Engineer says, the atom has a designer. Trolls disagree.

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 15, 2012

Design inference, Engineering, Intelligent Design, News}

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

In “Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet” ( Ann Arbor News, May 24, 2012), engineer Lakhi Goenka, grieving the death of his son, reflects,

Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.

Trolls respond here. Usual nonsense.

See also The strongest argument against design

Comments

PeterJ @ 250
Now, hold on there. I never once said that life forms do not share ‘traits’. We of course know that many do. What I am disputing is the evidence in the fossil record for evolution from a common ancestor.
Sorry, PeterJ, I did not intend to misrepresent you. However, I have already explained that the scientific definition of a transitional is a form that shares traits with other groups. So if you agree that lifeforms share traits, then logically you are agreeing that transitional forms exist according to the scientific definition. So it seems to me you are not really arguing there are no transitional forms. Rather, you are arguing that the pattern of shared traits amongst lifeforms is not convincing evidence that they share ancestry. This is precisely why I commented (@ 239):
I think what you’re really talking about here is epistemology – what does it mean for something to be reliably established by physical evidence, and does evolution theory meet that standard?
And, as I pointed out in that post, common ancestry meets the same high standard of scientific support as other sciences that we use everyday in industry, medicine, law etc. So what I would like know is why do you personally apply a much higher standard of evidence to evolution science compared to other sciences? CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 17, 2012
July
07
Jul
17
17
2012
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Cladvis 'What I am challenging is PeterJ’s claim that transitional forms — i.e. forms that share traits with two or more other groups — do not exist at all.' Now, hold on there. I never once said that life forms do not share 'traits'. We of course know that many do. What I am disputing is the evidence in the fossil record for evolution from a common ancestor. For instance I don't doubt for one minute that some of the Ceratopsian dinosaurs are variations of the same creature, but what I do dispute is that they share a common ancestor with say Tyranosuarus, or pteradactyl, a crocodile etc. Your argument with the pre-Cambrian fossils also faces many problems which I would like to discuss further, if you have the time. I think one of my biggest problems with the interpretation of the fossil record is the presumption that'evolution' took place. Also I am not satisfied with the dating of the so called 'layers' that make up the various stages of evolution of life on earth. Both of those things in my view are extremely questionable. As I said I appreciate your input here as I am sure you have argued these points a hundred times, but nevertheless there are still serious stumbling blocks attached before I could even begin to give evolution any credence.PeterJ_{July 17, 2012
July
07
Jul
17
17
2012
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Joe @ 248
CLAVDIVS: This is a false characterisation: transitionals are identified on the basis of detailed objective measurements and established statistical methods that show that a form shares traits with two or more other groups. JOE: Both a common design and convergence can explain that. IOW a transitional form = “It looks like a transitional to me” becauuse there is no way anyoine can ever verify the claim as no one knows what makes an organism what it is.
Joe, you appear to agree transitional forms do indeed exist, and they are explained by common design and/or convergence. That's fine. What I am challenging is PeterJ's claim that transitional forms -- i.e. forms that share traits with two or more other groups -- do not exist at all. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

This is a false characterisation: transitionals are identified on the basis of detailed objective measurements and established statistical methods that show that a form shares traits with two or more other groups.
Both a common design and convergence can explain that. IOW a transitional form = "It looks like a transitional to me" becauuse there is no way anyoine can ever verify the claim as no one knows what makes an organism what it is.Joe_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

PeterJ @ 246
And all transitional forms = “it looks like a transitional to me”.” Which made laugh. But it is true.
This is a false characterisation: transitionals are identified on the basis of detailed objective measurements and established statistical methods that show that a form shares traits with two or more other groups.
Thank you Cladvis for the links and the much needed encouragement to search the internet myself ha ha, but after having read up on the subject my suspicions were quickly verified when within a few paragraphs it becomes very clear that it is reliant, not on solid evidence, but on speculation, and dare I say it, biased interpretation. Of course I could be wrong.
And as I pointed out to you earlier (@ 239) what you are calling "speculation" and "biased interpretation" is in fact the scientific method, which has proved useful and accurate in virtually every area of modern civilisation. I understand that you personally don't like the conclusions of evolution science, but that is just a self-evident example of your bias as you have not pointed out any basis for your claim of bias in the science of evolution theory itself. You are of course not obliged to accept evolution science. However, that does not give you the right to misrepresent honest, truth-seeking science as "biased" without bringing forward any grounds for such.
In fact, in light of what I have just looked at I will say it again ‘Where are the transitional fossils?’.
By the scientific definition I have repeated a few times in this thread - a form sharing traits with two or more other groups - all the examples I gave above are transitional fossils. If you do not agree, you should say why; this, I suspect, will be a tricky thing for you to do, as the existence of particular traits in the fossils ihas been physically observed and measured. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Joe says, "You can’t even get a transition from prokaryote to eukaryote, meaning universal common descent is a non-starter. And all transitional forms = “it looks like a transitional to me”." Which made laugh. But it is true. Thank you Cladvis for the links and the much needed encouragement to search the internet myself ha ha, but after having read up on the subject my suspicions were quickly verified when within a few paragraphs it becomes very clear that it is reliant, not on solid evidence, but on speculation, and dare I say it, biased interpretation. Of course I could be wrong. When I have a little more time, perhaps tomorrow, we could discuss this at a little more depth as it was really very obvious to me. In fact, in light of what I have just looked at I will say it again 'Where are the transitional fossils?'.PeterJ_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Claudius At this point, you are aiding in the side track. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

You can't even get a transition from prokaryote to eukaryote, meaning universal common descent is a non-starter. And all transitional forms = "it looks like a transitional to me".Joe_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 242 I don't believe it's a tangential matter at all.
The transitions we do readily find and observe — as opposed to infer — do not show body plan origins ultimately tracing to unicellular ancestors but variation well within body plans.
Body plan transitions - say, between phyla - are rare. But they are not absent. As I pointed out previously to PeterJ, we now have several examples of forms that are intermediate between the Precambrian worms and phyla like brachiopods, molluscs and arthropods. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Claudius: Pardon me. I really don't want to have to belabour a tangential matter, but note for record. I have cited the man in exact words all along, then gone on to observe the problem of absent sequences of transitional forms, where classic icons have had to be retired. Where the heavily dominant feature of the fossils is appearance, stasis, disappearance. And, where were Darwin's theory on how life forms arise correct, we ought to be Where there ARE transitions, i.e. adaptations we can see with circumpolars (never mind, not linear), and red deer etc. For that matter, human ethnicity. The transitions we do readily find and observe -- as opposed to infer -- do not show body plan origins ultimately tracing to unicellular ancestors but variation well within body plans. And that starts with the dozens of phyla and subphyla in the Cambrian fossils. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 240
Going beyond, body plan transitions and transformations should be all over the fossil record, but they are not, they are vanishingly rare or nigh on non existent.
I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that body plan transitions are rare. I was only challenging your claim that Gould told us transitional forms are absent, period, which you have not raised again, so that's fine. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Pardon directness: you persist in sidetracking and strawmen. For record, I have added some specific remarks here on, with additional cites and a brief discussion on the classic case of transitional forms that was used for generations; and which set the context for my remarks. That provides a clear enough additional understanding for those who need further facts. The onlooker will also be able to see that my handling of the statements of Gould in light of his career, is fair. Not only in 1977 etc, but also right up to two months prior to his death -- having co-founded an alternate theory of evolution that sought to address systematic gaps in the fossil record in the intervening decades -- he was on record in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002):
. . . long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [[p. 752.] . . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." [[p. 753.] . . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.]
In that light the drumbeat repetition of demands for a definition based on a strawman distortion of what I had to say do not speak well on your behalf. Please, do better. As to the new talking point that all life forms are transitional, that boils down to begging the question through projecting an a priori darwinist view unto the evidence. Regardless of the actual pattern that starts with the way the Cambrian fossils go top down, not bottom up. (Don't even ask about the confused picture posed by the conflicting molecular reconstructions.) So, this duppy leaning on the fence sez: BOO! On the focal issue for the thread, it is evident from the past several weeks, that under present perceptions, no reasonably accessible empirical evidence or reasoned argument will suffice to open your eyes to acknowledge signs that are empirically reliable indicators of design. On track record, you will predictably demand an inconsistently high and known unavailable standard of warrant for anything that cuts across your system of thought. This is the problem of incoherent evidentialism, a case of selectively hyperskeptical question-begging. In reply to you -- and to Sagan and Clifford -- I note:
extraordinary claims require ~~extraordinary~~ [adequate] evidence.
In particular, you need to face the fact that the past of origins is unobservable to and unobserved by us. However, as with many other things that we may not directly access, there are traces that come down to us. Some of these are in fact characteristic signs, comparable to deer tracks. That is, we have an empirically known, adequate cause. There is good reason to believe there is not an adequate alternate cause (or at any rate, the chances of such are vanishingly remote). So, where it is important to take a responsible position, we may reasonably -- and in many cases, with moral certainty -- infer from sign to signified adequate cause. And in any case, we are not entitled to dismiss such signs as though they have zero evidentiary value, especially if we are clinging to proposed alternatives that lack empirical support of comparable quality. Here, the issue is that functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] -- such as the arrangement of pixels in this message, or the strings of symbols in a working computer program, or that of the components in an amplifier circuit that works, or that of the process units in a petroleum refinery, or the paint swatches in an accurate portrait, or the parts of a car engine etc etc [and here note the conceptual priority of ostensive definition by pointing to key examples and family resemblance over precising statements or genus-difference] -- is a commonly encountered phenomenon with just one observed cause, intelligence. In addition, there are good needle in haystack, accessible atomic resources grounds for seeing that once we have over 500 bits of FSCO/I on the gamut of our solar system, sampling limitations of the accessible search resources imply that we are maximally unlikely to hit on unrepresentative, special zones by chance and blind necessity. You already know -- though you seem inclined to reject even examples before your eyes -- that such FSCO/I strongly tends to come in isolated islands in the space of possible configurations of components. In short the inference from FSCO/I to design as adequate and best causal explanation, is well-warranted. In the case of the observed cosmos (onlookers, see how exactly I have to specify on long experience of tangents led off to strawmen) the fine tuning of its underlying physics points to design. Cf here for a 101 with onward links; never seriously addressed by dismissive objectors. For the world of life, the pivotal issue is the origin in Darwin's warm pond or equivalent, of encapsulated metabolising automata with integrated von Neumann self-replicator. This is before any reproduction can occur, so, the distractor that pretends that FSCO/I can arise incrementally through evolution is off the table. You have simply repeatedly refused to seriously address this case. Where, this is decisive, as it puts design on the table as credible best explanation on empirically well-warranted sign in the context of the origin of the very first body plan. So, when we see that the whole world o of life is full of body plans that credibly require 10 - 100 mn bits of new FSCI to form them, design is again the reasonable explanation. On the question of what a body plan is, let us cite wiki against obvious ideological interest:
A body plan is the blueprint for the way the body of an organism is laid out. Each species of multicellular organism—plant, fungus, red algea, slime mold, among others—has a body plan. This article is about animal body plans. An animal's symmetry,[1] its number of body segments and number of limbs are all aspects of its body plan. One of the key issues of developmental biology is the evolution of body plans as different as those of a starfish, or a mammal, which come from a close common biological heritage, both are deuterostomes. One issue in particular is how radical changes in body plans have occurred over geological time. The body plan is a key feature of an organism's morphology and, since the discovery of DNA, developmental biologists have been able to learn a lot about how genes control the development of structural features through a cascade of processes in which key genes produce morphogens, chemicals that diffuse through the body to produce a gradient that acts as a position indicator for cells, turning on other genes, some of which in turn produce other morphogens. A key discovery was the existence of groups of homeobox genes in which are responsible for laying down the basic body plan in animals. The homeobox genes are remarkably conserved between species as diverse as the fruitfly and man, the basic segmented pattern of the worm or fruitfly being the origin of the segmented spine in man. The field of animal evolutionary developmental biology, which studies the genetics of morphology in detail is now a rapidly expanding one [1], with many of the developmental genetic cascades, particularly in the fruitfly drosophila, now catalogued in considerable detail.[2] Body plan is the basis for distinguishing animal phyla, and there are 35 different basic animal body plans, each corresponding to distinct animal phyl[u]m.
And, as I pointed out via key examples several times above -- but was routinely ignored in the rush to drum out repetitive blows against a strawman -- something like a whale or a bat or a bird shows the particular challenge of moving from a more generic animal to something that has so significant a cluster of integrated features vital to its survival, thriving and reproduction. In the case of the whale, there is an estimate on the table of 50,000 incremental changes to make something like a cow into something like a whale. Even if that were only 500, it is plain that the transitional forms leading up to the full whale would be numerous. For the bird, the avian one way flow lung, flight feathers, control algorithms for flight, and relevant musculature and weight saving specialisations etc, point to considerable need for increments if that were to have happened by slow, incremental Darwinian steps. Where also, several of the features are vital, and failure of proposed intermediates along the way would be a major issue. One that is too often passed over in silence or brushed aside rhetorically. Going beyond, body plan transitions and transformations should be all over the fossil record, but they are not, they are vanishingly rare or nigh on non existent. It is clear that a prioris have been projected unto the fossil record, and it has been seen through glasses coloured by those a prioris. The same holds for the other major icons of body plan level macro evolution, which seems in the end to be a gross extrapolation and exaggeration without adequate evidence, of the minor adaptations that are not disputed. The sort that caused red deer to have so many varieties, up to and including the North American Elk. And the like. Which I have brought up above in the thread, but of course these were passed over in the rush of on tangents to pummel strawmen with drumbeat talking points. Kindly, do better next time. FN: Claudius, kindly cf above. I have said enough for record.kairosfocus_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

PeterJ @ 238 Thanks for the response.
The only way anyone can possibly see such transition in the fossil record is if that is what they want to see. From what I can gather, or at least the conclusion that I have come to, is that all the evidence for the evolutionary transition, of any species, ends up in speculation. I want to see hard physical evidence. I know that’s a tall order in many ways, but if life evolved, like Darwin believed, and that every life form shared a common ancestor, or even came from a few, with all the fossils available we should easily see this happening. But we don’t, unless that is what one wants to see.
I think what you're really talking about here is epistemology - what does it mean for something to be reliably established by physical evidence, and does evolution theory meet that standard? There is an agreed upon procedure in modern science for establishing a theory, which includes objective physical observations, subjective judging and written debate. This proceedure has proved reliable countless times in many varied circumstances, including in industry, politics and law. And evolution theory has indeed been confirmed using this procedure. Accordingly, the facts of the fossil record, genetics, ecology etc. are seen to support evolution theory because they have been analysed in accordance with the recognised scientific process by a global, cross-cultural, interfaith community of scientists. I do not believe it is fair to characterise this kind of reasoning as "speculation" or just seeing "what one wants to see". It's a humble, thoughtful and common sense approach to knowledge and truth-seeking.
“In recent years we have discovered transitional forms between the Precambrian worm-like forms and the brachiopods, like halkiera and kimberella; the molluscs, like wiwaxia; and an excellent sequence of transitions to the arthropods, such as aysheaia, anomolocaris, bomakellia and opabinia.” Would you please provide me with a link to the above study?
It's not just one study, there are many. A few moments with Google will do wonders: I found this, or have a look at this page on Mickwitzia. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Cladvis I really do appreciate what you are trying to put across here, but I simply can't agree. I have sought answers to the problems with the fossil record for a number of years now and what I can not find is 'significant' evidence for Darwinian evolution. "In any case, there is not a “general absence” of transitional fossils between “major body plans”." No, there is a 'complete absence'. The only way anyone can possibly see such transition in the fossil record is if that is what they want to see. From what I can gather, or at least the conclusion that I have come to, is that all the evidence for the evolutionary transition, of any species, ends up in speculation. I want to see hard physical evidence. I know that's a tall order in many ways, but if life evolved, like Darwin believed, and that every life form shared a common ancestor, or even came from a few, with all the fossils available we should easily see this happening. But we don't, unless that is what one wants to see. Horse evolution, for instance, is being dropped from many science text books etc, for fairly obvious reasons. Just like whale evolution is largely being dropped by many leading palaeontologists, for obvious reasons too. "In recent years we have discovered transitional forms between the Precambrian worm-like forms and the brachiopods, like halkiera and kimberella; the molluscs, like wiwaxia; and an excellent sequence of transitions to the arthropods, such as aysheaia, anomolocaris, bomakellia and opabinia." Would you please provide me with a link to the above study? Only if you have time. Thanks. PPeterJ_{July 16, 2012
July
07
Jul
16
16
2012
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 231
I have long since highlighted what Gould said and did across decades on the matter. He did not take one stance in 1977 then later abandon it or correct himself from being taken out of context.
Of course Gould did not take one stance, then later abandon it. His stance was, and remained, that anagenetic transitions are rare (but not absent) and cladogenetic transitions are abundant. But I simply don't understand how you can deny that Gould corrected himself from being taken out of context. You even acknowledged this yourself when you said (@ 218): "His rhetorical retractions once creationists had taken up his writings, are what are suspect, if anything."
sure, he believed in evolution and gradual transformation to form new body plans, but he acknowledges that this is inference. In intervening decades, he was a co-founder of a theory that sought to account for absence of transitional fossil sequences...
Gould was co-founder of a theory that sought to account for the relative rarity of anagenetic transitions showing phyletic gradualism within lineages; he did not seek to account for the rarity of cladogenetic transitions between lineages because such are not rare, they are "rife" and "abundant", according to Gould. Your failure to distinguish between anagenesis and cladogenesis, in the context of discussing Gould's work, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of his work, and thus undermines the credibility of your argument based upon his work. That is all I wanted to point out.
There is a widely acknowledged general absence of multi-point transitional fossil sequences relevant to the origin of major body plans and specialised organs. That is the context in which, for a classic case in point, the former iconic horse fossil sequence — which from 1879 on used to be used for generations as a prime example of alleged incremental emergence of such — has been retired.
Great example. The horse fossil sequence was portrayed as an anagenetic sequence, which it is not. Instead it shows cladogenetic transitions i.e. fossil forms having traits belonging to two or more other groups, and appearing in exactly the pattern we would expect if we randomly sampled points on a branching tree of descent. In any case, there is not a "general absence" of transitional fossils between "major body plans". In recent years we have discovered transitional forms between the Precambrian worm-like forms and the brachiopods, like halkiera and kimberella; the molluscs, like wiwaxia; and an excellent sequence of transitions to the arthropods, such as aysheaia, anomolocaris, bomakellia and opabinia. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2012
July
07
Jul
15
15
2012
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

KF, Does this mean you are not going to define what you mean by 'complete' body forms. I just want to know so I can stop monitoring this thread.Jerad_{July 15, 2012
July
07
Jul
15
15
2012
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, Oh, right. So KF was wagging his finger at me via a non-existent proxy?Jerad_{July 15, 2012
July
07
Jul
15
15
2012
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Jerad @ 233 A duppy is a spook, ghost or spirit - the term originates in Africa and is common in the Caribbean. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 15, 2012
July
07
Jul
15
15
2012
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

KF,
And, you persist in sustaining a strawman caricature, for it should have been clear from the outset and certainly after I have repeatedly emphasised the point, that I have spoken to the issue of transitional sequences SEEN in the fossil record. That should never have been an issue that needed any clarification in the first place, and having been clarified it should never have been an occasion for repeated pummelling of a strawman caricature that is distractive from the focal issues for the thread. Especially when we have a classic iconic transitional sequence on the table, the horse sequence.
But it wasn't just the notion of transitional I wanted you to clearify (since your use of the term seems different from Gould's based on quotes given). I was interested in your definition of 'complete body plans' or forms which you did state and haven't clarified.
What I find interesting is how you now seem to want to suggest that almost all forms are transitional. That is a case of studiously whistling by the graveyard in the dark if there ever was one. This duppy leaning on the fence therefore shouts: BOO!
Duppy? What's a duppy? It's my opinion, based on the implications of evolutionary theory, that all life forms with descendents are transitional forms. I offered that to make sure my view was not in question and so you could contrast it with yours. And your definition of 'complete body plans'.
And, back on the main thread topic, it is clear that the root problem is that there is a determination not to accept any reasonable inference on empirical designs that point where you would not go, never mind the price paid in selective hyperskepticism that leads to double standards on warrant for inductive reasoning. This duppy leaning on the fence says, BOO, again.
This duppy seems quite busy. I've discussed the inference to design with you and I thought we'd agreed to disagree on that.
Your attempt to distract from the significance of how small disruptions to the vital functional organisation of the CNS can be instantly fatal — showing how islands of function are exemplified routinely here — by a side-track shows the problem again. In reply, you just say you disagree; disagree here with a routine fact — the .22 fired into a cow’s head causes a relatively small disruption to brain tissue organisation, with utterly disruptive consequences.
I agree that shooting a cow in the head (might take more than a 22 calibre round though) is generally fatal but I don't see what that has to do with proving that biological forms exist on islands of functionality. And I wasn't interested in discussing that all over again as I think we've exhausted that topic.
And, I should add that the history of the rise of evolutionary materialist scientism to power in science, science edu and society is a matter of abundantly accessible fact, too.
Whatever. I just wanted to know what you meant by 'complete body plans".Jerad_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Jerad You have now gone on to play the tangential talking point game on another thread. I have addressed it there. This is a problem. And, you persist in sustaining a strawman caricature, for it should have been clear from the outset and certainly after I have repeatedly emphasised the point, that I have spoken to the issue of transitional sequences SEEN in the fossil record. That should never have been an issue that needed any clarification in the first place, and having been clarified it should never have been an occasion for repeated pummelling of a strawman caricature that is distractive from the focal issues for the thread. Especially when we have a classic iconic transitional sequence on the table, the horse sequence. As for the attempt to suggest that I have not adequately responded to Claudius, let the above for the record speak. What I find interesting is how you now seem to want to suggest that almost all forms are transitional. That is a case of studiously whistling by the graveyard in the dark if there ever was one. This duppy leaning on the fence therefore shouts: BOO! And, back on the main thread topic, it is clear that the root problem is that there is a determination not to accept any reasonable inference on empirical designs that point where you would not go, never mind the price paid in selective hyperskepticism that leads to double standards on warrant for inductive reasoning. This duppy leaning on the fence says, BOO, again. Your attempt to distract from the significance of how small disruptions to the vital functional organisation of the CNS can be instantly fatal -- showing how islands of function are exemplified routinely here -- by a side-track shows the problem again. In reply, you just say you disagree; disagree here with a routine fact -- the .22 fired into a cow's head causes a relatively small disruption to brain tissue organisation, with utterly disruptive consequences. BOO, again. And, I should add that the history of the rise of evolutionary materialist scientism to power in science, science edu and society is a matter of abundantly accessible fact, too. KFkairosfocus_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Claudius Sorry, but I need to speak for record; it being evident that onlookers will have to decide for themselves. I have long since highlighted what Gould said and did across decades on the matter. He did not take one stance in 1977 then later abandon it or correct himself from being taken out of context. In 1977, he went on record:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps [[ . . . . ] He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.[[Cf. Origin, Ch 10, "Summary of the preceding and present Chapters," also see similar remarks in Chs 6 and 9.]
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." [[Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.]
sure, he believed in evolution and gradual transformation to form new body plans, but he acknowledges that this is inference. In intervening decades, he was a co-founder of a theory that sought to account for absence of transitional fossil sequences, and at the end of his life, he published in his 2002 technical book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory :
. . . long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists. [[p. 752.] . . . . The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section [[first occurrence] without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." [[p. 753.] . . . . proclamations for the supposed ‘truth’ of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist’s knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most ‘textbook classics’ upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the ‘case study’ method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record. [[p. 773.]
So, at the end of his career, he was just about where he was in 1977. In addition, as I documented already, the point is not merely debating on a Gould he-said. So, we can know where the fossil data on incremental origin of body plan facts lie. There is a widely acknowledged general absence of multi-point transitional fossil sequences relevant to the origin of major body plans and specialised organs. That is the context in which, for a classic case in point, the former iconic horse fossil sequence -- which from 1879 on used to be used for generations as a prime example of alleged incremental emergence of such -- has been retired. KFkairosfocus_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

PeterJ, No response? I'm a bit disappointed. You seemed quite willing to engage in the discussion.Jerad_{July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

PeterJ,
No, what you have given me is nothing of the kind. Admittedly some are relatively alike, and may even be closely related, but that’s about as far as you can go with that.
Um . . . .what would you expect transitional fossils to look like? How fine a gradation in morphological changes would there have to be for you to accept that one species descended from another? Or: what is your definition of a transitional fossil and how could we prove that a fossil is one?Jerad_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

KF,
Pardon, but you — by willfully ignoring some very direct warnings on drumbeat repetition of tangential talking points while diverting from central issues — have now convinced me that your objective in this thread always was or has become distractive thread-jacking, using the tactics pioneered at UD by the sock-puppet MathGrrl.
I don't see how asking you to clarify a term you used is hijacking a thread. Anyway, you can stop responding any time.
You have had more than adequate information to walk back from strawman mischaracterisations off on successive tangents, but insist on more and more of same. Kindly, take that as a warning.
Asking for clarification is not playing by the rules? How do you figure that?
As to the latest tangents, I think the astute onlooker will clearly see that I have raised the question of missing transitional forms (notice, how that term has been in the professional literature from Gould for 35 years and observe what he left in the book he knew was his legacy) in the context of the Darwinian tree of life claim of vertical development, with particular attention to the fossil record’s cross section of life forms of the past of origins. And, it is quite clear that after 150 years of diligent search across the world and the sections of the geologic column, with 1/4 million fossil species, millions of specimens in museums and billions seen in situ, there simply is no widely seen pattern of observed vertical development along the lines of the former horse sequence that stood in museums and textbooks for generations.
How do you explain the quotes provided by CLAVDIVS that contradict your interpretation of Gould's remarks?
This, in a context where transitional sequences tracing back to unicellular common ancestors should be a dominant or at least common pattern in the fossiliferous strata, had gradualistic succession of incrementally improved populations been the actual dynamic of life.
IF universal common descent is true then almost all fossils are transitional forms. That's why we keep asking you to define your terms.
In short, all the rhetoric above worked to distract attention from and obscure something that was there since Darwin had to try to justify why the fossils did not directly support his gradualistic picture.
The fossils don't contradict the gradualistic theory given that we don't expect the fossil record to be complete in any sense of the word.
Namely, that life forms come in islands of function. That is, we see in biology just what we should expect from the nature of functionally specific complex organisation that involves integrated systems comprising many well-matched, carefully arranged parts — here, self-assembling, too! (from zygotes etc on up) — distinct information-rich clusters of parts and arrangements that work, in an implicit context of many possible arrangements that would not work. The example from a recent thread on 2LOT and open systems in the biological world comes to mind. A .22 bullet properly placed in a cow’s head, effects a small disruption of finely balanced, organised CNS components. The result — common in butcher shops — is incompatible with continued life.
But you could cut the cow's tails and ears off and it would survive. It can recover from some diseases. I don't see what shooting cows in the head has to do with establishing that the web of life created by universal common descent cannot exist. I have heard you say over and over and over again that there are islands of functionality and I still disagree with you.
In short, the actual evidence out there is consistent with what we should expect on a design theory view.
Perhaps, but it's also consistent with an evolutionary point of view. And the evolutionary paradigm has greater explanatory power and only extrapolates observed processes. There is no proof that evolution is limited as you try to assert.
But, per the happenstance of the relevant history of ideas, it is commonly force-fitted into a gradualist Darwinian model, in the context of a background implicit controlling evolutionary materialist a priori. The institutional party-line implications will suffice to ensure that many who do not formally adhere to such a priori materialism, will accommodate themselves to the realities of institutional balances of power.
I am not a member of any institution nor do I make my living as an academic.
Indeed, in many cases, those trained within the system will have been so led to believe in its soundness and power, that they will be blissfully unaware of a prioris, begged questions, failed predictions, explanatory gaps etc. Not to mention, in a world where the dogma of scientism still holds a lot of power, they will not be aware of inherent limitations of scientific knowledge claims, especially on the attempted reconstruction of the unobservable past of origins.
And you've seen this yourself? You were educated in the system?
So, instead of further rewarding distractions, let us focus the central issue, the inference to design as best causal explanation, on well warranted signs.
I'm happy to return to that issue (although I think we were running out of things to say) but I'm still confused over your use of 'complete body plans'. In fact I'm a bit surprised at your unwillingness to address the issue. It seemed to be a central point for you and yet you are reluctant to elaborate it. I'll leave off commenting on the rest of your post as it's mostly a repeat of points we've discussed at length already.Jerad_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Cladvis “You said there’s nothing “leading up to” Triceratops. So I gave a series of intermediate forms exhibiting gradual development of the horns, frill etc. clearly “leading up to” Triceratops and ilk – exactly what you asked for. No, what you have given me is nothing of the kind. Admittedly some are relatively alike, and may even be closely related, but that’s about as far as you can go with that. To suggest that one is a direct ancestor of the other is pure speculation, and I would like to think you know that. I never set out to become a creationist, I was very open minded about where the evidence would lead me, and quite willing to accept evolution and hold that stance. But Darwinian evolution, Imo, is severely lacking in many departments leaving me with very little choice, after studying it quite extensively too I must add, to dismiss it completely. I think a large part of that also comes from the reasoning of some evolutionists, like yours, when a lack of physical evidence can also be construed as affirming evolution. Nah. I thank you for taking the time to explain your point, and must say I have quite enjoyed it too, but you have done little else than further strengthen my belief in creation. PPeterJ_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 218
Sorry, when Gould makes a plain statement in the per reviewed literature in 1977 and still sustains it 25 years later in his last technical work, two months before he died, this is not something he has retracted or corrected. ... In short, Gould’s summary as I have given it is accurate. His rhetorical retractions once creationists had taken up his writings, are what are suspect, if anything.
My challenge to your line of reasoning here is the logical inconsistency of claiming Gould as an expert authority for your point, whilst ignoring and dismissing that same expert's specific, detailed and repeated refutations of that very same point. Either Gould is an expert authority on the fossil record, or he is not. You cannot have it both ways. Gould's opinion on the overall pattern of the fossil record was made very clear throughout his writings - anagenetic transitions within lineages are rare (but not absent), whilst cladogenetic transitions between lineages are abundant. The whole thrust of Gould's work is founded upon the understanding that these are very different types of transition that appear at very different frequencies in the fossil record. So it is a fundamental misunderstanding of Gould's life's work to take his comment about the rarity of anagenesis and interpret it to mean the rarity of cladogenesis.
The fossil beds of the past 4 or so By on the conventional timelines have been explored for 150 years. Nay, scoured. Billions of fossils seen in situ, millions in museums, 1/4 million+ fossil species. And the transitionals are simply not there to be seen after all that effort.
Anagenetic transitions are rare. But by Gould's definition - and that of modern evolution theory - cladogenetic transitions are "rife" and "abundant". For example, fossil hominims show an obvious graded sequence of intermediates. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

PeterJ @ 221
PETERJ @ 209: Take for instance something like Triceratops, an extremly distinguishable life form. There are many fossils of Triceratops, but nothing at all of anything leading up to it. CLAVDIVS @ 210: What about Psittacosaurus? Protoceratops? Chasmosaurus? Monoclonius? Styracosaurus? Pentaceratops? Torosaurus? PETERJ @ 221: What about them really? Would you suggest that any two of these are in a direct line of transition, would you have said that any two of these dinosaurs were able to reproduce?
You said there's nothing "leading up to" Triceratops. So I gave a series of intermediate forms exhibiting gradual development of the horns, frill etc. clearly "leading up to" Triceratops and ilk - exactly what you asked for. In any case, thank you for at least attempting to clarify what you mean by "transitional form", namely, fossils "in a direct line of transition". Unfortunately, your personal definition of "transitional form" appears to be an own goal, as the only model of origins that expects to see "direct lines" of transition is the creationist orchard model. Since, by your own words, direct lines of transition are not seen, the creationist orchard model is refuted by the fossil evidence. The evolutionary model, on the other hand, expects a tree-like branching process - as diagrammed on the wall behind the ceratopsian skulls I showed you. And since fossilisation is a somewhat random process, evolutionists expect fossils to appear as though from various scattered locations on the twigs, branches and nodes of that tree. Of course, this is exactly what we do see, so the evolutionist model is confirmed by the fossil record. CheersCLAVDIVS_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

F/N: Those wishing to reflect on the darwinian tree of life may wish to observe the remarks here.kairosfocus_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Pardon, but you -- by willfully ignoring some very direct warnings on drumbeat repetition of tangential talking points while diverting from central issues -- have now convinced me that your objective in this thread always was or has become distractive thread-jacking, using the tactics pioneered at UD by the sock-puppet MathGrrl. You have had more than adequate information to walk back from strawman mischaracterisations off on successive tangents, but insist on more and more of same. Kindly, take that as a warning. As to the latest tangents, I think the astute onlooker will clearly see that I have raised the question of missing transitional forms (notice, how that term has been in the professional literature from Gould for 35 years and observe what he left in the book he knew was his legacy) in the context of the Darwinian tree of life claim of vertical development, with particular attention to the fossil record's cross section of life forms of the past of origins. And, it is quite clear that after 150 years of diligent search across the world and the sections of the geologic column, with 1/4 million fossil species, millions of specimens in museums and billions seen in situ, there simply is no widely seen pattern of observed vertical development along the lines of the former horse sequence that stood in museums and textbooks for generations. This, in a context where transitional sequences tracing back to unicellular common ancestors should be a dominant or at least common pattern in the fossiliferous strata, had gradualistic succession of incrementally improved populations been the actual dynamic of life. In short, all the rhetoric above worked to distract attention from and obscure something that was there since Darwin had to try to justify why the fossils did not directly support his gradualistic picture. Namely, that life forms come in islands of function. That is, we see in biology just what we should expect from the nature of functionally specific complex organisation that involves integrated systems comprising many well-matched, carefully arranged parts -- here, self-assembling, too! (from zygotes etc on up) -- distinct information-rich clusters of parts and arrangements that work, in an implicit context of many possible arrangements that would not work. The example from a recent thread on 2LOT and open systems in the biological world comes to mind. A .22 bullet properly placed in a cow's head, effects a small disruption of finely balanced, organised CNS components. The result -- common in butcher shops -- is incompatible with continued life. In short, the actual evidence out there is consistent with what we should expect on a design theory view. But, per the happenstance of the relevant history of ideas, it is commonly force-fitted into a gradualist Darwinian model, in the context of a background implicit controlling evolutionary materialist a priori. The institutional party-line implications will suffice to ensure that many who do not formally adhere to such a priori materialism, will accommodate themselves to the realities of institutional balances of power. Indeed, in many cases, those trained within the system will have been so led to believe in its soundness and power, that they will be blissfully unaware of a prioris, begged questions, failed predictions, explanatory gaps etc. Not to mention, in a world where the dogma of scientism still holds a lot of power, they will not be aware of inherent limitations of scientific knowledge claims, especially on the attempted reconstruction of the unobservable past of origins. And, when the smoke of burning strawmen clears, we will see the root inductive logic issue looming dead ahead. So, instead of further rewarding distractions, let us focus the central issue, the inference to design as best causal explanation, on well warranted signs. Namely, we have a common pattern that causal forces and factors commonly stamp what they act on with characteristic signs. A deer, walking down a forest trail, will leave characteristic tracks and often droppings. From tracks, we may properly infer deer as best explanation, even if not directly observed. That, even in the teeth of possibilities of trickery. The responsible interpretation in absence of additional signs of manipulation, or of another animal that somehow leaves the same sort of tracks, is: deer. Provisional, but well warranted and credibly true. (BTW, this is the same general degree of warrant that obtains in scientific contexts, and on the same basic logic.) Just so, and as one of the background posts to the ID foundation series argues:
Signs: I observe one or more signs [in a pattern], and infer the signified object, on a warrant: I: [si] –> O, on W a –> Here, as I will use “sign” [as opposed to "symbol"], the connexion is a more or less causal or natural one; e.g. a pattern of deer tracks on the ground is an index, pointing to a deer. (NB, 02:28: Sign can be used more broadly in technical semiotics to embrace “symbol” and other complexities, but this is not needed for our purposes. I am using “sign” much as it is used in medicine, at least since Hippocrates of Cos in C5 BC, i.e. to point to a disease on an objective, warranted indicator.) b –> If the sign is not a sufficient condition of the signified, the inference is not certain and is defeatable; though it may be inductively strong. (E.g. someone may imitate deer tracks.) c –> The warrant for an inference may in key cases require considerable background knowledge or cues from the context. d –> The act of inference may also be implicit or even intuitive, and I may not be able to articulate but may still be quite well-warranted to trust the inference. Especially, if it traces to senses I have good reason to accept are working well, and are acting in situations that I have no reason to believe will materially distort the inference . . .
This pattern of reasoning on signs is well-known and indeed is ancient, as the deer track example highlights. An interesting discussion appears in Aristotle's The Rhetoric, Bk I Ch 2:
[1357b] Of Signs, one kind bears the same relation to the statement it supports as the particular bears to the universal, the other the same as the universal bears to the particular. The infallible kind is a "complete proof" (tekmerhiou); the fallible kind has no specific name. By infallible signs I mean those on which syllogisms proper may be based: and this shows us why this kind of Sign is called "complete proof": when people think that what they have said cannot be refuted, they then think that they are bringing forward a "complete proof," meaning that the matter has now been demonstrated and completed . . .
In short, Ari here distinguishes signs that convey moral certainty per a strong pattern in our experience, from those that convey lesser warrant but are "good enough for government work." It turns out that in scientific (and a lot of ordinary, day to day) investigations:
1: we see natural, more or less fixed regularities that point to laws of mechanical necessity at work, such as the tendency of heavy objects near the Earth's surface to fall at about 9.8 N/kg. 2: In other cases, outcomes under similar initial circumstances are highly consistent but show a stable pattern in accord with some model or other that gives a probability distribution. This is a sign of chance at work, constrained by the driving parameters of the distribution. For instance a dropped fair die tumbles and settles to read 1 to 6 in a flat distribution, and wind speeds often follow Weibull distributions. 3: In other highly contingent situations, outcomes reflect characteristic signs of purposeful intelligence at work, by design. For instance, we often see functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] the operationally relevant form of the CSI discussed since Orgel and Wicken, then taken up by Thaxton et al and latterly Dembski et al. In every case where we can directly and independently observe and assess the cause of FSCO/I, it is design. And this is backed up by the general nature of chance sampling, which will tend to reflect the bulk of a distribution when samples are too small to reasonably expect to catch needles in the haystack.
In short, we here see the rationale of the design inference filter, which can be summarised in a flowchart diagram (it is in effect an algorithm of inductive logic inference), or expressed in an equation; here, in a simple form at solar system atomic and temporal resources level:
Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold for inferring design as best explanation for FSCO/I
In effect, where we see I bits of functional and specific info (S being a dummy binary variable of objective warrant for specificity: if so, S = 1, and it is 0 otherwise), and I*S exceeds 500 bits, we are warranted to infer design as best explanation on the gamut of the solar system. For the observed cosmos as a whole the threshold would move to 1,000 bits, for similar needle in the haystack reasons. DNA-based, cellular life forms, by that criterion, are chock-full of signs of design. That is controversial, but only because of the dominance of evolutionary materialism. There is no empirical observation based warrant for the evo mat claims of chance and necessity creating such FSCO/I, starting with the origin of the very self-replicating facility integrated in a metabolic, encapsulated automaton that defines the living cell. (Notice, the studious absence of objectors in that thread.) Going to cosmological level, perhaps the pivotal observation is that the observed cosmos seems fine-tuned for C-chemistry, aqueous-medium, cell based life. Indeed, it turns out that the first four most abundant elements in the cosmos are linked through a key set of properties and interactions at nuclear level -- I here speak of a resonance responsible for the abundance of C and O -- and get us to H: stars, He: build-up of other elements from the "ash" of H fusion, C & O: water and organic chemistry. Add another common element, N, and we are at proteins. look at the delicate and unique properties of water, and the impression of purpose, given the evident fine tuning, is overwhelming. At least to those open to consider it. In short, through inference on warranted signs, there is a serious case for design of life and of the cosmos that accommodates it. But, if you were to listen to the evo mat establishment and take them at their word on their line of talking points, you would never see that. That, is perhaps the most important (though, quite sad) take-away point from this thread, which now seems to have run its course. G'day, KFkairosfocus_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
What about them really? Would you suggest that any two of these are in a direct line of transition, would you have said that any two of these dinosaurs were able to reproduce?
What would you say about them Peter? What story do they tell?
What I was saying is that when you look at the fossil record for evidence of gradual change over time, or a direct line of transition as even one creature develops in this manner, you don’t find any.
Did you look at the whale progression I linked to? How do you explain the apparent transitions? Remember too that evolutionary theory does not JUST rely on fossils. As has been pointed out in another thread recently Wallace and Darwin found the biogeographic data extremely compelling. Is your view different when you combine the fossil and biogeographic data? And if you throw in the morphological record? And the genetic data? And the evidence from human breeding programs?
I am therefore suggesting, and I think quite plausibly too, that what you have in the fossil record are complete body forms.
Could you give a definition of 'complete body forms' so that we can be sure what you mean? Are complete body forms mutually exclusive from transitional forms? Or can a body form be both? Does complete body form mean that they left no descendants? That they existed, were pretty successful and then just went extinct?
As being someone who never believed in God, and always accepted evolution, no one was more suprised than me to discover that I was wrong on both counts. And how fantsatically liberating that has been.
I'm very glad for you. Truly. But I disagree with you about the truth of evolution.
You should try laying aside your Darwinian specs and have a right good look at the evidence. It may just do the same for yo
As I said before, I examine my beliefs about evolution every day. And almost every day I find the evidence more compelling.Jerad_{July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply