Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apparently, archaeopteryx has been restored as “first bird” again. Maybe.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.:

“Archaeopteryx lost its exalted place in bird evolution,” says Lee.

But, this new evolutionary tree presented a problem because it placed archaeopteryx in a group of dinosaurs that either didn’t fly at all or glided in a way that was not bird-like.

Lee says, it meant that bird flight most probably evolved more than once and archaeopteryx possibly evolved flight independently of birds in a case of what’s called “convergent evolution”.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, such scenarios are not particularly elegant. So Lee carried out a new analysis of the data to see what he could find.

He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent. If anyone believes it.

Comments
"Copernicus was wrong about the shape of orbits." Not only about that. For his heliocentric system Copernicus gave the following reason: "for thus says the great magician Hermes Trismegistus" (although I can't say it is a verbatim quote).Eugene S
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
Hi Petushka, I'm not 100% sure what the point of this post is dude, sorry. It's not really a refutation of what I'm saying, nor does it support GinoB really. It's... just kinda there... GinoB says IDers don't agree on everything. This is true. He also suggests we can all be wrong. Also true. Evolutionary Materialists (or whatever you wanna call 'em) don't agree on everything about their theory - theres some jostling about free will and morality and what-really-came-from-what-when and so forth, right? And it's possible that the entire theory may be wrong headed (though I'm sure for the most part they/you think that probability is slim to none) right? The thing about both sides is, at bare minumum, their collective disagreements pale to what is agreed upoon. For ID, it's that things that look to be designed should be investigated to see if they are. For EvoMats (or whatever you wanna call 'em) it's that from a single cell, unguided, sprouted the diversity of life, right? Shoot, ID can be incrementally improved and, from where I'm sitting, has. So again, making that statement says more (to me) about GinoB's particular attitude towards ID (and YEC/OEC Creationism too, I guess) than anything else. In other words, simply saying 'you can be wrong' is annoyingly obvious. Of course we 'can' be wrong. ANY belief/theory/idea CAN be wrong. The question is: is it? GinoB thinks IDers are... As do you from what I've seen. Great. Why bring it up in a post like nobody knows that already?Sonfaro
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
There are degrees of being wrong. Copernicus was wrong about the shape of orbits. Newton was wrong about the stability of solar systems, and about how gravity works at high velocities. But some wrong positions can be incrementally improved. The Darwinian position has been incrementally corrected with horizontal gene transfer and neutral drift. But the common descent of multi-celled organisms survives.Petrushka
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
GinoB,
Yet when I ask you point blank if you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo, you refuse to answer. You put yourself in the gutter with all the other hypocrites, not me.
You just can't help yourself can you. It's only obvious that if someone is a Christian the designer would be the Christian God -- from their own personal standpoint that is, as ID draws no conclusions as to the nature of the designer. What you fail to comprehend is there are a broad range of people who contribute here on Uncommon Descent (and the ID community as a whole). These "hypocrites" you seek might very well exist, but you're firing scattershot at all and sundry in the hopes of hitting some assumed target.
Created species ex nihilo. i.e. poofed them into existence, intact and fully grown, à la Genesis. Not created the first self replicators 3+ billion years ago and let them evolve naturally into species.
On a side-note; ex nihilo is an interesting choice of words, because if you build upon that - ex nihilo nihil fit - even a chance universe would, at some point, require a "poof" occurrence. The universe had a beginning, only nothing can come from nothing, so what but an outside force could have facilitated that event. One might postpone the inevitable by invoking the multiverse but a "first cause" or ex nihilo event is an inescapable consequence of our very existence. That would put you in the category of "creationist" too would it not..Stu7
November 1, 2011
November
11
Nov
1
01
2011
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
Scott
What you are describing are observations of variations, similarities, and differences, nothing more. Evolution is an explanation of them, not an observation of them.
But surely an explanation is what we are looking for!  Of course you can’t observe evolution.  It happened millions of years ago, at a pace that is far too slow for human observation, and involved molecular events that hard enough to observe today.  That is why we use the standard process of hypothesising an explanation and examining the indirect data which we have discussed above – all of which applies to a vast range of evolutionary events. What you are doing is a bit like saying we can’t make justify any explanations of how the earth’s geology because we couldn’t observe sedimentary rocks being laid down etc. Which links with your comments about ID: I wrote:
Meanwhile ID has zero hypotheses about how this change happened and actually rules itself out from producing such hypotheses.
And you responded
Especially after years of discussing this very subject, I fail to see why that is a problem. I can list countless theories that don’t address the mechanical causes of biological diversity. It’s pretty much nearly every scientific theory, ever.
Well yes – but most scientific theories don’t put themselves forward as explanations for the current diversity of life.  Are you saying ID is not an explanation of the diversity of life?  That Meyer is wrong when he describes it as an inference to the best explanation?  Because if it is meant to be an explanation of the diversity of life then surely it should at least hypothesise how at least one diversification event happened?    markf
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
-"True, I haven’t been here very long and haven’t seen all the various religious flavors under the ID big tent." Not everyone on this site who supports ID is religious. -"One of the (many) problems for ID is there is no one cohesive position." As far as I can tell ID's only position is that if things were designed it's possible to detect that design. I'm not sure it has to be anything else more than that - that seems a simple enough place to start looking for ways to test. And the Poof 6000 years ago peeps are the Creationists you're looking for. There are a couple on this site, true. But they usually tell you up front (ie Mr. Robert Byers[sp?]). -"There are as many different variations of ID as there are IDers. They all can’t be right, but they sure all can be wrong." Not trying to do a turnabout thingie but... well... this can be said about any position ever dude. So... that doesn't really say much aside from your personal opinion.Sonfaro
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
Sonfaro
Then I don’t think you’ve been on this site very long.
True, I haven't been here very long and haven't seen all the various religious flavors under the ID big tent.
”…create the laws then let things run, knowing what the outcome would be – being omnipotent and all that.” Isn’t that the Theistic Evolutionist stance right there in a nut shell? God set up how things would run and waited till a species became smart enough to interact with?
Pretty much, as far as my understanding of it goes.
As far as I can tell, and maybe I’m wrong, that’s one of the differences between ID and TE: whether the designer/God continued to work with his creation and whether that work left traces we could find. TE’s would say no.
One of the (many) problems for ID is there is no one cohesive position. Some say *poofed* 6000 years ago, some say evolution was God- started 3MYA and left alone to run, some say He still tinkers every day, some say the genome of all living things was 'front-loaded' and programmed to produce humans. There are as many different variations of ID as there are IDers. They all can't be right, but they sure all can be wrong.GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Then I don't think you've been on this site very long. Also: -"...create the laws then let things run, knowing what the outcome would be – being omnipotent and all that." Isn't that the Theistic Evolutionist stance right there in a nut shell? God set up how things would run and waited till a species became smart enough to interact with? As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong, that's one of the differences between ID and TE: whether the designer/God continued to work with his creation and whether that work left traces we could find. TE's would say no.Sonfaro
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
You mean let evolution run its course with the occasional nudge? No, personally I wouldn't use the term Creationist. Sounds closer to theistic evolution, but that may be splitting hairs. I haven't met anyone who has argued that "tweak" position though. Seems to be all *poof* or create the laws then let things run, knowing what the outcome would be - being omnipotent and all that.GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Interesting. So if someone believed God created the first replicators, but then continued to tweak them to his liking, you wouldn't consider them creationist then?Sonfaro
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Sonfaro
Wait, all a ‘Creationist’ is to you is someone who believes in a christian God who created things from nothing?
Created species ex nihilo. i.e. poofed them into existence, intact and fully grown, à la Genesis. Not created the first self replicators 3+ billion years ago and let them evolve naturally into species.GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
-"Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo..." Wait, all a 'Creationist' is to you is someone who believes in a christian God who created things from nothing? Even Christian Darwinists believe that dude. I mean they think the process was Darwinian, but still... So basically, EVERYONE who believes in God is a creationist to you?Sonfaro
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
It’s not a sidebar. It’s a sideshow. Within one post you “accuse” me of Christianity and then ID of being a front for atheism.
LOL! It's not a sideshow, it's a one-man clown circus and you're wearing the big red nose. No one 'accused' you of anything. I *ASKED* you who you thought the Intelligent Designer was, but you weren't honest enough to answer. Not a single person mentioned atheism except you, apparently as a dodge to direct attention away from your other dishonest shenanigans like quote-mining. Bottom line - I was 100% right in referring to you as a Creationist. You aren't here to discuss ID because you duck all questions about ID except to tell me ID can't explain anything. You're just here to flaunt your scientific ignorance and attack without understanding a well supported scientific theory. You might as well be posting on RaptureReady.GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
GinoB, It's not a sidebar. It's a sideshow. Within one post you "accuse" me of Christianity and then ID of being a front for atheism. I've made my point with you. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it, but really I do it for the sake of readers who perhaps deal with your type at work or school. My advice to them - reason a few times to gauge that person's sincerity, and then ignore them.ScottAndrews2
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
(I was going for a little Vulcan/Kwai Chang Caine there. How did I do?)
Not too good. You still failed to answer the question if you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo. That would settle this whole sidebar as to if I'm correct or not in referring to you as a Creationist. I guess you have to toe the ID party line though: "IXSNAY ON THE ODGAY!"GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Name-calling is tempting, and I'm sure I give in to a bit of mockery. But even that loses its humor and just starts to feel cruel, even when the other person seems to crave it. The words that express our ideas are the most powerful we have. Nothing else will succeed where they fail or pull where they cannot lead. (I was going for a little Vulcan/Kwai Chang Caine there. How did I do?)ScottAndrews2
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Yet when I ask you point blank if you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo, you refuse to answer. You put yourself in the gutter with all the other hypocrites, not me.GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
GinoB, Even YEC accepts speciation, because speciation boils down to slight variation of the original.Joseph
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
GinoB,
I have no problems at all with anyone’s personal religious beliefs. It’s the hypocrites who lie about them to push a political (not scientific) agenda that frost me.
You can look high or low on this forum or any other, and you won't find anyone with less of a political agenda then me. And I'm certain that you have no idea what I believe. Right behind that I don't think you have any idea what you believe. It's not me or anyone else. You're just 'frosted.'ScottAndrews2
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
It doesn’t take fifteen minutes to read the abstracts and determine that the titles were not misleading – they are about variations among cichlid fishes.
LOL! So you're another one of those guys with ESP who can tell the contents of a paper without reading it. Not only that, but you stooped to quote-mining one small piece of info on studied species in one particular lake (out of dozens) in one paper. How honest of you. Did you happen to read at least this far in the Seehausen paper?
Abstract: Theoretically, divergent selection on sensory systems can cause speciation through sensory drive. However, empirical evidence is rare and incomplete. Here we demonstrate sensory drive speciation within island populations of cichlid fish. We identify the ecological and molecular basis of divergent evolution in the cichlid visual system, demonstrate associated divergence in male colouration and female preferences, and show subsequent differentiation at neutral loci, indicating reproductive isolation. Evidence is replicated in several pairs of sympatric populations and species. Variation in the slope of the environmental gradients explains variation in the progress towards speciation: speciation occurs on all but the steepest gradients. This is the most complete demonstration so far of speciation through sensory drive without geographical isolation. Our results also provide a mechanistic explanation for the collapse of cichlid fish species diversity during the anthropogenic eutrophication of Lake Victoria."
Why golly, it's got all of the things you say don't exist! Mechanisms for speciation, formation of biological diversity, empirically documented genetic changes accumulated through selection. Maybe if you tried actually reading the papers themselves instead of just quote-mining the abstracts you wouldn't be so clueless. But you won't. All we need now for you to complete the Creationist hat trick is to tell us "but they're still FISH!! I demand to see a carrot evolve into a cow with wings and do barrel-rolls over the pasture!!"GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Onlookers, Note kairosfocus' public one-sided admonition to GinoB while in the meantime this thread (and the site) is being constantly spammed with creationist propaganda and Christian music. Truly this is hypocrisy. And, let us do a search for the word 'moron' in this thread alone and then we shall surely see from where the 'verbal grenades' are in fact being launched. END.Fossfur
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
GB: Please, stop tossing unnecessary verbal grenades around and at people. All that grenades are good for is blowing things up and hurting people. A much better approach is to actually address the evidence at stake, on the merits in light of epistemological considerations, i.e. what warrants, to what degree, given knowledge claims. Where, scientific claims in general reduce to abductive inferences to best [current] explanation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
GinoB,
Tell us all Scott, how did you manage to read all three cichlid papers in the 15 minutes since I posted them?
It doesn't take fifteen minutes to read the abstracts and determine that the titles were not misleading - they are about variations among cichlid fishes.
I read them all before, which is how I knew exactly where to find them.
Stop, I'm getting chills. Did you read as far as this?
Despite the established ecological and neutral genetic differences, we lack estimates of gene sequence diversity between the benthic and limnetic species. Further, we have no information about how divergent natural selection may have affected these species’ genomes within the very short evolutionary time span since their divergence from a common ancestor.
IOW, they are comparing genomes between varying cichlid fishes, which, no surprise, are different. But the authors admittedly have no idea what role natural selection might have played, if any. They are saying this, not me. In short, they are holding up two fishes and telling us what is different between them. They are not offering a narrative of how they might have evolved. They don't even claim to. I would love to see you describe in your own words what you think these papers explain. Apparently you're one of those people who gets all googly-eyed at the sight of a research paper, any research paper, and judges them by their very existence, not their content. You're a useful tool for demonstrating to onlookers the inability of darwinists to articulate any explanation of any evolutionary change in evolutionary terms. That's how I justify the time I've just wasted.ScottAndrews2
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
To illustrate my point, you produce papers referencing cichlid fish, cichlid fish, and what was that other one? Oh yes, chichlid fish. Throw them in a pond and they’ll start mating with each other.
Tell us all Scott, how did you manage to read all three cichlid papers in the 15 minutes since I posted them? I read them all before, which is how I knew exactly where to find them. How do you know they don't answer your demands when you never read them? You ready to discuss the details of the cichlid papers? Or are you going to keep making whiny excuses as you run skittering for the door?GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
GinoB, You must think I can't keep my eye on the ball. I stated earlier that in any case where you do bring actual evolutionary mechanisms together to posit an explanation, you are forced to drop out another component - that such mechanisms can explain significant changes, real diversity. It was plain English. Did you forget it? To illustrate my point, you produce papers referencing cichlid fish, cichlid fish, and what was that other one? Oh yes, chichlid fish. Throw them in a pond and they'll start mating with each other. I have predicted exactly what you would attempt to pass of as an explanation before you did, and told you in advance why it would be insufficient. Not bad for a liar.ScottAndrews2
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Where is the selection? How did selection apply to any particular genetic change, or how did drift? That is the evolutionary explanation. It’s not wrong. It’s missing.
The only thing missing is your honesty Scott. I've provided the information you say doesn't exist in at least six different papers now. You want to discuss the details of this one? It's about how cichlid fish diversified due to selection driven by genetically caused color differences. Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish It's open access so you can't use the excuse that you can't get to it. Ready to finally think for yourself for a change?GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Mark,
Let us take whales. We have fossil evidence for how the first whale developed and subsequent development. We have phylogenetic trees of whales and it is certainly possible to create cladistic DNA trees of whales...So all three legs of the stool apply to this example – as they do to a vast range of examples.
What you are describing are observations of variations, similarities, and differences, nothing more. Evolution is an explanation of them, not an observation of them. Where is the selection? How did selection apply to any particular genetic change, or how did drift? That is the evolutionary explanation. It's not wrong. It's missing.ScottAndrews2
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Stu7
Why do you feel the need to only address Biblical Creationists with your posts on this site?
The particular post you refer to was a response to ScottAndrews2 who AFAICT is a Biblical Creationist. I have no problems at all with anyone's personal religious beliefs. It's the hypocrites who lie about them to push a political (not scientific) agenda that frost me.GinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
GinoB wrote: "My post wasn’t addressed to all IDers, just the ones who ARE Biblical Creationists but are too hypocritical to admit it." Why do you feel the need to only address Biblical Creationists with your posts on this site? It seems then the chip is on your shoulder, and your beef is with Christians/Creationists who support ID ;) I'm a hypocrite hey (a Christian), not sure how you reach that conclusion.. but I won't derail this thread any further, as Uncommon Descent is the one of the few sites on the interwebs that remains (mostly) free from the usual flame-filled drivel that often accompanies origins.Stu7
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Fixed first link Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fishGinoB
October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply