Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinist Debating Device #6: “The Literature Bluff”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this post Dr. Hunter shows us professor of English Terry Scambray completely destroying three Ph.D Darwinists on basic logic and reasoning.   

Jeffrey Shallit takes to his website to rebut Professor Scambray’s arguments and falls flat on his face. 

First Shallit takes Scambray to task for asserting that  “Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years.”  Shallit dismisses the claim as “pure creationist babble.” 

Eminent Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould wrote the following:   

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

(1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

(2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ 

Apparently the most famous Darwinist of the late 20th century was going around spouting “pure creationist babble.”  Who knew? 

Next, Shallit makes a classic literature bluff. 

Scambray claims, “Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies.” Really? At my university, we have access to articles that say something different. Maybe at Bizarro College, they don’t. 

Notice that Shallit does not actually say what the “something different” is that refutes Scambray’s assertion.  Why not?  Because Scambray’s assertion is correct.  Every attempt to demonstrate evolution through irradiating fruit flies has been an abject failure.  What is the “something different” to which Shallit alludes?  We may never know, but we do know that he is bluffing.   

Note carefully the common Darwinist tactic here: 

Literature bluff:  There are thousands of books and articles demonstrating Darwinist proposition X. 

Calling the bluff:  OK, show me exactly where in just one of those books or articles this proposition is established. 

Inevitable Darwinist response:  [crickets] 

Next, Shallit goes after Scambray over those famous Galapagos finches. 

Scambray writes: 

So also much the same thing happened with the famous “Galapagos finches” whose average beak size became bigger when the conditions there made it harder to find food due to bad weather. Then when food became more plentiful, the beak size of those finches that survived returned to normal. Thus the finches changed a little, adapted, while remaining fundamentally unchanged. 

Shallit’s rebuttal: 

Mr. Scambray, if he has ever visited the Galapagos, must have visited a parallel Galapagos, because he claims, “Thus the [Galapagos] finches changed a little, adapted, while remaining fundamentally unchanged.” He doesn’t seem to understand that there are 15 different species of finches, all descended from a common ancestor that colonized the Galapagos millions of years ago. Things must be different in Bizarro World. 

First, Shallit does not actually respond to the argument that Scambray made.  Scambray points to evidence that is undisputed by all researchers, whether they toe the Darwinist line or not:  With respect to a particular species of finch, environmental pressures caused a change in beak size and when those pressures eased the beak sizes reverted to normal.  

Shallit completely ignores this evidence and responds to an assertion that Scambray did not even make.  Shallit pretends that Scambray asserted that there are never any changes within a type [this is called “erecting a strawman”] and then demolishes the argument that Scambray did not make by noting there are 15 different types of finches on the Galapagos [This is called “knocking down a strawman”]. 

No, Mr. Shallit.  Scambray never asserted that there are never any changes within a type.  He asserted that the “finch beak evidence” that Darwinists commonly assert is knock down show stopping evidence for marcroevolution is in fact no such thing.  It is unsurprising that your response is to try to change the subject and demolish an argument that Scambray never made. 

I HAVE SAVED THE BEST FOR LAST. 

Shallit implies that the fact that there are 15 different finch species that all descended from a common ancestor over millions of years is a clincher for Darwinist macroevolution. 

Now let me get this straight.  Millions of years ago there was a finch. Now there are 15 kinds of finches, but they are all basically the same kind of thing.  (That’s why we call all of them “finches.”) 

 Shallit takes evidence of minor changes within a kind that even the most fervent young earth creationist would admit and claims those minor changes are indisputable evidence for how finches came to be in the first place.   Astounding.

If I didn’t have the actual citation and link to Shallit’s post I would not blame you for accusing me of making it up.  But you can see for yourself that I did not make it up.  This is exactly what he wrote.  And this leads me to the following conclusion:  The best evidence against Darwinism is often what the Darwinists themselves write.   

I will concede that Shallit knows Darwinism inside out.  And if anyone would know of valid Darwinist arguments to rebut Scrambray, it would be him.  Yet, Shallit’s facile and childish “rebuttal” does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.  

Comments
That is not what he meant. He meant millions of generations in ‘laboratory testing’, which is absolutely correct.
I don't know what he meant, and nor do you. I only know what he said, which is absolutely incorrect. There have only been a few thousand generations in 'laboratory testing'. Do you think there have been millions of generations of humans since world war II? Roy P.S. File the rest of your post under #4Roy
October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST
correction,, Roy,
"I’m contesting that there have been millions of generations of fruit flies in laboratory testing."
That is not what he meant. He meant millions of generations in 'laboratory testing', which is absolutely correct. Of course you know that is what he, a English professor who certainly knows how to construct sentences properly, meant.,,, You are not dumb, so why do you pretend as if we can't see thru your purposely trying to twist the meaning of what he clearly wrote? More to the point, why are you so concerned about proper English and are not concerned in the least that you, in fact, have no scientific evidence to substantiate your claims for Darwinism?? such as in the following recent large scale evolutionary experiment???
Mutation + Selection = Stasis - October 8th, 2014 Excerpt: As a trained physicist, Desai applied a statistical perspective using robots to precisely manipulate hundreds of lines of yeast to perform large scale evolutionary experiments. Scientists have long studied genetic evolution of microbes, but until now, only a few strains at a time. Robotically managing 640 lines of yeast from a single parent cell, Desai’s team was efficiently tooled to statistically analyze evolution at this level for the first time. In an interview with Singer, Joshua Plotkin, an evolutionary scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “This is the physicist’s approach to evolution, stripping down everything to the simplest possible conditions… They could partition how much of evolution is attributable to chance, how much to the starting point, and how much to measurement noise.”,,, While early mutations in the experiment initially variably influenced fitness, fitness in the final generations was the same. “Scientists,” Singer noted, “don’t know why all genetic roads in yeast seem to arrive at the same endpoint”.,,,, “I think many people think about one gene for one trait, a deterministic way of evolution solving problems,” David Reznick, a biologist at the University of California-Riverside, told Singer. “This says that’s not true.” Unexpectantly, Desai’s team discovered genetic mutations plus selection yields stasis in the microbe model– not evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2014/10/mutation-selection-stasis/
bornagain77
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST
Roy,
"I’m contesting that there have been millions of generations of fruit flies in laboratory testing."
That is not what he meant. He meant millions of generations in 'laboratory testing', which is absolutely correct.
Of course you know that is what he, a English professor who certainly knows how to construct sentences properly, meant.,,, You are not dumb, so why do you pretend as if we can't see thru your purposely trying to twist the meaning of what he clearly wrote? More to the point, why are you so concerned about proper English and are not concerned in the least that you, in fact, have no scientific evidence to substantiate your claims for Darwinism?? such as in the following recent large scale evolutionary experiment???
Mutation + Selection = Stasis - October 8th, 2014 Excerpt: As a trained physicist, Desai applied a statistical perspective using robots to precisely manipulate hundreds of lines of yeast to perform large scale evolutionary experiments. Scientists have long studied genetic evolution of microbes, but until now, only a few strains at a time. Robotically managing 640 lines of yeast from a single parent cell, Desai’s team was efficiently tooled to statistically analyze evolution at this level for the first time. In an interview with Singer, Joshua Plotkin, an evolutionary scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “This is the physicist’s approach to evolution, stripping down everything to the simplest possible conditions… They could partition how much of evolution is attributable to chance, how much to the starting point, and how much to measurement noise.”,,, While early mutations in the experiment initially variably influenced fitness, fitness in the final generations was the same. “Scientists,” Singer noted, “don’t know why all genetic roads in yeast seem to arrive at the same endpoint”.,,,, “I think many people think about one gene for one trait, a deterministic way of evolution solving problems,” David Reznick, a biologist at the University of California-Riverside, told Singer. “This says that’s not true.” Unexpectantly, Desai’s team discovered genetic mutations plus selection yields stasis in the microbe model– not evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2014/10/mutation-selection-stasis/
bornagain77
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST
I'm contesting that there have been millions of generations of fruit flies in laboratory testing. That would require about 30,000 years. Do you think there have been millions of generations of humans since world war II? RoyRoy
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PST
Roy, Are you contesting the total number of experiments done in labs trying to get some organism to evolve into 'something different'? or are you contesting the fact that no one has ever found any evidence for an organism evolving into 'something different'? In either case you would be wrong. Lenski's long term evolution experiment by itself has over 58,000 generations behind it.,,, Add all the tests done by all the thousands of graduate students, research institutes, and genetic companies, then you easily pass 'millions of generations of laboratory testing',,,
"Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…" (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, is (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.
As to fruit flies,,
Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) – October 2010 Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies
Supplemental Quote:
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
bornagain77
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PST
... Scambray’s assertion is correct.
Really? You think this assertion:
Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies.”
is correct? Are you innumerate? RoyRoy
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PST
Barry, I hope you cover irrational extrapolation in your series on Darwinian debating devices.bb
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PST
Alan - “I do wonder what you mean by normal, however?” Barry - "I don’t mean anything by “normal.” You’ll need to ask the researchers who performed the study what they meant by “normal.” I assume they meant that average beak sizes reverted to the pre-famine mean." I think you are misunderstanding things from his world point of view. He views things from an Alternative Lifestyle perspective. For Alan this has never been about Science. It's always been about accountability and morality. Of course you could Google all of this, but be warned, it will make you sick to your stomach. Just sayin . .DavidD
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PST
This posting seems to have struck a chord. The darwinists are worked up in a frenzy throwing all kinds of mush at the wall hoping something will stick or serve as a distraction. Pretty entertaining reading the comments and watching any shred of an evolutionist argument effortlessly dismantled. Do these guys have anything of substance to put on the table anymore?lifepsy
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST
Every attempt to demonstrate evolution through irradiating fruit flies has been an abject failure.
Irradiated fruit flies are a textbook example of evolution in action. The less fit don't survive.Mung
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PST
ok, so I just calculated genetic entropy. where's my nobel prize?Mung
March 13, 2013
March
03
Mar
13
13
2013
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PST
I asked you, for simplicity, consider a sequence: CTACTAGGCTACTGGC What is its genetic entropy?
Ge = 0Mung
March 7, 2013
March
03
Mar
7
07
2013
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PST
This following video brings the point personally home to us about the effects of genetic entropy:
Aging Process - 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y
Verse and music:
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Lecrae Live at Passion 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu59YLVTfV0
bornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PST
Diogenes, do you usually blatantly misrepresent what others say when you disagree with them? Unfortunately for you, anyone can check post 47 and see exactly what I claimed about that series of drawings you listed:
This following example is interesting in that the genetic entropy is not nearly as ‘in your face’ as the preceding examples Diogenes gave, but the series of fossils are still easily recognizable as being in the same ‘kind’ of species. A Pliocene Snail 10 mya to 3 mya http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/snails.html
But hey, so be it that you don't care to be exposed as so blatantly dishonest in the very thread you are commenting on, it makes my job much easier when you do as you just have done! ,,, here is another example of genetic entropy from the fossil record and genetics that hits much closer to home:
Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? - February 2011 Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-brains-smarter.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Study suggests humans are slowly but surely losing intellectual and emotional abilities - November 12, 2012 Excerpt: "Human intelligence and behavior require optimal functioning of a large number of genes, which requires enormous evolutionary pressures to maintain. A provocative hypothesis published in a recent set of Science and Society pieces published in the Cell Press journal Trends in Genetics suggests that we are losing our intellectual and emotional capabilities because the intricate web of genes endowing us with our brain power is particularly susceptible to mutations and that these mutations are not being selected against in our modern society." http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-humans-slowly-surely-intellectual-emotional.html#jCp Is Human Intellect Degenerating? - February 19, 2013 Excerpt: A recent study of the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database, although incomplete, indicates that about half of all human genetic diseases have a neurologic component, [6], frequently including some aspect of [intellectual deficiency], consistent with the notion that many genes are required for intellectual and emotional function. The reported mutations have been severe alleles, often de novo mutations that reduce fecundity. However, each of these genes will also be subject to dozens if not hundreds of weaker mutations that lead to reduced function, but would not significantly impair fecundity, and hence could accumulate with time... https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-human-intellect-degenerating/
and:
Genetic Entropy in Human Genome is found to be 'recent': Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.hgmd.org/
I really question their use of the word 'celebrating'. (Of note, apparently someone with a sense of decency has now removed the word 'celebrating')
Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of the Genome - Dr. John Sanford - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
bornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PST
BA77 won’t define “genetic entropy and can’t compute it because Intelligent Design is a fraud.
Those two clauses are logically unrelated, so I can only assume you said that as a rhetorical strategy. BA77 can't compute genetic entropy because there really is no such thing as genetic entropy. Yet this in no way implies that ID is a "fraud." If you must be emotional about this, at least make your clauses logically connected.Genomicus
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PST
Great- we can't say that macrevolution/ universal common ancestry exists because there isn't any equations that support it. Nice job, diogenesJoe
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PST
No. You cannot say "Genetic Entropy" exists if you can't copy and paste an equation. I asked you, for simplicity, consider a sequence: CTACTAGGCTACTGGC What is its genetic entropy? But you could not compute its genetic entropy, and you don't have the manhood to admit YOU CAN'T because YOU DON'T KNOW THE EQUATION. So I will simplify it, and cut the sequence in half. CTACTAGGC What is its genetic entropy? How simple a question do I have to ask before you either 1. answer it or 2. Be a man and admit you can't answer it! BA77 won’t define “genetic entropy and can’t compute it because Intelligent Design is a fraud.Diogenes
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST
Diogenes, to help easily visualize how the equations of population genetics establish genetic entropy and falsify neo-Darwinism, a graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' is shown in the following video: Darwinian Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086bornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST
So Diogenes I guess the 'equation(s)' that establish genetic entropy and falsify evolution (although Darwinists will not accept falsification from mathematics) are the equations of population genetics: Mathematical Methods of Population Genetics http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MATHMPG.html Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162 Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.netbornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PST
Diogenes (being the unbiased party he is) 'demands':
Copy and paste an equation to compute genetic entropy, or shut up.
Actually Diogenes, it is funny you would bring this up for I was just thinking about the failure of evolution to establish a mathematical basis yesterday: ,,,It interesting to note what Dr. Torley stated in his recent article exposing the 'in thin air' foundation that Darwinism rests upon:
Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
The lack of a mathematical foundation was particularly surprising for me, because I had been assured by a evolutionary professor (whom Dr. Torley referenced in his article) here on UD, years ago, that Darwinism was 'mathematical' through and through. And yes one can say that Darwinism is 'mathematical' through and through, but what one cannot say is that Darwinism has a rigid mathematical basis from which one can make extensive predictions with) Well, after being subtly misled for years by that professor's distortion of the facts, I finally, in my slow pace, started to piece together the fact that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical foundation at all,,
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.
In fact, contrary to what the employers at Oxford would like to believe, the truth is that there is not some magical mystery equation out there waiting to be discovered to finally give Darwinism the foundation that it needs to be considered truly scientific. The fact is that Darwinists have refused to listen to what the equations of population genetics are thus far telling them. i.e. Darwinists refuse to accept the falsification of their theory from mathematics:
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf
This is simply unheard of in science. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics subject themselves constantly to potential falsification, as well as refinement for accuracy, to see if their mathematical descriptions of reality accurately predict what is observed for reality.
"No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci
In my unsolicited personal opinion, the main reason Darwinism cannot be formulated into any coherent mathematical model to give accurate, 'daring', predictions is because of its reliance on the 'random variable postulate' at the base of its formulation:
“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64. “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
Moreover, as Alvin Plantiga has shown in his Evolutionary argument against naturalism, (i.e. a refinement of "The argument from reason" from CS Lewis), this 'random variable postulate' ends up driving neo-Darwinism into epistemological failure,,,
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/
,,, the 'unrestrained randomness' at the base of Darwinism, if neo-Darwinism were actually true, results in the epistemological failure of science itself! But this really should not come as a surprise to anyone for how can a theory which denies the reality of mind in the first place be said to guarantee that our perceptions and reasoning of mind are trustworthy?
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”. J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
Supplemental notes: In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (determinism) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,, Here is another piece of evidence that solidly demarcates the randomness of the material particles of the universe from the randomness that would be necessarily inherent within 'conscious' creatures created by God with free will:
Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/tonights-feature-presentation-epigenetics-the-next-evolutionary-cliff/#comment-445840
Since material particles are held to 'randomly' decay, why in blue blazes is conscious observation putting a freeze on 'random' entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than 'random' entropic decay is? This point is really driven home when we realize that the initial entropy of the universe was 1 in 10^10^123, which is, by far, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the universe.
"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." Charles Darwin to Doedes, N. D. - Letter - 2 Apr 1873
Music and verse:
Phillips, Craig & Dean - Great I Am - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSoz6L1vqm8 Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
bornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PST
Diogenes, Phillip Johnson made this astute observation: Phillip Johnson - What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen. Archaeopteryx would be the prime example. Its a bird so we expect it to rarely be fossilized. Yet it has been exhibit number one in the Darwinian case. There's nothing else around it. Unlike those marine invertebrates. So you can tell a story of progressive evolution that might not work out at all if you saw through the whole body of things around it. Likewise with the ape-men. That is another area where fossilization is very rare. And where the bones of humans and apes are rather similar anyway. So (someone) can find a variant ape bone, its pretty easy to give it a story about how it is turning into a human being. If you tell the story well enough, and successfully, you get your picture on the cover of National Geographic and you become rich and famous. This could effect your judgement. One of the things that amused me is that there are so many fossil candidates for human ancestry, and so very, very, few that are candidates for ancestors of the great apes. There should be just as many (if not more) but why not? Well any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value so they are produced at a much greater rate. Now these were also grounds to be suspicious with what was going on. That there was obviously so much subjectivity. ,, The Standard explanation for why the fossil record is not more supportive of Darwinian expectations than it is, if you find that out at all (that the fossil record does not fit Darwinian expectation), is that there are so few fossils, (thus) most things aren't fossilized. That is why (we are told by Darwinists) that the fossil record has so many gaps. Not that the theory has many gaps but that the fossil record has so many gaps. Yet that is odd if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest. that doesn't sound like it could be the explanation. - Phillip Johnson - April 2012 - audio/video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJDlBvbPSMA&feature=player_detailpage#t=903s "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Editor of Nature - 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html And just as Phillip Johnson noted, I've found abundant evidence for extreme bias in the field of paleo-anthropology https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/#comment-448487 'Lucy' - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the supposed evidence for human evolution http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032597bornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PST
To reiterate: I demanded that BA77 copy and paste an equation to compute genetic entropy. He will not do so. Creationists are totally predictable. They insinuate they know science and math when they know none. Copy and paste an equation to compute genetic entropy, or shut up.Diogenes
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PST
Let's see EVEN MORE of what ID proponents and creationists have to say about the fossil record.
Creationist Todd C. Wood wrote: “The truth about evolution …Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution… Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true… It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information… I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. …Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.” [Todd C. Wood, “The Truth About Evolution”, 2009]
Diogenes
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST
Let's see SOME MORE of what ID proponents and creationists have to say about the fossil record.
Creationist Kurt Wise wrote: “In various macroevolutionary models, stratomorphic intermediates might be expected to be any one or more of several different forms… As an example (and to provide informal definitions), if predictions from Darwin’s theory were re-stated in these [creationist] terms, one would expect to find: – (a) numerous stratomorphic intermediates between any ancestor-descendent species pair (numerous interspecific stratomorphic intermediates); (b) species which were stratomorphic intermediates between larger groups (stratomorphic intermediate species); (c} taxonomic groups above the level of species which were stratomorphic intermediates between other pairs of groups (higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates); and (d) a sequence of species or higher taxa in a sequence where each taxon is a stratomorphic intermediate between the taxa stratigraphically below and above it (stratomorphic series). … It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. ” [Kurt P. Wise (1995). “Towards a Creationist Understanding of ‘Transitional Forms.’” p.218-9. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 9(2), 216-222. (caps original). Full article]
Diogenes
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PST
Let's see what ID proponents and creationists have to say about the fossil record.
ID promoter Jonathan Wells wrote: “Fossil evidence suggests that life on earth originated about three and a half billion years ago, starting with prokaryotes (single-celled organisms without nuclei, such as bacteria). Much later came eukaryotes (cells with nuclei), which included algae and single-celled animals (protozoa). Multicellular marine animals appeared long after that. Then came land plants, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, and finally humans. Not only did living things appear in a certain order, but in some cases they also had features intermediate between organisms that preceded them and those that followed them. Kenneth R. Miller challenges critics of Darwinism to explain why we find ‘one organism after another in places and in sequences... that clearly give the appearance of evolution.’1” [Jonathan Wells. “Why Does the History of Life Give the Appearance of Evolution?”, Evolution News & Views, 21 Feb 2013.]
Diogenes
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST
BA77, I'm not watching your YouTube videos nor clicking on your links to creationist sources. Since you blather moronically about "genetic entropy" please provide me with an equation to compute the genetic entropy of a genome before and after a process. Any process. For simplicity, consider a sequence: CTACTAGGCTACTGGC What is its genetic entropy? Oh wait, I forgot. None of you creationists can compute ANYTHING, not specified complexity and not genetic entropy. We have the fossils. We win.Diogenes
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST
corrected link for foramen/plankton from 64.5 million years to 58 million years before present – picture http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram.htmlbornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PST
by the way ,,,your main problem is not the fossil record, Diogenes, as problematic as that is, your main problem is to demonstrate that purely material processes can generate functional information! Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)bornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PST
Diogenes methinks thou beholdest faces in the clouds with your imagined fossil evidence for macro-evolution
“Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel? Polonius: By the mass, and ‘tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or like a whale? Polonius: Very like a whale.” ? William Shakespeare, Hamlet
The following is Diogenes' first claimed proof for 'evolution':
"Arnold shows a series of microphotographs, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foram species. "This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," he says. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species." ,,, By being so small, the fossil shells escaped nature's grinding and crushing forces, which over the eons have in fact destroyed most evidence of life on Earth. The extraordinary condition of the shells permits the paleontologists to study in detail not only how a whole species develops, but how individual animals develop from birth to adulthood. The resulting data base thus holds unprecedented power for evolutionary studies, says Arnold. Not only can he and Parker use it to describe how evolution has worked in a particular species, but they can use it as a standard for testing evolutionary theories, which are growing in number." http://web.archive.org/web/19990203140657/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html
But alas when ones looks at the image of their supposedly prime example for macro-evolution one (disappointingly?) finds what looks to me to be, for all intents and purposes, gradual deterioration (genetic entropy) of foramen/plankton from 64.5 million years to 58 million years before present - picture http://web.archive.org/web/19990203140657im_/http://gly.fsu.edu/tour/art7-foram06.jpg One sees much the same pattern of genetic entropy in this other example on the page http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eocoelia_big.gif As well as in this example that was given: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina_pic.html This following example is interesting in that the genetic entropy is not nearly as 'in your face' as the preceding examples Diogenes gave, but the series of fossils are still easily recognizable as being in the same 'kind' of species. A Pliocene Snail 10 mya to 3 mya http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/snails.html Diogenes, your problem is not to demonstrate the deterioration of form in the fossil record (we have that in abundance)
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html Don Patton - Entropy, Information, and The 'Deteriorating' Fossil Record - video (Notes on giant fossils in description) http://www.vimeo.com/17050184 The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html "According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet."(body sizes tend to get smaller rather than larger) Stephen Gould, Harvard, Nature, V.385, 1/16/97 "Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times." Von Engeln & Caster Geology, p.19 "Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern University’s Department of Physiology,,, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history." Science Daily, 8/8/07
Quotes:
Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg
bornagain77
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PST
The creationist Scambray pulls the 50-year-old creationist bait-and-switch: the "fully formed" bait and switch. The Bait: apparently citing Gould, who said that "species", the lowest taxonomic unit, most of the time appear "fully formed" with gaps between CLOSELY RELATED species; The Switch: therefore larger taxonomic units, which ARE NOT THE SAME "BIBLICAL KIND", appear "fully formed" with no precursors. The Bait is true; the Switch is a creationist lie floating around since the 1960's at least. This lie is 50 years old. 50 years of copying and pasting it does not make it true. Stephen Jay Gould knew the difference between major taxa and minor taxa, and he repeated many times, that 1. There are examples of gradual transitions between closely related species, that is, MINOR TAXA, in the fossil record. Here are some pictures of gradual transitions giving the lie to this 50-year-old creationist quote mine. The more complete the fossil record is, as with ocean-dwelling foraminifera, the more gradual the transitions appear. Here are some more pictures for foramen/plankton. Below, I give examples for larger animals. 2. There are examples of intermediates between structurally very different forms, that is, between MAJOR taxa, e.g. reptile to mammal, whales, seals, sirenians, bats, etc. and their precursors. Gould was clear about the distinction which creationists have obfuscated for 50 years:
Stephen Jay Gould wrote: “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists–- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know–- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals...is well documented.” [Gould, 1981]. [See also: New Mexicans for Science & Reason]
Are reptiles and mammals the same "Biblical kind", "basically the same thing" as creationists say? Gould said the above back in 1981, before we had the 1980's-90's suite of land animal-to-whale intermediates, and half-bats like Onychonycteris, and pezosiren, and Puijilia, and Little Foot, the Homo erectus of Dmanisi, Ardipithecus, etc. etc.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote: “Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am-– for I have become a major target of these practices.” [See Panda's Thumb]
Arrington wrote: Now there are 15 kinds of finches, but they are all basically the same kind of thing
Real scientific there-- "basically the same kind of thing"-- OK, let me fix your quote:
Arrington should have written: Now there are 7 species of great ape, but they are all basically the same kind of thing. I am one of them.
Fixed! Some more gradual transitions, this time in a large mammal:
"From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." [Kurten, B. 1976. The Cave Bear Story.]
Evidence like this existed in Darwin's time as well, so even then, the fossil record put the lie to creationism.
Franz Hilgendorf (1839-1904), curator at the Zoological Museum of Berlin, was the first paleontologists to publish a well-studied phylogenetic sequence at the species - and subspecies - level.13 He studied the virtually complete sections of Miocene snail-bearing lime-mud in the Steinheim Basin on the Schwäbische Alb north of Ulm. (Darwin, in the later editions of his Origins, referred to "Steinheim in Switzerland.") ...Hilgendorf found nineteen "varieties"(= subspecies) of the snail Planorbis (= Gyraulus) multiformis, which he arranged in a phylogenetic diagram. Later he admitted that the varieties might as well be regarded as individual species (Hilgendorf 1879). The gastropods in this isolated, fresh-water, crater lake evolved by transformation and by splitting of lineages. Hilgendorf was probably the first to describe what is now called the "punctuated equilibrium" (Eldredge and Gould 1972) phenomenon: "The process of transformation seems to be of short duration compared to the time span of stability of form" (Hilgendorf 1879). Hilgendorf never observed any fusion of lineages and regarded his observations as major support of Darwin's theory of descent. ...During the same excursion [Steinheim basin, 1862] Hilgendorf discovered that the various morphs of Planorbis multiformis could be combined in a phyletic tree, and he even discovered some new morphs. He submitted his results as doctoral dissertation at the University of Tübingen in April 1863 and was awarded the degree on April 28.14 Hilgendorf's thesis was never published and is not listed in any catalogue. …[Its] phylogenetic diagram; however... is much more preliminary and primitive that the published 1866 version. Comparison of this collection and a photocopy of the dissertation6 shows that Hilgendorf specifically addressed the importance to Darwin's theory of complete fossil-bearing sections. His phylogenetic tree of 1862-1863 is the oldest such tree known to date.” [The Search for a Macroevolutionary Theory in German Paleontology. Wolf-Ernst Reif. Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 79-130.]
Again, I must repeat my repairing of Arrington's quote:
Arrington should have written: Now there are 7 species of great ape, but they are all basically the same kind of thing. I am one of them.
What creationist can argue with that? Is there evidence of any, any, ANY supernatural intelligent design going on in the ape-to-hominid transition? Arrington is right: "they are all basically the same kind of thing."Diogenes
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply