The Evolutionary Tree Continues to Fall: Falsified Predictions, Backpedaling, HGTs and Serendipity Squared

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that the species arose from earlier species. Slight changes accumulating over long time periods resulted in one species giving rise to a new species, over and over. Read more

Comments

As to Sternberg,,, Doveton give the guy a chance, I mean Darwinists did treat the guy like a leper for crying out loud, as they do with anyone who dares question the almighty power of unguided processes to produce sophisticated machinery that puts anything man has made to shame! All this in spite of the fact that no one can seem to find evidence of unguided processes doing as such today.bornagain77_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Doveton you have not adequately responded to anything that Abel has put forth, An adequate responce would be to actually generate functional coded information by material processes, but since that is impossible from first priciples of science, i'm sure I will be waiting for hell to freeze over before I ever get a straight answer from you,,, as to Durret: The final conceptual error that Durrett and Schmidt commit is the gratuitous multiplication of probabilistic resources. In their original paper they calculated that the appearance of a particular double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, if one were considering a one kilobase region of the genome. Since the evolution of humans from other primates took much less time than that, Durrett and Schmidt observed that if the DNA “neighborhood” were a thousand times larger, then lots of correct regulatory sites would already be expected to be there. But, then, exactly what is the model? And if the relevant neighborhood is much larger, why did they model a smaller neighborhood? Is there some biological fact they neglected to cite that justified the thousand-fold expansion of what constitutes a “neighborhood,” or were they just trying to squeeze their results post-hoc into what a priori was thought to be a reasonable time frame? When I pointed this out in my letter, Durrett and Schmidt did not address the problem. Rather, they upped the stakes. They write in their reply, “there are at least 20,000 genes in the human genome and for each gene tens if not hundreds of pairs of mutations that can occur in each one.” The implication is that there are very, very many ways to get two mutations. Well, if that were indeed the case, why did they model a situation where two particular mutations — not just any two — were needed? Why didn’t they model the situation where any two mutations in any of 20,000 genes would suffice? In fact, since that would give a very much shorter time span, why did the journal Genetics and the reviewers of the paper let them get away with such a miscalculation? The answer of course is that in almost any particular situation, almost all possible double mutations (and single mutations and triple mutations and so on) will be useless. Consider the chloroquine-resistance mutation in malaria. There are about 10^6 possible single amino acid mutations in malarial parasite proteins, and 10^12 possible double amino acid mutations (where the changes could be in any two proteins). Yet only a handful are known to be useful to the parasite in fending off the antibiotic, and only one is very effective — the multiple changes in PfCRT. It would be silly to think that just any two mutations would help. The vast majority are completely ineffective. Nonetheless, it is a common conceptual mistake to naively multiply postulated “helpful mutations” when the numbers initially show too few. Here’s a final important point. Genetics is an excellent journal; its editors and reviewers are top notch; and Durrett and Schmidt themselves are fine researchers. Yet, as I show above, when simple mistakes in the application of their model to malaria are corrected, it agrees closely with empirical results reported from the field that I cited. This is very strong support that the central contention of The Edge of Evolution is correct: that it is an extremely difficult evolutionary task for multiple required mutations to occur through Darwinian means, especially if one of the mutations is deleterious. And, as I argue in the book, reasonable application of this point to the protein machinery of the cell makes it very unlikely that life developed through a Darwinian mechanism. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/bornagain77_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77,
Well Doveton, I’m sure Sternberg will be more than willing to help you out. Here is his website: http://www.richardsternberg.org/publications.php
Considering he has not gotten back to Dr. John Wise from SMU on his criticisms from 2009, I'm betting he won't get back to me.
Perhaps you failed to notice that the calculation here; Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 – Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....ns-part-5/ was done by two Darwinists???
Again, I don't see what that has to do with what I noted about whale evolution, but since you insist, here is Dr. Rick Durrett's criticism: http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2009/02/02/genetics.109.100800.full.pdf+html So it appears both Behe and Sternberg are a bit naive in their use of mathematics.
Doveton, does that help??? I have a few request of my own, can you please find me the literature that falsifies this:
Well, I'm still waiting for a credible reference to rebut the evidence and research of whale evolution I presented. And since I already responded to these Dr. Abel references, I see no reason to respond to them again.Doveton_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Well Doveton, I'm sure Sternberg will be more than willing to help you out. Here is his website: http://www.richardsternberg.org/publications.php Perhaps you failed to notice that the calculation here; Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 – Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ was done by two Darwinists??? Doveton, does that help??? I have a few request of my own, can you please find me the literature that falsifies this: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/3426.pdf http://www.us.net/life/index.htmbornagain77_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77,
Doveton, perhaps a PhD in evolutionary biology who has problems with whale evolution??? Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203/ Now Doveton it seems to be a problem with the Darwinists’s very own equations, in population genetics, for predicting change. The numbers simply don’t crunch!,,
Hmmm...it wouldn't be a bad start if Sternberg actually cited the math used and the computer programs required to do the computation. As it stands, it's an interesting, if not very compelling argument since it's nothing more than Sternberg making a claim. If Sternberg decides to provide the actual computations demonstrating that population genetics is a problem for whale evolution, I'll reconsider my response. As for your other two references, I don't see what they have to do with my point.Doveton_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

UB,
“Traits can be changed, but not entirely removed.” So the distinction between changing from a bellows lung to a flow-through lung, or changing from a flow-through lung to a bellows lung, is simply the recognition that respiration occurs anyway? In other words, its a trait that is changed but never removed? The same, supposedly, could be said for blood tempurature, reproduction method, or any other observable in nature. What is ‘necessary’ becomes evidence for a particular theory. Now thats a powerful arguement.
I guess I need to be more clear about the term "trait" as I used it.
(genetics) Characteristics or attributes of an organism that are expressed by genes and/or influenced by the environment. Traits include physical attributes of an organism such as hair color, leaf shape, size, etc., and behavioral characteristics, such as bird nesting.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Traits "Trait" then does not refer to processes such as respiration, metabolic processes (that confer relative blood temperature), or reproduction, but rather the organs or other attributes organisms use for such processes.Doveton_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

We have never observed amoebas spliting into anything but amoebas. And we have never observed prokaryotes “evolve” into something other than prokaryotes.
True, and we haven't observed the core of the Earth or how the Earth developed, but that doesn't reduce the validity and credibility of scientific models explaining such based upon extrapolations from observations of seismic measures, ground movement, oceanic movement, volcanic eruptions, and magnetic field studies, gravity measurements, etc. So whether anyone has directly observed amoebas/prokaryotes splitting into other organism groups does not reduce the validity and credibility of the extrapolation based model that predicts they have done and can do so.Doveton_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

"Traits can be changed, but not entirely removed." So the distinction between changing from a bellows lung to a flow-through lung, or changing from a flow-through lung to a bellows lung, is simply the recognition that respiration occurs anyway? In other words, its a trait that is changed but never removed? The same, supposedly, could be said for blood tempurature, reproduction method, or any other observable in nature. What is 'necessary' becomes evidence for a particular theory. Now thats a powerful arguement.Upright BiPed_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

We have never observed amoebas spliting into anything but amoebas. And we have never observed prokaryotes "evolve" into something other than prokaryotes. It seems your claims aren't even wrong...Joseph_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

From the actual job description: 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. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.htmlbornagain77_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Doveton, perhaps a PhD in evolutionary biology who has problems with whale evolution??? Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203/ Now Doveton it seems to be a problem with the Darwinists's very own equations, in population genetics, for predicting change. The numbers simply don't crunch!,, Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ But hey Doveton, if you know what mistake they are making in their math to get such a 'wrong' answer, then you can apply for a job at Oxford: 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/bornagain77_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson,
“If and when you find a credible reference to rebut the evidence and research of whale evolution, I’ll be more than happy to consider it.” Do you mean “evolution” in the sense of the hypothesized whale family tree, or do you mean “evolution” in the sense of the alleged mechanism of RM+NS? Or both?
Either one would be fine since I brought up whale evolution as an example of how research on the latter has led to compelling knowledge.Doveton_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Reread carefully what I wrote: “Under evolutionary theory it is just as likely that a tiger could turn into an elephant (over time) as it is that an amoeba could turn into an elephant. There is no reason to prefer one over the other.” Of course I am referring to a change over long periods of time from one species to another, not a single individual waking up one day as a member of another species. Over time, evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing conherent to say about whether creature x would eventually spawn creature z, as opposed to creature y eventually spawning creature z.
My bad Eric. I misunderstood. However, your assessment above isn't quite accurate. According to Evolutionary Theory, there is a significantly greater chance that an amoeba group would eventually have enough splits to arrive at an elephant group than a tiger group could. The reason is illustrated via phylogenetic systematics. Basically, in order for a tiger group to split and become an elephant group, specific phylogenetic traits would have to be "backed out" of the tiger group. Evolutionary Theory predicts that that sort of event either does not occur or occurs so infrequently as to make it improbable. By the same token, ET predicts that tiger groups can't ultimately evolve back to amoebas; mutation, genetic drift, and genetic appears incapable of backing traits out of an organism. Traits can be changed, but not entirely removed. In other words, evolution can only build on what is there.
Sure, we can gaze at various anatomies today and see what we think looks most similar and try to construct some hypothetical past pathway, but we need to keep in mind that: (i) it is only hypothetical, and (ii) it didn’t have to turn out that way. This is why prominent evolutionists correctly argue that under evolutionary theory if you run the tape over again you’d get a completely different result.
True for the most part. I will just not that the evolutionary tree isn't constructed merely based on "what looks most similar" - there's a little bit more involved. Be that as it may, it is correct to say that specific outcomes of evolution are not predictable. For example, we cannot know what mutations will necessarily pop up in a given species, nor can we necessarily predict what mutations might ultimately become fixed. And since mutation is random, as you note, if we started again back in time, it is highly unlikely we'd get the same outcome we see today.
Some think the tape is fixed and that certain species lead to other species inevitably, or more generally, that life inevitably leads to humans, for example. That’s a nice idea, but then of course it isn’t driven by traditional evolutionary mechanisms is it? It is either some kind of built in plan, or some kind of inevitable emergent property — neither of which have anything to do with traditional evolutionary theory.
I agree.
So that is my point to Elizabeth. She has no reason for evolution to behave the way she imagines it behaves, in terms of how many species arise and from where.
On this I disagree. Seems to me that Lizzie's note above about splitting is quite accurate. We do know that species split into subspecies and eventually independent species. Have we seen amoebas splitting and ultimately becoming elephants? No, but the phylogenetic relationships are fairly compelling given what we do know about splitting.Doveton_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Doveton:
Bottom line, your reference is not worth consideration. If and when you find a credible reference to rebut the evidence and research of whale evolution, I’ll be more than happy to consider it.
Bottomm line if and when someone presents positive testable evidence that a land ungulate can evolve into a cetacean I will consider it. But given the observed birth-rates all you can do is wish for magical mystery mutations or the past being much different, reproduction-wise, than the present. Meaning you have to make up more stuff.Joseph_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Doveton @102: "If and when you find a credible reference to rebut the evidence and research of whale evolution, I’ll be more than happy to consider it." Do you mean "evolution" in the sense of the hypothesized whale family tree, or do you mean "evolution" in the sense of the alleged mechanism of RM+NS? Or both?Eric Anderson_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Doveton @12: Reread carefully what I wrote: "Under evolutionary theory it is just as likely that a tiger could turn into an elephant (over time) as it is that an amoeba could turn into an elephant. There is no reason to prefer one over the other." Of course I am referring to a change over long periods of time from one species to another, not a single individual waking up one day as a member of another species. Over time, evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing conherent to say about whether creature x would eventually spawn creature z, as opposed to creature y eventually spawning creature z. Sure, we can gaze at various anatomies today and see what we think looks most similar and try to construct some hypothetical past pathway, but we need to keep in mind that: (i) it is only hypothetical, and (ii) it didn't have to turn out that way. This is why prominent evolutionists correctly argue that under evolutionary theory if you run the tape over again you'd get a completely different result. Some think the tape is fixed and that certain species lead to other species inevitably, or more generally, that life inevitably leads to humans, for example. That's a nice idea, but then of course it isn't driven by traditional evolutionary mechanisms is it? It is either some kind of built in plan, or some kind of inevitable emergent property -- neither of which have anything to do with traditional evolutionary theory. So that is my point to Elizabeth. She has no reason for evolution to behave the way she imagines it behaves, in terms of how many species arise and from where.Eric Anderson_{August 3, 2011
August
08
Aug
3
03
2011
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle,
I’m sorry Doveton, but your response to Do-While Jones’ articles is weak and inadequate, particularly in light of your (apparently oversold) scientific credentials.
Now that's irony, Chris...very funny statement - you denigrate my scientific credentials while relying upon a self-professed electrical engineer's opinions regarding paleontology and biology. Anyway, I'm sorry Chris, but I can't take your reference seriously for one main reason: he will not admit that he was wrong. Having made claims that later evidence demonstrated was just plain false, Mr. Jones' refusal to remove the claims or note corrections demonstrates that he is nothing more than a crank speaking out of his field of expertise with no scientific credibility. I have no interest in such folk's claims myself and I know of no one in any actual scientific field who does. As for your claim,
Things go from bad to worse when you fails to even acknowledge, let alone address, the most serious problems that Jones highlights.
Utter nonsense. There's nothing compelling in any of Jones' arguments because none of them deal with what evolution actually notes as I already demonstrated. What is interesting is that you have not even attempted to address the issues Lizzie and I have already noted, demonstrating that you have no interest in what science actually states, preferring instead made-up nonsense unrelated to reality. For instance, you insist that this is one of the "more serious problems Mr. Jones' notes:
All the creatures (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Protocetus, Indocetus and Rodhocetus)…appear in the fossil record at the roughly same time.
How is this suppose to be some big problem for evolution? Paleontologists never suggested that any of these animals evolved directly into one another. They demonstrate a progression of characteristics chronologically, not a direct ancestral relationship. So Jones' complaint here is moot - he's not addressing what the science actually notes, preferring instead to knock down a strawman based on his own ignorance. No thanks. Oh...and where is Squalodon in Jones list? Where's Remingtonocetus? Where's Basilosaurus? Where's Cetotherium? Oh...Squalodon, Remingtonocetus, and Cetotherium weren't discovered when Jones was writing and for whatever reason Jones just ignores the inconvenience of Basilosaurus to the point he's attempting to make. Jones' complaint about teeth shows the same issues as above. He complains that modern whale teeth don't resemble Basilosaurus' teeth, but fails to note that no paleontologist or evolutionary biologist ever suggested they should, noting instead the characteristic accumulation toward modern whales. Of course, now that abundant fossils of Squalodon and Cetotherium have been discovered and analyzed demonstrating a direct transition between whale ancestor dentition and modern whale dentition, has Jones noted he was wrong in his assessment? No. Bottom line, your reference is not worth consideration. If and when you find a credible reference to rebut the evidence and research of whale evolution, I'll be more than happy to consider it.Doveton_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

I’m sorry Doveton, but your response to Do-While Jones’ articles is weak and inadequate, particularly in light of your (apparently oversold) scientific credentials. First of all, the www.scienceagainstevolution.org website has been producing monthly newsletters since October 1996. Jones frequently bases his articles on the latest scientific publications. So, the first article, written in August 1999 was based on Faith McNulty’s “How Whales Walked Into The Sea” and cited (at the time) recent issues of ‘Science News’, ‘Nature’, ‘Scientific American’ and ‘Science’. The second article, written in November 2001 was based on (at the time) recent issues of ‘National Geographic’, ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’. Now, in response to me, you actually quoted a reference I made to Lizzie on the very subject of so-called whale evolution. Did you honestly not check that? Because if you did, you would’ve quickly learned that since Do-While Jones first two articles on the subject, he has written another three: one in September 2003, one in December 2006 and one in January 2008 (which was a direct response to the source Lizzie made reference to). So, you can imagine, and indeed, understand how disappointed and unimpressed I was when you said: Cetacean evolution research has grown considerably in the last few years alone, but clearly the largest jump in our understanding came between 2003 and 2007 when Dr. Thewissen provided such abundant and detailed finds that filled in a number of gaps. The validity of Mr. Jone’s assessment comes into question in light of this. Things go from bad to worse when you fails to even acknowledge, let alone address, the most serious problems that Jones highlights. For example, Jones points out that: All the creatures (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Protocetus, Indocetus and Rodhocetus)...appear in the fossil record at the roughly same time. He also highlights the fact that “Their argument as to whether or not similar teeth prove evolution is contradictory”. Then there is the fact that “Evolutionists have told us that Pakicetus couldn’t even hear under water. But toothed whales (and dolphins, etc.) have ultrasonic sonar” and “Echolocation and high-frequency hearing are crucial for sensory perception in toothed whales... As a part of this functional adaptation, numerous structural specializations are developed in the inner ear and in the petrosal bone containing the inner ear.” Jones continues: For years, evolutionists have claimed that whales evolved from something like a wolf. But when they analyzed the DNA, whale DNA was closer to hippo DNA than wolf DNA. And that’s just the first article. In the second article, Jones highlights the fact that: All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some primitive terrestrial artiodactyl if they had been found without their skulls. And points out that “Thewissen’s new fossil discoveries show that Pakicetus has practically nothing in common with Ambulocetus or Basilosaurus.” So, “The only parts of Pakicetus that look like a whale are the teeth and the ears.” But then: Deep, near-vertical gouges constitute most of the dental wear in pakicetids. Cladistic arguments have been used to link this wear pattern to aquatic predation on fish, but no functional model or modern analogue is known. Moreover, this kind of dental wear also occurs in raoellid artiodactyls. Although this dental wear probably represents a distinctive way of food processing, it does not necessarily imply aquatic life. Furthermore: Although there is a general resemblance of the teeth of archaeocetes [ancient whales] to those of mesonychids, such resemblance is sometimes overstated and evidently represents evolutionary convergence. So much for the teeth. How about the ears? Unlike any other cetacean, the pakicetid outer ear was unspecialized and similar to that of land mammals...(and) inconsistent with good underwater hearing. Which raises the question, if the only parts of Pakicetus that look like a whale are the teeth and the ears, but in fact, neither teeth nor the ears are remotely whale-like, then how desperate must things be for evolutionists that they have to offer up such pitiful evidence to support their beliefs? Finally, we learn that: the morphology of the newly adapted animals is generally so greatly modified, because of the high selective pressure, that any resemblance to the original ancestor is quickly obliterated. Now, Doveton attempted to justify his bragging on the grounds that I had the temerity to “claim that the appearance of whales was “explosive”.” Yet, we can only describe it as ‘explosive’ when “any resemblance to the original ancestor is quickly obliterated.” Doveton lazily dismisses everything I’ve detailed above with the following statement: The long and short of it is that none of Mr. Jones’ criticisms appear valid in light of extensive data today. I have gone to much more effort for Doveton than he has done for me. As far as I’m concerned this is the last word on the subject. However, if Doveton demonstrates awareness and understanding of the wide range of problems that the just-so-story of whale evolution is riddled with and then produces a response that properly details the evidence for whale evolution (properly taking into account the five articles by Do-While Jones), then this discussion can continue.Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Chris Doyle,
If highlighting the fact that your argument rested upon an invalid appeal to authority (compounded with your own personal authority) is what you call an “emotionally-laced complaint”, then I’m guilty as charged.
Except that my argument doesn't rest on or even include an appeal to authority. My comment on scientists seeing more nuance was a poke at your claim of "explosive appearance" given that the links I provided show the opposite. The whole point is, it doesn't take a lot of nuance to see that the fossil record is anything but explosive, so I'm still waiting for you to explain that claim.
But then, so are you. And I’m not going to waste my time with someone who feels the need to appeal to his own personal authority in order to substantiate a point.
Well, having not claimed any personal authority on whale evolution, I'm not sure what your affront is in reference to. Regardless, since I've addressed many of the criticisms provided by Mr. Do-while Jones, perhaps you'd care to comment on why you feel they are valid.
But, if you are more impressed by the truth than you are by yourself, then click on the two hyperlinks in my previous post and you will find substantial rebuttal to your “reference to the cetacean fossil record”.
See my rebuttal there of.Doveton_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Lizzie,
I mean skepticism is healthy and all that, but I think Doveton’s point – though somewhat tactlessly expressed!
Mea Culpa, Lizzie. I just get a little tired of the tactlessness of claims and opinions absent actual work in the field being presented as having the same credibility and validity as actual research having been performed. The reference to Mr. Jones' claims rehashing very old claims about the fossil record comes is a case in point, particularly given that Mr. Jones appears to have been selectively reading from even the work contemporary to his claims. My statement that we scientists see a bit more nuance in the data was an attempt at being sarcastic about Chris' claim that the appearance of whales was "explosive" when all contemporary evidence and analysis implies otherwise. Clearly I should have just explained that in a straight forward manner instead.Doveton_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Sorry Lizzie, that was a response to Post 78, not 58.Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle,
I don’t know if you checked out either of the links I mentioned to Doveton in relation to whale evolution: but, in direct response to the PDF you referenced, here is another one.
You know, I apologize. I freely admit I dismissed those references when I first started to read them since they were written by an engineer who freely admits to having done no actual research in biology or paleontology. That's a rather rude and arrogant stance to take, so here's my analysis of Mr. Do-while Jone's assessment. Mr. Jones first assesses the famed paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson's puzzlement over whales (as written about by Niles Eldredge in 1991), a curious problem to raise considering the number of fossils Simpson had to work with back in 1926 (when he first started reviewing whale fossils) through 1938 (when Simpson began trying to reconcile the gaps). As Dr. Fitzgerald and Dr. Thewissen's work now shows, the amount of time is not only not an issue now, it has now been well-established at 65 million years. It seems the Mr. Jone's material is considerably out-of-date - his most recent reference is from 2001. Cetacean evolution research has grown considerably in the last few years alone, but clearly the largest jump in our understanding came between 2003 and 2007 when Dr. Thewissen provided such abundant and detailed finds that filled in a number of gaps. The validity of Mr. Jone's assessment comes into question in light of this. For example, Mr. Jones posts a criticism of the of "accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus" from Ashby Camp (1998), stating "There isn’t any proof that one evolved into the other. They could just as easily have been separate species that had some coincidental similarities that evolutionists mistook for evidence of evolution." Interestingly, I reviewed eleven different books and research papers on the subject and not one indicated that any of the species necessarily evolved directly into any other one, so Mr. Jones' criticism does not seem accurate. But Mr. Jones does not actually criticize the one element that all of the research papers do note - the chronological order of trait changes each of the above specimens demonstrate for cetacean evolution. Mr. Jones also notes the early criticism by Zimmer that there aren't enough whale fossils. This too is from Eldedge's book from 1991 and is clearly no longer a valid criticism. Thewissen alone has provided several dozen from a variety of different strata. Mr. Jones criticizes the idea that Pakicetus and Basilosaurus could be related (citing Lenny Flank from 1995) because Pakicetus was found in Pakistan and Basilosaurus was found in Louisiana. Aside from the fact that geography clearly doesn't matter to many whale species as they currently are capable of (and regularly do) swim all over the world, Basilosaurus fossils were discovered in a number of places, including in Pakistan in 1997. The long and short of it is that none of Mr. Jones' criticisms appear valid in light of extensive data today. If you have something more recent I'd be more than happy to consider it.Doveton_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Hi Lizzie, In post 58 you wonder whether or not I missed your point or was making a more subtle one. I think I was making a more subtle one, but perhaps not successfully! If “Finding Out Stuff” is how we learn about things and increase our knowledge, then the scientific method is just one way of “Finding Out Stuff”. I appreciate that you are advocating a cautious, non-dogmatic, open-minded approach to scientific knowledge, Lizzie. However, most people don’t think like that. On the contrary, people often try to persuade us that their side of the argument is true because it is backed up by indisputable scientific facts! This is particularly true of evolution and most evolutionists agree with Richard Dawkins when he says “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).” Elsewhere, there are more settled and entirely undisputed areas of science. Sure, they are subject to refinement. But we’re not going to return to a geocentric view of the solar system nor a flat Earth. When it comes to “Finding Out Stuff” that stuff has been well and truly “Found Out”. The difference between you and me, Lizzie, is that you put evolution in the category of “Found Out” and I do not. Your perspective here is what I understand by the phrase “Evolution is true”. Where has the assumption that “Evolution is true” been detrimental to “Finding Out Stuff”? Well, dismissing the vast majority of our DNA as “Junk”, in terms of the delays and reduced resources in exploring this DNA further, for starters. Or ripping out so-called vestigial organs (every single one of which is now known to serve a function) at the first sign of trouble. Then there’s the vast, countless sums of money that have been wasted on trying to find evidence to support evolutionist beliefs. But, the most detrimental effect of all is the fact that propagating the claim that “Evolution is true” has leant vital support to the atheistic worldview. You did ask ;-)Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Doveton, If highlighting the fact that your argument rested upon an invalid appeal to authority (compounded with your own personal authority) is what you call an "emotionally-laced complaint", then I'm guilty as charged. But then, so are you. And I'm not going to waste my time with someone who feels the need to appeal to his own personal authority in order to substantiate a point. But, if you are more impressed by the truth than you are by yourself, then click on the two hyperlinks in my previous post and you will find substantial rebuttal to your "reference to the cetacean fossil record".Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle,
While the fossil record may not show changes taking place – it is after all a series of snapshots – it does show distinct morphological incremental changes across closely related species.
This just isn’t true and this is plainly obvious from the fact that you claim that:
The fossil evidence we have for cetaceans is one of the better examples.
If that’s the best you can do (and given that it was the first example you gave, it probably is) then your beliefs are literally in a whale of trouble. If you require any further confirmation of that fact, just re-read what you wrote here:
I suppose we in science see a bit more nuance in the fossil record that you do not.
Are you serious, Doveton? Do you know how ridiculous that statement makes you sound? You can’t substantiate your disagreement with me so you have to make an appeal to authority instead: always a bad sign. But then lumping yourself in with that authority, well, you can’t expect to be taken seriously after a move like that.
Chris, just a point to consider: writing an emotionally-laced complaint indicating you're greatly insulted and frustrated by my post is not a rebuttal. I can't do anything with general claims of disagreement and insistence that my "beliefs are in trouble" or how ridiculous I sound if you can't provide a sound rebuttal to the actual points I raised and the reference to the cetacean fossil record I provided. I may well sound arrogant for lumping myself in with scientists, but the fact is I am a researcher in ecology and biology and thus I am part of that group. So at this point, your claim that I have not substantiated my disagreement with you is unfounded - I provided a perfectly apt reference to support my point, which at this point you have not rebutted. For example, what specifically about the cetacean fossil record does not show distinct morphological incremental changes across closely related species? That would be a reasonable start to actually rebutting my point.Doveton_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews,
Doveton, For example, you’ve presented the ability to fly as post-hoc evidence for the selection of said trait, which is fine, but that’s just oversimplification of what genetics and breeding demonstrate. Evolutionary evolutionary presents the explanation for how that relationship works.
There is no basis in breeding to show how a change such as gaining flight would occur. Genetics offers nothing in this respect either. Countless research papers describe the difference in genes and proteins between two organisms but leave the pathway between them hanging as something assumed and yet omitted.
I didn't phrase that well - my point had nothing to do with breeding demonstrating the genetics of flight; my point was the perspective on post-hoc explanations for traits. People who do breeding (I had neighbors who bred show dogs and my wife is now into horses wherein there are a number of folks breeding show and racing horses) evaluate breeding success in terms of post-hoc evidence in a number of situations. You've merely taken that explanation as being evolutionary theory's explanation in toto. My point is the post-hoc explanation is now what evolutionary theory states.
In the historical sense no evidence is provided for selection besides the variation it explains.
As I explained above, evolutionary theory does not suggestion that selection causes variation. Selection is the term for those characteristics of the environment that promote favorable variances and demote unfavorable variances.Doveton_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews,
Doveton, We know that specific incremental characteristic changes that ultimately could support flight were selected in the former two groups because we have the fossil evidence that indicates such.
We hold that selection is the cause of the variation in fossils, and the evidence is that the fossils are varied.
Again, no, this is incorrect. First, in Evolutionary Theory, selection is not the cause of variation; selection is the term that describes the relative breeding fitness of offspring based on environment and traits. Mutation and genetic drift and genetic shift are what cause variation; selection is the term used to describe the disproportion of those organisms with a favorable trait change over those without said trait.
What’s mind-straining is that each case of circular reasoning is used to bolster the other case of circular reasoning in a similarly circular manner. It’s employed with regard to living things and to fossils, and either case can and is used to support the other.
There is no circularity as I've shown. I think you are just confused about the terms as used in Evolutionary Theory.
The variations are held as evidence of selective pressure as a result of understanding that the mechanisms of heredity, competition, reproductive success, offspring relative success and mortality rates, etc. lead to variation.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. The variations are the evidence of the selective pressure, which in turn is used to explain the variations.
That is not what I noted above. Selective pressure is not used to explain variation; mutation, drift, and shift (among other things) along with hereditary mechanism, competition, mortality, etc. are.
You can use “X” – anything at all – to explain variations if the variations, which clearly exist, are accepted as evidence of X.
Except that there's a "Y" you keep leaving out.Doveton_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Shapiro is already proposing natural genetic engineering.Mung_{July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

I think it's only a matter of time before intelligent design is incorporated as another evolutionary mechanism. Not in the sense of intelligently guided evolution, but in the sense that designing and making something is an evolutionary mechanism. That way the theory of evolution will encompass every known and unknown cause imaginable. Then all evidence will always support it and no evidence will ever undermine it. It sounds silly, but it's not much of a stretch. Right now 'evolutionary mechanisms' include a broad range of causes, usually with no specifics, along with absolutely any non-intelligent cause that might be observed or imagined later. There's only one step left to take.ScottAndrews_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

each living ~~this~~ thingScottAndrews_{July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply