Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Incredible Shrinking Timeline

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction.

Fossil Reptilian Tracks

[BTW, let’s remember that the Darwinian objection to an absence of intermediate forms is the imperfection of the fossil record, with the difficulty of ‘soft-tissue’ fossilizing as a partial reason. But here we’re talking fossil footracks, which would seem even harder to form, and yet they’re found!]

Professor Mike Benton offers this:

“As it is, the new footprint evidence suggests a more dramatic pattern of replacement, where the sprawling animals that dominated Late Permian ecosystems nearly all died out, and the new groups that evolved after the crisis were upright. Any competitive interactions were compressed into a short period of time.”

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Ah, yes, the incredible shrinking timeline for the Cambrian Explosion, the Reptilian Explosion and the Mammalian Explosion (This last one has been coming out over the last year or so, and now we’re seeing the Reptilian Explosion come to the fore). Let’s hear it for Darwinian ‘gradualism’. When will these guys ever give up?!? Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 replication events (progeny) of the eukaryotic malarial parasite for it to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone. Assuming one year/generation for the reptiles, this meant evolutionists before had 20-30 million generations for ‘something’ to happen. And now? Darwinism is hopeless to explain these new discoveries. And, yet, they persist. Scientific faith is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Comments
I do believe I owe several of you some answers. I'll start with drawingtheline from comment 32. It's a matter of hypothesis testing. One can use knowledge of chimp and human biology to draw certain predictions from the idea that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. For example, chimps are quadrupedal, knuckle walkers with occasional bouts of bipedalism and suspensory movement. Humans are bipeds. Chimps have different patterns of growth than humans and humans have bigger brains which use up more metabolic energy than chimps. Each of these has an impact in the anatomy - for example in humans there is a trade of between efficient bipedalism and childbirth. Based on this we can make some predictions about what we should see if our hypothesis of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is true. We can then go out to the fossil record and look at a wide variety of hominins and see if they match our predictions. One of the examples I used earlier was that of the pelvis. There are a number of fossil pelvises from Two species of australopithecines, Homo erectus, and Neanderthals that we can use to see if our predictions about the way morphology should change between chimps and humans are in fact correct. In terms of specific fossils I can indeed mention quite a few specimens - but a long list would be kind of boring. Did you have a question about one of them?grannyape92
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Mr PaV, Give yourself more credit. Didn't you show it was closer to 25-30 nearly neutral mutations? If the selection coefficient had been .01 instead of .0001 (beneficial vs neutral) wouldn't the number have been 2500-3000? At those levels, the problem is explaining the conseratism of evolution, not its power. About that cat, its turtles all the way down, until you get to the basement 3.5 Gya.Nakashima
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
---Mark Frank: "So in summary, you don’t how life began or developed but you are sure it is not MET. ---"As Nakashima asks – how do you suggest we find the answer to these questions?" Begin by accepting the principle of causality upon which all science, all reason, and all rational discourse depends. [Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.] If you continue to resist that point and hold that something can come from nothing, you will always remain immune from any reasonable answer to any significant question.StephenB
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Nakashima [109]:
I’m not sure why you think the questions are not answered. You just answered some of them in your own response. 220,000 generations is less than 6 million years, these changes are not neutral but beneficial, etc.
I've answered the question of whether or not stochastic processes, assuming a population size of 100,000 reptiles, can, in a six million year period change one nucleotide into another. The answer is 'yes'. In fact, it might even be able to change 5 or 6. What kind of mechanism does this represent, however? If you want to invoke Hox genes, well, fine. But let me use an analogy. A cat, jumping after a moth, hits the light switch in a room with its paw. Shall we conclude from this that the cat was 'able to produce artificial light all by itself'? So a single mutation turns on/off a Hox gene. But this gene is part of a larger controlling mechanism present within the genome, just like the light switch it connected to wires that both connect to a light bulb (invented by human genius) and a power grid (also invented by human genius). The question isn't how did the cat turn on the light switch (i.e., 5 or 6 mutations), but where did the electric grid and light bulb come from (the remainder of the genome--and, of course, the non-coding portion, otherwise termed by Darwinists as "junk DNA"). If I conclude that the cat all by itself cannot produce artificial light, and, from the knowledge of how unnatural artificial light is, I conclude that another intelligence---other than the simple minded cat---is responsible for the light, I think that is a lot better supposition that concluding, "I'm pretty sure the cat did it. After all, before the cat jumped there was no light."PaV
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Nakashima, you seem to have nothing more than an old boogie-man complex. And, perhaps it’s okay that you do, or don't. Neither response changes the observable evidence of design. In much of your same general tone, a person on this blog once erroneously insisted that if the inference to design couldn’t be applied to fighting disease or something of the sort, then it wasn't worth knowing whether it existed or not. I suggested that searching for what can be dependably called the 'truth' was a virtue unto itself, and any proposition otherwise was intellectually primitive. Your well-worded fear of allowing rational observation of empirical evidence (without the artificially imposed limits of your ideology) is no less primitive. But don't worry yourself too much – statistics indicate that the majority of people on this planet don't believe in what you're selling anyway. So your fears are not only primitive, but unfounded as well. If you personally feel you must wear blinders because of trepidation over what design might mean to someone else, then by all means have at it. But give up any air you hold about being either scientific or enlightened. Your position would be neither.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Re #113 ScottAndrews Perhaps you should also consider reading the glossary. When you understand the definition of ID it’s much easier to understand what is and is not within its scope, and why. Perhaps you should also consider reading who wrote what. Those words are not mine :-)Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Mr ScottAndrews, Can either of you explain why ID, as test with the stated purpose of identifying intelligence as a cause, should offer the methods by which an apparent design was implemented? I won't speak for Mr Frank, but as for myself, I see that ID is used in many plastic and equivocal forms on this blog, just as 'evolution' and 'Darwinism' are. This was brought home to me forcefully by Dr Hunter, who once responded to me that he was talking about evolution, not the change in allele frequencies over time. So I respect that just as I might respond to someone who argues that evolution implies Hitler with a narrow definition of evolution, someone such as yourself can justifiably whip out the narrow definition of ID as a defense against an attack on the broader position of ID, the thin edge of the Wedge that will shatter materialist science and restore the Logos to Its rightful place as the Alpha and Omega of scientific investigaton. This larger ID seems to assume that the Word can become Flesh, meaning of course that information can be imparted by an intelligence into the material of life, either creating life ne novo or altering life's path through time, all without being interested in how this transference is accomplished. This larger ID is unsatisfied with detecting design only at the Big Bang, or the orign of life, and not at more frequent and closer intervals. Those other positions are belittled as TE. Why this must be true is unexamined. Why not detect all the design you can, and follow the evidence where it leads? So the answer to your question is that you are answering with definition A, while I was asking about definition B. Don't worry, happens all the time here.Nakashima
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Mark Frank: If ID can’t answer these questions, won’t even try, won’t admit it has to try, I’m not going to start placing confidence in it. Perhaps you should also consider reading the glossary. When you understand the definition of ID it's much easier to understand what is and is not within its scope, and why. Is this really a new thing in science, that one should state a specific hypothesis and stick to it? If I'm wrong, and you can falsify a theory by demanding of it information it doesn't offer, please educate me. There could be centuries of research to understand the how and when of design. Who ever said there wouldn't be. But it won't be called ID, because ID is a narrow, specific hypothesis. But so long as we keep our heads in the sand, picking and choosing which evidence we like and inventing arbitrary reasons for discarding the rest, we'll never get to that next step. We can't advance science and cling to willful ignorance at the same time. Once you've established that your evaluation of the evidence depends upon your personal preferences, there's no point in trying to satisfy you. You'll always have another irrelevant reason to dismiss it. Perhaps this belongs in the weak arguments FAQ so that it won't keep coming up.ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Mr BiPed, Well, there was that snake who lost his legs... ;) Yes, Zinc! These recent zinc sulfide articles are great wide ranging surveys and syntheses of OOL material. They touch on an area we've often talked about, the formation of RNA or DNA chains. A lot of the ideas depend on the effects of a thick CO2 dominated atmosphere that allowed stong UV to penetrate to the surface, and at the same time allowed chemistry we now associate with deep ocean vents to occur at the surface.Nakashima
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
#110 Remove the ideological blinders (as in blinders) and follow the evidence. Can you be more specific? If life is designed, how do we set about finding out how the designer implements its plans? Do we formulate and hypotheses and test them? Or does something different apply?Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
#108 Remove the ideological blinders (as in blinders) and follow the evidence.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Mr PaV, Present-day Darwinian theory, as far as I can see, can’t answer these questions. So, then, why are we placing so much confidence in it? I'm not sure why you think the questions are not answered. You just answered some of them in your own response. 220,000 generations is less than 6 million years, these changes are not neutral but beneficial, etc. However, you have decisively answered why I won't be assuming ID any time soon. If ID can't answer these questions, won't even try, won't admit it has to try, I'm not going to start placing confidence in it.Nakashima
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
#107 In summary of what(?)…your two sentences that preceded the summary itself? Yes. I just wanted to put it as plainly as I could. But what about my question ... how do you suggest we find the answer to these questions?Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Mark Frank @106 “Thank you for a straight answer.” You’re welcome “So you don’t know how the change in the form of reptiles happened. May I assume you also don’t know how life began?” And neither do you. “I guess you are pretty sure that neither of these are answered by MET.” As far as how life began, there isn’t a shred of evidence that MET had anything to do with it, and mountains of evidence that it flatly didn’t. As far as reptilian physiology, I am open to MET, as soon as someone can muster up an explanation that fits the evidence I’ll be interested in hearing it. Speculation based purely upon ideological assumption (while ignoring other evidence and pretending to be empirical) is a non-starter (and it isn’t science). “So in summary, you don’t how life began or developed but you are sure it is not MET.” In summary of what(?)…your two sentences that preceded the summary itself? Give me a breakUpright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Re #86 Thank you for a straight answer. So you don't know how the change in the form of reptiles happened. May I assume you also don't know how life began? I guess you are pretty sure that neither of these are answered by MET. So in summary, you don't how life began or developed but you are sure it is not MET. As Nakashima asks - how do you suggest we find the answer to these questions?Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Nakashima, By all means, please allow me to survey my options:
Experiments into the physics and chemistry of the matter that currently is used by life on this planet
Yes of course, but as you know I am an empiricist in such matters. I give weight to evidence that can be observed, and to causes that are currently in operation.
thinking about life and reasoning logically without doing experiments
Yes, this as well. Without reason – the type that follows from evidence - there are no experiments worth doing and no conclusions worth considering.
studying texts revered by a religious tradition and reciting prayers
Well I certainly may not have spent enough of my life reading religious text or praying. Yet in what modest amount I have read, I can’t remember any religious text that concerns reptilian physiology, nor can I ever remember any theologian citing verses on the topic. Why would you ask such an ignorant and misplaced (dumbassed) question? Was it meaningful to you in some fashion personally? Perhap I should read up on zinc?Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Mark Frank & Nakashima: Can either of you explain why ID, as test with the stated purpose of identifying intelligence as a cause, should offer the methods by which an apparent design was implemented? When some one says that ID does not explain how this or that was made, do you understand how little sense your objections make?ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Ritchie [58]:
If there are a million of these creatures born in a year, that’s a million chances. And over a hundred years, that’s a hundred million chances.
The difficulty is not finding enough offspring to overcome the odds of "one" mutation arising and becoming fixed in the population, but one of quite a few. That's where the probabilities work against Darwinian theory, and long time intervals are needed. The whole point of this post is that the Darwinian fairy tale keeps losing time, not gaining it. It has to account for more and more, in less and less time. From a probabilistic viewpoint, this is a catastrophe for the theory. If you use an exponential rate of growth equation to describe evolution, you come up with a very simple formula wherein, per Fred Hoyle's work, the time needed, in generations, for an allele to come to fixation (the assumption is that the mutations occur on alleles) is ((ln (x)i)/s, where (x)i = initial frequency of the allele, and s = selection factor. Well, (x)i is easy. It's 1 in 10^9. The natural log of that is probably about 21 or 22. Now what is 's'? Normally s is considered to be around .01. But, in the neutral theory of mutations, s = .0001 or less. Taking it as .0001, we get time = t (in generations) of 220,000 generations. If the mutation were perfectly neutral, then s would be 1 in 10^9. Now the generational time is 22 x 10^9 generations. That represents more years than the universe has been in existence. The neutral theory was introduced by Motoo Kimura to deal with the fact that there are so many "synonmous" = "silent" mutations found in the genome. If each of these "synonmous" mutations had to be kept in balance by selection, the so-called 'genetic load' would be too huge to consider life continuing, let alone 'evolving'. Now, the bottom-side of the neutral theory is that it takes so long for fixation, which means that only a few mutations can occur (which means, effectively, it can't accoung for information arising within the genome); but, if only a 'few' mutations can bring about large scale changes, and, in a neutral fashion, then what is preventing life-forms from reverting back to prior forms. IOW, if it takes only six millions years for a few mutations to change reptiles from 'straddling' to 'upright', then why didn't it happen before the mass exinction? Why hasn't it happened since? Present-day Darwinian theory, as far as I can see, can't answer these questions. So, then, why are we placing so much confidence in it?PaV
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Ritchie, "If the quantum vaccuum could have existed before the Big Bang (out of which virtual particles spring uncaused)" You may want to think about this.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Mr BiPed, When you say your answer is "I don't know." are you saying that is your answer to the question which in your opinion subsumes the question of changes in reptile physiology, or is that your answerto Mr Frank's question about the ID explanation for these same changes? To dispel this ignorance, what course of investigation do you recommend? Experiments into the physics and chemistry of the matter that currently is used by life on this planet, thinking about life and reasoning logically without doing experiments, or studying texts revered by a religious tradition and reciting prayers? Add or mix options as you see fit.Nakashima
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Ritchie: That much I agree with. However, it does not follow that every hypothetical thing which is postulated later becomes ‘known’. The Gods of the ancient Greeks have not become ‘known’. The tooth fairy has not become ‘known’. You're missing a critical distinction. The Greek gods and the tooth fairy are stories made up for entertainment. There is, on the other hand, overwhelming evidence that many things in nature required design. Science must account for evidence, not put its head in the sand. Your arguments suggest that you haven't done a cursory reading about ID before joining this debate. When we refer to ID or Intelligent Design, I don't think you actually know what we're talking about. Otherwise, why would you make the comparison you did above? May I suggest that you read the glossary?ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed [from 95] "By all accounts, quantum particles did not exist prior to the Big Bang either." Really? Why not? If the quantum vaccuum could have existed before the Big Bang (out of which virtual particles spring uncaused) then I don't see why the virtual particles wouldn't exist...Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed [from 94] "We, at least, can be certain that something transcended the Big Bang." Not certain, yet. But it seems likely.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden [from 90] "The logical fallacy here is the assumption that the “even more” complicated designer had to be self assembled in the same way, for the assumption behind your thought process is still that everything must be “bottom-up”, or “self-assembled”, but this is the very thing in question, and cannot, then, be your premise." If this complicated designer was NOT created from the 'bottom up', then it itself would have had to have been designed by some even greater intelligent designer - a being even MORE improbable, unless of course we postualte another to design and create that one, then another to design and create THAT one, and thus we have an infinite regress of intelligent designer/creators.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews [from 88] "Then you are making determinations based upon a fabricated assumption. Everything is unknown until it becomes known. If we thought it was improbable right up until the moment it became known, then our assumption was baseless and incorrect." That much I agree with. However, it does not follow that every hypothetical thing which is postulated later becomes 'known'. The Gods of the ancient Greeks have not become 'known'. The tooth fairy has not become 'known'. Dragons and goblins have not become 'known'. Only tiny percentage of all ideas get vindicated. Only a tiny percentage of tales turn out to be true. Only a tiny percentage of 'unknowns' to out, if fact, to be 'knowns'. "Besides, the mechanisms and pathways by which things supposedly evolved are unknown. (I’m talking observation, not speculation.)" I'm not sure I follow. Evolution operates through random mutation and natural selection, surely? That's it. Sometimes genes randomly mutate, and natural selection weeds out the advantages from the disadvantages. How can you claim the mechanisms are unknown? "Biology is full of scientific explanations. How can it be based on something no one can explain or agree on?" You are splitting hairs when you say no-one agrees on it. Biologists disagree on the specifics of precisely HOW certain things evolved, but almost no reputable biologist disputes that evolution has happened. The matter is simply not in question. As for no-one being able to explain it, that's plain incorrect. Any biology textbook will explain it. "Who mentioned anything supernatural? ID is design or non-design. I’m not aware that DNA is supernatural." An intelligent designer/creator of the universe would, by necessity, lie outside of the 'natural' world. It would therefore be supernatural. "Biological systems and machines that happen by accident are the emperor’s new clothes. I don’t care how impressed everyone else is. There’s nothing there. How can you tell? Ask everyone around you to describe the new clothes in detail. No one can, because they’re just trying their best to imagine them too." Sorry, no idea what you're talking about here. 'Biological systems and machines that happen by accident aren't really there'...?Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
..and by the way Ritchie, By all accounts, quantum particles did not exist prior to the Big Bang either.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Ritchie at 93, We, at least, can be certain that something transcended the Big Bang.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed [from 87] "Ritchie, would the atom exist to decay without the Big Bang?" From my (admittedly limited) knowledge of physics, no. As far as I know, all atoms stem from the Big Bang. However, it is perfectly possible the quantum vaccuum existed before the Big Bang, so virtual particles could well have been popping into and out of existence before then.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Mark Frank at 89 I refer you to my belated post at 86. As far as ID not having anything positive, that is hardly the case.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Atom [from 82] "what is the difference in creating a cosmos system and my creating a SecondLife cosmos within a computer? Is the difference merely in choice of materials or degree of complexity?" Perhaps there is no difference in principle. Are you saying it is reasonable to believe this universe has an intelligent designer/creator because Second Life has one?Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply