No Precambrian Rabbits: Evolution Must Be True

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 12, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Last week’s review of Richard Dawkins’ new book in the Economist hit all the usual chords. Dawkins’ purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is a fact–as incontrovertible a fact as any in science, and the Economist is only too happy to propagate the absurdity. First, there are the usual silly evidential arguments that only work with the uninformed, of which there are apparently many. True, species appear abruptly in the fossil record but, explains the Economist, “That any traces at all remain from so long ago is astounding, and anyway it is not the completeness of the fossil record but its consistency that matters.” After all, there are no fossil rabbits in the ancient strata. That’s right, no rabbits before the Cambrian era. Astonishing, evolution must be true. Read more

Comments

Cam @64
The fact that horses (64 chromosomes), donkeys (62 chromosomes) and zebras (44 chromosomes) can breed would suggest that your assumption is wrong. Care to try again?
That's because those chromosomes between the equines remain homologous. And even then the mismatching genes dance without a partner and suffer genetic difficulties like the death of the reproductive cells in the mule/hinny. I understand why you attempt to focus on the straw man of chromosome count, ignoring the far more important pairing of their homology. A fused chromosome would not be homologous with its unfused mate and therefore fail. Whatever function is found in that fused portion is lost, permanently and immediately. Would you care to try again?SpitfireIXA_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter, #63
Evolutionists claim evolution is as much a fact as is gravity.
That's because genetic change in a population inherited over generations, just like gravity, is an observed fact. The point you keep missing is that "evolution" and the "Theory of Evolution" are two separate things. Your continued attempts to conflate the two are getting quite tiresome.camanintx_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA, #59
This is why I find the "just one card" analogy to be a joke.
You appear to be assuming that an individual with fused chromosomes would be unable to reproduce with other individuals without the fusion. The fact that horses (64 chromosomes), donkeys (62 chromosomes) and zebras (44 chromosomes) can breed would suggest that your assumption is wrong. Care to try again?camanintx_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, In your definition of ID
Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection
you include references to evolutionary theory. since, by your thinking, evolution is religious, doesn't the incorporation of evolutionary ideas make ID religious as well?Khan_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (61):
are you saying it is making the religious assumption that God didn’t lay down the iridium layer in just that fashion?
No, evolution is different. Evolutionists claim evolution is as much a fact as is gravity. The empirical evidence does not support evolution very well, until the "god wouldn't do it that way" arguments are used, to prove evolution indirectly.Cornelius Hunter_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Mr Lim (51):
What do you find to be the most compelling evidence supporting ID which is not just a critique of evolution?
There is so much to say about this. Let me just give a thought. If we define ID as follows:
Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
then the language one finds scientists using is strong support for ID. Here are some typical examples:
Transposable elements (TEs) are powerful facilitators of genome evolution, and hence of phenotypic diversity as they can cause genetic changes of great magnitude and variety. TEs are ubiquitous and extremely ancient, and although harmful to some individuals, they can be very beneficial to lineages. TEs can build, sculpt, and reformat genomes by both active and passive means.

"I saw this old work," says Alle. "I thought I cannot believe personally that nature would waste such energy."
These are by no means the best examples (I just happen to be looking at them), but this sort of design language is common. Such design language is ubiquitous in the literature. The fact that so many writers use design language is good evidence that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause.Cornelius Hunter_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

#60 So it assumes that if god designed / created the species, then god would not do it in a certain way. Oh come on - if that is a religious assumption then equally every scientist that ever deduced anything from any evidence is making the religious assumption that "if God did it, he didn't do it so things turned out to look like my theory". For example, the theory that an meteor collision was responsible for the iridium layer on the K-T boundary - are you saying it is making the religious assumption that God didn't lay down the iridium layer in just that fashion?Mark Frank_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (53):
It assumes nothing about how such a pattern of separate descent might have happened – it might be God
So it assumes that if god designed / created the species, then god would not do it in a certain way.Cornelius Hunter_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Cam @ 57
The differences between humans and chimps is about the same as replacing one card in a deck of 52. What you still have not presented is a mechanism which prevents this card from being changed.
Because if you try to replace the card, casino goons come beat the intestinal matter out of you and throw you out of the casino on your head. This is a powerful preventative mechanism.
Besides, the difference in our chromosome count has already been explained through the fusion of chromosome 2, something which critics cannot refute.
Oh good, someone has explained how this happened, and therefore it is unrefutable fact. Wouldn't it be nice if Darwinism could actually prove something now and then. Now all they have to do is explain how: 1. At least two members of a species have this happy fusion event at the exact same time. 2. They both survive to adulthood whatever wrecking ball genetic disruption is caused by fusing an entire gene to another. 3. Out of the entire population of non-fusers, they happen to meet and share a champagne moment. 4. How not just the chromosome count but the exact chromosome length and exact order of each one of the billions of base pairs is shifted to exactly match between the happy couple. What are the odds, 1 x 10 45000000000000? Go play those odds. This is why I find the "just one card" analogy to be a joke. What you still have not presented is a mechanism which allows this card to being changed, and allows all of the other cards to be resurfaced and reprinted.SpitfireIXA_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
Mr Lim, ID does NOT argue against “evolution”. (snip)
Perhaps not, but Cornelius Hunter certainly does:
This is yet another simple example revealing the absurdity of evolutionary theory.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/origin-of-dna-code-did-evolution-occur.htmlMr. Lim_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA, #52
All typical humans have the same genetic structure - chromosome count, etc. Your 3 million are found within this identical structure. Like a deck of cards, you can deal different hands. Chimps have a different genetic deck of cards. Therefore, there’s a world of difference between the 3 million and the 68 million.
The differences between humans and chimps is about the same as replacing one card in a deck of 52. What you still have not presented is a mechanism which prevents this card from being changed. Besides, the difference in our chromosome count has already been explained through the fusion of chromosome 2, something which critics cannot refute.camanintx_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

O'Leary (4), "But surely this isn’t really an argument? Why would all trees benefit from staying small?" Quite simple: you expend more resources if you have to grow a bigger body. A bigger body comes at a resource cost.Gaz_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, It all depends on the order of Creation. It also depends on the time- say the days of Genesis were eons of time. Then there is the fact that we would expect fish to be found lower in the fossil record just by their living environment. So before anyone can use the fossil record for anything they need to know at least two things: 1- How did the fossil record form 2- Can genetic changes account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.Joseph_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Mr Lim, ID does NOT argue against "evolution". ID argues against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes. As for the most compelling evidence for ID: Read "The Privileged Planet" and "Signature in the Call" TPP demonstrates the design inference goes beyond biology.Joseph_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
Many biologists have argued that a rabbit in the precambrian would falsify evolution.
Those biologists don't have a clue as to how science operates.Joseph_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Re #50 Cornelius It entails the assumption that if species had been separately created then the pattern of creation did not mimic the pattern of common descent (when you think of all the patterns that you might have observed with separate creation, a pattern which mimicked common descent would be most odd). It assumes nothing about how such a pattern of separate descent might have happened - it might be God or it might be an entirely natural process. It is not a religious assumption.Mark Frank_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Cam @ 49:
The DNA of two unrelated humans will differ by about 3 million base pairs. Humans and chimps in general differ by about 68 million base pairs. Can you explain how any of these processes permit the former while simultaneously prohibiting the latter?
All typical humans have the same genetic structure -- chromosome count, etc. Your 3 million are found within this identical structure. Like a deck of cards, you can deal different hands. Chimps have a different genetic deck of cards. Therefore, there's a world of difference between the 3 million and the 68 million.SpitfireIXA_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, This is a bit off-topic, so please reply or not as you see fit. What do you find to be the most compelling evidence supporting ID which is not just a critique of evolution? Imagine I am completely undecided on the matter of whether ID, evolution, or some other theory is true. What would you tell me?Mr. Lim_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Re #33: "Cornelius – I don’t understand your argument at all." OK, let me try again. This argument: “The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution.” is religious because it entails assumptions about what the fossils would look like if the species had been created. The fact that there exist naturalistic hypotheses for separate ancestry does not remove the argument that separate creation is falsified. It merely adds other hypotheses which are thought to also be falsified.Cornelius Hunter_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Borne, #42
camanintx: Genetic entropy, internal genetic barriers against over-expression, internal correction mechanisms, etc. all weigh against macro.
The DNA of two unrelated humans will differ by about 3 million base pairs. Humans and chimps in general differ by about 68 million base pairs. Can you explain how any of these processes permit the former while simultaneously prohibiting the latter?camanintx_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

#23: "Here’s an example from a textbook that lays out the argument in more rigor: “The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution.”" I'll just point out that ID has quite a big tent. This debate seems to be rather disjointed, with some IDers arguing no common descent and literal creationism, and others not. Dated fossil evidence shows the quoted rough order of apparent descent with time, This is at the class level, and also strongly implies common descent. Unless abductive reasoning is suspect in this case. Prominent ID authority Michael Behe accepts common descent and an "edge of evolution" at the taxonomic class level (which is the vertebrate taxonomic level of the above quote). I'll go along with his version of ID.magnan_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Looks like this little guy might be the "barrier" I'm looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProteasomeIRQ Conflict_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Borne, what are the "internal genetic barriers against over-expression? Is there work being done to find the edge of genetic instruction? Or is it even humanly possible to find out? Given the vast amounts of data needing to be deciphered? Or am I way off base?IRQ Conflict_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

"Many biologists have argued that a rabbit in the precambrian would falsify evolution." You have to credit these biologists for at least subjecting their theory to a risky falsification criteria!!!! Vividvividbleau_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Re #41 Many biologists have argued that a rabbit in the precambrian would falsify evolution. That is quite different from arguing saying "No Precambrian Rabbits: Evolution Must Be True" This point has been made several times above.Mark Frank_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Caman, "On the other hand, the lack of a barrier is a serious problem to those who claim that macroevolution cannot occur, wouldn’t you agree?" When you say "macroevolution", are you talking about the front loaded version? I'm wondering why you'd think there are no barriers to macro ev. At this point there are, categorically, insurmountable barriers.lamarck_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

camanintx:
the lack of a barrier is a serious problem to those who claim that macroevolution cannot occur, wouldn’t you agree?
The problem is that the barrier that exists between micro and macro is high and thick and cannot be crossed by mere RM + NS. These ubiquitous and gratuitous extrapolations of micro into macro are not scientifically warranted. You just can't extrapolate anything into anything else without a valid evidential warrant. And much evidence is against it. Genetic entropy, internal genetic barriers against over-expression, internal correction mechanisms, etc. all weigh against macro.Borne_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

I've actually been presented the argument in the title by Darwinists claiming to be well educated scientists - on forums like this. How do you falsify Darwinian evolution? "Oh, easy", they say, "rabbits in the Precambrian"! So its a cop out to pretend no Darwinists ever use the argument as is, they do. As is so typical when confronted, they morph into denial mode.Borne_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict, #25
I am a Creationist. I don’t put up invisible barriers. But I certainly wouldn’t claim that the lack of evidence of said barrier is proof of Macroevolution. That is a fallacy. One that I see constantly promoted by the religious Darwinists.
If the lack of a barrier were the only argument for macroevolution, you might have a point there. On the other hand, the lack of a barrier is a serious problem to those who claim that macroevolution cannot occur, wouldn't you agree?camanintx_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

anonym,
So it’s not – in this respect – absurd to look for a Cambrian rabbit in order to falsify naturalistic evolution, while it is absurd to cite the lack of a Cambrian rabbit (or the like) as proof that naturalistic evolution is fully confirmed by the evidence.
Thanks for the reply. I agree completely with your point, and if that is what Cornelius is saying in post #8, then I have no problem with it.Mr. Lim_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply