A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica

_{Jonathan McLatchie

October 14, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

MSNBC.com is reporting on the discovery of a jawbone of an ancient whale in Antarctica: the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered. The news story reports,

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, Argentine scientists said Tuesday.

A scientist not involved in the find said it could suggest that whales evolved much more quickly from their amphibian precursors than previously thought.

Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.

Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.

“The relevance of this discovery is that it’s the oldest known completely aquatic whale found yet,” said Reguero, who shared the discovery with Argentine paleontologist Claudia Tambussi and Swedish paleontologists Thomas Mors and Jonas Hagstrom of the Natural History Museum in Stockholm.

Paul Sereno, a University of Chicago paleontologist who wasn’t involved in the research, said that if the new find withstands the scrutiny of other scientists, it will suggest that archaeocetes evolved much more quickly than previously thought from their semi-aquatic origin in present-day India and Pakistan.

“The important thing is the location,” Sereno said. “To find one in Antarctica is very interesting.”

As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time. Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

Previously, the whale series looked something like this:

Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

Comments

PaV
And, kellyhomes, why didn’t you comment on my suggestion to the Grant’s? Was it because it was spot-on?
Why don't you suggest it to them instead? What difference will it make what I comment? Go write a paper. Get it published. Have your argument critiqued by experts in the field rather then random internet bods. I understand you'd rather talk to me about it then them or write a paper but talking to me about it won't advance your cause one jot in the only venue that matters. But I'm getting the impression that nobody here actually minds that at all...... It's funny but when Dr Dembski publishes a new paper nobody says "oh, I guess I can publish one too as the Darwinian thought police have been defeated". I guess they are doing some selective policing huh? How convenient.kellyhomes_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

PaV
And likely, no matter how good the paper, and how many the citations it contains, it will be rejected by the Darwinian thought police, otherwise known as “peer-reviewed” journals.
Let's unpack that a little. You say "likely" but you don't actually know. So for a start you don't even have the courage of your convictions. You refuse to even find out if that's true but will go along with the "no point in even trying" group-think. Let's say you were to write such a paper and submit it to a journal. If they then reject that paper on spurious grounds then that's hard evidence that the "establishment" is anti-ID even when the paper itself is well supported. That rejection letter would then be valuable for the greater cause of ID - if publicized the journal in question would have to explain why they rejected a scientific paper on non-scientific grounds. I've previously asked for examples of such rejection letters where papers are rejected solely because they support ID. You know know many examples I've been given? Zero. You don't even have any evidence to support your claim that it would be rejected by the Darwinian thought police. It's interesting that when asked why they don't publish many ID proponents say the same as you. But there are in fact several pro-ID journals where you'd not actually have to worry about anti-ID bias. There are no Darwinian thought police at Dembski's evolab for example. Yet somehow I doubt we'll be seeing anything from you in any of those places either. So, PaV, which is it, you won't publish because you know already you'll get rejected or you will not publish because you know your arguments won't actually stand the light of day (peer review) or withstand further scrutiny after publication? The Darwinian thought police argument is simply bogus considering the fact that there are several ID journals desperate for content. The only way ID will make headway is if it's supporters stick to their guns and publish! Publish or perish PaV, publish or perish.kellyhomes_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Why should we look at the evolutionary tree concerning the whale, and believe that it evolved from a land dwelling creature, when there is no real evidence that it did?
Why then, for the love of the Intelligent Designer, do the earliest fossil whales all have legs??? Is that not evidence of just the sort you are asking for??? Why do we even have to point it out, shouldn't this be obvious to anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading about the origin of whales?NickMatzke_UD_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Started watching Darwin's Dilemma. I really don't feel like watching any further after hearing a quotemine like this: Dawkins: "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." What Dawkins actually then said was: "Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize." Does the film even address this? Oddly, it goes out of its way to point out that the soft-bodied animals of the Burgess Shale were almost certainly fossilised by a rare event - a landslide that killed them and fossilised them. In most cases of course, soft-bodied animals are either killed by predators, who eat them, or die and are scavenged or rot. Of course there was a radiation in the Cambrian, and it is fascinating. But the "dilemma" it, and other radiations present, is well resolved by Gould's solution. Darwin's conception, in this respect, turns out to be incorrect. The film is therefore hugely out of date.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Three other points about the very silly arguments being made here -- 1. You guys, from Sternberg on down, have not shown that the origin of whales would take some huge amount of extra sequence change, nor have you shown that it would take lots of simultaneous double mutations, triple=mutations, etc. There is no particular reason to think that either of these premises of the argument is true, but you are just brazenly pulling this assumption out of nowhere. What we know, though, is that the amount of genome change involved in adaptation via natural selection is a tiny amount of the total amount of genetic change that happens over, say, 10 million years, just due to random genetic drift. And it seems likely that most morphological change is due to not adaptive changes in gene sequences (although there is some of this), but due to regulatory changes that influence gene expression and development. Altering gene expression is essentially a matter of quantitatively bumping up or bumping down the strength of binding, which is just the sort of thing that single point mutations are good at. 2. Fossils only provide minimum ages for their groups, not maximum ages. The fact that Pakicetus has an age of 53 million years (or whatever -- the graphic doesn't say that) doesn't mean that 53 million years was the starting line for whale evolution, because Pakicetus was in all probability a sister group, not the direct ancestor. That's why it's drawn that way in the friggin' graphic, after all. Go read about collateral ancestry vs. direct ancestry. The actual starting line is the divergence point on the phylogeny between the walking whales and the aquatic whales. This timepoint can be statistically estimated -- I do this kind of analysis myself in grad school -- but it is a nontrivial research project and uncertainties are relatively high, depending on the available data and how far the DNA and morphology deviates from a clocklike model. 3. This newly-discovered whale is not the same thing as a modern whale, even though it was aquatic enough to swim to Antarctica. The whole discussion here seems to be based on the implicit misconception that this fossil is a fossil of a modern whale that appeared all of the sudden right at the beginning of whale evolution. But, in reality, it is a member of the most primitive whale group, the archeocetes IIRC, and so is presumably rather like Basilosaurus. So, in other words: no baleen, still has teeth, the nose/blowhole is in an intermediate position, not all the way back on top of the head, and it still probably has hind limbs. Heck, it may well have had to haul out on land to give birth. Rather like modern sea lions, which also still have their hind limbs (which they walk on) and give birth on land, but are plenty aquatic enough to get to Antarctica. All of these other "modern whale" features evolved later. In other words, what they've found in Antarctica is another transitional fossil.NickMatzke_UD_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Morning Chris! *rolls up sleeves" I readily concede that I misattributed a quotation, and did at the time - although it is no excuse, I had first come across the quotation, misattributed, and had failed to check the attribution. I am always ready to admit to my errors, and in this instance found it salutary to be reminded: always check secondary sources. But I think better of you, Chris, than to expect you to hold that one, readily conceded error, as tantamount to some dolt on a message board who doesn't know how dinosaur fossils are dated, and refuses find out when challenged. And if that dolt was trying to make the argument that dinosaurs are carbon dated, therefore there is no god, well, that just confounds the stupidity. As I said, I am not an "atheistic evolutionist" in any more cogent sense than I am a "slightly overweight evolutionist". The two properties, in my case, are totally unrelated, and I certainly do not even attempt to make the (untenable) case that the evidence for evolutionary theory is evidence that there is no God. More seriously, your contention that if evolutionary theory is falsified, so will atheism, is, IMO, quite wrong. Scientific falsification can offer neither evidence for, nor evidence against, the supernatural. It may well be that good scientific explanations for phenomena that were previously attributed to divine intervention may allow an atheist to be "intellectually fulfilled". But that is also true of theists, as you agree. It's just that with atheism, instead of stopping at an explanatory gap and saying "oh, God probably does that bit", the atheism can say: "that's interesting, I wonder how that happens". Which, I would argue, is probably rather more "intellectually fulfilling". So my view, in contrast to Dawkins' is that being an atheism keeps our curiosity alive where a theist might simply stop, and say "it's a Mystery". In other words, it's not that evolution allows me to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" but that atheism potentially allows me to be an intellectually fulfilled scientist. But then I was anyway, because I never found any difficulty in reconciling theistic belief with scientific explanations.
On to your continued appeals to “scientific consensus” (with the occasional citation bluff thrown in for good measure). Again, the silliness of this line of argument has got the Benny Hill theme tune running around my head. When your argument relies upon an Appeal to Authority, it is an invalid argument: the conclusion does not follow from the premise (even if the conclusion is true)! Did you really not know that?
Chris: an "appeal" to "scientific consensus" is not an Appeal to Authority. I am pointing not at what scientists say but at what they demonstrate. This is a crucial distinction. Let me give an example: 100 people measure the annual rainfall in their garden. 99 of them come up with a figure close to 900 mm. One person comes up with 22 mm. You come to me with that person's report, and say: look, the annual rainfall in Britain is 22mm! The 900mm figure is a myth! I point to the "consensus" of all the other people who have measured the rainfall, and come up with figures close to 900mm. Not one figure is the same as any other - they all slightly disagree. But the "consensus" is around 900mm. But that is Appeal to Authority! you say! You didn't make all those measurements yourself! And truth is not established by majority vote! True, I say. But I am not asking people to vote. I am asking them to measure. And I am also subjecting their reports to pretty rigorous multi-stage scrutiny. Now, it is perfectly possible, and it occasionally happens, that the standard methodology (e.g. for measuring rainfall, in this instance) is radically faulty. Now all those 900 mm are thrown into doubt. Perhaps the outlying finding was not an error, but the only correctly measured quantity in the whole bunch. We have to be constantly aware of that. But that does not invalidate the argument that if the vast consensus of scientific findings is that the molecular and anatomical characters of living things are distributed in a tree, that it's probably true. That is not Appeal to Authority. It is Appeall to Overwhelming Evidence, which is certainly not fallacious. BTW, I'm getting a bit cross with this "citation bluff" things. I see a lot of "citationg bluffing", and I know exactly what you mean. ba77's posts, for instance, seem to me to consist entirely of "citation bluffing", and I have simply given up following his links, which either lead to metacafe videos, or sometimes to papers that have nothing to do with his point or contradict it completely (like the that Lenski paper). I do not "citation bluff". I give links to what I think are good primary or secondary sources, and that I think are relevant. If you have a different interpretation of the evidence presented than I do, I will be interested in hearing it. But I will not have it dismissed as a "bluff". You seem to have mistaken me for someone I am not.
Finally, the Cambrian Explosion. You’re not just carbon-dating dinosaur fossils here, you’re re-offering Coelacanth as the missing link between fish and amphibians! I can only conclude that you simply don’t know enough about the Cambrian Explosion. Do yourself a favour and watch Darwin’s Dilemma.
I've asked you several times, Chris, what you mean by "missing link" which in my view is a meaningless term. I have attempted to answer your question in various ways, given various interpretations of it (not helped by the extinct/extant confusion). And I did not offer the Coelocanth as a "missing link between fish and amphibians". I offered it as the relatively unchanged descendent of a population that is ancestral to both Devonian lobe-limbed fish and to the early tetrapods. Amphibians evolved from those early tetrapods, as did we. And all that happened long after the Cambrian explosion.
In the meantime, understand that there really is a major scientific controversy over the Cambrian Explosion. Appealing to “simple life forms” that exist only in your imagination
So what are those 3.5 billion year old cynobacteria fossils then, Chris? I didn't make them up!
sheds no light on the controversy whatsoever. And soft-bodied creatures are also represented in the Cambrian, as Simon Conway-Morris points out: Not only are there animals such as trilobites and molluscs with tough, durable skeletons, but completely soft-bodied animals are also preserved. These remarkable fossils reveal not only their outlines but sometimes even internal organs such as the intestine or muscles.
Yes, indeed. And in the Ediacaran as well.
When it comes to “body plans”, you accuse me of equivocation and arbitrariness. Fortunately, Casey Luskin has done me a time-saving favour when he highlighted a quote from evolutionists that refutes those accusations:
Beginning some 555 million years ago the Earth’s biota changed in profound and fundamental ways, going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time. The abruptness of the transition between the ”Precambrian” and the Cambrian was apparent right at the outset of our science with the publication of Murchison’s The Silurian System, a treatise that paradoxically set forth the research agenda for numerous paleontologists — in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple — as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt. Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ”a major mystery,” a ”challenge.” The Theory of Evolution — exploded again (idofcourse.com). Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin’s contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume — if Victorian fashion dictated — that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride. (Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion,” BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 – 747 (2009), internal citation numbers removed, emboldened emphasis added.)
The indisputable fact that you are disputing Lizzie is that most major body plans, (ie. phyla) suddenly appeared during in the Cambrian. Not (as you, for some strange reason, seem to be implying) in the Devonian or the Jurassic.
But "phyla", Chris, is just an arbitrary term for a level of nesting. What's special about "phyla"? Why not express amazement about Classes, or Kingdoms? Sure, there was a rapid radiation in the Cambrian. I showed you a picture. What is the problem supposed to be?
I’ll give Stephen Jay Gould the last word, in a revealing comment he made about the fossil record: We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in the honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating evidence.
Are you Arguing from Authority here, Chris? ;) But let's look at the context of that quotation:
This contrary behavior of species-rich clades in normal and catastrophic times preserves a balance that permits both species-rich and species-poor clades to flourish throughout life's history. More important in our context, this distinction emphasizes the qualitative difference between normal times and catastrophic zaps. Mass extinctions are not simply more of the same. They affect various elements of the biosphere in a distinctive manner, quite different from the patterns of normal times. As we survey the history of life since the inception of multicellular complexity in Ediacaran times (see essay 16 ["Reducing Riddles"]), one feature stands out as most puzzling -- the lack of clear order and progress through time among marine invertebrate faunas. We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. Why do we not find this expected order? Perhaps the expectation itself is faulty, a product of pervasive, progressivist bias in Western thought and never a prediction of evolutionary theory. Yet, if natural selection rules the world of life, we should detect some fitful accumulation of better and more complex design through time -- amidst all the fluctuations and backings and forthings that must characterize a process primarily devoted to constructing a better fit between organisms and changing local environments. Darwin certainly anticipated such progress when he wrote:
The inhabitants of each successive period in the world's history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, insofar, higher in the scale of nature; and this may account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many paleontologists, that organization on the whole has progressed.
I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times. I have devoted the last ten years of my professional life in paleontology to constructing an unorthodox theory for explaining the lack of expected patterns during normal times -- the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Niles Eldredge and I, the perpetrators of this particularly uneuphonious name, argue that the pattern of normal times is not a tale of continuous adaptive improvement within lineages. Rather, species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to remain highly stable for millions of years thereafter. Evolutionary success must be assessed among species themselves, not at the traditional Darwinian level of struggling organisms within populations. The reasons that species succeed are many and varied -- high rates of speciation and strong resistance to extinction, for example -- and often involve no reference to traditional expectations for improvement in morphological design. If punctuated equilibrium dominates the pattern of normal times, then we have come a long way toward understanding the curiously fluctuating directions of life's history. Until recently, I suspected that punctuated equilibrium might resolve the dilemma of progress all by itself. I now realize that the fluctuating pattern must be constructed by a complex and fascinating interaction of two distinct tiers of explanation -- punctuated equilibrium for normal times, and the different effects produced by separate processes of mass extinction. Whatever accumulates by punctuated equilibrium (or by other processes) in normal times can be broken up, dismantled, reset, and dispersed by mass extinction. If punctuated equilibrium upset traditional expectations (and did it ever!), mass extinction is far worse. Organisms cannot track or anticipate the environmental triggers of mass extinction. No matter how well they adapt to environmental ranges of normal times, they must take their chances in catastrophic moments. And if extinctions can demolish more than 90 percent of all species, then we must be losing groups forever by pure bad luck among a few clinging survivors designed for another world.
In other words, Gould, in the quote you gave, is setting up a problem with Darwin's conception of steady "upward" progress, and proposing a quite different view, that of "punctuated equilibrium" in which there is competition between populations, as well as between individuals within populations, and intermittent mass extinctions followed by rapid radiations. I would also note that that article was written more than quarter of a century ago, since when there has been a huge amount of progress, not least being molecular phylogenetics. Please look at that figure I found, Chris, and you will at least perhaps understand what the model actually is. And in return (or in fact anyway) I will look at Darwin's Dilemma. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Kellyhomes(no doubt another closet IDiot): "No, rather they will defend it until somebody comes up with a better idea at which point they’ll abandon it and take up the new idea instead." ===== WRONG, the religiosity of Darwinists is to never question anything any scientists comes up with wearing a Bearded Buddha T-shirt. And that's no matter how asinine or absurd the fable. ----- Kellyhomes: "It’s up to you to come up with that better idea, rather them complaining about “mud to man” with all the obvious religious connotations that has." ===== Gotta love it. Classic Atheist/Evolutionists "Burden Shift". Asinine Fable gets exposed for the junk it is and realizing they have no flipper to steer with for a logical rational explanation, fall back on the old, *How would God have done it" ??? ----- Kellyhomes the Closet IDiot: "It’s funny but “mud to man” is exactly what you are claiming happened, remember?" ===== There's is absolutely NO argument there, so it's difficult to see what your point is. The real proplem is that you people need constant reminding of your number "1" on that list in your "Articles of Religious Faith" , which is "NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED" , Remember ???Eocene_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Nikki-Matzke: "What the frack are you talking about???" ===== Hey Nikki Don't sugar coat it like that. Tell it to us straight. Oh that's right, this forum has rules on language as opposed to the Swamp Gas forums. Got it! ----- Nikki Matzke: "The word “amphibian” refers to both the biological group “amphibians”, and to the state of being amphibious, i.e. living in both water and land. All that is meant here is the second meaning. Seals and sea lions are currently-living mammals that are “amphibians” in this sense." ====== WRONG Nikki Had they meant that definition, then the word adjective "amphibious " would have been used. As it is they used the noun "amphibian" and the number one definition for 'amphibian' is ??? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amphibian 1: an amphibious organism; especially : any of a class (Amphibia) of cold-blooded vertebrates (as frogs, toads, or salamanders) intermediate in many characters between fishes and reptiles and having gilled aquatic larvae and air-breathing adults. ******** The second definition deals ONLY with the usage of the word as an adjective "amphibious" for which the article clearly DID NOT USE or for that matter mean. 2: an amphibious vehicle; especially : an airplane designed to take off from and land on either land or water ******** The article DID NOT use the desciptive adjective "Amphibious". It did however use the word noun "Amphibian". Maybe you should vomit your outrage on the author and not someone who pointed out the glaring flaw in the article. You gotta love the way this stuff gets under their skin when some of their own drop their pants and expose the flaws in their unholy 'Unterhosen'. LOL ----Eocene_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Morning Lizzie, The only part of your response that was not painfully silly was this bit: Sorry, Chris, but this is just silly! That bit was true, but not in the way you intended it to be! Reading your recent posts to me reminded me of the same old dialogues I’ve had with atheistic evolutionists over the years. The short version of it is this: Me: How do we determine the age of dinosaur fossils? Them: Carbon dating. Me: No, we don’t. Them: I don’t believe you. Me: Let’s not argue about things that better informed atheistic evolutionists than you would agree with. Them: But you’re wrong. Me: I’m not actually. Them. So, what did the Devil just plant them there to fool us? Me: (yawn). I want you to understand that that yawn conveys the head-shaking weariness I feel when dealing with atheistic evolutionists who either don’t know what they’re talking about or, for some strange but private personal reason, give the overwhelming impression that that is the case. The only benefit I get from such exchanges is a small, but further confirmation that the atheistic evolutionist position is completely and utterly wrong. And that most atheistic evolutionists fail to even understand the magnitude of the problems that undermine their beliefs, let alone address those problems. The fact that such atheistic evolutionists do not make a single challenging or interesting point just leaves me feeling like I’m wasting my time. So, unless you, or anyone else, responds to this post with something worth responding to this will be my final word on the matter. You said: why call me an atheist evolutionist? Why not a Scottish evolutionist? Or a cycling evolutionist? Or a slightly over-weight evolutionist? The atheist part is entirely irrelevant. This is so silly that I’m shocked that even you said it, Lizzie! I scarcely know where to begin and am not remotely convinced that it would do any good to even try. But, here goes nothing. Step up the guy who you confused with Charles Darwin himself... the one and only atheistic evolutionist zealot, Richard Dawkins: An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Now Lizzie, try replacing the final word in the proposition that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” with “Scotsman”, “cyclist” or “slightly over-weight person”. Any dawning realisation yet? No? Okay, how about BioLogos? Here’s a Q+A from their website:
How is BioLogos different from Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism? BioLogos is most similar to Theistic Evolution. Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with the creation. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is the way by which God created life.
If there are Theistic Evolutionists and that is a meaningful and entirely relevant description, then how can an Atheistic Evolutionist not be an equally meaningful and entirely relevant description? That’s a rhetorical question by the way. Attempting to answer it would be like trying to convince me that we carbon-date dinosaur fossils. So, the reality Lizzie, is that a purely unplanned and unguided process of evolution is at the heart of Atheism’s creation myth. If it turns out that evolution really did happen and that it was a planned, deliberate, Intelligently Designed process then that’s fine by me. But, for all you Atheistic Evolutionists, that would change everything. People like you would be demanding an explanation from people like Richard Dawkins: “How did you get it so wrong?” On to your continued appeals to “scientific consensus” (with the occasional citation bluff thrown in for good measure). Again, the silliness of this line of argument has got the Benny Hill theme tune running around my head. When your argument relies upon an Appeal to Authority, it is an invalid argument: the conclusion does not follow from the premise (even if the conclusion is true)! Did you really not know that? It’s basic stuff, Lizzie and I don’t see how you can expect to be taken seriously in debate if you do not accept this. Once again, I feel like you’re trying to persuade me that we carbon-date dinosaur fossils! Anyway, by now, it is clear that you are not open to a word I’m saying so maybe Michael Crichton will get through instead:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . . I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Finally, the Cambrian Explosion. You’re not just carbon-dating dinosaur fossils here, you’re re-offering Coelacanth as the missing link between fish and amphibians! I can only conclude that you simply don’t know enough about the Cambrian Explosion. Do yourself a favour and watch Darwin’s Dilemma. In the meantime, understand that there really is a major scientific controversy over the Cambrian Explosion. Appealing to “simple life forms” that exist only in your imagination sheds no light on the controversy whatsoever. And soft-bodied creatures are also represented in the Cambrian, as Simon Conway-Morris points out: Not only are there animals such as trilobites and molluscs with tough, durable skeletons, but completely soft-bodied animals are also preserved. These remarkable fossils reveal not only their outlines but sometimes even internal organs such as the intestine or muscles. When it comes to “body plans”, you accuse me of equivocation and arbitrariness. Fortunately, Casey Luskin has done me a time-saving favour when he highlighted a quote from evolutionists that refutes those accusations:
Beginning some 555 million years ago the Earth's biota changed in profound and fundamental ways, going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time. The abruptness of the transition between the ''Precambrian'' and the Cambrian was apparent right at the outset of our science with the publication of Murchison's The Silurian System, a treatise that paradoxically set forth the research agenda for numerous paleontologists -- in addition to serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple -- as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt. Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ''a major mystery,'' a ''challenge.'' The Theory of Evolution -- exploded again (idofcourse.com). Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin's contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume -- if Victorian fashion dictated -- that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride. (Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 (2009), internal citation numbers removed, emboldened emphasis added.)
The indisputable fact that you are disputing Lizzie is that most major body plans, (ie. phyla) suddenly appeared during in the Cambrian. Not (as you, for some strange reason, seem to be implying) in the Devonian or the Jurassic. I’ll give Stephen Jay Gould the last word, in a revealing comment he made about the fossil record: We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in the honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating evidence.Chris Doyle_{October 16, 2011
October
10
Oct
16
16
2011
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

"Of course it’s “observational science”. All science is “observational”. You can’t do science without data, aka observations." Thank goodness we're on the same page, then with respect to those computer models. Amen to observations and real-world data.Eric Anderson_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth @ 6.1.1.3.8: I've looked at the paper. The results are rather inconclusive. They say that the results could be a result of a change in population size, selection, or a combination of both. Many of the techniques used, and population genetics metrics used, are right out of the 70's, and 80's, and sometimes even out of the 40's. And the data used strangely, for a paper published in 2007, relies principally on the year 2003-2003. Was it an extreme weather year? 2001 and 2002 doesn't show much change from autumn to spring. It could be argued that they simply "found" what they set out to find; just as you set out to find a paper you thought ought to be out there. But let's assume that there is some kind of measurable change; further, let's assume that this change is directly related to a change in the environment; does this then mean that you have a fly population that has one fitness level for winter, and one for spring? But if the population is decimated during wintertime, changing the genetic make-up of the population, then how is it, exactly, that they are going to survive the spring? The authors tell us that it is well-known that Drosophila have seasonal changes in levels of recombination. But how can we rule out an epigenetic component to this change? IOW, how do we know that this doesn't represent anything more than an environmental stimulus that effects a built it regulatory system that resets the amount of recombination that occurs. That is, the mutation rate changes as the organism reacts to a changed environment. This, then, is not any kind of Darwinian mechanism at work; but, rather, "natural genetic engineering" a la James Shapiro. So, bottom line, we don't know enough to really say what is going on here. We can guess. And if we're predisposed to see Darwinian mechanisms at work everywhere, then that's how you interpret the results. For me, the jury is still out. And, sadly, I think the entire experiment is a big waste of time, money and effort. The results are hardly more than meaningless.PaV_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Hmm, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus at about 47-48 million years ago are about 50% of the way to being fully aquatic. That's quite a jump.Starbuck_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Strange then that still aren't any observations that support Darwinism/ neo-darwinism.Joseph_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Lizzie:
What do you think I’ve modified, PaV?
You didn't used to include the part about going extinct.
But I think the misunderstanding is revealed in your word “sequence change”. I didn’t mention “sequence changes”. I am talking about mean changes in phenotypic features, averaged over the population.
But that's not the metric that is used to determine "fast/quick evolution" from "slow evolution". They use sequence divergence.
If fruitflies breed throughout the year in some places, regardless of changes in weather, it’s quite possible that in the winter, the allele frequencies will be different than in the summer. . . . It’s an interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has tested it?
It's impossible for gene frequencies to change that rapidly. What is more likely is an epigenetic effect brought about by a changed environment. A sort of Lamarkian version of things; something Darwin shifted to as the years went by, and the criticisms built up.
In fact, you just used Darwinian theory to derive an interesting prediction! Let’s find out if it’s true.
What's really interesting here is that ID would predict that per se gene frequencies would not change. As I said above, you would expect epigenetic effects, if anything at all. IOW, IDists would say, basically, why waste your time studying it. I've said for a long time now that eventually Darwinism will die, and something resembling a true theory of biodiversity will take its place, but that, in the meantime, Darwinism will just end up wasting all kinds of time and effort---not to mention the money. But, if someone ran the test, the results could be very illustrative. However, let me just add that I recently linked a paper here that showed that back in 1962 they mutated the heck out of Drosophila without adding to its overall fitness whatsoever. So, already, you would expect nothing based on that result. But if someone out there wants to to the study, well, we'll evaluate the results right here at UD! ;)PaV_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

heh, looks like you scored a hit, PaV! http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/1/26.full Who would have thought an ID proponent would score a goal for the predictive power of Darwinism in a post claiming that Darwinism has no predictive power ;) Maybe I should return the favour?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

It would appear that my criticism of your position has caused you to modify it. That’s good. There’s still a ways for you to go before you get things entirely right. :;
What do you think I've modified, PaV?
What do you call a sequence change occurring in a short period of time? Fast evolution. What is fast evolution? It’s when sequences change in a short period of time. This is merely a description. And a definition. There’s a ‘before’ and ‘after’. That’s it. It proves absolutely nothing. In a mathematical argument, you don’t “prove” what you “define”.
Of course not, and I'm not even trying to "prove" anything here (remember we don't "prove" things in science?) But I think the misunderstanding is revealed in your word "sequence change". I didn't mention "sequence changes". I am talking about mean changes in phenotypic features, averaged over the population. I'm certainly not arguing (in case you thought I was) that somehow mutation rate rises as the rate of environmental change rises. I'm saying that mean phenotypic features will tend to change as the environment changes, because as the environment changes, alleles within the population, including new alleles as they appear, that tend to produce, singly, or, more often, in combination, phenotypic features that enhance replication in that new environment, will become more prevalent in the population. In contrast, if the environment is not changing, allele frequencies will tend to remain at an optimum, and only the odd rare new allele that makes things better still will become more prevalent. All others will tend to be deleteriouis relative to the status quo, and be weeded out.
OK. So your thesis is that adaptation does not have to occur at a constant rate. And that, further, adaptation will track the rate of change in the environment.
Exactly :)
Well, it seems flies (Drosophila), which breeds year round, also experiences changing environments ALL THE TIME! So, obviously, it must be changing all the time (or it might go extinct!).
Quite possibly, PaV. If fruitflies breed throughout the year in some places, regardless of changes in weather, it's quite possible that in the winter, the allele frequencies will be different than in the summer. However, as the weather is presumably a regularly cycling phenonmena, alleles that tend to favour summer weather will tend to remain in the gene pool over winter, if at lower prevalence, just as alleles that tend to favour winter weather will tend to remain in the gene pool over summer, if at lower prevalence. It's an interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has tested it?
When animals that mate once a year “adapt”, are they adapting to springtime conditions, or winter time conditions? Do you see what nonsense all of this is as a kind of predictive theory? You end up with nothing more than “just-so” stories. No more.
No it's not nonsense at all. Obviously with animals that mate once a year, and produce offspring at a particular time of year (why do we always talk about animals? Plants are the really interesting organisms in this respect) alleles that favour birth at an optimum time (spring, for example) will tend to become prevalent and stay that way.
It’s time to abandon the mindless orthodoxy of Darwinism.
Nothing "mindless" about it at all! In fact, you just used Darwinian theory to derive an interesting prediction! Let's find out if it's true :)Elizabeth Liddle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
Scientists who know this stuff have absolutely no reason to take you seriously when you completely ignore these basics of the field.
And scientists who know the limitations of population genetics to explain marked sequence change, except for a huge passage of time, should realize that limiting the amount of time available for significant changes in the whale lineage proves a death knell for Darwinism. And that's "EXACTLY why ~~creationists/IDists~~ Darwinists get no respect, and deserve to get no respect.PaV_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

kellyhomes @6.1.1.2:
What a shame! Science thrives on things being disconfirmed, you are a great loss to the scientific endeavor Pav!
Well, thank you! You must be very, very smart to notice all of this.
Have you ever thought about taking a course in biology and then evolution?
Would you like to look at my B.A. in biology from UCLA? I can send you a photo.
I mean, really? You can’t really imagine what “environmental change” means?
But I did "imagine" it. I imagined it getting cold, and then getting hot. I imagined it being wet, and then being dry. I can imagine all kinds of things. And that's the point: Darwinism, for the most part, is no more than imagination. I can imagine myself flying around in a room. I can imagine myself having wings like an eagle. I can imagine myself swimming like a dolphin. And, if I try really, really hard, I can imagine that a small ring of light sensitive cells, given enough time, can become a human eye. I can imagine it. Can you?
Write a rebuttal paper. You might even get a couple of citations if it’s good enough.
And likely, no matter how good the paper, and how many the citations it contains, it will be rejected by the Darwinian thought police, otherwise known as "peer-reviewed" journals. And, kellyhomes, why didn't you comment on my suggestion to the Grant's? Was it because it was spot-on?PaV_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: @6.1.1.3
Because adaptation will track changes in environment. If the environment changes rapidly, then adaptation will happen rapidly (if it can keep up – the other thing that may happen is exctinction);
It would appear that my criticism of your position has caused you to modify it. That's good. There's still a ways for you to go before you get things entirely right. :;
It isn’t “circular reasoning” at all.
Oh, but it is circular reasoning. What do you call a sequence change occurring in a short period of time? Fast evolution. What is fast evolution? It's when sequences change in a short period of time. This is merely a description. And a definition. There's a 'before' and 'after'. That's it. It proves absolutely nothing. In a mathematical argument, you don't "prove" what you "define".
There is no principle of “Darwinism” that says adaptation has to occur at a constant rate, quite the reverse. Adaptation will track the rate of change in the environment to which adaptation is occurring.
OK. So your thesis is that adaptation does not have to occur at a constant rate. And that, further, adaptation will track the rate of change in the environment. Well, it seems flies (Drosophila), which breeds year round, also experiences changing environments ALL THE TIME! So, obviously, it must be changing all the time (or it might go extinct!). When animals that mate once a year "adapt", are they adapting to springtime conditions, or winter time conditions? Do you see what nonsense all of this is as a kind of predictive theory? You end up with nothing more than "just-so" stories. No more. It's time to abandon the mindless orthodoxy of Darwinism.PaV_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

No, it doesn't, Chris, or not in any sense that makes any sense. You might as well say: are you female, Lizzie? yes. Do you accept the theory of evolution as well supported by data? Yes. That makes you a female evolutionist! Well, sure, but the two properties are totally unrelated, so why call me an atheist evolutionist? Why not a Scottish evolutionist? Or a cycling evolutionist? Or a slightly over-weight evolutionist? The atheist part is entirely irrelevant. And it's not even strictly true that I'm an atheist. I do think it's very unlikely that there is an afterlife, and I do think that it's very unlikely that there is a human-like brainless being who interferes occasionally with the working of his/her creation. But I do have a concept of God, and the numinous, and justice, and fairness, and love, and truth, and honesty, and all that, and I certainly believe that prayer is powerful, although not in the sense that you probably do. But above all, it's totally irrelevant to whether I think a model fits the data. If it fits well, I accept it as a good model. In the case of evolution, the model seems to me to fit the data remarkably well.
Now then, appealing to “scientific consensus” instead of producing observational evidence and experimental results doesn’t impress me one single bit. In fact, it achieves the opposite and convinces me that you are bluffing.
Well, you are reacting very oddly, in that case, Chris. When you go to the doctor, do you accept the "medical consensus" on your condition, or do you insist on reading up on the entire body of medical evidence yourself? And in any case, your charge is unfounded. I have referred you to specific studies, and specific arguments, and specific data. I am obviously not an expert in evolutionary biology, but I'm not an ignoramus either, and some parts of the field I do encroach on myself, professionally, including the computational side.
If evolution were true, and the fossil record supported evolution, the oldest fossils would all share a few or one body plan. The younger the fossils became, the more body plans we would see being gradually added to the fossil record. Until we reached present day when (extinctions excepted) we would see the most body plans. But, the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion turns that on its head. Virtually all of the body plans appeared at the same time, without any related (let alone fewer) predecessors. You won’t take my word for it so watch “Darwin’s Dilemma”, it will help you to understand this indisputable fact.
No, this is false, Chris, for a number of reasons, and again betrays your misunderstanding of the theory you find fault with. Firstly, very simple life forms do not readily fossilise. Organisms with hard parts are much more likely to fossilise than, for example, single celled creatures. Nonetheless, the very earliest fossils traces of the reefs built by single-celled cyanobacteria. Secondly, you forget extinction events (did you look at that graphic?) Nonetheless, the pattern you suggest does in fact show up in the cladograms, with extinction events followed by rapid radiation of forms. Thirdly, you are equivocating with "body plans", I think. To say that all the "body plans" show up in the Cambrian, with no new ones thereafter is to completely ignore the countless variations that have appeared since then. Tetrapods, to take an obvious example. You seem to have arbitrary categorised all "body plans" based on those of the Cambrian, then insisted that no new ones appeared after that, and that they were all unprecedented! That's circular reasoning of the highest order! Why not categorise "body plans" by Ediacaran fossils? If you do that, then you can lump all the Cambrian ones as variations on bilateria. Here's a relevant paper, btw, that combines both genetic and fossil evidence: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~peterson/41%20-philtrans.pdf Or categorise "body plans" by those in the Devonian, in which case there would be a huge increase relative to the Cambrian. Ditto with the Jurassic, or virtually any other era in which there was a big radiation.
And you forget one vital and killer detail, Lizzie. Yes, if evolution is true, then it is easily reconciled with theism. But, if evolution is not true, then there is no way that atheism can be. So, as a theist, I can go wherever the evidence leads. As an atheist, the evidence has to be made to fit into an evolutionary picture… even when things like the fossil record clearly don’t fit into that picture.
Sheesh. "If evolution is not true, theism must be?" Why on earth? And what aspect of evolution would have to be not true for theism to be demonstrated true? Are you seriously arguing that ID proponents are on the brink of a scientific demonstration of God? I thought ID had nothing to do with God, it was just science? And which particular God is demonstrated to be true if (some not yet specified) aspect of evolutionary theory is false? And how many gods would it imply? What are their characteristics? How do we know they are gods? Sorry, Chris, but this is just silly!Elizabeth Liddle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Are you an atheist, Lizzie? Yes. Do you believe that your ancestors were microbes? Yes. Guess what? That makes you an atheistic evolutionist. I’m glad we finally sorted that out. Now then, appealing to “scientific consensus” instead of producing observational evidence and experimental results doesn’t impress me one single bit. In fact, it achieves the opposite and convinces me that you are bluffing. If evolution were true, and the fossil record supported evolution, the oldest fossils would all share a few or one body plan. The younger the fossils became, the more body plans we would see being gradually added to the fossil record. Until we reached present day when (extinctions excepted) we would see the most body plans. But, the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion turns that on its head. Virtually all of the body plans appeared at the same time, without any related (let alone fewer) predecessors. You won’t take my word for it so watch “Darwin’s Dilemma”, it will help you to understand this indisputable fact. And you forget one vital and killer detail, Lizzie. Yes, if evolution is true, then it is easily reconciled with theism. But, if evolution is not true, then there is no way that atheism can be. So, as a theist, I can go wherever the evidence leads. As an atheist, the evidence has to be made to fit into an evolutionary picture... even when things like the fossil record clearly don’t fit into that picture.Chris Doyle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

What you are saying, Chris, I should point out, is that this detailed chart is, essentially, fiction. You're absolutely right, Lizzie, that's exactly what I'm saying. Because connecting all of the dots (where each dot is a distinct species) is not something we are entitled to do if we rely upon the scientific method alone. You can only connect the dots if you assume that common ancestry is true. But even then, the fossil record doesn't provide enough dots to plot the kind of lines your fictional chart contains. The fossil record is characterised by discontinuity (i.e. unbridgeable gaps between the dots) and stasis (ie. the exact same dot cropping up throughout the ages). And then there's the Cambrian Explosion where the majority of body plans all appeared at the same time and therefore were already too distinct from each other to be related. So, all those lines of descent exist only in the evolutionist imagination, not in the real world. Without any prior assumptions, you can "plot the relationships between characters" to identify species that belong to a higher grouping such as a genus, family or phylum. But that's as far as the science goes (and as far as Linnaeus went). Shared characteristics alone do not imply common ancestry. In fact, wherever we see shared characteristics in all other design series they usually are not the result of common ancestry (rather, they are the result of common design or plagiarism). So, if you want to scientifically establish that you are descended from Myllokunmingi you need to produce a lot more than mere resemblance. After all, if that is the highest standard of evidence you can produce then it can easily be refuted by pointing out that the differences vastly outweigh the similarities.Chris Doyle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Heh, OK, Chris. In that case, as you say, I would say that Myllokunmingi is probably ancestral to all extant vertebrates, including us. The observational evidence is the fossil record (supplemented by molecular evidence) that demonstrates the phylogenetic tree of vertebrates. In other words, when you plot the relationships between characters (anatomical or molecular) of known vertebrates, you get a crown group with something like Myllokunmingi at the basal node. There's a paper on molecular phylogenetics of vertebrates here: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/554.full And here is the graphic I was looking for: http://5xjkig.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pa-vlvoXCenuZPc3unv0YZEQGMDk6WCgM0IB2oT5QCl45LYPt3h1VjDc_h1Ad3H2RCoZE2pF3-6NEzRlmTLWVxHnpveUL01Ti/Tree%25252520of%25252520Evolution%25252520%28Large%29.png It can be viewed in closeup if you click on the magnifying glass. You can see where the vertebrates start, near the beginning of the Cambrian explosion (radiating from about 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock on the circumference). What you are saying, Chris, I should point out, is that this detailed chart is, essentially, fiction. My position is that it is not fiction - it is a model, as all scientific propositions are - that fits the data better than any other competing model, and, moreover, fits it extremely well.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Could you explain your point? What "disconfirming evidence" are you talking about? What do you think is "disconfirmed"?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Thanks for answering the question, Lizzie: I nominate Myllokunmingi, which is (probably) the oldest proto-vertebrate, and I don’t think any modern comparable creatures exist. If so, then it may well have been directly ancestral to all subsequent vertebrates, so for its extinct descendent populations, I nominate T. Rex, as I’m pretty sure T.Rex populations have no living descendants. Just to highlight something you may have overlooked in the initial confusion created by my original wording: I'm looking for a fossil of an extinct species that is ancestral to an extant species. But, I assume you believe that, for example, humans are descendants of some member of the Myllokunmingi genus or even species. If that assumption is correct, then please can you provide observational evidence or experimental results that support your claim that you and I have a very, very Great Grandparent that was a Myllokunmingi. If my assumption is incorrect, then you have not yet named an extinct species that is ancestral to a (markedly different) extant species.Chris Doyle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

If only that were true. But given the fact that you are an atheistic evolutionist,
No, I am not an "atheistic evolutionist", Chris. My atheism has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory, and I just as vociferously rejected the label "theistic evolutionist" when I was a theist, as, ditto. I wouldn't even describe myself as an "evolutionist" - merely as someone who accepts that evolutionary theory is a theory that is hugely supported by data. I have accepted that ever since I was old enough to understand the evidence, and at no point did that theory clash with any theological position I have ever held, or, until recently, met. The catholic church remains accepting of evolutionary theory, and a great many catholics, and other Christians are evolutionary biologists. Theologically, my position is that ID arguments lead to appallingly bad theology, witness Dembki's extraordinary recent contortions to fit "backwards causality" into the doctrine of the Fall, none of which is necessary if you make the simple assumption that Genesis is a parable, not a history.
we are reduced to talking about atheism and its scientific pretensions.
Except that your premise is false. I am not talking about atheism, I am talking about science. Atheism has no "scientific pretensions". It's simply what people call themselves when they don't find evidence of God or gods convincing.
We know this because you ignore the scientific evidence and refuse to admit that the fossil record does not contain all (or, even any) of the missing links that would be in abundance if evolution were true.
I do not "ignore the scientific evidence" Chris. Indeed, from my PoV it looks as though it is you who are doing so. And if you do not understand why it should seem that way, consider the vast number of scientists who think the evidence supports evolutionary theory, and consider that many of them are theists. Moreoever, when I asked you what you meant by "missing links" that you claim should not be missing, you brushed me off by accusing me of playing word games. No I am not. You raised a challenge: it's up to you to spell out what that challenge is. I have answered you inasmuch as I could: every single fossil is a (non)missing link in the tree of life, and every new transitional fossil i.e. a new organism that has characteristics of two known taxonomic group enables us to plot the tree more precisely. The claim that there are no fossil "missing links" is false as far as I can see, and if you want to claim that it is true, then please define precisely what it is you think would count as one. If only that were true. But given the fact that you are an atheistic evolutionist, we are reduced to talking about atheism and its scientific pretensions. We know this because you ignore the scientific evidence and refuse to admit that the fossil record does not contain all (or, even any) of the missing links that would be in abundance if evolution were true. That is why you also ignore the fact that the Cambrian Explosion turns any would-be “tree” upside down.
That is why you also ignore the fact that the Cambrian Explosion turns any would-be “tree” upside down.
Except that it doesn't. Have you ever even looked at a tree on which Cambrian life forms are plotted? It's not "upside down" at all. I'll try to find that graphic, but you could try drawing it yourself!
The fossil record simply does not support atheistic evolution. On the contrary, it undermines it entirely
It supports common descent, because it can be plotted on a tree. Common descent is well accounted for by Darwinian evolution, although other explanations remain possible. It neither supports nor undermines atheism because it has nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.
If you admitted that fact and moved on, then we could follow the evidence wherever it leads rather than you pretending it leads somewhere else.
I'm not going to "admit" a "fact" that is not a "fact", Chris! For some reason you, unlike most scientists, seem to think that the fossil (and molecular) record does not suggest a tree. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to present it as a "fact". I do not present evolution as a "fact", although I do present it as a "fact" that the vast majority of biologist consider Common Descent supported by the fossil evidence, so much so that statistical cladistics is an extremely advanced methodology. And I get pretty annoyed when you insist on dragging "atheism" into the discussion. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It neither supports theism nor undermines it (although it does undermine specific religious propositions, such as Young Earth Creationism). But evolutionary biology has absolutely nothing to say about the existence of God.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Collin, as to:
I had a friend say, “you don’t know what time can do.” Just substitute the word “time” with the word “god” and you can see how it is a faith-based statement.
Well despite the magical 'god-like' power that atheist give to time, we do know exactly what time actually does 'do', with solely energy and matter to work with, and no input of information from any Intelligence, What time does is irresistibly decay things:
Scientific American: After Humans - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCGhnwfNQtI 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9wToWdXaQg The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. --- Not a happy ending. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488 Can “ANYTHING” Happen in an Open System? - Granville Sewell PhD. Math Excerpt: If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!). But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.” http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/appendixd.pdf Evolution Vs. Thermodynamics - Open System Refutation - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4143014 "there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980 "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Arnold Sommerfel, Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155 "Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Charles J. Smith - Biosystems, Vol.1, p259. "The laws of probability apply to open as well as closed systems." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas El Paso The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. o Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4
bornagain77_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

OK, that makes more sense. Obviously "coelocanth doesn't count" but it was the only thing I could think of that was an "extant" species that could, in some sense, be considered "ancestral" to an extinct species! So having graciously acknowledged your error (football is acceptable as an excuse), please don't then attempt to blame me for doing my best to answer an unanswerable questions! But note in any case, that the coelocanth has not been "in stasis for at least 70 million years". It is not identical to its 70 million year old ancestor, and, more to the point, "stasis" as much as it exists, is as much a result of natural selection as change is. Which is why molecular clocks, interestingly, tell us that "living fossils" like coelocanths have done as much "evolving" as relatively new-looking organisms like human beings. It's just that the best-reproducing variants have tended, not surprisingly, to be those that are like their parents rather than those that are less like their parents, the ancestral group being pretty well adapted to that particular aquatic niche. OK, to answer your actual question: You want an extinct species that is ancestral to a very different looking species. Well, I'm going to start with three caveats: The first is that "species" is a potentially misleading term in the context of the question. Strictly, "species" are non-interbreeding populations that exist at the same time, i.e. they do not interbreed, despite the fact that time-travelling issues wouldn't prevent them. So to talk of one "species" being ancestral to another "species" is a bit of an oxymoron. It only really makes sense if you consider that when speciation occurs, one branch becomes a new "species" and the other remains the same "species", in which case the original "species" may continue to exist even after the sub-population has gone on to form a new "species", and can thus, like the coelocanth, be considered "ancestral" to an earlier population! Much less confusing to talk about populations, so let's do that. The second caveat is that given the paucity of the fossil sampling, it is pretty unlikely that you'd ever find fossils from different time points in exactly the same lineage. To compare: imagine a picture of a large winter tree. Now, randomly delete about 99% of the pixels. What chance do you think that, of the remaining pixels, two will be in direct line, i.e. that taking one, and following up to each successive branching, you will meet another one? I suggest low, and I suggest that in the cases of the tree that we postulate represents the Family Tree of Life, that the probability is vanishingly small. Nonetheless, enough "pixels" are available that we can at least figure out some nodes, and place known populations close to those nodes. My third caveat is that your question is still an potentially an oxymoron! If a species/population is extinct that means it left no living descendents, right? And yet you are asking for a population of descendents from an extinct population! So perhaps you mean an ancestral population for which we have no extant and similar descendent population, and that is ancestral to another extinct population. Alternatively, you mean a population that left no currently living descendents but did leave now-extinct, but very different-looking descendents. With those caveats, and on the assumption you mean "an ancestral population for which we have no extant and similar descendent population, and that is ancestral to another extinct population", I nominate Myllokunmingi, which is (probably) the oldest proto-vertebrate, and I don't think any modern comparable creatures exist. If so, then it may well have been directly ancestral to all subsequent vertebrates, so for its extinct descendent populations, I nominate T. Rex, as I'm pretty sure T.Rex populations have no living descendents. If you meant "a population that left no currently living descendents but did leave now-extinct, but very different-looking descendents", then that's trickier, simply because I'd need to find an extinct population (of which there is a great choice) with a very different ancestral that left no other surviving lineages. Clearly, the further back you go, the more likely it is that any one population will have left at least one non-extinct lineage. So I'll pass on that, hoping you meant the first. But if you meant the second,then I'm not sure what the point of your question is - populations spawn divergent descendant lineages, many of which end in extinction, but those that don't in turn spawn their own set of divergent lineages etc. I once saw a very nice graphic, but I can't find it right now - it showed radiation of lineages from earliest times, punctuated by the great extinctions in which almost all branches were terminated, but a few kept going, radiated in turn, etc, until the next great extinction. I could probably find you an approprate pair of populations on that, but right now, my google fu seems to be failing me.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Let’s leave atheism out of this, right, Chris? We are talking about science, are we not? If only that were true. But given the fact that you are an atheistic evolutionist, we are reduced to talking about atheism and its scientific pretensions. We know this because you ignore the scientific evidence and refuse to admit that the fossil record does not contain all (or, even any) of the missing links that would be in abundance if evolution were true. That is why you also ignore the fact that the Cambrian Explosion turns any would-be "tree" upside down. The fossil record simply does not support atheistic evolution. On the contrary, it undermines it entirely. If you admitted that fact and moved on, then we could follow the evidence wherever it leads rather than you pretending it leads somewhere else.Chris Doyle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Earlier, I said "please name one single extant species that is ancestral to another named but markedly different species (found only in the fossil record)." My apologies, as Lizzie points out, I've muddled up extinct/extant and the line of descent (teach me to write posts at the same time as watching Liverpool v United!) So, let me try again: Please name one single extinct species (ie. found only in the fossil record) that is ancestral to another named but markedly different extant species. Coelacanth absolutely doesn't count: it's a living fossil that has been in stasis for at least 70 million years! The fact that, before we discovered living Coelacanths, it was considered a vital missing link between fish and amphibians is a huge embarrassment for evolutionists (not that they learned from their mistake).Chris Doyle_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply