Two challenges for KL – (fossil) Lucy’s defender

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 3, 2011

Human evolution}

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

A most interesting discussion has got started here at “But ‘Lucy’ herself is mostly an artifact”. Commenter KL got it going, I suspect, by observing that

I certainly don’t consider you hicks. However, my spouse and associates are primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists. It’s strange to come here and see their work dismissed as a just so story. Some of them have been in the field extensively and have published many, many papers. Are you guys saying that somehow all these people are simply mistaken?

Yes, it is quite possible.

My question is, is there anything fronted by “evolution researchers” that KL wouldn’t believe? How about the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution? Or Marc “Well, the monkeys talk to me!” Hauser? How about any single item on this list? Is there nothing that KL would even wonder about? Does he know that E. O. Wilson has retracted his own kin selection theory?

Two things: The public of a free society is not stupid. When we see a parade of amazing nonsense – marketed as evolution – we wisely don’t believe any of it. I don’t bother sorting through it for the same reason as I don’t scan the tabloids to see if anything in them is true.

It is no use berating us, let alone blaming us for low science scores. Revisit your strategy.

And second, would KL be willing to read The Nature of Nature, to understand what the controversy is really about? Then we could have a serious discussion.

(Note: KL has a spouse and associates in primate research, and I have a number of relatives and friends in medicine. That does not commit me to any particular theory, no matter how widely espoused, and a good thing too: Look how much medicine has changed. )

Comments

KF, The facts are the fossils. How do you explain them?JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

KF Reconstructions of Lucy et al and sequences or trees of claimed related fossils and homologies may be interesting, Interesting? but absent a credible, empirically well warranted mechanism of transformation of body plans, they are speculation not serious evidence. Then it's speculation. But it's speculation that you cannot match in detail. So, speculate away..... Likewise when we see placental kangaroo rats and marsupial kangaroo rats, or analogous wolves like that etc, that too should give us pause. Actual scientists supports their claims with evidence. So, it is reasonable for me to ask for empirically backed evidence of the proposed mechanisms that answers to the body plan level information generation challenge. Then why don't you explain the facts (the fossils) with your preferred paradigm? Now, it is almost a trusism: if you had an answer on the merits, you would have gleefully given it. The same can be said of you. You can't explain a single fossil with Intelligent Design, or you would have already. Handwaving about "common design" is meaningless unless you can test your claims. The astute onlooker can therefore take your “how dare you challenge the EXPERTS” response just above as a naked appeal to modest in the face of claimed authority. But challenging the experts would consist of addressing their specific points, not making vast claims about "islands of functionality" and "body plan level information generation challenge". Address the points that the experts are making, not the ones you think they are really making and perhaps you can have been said to challenge them. Moreover, in this context, there is a major question on the assumptions, and a major unmet challenge to answer to the source of required functional information, as well as to empirical evidence of the claimed mechanism. Whatever the mechanism the fossils exist. Explain them a better way then the currently accepted explanation and your explanation would become the default in no time! But you can't...... I expect such empirical evidence for key explanatory models in my home discipline, and I have a right to expect it in anything called science. I image your home discipline does not use CSI then. In such a context, FYFI, I have an EPISTEMIC RIGHT to incredulity when such a standard is not met. Yet there is an enormous body of evidence supporting naturalistic evolution (of various stripes) and yet you remain an ID supporter. Odd. It's almost like a prior belief colors your subsequent interpretations of evidence, whatever that evidence may be. And, I have a further right to draw a yet stronger conclusion when I am then met with personal dismissal as I have just now seen. Just as you have dismissed the life's work of KL, KF's spouse and associates, primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists.JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

JR: I passed back after lunch; only to see myself accused of evasion. This, after I have responded on the merits and on specific points, across at least two threads for KL, and more for you and MG [including when I was on a high intensity trip that really should have got more of my focus]. That is revealing, and sadly so. It does not speak well of you. FYI, I have long since documented, in detail and from multiple relevant and credible sources [such as not only Lewontin summing up the views of Sagan and a great many other scientists, but -- as reading on will show -- US NAS and NSTA etc] that there is a major problem of a priori materialism in origins science, which biases conclusions, including on how fossils or gross anatomy or molecular level observations are interpreted. Further to this, I took time to point out that the difference between the DNA complement of an ape-like animal and a human being crosses the FSCI threshold, where the issue of finding islands of function in config spaces on chance plus necessity is an important, and it seems largely unanswered challenge. This is not an evasion or a distraction, it is the heart of the question. Reconstructions of Lucy et al and sequences or trees of claimed related fossils and homologies may be interesting, but absent a credible, empirically well warranted mechanism of transformation of body plans, they are speculation not serious evidence. Further to this, the reality of mosaic features on animals such as the Platypus, carry significant import for claimed homologies and derivations. After all, common design on a library of parts is an empirically well-warranted means of getting family resemblance, and when we see an animal with such a mosaic from all over the animal kingdom, that should give us pause. Likewise when we see placental kangaroo rats and marsupial kangaroo rats, or analogous wolves like that etc, that too should give us pause. And more. So, it is reasonable for me to ask for empirically backed evidence of the proposed mechanisms that answers to the body plan level information generation challenge. Now, it is almost a trusism: if you had an answer on the merits, you would have gleefully given it. The astute onlooker can therefore take your "how dare you challenge the EXPERTS" response just above as a naked appeal to modest in the face of claimed authority. Sorry, as I have pointed out long since, no authority is better than his or her facts, assumptions and reasoning. And, that is what I have asked for, but so far I have yet to see it. Moreover, in this context, there is a major question on the assumptions, and a major unmet challenge to answer to the source of required functional information, as well as to empirical evidence of the claimed mechanism. I expect such empirical evidence for key explanatory models in my home discipline, and I have a right to expect it in anything called science. In such a context, FYFI, I have an EPISTEMIC RIGHT to incredulity when such a standard is not met. And, I have a further right to draw a yet stronger conclusion when I am then met with personal dismissal as I have just now seen. Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

KF This last is an inference imposed on the actual facts And this is the point that you refuse to address. The facts are the fossils. How do you explain them? I'm interested to see how your explanation compares! If you don't have one then your "actual facts" comment rings somewhat hollow, don't you agree!JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

It appears that KF needs a reminder of what this thread is about. I certainly don’t consider you hicks. However, my spouse and associates are primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists. It’s strange to come here and see their work dismissed as a just so story. Some of them have been in the field extensively and have published many, many papers. Are you guys saying that somehow all these people are simply mistaken? In response 18 you say This last is an inference imposed on the actual facts, on a priori assumptions of what “must” have happened on evolutionary materialistic premises. Which I think we can say means, yes, you think all those people are simply mistaken. They are wrong. They have made assumptions based on evolutionary materialistic premises and therefore their conclusions are invalid. Yet you fail to offer any specific rebuttal, no details of what is wrong and how you know it. No attempt to engage with the specifics of the matter. It almost seems as no matter the topic you can give the same stock answers. Your comment at 32 follows the same lines. Various possible answers, exist, but they are separate form the key point that there are some features of the natural world, that — on experience and reliable observations of cause-effect patterns — show credible signs that they are produced by design as a material causal factor. And? Do you have something specific to say about "Lucy" and the life's work of multiple people? You'd better think of something soon or dismissing an entire group of peoples life's work without a shred of evidence is going to start to look might arrogant. PS: The thread has faded because KL, after receiving replies, walked off. I know it might appear that way to you but there is an extensively documented alternative to that inference. Perhaps you should consider again why so many opponents and threads "fade away". You comment at 39 is yet more of the same. 8 –> Further yet, such FSCO/I naturally clusters on isolated islands of function in large config spaces — your Russian library book is not a likely outcome of an explosion in a printery in Moscow. And? Again, what does that have to do with the question? Your entire comment appears to sum up to "some things are designed, I say life is designed and therefore the conclusions of that group of people are wrong, whatever they actually are". Perhaps if you were to engage on the specifics of the subject raised rater then the topic you want to engage on instead you'd be more convincing in your arguments. Right now you are arguing against something that nobody has raised. KL says it best: I remind you that the original thread was a claim regarding the fossil record. A specific claim that I asked to be supported with evidence. Anthropologists make hypotheses based on really good familiarity with the fossils and understanding of comparative anatomy. The original thread did not mention cellular biology, molecular biology, metaphysics, or computer programming. Just fossils. So, if you are going to make that claim, and the subsequent claim that anthropologists have wasted their entire careers chasing a fantasy, from a scientific standpoint you should offer a better explanation of the specifics (age, features, distribution) of the fossil record. To divert to another topic is evasion. Each and every reply of yours KF is pure evasion. Therefore it's with no surprise that I read your 42 here is nothing I saw in 14 that would trigger a specific ban on content, it is all a rehashing of stuff debated to death here long since. , Perhaps, but not by you. If the theory of evolution on chance plus necessity only does not account properly for empirical facts [such as was already pointed out to KL, but ignored i the above], then regardless of its popularity among the new magisterium and their publicists, it is not well grounded. So, yes, you believe that the group of people in question have wasted their lives because all their conclusions are wrong. Their conclusions are "not well grounded". And we know this how? Well you told us in the previous sentence! KL needs to simply attend to things already said in this and the previous threads over the past several days. Yes indeed. You are wrong and the reason why has already been stated, just go read it already. Win many arguments at work like that do you? And of course in 44 you put the cherry on the unreasonableness cake: And, if you do so successfully, apply for the origin of life $ million prize, and a Nobel prize too. Publish the paper that writes it up, and your fame and fortune will be assured. (Just, don’t beg questions in the paper.) Yep, until you explain the origin of life then you can come to no "well grounded" conclusions. So, again, KL's spouse and associates, primate researchers, physical anthropologists, geologists and archeologists are all wrong. All because evolutionists can't explain the origin of life. I don't think so. In short, there is a big elephant in teh middle of the room you are not addressing, and are distracting form every attempt to point to him. You got that right. It's just not the one you are thinking of.JemimaRacktouey_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

KF and onlookers: KL's latest post now number 31 in the current sequence has made it through. Naturally the goofy moderation-limbo system has now re-ordered everything after that so... just figure it out for yourself.utidjian_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 44 Thanks for taking my last post in good humour. I am the first to admit that I have no answer as to why the Universe came into being, how life arose, and why I'm here - theological explanations aside, of course. What I'm asking is how "Intelligent Design" offers a better explanation than the appearance of life and evolution just being part of the fabric of the Universe - which answer seems to satisfy "theistic evolutionists", deists and even my atheist friends alike. If ID can truly demonstrate that evolution and/or the beginnings of life are a scientific impossibility, then of course there is a Nobel prize in that too... But to my mind we see complexity arising from simplicity all the time. If you insist that complexity can only arise from more complexity, I don't see where you stop. If your position is that the ultimate designer (let's call him God for the sake of argument...) is simple and transcendent (per. the FAQ) then we're back to the question - does nature work or doesn't it? Certainly, people make overblown claims for their understanding of evolution all the time - just as they do for their understandings of physics, psychology, medicine and even theology. To get back to the thread, it's a shame KL hasn't been able to speak for himself here...idcurious_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

It looks like my last (#31) spent FAR less time in moderation. I remind you that the original thread was a claim regarding the fossil record. A specific claim that I asked to be supported with evidence. Anthropologists make hypotheses based on really good familiarity with the fossils and understanding of comparative anatomy. The original thread did not mention cellular biology, molecular biology, metaphysics, or computer programming. Just fossils. So, if you are going to make that claim, and the subsequent claim that anthropologists have wasted their entire careers chasing a fantasy, from a scientific standpoint you should offer a better explanation of the specifics (age, features, distribution) of the fossil record. To divert to another topic is evasion.KL_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Popping by Having had to sort out a 3-way email and mailing issue. Please work your way through the weak argument correctives, top, right. Slime moulds have in them cells with DNA, which expresses a sophisticated digital informaiton processing suystem, riddled with signs of design as discussed many times. They are not so far as I know, known to produce artifacts. Ant colonies do. Bees do, and do symbolic analog communication [the dance]. And People do, with sophisticated digital symbolic comunication. You need to show how the evolutionary materialistic answer adderesses the challenge of finding islands of function in large config spaces beyond the search capacity of the observed cosmos acting without intelligent intervention or control. Address the infinite monkeys issue in so doing. And, if you do so successfully, apply for the origin of life $ million prize, and a Nobel prize too. Publish the paper that writes it up, and your fame and fortune will be assured. (Just, don't beg questions in the paper.) Intelligences are known to routinely do that task of moving to such islands,a s a characteristic capacity and sign of such intelligence. In short, there is a big elephant in teh middle of the room you are not addressing, and are distracting form every attempt to point to him. Ah gawn . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 38
your Russian library book is not a likely outcome of an explosion in a printery in Moscow.
No-one says life arrived fully formed out of any explosion.
Last time I watched ants cooperate to move a large dead insect, they seemed pretty capable of cooperative, creative, and indeed intelligent albeit limited acts.
Individually, are ants so intelligent? What about slime moulds? They show remarkable levels of co-operation - but make very poor conversationists.
11 –> Moving up to our level, we are obviously derivative as existing intelligences, and we look like sophisticated C-chemistry tech robots to me.
If by "derivative", you meant building upon countless earlier steps over billions of years, I'd agree with you.
Or, ARE YOU IMPLICITLY ASSUMING THAT PER LEWONTINIAN A PRIORI EVOLUTIONARY MATERIALISM ANTS ETC COULD ONLY HAVE COME ABOUT BY CHANCE PLUS NECESSITY?
Certainly not... But if you have an explanation of how something more complicated than ants is required to design ants, that did not in itself require design by something more complex, then I'd really like to hear it. Or is it more complicated designers all the way down? :)
Honest ignorance is better than brazen ideology
Amen to that.idcurious_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

UT: I have spent more time than I should here this AM. There is nothing I saw in 14 that would trigger a specific ban on content, it is all a rehashing of stuff debated to death here long since. (I have no time to respond again just now, the tyrannical clock imperiously commands. The remark can be rebutted point by point, e.g. KL needs to simply attend to things already said in this and the previous threads over the past several days. If the theory of evolution on chance plus necessity only does not account properly for empirical facts [such as was already pointed out to KL, but ignored i the above], then regardless of its popularity among the new magisterium and their publicists, it is not well grounded. Honest ignorance is better than brazen ideology and shadow shows that paper over material gaps. ) I suspect -- but don't know for sure [and on this I certainly do not speak for UD] -- there is some hiccup with his account, or that there are key words he has used that trigger problems. I certainly went through a few rounds of that here, and ended up being a regular customer over at Akismet. I really have to move NOW. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

UT: Is this a current experience [last 48 hrs or so, e.g.]? Since you are not being held up in mod, would you be able to FWD such a post from the past 48 hrs? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

KF @ 36: (and onlookers) If you look upthread at comment number 14 you will find the latest from KL after some dozens of hours in moderation.utidjian_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

IDC:
kairosfocus @ 31 experience and reliable observations of cause-effect patterns — show credible signs that they are produced by design as a material causal factor. [IDC:] Without being able to test anything about the “designer”, isn’t this begging the question? Do you think ants “design” anthills?
1 --> Walk into a library, say in the University of Moscow. 2 --> Pick up a book at random. 3 --> Can you, without being able to test anything about the designer[s] [writer, editor, publisher, printer, book binder etc], credibly know that the book is an ART-ifact, one that shows functionally specific, complex Wicken wiring diagram integrated organisation of components, starting with the string data structure of the text, and related information? And going on to the codex organisation? 4 --> Do you now see just how complex and loaded your question is? 5 --> We know a lot about designers, and we routinely recognise instances of design on signs of design. 6 --> Such signs of design are predicated on our knowing a lot about designers, in general, on which we see that there are certain characteristics that designers have, and that their designs have. 7 --> Further, we have a longstanding analysis of causal factors, across chance, necessity and art, that highlights characteristic features of each: necessity leads to natural regularities under similar circumstances, chance contingency, to stochastic variability, and choice contingency to functional, purposeful organisation. 8 --> Further yet, such FSCO/I naturally clusters on isolated islands of function in large config spaces -- your Russian library book is not a likely outcome of an explosion in a printery in Moscow. Such large search spaces are in our general experience, traversed to the islands of function based on purpose, knowledge, skill and opportunity to effect. 9 --> You cite ants as though ants are not capable at least in principle of being self-moved, creative agents. Last time I watched ants cooperate to move a large dead insect, they seemed pretty capable of cooperative, creative, and indeed intelligent albeit limited acts. 10 --> Ant nests, termite mounds, and beehives seem pretty well organised and complex to me. So, the only question that arises is where the required intelligence etc come from, as would arise if I were to see an iron, plastic and silicon technology army of cooperative mini robots. 11 --> Moving up to our level, we are obviously derivative as existing intelligences, and we look like sophisticated C-chemistry tech robots to me. 12 --> We are admittedly intelligent and capable of imagination, creativity, etc, so why not ants, bees and termites, even as a collaborative entity? 13 --> Or, ARE YOU IMPLICITLY ASSUMING THAT PER LEWONTINIAN A PRIORI EVOLUTIONARY MATERIALISM ANTS ETC COULD ONLY HAVE COME ABOUT BY CHANCE PLUS NECESSITY? 14 --> The evidence, to my mind, points to design, AND that designed entities in some cases can be autonomous designers in their own right. If us, why not the hard-working, industrious ants that Solomon ever so long ago told us to watch and learn from? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

KF @ 36: Speaking for myself, I know they are being held up because KL told me so. He has pasted some of his held up posts elsewhere and sure enough... some of them eventually appear here out of order, which is proof that they are held in moderation.utidjian_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

JS: You are claiming that KL's comments are currently being held up. Is this true, and how do you know so? I am a ware of such being the case some days back, and as far as I could see this was resolved. Certainly, that is what Mrs O'Leary indicated. If there is still a moderation and undue delay problem, do you know on which grounds, or basis -- other than triggering good old Ms Akismet [which has happened to me to the point where at one point I was on personal speaking terms with a tech support guy there]. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

And am I the only one here interested in hearing from KL?
I am, as well. If it is true that KL's comments are being held for up to two days, then it is a darn shame. Especially when mean-spirited (and sometimes vulgar) posts from ID supporters go right through.jon specter_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Joseph @ 30
BTW ID oes not argue against Univrsal Common Descent- Dr Behe and others accept it.
Indeed I said that myself.
Also I can use evidence for “common descnt” to support a common design.
Where is your testable evidence for this designer? I understand the "theistic evolutionist" position - but I'm unclear how you can argue at the same time (1) that natural processes cannot produce life but (2) a designer can use natural process to design things. In other words, how can we posit a "designer" that we can test for scientifically, that Occam's razor wouldn't suggest is a needless additional step? If life processes are part of the Universe, why do we need an additional designer?
What UCD lacks is genetic evidence to support the alleged transformations.
Whether we like it or not, most geneticists disagree. There is overwhelming evidence that there *are* relationships. We don't know entirely how they happened - but then we don't know entirely lots of things :) -- kairosfocus @ 31
experience and reliable observations of cause-effect patterns — show credible signs that they are produced by design as a material causal factor.
Without being able to test anything about the "designer", isn't this begging the question? Do you think ants "design" anthills? ...And am I the only one here interested in hearing from KL?idcurious_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

KF @ 32:
PS: The thread has faded because KL, after receiving replies, walked off.
Not true GEM. Apparently you are blissfully unaware that he has been trying to comment all along. He has not "walked off", but has, in fact, been commenting since this thread began. Occasionally one of his comments makes it through but some have been held "in moderation" for 30-40 hours or more. I suppose when the admins at UD get around to it they can release the comments.utidjian_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

PS: The thread has faded because KL, after receiving replies, walked off.kairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

IDC:
If some ID theorists want to provide an alternative explanation to Common Descent it’s for them to provide evidence for that. That, too, I’d really like to see.
Separate issue from design theory, this is a question over design mechanisms, to which the answer is, tehre is more than one way to skin a cat. So, what is the way to test possibilities, e.g. use of nanobots or even viri to inject novel genes inclusive of regulatory networks? Various possible answers, exist, but they are separate form the key point that there are some features of the natural world, that -- on experience and reliable observations of cause-effect patterns -- show credible signs that they are produced by design as a material causal factor. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

My last post (#14) did not show up until 15 other posts had come up, meaning that it spend well over 30 hours in moderation. This is really dishonest. In addition, my original question was never addressed. My spouse looked over this and the original thread and exclaimed that the anthropologists quoted here were taken out of context and did not mean what you implied. I stick by my original assertion that you do not yet have a theory that can supplant evolution in explaining the physical evidence, including th fossil record.KL_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

idcurious:
He’s not saying we can’t use cladistics to establish relationships – especially given the other evidence for common descent.
Cladistics is different from ancestor-descendent relationships. It foms sister groups and then tries to determine a common ancestor. Also I can use evidence for "common descnt" to support a common design. BTW ID oes not argue against Univrsal Common Descent- Dr Behe and others accept it. What UCD lacks is genetic evidence to support the alleged transformations.Joseph_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Joseph @ 28 Henry Gee's point is that the "Deep Time" involved in the fossil record makes claims of one particular animal being ancestral to another spurious. (Stegosaurus was older to T-Rex than T-Rex is to us!) He's not saying we can't use cladistics to establish relationships - especially given the other evidence for common descent. "That my cat Fred and I really have a common ancestor is not in doubt." My cat is called Stanley. No-one doubts that you, I and Henry Gee share a common ancestor, and that Fred and Stanley share a common ancestor. If we want to understand why Henry Gee thinks he and Fred share a common ancestor, and KL's spouse and associates think Lucy and they share common ancestors, we need to actually address what they say themselves, rather than taking quotes out of context and proclaiming that their position is merely a metaphysical rejection of your metaphysical beliefs. If some ID theorists want to provide an alternative explanation to Common Descent it's for them to provide evidence for that. That, too, I'd really like to see. I wonder if Denyse O'Leary is still interested in hearing from KL? Or is this thread now dead?idcurious_{April 6, 2011
April
04
Apr
6
06
2011
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

idcurious, I didn't know what Gil said was in dispute. I am pretty sure Henry Gee has said pretty much the same thing.Joseph_{April 5, 2011
April
04
Apr
5
05
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Joseph @ 23 From what I've read, Dr Behe accepts the fossil record as one part of the evidence for common descent. I was wondering why GilDodgen thinks it is "impossible" to "establish ancestor-descendant relationships from the fossil record".. But of course ID is a big tent and we can agree to disagree on that. I'm more interested in what KL has to say.idcurious_{April 5, 2011
April
04
Apr
5
05
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

idcurious, thanks for the compliment, but I feel rather inadequate around here compared to all the PhD.'s. who blow me away with their depth of knowledge (save for neo-Darwinists PhD's of course :) ).,,, As to the vitamin C argument; Daniel Fairbanks Cherry Picks Data On Pseudogenes To Prop Up Common Descent - March 2011 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/daniel-fairbanks-cherry-picks-data-on-pseudogenes-to-prop-up-common-descent/ and this,,, Evolutionary Thought in Action: The Subtlety of Metaphysics - Cornelius Hunter - July 2010 Excerpt: In the above example, the crucial metaphysics is woven in here: but when the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C is broken in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees, indicating we inherited it from a common ancestor, what else do you say it is other than a fact that we evolved from that common ancestor? This shared-error argument is a good example of how the evolution lie depends on subtle misrepresentations of the science and unspoken metaphysical claims. Any scientific analysis of the evidence would come up empty handed. Pseudogenes reveal various patterns, some which can be employed to argue for common descent, others which violate common descent (they could be explained, for instance, by common mechanism). Furthermore pseudogenes reveal evidence of mutational hotspots. But such quandaries are left unmentioned. Evolutionists selectively present the evidence to make evolution appear to be well supported. The evolution lie corrupts scientific knowledge. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/evolutionary-thought-in-action-subtlety.html It is also interesting to point that Darwinists are quick to cite any 'junk' evidence like this where the function is not yet known, and try to cite it as evidence for evolution, just as they did with vestigial organs which have now been refuted, but that Darwinists will not ever cite the 'clear evidence' which, unlike the 'junk DNA evidence, is unambiguously understood, which clearly shows evolution of humans to be impossible; Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 This following calculation by geneticist John Sanford for 'fixing' a beneficial mutation, or for creating a new gene, in humans, gives equally absurd numbers that once again render the Darwinian scenario of humans evolving from apes completely false: Dr. Sanford calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs. http://www.detectingtruth.com/?p=66 --------------- The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/ --------------- Creed - One Last Breath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yY1Nrznh4Ibornagain77_{April 4, 2011
April
04
Apr
4
04
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

idcurious- You quote Gil talking about the fossil record, Dr Behe was not. And since we are learning more about convergence I would say the evidence Dr Behe cited isn't exclusive to common ancestry-> if it can explain it at all.Joseph_{April 4, 2011
April
04
Apr
4
04
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen @ 12
The bottom line is that establishing ancestor-descendant relationships from the fossil record is impossible.
I'm interested why you think Michael Behe among others is wrong about this. "For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2. -- bornagain77 @ 13 I'm impressed by your breadth of reading about these issues. The Origin-of-Life Prize looks very interesting. They certainly have some amazing people on their panel of judges. It's a major credit to Uncommon Descent that it's given KL the opportunity of explaining his position in this thread!idcurious_{April 4, 2011
April
04
Apr
4
04
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, I was just asking a question. Man.QuiteID_{April 4, 2011
April
04
Apr
4
04
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply