Another rabbit jumps the hat: 419 mya JAWED fish

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 27, 2013

Evolution, News, stasis}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Remember we were discussing how current Darwinian evolution theory would not be challenged even if a modern rabbit were found back in the 550 mya Cambrian era (and Darwin followers in the combox appeared to agree).

Hippety hop. A 419 mya jawed vertebrate.

The ancestors of modern jawed vertebrates are commonly portrayed as fishes with a shark-like appearance. But a stunning fossil discovery from China puts a new face on the original jawed vertebrate. [US$18 paywall]

National Geographic News reports*,

“Entelognathus primordialis is one of the earliest, and certainly the most primitive, fossil fish that has the same jawbones as modern bony fishes and land vertebrates including ourselves,” said study co-author Min Zhu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

…

But in the new fossil, found in China, has a distinctive three-bone system still used by chewing vertebrates today: a lower jawbone called the dentary and two upper jaw bones called the premaxilla (holding the front teeth) and the maxilla (holding the canine and cheek teeth).

“The exciting thing about this fossil is that when you look at the top of it, it looks like a placoderm, but when you look at the side of the fish and the structure of the jaw, it doesn’t look like any placoderm that we know of,” Friedman said.

“This tends to suggest the exciting possibility that these jawbones evolved way deep down in the lineage, so these features we used to hold as being unique to bony fishes may not be so unique.”

In other words, less evolution and more stasis.

The fish seems to lave lived at the end of the Silurian period, 443 mya to 417 mya.

*Reports it, that is, under the curious title,

”Fish Fossil Has Oldest Known Face, May Influence Evolution“

Influence evolution? Baby, if they found it back then, it IS evolution. Unless, of course, you mean Evolution, the Religion. In other words, the fish may shake up your dogmatics a bit, but whose problem is that, besides yours, at this point?

Fish guy, yer gettin’ ta be a rabbit with me.

Comments

to lifespy and TheisticEvolutionist, i just want to add that one option is that the human populations was to small so they dont leave fossil until the above layers. even if we find a self replicat car model 3000, and above this model 3001 and above 3002 it not prove commondescent. another option is that the age of the erath is not bilions. and we have evidence for that from a dino dna age 80 milions years!mk_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

KF:
In Fig 7.3, which is obviously schematic, Meyer portrays circles showing newly emerging phyla, each with two classes, starting from a nodal point.
"Schematic" or not Meyer circles phyla that do NOT start from a nodal point. Whether the phyla are defined as crown groups or crown+stem, this is simply incorrect, and highly misleading, and he duly misleads. He does this repeatedly in his diagrams - circles paraphyletic groups in his model for what is predicteded "under common descent, and then claims that they don't match the observed. They match the observed just fine, as would be obvious if he circled his diagrams correctly.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

TheisticEvolutionist,
As you may already well know there’s countless scientific papers, books and websites that have refuted the claims of YEC especially on “flood geology”.
There are also countless Creation Science and YEC websites that have refuted practically every one of those claimed refutations of flood geology in detail. YEC scientists have been vindicated numerous times by conventional geology eventually adopting rapid deposition in subaqueous environments in many cases. And YEC geologists point out countless flaws with old-earth geology.
If the column was an ecological burial pattern, then whales and porpoises should be buried with the fish. They aren’t. The order of the fossils must be explained either by progressive creation or evolution.
That is a simplistic and poorly thought-out claim. That's like a creationist saying "If the geologic column represents Evolution then we should see a perfect micro gradation of all new anatomical features reflected in the fossil record. Otherwise, evolution didn't happen." I gave you a simple reason why we might not expect marine mammals to appear with lower strata fish and ocean bottom-dwellers and you just ignored it. It's the same reason we don't find some of those marine mammals' natural predators, such as great white sharks (even though other sharks are found in the lower layers), until much later in the fossil record as well : They were fast-swimming, deep-water species, and would not have been bound near the ocean floor as sediments were rapidly eroded and transported by the global flood, burying those lower ecosystems. There are many more factors playing into this than simply "it lived in water or it lived on land" Animals are complex in both habitat, locomotion, and behavior, including how they might react to a sudden global catastrophe.lifepsy_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

It can in fact be calculated that a new body plan, the relevant issue, will take about 10 – 100+ mn bits of new genetic info to account for unfolding the body plan from zygote or equivalent, and to provide cell types, tissues, organs and tightly integrated systems.
What is your reference for this please?Jerad_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

EL; with the matter of declaring ID thinkers = creationists and the declaration of such as theocratic would be totalitarians and ENEMIES OF HUMANITY (primary- ringleaders as alleged, secondary as alleged dupes) on the table as hosted in your blog, it is not and cannot be talking points as usual. Indeed, the above exchange where it seems you have tried to taint Meyer's basic competence takes on a far uglier colour by that light, as Meyer is a leading scholar of DI. You have succeeded all too well in poisoning the atmosphere, now kindly deal with it. I consult my copy of DD:
Index, p. 496, "phyla (animal groups). See animal phyla." Index, p. 488, "animal phyla: chart showing representatives in the fossil record, 32 fig. . . . description of 31 . . . " p. 32, Fig 2.5 and description. Lists phyla by appearance in fossil record in a hand-drawn chart. Meyer describes the top panel, a, as "Chart showing when representatives of the the different animal phyla first appeared in the fossil record. Ac cording to Darwinian theory, differences in biological form should increase gradually, steadily increasing the number of distinct body plans and phyla, over time." He then comments that the panel b shows the chart of appearance vs time, left, expected, right, actual. There is a dramatic contrast, aka the Cambrian revolution. p.31, 2nd para, introductory remarks: "The term "phyla" (singular: "phylum") refers to divisions in the biological classification system. The phyla constitute the highest (or widest) categories of biological classification in the animal kingdom, with each exhibiting a unique architecture, organizational blueprint, or structural body plan. Familiar examples of phyla are cnidarians (corals and jelly fish) mullusks (squids and clams) . . . and chordates, to which all vertebrates including humans belong." He then goes on to lower units of classification: classes, orders, eventually families, genera and species.
On the face of it he has given a reasonable description and in so doing has correctly used phylum and phyla. The attempt to portray him as fundamentally being ignorant starting with basic terms, fails. On p. 144, there is a usage that is indeed incorrect, but that does not detract from the basic point. We should be willing to distinguish a "typo" from fundamental error. On that page, the point is also correct, punc eq would do much the same as more gradualist NDT, move up to the phylum, not start at the phylum. On pp. 142 - 3 he says:
Darwin thought that the first representatives of the the higher taxonomic categories emerged after the emergence of the first representatives of each of the lower taxa . . . Instead, the first Cambrian animal forms are different enough from each other to justify classifying them as separate classes, subphyla, and phyla from their first appearance int eh fossil record (see Fig. 7.3. [i.e. p. 144]) This pattern creates an acute difficulty for the theory of punctuated equilibrium., [sic] First, due tot he action of allopatric speciation and species selection, advocates of punctuated equilibrium envision morphological change . . . arising in larger, more discontinuous increments of change, Nevertheless, like neo-Darwinists, they too see phyla-level differences arising from the "bottom up," starting with lower level taxonomic differences -- albeit occurring in increments involving whole new species rather than individuals or virieties within species. Indeed, according to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, allopatric speciation first produces new species in geographically isolated populations . . . For represenatives of higher taxonomic categories to arise, these new species must accumulate new traits and evolve further.
In Fig 7.3, which is obviously schematic, Meyer portrays circles showing newly emerging phyla, each with two classes, starting from a nodal point. We may want to debate points on his diagram, but the fundamental argument is correct. Both punc eq and NDT expect bottom up variation. It can in fact be calculated that a new body plan, the relevant issue, will take about 10 - 100+ mn bits of new genetic info to account for unfolding the body plan from zygote or equivalent, and to provide cell types, tissues, organs and tightly integrated systems. That brings us back to the reason why it is reasonable to see that such complex functional integration based on components will manifest an islands of function in a seas of non-function pattern. Which in turn gives a major challenge to the accessible time and materials resources on the gamut of our observed cosmos or solar system. Until it is empirically demonstrated, Dawkins' easy incremental back way up Mt Improbable is an ideological fantasy. In fact the real challenge is to explain -- per the FSCO/I challenge, and in light of actual observation of blind watchmaker generation of FSCO/I -- how the new body plan got to the shores of Isle Darwin. Failing such (and it is simply not there) what we are seeing is ideological fanatasies reinforced through confirmation bias and circular reasoning, on any evidence that he eye of Darwinist faith can fit into the scheme, backed up by a priori exclusion of the only thing actually seen to produce FSCO/I, design. Game over, TSZ. KFkairosfocus_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Figure 2.8 on Page 36. Two groups are explicitly labelled phylum and those two obviously include all the sub groups. There are no circles to be found, at the tips or anywhere else. No “howler” here. But Elizabeth ignores this contrary evidence because it dosn’t fit her narrative.
Failing to make an error in one diagram does not make the error in other diagrams go away, Mung, especially when his case, in the text, is based on that error.
Figure 2.11 on Page 42. Family #1 is clearly drawn to include Genus #1 and Genus #2, and Family #2 is clearly drawn to include Genus #3 and Genus #4. just how far down the tree do you think he should have drawn the “family” circles and the “genus” circles? No “howler” here. But Elizabeth ignores this contrary evidence because it dosn’t fit her narrative.
Figure 2.11 is so bad it is almost beyond correction, but I had a go here. See also WD400's post #56
Figure 2.12 on Page 43. Once again Meyer uses the term phylum. Two groups, which both clearly include classes and genera. There are no circles to be found, at the tips or anywhere else. No “howler” here. But Elizabeth ignores this contrary evidence because it dosn’t fit her narrative.
Figure 2.12 is correct. But he now correctly shows that the phylum divisions precede the classes and genera divisions over time, which is what we see. Which what is expected under Common Descent. But that begs the question of the morphological distance between phyla at the time when they first appears. He can't have it both ways.
So what does Elizabeth do? She cherry-picks a diagrem from Chaper 7. Figure 7.3 on Page 144. Even that diagram contradicts her narrative, but in true “skeptic” style she ignores that contrary evidence as well and forges ahead. On the right side of the diagram Meyer has, you guessed it, a phylum. It includes classes which include species. No “howler” here.
No, on the right side of the diagram, Meyer yet again circles the "phylum" incorrectly and then contrasts it as what is expected under the "theory of punctuated equilibrium" with "the pattern in the fossil record" . But had he circled his groups correctly, the two would have matched. Not that he's even got "the theory of punctuated equilibrium" correct, and I'm not at all sure why he keeps calling Common Descent "neo-Darwinism". It's what Darwin himself proposed. I suspect a dog-whistle.
But on the left hand side Elizabeth spies all the evidence she needs to convince her that the book can be ignored. 1. There are groups labelled phyla, not phylum. 2. While each “phyla” is drawn to include classes, the circles representing the “phyla” do not extend all the way to wherever on the drawing Elizabeth thinks they should extend.
Indeed. And had he drawn the diagram on the left correctly, it would have matched the one on the right. And entirely destroyed his point.
This is Meyer’s “howler.” And from this meagre bit of “evidence” Elizabeth claims to know that Meyer is ignorant of phylogenetics.
It's blindingly obvious to anyone looking at the diagrams. But lest anyone should blame the illustrator, plus poor proof-reading on Meyer's part, the howler is not only repeated in both captions and text but forms the basis of almost his entire argument about diversity and disparity.
That’s a bit of a stretch, imo.
Well, no.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

PeterJ
Where is this ‘date’ to be found?
Well, if we apply my puzzle metaphor to reality, in the date of the strata in which the "pieces" - fossils - are found.
Can you show me an example of this, where I can clearly see what you mean from fossil evidence the “shared features of a common ancestor” in relation to “members of a specific taxon”?
There is an example given in the wiki page on Synapomorphy, which also explains the principle.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

This source: Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla Seems to have been an ancestor of what seems to be a set of evolving diagrams, but at least in this source, the labels are applied correctly.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

Mung, I've only seen 2.11 (reproduced on TSZ). As well being a pretty awful digram it's wrong - "family 1" is paraphyletic. If the genera in "family 1" are to be a taxon the circle would have to go all the way back the third node on the "trunk" of the tree (did I mention these are awful diagrams..), or _all_ the tips descent from that node.wd400_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Hi Elizabeth, Been reading through your posts and hoped you might clarify something for me. It may be that I have missed something? Could you explain to me what you mean by this statement at #25: "We also see that there is a date on many of the pieces, telling us that the tree grew over time." Where is this 'date' to be found? Also, you make this cliam in #46: "What unites members of a specific taxon, both extant and extinct, is a set of shared features, even though there will be many members who have additional features. The younger the members, the more additional features they are likely to have, while the set of shared features is inferred to have been possessed by the common ancestor." Can you show me an example of this, where I can clearly see what you mean from fossil evidence the "shared features of a common ancestor" in relation to "members of a specific taxon"? I hope that makes sense :)PeterJ_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

Mung: Meyer's diagrams neither circle crown groups nor crown+stem groups. His diagrams make no sense at all. And even if he were to define phyla as crown groups only, it wouldn't help his case that "The actual pattern in the fossil record, however, contradicts [the] expectation" for "small-scale differences or diversity among species to precede large-scale morphological disparity among phyla". If we define phyla as crown groups, then of course they will be preceded by "small-scale differences", and that is what we observe (and is even, ironically, indicated by his drawings, even though he doesn't correctly circle the "crown groups". And if we define phyla as crown+stem then the "expectation" under common descent is that phyla will originally be morphologically close, and then diverge. Again, just as we observe in the fossil record. In other words Meyer is simply equivocating with his definition of phyla - but neither definition helps his case. If we use one, the he gets the prediction under common descent wrong, and if we use the other, then his description of "the actual pattern" is wrong. Either way, the fossil record matches the prediction under common descent. His mistake is compounded by his application of retrospective taxonomic labels to the whole tree. Under the theory of common descent, all bifurcations of lineages are "speciation events", and a contemporary phylogeneticist, were one to exist, would regard the result as two "species". It is only later that we call them "phyla" because by then there have been further branching and subbranchings, and thus the requirement for new taxonomic ranks - what started of as a species is now a "phylum", containing were once species and are now "classes" containing what were once species and are now "orders" containing what were once species and are now "families" etc. In other words, common descent matches exactly what we observe, and Meyer's attempt to claim that it doesn't is based on a complete misunderstanding of taxonomy, phylogeny, and the relationship between the two.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

The YEC global flood model with a catastrophic burial sequence based on vertical ecological zones has considerable explanatory power for the fossil record. (even evolutionists will admit the fossil record is characterized by rapid burials).
As you may already well know there's countless scientific papers, books and websites that have refuted the claims of YEC especially on "flood geology". If you want a brief overview, I suggest this article, see the conclusion it gives 10 reasons why the fossils in the geological column are not evidence for a global flood. Here's just one of the points;
The fact that the fossils mammals are not found with the earliest dinosaurs, or that no primates are found until the Ft. Union formation or that no full dinosaur skeletons are found in the Tertiary section, implies strongly that the column was not the result of a single cataclysm. Worldwide, no whales are found with the large Devonian fish. If the column was an ecological burial pattern, then whales and porpoises should be buried with the fish. They aren't. The order of the fossils must be explained either by progressive creation or evolution.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologiccolumn.htm If the Bible has not been written, then YEC would not exist and these folk would not be arguing for a global flood. Interestingly some YEC admit that "flood geology" is entirely religious;
The entire structure of Flood geology is nonscientific and is based directly on the creationists' religious beliefs. As the creationists themselves admit, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support any of their Flood geology: "The study of the Flood, especially its scientific aspects, is often called 'Flood geology' or 'Deluge geology'. However, it has not yet reached that state of development where it can be rightfully called a science, and I doubt that it ever will. It is only a model of the action of the Flood described in Genesis." (Clarke, 1977, p. 8)
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/worldwideflood.htmTheisticEvolutionist_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Further on Meyer's alleged "howler." Elizabeth, unfortunately for the case you are trying to make against Meyer, the facts are against you.
Defining the crown group as the phylum is convenient mechanistically, as it is straightforward to apply and avoids the difficulty of of how to separate members of sister phyla near their divergence from a common ancestor. It focuses on that part of the tree of life that includes extant animals and for which, therefore, molecular evidence is available. Restricting the concept of a phylum to the crown group as advocated by Budd and Jensen (2000) also has a number of drawbacks ...
Figure 1A from their paper looks suspiciously like Meyer's "howler." Maybe they don't understand phylogenetics either.
Debates about the Cambrian radiation have stimulated a debate over how "phyla" might be defined at all. One view bases a definition of phylum (or class) on the crown group and excludes stem groups as plesions. This has the advantage of objectivity and ensures that molecular data are available for the whole taxon except where primitive survivors pull fossil taxa into the crown clade.
Wonderful strife: systematics, stem groups, and the phylogenetic signal of the Cambrian radiation cf. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla. The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the PhylaMung_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Do you mean to say that a phylum must include all no longer extant organisms which are believed to have given rise to the living members of the phylum?
wd400:
A taxon includes an ancestral species and all it’s descendants. Obviously, molecular phylogenies are (usually) limited to extant species (the tips), but that doesn’t change the definition of a taxon.
You didn't answer the question. Or you did, and you agree with me, but don't want to appear like you agree with me. Please read my response to Elizabeth @50. In particular, see if you can help her draw where the circles in Meyer's 7.3 ought to be. So as long a Meyer's phyla each include an ancestral species and it's descendants they qualify as a taxon. So where's the howler?Mung_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Let me know either here or at TSZ what you disagree with.
As you wish. :) I disagree with your entire approach of ignoring evidence inconsistent with your thesis and cherry-picking one half of one diagram and hanging your entire argument on it. "he circles only the tips of his drawings, not the whole branch." Read on - diagram by diagram: Figure 2.8 on Page 36. Two groups are explicitly labelled phylum and those two obviously include all the sub groups. There are no circles to be found, at the tips or anywhere else. No "howler" here. But Elizabeth ignores this contrary evidence because it dosn't fit her narrative. Figure 2.11 on Page 42. Family #1 is clearly drawn to include Genus #1 and Genus #2, and Family #2 is clearly drawn to include Genus #3 and Genus #4. just how far down the tree do you think he should have drawn the "family" circles and the "genus" circles? No "howler" here. But Elizabeth ignores this contrary evidence because it dosn't fit her narrative. Figure 2.12 on Page 43. Once again Meyer usesthe term phylum. Two groups, which both clearly include classes and genera. There are no circles to be found, at the tips or anywhere else. No "howler" here. But Elizabeth ignores this contrary evidence because it dosn't fit her narrative. So what does Elizabeth do? She cherry-picks a diagrem from Chaper 7. Figure 7.3 on Page 144. Even that diagram contradicts her narrative, but in true "skeptic" style she ignores that contrary evidence as well and forges ahead. On the right side of the diagram Meyer has, you guessed it, a phylum. It includes classes which include species. No "howler" here. But on the left hand side Elizabeth spies all the evidence she needs to convince her that the book can be ignored. 1. There are groups labelled phyla, not phylum. 2. While each "phyla" is drawn to include classes, the circles representing the "phyla" do not extend all the way to wherever on the drawing Elizabeth thinks they should extend. This is Meyer's "howler." And from this meagre bit of "evidence" Elizabeth claims to know that Meyer is ignorant of phylogenetics. That's a bit of a stretch, imo.Mung_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Then how do you explain the fossils evidence found in the geological scale? http://www.roiscience.com/evol.....record.gif It’s evidence for evolution, not creationism (unless of course you are advocating billions of different creation events).
The YEC global flood model with a catastrophic burial sequence based on vertical ecological zones has considerable explanatory power for the fossil record. (even evolutionists will admit the fossil record is characterized by rapid burials) Look at the Geologic Column you referenced. First we find ecosystems inhabiting the ocean floor, then progressively bottom-feeding ecosystems, getting more mobile higher up the column, then progressively more amphibious, then the introduction of low-lying terrestrial ecosystems... many animals occupying the topmost parts of the geologic column, are also animals that inhabited or had access to higher altitude environments. (big, highly-mobile mammals, birds, intelligent humans) Marine mammals are typically fast, powerful deepwater swimmers. (they don't crawl around on the ocean floor) They would be expected to be able to swim with rising waters, in which case many would have been deposited on upper layers as the waters receded off of the continents. Same scenario with deepwater fish like big Sharks, which don't show up until roughly the same time as Whales. However, smaller sharks that fed in the shallows appear very early on in the column. Certainly this model has problems and puzzles and is based on a measure of speculation (just like Evolution), but it does explain the general pattern we see. It is also far more successful in explaining why we find a constant pattern of sudden 'explosions' of types of ecosystems, and prolonged stasis before those ecosystems disappear.... why we find so many "living fossils" of supposedly 300-500 Mya creatures that have gone virtually unchanged.... etc.lifepsy_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species. - Michael Behe
Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

lifepsy
The hierarchy was constructed by fossil data. It did not predict it. And now evolutionists act vindicated that a well-established general pattern continues to hold up.
No, the hierarchy was not constructed originally by fossil data. Linnaeus' taxonomy was based on extant organisms.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Mung
Do you mean to say that a phylum must include all no longer extant organisms which are believed to have given rise to the living members of the phylum?
Yes, including fossils of extinct organisms. Meyer makes it clear that assigns extinct fossil organisms to taxa but still arbitrarily circles the ends of his branches in his diagrams.
Just what do you think the “tips” represent, if not the living members of the phylum?
Well, Meyer certainly seems to think that the phyla existed in the Cambrian, so clearly he is not referring to living members.
I just find this bizarre, so I hope it’s just a failure to communicate precisely what you mean.
The problem is not mine, it's Meyer's. I agree it is bizarre.
So when we create phylogenetic trees from genetic sequences, where do those sequences come from, if not living organisms? And the relationships that result, are among the living, are they not.
Well, they come from both living organisms and fossils. What unites members of a specific taxon, both extant and extinct, is a set of shared features, even though there will be many members who have additional features. The younger the members, the more additional features they are likely to have, while the set of shared features is inferred to have been possessed by the common ancestor. However, when Meyer plots his diagram of what is supposed to have happened, and labels bits of it as "phylum", "genus", "family" etc, he circles only the tips of his drawings, not the whole branch.
Surely Meyer discusses the diagrams in the text. What dose he write that you find so off the wall wrong that you can call it a “howler.” Or is it just the drawings?
No, the text makes the same error, and the drawings are there to make his point - based on the same error. It's all in my post, so I won't write it out again. Let me know either here or at TSZ what you disagree with.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

We can also do it without killing the organisms (don’t forget plants, this isn’t just about animals), using DNA.
Yes, we can get lots of different patterns with DNA. You can completely shuffle the conventional evolutionary mammal tree around with microRNA's. But why include data that doesn't fit with your philosophy?
That is the extraordinary thing – you get a tree that then maps perfectly on to the fossil record.
From DNA? No, Elizabeth, you don't.
You don’t of course infer that modern people descended from modern fish – you infer that modern people and modern fish had a common ancestor that had the shared features of both, which are considerable
And that inference is obviously incorrect because we know culled genetic accidents don't build functionally complex structures. But again, why let science get in the way of a philosophical inference?
The nested hierarchies of extant organisms are a pattern to be explained. Common ancestry explains it beautifully,
Vertebrates share similar features because they were created and designed with similar functions within similar environments. (See? I can assert things, too) We see evidence of this with convergence of complex phenotypes and even genetic sequences across distant taxa. Common Descent doesn't predict or explain this data. Evolutionists just assert ad hoc that Natural Selection dunnit.
and the fossil data confirms the organisms predicted by the hierarchy
The hierarchy was constructed by fossil data. It did not predict it. And now evolutionists act vindicated that a well-established general pattern continues to hold up.lifepsy_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Do you mean to say that a phylum must include all no longer extant organisms which are believed to have given rise to the living members of the phylum? Any many species that dont' have descendants in modern populations. A taxon includes an ancestral species and all it's descendants. Obviously, molecular phylogenies are (usually) limited to extant species (the tips), but that doesn't change the definition of a taxon.wd400_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

lifepsy:
If every animal died at its current altitude and ecological zonation this instant, we could use their remnants to construct a fairly distinct tree as well
EL:
Yes, indeed, and that is what Linnaeus did. Linnaeus did not use fossils to construct his classification system, he used living organisms.
Mung_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Stephen Meyer, who actually wrote a book about the Cambrian – doesn’t understand phylogenetics either.
cantor:
What specifically does he not understand, Elizabeth?
Elizabeth Liddle:
He doesn’t understand that a taxon, for example a phylum, includes all organisms in the hierarchy/branch, not just the ones at the tip.
Do you mean to say that a phylum must include all no longer extant organisms which are believed to have given rise to the living members of the phylum? Just what do you think the "tips" represent, if not the living members of the phylum? I just find this bizarre, so I hope it's just a failure to communicate precisely what you mean. So when we create phylogenetic trees from genetic sequences, where do those sequences come from, if not living organisms? And the relationships that result, are among the living, are they not. Surely Meyer discusses the diagrams in the text. What dose he write that you find so off the wall wrong that you can call it a "howler." Or is it just the drawings?Mung_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

From "Nature" online, 25 Sept. 2013, Friedman and Brazeau write: "Over the past decade or so, new fossils and re-examinations of old ones have forced palaeontologists to look beyond the confines of traditional classifications and reconsider the coherence of textbook assemblages such as placoderms and acanthodians, and their relationships to extant gnathostomes. Perhaps more than any of these discoveries, Entelognathus demands a major rethink of where fossils fit relative to modern lineages, and how these living groups came to acquire their characteristic traits." Another writer noted that the find "turns it (the tree) on it's head". Personally, I do not have a major problem with phylogenetics, because the argument is (or should be) regarding the nature of the mechanism producing the pattern, and in particular the source of the variation. Nevertheless, this fossil represents a lineage that plausibly produced jaws by convergence, and if so, then it reasonable to assume that pre-programming is the source, and if preprogamming is the source, then it is reasonable to assume that some sort of design is involved, and if design is involved, there is good reason to find a way to test it. Either way, if more divergent gnathostomes from the same time frame, or earlier, are discovered, the origin of jaws will eventually be pushed back to the dawn of animal life. Irregardless, it is definitely premature to assert that UCA is a fact, and there is much space remaining for the consideration of UCA's (plural). As Dr. Meyer pointed out, the observed pattern is a sawed off tree and a distinct line drawn in the Cambrian, where the trunk is absent. If such a trunk ever existed, it must have been constructed by processes operating under much different rules than what has been observed to have been operating in biology over the past half billion years to the present day (or, we may have a forest rather than a tree).littlejohn_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

evolutionist say that even if the nature is more complex then a watch, we cant compare a living thing with a watch becuase a watch is not self replicat/ so if we add to this the characteristics of self replication and dna(organic)- the evoluton side dont have counter argument for this claim. now according to there logic if we see a self replicat watch with dna can evolve naturally. i try it by myself with many paople. and even they admit that the human is more complex then a watch. or a self replicat robot. 3) about the micro and macro argument- the evolutionst say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan. but there is no step wise from car to airplan. bacause if we need to add en angine it will need a lots of parts at once, so a self replicat car cant evolve into airpan. even by intellegent!(or even the car for the first place because it need wheels, engine, ect. or even add air conditioner in stepwise). so an animal cant evolve into another one with new system. 4)evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other. acctually its point to the same designer. 5)according to the evolution- a car can evolve in a close room. because if a human can evolve naturaly- he can evolve in the room and make a car. 6) about the transitional fossil - according to this logic, if we found a self replicat cars model 2068, 2069 and 2070. we need to say that they evolve from each other.mk_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

"I know there are a few YECs [at UD]." - Elisabeth How much do you know, Elisabeth? Does 30-40% of UDers constitute 'a few' or more than 'a few'? Among IDM leaders, the number shrinks to 5-10%. But here at UD, YECism is openly represented. Indeed, it is part of the IDM's 'policy' to welcome YECism and the money that comes with it from USAmerican evangelical churches with open arms.Gregory_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

The fossil record is 100% Evolution-free. In all the centuries, it never gave one iota of data in direct support of evolution.
Then how do you explain the fossils evidence found in the geological scale? http://www.roiscience.com/evolution-vs-creationism-facts/Content/fossil-record.gif It's evidence for evolution, not creationism (unless of course you are advocating billions of different creation events).TheisticEvolutionist_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

I’m actually surprised to see so much skepticism about Common Descent here. I thought ID was mainly based on skepticism about how the new features emerged, rather than about whether they emerged, although I know there are a few YECs.
ID is a HUGE tent!!Jerad_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Lifepsy
If every animal died at its current altitude and ecological zonation this instant, we could use their remnants to construct a fairly distinct tree as well
Yes, indeed, and that is what Linnaeus did. We can also do it without killing the organisms (don't forget plants, this isn't just about animals), using DNA. That is the extraordinary thing - you get a tree that then maps perfectly on to the fossil record. You don't of course infer that modern people descended from modern fish - you infer that modern people and modern fish had a common ancestor that had the shared features of both, which are considerable, but without many of the non-shared features. The nested hierarchies of extant organisms are a pattern to be explained. Common ancestry explains it beautifully, and the fossil data confirms the organisms predicted by the hierarchy - e.g. organisms with the shared characters of both humans and modern fish, but without many of the non-shared features, at a position in the geological column that fits the inferred timeline. I'm actually surprised to see so much skepticism about Common Descent here. I thought ID was mainly based on skepticism about how the new features emerged, rather than about whether they emerged, although I know there are a few YECs.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Well, one person's inflammatory statement is another person's calm and accurate statement, I guess. Anyway, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post as a personal attack, I apologise for my snarky response. No, I haven't corresponded with Meyer. However, from his diagram you can see he does not. Do you want to defend his diagram?Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply