDAMMIT.  They are measured relationships from data.  Don't bog the discussion down with whether or not there are theory-free observations.  You have already stated your prediction from common design (lungfish more related to trout), and it is demonstrably wrong.  The burden is upon you to disprove our theory of heredity and to show how these gene trees are incorrect.  I predict you will start pissing and moaning about renegade crackpot biologists from the early 20th century.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,09:04   

JAM:

Quote

Since the relationships between these sequences represent the overwhelming evidence favoring MET that make fossils unnecessary, it would be the inevitable prediction for someone who claimed an interest in evidence.


Daniel,

I think that your take was not analogous.

However, the point remains that you are interested in phenomena that fossil evidence doesn't provide a complete basis for making conclusions upon. Other forms of evidence, such as DNA sequencing and proteomics, provides evidence that does bear upon the phenomena of interest.

That remains the case no matter what you think of how that point was made.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:25   

[quote=Daniel Smith,Sep. 27 2007,01:38][/quote]
Quote
What has Dawkins done?


I think it can be demonstrated that Dawkins had a respectable career as a research scientist (ethologist) before embarking on his current work as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. (Brief bio). However this is beside the point. It is irrelevant whether a particular person is a paragon of virtue or an utter rotter, it is the idea and whether that idea is based on correct observation, measurement and interpretation that is important. In "The Ancestor's Tale", Dawkins cites authors and evidence, and there is a comprehensive bibliography.

As far as I can tell, Leo Berg was a perfectly respectable and diligent scientist, but it makes no difference to the strength or weakness of his ideas. If you recall, this thread was originally intended for you to show how the evolution of the horse is a problem for the current theory of evolution. I have not seen a great deal of evidence from you, yet.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:37   

Excellent Daniel! Folks here have no coherent answers anymore.   

Now - accepting the fact that there are gaps in fossil records, they are trying to turn discussion into DNA.

This is nothing more as an evasion. They wanted by studying macromelecules prove their unfouned hypothesis about natural selection and random mutation as efficient evolutionary forces. They think they know  secrets, what is behind the scene. But they remind more those technicians who studying trasmission of waves or describing details about TV screen think they know more about a broadcasted play. They think they    underestand better a  Shakespeare play, because they know in which frequency it is trasmitted or what is the sequence of bites representing it on CD.    

It was Adolf Portman who in his inauguration speech "Von der Idee des humanen" as rector of Basel University showed that such study is only part of biological work and such study itself is unable to explain evolution.

But I am afraid that his interesting works - especially Biologie und Geist and Neue wege der Biologie -  are also outdated and don't have place in the darwinian Golden library. Or better as folks here call it - it is not "primary literature".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:42   

Quote

This is nothing more as an evasion.


Speaking of people evading things, Martin,

A) what is your alternate explanation for the evolution of horses? Do you even have one?

B) do you believe common descent between apes and humans is true?

Why are you still too much of a coward to answer these questions? Did Davison tell you not to?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:56   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 27 2007,03:21)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

You seem to be saying that the rate of mutational change is the same for all species over time.  Is that correct?

But we know that bacteria, fruit flies and mice - due to their rapid reproduction rates - will have more mutational changes over time than animals with slower reproduction rates.

Well, it could be true, but there are many factors to take into account, whether we have sexual reproduction or not, for instance.
Also, if you want to make a comparison between bacteria and multicellular organisms, you need to compare mutation rates per replication, not per generations. There are several cell replications separating the egg cell from the gametes in animals and plants, though I agree, that replication time is usually shorter in prokaryotes.
But more importantly, in absolute time, the relation between substitutions (=fixed mutations) rates and mutation rates (negatively correlated with generation time) is true for neutral sites. Phylogenies involving very distant taxa such as eukaryotes and bacteria are built for genes under very strong selection, namely genes coding for rRNAs.
These are unlikely do evolve by genetic drift, so we don't really expect their substitution rates to depend on generation time, but on other external factors, which may reflect absolute time. I shall add the the molecular clock is not always the rule, especially between very distant lineages. But modern phylogenetic methods don't strictly rely on it.

And lastly, even if you remark is valid, it contradicts Denton's view.

So we're still waiting for you to demonstrate how the fossil record disprove the current theory of evolution.
I showed it was quite the contrary. What is your response to my objection?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,14:51   

VMartin, so you do not believe in the material theory of particulate inheritance?  This is what your obfuscation boils down to.  

If you have a better theory of inheritance, let's hear it.

[stage whisper]  His brain vat fluid is getting low and interrupting his interface with the Matrix.  Somebody pee in it!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,16:52   

Quote

You seem to be saying that the rate of mutational change is the same for all species over time.  Is that correct?


No.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,21:51   

Daniel wrote  
Quote
I'd guess that the fossil record would be a major part of the case for the theory of natural selection if it wasn't so ambiguous in its support of it.

Oh aye? Just what are these ambiguities you think are so important? Does this bring you back to the horse evolution that prompted you to come here? Or are you thinking of the old creationist stand-byes, the Cambrian explosion, dinosaur fossils with soft tissue, no intermediate fossils and no fossils with half a fin or half a wing?

Coming back to the nested hierarchies that you seem to persist in misunderstanding; you write
 
Quote
You will also never find a CD player with a microwave oven in it, or a dresser with a 357 chevy motor

But you could find exactly the same electronic chip in a truck, a ship, a railway locomotive, an elevator, a sewing machine and a cash register. On the other hand, not one of the 'ancestors' of these machines would have the same kind of electronic chip, or even anything electrical.

This situation never arises in biology. Whenever organisms share a particular feature you will find that this group of organisms also has other features that are absent in others, or the feature serves the same purpose in each organism but is structurally different (e.g. wings, eyes).

In another post you suggest the same effect could have arisen if there were multiple designers. True. I have often thought it looks as though one god started it off then farmed it out to other gods, who in turn subcontracted to lesser gods - a sort of pyramid scheme of gods ('Here, I've got mammals started off. Now you take a few off to Australia and we'll see how you do. Don't muck around with the basics and no sneaking a look at what gods are doing anywhere else'). How many gods are you suggesting?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,23:10   

Quote
How many gods are you suggesting?


Sounds to me like one per gene pool. :p

Henry

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,02:38   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,09:09)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,02:11)
All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well.

The gene pool would be enriched. Domesticated dogs have high homozygosity from inbreeding, not low.

Yes, but most dogs breeds are too domesticated to survive in the wild.  Surely many have lost the ability to hunt, others will have lost the ability to defend themselves against predators.  Reintroducing them to the wild would probably result in an immediate knockout of many of these breeds - thereby removing much of that enrichment from the gene pool.
Natural selection is a cold mistress.  It works by killing.
As Schindewolf said, "Selection is only a negative principle, an eliminator, and as such is trivial." (pg. 360)

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,02:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,02:38)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,09:09)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,02:11)
All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well.

The gene pool would be enriched. Domesticated dogs have high homozygosity from inbreeding, not low.

Yes, but most dogs breeds are too domesticated to survive in the wild.  Surely many have lost the ability to hunt, others will have lost the ability to defend themselves against predators.  Reintroducing them to the wild would probably result in an immediate knockout of many of these breeds - thereby removing much of that enrichment from the gene pool.
Natural selection is a cold mistress.  It works by killing.
As Schindewolf said, "Selection is only a negative principle, an eliminator, and as such is trivial." (pg. 360)

Have you been to the western world lately? There's not many predators that could take on a sausage dog anymore. And there are also cities full of feral cats (descended no doubt from domesticated stock).

And my Siamese cat, bred to the point of insanity, would have no trouble surviving in the wild

"it moved, I caught it, I tried to eat it, Rinse, repeat"

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,03:31   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 27 2007,11:25)
If you recall, this thread was originally intended for you to show how the evolution of the horse is a problem for the current theory of evolution. I have not seen a great deal of evidence from you, yet.

You're right.  

In order to keep this thread on topic, I will try to keep my posts focused on the work of Schindewolf and Berg and (at least in the case of Schindewolf) also on the evolution of the horse.

Berg doesn't say a lot about horses other than this from section IV, "Convergence":
               
Quote
"At the very time when in North America the Equidae were being evolved, forms of the order Litopterna were being elaborated in South America in the plains of the Argentine.  The latter are extinct ungulates, in many respects recalling horses: they had also lost the lateral digits of their limbs, and for progression made use of the median digit; their extremities and neck were likewise lengthened, and in the former, the ball-and-socket joints, by which movements in all directions could be accomplished, were being gradually supplanted by pulley joints, which restricted their limbs to being moved only backwards and forwards; their teeth lengthened and grew more complex (although no cement was present).  This group was extinct in South America before the arrival of horses. The Litopterna, or pseudo-horses, thus copied the horses in many ways.
The same course (as to limbs and teeth) as in horses was followed in the evolution of camels in the New World, and of deer, antelopes, sheep and oxen in the Old"
Nomogenesis, pg. 212.

As for Schindewolf's position, why don't I just start by using the same quote I provided for you over at Brainstorms:        
Quote
To this extent,the one toed horse must be regarded as the ideal running animal of the plains. It's early Tertiary ancestors had four digits on the front feet and three on the hind feet, and low crowned cheek teeth. Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...
Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, (emphasis his)

Both of these men intently studied real examples from nature and the fossil record and came to the same conclusions:
1. That evolution of types happened suddenly - not gradually.
2. That subsequent evolution proceeded as if constrained by laws.
3. That natural selection had nothing to do with the formation of any organ.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,04:05   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 27 2007,21:51)


Coming back to the nested hierarchies that you seem to persist in misunderstanding; you write
             
Quote
You will also never find a CD player with a microwave oven in it, or a dresser with a 357 chevy motor

But you could find exactly the same electronic chip in a truck, a ship, a railway locomotive, an elevator, a sewing machine and a cash register. On the other hand, not one of the 'ancestors' of these machines would have the same kind of electronic chip, or even anything electrical.

That's demonstrably not true.  In electric circuits, the precursors to IC chips were soldered transistor circuit boards, the precursors to those were hand-wired transistor circuit boards, the precursors to those were relay logic and tube circuits, the precursors to those were manually switched electric circuits.   So the ancestors to a modern elevator controlled with IC chips would be an elevator controlled with soldered transistor circuit boards, then one with hand-wired circuit boards, then relays and tubes, then manually operated electric switches.
         
Quote

This situation never arises in biology. Whenever organisms share a particular feature you will find that this group of organisms also has other features that are absent in others, or the feature serves the same purpose in each organism but is structurally different (e.g. wings, eyes).

Every organism has features that are absent in others - even within the same species.  That proves little to nothing.  But it's the similarities in different lineages that are the most troublesome for your theory since many are structurally similar.

Berg's book is filled with examples, but I'll give you one of his brief summations:    
Quote
The comparative anatomy of animals supplies a number of striking examples of a definite direction in evolution.  Among vertebrates we may mention the evolution of teeth in reptiles and mammals, the gradual ossification of the vertebral column, a reduction in the number of the bones in the skull, the transformation of a two-chambered heart into a three- and four-chambered organ in connection with a corresponding complexity in the circulatory system, the evolution of the brain... the whole subject of comparative anatomy literally bristles with facts exemplifying development in a definite direction
Nomogenesis, pg.121
         
Quote
In another post you suggest the same effect could have arisen if there were multiple designers. True. I have often thought it looks as though one god started it off then farmed it out to other gods, who in turn subcontracted to lesser gods - a sort of pyramid scheme of gods ('Here, I've got mammals started off. Now you take a few off to Australia and we'll see how you do. Don't muck around with the basics and no sneaking a look at what gods are doing anywhere else'). How many gods are you suggesting?
You misread me.  I said the nested hierarchy is evidence of a single designer - since the parts and the organisms both make for superimposable nested hierarchies - without the anomalies sometimes seen when parts are produced by multiple designers.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,04:09   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2007,02:47)
 
Have you been to the western world lately? There's not many predators that could take on a sausage dog anymore. And there are also cities full of feral cats (descended no doubt from domesticated stock).

And my Siamese cat, bred to the point of insanity, would have no trouble surviving in the wild

I've lived in the city and the country.  Your Siamese cat might survive in the wild, but judging by the number of wild barn cats that almost starved to death on our ranch (until we started feeding them), I'd say that's no guarantee.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,04:12   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2007,02:47)
 
And there are also cities full of feral cats (descended no doubt from domesticated stock).

OH, And the city doesn't really count as "the wild" now does it?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,05:24   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,05:05)
You misread me.  I said the nested hierarchy is evidence of a single designer - since the parts and the organisms both make for superimposable nested hierarchies - without the anomalies sometimes seen when parts are produced by multiple designers.

What all this really illustrates is the emptiness of the "designer" hypothesis in a scientific context.

ANY state of affairs in nature can be reconciled with the design hypothesis. Observe nested hierarchy? "Nested hierarchy is evidence of a single designer." DON'T observe nested hierarchy? "A designer is not constrained by common descent" etc. There is NO outcome in nature that cannot be reconciled post hoc with the design hypothesis, with one designer or multiple designers, with good designers or bad designers, and so on.  

It follows that patterns of descent fail to put design to any test; hence nested hierarchy isn't "evidence of a single designer" or of any other design hypothesis.

This may be contrasted with Darwin's predictions: to fail to find nested hierarchy in nature would be to falsify his model of evolution.

(Daniel: Still waiting for you to retract your patently false claim vis interest in data with no biases or preconceptions.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,05:45   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

So what I hear you saying is that the equidistant sequence space between Cytochrome-C among the various groups is more a function of time than anything else.  Is that correct?

If that is correct, then that is completely in keeping with (and in fact would be a prediction of) common descent by design.

Common descent by design would predict that there would be mathematical patterns within the evolution of sequences and that those patterns would be based on time and other internal factors rather than any outside factors - since divergence would occur according to plan - not according to chance, environment, or any other external influences.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,06:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,05:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

So what I hear you saying is that the equidistant sequence space between Cytochrome-C among the various groups is more a function of time than anything else.  Is that correct?

If that is correct, then that is completely in keeping with (and in fact would be a prediction of) common descent by design.

Common descent by design would predict that there would be mathematical patterns within the evolution of sequences and that those patterns would be based on time and other internal factors rather than any outside factors - since divergence would occur according to plan - not according to chance, environment, or any other external influences.

Is there anything that design predicts that evolution does not?

Seems as everything evolution can do, the designer(s) can also do. So your position is essentially meaningless unless you can somehow differentiate the two.

Is there a differentiation somewhere between the two things?

Are there any predictions of design that are not retrospective? I.E make a prediction for a something that's currently unknown that can be tested and the result will unambigiously say "designed" or "evolved".

If not, it seems to be all "design predictions" are worthless if they predict exactly the same things that evolution does.

Pointless.

Can you point me to a list of as yet untested "predictions" that common descent by design makes, or are they only available retrospectively? If the latter, then give up now, you'll never be able to convince anybody.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,06:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,04:12)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2007,02:47)
 
And there are also cities full of feral cats (descended no doubt from domesticated stock).

OH, And the city doesn't really count as "the wild" now does it?

For whom?  Certainly, it isn't the wild for humans inasmuch as it consolidates all sorts of things, like grocery stores and homes, for our convenience.  But for feral cats, alas without currency to buy themselves a bag of Friskies or take out a mortgage, it is the wild. Perhaps you would like to define the characteristics of an eco-system and then explain to us how an urban environment is not one?  

Never mind.  After over six pages and you haven't even mentioned a horse and that is the reason you are here, no?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,07:06   

daniel's inherent belief as humans distinct and set apart from nature is showing.

cities aren't really the wild, eh?

the edges of deserts aren't really the wild, eh?

tropical oceans aren't really the wild, eh?

a grove of paw paws aren't really the wild, eh?

daniel, natural selection shapes POPULATIONS.  castle showed that selection modified populations beyond the 'regression to the type' that you seem to believe in.  Other than it being a trivial mathematical exercise, you have no reason for continuing to suppose that selection is not a creative force when supplied with a panoply of diversity.  

otherwise, all you are left with is 'The Designer has an inordinate fondness for beetles' and 'The designer likes wolves so much he made a marsupial knockoff model' (that is false from any systematic perspective but since you, like a five year old and VMartin, seem to be stuck on your perception of phenotypes perhaps it makes sense).

and as RBill keeps hammering, your 'design' model is consistent with ANY POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE OBSERVATION.  IT SAYS NOTHING.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,07:28   

yeah, I always liked the beetle point.
Quote
There are over 370,000 known species of beetle and they are found in every land and freshwater habitat in the world.


National Beetle Week!

What does the "designed" point of view have to say about the fact there are some many species of beetle?

Daniel, is it your contention that all beetles evolved from a single beetle "kind" on the Ark, or don't you subscribe to that level of idiocy?

If you don't accept the Ark, what does "intelligent design" give as the reason for the sheer numbers other then 'The Designer has an inordinate fondness for beetles'

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,07:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,03:31)
Quote
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...
Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, (emphasis his)

So basically Schindewolf is saying that horses developed single-toed hooves regardless of the selection pressures applied?  How does he know what those pressures were?  How does he know the scrub was dense?  Paleoecologists today can identify what species were present in the landscape at a point in time, but have much more difficulty in determining vegetation structure.  This has led to disagreements over what the European landscape of most of the Holocene was.  Yes there were lots of oak trees present, but was it closed forest?  Was it patches of scrub interspersed with grassy plains?  Was it widely spaced parkland-like trees?

In other words, what was the quality of his data and how far is he spreading it with rhetoric?

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,07:58   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,02:38)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,09:09)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,02:11)
All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well.

The gene pool would be enriched. Domesticated dogs have high homozygosity from inbreeding, not low.

Yes, but most dogs breeds are too domesticated to survive in the wild.

The ones that survive and reproduce (survival isn't sufficient) will tend to be the ones that are less inbred, making the "gene pool" deeper. Your arrow is in the wrong direction.
 
Quote
Reintroducing them to the wild would probably result in an immediate knockout of many of these breeds - thereby removing much of that enrichment from the gene pool.

The loss of the more inbred breeds would enrich the gene pool, not deplete it.
 
Quote
Natural selection is a cold mistress.  It works by killing.

No, it works just as well be preventing reproduction. You can live to 150, but if you leave no children, your fitness is zero.
Quote
As Schindewolf said, "Selection is only a negative principle, an eliminator, and as such is trivial." (pg. 360)

You've forgotten yet again that quotes aren't evidence. Why not admit that you were lying when you claimed an interest in evidence? Look at how you've run away from discussing the massive sequence evidence that makes fossils unnecessary, after you realized that you have no hypothesis that explains the data. BTW, Schindewolf is wrong. Look at how your body normally prevents antibodies that recognize your own antigens from being produced.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,08:19   

Daniel
Quote
So the ancestors to a modern elevator controlled with IC chips would be an elevator controlled with soldered transistor circuit boards, then one with hand-wired circuit boards, then relays and tubes, then manually operated electric switches.

But to be equivalent to a nested hierarchy it would have to have exactly the same electronic chip as it does now. So would Cugnot's steam wagon (an ancestral truck), Locomotion (an ancestral railway locomotive) and my Grandmother's treadle sewing machine. That is the only way in a nested hierarchy that the descendents could all have exactly the same feature.
Not only that, but the windshield wipers found on some of these machines would only be found in machines with this specific electronic chip and no others. The windshield wipers on a car with a different chip would be structurally different, although they could look similar and perform a similar function.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,09:04   

The evolution of the horse isn't the only problem for Darwinian evolution. Don't forget about the banana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4  

 :)

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,10:19   

Ftttt d dangbana

there's still hope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHnAOgONU6I&NR=1

HEY DAVETARD WHENYA GOIN 2DO UR REDNECK TRUCK VIDEO ON UTUBE WITH THE CHAINSAWGUN ISAW A UFO AND MY ASS GOT BIGGER VIDEO VIDEO?
UR MUSHROOMS IS MAKIN MORE NOISE THAN U IS.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,13:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,05:45)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

So what I hear you saying is that the equidistant sequence space between Cytochrome-C among the various groups is more a function of time than anything else.  Is that correct?



That is incorrect.  Time doesn't come into it, but a nesting based on differences.  It really is quite simple in principle, which is why you should try making one.  Biologists don't have to for extant life, since Linneaus did that hundreds of years ago.

I gave you a list of cars (including first and last years the model was made) to make a nested hierarchy from.  Can you do so on the basis of time?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:11   

I love ATBC.

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 28 2007,03:24)

ANY state of affairs in nature can be reconciled with the design hypothesis. Observe nested hierarchy? "Nested hierarchy is evidence of a single designer." DON'T observe nested hierarchy? "A designer is not constrained by common descent" etc. There is NO outcome in nature that cannot be reconciled post hoc with the design hypothesis, with one designer or multiple designers, with good designers or bad designers, and so on.  


Twenty-one minutes later:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,03:45)
If that is correct, then that is completely in keeping with (and in fact would be a prediction of) common descent by design.


--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:21   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,05:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

So what I hear you saying is that the equidistant sequence space between Cytochrome-C among the various groups is more a function of time than anything else.  Is that correct?

If that is correct, then that is completely in keeping with (and in fact would be a prediction of) common descent by design.

Common descent by design?
Can you develop, Daniel?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,04:17   

Daniel wrote:
Quote
In order to keep this thread on topic, I will try to keep my posts focused on the work of Schindewolf and Berg and (at least in the case of Schindewolf) also on the evolution of the horse.


OK. (Although it is not a hanging offence to move off topic by gradual steps. Saltational leaps of logic are a different matter.  :) )  
Quote
Berg doesn't say a lot about horses...


So, is there another example that better illustrates Berg's alternative to RM + NS?  
Quote
As for Schindewolf's position, why don't I just start by using the same quote I provided for you over at Brainstorms...:


OK. The RM + NS theory claims that organisms are shaped by their environments. Where a population exists and is subject to change in that environment, selection will result in adaptive change or extinction. Adaptation is not predictive.

From your quote, Schindewolf is claiming that horses began adapting to life on the plains before arriving in that environment. If true, this would indeed be a grave problem for evolution.

How does Schindewolf establish the prevailing climate and vegetation associated with a particular fossil?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,05:48   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 29 2007,04:17)
Daniel wrote:
Quote
In order to keep this thread on topic, I will try to keep my posts focused on the work of Schindewolf and Berg and (at least in the case of Schindewolf) also on the evolution of the horse.


OK. (Although it is not a hanging offence to move off topic by gradual steps. Saltational leaps of logic are a different matter.  :) )    
Quote
Berg doesn't say a lot about horses...


So, is there another example that better illustrates Berg's alternative to RM + NS?    
Quote
As for Schindewolf's position, why don't I just start by using the same quote I provided for you over at Brainstorms...:


OK. The RM + NS theory claims that organisms are shaped by their environments. Where a population exists and is subject to change in that environment, selection will result in adaptive change or extinction. Adaptation is not predictive.

From your quote, Schindewolf is claiming that horses began adapting to life on the plains before arriving in that environment. If true, this would indeed be a grave problem for evolution.

One would have to exclude the possibility of exaptation, though. And that's certainly not straightforward.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,05:57   

Quote
One would have to exclude the possibility of exaptation, though.


Using my argument from personal incredulity, what other advantage of loss of digits has been suggested? ???

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,07:25   

Daniel, as you use it, Design predicts everything whether it happened or not.  It's not an explanation but, and excuse.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,10:40   

Quote
Using my argument from personal incredulity, what other advantage of loss of digits has been suggested?

Less problem with hanging toenails?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,11:02   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 29 2007,10:40)
Quote
Using my argument from personal incredulity, what other advantage of loss of digits has been suggested?

Less problem with hanging toenails?

I realize you are making a funny, but I would note that structural problems with hoof wall, which is essentially the equivalent of a toe nail, are quite serious. Severe problems, like acute laminitis (founder), can lead to the horse having to be euthanized.  Remember that the next time you have an ingrown nail. ;)

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,11:10   

Someotherguy:
Quote
I had that same problem, but I emailed steve and, presumably, he fixed it for me because the problem went away.

On one of the occasions when I was able to get on I posted here but I never saw a response so I assumed it was unfixable.

(But thanks to composing this, I've found out why the http key was not working.)

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,11:11   

Sorry - wrong thread.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,11:18   

Carlsonjok:
I did not think of it when I responded about hanging toenails, but now you mention it I remember I've read enough of James Herriott and Dick Francis to know that laminitis can be a severe problem. I've also frequently seen sheep in Wales eating on their knees because of what I gather is laminitis caused by wet conditions.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,11:32   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 29 2007,11:18)
Carlsonjok:
I did not think of it when I responded about hanging toenails, but now you mention it I remember I've read enough of James Herriott and Dick Francis to know that laminitis can be a severe problem. I've also frequently seen sheep in Wales eating on their knees because of what I gather is laminitis caused by wet conditions.

I don't know anything about sheep, but with horses the link between wet weather and laminitis is more correlation than causation.  While laminitis can have mechanical causes, it is quite often related to dramatic changes in diet. For example, turnout on lush pasture after a diet of mostly hay can trigger it.  I have a Welsh Pony that has had two bouts of founder, both related to such diet changes during wet spring weather.

So, anyone want to wager whether Daniel will be back or not?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,14:17   

Quote (George @ Sep. 28 2007,07:44)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,03:31)
Quote
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...
Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, (emphasis his)

So basically Schindewolf is saying that horses developed single-toed hooves regardless of the selection pressures applied?

Just to clarify, horses don't (yet) have single-toed hooves. Bones (metacarpal/metatarsal) from the two flanking (2 and 4) digits still remain. They serve no useful purpose (they often become inflamed or broken), while the tops of the front ones still form part of a joint:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/horses/facts/89-093.htm

If they suggest design, their designer was an idiot. Maybe Daniel can explain the elegance of their design if he disagrees.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,15:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2007,06:05)
 
Is there anything that design predicts that evolution does not?

Seems as everything evolution can do, the designer(s) can also do. So your position is essentially meaningless unless you can somehow differentiate the two.

Is there a differentiation somewhere between the two things?

I could say the same thing about the currently held theory.  Is there anything that will ever be found that you won't somehow make to fit and eventually make to be a prediction of the currently held theory?
Are  protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, intelligence, speech, flight, sight, hearing, circulatory systems, etc. predicted by the current theory?
Since the current theory predicts "happy accidents", anything useful is then said to be predicted.
ID predicts useful features as well, so we're back to square one aren't we?
   
Quote

Are there any predictions of design that are not retrospective? I.E make a prediction for a something that's currently unknown that can be tested and the result will unambigiously say "designed" or "evolved".

If not, it seems to be all "design predictions" are worthless if they predict exactly the same things that evolution does.

Pointless.

Can you point me to a list of as yet untested "predictions" that common descent by design makes, or are they only available retrospectively? If the latter, then give up now, you'll never be able to convince anybody.

Some predictions (these are my own and in no way represent predictions of the ID movement in general):

Because evolution is proactive, not reactive:

Organisms will show evidence of preparation for anticipated environments; rudiments of organs not yet needed will be found.
When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing features (already coded for in the genome) or will become extinct - no new features will develop slowly over time.
Patterns and laws will be found that govern how evolution works.

From the fossil record:
Lineages will be found to have begun before environments in which they later flourished began.
Mass extinctions will have been preceded by the introduction of new types that would dominate the next phase in earth’s cycle.
Organisms will be found to have begun the adaptive process before adaptation was necessary.
Patterns will be found in the origin, differentiation and eventual extinction of lineages that are not dependent upon environmental factors but exist across all manner of differing environments, geographical locations, types of organisms and ages.

Genetically:
Mathematical patterns not explainable by the current theory will be found when comparing sequences of different organisms.
The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought.
Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.
Careful examination of genomes will find preparatory and adaptive codes “waiting in the wings” ready to be utilized in case of environmental changes- many just a frame shift away.
Frame shifting will be found to be a more common mechanism for sudden evolutionary change than previously thought.
Every part of the entire genome of any organism will be found to either be used at some time in the organisms life, or be of future use.  There are no unusable “Leftovers”.
No adequate explanation other than design will ever be found for the origin of life’s most basic components - i.e. protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, etc.

Universally:
Because the earth, and the solar system were specifically designed for life, no life or signs of previous life will be found on any other planets within our field of exploration.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,15:35   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 29 2007,14:17)
If they suggest design, their designer was an idiot.

Many are.
What's your point?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,15:53   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 28 2007,14:21)
Common descent by design?
Can you develop, Daniel?

Basically common descent by design (or designed descent) is the view the evolution of organisms was planned out in advance.  
I have to clarify here that this was not Schindewolf's view.  He held "mysticism" (as he called it) in contempt and thought that evolution proceeded by internal factors alone - which constrained it along certain paths.  For this reason he also held Darwinism in contempt.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins