Once More From the Top on the Fossil Record

_{Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013

Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Barry: “Are you suggesting that the fossil record now reveals the “finely graduated organic chain” that in Origin Charles Darwin predicted would be ultimately revealed as the fossil record was explored further?”

Alan Fox: “As far as it reveals anything, yes.”

Leading Darwinist authorities disagree:

No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links . . . There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.

Niles Eldredge, quoted in George Alexander, “Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks.

Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History 87, February 1978): 24.

Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

Colin Patteson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.

What is missing [in the record] are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.

Robert L. Carroll, “Towards a New Evolutionary Synthesis,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2000): 27, 27-32.

Species [in the strata of the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming] that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95.

The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.

Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 40.

The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.

R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34.

Alan Fox: “The current record is certainly not incompatible with gradual evolution over vast periods of time.”

Again, leading Darwinists disagree:

Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

Alan Fox: “It doesn’t fit with six days of creation. That’s for sure.”

That’s your argument? The fossil record does not demonstrate that the all life forms were created in six days 6,000 years ago; therefore Darwin must have been right? If I had to rely on an outrageous caricature of my opponents’ arguments in my efforts to refute them, it would bother me. Does it not bother you?

Comments

Returning to the thread topic and Barry's quote mine of Eldredge:
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
Having looked a little more at the context and other writing by Eldredge (and by Tattersall), I have no doubt they are not at all opponents of evolutionary theory. They are merely emphasizing the idea (proposed by Eldredge and Gould) of "punctuated equilibria" where the rate of evolutionary change is more rapid following a speciation event (especially allotropic) where the small population, finding itself in a new niche to which it is not well adapted will either approach the limit of rate of change or, surpassing it, goes extinct. Eldredge makes clear he does not think punctuated equilibria are a problem for evolutionary theory. On the contrary, he was surprised when his writings became controversial and regularly quote-mined. Unfortunately, Gould and Eldredge were unfairly accused of promoting saltation or "sudden emergence", as proposed by Goldschmidt a quasi-creationist concept. Bottom line, as Seqenenre wrote:
Eldredge agrees with the idea that every daughter is of the same species as her mother.
Summing up, even at the extreme upper end of evolutionary change beyond which a species will become extinct, the change is still gradual enough for parent and offspring to be of one species.Alan Fox_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PST}

To date, all I see is carping about evolutionary theory. Where is the better theory? Where is the better explanation for the observed facts? Does ID present an alternative explanation? Apparently not.
Not true, but irrelevant. Your assertions have been shown to be absurd. You then change your point to the strawman; The old saw of "ID is not a theory" comes out (further this topic has been addressed over and over). What does that have to do with your absurd statements? What does this statement have to do with the fossil record? Trying to take the focus off of how limited you are intellectually? Or are you simply sophomoric when it comes to intellectual discussion? Further, your engagement of the fallacy that since we are not paleontologists, surely we cannot comment on the topic is a tactic most leave behind in high school. And @wd400, you are moving the goalposts. It was the position of NDE that junk DNA was just that, junk. A useless relic left over from evolution's past. Then, when it was shown that some of the "junk" wasn't junk, you lot begin to shout, "well, nu-uh! Because there's still a percentage that we assert IS junk." That wasn't the argument, was it? It was the position of NDE that it was ALL a relic. Useless. Vestigial. You were wrong.TSErik_{December 4, 2013
December
12
Dec
4
04
2013
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PST}

We should be clear about this - the alternative to gradual change is sudden change. Do Barry, Mapou etc really believe that there were times when the offspring was radically different from the parents and yet was viable?Mark Frank_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PST}

wd400. Stamping your foot is not an argument. You should write that down.Barry Arrington_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PST}

Moreover, if you read the papers carefully you'll see 94%, 50% and 80% are different things (non-conserved DNA, repetitive DNA and DNA subject to biochemical functions such as mRNA production). People here are always going on about the demise of junk DNA as if it was proved. I'm waiting for the proof.wd400_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PST}

How do the encode results prove the genome is 80% functional?wd400_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PST}

wd400, From Dr. Susumu Ohno's seminal 1972 paper, SO MUCH "JUNK" DNA IN OUR GENOME, he estimates the following:
Even if an allowance is made for the existence in multiplicates of certain genes, it is still concluded that, at the most, only 6% of our DNA base sequences is utilized as genes (Kimura and Ohta, 1971).
There's the smoking gun assumption. Read it for yourself in context at http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html. From a Science Daily article dated Nov. 5, 2008, we learned the following:
In a paper published in Genome Research on Nov. 4, scientists at the Genome Institute of Singapore (GIS) report that what was previously believed to be "junk" DNA is one of the important ingredients distinguishing humans from other species. [snip] This research also shows that these repeats are anything but "junk DNA," since they provide a great source of evolutionary variability and might hold the key to some of the important physical differences that distinguish humans from all other species.
The estimate then was that 50% of the human genome was not junk after all. Then in September 2012, we learned
Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as "junk" are in fact crucial to the way our genome works... In total, Encode scientists say, about 80% of the DNA sequence can be assigned some sort of biochemical function.
Are you beginning to see a pattern? 6% . . . 50% . . . 80% . . . or do you want to insist that the parrot isn't dead. -QQuerius_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PST}

Nice quote from James Perloff, bornagain77:
. . . earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.
And Darwinists were repeatedly embarrassed by discoveries showing the contrary. Undaunted, modern Darwinists continue to make the same stupid assumptions today to the detriment of scientific progress. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, that's why the Intelligent Design paradigm is far superior to a paradigm of happy accidents from highly improbable chance and dubious necessity. -QQuerius_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PST}

Evolutionists predicted tons of junk DNA and that prediction was soundly falsified. Where? What about the ENCODE results makes you think this is the case?wd400_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PST}

Neo-Darwinism has actually abandoned the fossil "record," and has switched to fossil "CDs" . . . Continual Denial of mounting evidence to the contrary. Gould describes a fantasy of punctuated equilibrium, a series of miracles, and he attributes the imagined result as the normal, expected behavior of evolution, which is apparently infinitely flexible, able to envelop any discovery with gooey rationalization, and leap the widest gap with the false promise of future discovery. This is not Science. It's a real-life example of Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit. At this point, Science needs to break free from a simplistic, antiquated, 19th century fad, and be permitted to go where the evidence leads! What's exciting is the potential for finding natural mechanisms at work. For example, perhaps genetic diversity should not be viewed in terms of individual organisms, but more like a Genetic Network of Information and Feedback (!) that spans ecological niches. Perhaps bacteria and viruses play a far more important important role---we now have evidence of genetic transfer from dead organisms to living bacteria, maybe we'll find that bacteria return the favor with living cells. There are many other possibilities. I say "Dump Darwinism" and start fresh with new ideas based on the evidence provided by new technology. -QQuerius_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PST}

bornagain77 @44, Thanks.Mapou_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PST}

Mapou and Mr. Fox, actually the junk DNA argument of Darwinists, besides being mathematically required for Darwinism to even be remotely plausible (and even with 90% of the genome considered junk it still did not work out mathematically for Darwinists),,,
What Is The Genome? It's Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 Carter: Why Evolutionists Need Junk DNA - Robert W. Carter - 2009 Excerpt: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane's work. Without junk DNA (and even with it), evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. Robert W. Carter - biologist http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death
,,besides that embarrassing fact, junk DNA also played directly off the theologically based (God would not have done it that way) argument of Darwinists:
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection." – Ken Miller "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution … we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed … the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply … our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" – Jerry Coyne "We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo¬genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution." – Michael Shermer
The same theologically based 'bad design' (God would not have done it that way) was behind the science stopping postulation of vestigial organs from Darwinists:
“There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.” -evidence submitted to the Scopes trial “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - July 20, 2012 Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the "vestigial organs" argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim's original list, and each of those is questionable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/vestigial_organ062281.html
As to a bush of life instead of a tree, although much could be said, let's just quote Venter:
Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins! - video Quote: "I think the tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up.,, So there is not a tree of life. In fact from our deep sequencing of organisms in the ocean, out of, now we have about 60 million different unique gene sets, we found 12 that look like a very, very deep branching—perhaps fourth domain of life. " - Dr. Craig Venter, American Biologist involved in sequencing the human genome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuI
bornagain77_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PST}

Some interesting quotes about paleontology and the fossil record from my notes: "As I said right at the beginning, what we think today depends very largely on what we thought yesterday. If the entire human fossil record were to be discovered tomorrow, and studied by experienced paleontologists who had developed their skills in the absence of preconceptions about human origins, I am pretty sure that (after the inevitable bout of intellectual indigestion) a range of interpretations would emerge that is very different from those on offer now." Tattersall (1995) The Fossil Trail pages 226-227 "When you're out there selling such complicated narratives, normal scientific testability just isn't an issue: how many of your colleagues or others buy your story depends principally on how convincing or forceful a storyteller you are--and on how willing your audience is to believe the kind of thing you are saying" Page 169 Tattersall "Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor which lived about 5-6 million years ago, but only fossils for the human lineage are known, providing many different hominid species. The virtual lack of any fossil chimpanzees is most likely because chimps have lived in habitats - humid forests - where fossilization is rare… Another problem is that the number of characters known for fossil species are often limited. Many extinct species are named from teeth, jaw fragments, or other small remnants. This poses problems in distinguishing one fossil species from another, and in trying to determine relationships using a limited number of characters. As a palaeontologist colleague of mine puts it, "fossils don't come with labels." They must first be identified before they become a useful part of the fossil record." http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/fossil/fossil_4.htmlsixthbook_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PST}

Mr. Fox claims in post 5 that Intelligent Design is merely a negative argument against neo-Darwinian evolution,,,
"To date, all I see is carping about evolutionary theory. Where is the better theory? Where is the better explanation for the observed facts? Does ID present an alternative explanation? Apparently not."
Yet apparently Mr. Fox, oblivious to his own hypocrisy, is unaware of the nature and history of the negative (and theological) form of argumentation that Darwin himself took against the design hypothesis which was widely accepted during his day.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human begins are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html#sthash.8fSih6ho.dpuf http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – article http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/ezrainstitute_ca/bank/pageimages/jubilee_2010_spring.pdf
In fact the rampant use of theological argument as a negative argument against design is still with us today (i.e. God would not do such and such that way):
Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - 2013 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
It is important to note that both classical neo-Darwinism and modern neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis) hold that natural selection action on random genetic variations (and mutations) can produce not only new biological form and structure but also the appearance of design in living organisms (i.e. The "blind watchmaker" hypothesis) . This was and is clearly a negative argument against design. Darwin argued for this idea in 'The Origin of Species' as well as in his letters. The overwhelming opinion in the 19th century was life was designed. Thius Darwin sought to 'explain away' the appearance of Design. The late Ernst Mayr put it like this:
"The real core of Darwinism,, is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaption, the 'design' of the natural theologian, by natural means."
Likewise Francisco Ayala stated:
"design without a designer"
and of course Dawkins:
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1
and Crick:
"Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this" Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30
Lewontin and Simson
living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Lewontin "The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature." George Gaylord Simpson
i.e. The main purpose of Darwinian evolution, as it was in the beginning, and as it always has been, is to explain the overwhelming appearance of design in life! If that is not a negative argument then nothing is! If anyone doubts that life 'appears' to be designed, please take a look at this diagram of biochemical pathways:
ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl
And bear in mind that Darwinists have yet to demonstrate the origin of even a single protein of that fantastically integrated complexity:
Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 Axe Diagram for finding a functional protein domain out of all sequence space: The y-axis can be seen as representing enzyme activity, and the x-axis represents all possible amino acid sequences. Enzymes sit at the peak of their fitness landscapes (Point A). There are extremely high levels of complex and specified information in proteins--informational sequences which point to intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/axediagram.jpg
Thus, although Mr. Fox claimed that design was merely a negative argument against Darwinism, the fact of the matter is that Darwinism itself started out as, and still is, (since Darwinism has no actual empirical evidence for its claims) primarily a negative argument against the 'apparent design' found pervasively throughout life. Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:13-14 I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. Little Drummer Boy - Pentatonix - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_MGWio-vc
supplemental note: Since Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis in which to falsify it, it is not really even 'scientific' in the first place
Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture “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) - 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.
bornagain77_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PST}

Now I've pulled out the book. Here's a passage that more accurately captures Gould: “Punctuations must, instead, be defined relative to the subsequent duration of the derived species in stasis – for punctuated equilibrium, as a theory of relative timing, holds that species develop their distinctive features effectively "at birth," and then retain them in stasis for geologically long lifetimes… "I know no rigorous way to transcend the arbitrary in trying to define the permissible interval for punctuational origin. Since definitions must be theory-bound, and since the possibility of recognizing species as Darwinian individuals in macroevolution marks the major theoretical interest of punctuated equilibrium, an analogy between speciation and gestation of an organism may not be ill-conceived. As the gestation time of a human being represents 1-2 percent of an ordinary lifetime, perhaps we should permit the same general range for punctuational speciation relative to later duration in stasis. At an average species lifetime of 4 million years, a 1% criterion allows 40,000 years for speciation. We recognize that such a span of time would be viewed as gradualistic – and extremely slow-paced at that – by any conventional microevolutionary scaling in human time; and we also acknowledge that the same span represents the resolvable moment of a single bedding plane in a great majority of geological circumstances; then we can understand why the punctuations of punctuated equilibrium do not represent the de Vriesian saltations, but rather denote the proper scaling of ordinary speciation into geological time” (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, p. 768). Such transitions occur in a veritable instant, requiring only 400 centuries. Don't blink.Reciprocating Bill_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST}

In his last work, the massive Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Gould argued that, rather than finding ubiquitous gradual evolution throughout the runs of all species, the fossil record exhibits a distribution of species, such that some exhibit the continuous and gradual evolution that Darwin predicted, others exhibit long periods of stasis with short signatures of rapid change, and others fall between. The empirical question that was interesting to him was the shape of that distribution and the variables that drove those differences. Among those species at the latter end of the distribution (long periods of status, short signature of change) the average component of the “life span” of such species that exhibits rapid change appears to be about 4%. Given that the average species has a run of about 4 million years, 4% of that run = 160,000 years. (IIRC) That is, the sudden, rapid transitions that typically followed eons of stasis for some species typically occurred in the geological blink of an eye - on the order of 1,600 centuries - nearly the duration of the entire run of modern humans, and ~80 times the duration of the common era. (I’m working from my recollection of the book, but will consult my copy when I have a moment.)Reciprocating Bill_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PST}

Fox:
“Design evolution”? What the heck is that? I can’t deny something I’ve never heard of. Evolutionary theory, if true, would produce a nested heirarchy of organisms, past and present. The prediction fits the evidence and only that evidence. Anomalous fossils would be a problem for evolutionary theory. What predictions does “Design evolution” make? Are there any published papers outlinign tis (to me) new theory?
You don't know that intelligent design over time generates an evolution of designs and you pretend to have a position of superiority in this discussion? Software engineering is a prime example of design evolution. In fact, object-oriented software design requires it. Complex classes inherit the functionality of simpler parent classes. This stuff is elementary, man. What is wrong with you?
Ah! This is meatier. Horizontal gene transfer is rife among prokaryotes. So the nested heirarchy or “tree” if you like has tangled roots – but certainly one tree. You assert that we observe separate trees? Whilst it sounds like wishful thinking, I’d like to hear you expand on the evidence for separate trees.
We are beginning to see examples of genetic code sequence sharing between distant branches high above the roots of the hierarchy. The latest examples consists of complex code sequences for echolocation shared by both echolocating bats and whales. These two species got separated millions of years before echolocation appeared in both. There are many other examples of lateral inheritance that are obvious from the morphological perspective but will have to await further research to show that they are in fact caused genetic engineering and lateral sharing. Of course, the Darwinist prevaricators wasted no time to invent the just-so fairy tale of convergent evolution to explain the existence of the same exact sequences in distant species. The existence of multiple trees have been called a bush by none other than Stephen Jay Gould and Craig Venter. Look it up. I'm sure bornagain77 can fill you in with some relevant links.
You are in denial of the fact that the Darwinist community have for a long time predicted the existence of tons of junk DNA and vestigial organs, all of which have be falsified.
No, I don’t think so. The “Junk DNA” saga is not relevant to fossils as DNA does not fossilize but the existence of junk DNA has been dealt with here by Larry Moran and I doubt I could add anything. Vestigial organs? What’s your problem with the concept of vestigial organs?
Nobody said anything about any relationship between junk DNA and fossils. Where did that come from? Evolutionists predicted tons of junk DNA and that prediction was soundly falsified. The latest salvo can be found in the ENCODE results. Blatantly rewriting history is a favorite pastime of denialists like you. It's a shameful dishonest practice that has not deterred Darwinists in the least. They like it. Based on Darwinist thinking, several human organs such as the appendix were pronounced to be vestigial or superfluous leftovers from our evolutionary past. The appendix turned out to be a useful part of the immune system. These things have been discussed on UD before. Again, I'm sure bornagain77 can dig up relevant links.Mapou_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PST}

Alan Fox (9), "Truth will out, Mapou, truth will out. ;)". Yes, Alan, that is exactly what we believe. Follow the data wherever it leads because truth will out. Will that truth be your view? Alan Fox (5), "To date, all I see is carping about evolutionary theory. Where is the better theory? Where is the better explanation for the observed facts?" As far as I am concerned, this is the lamest argument in the book. What law of science requires that falsification be performed by producing a replacement theory? If the current theory does not explain the data, it is wrong whether there is another theory to replace it or not.Moose Dr_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PST}

Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46. Alan Fox: “Of course I agree with Eldredge. Though of course I mean Eldredge’s current views on evolutionary theory.” Alan, you are implying that Eldredge’s “current views” are different from those expressed in The Myth of Human Evolution. You are wrong. Eldredge has never said anything anywhere that repudiated the statement that I quoted from The Myth of Human Evolution. So I am not exactly clear about what your position is and I hope you will clarify for me. Do you agree with Eldredge’s statement from The Myth of Human Evolution? Or do you disagree with that statement and agree with your imaginary statement in which Eldredge repudiated what he said in The Myth of Human Evolution. BTW, yelling “quote mine”! until you are red in the face doesn’t really help your position.Barry Arrington_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PST}

@Fox.. "Oops KRock not Krok! Apologies." Lol... No worries..KRock_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST}

Lol... See Alan, I wasn't joking, your indefatigable attempts to post Neo Darwinism rhetoric here at UD, has simply worn me out. I can't even spell your name right.. lol... No, not the same Rock, I've never posted on that blog...KRock_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST}

Hi Lifespy, My position is evolutionary theory, while incomplete, does a reasonable job of explaining the evidence for the diversity of Life on Earth. I am interested to hear of alternative explanations that do a better job than evolutionary theory. So far, Mapou has asserted that "Design evolution" does this. I'm waiting for more details, not having heard of this theory before. Do you have another theory?Alan Fox_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PST}

Well done, Mr. Fox. A common bluff about the nature of the fossil record followed by the typical obfuscations and equivocations. Accusation of quote-mining, legalistic back-pedaling so your position on the fossil record is no longer defined. What is your position, anyways? Do you even know? Bonus points for shifting the burden to intelligent design so soon. Usually evolutionists wait until they've been thoroughly backed into a corner by the evidence.lifepsy_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PST}

Oops KRock not Krok! Apologies.Alan Fox_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PST}

Sorry about that Krok. Too tired to spell my name right. You're not the Rock that used to post at ARN and Feser's blog by any chance?Alan Fox_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PST}

Great post Barry, keep up the good work! Allen Fox, you make me yawn, a lot..KRock_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PST}

Louis:
You are in denial regarding the fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual evolution. The fact that there are scattered transitional species (e.g., Tiktaalik) in the fossil record is not exclusive evidence for Darwinian evolution since we know from experience that design evolution over time produces the exact same kind of evidence.
"Design evolution"? What the heck is that? I can't deny something I've never heard of. Evolutionary theory, if true, would produce a nested heirarchy of organisms, past and present. The prediction fits the evidence and only that evidence. Anomalous fossils would be a problem for evolutionary theory. What predictions does "Design evolution" make? Are there any published papers outlinign tis (to me) new theory?
You are in denial regarding the fact that the Darwinian tree of life is not strictly nested as predicted by evolutionists and that it contains many instances (both genetic and morphological) of lateral inheritance across distant branches of the hierarchy. A non-nested tree of life (or even multiple trees) is what one would expect from design evolution. This is what is observed.
Ah! This is meatier. Horizontal gene transfer is rife among prokaryotes. So the nested heirarchy or "tree" if you like has tangled roots - but certainly one tree. You assert that we observe separate trees? Whilst it sounds like wishful thinking, I'd like to hear you expand on the evidence for separate trees.
You are in denial of the fact that the Darwinist community have for a long time predicted the existence of tons of junk DNA and vestigial organs, all of which have be falsified.
No, I don't think so. The "Junk DNA" saga is not relevant to fossils as DNA does not fossilize but the existence of junk DNA has been dealt with here by Larry Moran and I doubt I could add anything. Vestigial organs? What's your problem with the concept of vestigial organs?Alan Fox_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PST}

I agree nor diagree with Eldredge and Tattersall simply because my knowledge of the subject is to(o?) limited and I cannot oversee the consequenses of either position. I do believe though, that Eldredge agrees with the idea that every daughter is of the same species as her mother.Seqenenre_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PST}

Fox:
Perhaps Barry is going to propose an alternative scientific theory. We’ll see.
And why should Barry do that, pray tell? Besides, there is a beautiful alternative theory: life on earth was designed by advanced designers who had an amazing and extravagant sense of beauty and humor.Mapou_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PST}

Can I just point out that Dr Liddle has posted at TSZ where Barry might find I bit more intellectual stimulation than I can provide.Alan Fox_{December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply