Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

_{Denyse O'Leary
May 19, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.

The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.

Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”

Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?

Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.

Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.

No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.

Comments

Mr Sxussd13, Dating details: The Messel fauna belongs to the early middle Eocene or earliest Geiseltalian, MP11 [20] with a calculated radiometric age of ca. 47 Ma based on a basalt fragment coming from an underlying volcanic chimney [21]. 21. Mertz DF, Renne PR (2005) A numerical age for the Messel fossil deposit (UNESCO World Heritage Site) derived from 40Ar/39Ar dating on a basaltic rock fragment. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 255: 67–75. Argon-argon dating is commonly used for this type of rock, and is used over an age range back over 250 Mya.Nakashima_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Mr Sxussd13, Oslo had bought it 2 years ago, and they needed that looooong to identify that it had such a significance??? If you read the Intro paragraph of the original article, you can see that they have been waiting for this fossil since 2000 to come out of the hands of a private museum. When the discoverers split open the rock to find the fossil, they got two sheets, like a positive and negative photographic image. Sheet A had almost all the detail, and was therefore more valuable. Sheet B was faked up to look more valuable before being sold. Dr Franzen at Oslo had Sheet B since 2000, but knew that most of it was fake. He published what he knew in 2000. Sheet A only became available recently, and Oslo purchased it. Yes, preparing a holotype fossil does take a long time. In this case, there were additional issues because the bones could not be handled directly (they were crushed), and the sheet actually preserves the soft body outline and even evidence of stomach contents! This is not "science by press release". This is "doing it right takes time" science.Nakashima_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Correlation to other fossils would also be out of the question since it is the first of its kind in that time frame, yet there could be other fossils found in the same strata that are "usually" dated to be 47 mil years. How sure are todays dating techniques?sxussd13_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Diff: “If ID is true, we should observe _EVIDENCE OF DESIGN______. If we fail to observe __EVIDENCE OF DESIGN_____, then ID is at risk of disconfirmation.” So it's true then?mad doc_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

@deric davidson if the predating is correct! How do you get to 47 million years in the past? I am sure they didn't use c-14 :-). A good overview of dating principles used today! http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/01_Contents.htmlsxussd13_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

What this find shows is that lemur-like creatures have been around for a long time. That's about it.deric davidson_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA #41 You can't be really serious about Darwinism as a 'show stopper' for junk DNA research: 'Junk DNA' research goes on since molecular biology exists as a scientific field e. g. for at least four decades. The very first realization that there is DNA that is not coding for protein along with strong evidence that such DNA has important regulatory functions comes from the 1960's from the textbook operon model of gene regulation from Jacob and Monod. Since then research on regulatory DNA sequence has been a continously hot topic in modern biology. When in the late 80's/early 90's the human genome project was started there were proposals to sequence only the protein coding parts which would have made the whole thing billions of dollars cheaper and faster. However, the leaders of the human genome project - all outspoken darwinists - decided to sequence the whole genome including all the non-coding dna regions. Ironically, these are often much harder to sequence properly then protein-coding regions. Else we wouldn't even know how much non-coding DNA is out there. Furthermore, mRNA splicing - where non-coding introns are removed from mRNAs - is a very activ research field since the 70's. It is clear for a long time now that sequence in these introns which come from non-coding dna are very important for regulating e.g. alternative splicing. Similarly people look for a long time on mobile genetic elements such as LINE and SINE-elements since they are e.g. important for cancer research. and I could go on and on ... So the research show on junk dna never stopped. The current surge of novel results is due to new technology not available decades ago ...rna_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

From a German newspaper: "Private Fossiliensammler hatten die Versteinerung bereits 1983 in der schieferhaltigen Grube Messel bei Darmstadt gefunden und bis vor zwei Jahren für sich behalten. Als dann die Teile des entzwei gebrochenen Fossils zum Verkauf angeboten wurden, griff das Naturkundemuseum von Oslo zu." http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,ra16m1/wissen/616/469175/text/ Translation: "Private fossil collectors found the fossil in the schistous earth of Grube Messel near Darmstadt in 1983. They kept it for themselves until 2 years ago. The museum of natural history Oslo grabbed the fossil as the pieces, the fossil had broken in two, were offered for sale." So Ida had been around for more then 15 years, why is it all of a sudden becoming SOOOOOOOO important? Oslo had bought it 2 years ago, and they needed that looooong to identify that it had such a significance??? Or is it that there is need to present evidence which is equivalent to the eighths world wonder, mystifying darwinism and strengthening its religious basis?sxussd13_{May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA: "Now quoting Sky News, and questions for you JTaylor: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution." Spitfire, Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same man who owns Fox News and it's about as accurate. There's nothing surprising about hyperbole and exaggeration from anything owned by Murdoch. Stick to the original scientific paper.djmullen_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else. ~ Colin Patterson I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keithbevets_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Some success would be helpful, so that we don’t have to see old dead lemurs proclaimed as the eighth wonder of the world and hear every 18 months that the missing link is finally found, and that everything we used to know has been blown away by the pure unadulterated fact of a new find.
You... DO realize there is a difference between the sensational media out to make a buck and the actual scientific research, don't you? Oh. You don't. Clearly. Well, let's look at the actual paper. Here is the final conclusion of the paper: "Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past." That's it. Interesting, but big whoop. Then, some media outlets decided to whip it up into a frenzy to sell more of their magazines and newspapers. Nowhere in the actual paper do you see anything like this. In the future, try reading the actual papers instead of the sensationalist media's melodramatic interpretations of them.SingBlueSilver_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial at 45
Seriously, if you are satisfied with “predictions” like that, and sources of that quality, well, knock yourself out.
Failing to refute these well-acknowledged issues and predictions, I accept your concession on the point. ID stands as a far better practical predictor than Darwinism, as Antony Flew and James Le Fanu have recently understood and accepted.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial at 43
That does not follow... In turn, the essential frameworks of deep time and descent with modification organized and accelerated paleontological research...
I'm sure it did. But what does not logically follow is to say, "therefore, their excitement, and only their excitement, makes paleontology possible."
Who ever claimed that science (e.g. paleoarcheology) is always successful in its predictions?
Some success would be helpful, so that we don't have to see old dead lemurs proclaimed as the eighth wonder of the world and hear every 18 months that the missing link is finally found, and that everything we used to know has been blown away by the pure unadulterated fact of a new find.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

...and not an ambiguous hyper-changing mass of evolving organisms that gives clear micro-transitional histories and makes taxonomy all but impossible.
What are you talking about? The standard phylogenetic tree is confirmed independently through utterly independent lines of evidence, both morphological and molecular. The independent trees match up with an astonishing degree of accuracy, despite being arrived at independently. The fossil record, while far from complete, also matches up with the standard tree. No form of life found so far has violated these classifications.SingBlueSilver_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

I like your defintition of science, which is effectively the scientific method.
ORLY? Seriously, if you are satisfied with "predictions" like that, and sources of that quality, well, knock yourself out.Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial at 38: I like your defintition of science, which is effectively the scientific method.
Is ID science? Try it. Fill in the blanks: “If ID is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then ID is at risk of disconfirmation.”
If ID is true, we should observe value in a organism's components, and not pass them off as vestigial organs that 1) don't need to be studied, and 2) can be removed without consequence. If ID is true, DNA is likely to be efficient, not loaded with junk. It is therefore valid to study these regions. If ID is true, humans are designed, and design is conducted with a purpose. Therefore, eugenics may be inappropriate. If ID is true, we should see a clear taxonomy in the fossil record, and not an ambiguous hyper-changing mass of evolving organisms that gives clear micro-transitional histories and makes taxonomy all but impossible. I could go on. Darwinism's success rate at the scientific method is abyssmal. That's why I rejected it. For a short list on this, consult Darwin's PredictionsSpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Darwinism says that there should be such useless organs in the human body, ID says little or none. ID won.
You gotta be freaking kidding me, right?! Some snakes have vestigial pelvises under the skin: link Lizards with vestigial legs, under the skin and completely useless: link Blind cave salamanders have vestigial eyes: link Dandelions have flowers and produce pollen, even though they don't reproduce through fertilization: link Etc, etc, etc...SingBlueSilver_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Spitfire:
Paleontology existed before Darwin, and has been conducted successfully after that by persons who did not asgree with this framework. Therefore, this framework you speak of is an imposition, not a necessity.
That doesn't follow. Pre-Darwinian geology and paleontology compelled the Darwinian conceptual revolution. In turn, the essential frameworks of deep time and descent with modification organized and accelerated paleontological research, as both shared features and differences among organisms were recognized as reflecting patterns of descent. All contemporary work in professional paleontology and paleoanthropology is conducted within that framework.
Practically, has paleoarcheaology achieved success in its predictions? If it had, we would not be treated to a flattened lemur fossil as the eighth wonder of the evolutionary world during the glory of this Year of Darwin. It would be something much more spectacular.
Who ever claimed that science (e.g. paleoarcheology) is always successful in its predictions? Whoever it is, they've got your chickens and cows.Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

JTaylor at 39:
One famous example of this is of course Tiktaalik.
Any self-respecting field of study would have libraries of examples and wouldn't have to drag out the same old one.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial at 36:
Describe a prediction regarding human evolution offered by ID, and describe the empirical adjudication of the accuracy of that prediction.
Prediction one: Vestigial Organs. Darwinism says that there should be such useless organs in the human body, ID says little or none. ID won. This error by Darwinism had negative consequences such as routine removal of "useless" tonsils and adenoids, lobotomies. More importantly, Darwinism imposed a "show-stopper" on the study of these "useless" organs. Prediction two: Actionable difference between human "species." Darwin predicted different evolutionary rates in the different human species, which resulted in eugenics and other fun weekend events. If you want to claim this as a win for Darwinism, go ahead. Prediction three: junk DNA This Darwinist "show-stopper" has set us back decades in understanding what is proving not to be junk. Darwinism is zero for three on the most practical predictions about humans. Other theories with such a poor showing would have been scrapped long ago, had there not been a philosophical belief at stake --that materialistic "framework" which stands as a commissar over modern paleontological work.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial
Paleontology and paleoanthropology operate within the framework of contemporary evolutionary theory, which retains Darwin’s essential insight of descent with modification.
Paleontology existed before Darwin, and has been conducted successfully after that by persons who did not asgree with this framework. Therefore, this framework you speak of is an imposition, not a necessity.
The fieldwork conducted thereby would otherwise be impossible.
Which makes this statement untrue.
Hence their fieldwork is possible only in light of current theory.
Which imposes the finding before the evidence, like the Aristotelean College did with its perfectlt reasonable retrograde motions, which fit into current theory. Practically, has paleoarcheaology achieved success in its predictions? If it had, we would not be treated to a flattened lemur fossil as the eighth wonder of the evolutionary world during the glory of this Year of Darwin. It would be something much more spectacular.
It [ID] certainly has made no such contributions in the field of human evolution.
I'm not sure if you meant that as joke, but it's a good one. Darwinism has equally failed to make any contributions to the field of intelligent design research.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

SpitFireIXA said:
It doesn’t matter whether most paleontologists are Darwinists, the domains are still a different hat and very different in nature.
I believe Diffaxial @36 has it right when he/she says that paleontology only makes sense in the light of evolution. One famous example of this is of course Tiktaalik. Here's a summary by Steven Novella at Neurologica blog of the find by Neil Shubin and colleagues:
What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago. So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
JTaylor_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Spitfire @ 34:
Is my barn door open?
And the livestock are gone.
So, if the use of empirical research is not analogous to science, what special quality does science have that empirical research does not?
The heart of the epistemology of science is a dialog between theory and empirical observation. One's theory must generate entailments (necessary consequences) that give rise to testable empirical predictions, such that failure to observe what is predicted places one's theory at risk of disconfirmation. Simply gathering observations isn't enough (nor at all efficient). Neither is the reinterpretation of prior observations. Put more simply, one's model need be expressed such that it is possible to state, "if my theory is true, then we should observe _____. If we fail to observe ______, then my theory is disconfirmed." Scientists labor to devise such empirical tests and then conduct those tests, not avoid them. Is ID science? Try it. Fill in the blanks: "If ID is true, we should observe _______. If we fail to observe _______, then ID is at risk of disconfirmation."Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Collin,
I love it how we are told that there is NO MISSING LINK and then finally Darwinism is justified because the missing link has been found! I thought it was proven long ago. Wasn’t it?
Exactly! I thought Lucy was the missing link. Then it was Tiktaalik, now it's this critter. What next??herb_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

SpitfirePDQ:
Darwinists, like IDists, simply interpret that effort... So, either 1) both Darwinists and IDists can do quality work based on empirical evidence, or 2) both can’t. (Whether they actually are or not is not the basis of the logic), wouldn’t you agree?
I would not. Paleontology and paleoanthropology operate within the framework of contemporary evolutionary theory, which retains Darwin's essential insight of descent with modification. That framework both guides and informs those efforts, and those sciences are inextricably and intimately intertwined with the contemporary state of that framework. The fieldwork conducted thereby would otherwise be impossible. That framework is, in turn, often modified in its details by those empirical finds, as theory and empirical work are in constant dialog. A few years ago I attended a talk presented by Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, who directs the physical anthropology department of the Cleveland Museum of Natural history, on fieldwork his team has been conducting in the Middle Awash Valley in Ethiopia. There several seasons of hard work in a hot, dry, and remote environment have yielded very interesting fossil discoveries that illuminate a particular phase of hominid evolution. The presentation also outlined the implications of these findings for current models of hominid descent, and described the further excavations that are planned with hopes of resolving questions and testing hypotheses. Hence their fieldwork is possible only in light of current theory. This exemplifies that dialog in pragmatic realtime. ID is in no such dialog. Nor can it enter such a dialog, as it cannot generate testable predictions that are useful in guiding empirical research, whether historical or experimental. It certainly has made no such contributions in the field of human evolution.
I’m for #1, and since the best way to judge such a meta-domain is how well it predicts, ID is proving far better of the two.
Describe a prediction regarding human evolution offered by ID, and describe the empirical adjudication of the accuracy of that prediction.Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

I love it how we are told that there is NO MISSING LINK and then finally Darwinism is justified because the missing link has been found! I thought it was proven long ago. Wasn't it?Collin_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial at 32: Is my barn door open? So, if the use of empirical research is not analogous to science, what special quality does science have that empirical research does not?SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial,
Armchair reinterpretation of others’ efforts, such as typifies ID, doesn’t often qualify as “quality work.”
And that is exactly what Darwinistm does as well. Paleontology is concrete science. It consists of finding bones, getting them out of the ground, preserving them, and recording their observable traits. It owes nothing to Darwinism. Darwinists, like IDists, simply interpret that effort. It doesn't matter whether most paleontologists are Darwinists, the domains are still a different hat and very different in nature. So, either 1) both Darwinists and IDists can do quality work based on empirical evidence, or 2) both can't. (Whether they actually are or not is not the basis of the logic), wouldn't you agree? I'm for #1, and since the best way to judge such a meta-domain is how well it predicts, ID is proving far better of the two.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

SpitfireXYZ @ 29
Do you agree that any organized effort to gather information empirically, based on the definition that we have agreed to, is “science.”
No. There are many organized efforts to gather information empirically, based upon our agreed definition, that don't attain the status of science.Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

As well, confidence in the reliability of that information can be high as well, given quality work, wouldn’t you agree?
Of course. Hard work is required. That hard work includes construction models of specificity sufficient to guide real research (predictions that determine where to turn one's spade), as well as the actual sweat and toil required to obtain the observations that empirically test those predictions. Armchair reinterpretation of others' efforts, such as typifies ID, doesn't often qualify as "quality work."Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply