Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinist attack on self-org theorist James Shapiro: Payback for talking to ID guys?

arroba Email

Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne (the one who refused to have lunch with Moshe Averick to discuss the origin of life) has now gone after self-organization theorist James Shapiro:

Shapiro’s piece then rapidly goes downhill as he starts repeating creationist arguments. Here’s one:

The first problem with selection as the source of diversity is that selection by humans, the subject of Darwin’s opening chapter, modifies existing traits but does not produce new traits or new species. Dogs may vary widely as a result of selective breeding, but they always remain dogs.

You’ll recognize this as the old creationist canard. Yes, of course we can’t turn a dog into a cat by artificial selection, because that would take millions of years, and we’ve only been selecting on dogs for a couple of thousand years. But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls (resembling small deer) turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds, and we can see our apelike ancestors turning into more modern humans. In other words, we find in fossils precisely those transformations that Shapiro says are impossible. I deplore that a colleague of mine makes this misguided argument, and in the Science section of HuffPo, which I’m increasingly beginning to deplore as well.

Hmmm. Shapiro would never describe himself as a proponent of design theory, let alone a “creationist.”

Here’s Shapiro’s recent Huffpopost (2 16 2012) But Shapiro has recently been dialoguing with design theorists, so we naturally wonder if this attack is also payback for that. See, for example,

James Shapiro: Bill Dembski asks the question we’ve all been dreading

“Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?”: James Shapiro Replies to Bill Dembski

Dembski replies to Shapiro: “Natural genetic engineering” is just magic, by another name. Can you make it science?

See also: Reviewing James Shapiro’s book, Darwinist admits: Growing number of gene scientists unconvinced by Darwinism

Is it payback? Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I don’t prefer an atheistic Darwinian worldview.
Well exactly what do you 'prefer' since your actions are inconsistent to me? bornagain77
Hi bornagain77
Thus CLAVDIVS, it is clear that the overall pattern of their study found stasis (save the caveat of killer whales)! ,,, You may not agree that the study supports a overall pattern of stasis, but so what??? Why should I care???
I can only tell you that I would care about representing that study as supporting overall stasis, for the reasons I've already specified. I cannot dictate to you what you should care about. Others can form their own opinions -- the relevant articles are just a click away. By the way, I don't prefer an atheistic Darwinian worldview. Cheers CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS, well lets look at it a little more soberly at the study shall we???, The authors, despite being card carrying neo-Darwwinists, indeed trying to force fit the evidence into the most friendly neo-Darwinian position they could muster, (indeed making several unwarranted leaps in the fossil record) candidly admit, after fairly extensive study, to a reporter these very un-Darwinian facts about their extensive, 'Darwinianly' biased, study:
"Our study is the first to test the idea that evolution in early whales was explosively fast." "One explanation for whale diversity is simply that they have been accumulating species and evolving differences in shape as a function of time. The more time that goes by, the more cetacean species one would expect, and the more variation in body size one would expect to see in them. Instead, what we found is that very early in their history, whales went their separate ways from the standpoint of size, and probably ecology," Alfaro said. "This pattern provides some support for the explosive radiation hypothesis." "Species diversification and variations in body size were established early in the evolution of whales, Alfaro and his colleagues report. Large whales, small whales and medium-sized whales all appeared early in the history of whales, with the large whales eating mostly plankton, small whales eating fish and medium-sized whales eating squid." "Those differences were probably in place by 25 million years ago at the latest, and for many millions of years, they have not changed very much," said the study's lead author, Graham Slater, a National Science Foundation-funded UCLA postdoctoral scholar in Alfaro's laboratory. "It's as if whales split things up at the beginning and went their separate ways. The distribution of whale body size and diet still corresponds to these early splits." "The shape of variation that we see in modern whales today is the result of partitioning of body sizes early on in their history," "We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently -- but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528211150.htm
Thus CLAVDIVS, it is clear that the overall pattern of their study found stasis (save the caveat of killer whales)! ,,, You may not agree that the study supports a overall pattern of stasis, but so what??? Why should I care??? The Darwinian authors themselves are the ones pointing out that they were surprised at the stasis pattern they found!!! Perhaps you should write them and tell them of your disappointment and try and have them retract their forthright statements to the reporter! :) ,, Methinks you doth protest too much!!! ,,,, much like your recent embryonic stem cell complaint (red flag in my book), it clearly seems that you are the one who is really trying to skew things to a seemingly preferred atheistic Darwinian worldview.
Hi bornagain77 So, just to wrap this up -- As support for the contention that "Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years" you're going to continue to use a small quote from an article that: - is entitled "How Whales Have Changed Over 35 Million Years"; - discusses changes in whales between 55 and 25 million years ago; - discusses significant changes in killer whales over the past 10 million years; and, - is based on interviews with the authors of a scientific paper where they discuss, in considerable detail, significant diversification and extinction in whales over 55 million years. Let's just leave it at this: I don't agree with you that the cite you used counts as support for your proposition. Cheers CLAVDIVS
Yeah I think I will leave my cite just as it is CLAVDIVS, despite your objections, since the quote I used from the Science Daily article is directly from the lead researchers themselves.,,, bornagain77
Then again CLAVDIVS, the Science Daily article does quote directly from Slater and Alfaro,,, for instance.
"Those differences were probably in place by 25 million years ago at the latest, and for many millions of years, they have not changed very much," said the study's lead author, Graham Slater, a National Science Foundation-funded UCLA postdoctoral scholar in Alfaro's laboratory.
thus I will just quote directly from them; bornagain77
CLAVDIVS, You have made your point. Thank You! I did not read the original paper at first but only read the Science Daily article. ,,, The Science Daily article readily gives the impression, at least to me, that they were far more forthright in the original paper. But as you have made clear, it is not nearly as clear as the Science Daily article implied. ,,, I will search for a more reliable source. Perhaps dig through their sources. bornagain77
Hi bornagain77 If one thinks the Slater et al paper in Proc. R. Soc. B has glaring deficiencies, then one shouldn't be citing it in support of an argument. On the other hand, if one credits the paper with some validity, it doesn't support the argument that whales did not evolve for over 35 million years. This has been my point all along. The Science Daily article was referenced, which in turn cited the Proc. R. Soc. B paper. I was interested enough to read the actual paper, and it was apparent (to me) that it did not in any way support the original argument -- namely, that whales remained in stasis for over 35 million years. I thought this was worth mentioning. And I don't see how Abel's work or Dollo's law in any way detracts from what I'm saying. We can drop it now, bornagain77. I think I've made my point. Cheers CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS, well since you do not readily see the glaring deficiencies in their analysis, nor their unwarranted extrapolations they make in the fossil record to neo-Darwinian processes, perhaps it is because you believe material processes can magically generate complex, and 'transcendent', functional information? Hence the primary relevance of Abel's null hypothesis! Myself, I hold the position that speciation will follow a 'top down' genetic entropy pattern following initial 'sudden' appearance in the fossil record; (which happens to be the pattern that conforms to the second law and Conservation of Information) The following is perhaps the best case study we have for the overall 'top down' pattern we should expect to see in the fossil record:
The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html
further note: In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a 'scientific law':
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html
A general rule of thumb for the 'Deterioration/Genetic Entropy' of Dollo's Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints; http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html
This recent study falls in line as well:
No Positive Selection, No Darwin: A New Non-Darwinian Mechanism for the Origin of Adaptive Phenotypes - November 2011 Excerpt: Hughes now proposes a model he refers to as the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) model. PRM suggests that adaptive phenotypes arise as follows: (1) there exists a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., one that changes with the environment, such as sweating in the summer heat); (2) the environment becomes constant, such that the trait assumes only one of its states for a lengthened period of time; and (3) during that time, deleterious mutations accumulate in the unused state of the trait, such that its genetic basis is subsequently lost. ,,, But if most adaptations result from the loss of genetic specifications, how did the traits initially arise? One letter (Chevin & Beckerman 2011) of response to Hughes noted that the PRM "does not explain why the ancestral state should be phenotypically plastic, or why this plasticity should be adaptive in the first place." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/no_positive_selection_no_darwi052941.html A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html
Dollo's Law was further verified to the molecular level here:
Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo's law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, "The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html Evolutionary Adaptations Can Be Reversed, but Rarely - May 2011 Excerpt: They found that a very small percentage of evolutionary adaptations in a drug-resistance gene can be reversed, but only if the adaptations involve fewer than four discrete genetic mutations. (If reverting to a previous function, which is advantageous, is so constrained, what does this say about gaining a completely novel function, which may be advantageous, which requires many more mutations?) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511162538.htm Some Further Research On Dollo's Law - Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig - November 2010 http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/Sample/FOB_4(SI1)1-21o.pdf
So CLAVDIVS, basically we have no evidence that material processes can generate functional information yet we have abundant evidence that material processes, and neo-Darwinian processes in particular, reduce genetic infomation! Go Figure!!! bornagain77
Hi bornagain77 Despite the potted summary in the Science Daily article, it's difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the original paper in Proc. R. Soc. B as support for the idea that whales have not evolved for over 35 million years -- even if one just focuses on the fossil evidence. And I don't see how Abel's work makes this any easier to understand. Cheers CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS, well I'm quite comfortable with their 'surprise' at finding overall stasis in the fossil record, from 'early on' for whales, as was reflected, clearly, in the Science Daily article. Moreover, since the problem of 'functional information generation' is acute for neo-Darwinists, I really don't feel the need to have to point out to you their severely unwarranted extrapolations from their very shaky molecular interpretations. And if you don't feel, their 'free-willing' interpretation of molecular sequences is problematic, or the problem of function information generation is critically acute for neo-Darwinists, perhaps you would care to falsify Abel's null hypothesis with empirical evidence?
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - August 2011 Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility. http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness.html
Hi bornagain77 Ok. It wasn't clear to me that you were relying on just some parts of the article, and disregarding others. Even so, just looking at the fossil evidence parts, the article still doesn't seem to support the idea that "Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years". For example, the authors state:
Despite an overall pattern of decrease through time, subclade disparity [in body size i.e. based on fossil evidence] shows two increases: one occurring shortly after the origination of neocetes and another between approximately 11 and 6 Ma (approx. 0.7–0.825 relative time), coincident with the radiations of several extant families, such as Delphinidae, Phocoenidae and Balaenopteridae.
They have a nifty chart illustrating this (Figure 4). Cheers CLAVDIVS
Well CLAVDIVS, since I consider pretty much all of their hypothesizing from molecular sequences to be bunk,,,
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
,,, since they can't even account for the fixation of a single 'coordinated' beneficial mutation for whales, then I pretty much look at the stasis portion of their paper that was forced on them by their cross check to the fossil evidence.,,Moreover, As far as the Diversity vs. Disparity title of their paper, this is funny for Diversity vs. Disparity in the fossil record is actually a common pattern and is actually a point that, though danced around by neo-Darwinists, argues very forcefully for 'top down' creation of specific 'kinds' of animals;
The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism (Disparity precedes Diversity) - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: Evolution has been implicitly viewed as a uniformitarian process where the rates may vary but the underlying processes, including the types of variation, are essentially invariant through time. Recent studies demonstrate that this uniformitarian assumption is false, suggesting that the types of variation may vary through time. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar
as well, since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence from molecular sequences, here are several comments and articles, by leading experts, on the severe incongruence of molecular sequences to what Darwin's gradualistic theory expects: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4 bornagain77
I read the article Diversity versus disparity and the radiation of modern cetaceans referenced at Science Daily and here. I really don't see how it supports the contention that "Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years". Rather, the authors find quite a lot of diversification spread out over 55 million years:
Our time tree (figure 1) is broadly congruent with other recently published studies of cetacean phylogeny (McGowen et al. 2009; Steeman et al. 2009). The split between hippopotamuses and cetaceans dates to 54.5 Ma (95% high posterior density, HPD: 54.1–55.1), and extant cetaceans (Neoceti) share a most recent common ancestor at 36.9 Ma (95% HPD: 34.4–39.9). Crown mysticetes originated at 28.8 Ma (95% HPD: 28–30.1). Crown odontocetes originated at 34.8 Ma (95% HPD: 30.9–38.7) and show a gradual pattern of lineage divergence. The sperm whales (Physeteroidea), beaked whales (Ziphiidae) and river dolphins (Platinistidae, Lipotidae, Iniidae and Pontoporidae) are old, originating prior to 20 Ma. The remaining odontocete families within the Delphinoidea are younger than 15 Myr old and the most speciose cetacean clade, Delphinidae, containing 36 of 84 species, is less than 10 Myr old.
Its really worth a read. Cheers CLAVDIVS
Oops- "some period of time greater than a few MILLION years" Joe
Yes, of course we can’t turn a dog into a cat by artificial selection, because that would take millions of years, and we’ve only been selecting on dogs for a couple of thousand years.
The formula: Dogs + artificially selected magical mystery mutations + some period of time more than a few thousand years = Cats Joe
lastyearon, You can continue piling insults following good old TalkOrigins tradition. Anyone can start "arguments" with nonsensical intro: "How do you convince an evolutionist that a fossil is not a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse..." However I don't think that approach adds anything to our understanding of whale evolution or any other such subject. Instead of calling other people ignorant maybe you should better spend your time researching the given subject using more respectable sources. And no, I don't mean dreaded Creationist's materials, but am referring to, in "scientific circles", recognized experts like Robert L. Carroll, J. G. M. Thewissen, G. A. Mchedlidze etc. Saying all this I have no illusions that you will familiarize yourself with evolutionary science proper. It must be infinitely more satisfying and gratifying to quote TalkOrigins' mythology (so called Vestigial Evidence being case in point). But hey, I don't blame you, I know the feeling, same feeling I had as a kid reading Greek pagan stories. inunison
Lastyearon 'Why do you think that “they” would like everyone to think evolution is a fact?' I asked for evidence of transitional fossils linking any of the examples of evolution sited by Coyne, and you gave me TO, and its explanation of 'Whale evolution'. I take it by doing so you found this evidence suffice. My point was that Coynes argument fails on many parts because of a severe lack of what he claims. Dr.Phil Gingerich clearly admits that one of the major players in 'Whale evolution' was deliberately doctored to give the appearance of a transitional, it is also used by many top paleontologists, can be found in the pages of nearly every science text book on the subject, yet it really is nothing more than a fraud. You accuse other of being 'happy in their ignorance', yet you willfully deny the truth. That must be a gift of evolutionists. A well honed skill. Good luck to you. PeterJ
Watched the video. It would take more time to correct all the misconceptions in it than it did to watch it. But I do want to ask you something. You said this:
tell me if you still believe what TO says about whale evolution is the fact they would like everone to think it is?
Why do you think that "they" would like everyone to think evolution is a fact? Do you think there's some sort of conspiracy going on? O, and by the way, they do use the "why are there still monkeys" argument with regards to ambulocetus at the 13-14 minute mark. lastyearon
Lastyearon. 'I’m assuming you mean the objection: why were there Packacetus’s living at the same time as whales, when according to evolution, Packacetus is transitional between whales and land dwelling mammals?' No not in slightest. The video was made long before the discovery of the whale's jaw. It's a shame you can't spare the 9 minutes to watch what I think is a very startling confession by Dr. Phil Gingerich. (who is one of the worlds leading experts on Whale evolution) I suppose it's just easier for to fill your head with TO stuff, but that doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Watch the video and then tell me if you still believe what TO says about whale evolution is the fact they would like everone to think it is? Go on, I dare you. PeterJ
Well since LYO refuses to be forthright with the genetic evidence which falsifies his assertion, and stiucks to fossil evidence, then here is another video that clearly shows how fraudulent neo-Darwinists can be with the fossil record:
Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568
This following studies provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson's critique of 'imaginary' whale evolution in the preceding video:
Of Whale and Feather Evolution: Nature's Two Macroevolutionary Lumps of Coal (Dismantling Nature's evolutionary evangelism packet) - Casey Luskin _ November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/of_whale_and_feather_evolution037221.html How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010 Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170
inunison, I'm not after respectability on this blog. I'm more interested in getting people like you to question a little. If you think Talk Origins is biased, you can do a Google search for whale transitional fossils. Although you may consider each and every article/resource you find to be evolutionary propaganda. If so, I suggest that you're happy in your ignorance, and that you tell yourself "it's all propaganda" because you don't like feeling ignorant. lastyearon
LYO, Dr. Sternberg doesn't even contest the fossil record (which is severely contorted by neo-Darwinists), he just demonstrates, from population genetics, that the mechanism of neo-Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain the origination of whales. Do you have empirical of mathematical evidence to the contrary??? bornagain77
I don’t just want to hear what they assumed happened, as in ‘Whale evolution’, but see the transitions in between.
No you don't want to see the transitions. Otherwise you would have read the article, and seen them.
What is your answer to this claim?
I can't view the video now. I'm assuming you mean the objection: why were there Packacetus's living at the same time as whales, when according to evolution, Packacetus is transitional between whales and land dwelling mammals? That claim is the same as asking "Why are there still monkeys, if we evolved from them?" Think about it a little (please). lastyearon
Or what is your answer to this observation from population genetics?
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203
If that wasn't bad enough, The time frame for the supposed transition of whales, from some supposed ancestral four legged creature, has recently been dramatically shortened from the 10 million years Dr. Sternberg used in his calculation;
A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011 Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/a-whale-of-a-problem-for-evolution-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/ Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2011 Excerpt: In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/discovery_of_oldest_fully_aqua052021.html Whales: New "Icon of Evolution" or a Challenge to Darwinian Theory? - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-12-02T13_36_08-08_00
Moreover the blatant misrepresentation of the fossil record by neo-Darwinists for supposed whale evolution should make the blood boil in anger of any person who is concerned with the truth of this matter;
Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence http://vimeo.com/30921402/ Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html Ambulocetus (49 million years ago) Excerpt: Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify. The ambulocetus remains that have been discovered are much more complete than the first findings of pakicetus; however, crucial parts of the animal still have not been discovered. For example, the pelvic girdle has not been found.[7] Without this, there is really no way of telling how the creature moved. This, however, does not stop evolutionists from using artistic manipulations to make ambulocetus look like it is a transitional form. Very often, popular science journals, such as National Geographic, have depicted ambulocetus as being very transitional-like by giving the creature webbed feet.[8] This is another place where the reader must be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. Soft tissue rarely ever gets preserved, and the ambulocetus remains are no exception. In other words, all we have are the bones. There is no evidence that the creature had webbed feet other than in the imagination of the evolutionists. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm
As for 'vestigial legs'; It turns out the 'vestigial legs' are humorously revealed to be very functional pelvic bones instead:
An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known. In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus. The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion. http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm
Now really lastyearon! While I fully understand that theological arguments and mythology have very powerful influence on ones worldview, I would strongly suggest that you refrain quoting or linking to tabloid evolutionary propaganda sites like The TalkOrigins Archive. That is if you want to retain some level of respectability on this blog. inunison
Lastyearon I have already looked through Talk Origins, and as I said I don't just want to hear what they assumed happened, as in 'Whale evolution', but see the transitions in between. We also have to remember that fossilized a fossilized jaw of a whale was discovered, dated to have existed at the same time as Packacetus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9CTrvEeE0 Why dont you watch the above link, it's only 28mins long, but certainly from 8min - 17min. What is your answer to this claim? PeterJ
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ lastyearon
Coyne says: 'But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls (resembling small deer) turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds, and we can see our apelike ancestors turning into more modern humans. In other words, we find in fossils precisely those transformations that Shapiro says are impossible.' It's all very well for him to say but are they really there? I don't just want to see a fossilized 'dear like creature' and then a 'whale', but the steps in between. I don't want to see only a few fossilzed 'fish' then a fossil of a fully formed 'Amphibian', I want to see the stages in between. I don't want to hear about 'reptiles' in one breath and in the next 'mammals', I want to see the transitions. I don't to hear about 'birds' and how they evolved from 'theropod dinosaurs', I want to see the pathway. I don't want to just hear that my distant relative was an 'ape' I want to see how it became human. I know it's a lot of wants, but if it is such a fact as he seems to say it is the fossils themselves must exist. Right? So where are they? Can somone please point me to some fossil evidence of 'something' turning into 'somthing else', the operative word being used here 'turning', as Mr.Coyne puts it. Thank you PeterJ
This bit:
But the true refutation of this idea is in the fossil record: we can see land-living artiodactyls turning into whales, we can see fish turning into amphibians, we can see early reptiles turning into mammals, we can see theropod dinosaurs turning into birds
Do evolutionists actually have any actual examples; or is it just one big thumb-suck consisting of nothing but "favourable interpretations" of the fossil record? Stu7
Coyne is being either willfully misleading or stupid. He knows well that Shapiro is proposing other mechanisms for evolution, and saying that natural selection alone is not an adequate one. Coyne replies that because we see evolutionary sequences (disregard for the moment whether they are valid), then natural selection must explain them. Here's an equivalent argument. Assertion: A child couldn't have produced this painting - an adult must have at least helped. Reply: But you can clearly see there's a painting: ergo, the child did paint it alone. What do they teach them at university nowadays? Not reasoning, that's for sure. Coyne is a leading spokesman for Neodarwinism, right? And that's the best kind of argument he has? Maybe I wasn't so far off about Gnu thought processes in a blog I did last month. Jon Garvey
Further notes of Dr. Axe's work on the rarity of protein folds:
Axe And The Evolution Of Protein Folds - March 2011 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/axe-2004-and-the-evolution-of-protein-folds/ The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00
The following article is very revealing as to the inherent blindness that neo-Darwinists have to the results of what their very own research is telling them;
Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html
Did Dr. Shapiro ever reply to Dr. Axe and Dr. Gauger's last reply to him???
On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro - Douglas Axe - January 20, 2012 Excerpt: I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical. Having followed this debate for some time now, and having made several experimental contributions to it, Ann and I have become convinced that none of the current naturalistic ideas about the origin of protein folds or the functional diversification of existing folds actually works in any general sense. But of course, as experimentalists we are very willing to see the evidence that might prove us wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_protein_orig055471.html
It seems that Dr. Shapiro, in the Huffpost piece, just dodges the question that Dr Axe put to him:
What Is the Key to a Realistic Theory of Evolution? - James Shapiro February 16 The genome sequence record shows that these networks and their DNA recognition sites have evolved by well-documented natural genetic engineering processes. The examples include: • How cells generate new proteins by combining parts of existing ones http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/what-is-the-key-to-a-real_b_1280685.html?ref=science
Perhaps Dr. Shapiro doesn't realize it, but Dr. Axe's work on the extreme rarity of functional protein sequences was on finding the novel sequences for functional domains (parts) of the proteins in the first place,,, functional domain sequences which Dr. Shapiro has just taken for granted in his 'natural genetic engineering' scenario; i.e. It doesn't matter that the 'natural genetic engineering' in the cell can implement different domain sequences into novel functional proteins when needed, if the primary problem is not dealt with in the first place. It seems Dr. Shapiro, besides invoking magic by another name, has just ignored this monumental problem of finding functional domains in sequence space! notes:
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/04/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in-jmb/ ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics - June 2011 - Audio Podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00 Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222
Moreover, does invoking 'natural genetic engineering' even come close to really explaining how the programming in the cell 'knew', beforehand, how to combine functional domains into a novel protein, or is it, like Dr. Dembski wryly noted, just magic by another name???
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) Epigenetics and the "Piano" Metaphor - January 2012 Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we're talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components -- tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players.
Agreed. I guess I would say you can't question it or objectively evaluate Darwinian dogma even if you are an Materialist. This is how they want to teach our kids in school! tjguy
While I'm sorry Shapiro has to be exposed to such childish and unprofessional behaviour from Coyne, it should serve as evidence of what I.D proponents and Creationists have been saying all along: You can't criticize darwin's myth without experiencing repercussions. e.g(*Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed*) What other 'scientific theory' needs such protection?!?! Even Einstein's theory can be challenged/questioned but heaven forbid someone dare point out the shortcomings/flaws of the darwinian myth. Blue_Savannah
Love the bit about the small deerlike beastie turning into a whale, as established fact! Axel

Leave a Reply