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
Ritchie,
Then let me support it logically. For an intelligent designer to have deliberately created the universe and everything in it, he must be more complex than the entire universe and everything in it. His existence is therefore statistically more unlikely than the existence of the universe and everything in it. And yet, you simply assume this phenominally improbable being when you hypothesize such a creator/designer as the explaination for any mystery. An explaination which does not assume such a being, and relies only on the existence of things we know to be real/true is therefore always MORE likely, no matter how unlikely it is on its own.
I see what's happening here, you're conflating "existence" with "work". It's true that nothing assembles itself into vastly complicated structures out of nothing, we can at least say that much, and in our experience all things that are assembled are created by something intentionally. The question is really how can things come together, self assemble or be assembled, into a complex entity, and you're assuming that the more complex designer had to have, itself, been self assembled, which is even more unlikely than an assemblage of something simpler self-assembling. 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. This assumption itself is faulty, and should not be taken for granted as an unalterable model for any construction, for it the very thing being contested. It is no logical necessity that everything that exists must have come from simpler parts. We have absolutely no logical reason to believe this, for the assumption behind it, that there is no designer, is what is in question, and cannot be answered and then argue against a designer. It's affirming the consequent. I know Dawkins is singularly fond of this argument, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.Clive Hayden
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
#81 You are clearly determined not to give any account at all of how an intelligence might have accomplished the reptilian transition. This is what I find so frustrating about the ID movement. Despite protests to the contrary, it is at heart negative. It is full of criticism but has nothing positive to offer over and above - "it was designed".Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Ritchie: I am rejecting the unknown in favour of the improbably because, by virtue of BEING unknown, the unknown is even MORE improbable. 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. Besides, the mechanisms and pathways by which things supposedly evolved are unknown. (I'm talking observation, not speculation.) Why not apply the same logic there? It's awfully generous to call something "known" when all the details have yet to be worked out. It is probably the great founding theory of biology itself. Probably? Are you sure? If you think so, then I don't think you know what biology is. Biology is full of scientific explanations. How can it be based on something no one can explain or agree on? We can hypothesize a natural explaination, which is unlikely, or a supernatural explaination, which is even MORE unlikely. Who mentioned anything supernatural? ID is design or non-design. I'm not aware that DNA is 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.ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Ritchie, would the atom exist to decay without the Big Bang?Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Mark Frank #79 On second look I notice that I did not make a direct attempt to answer your question. My answer is I don't know. Dr Peter Macklem made these comments in the Journal of Applied Physiology: "Life and emergence obey the laws of physics and chemistry. But life has a third secret not mentioned by Schrodinger. The design of living organisms is not determined by physico-chemical laws (11, 14). As Polanyi (14) says, in a painting the physical and chemical properties of the paint determine what remains on the canvas, but the meaning of the painting is determined by the artist. Who is our artist? We sculpt ourselves; but our survival depends on Darwinian selection. Appropriate designs survive, inappropriate ones become extinct. Life is more than the properties of our paint. Understanding life requires knowledge of how the design of living creatures and emergent phenomena, appearing spontaneously in self-ordered, reproducing, interacting, energy-consuming, non-linear, dynamic ensembles makes us what we are. I believe this will be the next biological revolution." In light of what we know about DNA, I would take the point of Polanyi and say that material causes cannot explain life, and if that is so, then I take the point of Dr Macklenm in stride: purely material causes are not likely to explain reptilian physiology either.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed [from 80] "You thoughts seem to follow a logical line of uniformatarnism. Does that mean that you also see all things as having a cause?" Not everything. The radioactive decay of an atom is, in every sense, uncaused. It is totally impossible to predict when at atom will decay. Also there are 'virtual particles' which really do appear and disappear, from nothing to nothing, and totally at random uncaused from the subatomic vaccuum. These virtual particles are not merely theoretical - they exert effects which have been directly detected.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
to* have seen = you have seenAtom
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
PS If the answer is "We've seen one case but haven't seen the other", then that doesn't hold up well, since the point of induction is to use the cases to have seen to reason about the cases you haven't. So please do your best to show what the relevant difference is, besides the fact that we've seen one case repeatedly but not the other.Atom
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Yes Ritchie, but you didn't answer my implicit question:
What is so different in principle between [snip] creating a cosmos system and [snip] creating a SecondLife world? Is it just a difference in degree of complexity?
I already acknowledged the fact that we haven't seen intelligent agents creating physical universes. My question is still relevant: 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?Atom
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Mark Frank at 79 "I am not making any assumptions." I do, however, make an assumption. I assume that the answer to what happpens within the evolution of any living thing is subsumed by how those living things came about in the first place. As far as the conversation above, you asked to have it shown to the "plausibility of a designed solution". The observable fact that living things are more plausibly understood as the result of act of volition should be considered in what we think is possible in the evolution of living things.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Ritchie, You thoughts seem to follow a logical line of uniformatarnism. Does that mean that you also see all things as having a cause?Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Re #76 If that answer is artificially harnessed to the assumption that all things must be a result of material processes, then we ignore what we already know I am not making any assumptions. I am not even considering materialist explanations for the reptile transition. All I want is to know the ID explanation for this transition at any level of detail beyond - "a designer made it happen". The whole point of this post was to criticise MET for not giving an adequate account. So let's hear yours.Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews [from 75] "You acknowledge that all designers are more complex than their creations, and you don’t have any issue with that. But then you claim that this particular designer is illogical because it would be greater than its design, just like all designers are." No, not that this designer is illogical, just that its existence is extremely unlikely - less likely than the existence of billions of other universes. "Never mind the issues on which ID is neutral, such as the number of designers, and that ID is specifically" Is that sentence unfinished? "Boiled down, I see your argument as rejecting the unknown in favor of the improbable." I quite like that. Yes, I think you could be right. I am rejecting the unknown in favour of the improbably because, by virtue of BEING unknown, the unknown is even MORE improbable. "The problem is that the improbable is still just as improbable, and it doesn’t make a good explanation without really good evidence. The more improbable, the more evidence." Look at it this way - say we have a mystery. We can hypothesize a natural explaination, which is unlikely, or a supernatural explaination, which is even MORE unlikely. The natural explaination seems the rational one to prefer, even though it may be improbable. "The “scientific” explanation isn’t very good and doesn’t actually explain anything and is remotely unlikely even given billions of years and lots of planets." If you are referring to the theory of evolution, then I'm afraid you are simply wrong. It is probably the great founding theory of biology itself. It explains a Hell of a lot, and if you don't find it convincing, then that rather suggests you don't really understand it.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Atom [from 74] "...if you limit your class of intelligent agents to “ex nihilo matter creating”/”universe creating” then humans are not examples of that." Yes, exactly. We have no examples of that sort of intelligent agent. That's why we don't know for sure that such beings exist. "But assuming that matter can come from somewhere or be eternal (it is here, after all), what is so different in principle between an intelligent agent creating a cosmos system and my creating a SecondLife world? Is it just a difference in degree of complexity?" I wouldn't say so. I would say the (relevant) difference here is simply that we know we exist. A being capable of creating and designing a universe is, to my knowledge, possible, but its existence is phenominally unlikely without any reason to think one exists - without any evidence that one does. We can, by contrast, be fairly sure that we exist.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, "Do you mean it is impossible to answer the question about reptilian anatomy without answering the ultimate question? This would make all of science impossible." I understand your comment, but whatever our answer is to reptilian anatomy, it must stand against what we already know about the reality of life itself. If that answer is artificially harnessed to the assumption that all things must be a result of material processes, then we ignore what we already know (as well as what we don't know at all). If my car won't start and the gas gauge is on empty, then I can hardly profess superior logic by assuming that the headlight pressue must be too low, or that my muffler bearings have gone out.Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Ritchie, That's the point. You acknowledge that all designers are more complex than their creations, and you don't have any issue with that. But then you claim that this particular designer is illogical because it would be greater than its design, just like all designers are. Never mind the issues on which ID is neutral, such as the number of designers, and that ID is specifically Boiled down, I see your argument as rejecting the unknown in favor of the improbable. The problem is that the improbable is still just as improbable, and it doesn't make a good explanation without really good evidence. The more improbable, the more evidence. If you don't like design, you're still better off leaving a big question mark. The "scientific" explanation isn't very good and doesn't actually explain anything and is remotely unlikely even given billions of years and lots of planets.ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Ritchie, It was question begging if we assume we're talking about all intelligent designers (including humans), because we could assume humans are not really "intelligent" (meaning intentional), which I've had some people argue. But if you limit your class of intelligent agents to "ex nihilo matter creating"/"universe creating" then humans are not examples of that. At best, we create with preexisting matter. But assuming that matter can come from somewhere or be eternal (it is here, after all), what is so different in principle between an intelligent agent creating a cosmos system and my creating a SecondLife world? Is it just a difference in degree of complexity?Atom
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews [from 71] "I’m not going to write it all again. Go back and read it all again." I think it's you who misread me. I am not saying a designer is LESS complex than that which it designs. I am saying the designer is MORE complex than that which it designs.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Atom [from 70] "Really? I design software intentionally…but I guess somehow I can’t really know that I exist? Or that my friends (software designers) exist?" Lol, fair point well made. Yes, I need to rephrase that, don't I? How about 'beings capable of designing and creating the universe are not the sort of things we know for a fact exists'? I fail to see how that is begging the question though.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Ritchie @67: I'm not going to write it all again. Go back and read it all again.ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Ritchie wrote:
Intelligent designers are NOT the sort of things we know for a fact exists.
Really? I design software intentionally...but I guess somehow I can't really know that I exist? Or that my friends (software designers) exist? I guess Descartes was wrong, wrong, wrong. Either that, or your assertion is wrong on the face of it and question begging if we want to dig into the spirit of it...Atom
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Ritchie: Intelligent designers are NOT the sort of things we know for a fact exists. I forgot about that. You're right, you win.ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
suckerspawn [from 65] "You said a rigged lottery was a natural explanation." Yes. "I believe this intelligent source is very likely since it the best/only explanation for the empirical evidence, like the existence of life itself." How so? What evidence has convinced you of this?Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews [from 64] "This doesn’t hold up at all. Everything ever known to be designed is less complex than its designer." ??? Pardon? How does that work? How can something create/design something which is more complex that itself? "Your bizarre assertion that the designer cannot exceed the complexity of the thing designed flies in the face of all observed evidence. All of it, not a single exception. It is false, invented." I didn't assert that. I asserted the designer MUST exceed the complexity of the thing designed...Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews [from 61] "Why do you turn the discussion to the probability or improbability of God? What does that have to do with the subject?" I was responding to assertions that gene mutations were very unlikely. I was pointing out that this does not support a theory of an intelligent designer since such a being has to be MORE improbable. "True enough. Two things are missing: First, evidence that it’s possible. There’s not a shred of evidence that the blind watchmaker can build a watch. That’s just not in yet." Are you sure? We have witnessed mutations in DNA occur. We have witnessed species evolve from other species. What sort of evidence would you say is conspicuously absent? "And there’s not enough attempts. Several billion years isn’t enough. Why do you think they invented multiverses, despite no evidence of a single other ‘verse? To come up with more attempts – to make the nonsensical plausible." For one thing, one attempt is enough. The more you get, the more likely an event becomes - the more tickets you buy, the more likely you are to win the lottery. But you only NEED one. For another, the multiverse hypothesis is STILL more likely than the existence of an intelligent designer/creator. Why? Because we already know that one universe does exist - this one! So we know for a fact that universes are the sort of things which can possibly exist. And if one exists, why not two, or five, or a hundred, or billions? Intelligent designers are NOT the sort of things we know for a fact exists. So the existence of such a being is incredibly improbable. One you know for a fact a horse exists, it is more likely that a billion other horses exist than a single unicorn. "Bottom line: Darwinism is sufficiently improbable that in any other science it would be discarded, even with nothing to take its place." When you say 'Darwinism', I assume you mean the theory of evolution, which is supported by evidence in the fields of biology, geology, biogreography, genetics, and many others. It is a thoroughly scientific theory. To state that in 'any other science' it would be discarded is nonsensical. Apart from anything else, why do you say it is improbable? "The only reason to adhere to it is a devotion that supersedes science, a determination to believe in it despite the evidence. Congratulations, you’ve joined a church." Now you are the one making 'bald assertions'. How do you support it? A devotion to what, exactly? Total confidence in the theory of evolution may be acheived through nothing other than a rational examination of the evidence.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Ritchie, You said a rigged lottery was a natural explanation. I believe this intelligent source is very likely since it the best/only explanation for the empirical evidence, like the existence of life itself.suckerspawn
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Ritchie, For an intelligent designer to have deliberately created the universe and everything in it, he must be more complex than the entire universe and everything in it. His existence is therefore statistically more unlikely than the existence of the universe and everything in it. This doesn't hold up at all. Everything ever known to be designed is less complex than its designer. Your bizarre assertion that the designer cannot exceed the complexity of the thing designed flies in the face of all observed evidence. All of it, not a single exception. It is false, invented. You cite this rule as if it's well-established. Can you identify the case which established it? When you scratch the surface of such logic there's nothing there.ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
suckerspawn [from 60] "A “rigged” lottery is an intelligent explanation." It is, I agree. But I'm not sure I take your point. "We do not need to hypothesize a god we need only hypothesize an intelligent source." And how likely do you think this 'intelligent source' is?Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Joseph [from 59] "1- That is just a bald declaration" True, but it has long been held as a truism by mathematicians. I don't really see how it could possibly NOT be true. How could something be possible and yet not ever happen given enough attempts? "2- How do we figure out what is possible?" I suppose you judge each case individually. Scientists work to answer questions like these. That's why they perform experients - if something can happen for them in a lab under controlled conditions, then it could have happened before. "3- There isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the transformations required (for universal common descent) are even possible." What transformations are you talking about here? If you are talking about one species 'transforming' into another/into two species, then you are simply mistaken. "'The existence of a god, simply put, is more improbable than anything which exists in the universe.' - Another bald assertion." Then let me support it logically. For an intelligent designer to have deliberately created the universe and everything in it, he must be more complex than the entire universe and everything in it. His existence is therefore statistically more unlikely than the existence of the universe and everything in it. And yet, you simply assume this phenominally improbable being when you hypothesize such a creator/designer as the explaination for any mystery. An explaination which does not assume such a being, and relies only on the existence of things we know to be real/true is therefore always MORE likely, no matter how unlikely it is on its own. "Puzzle: Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins. What is the material explaination?" I'm not sure I understand your puzzle. Death is a natural process, but surely it makes no sense to talk about the 'origin of death'? Growth is a natural process, but surely it makes no sense to talk about the 'origin of growth'? Or am I missing something?Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Ritchie, Why do you turn the discussion to the probability or improbability of God? What does that have to do with the subject? As long as something is possible, no matter how unlikely it is, then given enough attempts, it will eventually happen. True enough. Two things are missing: First, evidence that it's possible. There's not a shred of evidence that the blind watchmaker can build a watch. That's just not in yet. And there's not enough attempts. Several billion years isn't enough. Why do you think they invented multiverses, despite no evidence of a single other 'verse? To come up with more attempts - to make the nonsensical plausible. Bottom line: Darwinism is sufficiently improbable that in any other science it would be discarded, even with nothing to take its place. The only reason to adhere to it is a devotion that supersedes science, a determination to believe in it despite the evidence. Congratulations, you've joined a church.ScottAndrews
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply