Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Some People Favor Common Descent


The scientific evidence does not favor evolution but that doesn’t mean we know all the answers. In fact some people who agree evolution is unlikely, nonetheless argue for common descent. This can be confusing because common descent is so often presented as integral to Darwin’s idea. But this need not be the case.  Read more

warehuff, I am focused on the evidence.,,, Just as you gracefully apologized, rightly so, of twisting my quote of sources to accord to your own prejudices (ideology). The point is that you are now letting your very own ideology color your interpretation of the evidence with Mr. Yahya. With Mr. Yahya, instead of you engaging the integrity of the evidence of thousands of 'living" fossils that have not changed for 10's and 100's of millions of years (pictures of fossils that he did not dig up nor date by the way,, in fact they are only fossils that he possesses because of his access to wealth), you instead engage in Mr. Yahya's radical Muslim ideology. I really don't care for his ideology either, to put it mildly, as I really don't care for your atheistic ideology, never said that I did, and indeed I would have much rather used a more reputable source from say Harvard, Princeton, USC, MIT, or some other major university in America, Yet unfortunately in our major schools their very own neo-Darwinian 'ideology' forces them to be less than forthright with the evidence than they should be, (to understate the situation once again), and to even persecute anyone who dares question neo-Darwinism, so we will never see a site from our Major Universities with thousands of pictures of 'living' fossils even though that is the true state of the evidence!!! Do you deny this point of evidence warehuff? If so say so but do not engage in propaganda over ideology warehuff!!!. ,,, warehuff Why are you not full of indignation at the injustice from our universities, to ID proponents, as you are with Mr. Yahya injustices to those he has power over? Expelled http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-518637672896741579# My point in citing the Yahya source for ancient fossils,, And with citing the first complete Bat fossil appears fully formed + 55 mya with fully functional echolocation, is to drive the point home,,,, the only point that should matter to you if you are truly interested in finding the truth of the matter,,,, is that the fossil record is overwhelming characterized by sudden appearance of novel forms as well as characterized by long term stability of forms after that sudden appearance. bornagain77
Warehuff, What this guy does with his personal life is a separate subject from what he "claims" to believe, and supports regarding origins science. Most of his arguments for creation and ID are actually just being borrowed from the work of other totally different people- so it is obvious to me that the positions he supports are very much separate from whatever he may or may not do with his personal life. It is no surprise that you have many different types of people who are supportive of ID including Jews, Christians, Muslims, and even people like David Berlinski who while not personally endorsing the theory of ID at least think it has enough legitimacy to be heard in a scientific forum. And while I think it is important and noteworthy to point out elleged actions like the ones you note, of a man of his stature - and I also do not blame you for doing so- I do however find your personal attack post above to be disingenuous given that it is fallacious to take examples of a proponents personal actions, unrelated to the substance of his arguments for ID and or criticisms of materialistic evolution- and try to use them to smear the legitimacy of those arguments. But since the substance of the debate belongs to the ID side anyway it is no surprise that so many people on your side choose to resort to that kind of argumentation. Personally I find it totally symptomatic of a common disgust and apparent hate for those people and positions that you, your great and perfect self disagree with. Stick to the subject (the evidence and arguments thereof) and stay away from the substanceless fallacious personal attacks. Frost122585
bornagain77, first let me apologize to you for misattributing my words to you. I can only plead haste and the late hour. What does idiology have to do with the evidence? When it's Harun Yahya, a lot. Do you expect honesty and scientific competence from a man who couldn't get through interior design school? From a man who believes Jews and Freemasons are secretly plotting to corrupt the moral values of the Turkish people? And that the Rosicrucians are somehow involved too? How about a Holocaust denier? Do you agree with Adnan that, "what is presented as Holocaust is the death of some Jews due to the typhus plague during the war and the famine towards the end of the war caused by the defeat of the Germans."? Maybe you feel that he came to his senses in 1998 when he switched from anti-Semitism and anti-Freemasonry to anti-evolution and anti-materialism? I hope you won't count it against Harun for saying that, "Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions". He only means that for Muslims. http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php I'm sure you don't hold it against Mr. Yahya for blocking web sites from all of Turkey. After all, he says that some of those WordPress blogs (he had them all blocked) contained material that libeled him. And who can blame Mr. Yahya for forcing female cult members into having sex with prospective members and secretly videotaping it? Or using those tapes for blackmail? And doesn't every organization recruit wealthy young people and make them turn their wealth over to the organization? And 19 months in prison? Persecution! Mr. Yahya blames the Freemasons. You know something? I think Mr. Yahya is a full-fledged nut case and apparently seven different Turkish hospitals agree with me. But hey, what's a little idiology? The main point is that he agrees with you on evolution, so he must be a trustworthy source. warehuff
gpuccio, The paper really is a gem from the ID perspective for it reveals that even the timing at which a amino acid is released is critical to protein folding and function for isoforms. The integrated engineering that has to go into this reveals yet another level of complexity on top of what was already 'optimal' for the genetic code and for proteins. And to think, researchers have barely begun to scratch the surface for the integrated complexity to be found. bornagain77
BA: thank you for this last reference. I was aware of that paper, also because it could have very interesting consequences in medicine, and help explain some clinical observations. gpuccio
This recent paper is simply astonishing for the additional level of complexity that is reveled for the genetic code: Though the DNA code is found to be optimal from a error minimization standpoint, it is also now found that the fidelity of the genetic code, of how a specific amino acid is spelled, is far greater than had at first been thought: Synonymous Codons: Another Gene Expression Regulation Mechanism - September 2010 Excerpt: There are 64 possible triplet codons in the DNA code, but only 20 amino acids they produce. As one can see, some amino acids can be coded by up to six “synonyms” of triplet codons: e.g., the codes AGA, AGG, CGA, CGC, CGG, and CGU will all yield arginine when translated by the ribosome. If the same amino acid results, what difference could the synonymous codons make? The researchers found that alternate spellings might affect the timing of translation in the ribosome tunnel, and slight delays could influence how the polypeptide begins its folding. This, in turn, might affect what chemical tags get put onto the polypeptide in the post-translational process. In the case of actin, the protein that forms transport highways for muscle and other things, the researchers found that synonymous codons produced very different functional roles for the “isoform” proteins that resulted in non-muscle cells,,, In their conclusion, they repeated, “Whatever the exact mechanism, the discovery of Zhang et al. that synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code.”,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm#20100919a bornagain77
warehuff, I noticed you did not find it convenient to apologize to me for your mistake, whether willing or unintentional, of you attributing words to me that I did not say, but the words you attributed to me were in fact words that you had said that you had attributed to me in post 26,, Moreover you did this not once but twice! I guess this is all fine and well as long as your feelings, or atheism, is not hurt?!? I would appreciate if you would acknowledge your gross indiscretion to me as to the point of evidence, as well I would appreciate if you would please correct your statement concerning the actual state of evidence for Bat Fossils i.e. the statement should read,,, the oldest complete Bat Fossil does indeed have 'perfect' echolocation. I noticed you wanted a transcript of Fazale Rana's video. Though I am not going to transcribe the entire video for you, since you are unable to listen to it for whatever reason, I will clarify the main point of evidence that is illuminated by Dr. Rana in the video, The main point is the fact that neo-Darwinian evolution is shown to be 'historically contingent' in the Lenski e-coli experiments. This is a crushing problem for neo-Darwinian evolution since it is now shown that there are no underlying 'hidden forces' driving the random mutations to molecular sequences to 'converge' on the same solution.,,, One of the most pressing concerns, among many that could be brought forth by this newly revealed fact, is how in the world does neo-Darwinian evolution explain the following stunning 'convergence' upon the same solution for 'optimal DNA' since evolution is shown to be historically contingent: i.e. The protein machinery that replicates DNA is found to be vastly different in even the most ancient of different single celled organisms: Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? - Koonin Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/17/3389 There simply is no smooth 'gradual transition' to be found between these most ancient of life forms, bacteria and archaea, as this following articles and video clearly point out: Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,... Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?page=1 Problems of the RNA World - Did DNA Evolve Twice? - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors - July 2010 Excerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.... There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100712b Materialism has absolutely no credible answers for how this extreme level of complexity 'accidentally' arose in the first living cell, nor how the complexity found in life randomly evolved to 'converge' on the same solution in the next 'simple' step of life, and to imagine/believe it can happen by accident, with no compelling evidence to support your position, is not empirical science. In fact, believing in something without any reasonable evidence whatsoever is usually called blind faith. Further notes: Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) Ode to the Code - Brian Hayes The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code. It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we'll never see again in the modern world. https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/ode-to-the-code/4 Moreover the first DNA code in life had to be at least as complex as the current DNA code found universally in life: “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code Excerpt: When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of the 10 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature. http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code DNA - The Genetic Code - Optimal Error Minimization & Parallel Codes - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491422 Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA - Jonathan McLatchie - July 2010 Excerpt: It appears then, that the genetic code has been put together in view of minimizing not just the occurence of amino acid substitution mutations, but also the detrimental effects that would result when amino acid substitution mutations do occur. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nick_lane_and_the_ten_great_in036101.html bornagain77
warehuff, and just what does ideology have to do with the evidence. Must you always attack the man when you can't counter the evidence? Why do you refuse to address the relevant points of evidence? One the fossil record is completely contrary to what Darwinian evolution predicted! This is not a rhetorical point! THIS IS THE EVIDENCE! Why did you not address the empirical evidence that falsified punctuated equilibrium???, but instead referred to further 'just so' stories of Gould? This is NOT Dr. Suess in which you can make up any story you want warehuff! You MUST counter the empirical evidence I presented that falsified punctuated equilibrium with more compelling empirical evidence to the contrary, or else you must concede that punctuated equilibrium is falsified. There are no other options if you want to stay within the scientific method warehuff! bornagain77
BA77 @ 38: So you have heard of Stephen J. Gould! You even quote him. Now go back to the book you got that quote from (or did you find the quote severed from all other information on a creationist web site?) and read his explanation for that phenomena. @ 39: I'm not surprised you can't make sense out of the fossil record. All of your citations are from creationist and/or ID sources. I'm especially appalled/amused by your cite to the Fossil Museum at http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/index.php?page=60&limit=30 "On this site you can find works by Harun Yahya that totally demolish Darwinism, as well as news reports and developments that demonstrate the global effect these works are having." Harun Yahya!!! Otherwise known as Adnan Oktar, the man who couldn't hack interior design school and now runs a very profitable Islamo-Fascist cult, complete with sexual exploitation. He is probably the only person in the world to ever mistake a fishing fly for an insect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar warehuff
warehuff, YOU are the one who wrote in 26, 'starting to perfect echolocation'. Why do you attribute this statement to me when you are the one who wrote it?,,, Must you twist my words to accord your prejudices, and then act as if you have done nothing wrong? Myself I find it very disconcerting that you would do this because it reveals that you either are so biased that you are seeing things that are not there, are two, that the truth matters so little to you that you don't even care if you have to lie to score rhetorical points. Warehuff, you then want to get technical with bat teeth, thus I will amend my statement to clearly reflect the evidence,,, The First complete bat fossil we have has 'perfect' echolocation already present!... warehuff is that clear enough for you? It seems you have chosen, once again, to rely on ignorance and imagination to try to make your case for evolution, for the evidence does in fact show 'perfect' echolocation in the earliest 'complete' bat fossil we have, and yet you have simply twisted words, which I did not even say. What is amazing still is that you point to bat teeth, and WA LA, all the sudden in your uncritical mind (uncritical of anything Darwinian that is) everything is fine and well in your Darwin-land fantasy world. Excuse me if I refuse to play your games! Show me a earlier bat without echolocation or else conceded the earliest 'complete' fossil we have does indeed have perfect echolocation present. This is not somewhere where you can submit your imagination as evidence! Yes,,, I'm well aware of Gould's 'imaginary' world of punctuated equilibrium, in which he saves his fantasies for Darwinism by saying the only reason we don't find millions of transitional fossils is because they evolve too rapidly to leave evidence of evolution. But perhaps you were unaware of this falsification of Gould's theory that recently came out,, Fantasy Island: Evolutionary Weirdness Does Not Favor Islands - July 2010 Excerpt: “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet,” he said. “This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100708b Warehuff, One of the favorite methods of evolutionists to avoid falsification from the fossil record is to invoke 'Punctuated Equilibrium'. In the Punctuated Equilibrium model, the reason given by evolutionists for why we do not find transitional species in the fossil record, which is overwhelmingly characterized by stasis, is because small populations become isolated from the main population and undergo 'rapid evolution' in which they are suppose to change into other species in a geological blink of an eye so as to not leave traces of their evolution in the fossil record. It is about as deliberate of a 'just so' story as you can get save for perhaps convicted felons protesting their innocence. Regardless of the evolutionists 'story', this preceding study showed that the 'rapid evolution' mechanism of punctuated equilibrium is not enhanced by isolation, thus the Punctuated Equilibrium model is found to be wanting for any substantiating evidence: Further notes: One would think the stunning lack of gradualism between any phyla, or major species, in the fossil record, noted by leading paleontologists no less, would falsify the evolutionary hypothesis, yet evolution has steadfastly resisted falsification by this method. The following article clearly points out how evolutionists are able to avoid falsification by the crushing lack of evidence for gradualism between phyla, and major species, found in the fossil record: Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.html As well, This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html I don't know about you warehuff but I do know that the evidence is completely contrary to Darwinian thinking. That you can't see the gross violence that you and other Darwinists inflict on the evidence, and on the truth, just to save your precious theory is amazing.,,, I have never seen science practiced so shabbily in my life, in any of the other sciences, as I have seen it practiced by Darwinists in the field of biology! I found this following paper particularly interesting for broadly outlining how evolution misses the mark for a true science and is in reality a pseudo-science: Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience bornagain77
BA77 @ 37: I wish you'd re-read some of your cut and pastery. The way you phrased @37, it sounds like you're calling bat echo location and bird fore brains examples of convergent evolution. I had to go to Hugh Ross's column to find out what you were talking about. (But on the other hand, thanks for providing a citation and to text too instead of videos - much appreciated.) So Dr. Ross can't believe that two species of bats could develop echo location independently. Too bad for him. Both bats started out with hearing and vocalization. Thus they could both echo locate a little. They were both set up for classic step by step Darwinian evolution. The hearing gets a little more acute, the ears and face change to make determining directions a little more precise, the chirps or clicks get a little louder - both bats are perfectly set up to evolve high quality echo location. Sorry if Dr. Ross can't accept that. Ditto for birds, whose ancestors had brains, ears and vocalizations and were perfectly set up to begin to optimize all three through Darwinian evolution. Again, sorry for Dr. Ross if he can't accept this. Seeing, flying, swimming, echo locating and a host of other things are very handy skills to have. Many unrelated animals have evolved them and they haven't all taken the same path or wound up exactly alike. That's what you would expect from evolution. What would we expect from an intelligent designer? Well, if he re-uses his designs as some ID theorists claim, we would expect to see the same thing in unrelated species. We wouldn't expect them to take different evolutionary paths to attain common goals and we would expect the solutions to be a lot more similar than they are. With regard to Fazale Rana and your other video cites - if you'll provide me with transcripts of what they say, I'll comment on them. warehuff
BA77 @ 36: Are you now denying your own words in message 26 where you wrote, "... it’s starting to perfect echo-location." It's not fully formed if it's still perfecting. Plus, your example wasn't actually the first bat fossil. The first bat fossil consisted of nothing but teeth which “… show characters of both bats and insectivores”. Are you aware that most fossil species are known from a single fossil? It's hard to show gradualism with a sample of one. Finally, have you ever heard of Steven Gould and his theory of punctuated equilibrium? That theory says, in the simplest terms, that a large freely interbreeding population won't evolve very much because any new mutations get swamped out when they're mixed in with the rest of the population. We see new species appear when a small group gets reproductively isolated, which allows new favorable mutations to make a big impact on a small group and spread to everybody in the group very rapidly. Since the group is very small and fossilization is rare, we seldom find fossils for these intermediates. By the time their numbers get huge enough to show up in the fossil record, they're a new species and their large numbers slow or stop evolution. warehuff
warehuff, I just can't seem to make sense out of this fossil record thing,, see if you can spot the problem I see here: Another anomaly that is completely at odds with neo-Darwinian thinking, besides the missing millions of transitional fossils that we would naturally expect to see in the fossil record if neo-Darwinism were true, is that we currently have less phyla today than we had at the end of the Cambrian explosion: “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=52 Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph http://lutheranscience.org/images/GraphC2.gif http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en As well warehuff,,, see if you can spot this problem for the pre-Cambrian strata,,,, Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009 Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved." http://www.discovery.org/a/12471 Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263 as well warehuff this following sites and video has thousands of pictures of fossils that haven't changed for millions of years: THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 "LIVING" FOSSILS OF MARINE CREATURES - unchanged for millions of years - (Pictures - Including a 500 million year old starfish specimen) http://www.hyahya.org/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_03.php Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820 So warehuff can you spot my concern? etc... "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77
warehuff, another problem you can help me with if you have the time is, 'Could you please show me where all the millions of missing 'transitional' fossils are?' notes: One persistent misrepresentation, that evolutionists continually portray of the fossil record, is that +99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct because of 'necessary evolutionary transitions'. Yet the fact is that 40 to 80% of all current living species found on the earth are represented fairly deeply in the fossil record. In fact, some estimates put the number around 230,000 species living today, whereas, we only have about a quarter of a million different species collected in our museums. Moreover, Darwin predicts we should have millions of transitional fossil forms. These following videos, quotes, and articles clearly point this fact out: The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028115 "The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear…. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, - Evolution's Erratic Pace - 1977 "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species This following video gives a very small taste of the confusion we would expect to see for life on earth if evolution were true: What Would The World Look Like If Darwinism Were True - video http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=9223906b3ae70c6fe1ee Marine Species Census - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The researchers have found about 5,600 new species on top of the 230,000 known. They hope to add several thousand more by October 2010, when the census will be done. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/us_marine_census What Lives in the Sea? Census of Marine Life Publishes Historic Roll Call - August 2010 Excerpt: In October, the Census will release its latest estimate of all marine species known to science, including those still to be added to WoRMS and OBIS. This is likely to exceed 230,000. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802173704.htm bornagain77
warehuff, here is a bit more on the problem of 'convergent evolution', which I noticed you left completely untouched in your response: Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator Excerpt: Two remarkable examples of complex biological features recently recognized as being convergent are bat echolocation (the ability of an organism to orient itself based on perceiving reflections of sound it emits) and parrot, songbird, and hummingbird forebrain structure. A recent DNA sequence analysis has just confirmed two earlier studies that, from an evolutionary perspective, requires echolocation in bats to have evolved independently in two separate groups (microchiroptera and megachiroptera).5, 6, 7 This study, along with previous analyses also indicate that the strikingly similar limb structures of bats and flying lemurs used for flying, likewise, must have evolved independently, when the data is interpreted from an evolutionary perspective. http://www.reasons.org/convergence-evidence-single-creator here is the falsification of convergent evolution once again (in case you simply overlooked it): Lenski’s Citrate E-Coli – Disproof of Convergent Evolution – Fazale Rana – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 As you can see warehuff this presents another major unexplained problem (among hundreds of others) for evolution, could you please resolve this issue for me? or will you ignore it as you do with all the other evidence that you find unpalatable? bornagain77
warehuff, since you appear to agree that the first time we see echolocation in the fossil record it is already fully formed, which is the dominant and overwhelming pattern in the fossil record for all major forms of novel life that we find in the fossil record, a fact which you nor other Darwinists have contested, I would much rather you explain exactly why you would rather believe any 'just so story' that the imagination of man can conjure up, no matter how far fetched it is, instead of admitting the truth that all major forms of novel life appearing on earth appear to be created suddenly by a superior transcendent Intelligence? Just what is so distasteful about Theism to you that it has turned you and other Darwinists into such scientific cripples? bornagain77
warehuff @ 32: "BA77 says, “… it’s already a full-fledged bat AND it’s starting to perfect echo-location.” Or do you demand that it be exactly half finished?" BA77 @ 33: "BA77 actually says: Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old. The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats." Warehuff: And you also say "So, by the time we have the first actual complete bat fossil, it’s already a full-fledged bat AND it’s starting to perfect echo-location." in message #26, 2nd paragraph from the end. Rather than spend time commenting on your cut and paste extravaganza, I'll refer you to the "Carbon Dioxide Sensors" thread at Cornelius's web site: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/09/carbon-dioxide-sensors.html where Diogenes is doing a fine job of discussing bat evolution. Search for "Trying again..." Some of the messages were posted out of order. warehuff
To avoid confusion the disproof of convergent evolution starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the Dr. Rana video after the RNA world segment: Lenski’s Citrate E-Coli – Disproof of Convergent Evolution – Fazale Rana – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 bornagain77
BA77 actually says: Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old. The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/#comment-340412 A 54.6 million year old fully functional bat. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523576 Australonycteris clarkae Excerpt: Ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation. http://australianmuseum.net.au/Australonycteris-clarkae further note: Moreover, identical forms of echolocation show up in widely divergent species. This finding is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective, yet this finding is exactly what we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse optimal designs: Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010 Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence, a phenomenon that describes instances in which unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical and physiological characteristics. When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator. http://www.reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty Lenski's work actually did do something useful in that it proved that 'convergent evolution' is impossible because it showed that evolution is 'historically contingent'. This following video and article make this point clear: Lenski's Citrate E-Coli - Disproof of Convergent Evolution - Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 The Long Term Evolution Experiment - Analysis Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and varieity of all the forms of life on Earth. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm The loss of 'convergent evolution', as a argument for molecular sequence similarity, is a major blow to neo-Darwinian story telling: Implications of Genetic Convergent Evolution for Common Descent - Casey Luskin - Sept. 2010 Excerpt: When building evolutionary trees, evolutionists assume that functional genetic similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. Except for when it isn't. And when the data doesn't fit their assumptions, evolutionists explain it away as the result of "convergence." Using this methodology, one can explain virtually any dataset. Is there a way to falsify common descent, even in the face of convergent genetic similarity? If convergent genetic evolution is common, how does one know if their tree is based upon homologous sequences or convergent ones? Critics like me see the logic underlying evolutionary trees to be methodologically inconsistent, unpersuasive, and ultimately arbitrary. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/implications_of_genetic_conver037841.html fun note: Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using 'designed' echolocation to hunt a giant squid: Sperm whale Vs giant squid - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2Lfxpi710 bornagain77
BA77 says, "... it’s already a full-fledged bat AND it’s starting to perfect echo-location.” Or do you demand that it be exactly half finished? warehuff
warhuff, "“Half an echolocaton system” is what the bat fossil shows." If this comment is true, then you are right. It would be strong evidence for evolution. But don't think it is true. I would like to see evidence of half an echo location system. Your explanation of how an echo location system may evolve seems plausible; somewhat like Dawkins' explanation of how a giraffe's neck could have easily evolved. Yet like the giraffe's neck, I bet bat's echo location system is much more complex than it seems at first. For the giraffe example, see here: http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf Collin
Colin, bats have been around for over fifty million years. It took maybe two to five million years for them to evolve from their ancestors. So they've been full-fledged bats for perhaps 80-90 percent or more of their history. Given their long period of being bats, their short period of evolving from non-bats and the scarcity of bat fossils of any kind, we will be very lucky if we ever find an intermediate fossil. Colin: "The lack of evidence of “half an echolocation system” seems like a challenge to evolution. This comment of your supports Bornagain’s point, not yours, “So, by the time we have the first actual complete bat fossil, it’s already a full-fledged bat AND it’s starting to perfect echo-location.”" Those two statements contradict each other. "Half an echolocaton system" is what the bat fossil shows. Evolution of echo location is a natural for Darwinian evolution anyway. Any animal with decent hearing can already echolocate to some extent - an example would be a blind man tapping his cane and listening to the echos to discover walls and other object. Or just clap your hands and listen and you can locate a wall fairly easily. Or, bat-like, you can use a short, loud shout. Now any improvement to sensitivity of your ears will make you a better echolocator as will any increase in directivity. Bats make their signals vocally, so any increase in volume will be rewarded by natural selection and any shortening of the chirps or clicks will do the same. When you develop a really loud chirp and sensitive ears, anything that locks down the delicate ear mechanism while "transmitting" will let you chirp even louder and natural selection will retain the changes. And by that time, you've got a very good echolocation system. Have you ever read Dawkins on "What good is half an eye?" warehuff
Cabal#12 I mean the seas were empty of the large creatures that were there before the flood. The hugh creatures in the fossil record. So after the seas were empty of large creatures but full of fish. As on land there was a change in ratio of cratures. So expanding 'mammals' easily instantly adapted to every niche including the water. No intermediates but simple rapid diversity. Robert Byers
Darwinists expect that bats would appear suddenly in the fossil record as the evidence of common descent because they know that bats DO show up suddenly in the fossil record and they know common descent is true. The axiom of common descent alone proves that the fossil record supports it. If you found the fossil of a human being in the cambrian that TOO would prove common descent. Frost122585
Warhuff, Your whole comment seems only to confirm that bats showed up suddenly with no intermediate forms. I don't follow your argument that somehow that is a bad choice for an argument against evolution. The lack of evidence of "half an echolocation system" seems like a challenge to evolution. This comment of your supports Bornagain's point, not yours, "So, by the time we have the first actual complete bat fossil, it’s already a full-fledged bat AND it’s starting to perfect echo-location." Collin
Colin, when you say that something "shows up suddenly" in the bat family, how many fossilized examples of that species are you talking about? If it's only one, how could it possibly show up gradually? Google bat fossils and the first site to show up is from Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html Here's what the experts say: "Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats." After saying the first bat fossils consist solely of teeth which "... show characters of both bats and insectivores (the group including the hedgehogs, shrews and moles of today)", the site goes on to say, "The next bat fossils start turning up in the Eocene, in sites with unusually complete preservation of whole skeletons, such as the Green River Formation of Wyoming and the Messel Shale of Germany. These fossils represent essentially modern-looking microchiropterans; bats had evolved all of their characteristic features and begun to diversify by this time. In fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat, the Eocene-age Icaronycteris shown at left, shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate." So, by the time we have the first actual complete bat fossil, it's already a full-fledged bat AND it's starting to perfect echo-location. As I said, bats were an unfortunate choice for an argument against evolution. This could have been learned by simply Googling bat fossils (it was the first result!), but it's not so easy to discover by watching YouTube videos and copying and pasting quotemines from creationist web sites. warehuff
Firstly, please allow me to be sarcastic and state the obvious that the reason people favor common descent is because they know evolution is TRUE- and they know evolution is true because they know common descent is true. As we all know they have found ALL the missing links in the fossil record so the case is closed- it is as much a fact as the theory of gravity... Just look at the whale transitional fossils. They have a couple of skulls and some other bones. This proves beyond all reasonable doubt that common descent is true because the whale skulls have teeth and that proves they lived on land beyond all reasonable doubt because no whales nor any other amphibian (like a piranhas) have teeth except ancient whale skulls... The other smoking gun is Archaeopteryx. It is a bird that has reptilian characteristics. It has wings...rare among modern birds- teeth too- which proves it comes from mammals... I mean reptiles... I mean amphibians... I mean human beings.. well they all have teeth (including some birds that are extinct) so what?... Well it proves reptiles evolved into birds and then dinosaurs because archaeopteryx lived about an estimated 150 million years ago which is well before the emergence of dinosaurs like Coelophysis which emerged much later estimated 210 million years ago http://nmstatefossil.org/item/11 giving archaeopteryx plenty of time to time travel back in time and evolve into a dinosaur. Right? Also lets not forget that the other reasons common descent must be true - like for example if it was not true we would have to account of the appearance of thousands and millions of complex life forms exhilo. And this is totally unacceptable from a purely scientific perspective because as we all know only the entire universe itself and all and everything that's in it (including all of those lifeforms) is allowed to arise ex nihilo. hat is very scientific. And that is OK because in cosmology its acceptable to say "we don't know how X (the entire universe) happened"- but just not in biology - and the reason is because once again we KNOW that evolution is true and it happened because common descent is a fact and common descent is a fact because we have all the missing links we need to know it is true- like archaeopteryx and whale with teeth. Thank you. Now to be serious for a minute- I ask is it not interesting that the tree of life theory is known as common "DESCENT" - descent being generally defined as "A downward incline or passage; and or a slope"- as if the theory tries to sneak in the Trojan idea that modern lifeforms (i.e. human beings) are merely a less complex- or a degradation- or a downward transition resulting from a simple process of change from an original ancestor? As if that is all there is to it. This could be viewed as generally true IF man kind is to be viewed as only originating from an original pair of more complex or perfect human beings- but according to the tree of life man kind is not a descended simplified version of some prior more complex ancestor but in fact originated from some VERY SIMPLE crystals with RNA on the backs of them about elevedy billion years ago. And this is common "descent"- not, God forbid, common ASSENT. Evolution can not account for the emergence of functional specified complex novel systems because they require an involved building up process which (according to all of our known experience) can only be reasonably attributed to design- and not random changes mixed with some natural selection. And that's the greatest show on Earth. Frost122585
Sure. The main thing is that we have to know more about the genome, the protome and natural history.
We seem to have an interesting experiment in the works in India: a plasmid carrying a gene that confers immunity to nearly all antibiotics. A bit of pure information that infects bacteria and helps them survive. Petrushka
Is it possible, in your opinion, to decide which scenario is true, or which is beter supported by evidence? Is there some hypothetical program of research that could clarify this?
In principle one could estimate the amount of integrated information in all species. From this one could estimate how compactly it can be put in a single organism. My guess is that if multi-cellular organism are very information rich, their information (for every species together) can't be compacted into once cell, hence common descent would not be a feasible explanation for the existence of biodiversity. A comparable question is how many computer programs can you data compress into 1 megabyte? This depends on the kinds of computer programs involved. Life is software. How much software can you compress into one cell? It is pure specualtion that mutation and natural selection are adding integraged information (versus just noise-type information). Lots of reasons to beleive that natural selection and most mutation actually degrade integrated information. The analogy of noisy mutation is like cosmic radiation flipping bits in the memory banks of a satelite or space probe. One can argue it is "new information" but it is hardly useful and often damaging, thus it is not integrated information. Anyway, analysis of the amount of integrated information could in principle answer the question of common descent. The other route is empirical evidence and revised physical theories refuting the mainstream dating mechanisms. We'll see, it's too early to tell. Lots more science needs to happen in the mean time to come close to solving such questions scientifically. As it stands common descent is a working hypothesis, but not a proven fact. (As a working hypothesis, even creationists appeal to it on occasion to make their point.) scordova
Petrushka: Is it possible, in your opinion, to decide which scenario is true, or which is beter supported by evidence? Is there some hypothetical program of research that could clarify this? Sure. The main thing is that we have to know more abou the genome, the protome and natural history. All people who are contributing to that knowledge, IMO, are working for truth (and therefore, always IMO, they are working for ID). gpuccio
warehuff, I must be one of those people with a reading comprehension problem because I can't understand the point of your post. Bornagain was pointing out that very little change has happened in echolocation in bats. Maybe he should have said, very littie positive change has happened. No ID-er or creationist denies that loss of function can and does happen. His older bat seems to be evidence that echolocation showed up suddenly and went on unchanged for a long time. This is not a death blow to evolution, but it is a challenge to it. Collin
BA77, in #3 Davem made the unfortunate suggestion that bats were a good argument against evolution. In #4, #5 and #6 Fross and jurassicmac gave some reasons why he might want to rethink this suggestion. Then in #7 you gave a link to an illustration showing the striking homology between the bones of humans, pterodactyls, birds and bats (exactly what you would expect if they were all produced by evolution) and then asked, "and Bats go back ‘unchanged’ how many years in the fossil record?" In #11, I gave a link to a pair of newly discovered bat fossils that showed change - they had no trace of echo location. I also gave a quote that showed their age as 52.5 million years. You then replied that your bat was older at 54.6 million years - and had echo location - but that's the same as today's bats. I'm beginning to think that the people who claim that a steady diet of television and video is destroying reading comprehension may have a point. warehuff
bornagian77 @ 7, The sentiment that I was responding to was the good 'ole "What good is half a wing?" question that dave proposed. One thing that we must concede about any position is that there are both good and bad arguments for and against it. There may be some good arguments against evolution; the "half a wing is not advantageous," argument is one of the worst. Dave was saying that just a little bit of a membrane between body structures would not only not be helpful, but 'deleterious' instead. This is not the case at all. For example, let's put bats, will fully formed wings capable of powered flight at 100% on the 'wings' scale, and a grey squirrel at 0%. On this scale, a flying squirrel would be somewhere in between. Some squirrels live most of their lives in trees; any gene that gave its owners a greater chance of surviving a high fall (like the greater surface area that webbed skin would add) would have a distinct survival advantage, on average, over its kin with lesser surface area, thus causing that gene to spread throughout the population faster. Even a non-webbed squirrel can jump from tree to tree; but a squirrel with larger webbing could jump further because they loose less vertical height during the jump, and again, they could survive falls with less injury. (and this is what flying squirrels do) In this case, the question: "What good is half a wing?" Is easy: it's about 50% better than no wing at all. 25% of a wing is better than 5% of a wing, but not as good as 26%. There could easily exist a continual gradient from 0% wing functionality, to ~40% like a flying squirrel, to ~60% like a flying lemur, to 100% like a bat, with each minute step being advantageous in certain environment. There is no question that mutations can occur that produce the modest morphological changes for each step, just look at the variations between a pug and a greyhoud from their wolf ancestor in just a few thousand years. (he also mentioned an 'elongated digit' as being deleterious, if that's the case then this guy didn't get the memo: http://tinyurl.com/ayeayefinger) The ironic thing is that he states the premise correctly: "According to evolutionary theory, this advantage would result in longer digits and more webbing until eventually the animal becomes capable of flight." Bingo. but he seemingly goes on to dismiss it: "A number of other physiological changes would have had to take place also; musculature, tendons, etc." Exactly. We have known for a very long time that those physiological changes are influenced by genes, and that variations in genes can change those features. (short legs on a dachshund were caused by a mutated gene) And the changes track each other; The mutation that caused the dachshund's short legs was a single mutation: breeders didn't have to wait for one mutation to make the bones shorter, one to make the muscles shorter, one to make the tendons shorter, one to make the blood vessels shorter, one to make the skin shorter, etc. I that same way, mutations in genes that cause morphological changes can influence all those systems simultaneously. He then follows with: "The laws of aerodynamics are very strict and for a land animal to mutate over thousands of generations into one capable of flight is nothing short of miraculous." There are also lizards that have folds of skin between their limbs; they don't use these to glide so much as fall slower. So of course the ability to fly isn't going to come instantly. It doesn't matter how 'aerodynamically' efficient a structure is; if it helps the creature fall slower or jump further or survive falls better than its competitors, the genes that influence that trait will spread faster. That's what natural selection is; that's what evolution is. It's nonsense to say that 'nothing but a fully formed wing would be advantageous' because we see creatures at just about every single increment from no flight, to basic gliding, to advanced gliding, to flight. jurassicmac
I will be more clear. In principle, three slightly different design scenarios are possible...
Is it possible, in your opinion, to decide which scenario is true, or which is beter supported by evidence? Is there some hypothetical program of research that could clarify this? Petrushka
BA: the great "explosions" in natural history, especially OOL, The Ediacara and Cambrian explosion of phyla, and the flower plant explosion, remain one of the most amazing events we are aware of. They are a challenge for any intelligent person. When science will regain the courage to consider a mystery what is really a mystery, maybe these amazing discontinuities in our understanding will provide new insights and stimulate new paradigms. Obviously, in a design perspective. gpuccio
Robert Byers @ 10. Robert, can you clarify something for me? Are you advocating the YEC position, or are you mocking it with hyper-ridiculous statements? (poe's law, y'know) jurassicmac
PaV: I certainly mean the same thing as you say. The evidence for common descent is only evidence of inheritance of some information, while other information is certainly added by design at each new level where new dFSCI appears. IOWs, the only alternative to CD as I see it (and we can certainly call it "common inheritance", would be that all the design of each new species, or higher level, is each time created form scratch, and without any physical continuity of the "hardware implementation" (if I can call it that way). I will be more clear. In principle, three slightly different design scenarios are possible (I will not discuss the non design scenarios here, because I believe we perfectly agree about their value). 1) Each new species (or higher level or organization) is designed and implemented "from scratch". I suppose this corresponds more or less to the concept of "special creation". I would define that as "creation of a completely new design in a new body, without any informational or physical continuity with what already exists. 2) The design of a new species reutilizes part of existing designs, plus new designed features, but there is no phisical continuity in the implementation. That would be "pure common design". 3) The design of a new species reutilizes part of existing design, and also the physical support of it. IOWs, the new design is added and implemented in an existing species. That would mean common design and common descent (in my sense). In no way that implies gradualism, or pure mechanical descent. For various reasons, I prefer option 3. I would also add that option 3 is what we usually observe in human design, especially in those forms of human design which are often considered formally similar to what we observe in natural "evolution" (such as the developing and related models of cars, of software, and so on). In this scenario, it is perfectly possible to maintain some role for the best observed microevolutionary darwinian mechanisms, in particular the selection of small and partially useful transitions, and especially the role of negative selection and neutral mutations in explaining the gradual divergence of sequences in the context of the same functional space in the course of natural history. And all the "evidences" claimed by darwinists as proof of their theory are perfectly explained by this scenario, and are in no way evidence of darwinian mechanisms at macroevolutionary level. gpuccio
warehuff, I have a few quotes on the fossil record, that you may be interested in: Here are some quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record: "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts - Paleontologist "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg The Fossil Record - Don Patton - in their own words - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4679386266900194790 Here are four more pages of quotes, by leading experts, on the fossil record here: Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record #1 - Stephen E. Jones http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc01.html Genesis 1:21 & 25 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.,,,,, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Here are a few more videos, and articles, on the 'lack of gradualism' found in the fossil record: Evolution Deception - First Life - Fossil Record - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028129 The Fossil Record - Fact And Fiction - Marc Surtees - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/fossils.xml "A major problem for Neo-Darwinism is the complete lack of evidence for plant evolution in the fossil record. As a whole, the fossil evidence of prehistoric plants is actually very good, yet no convincing transitional forms have been discovered in the abundant plant fossil record" Jerry Bergman - The Evolution Of Plants - "A Major Problem For Darwinists" - Technical Journal - 2002 online edition Flowering Plant Big Bang: “Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species,“To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing - especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.” Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History. bornagain77
warehuff, you either need to go back to math class, or you need to teach me that new 2+2=147 stuff because my reference is dated to 54.6 mya: First Eocene Bat From Australia Excerpt: Remains of a bat, Australonycteris clarkae, gen. et sp. nov., are reported from freshwater clays radiometrically dated to 54.6 million years old in southeastern Queensland, Australia. It is the oldest bat recorded for the southern hemisphere and one of the world’s oldest. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523576?cookieSet=1 and had echolocation,,, The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats. http://australianmuseum.net.au/Australonycteris-clarkae whereas your reference says 52.5m years ago,,, so warehuff since I was taught that 54.6 mya is 2.1 million years older than 52.5, perhaps you could resolve this issue for me,,,, As well warehuff you seem to be overlooking the fact that there are also modern bats which do not have echolocation! Perhaps you could include that little detail in your future discussion of bat fossils instead of trying to paint imaginary pictures for the fossil record that are not there!. bornagain77
Robert Byers,
This YEC sees water mammals as indeed land creatures that instantly adapted to the seas after the flood. it ws empty
Why did all those creatures jump into the water when there was nothing there? To starve? Do you know anything about the food chain in the oceans? Please explain your theory. Cabal
Guys, meet a bat that is changed from today's bat: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution "The find puts to rest a long-standing argument over which came first, flight or echolocation - the bats' exotic navigation system. The new species of bat could fly, but didn't use echolocation." "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors." BA77: "... and Bats go back ‘unchanged’ how many years in the fossil record?" "The new pair of fossils - which date from around 52.5m years ago - resolve the issue." warehuff
As a biblical creationist(YEC) another problem is with the geological presumptions behind all this. I.D also presume the geology is more competent then the biology. It ain't. Its only been a few thousand years since they were fossilized. This YEC sees water mammals as indeed land creatures that instantly adapted to the seas after the flood. it ws empty. likewise i see bats as instantly adapting to the air. No bats before the flood. The air was more empty. mechanisms for this are difficult to comprehend as would be expected in physical things that today are not comprehended to a point of fixing/healing broken parts. Thats the clue to the whole complexity issue. No intermediates will ever be found amongst creature lineages. in fact any slight change can be dismissed as mere local adaptation. the water mammals today, like seals, make this case. They live at the same time but if found in the fossils would be said to be ancestral to each other. Robert Byers
I have been opposed to the general understanding of "common descent" for some time now. My problem is that of the discontinuities, as mentioned above by Gil and gpuccio. Nevertheless, we know that certain 'information' flows from one class in a phyla to others. I think we can therefore talk about "common inheritance"---since we have evidence for this; but to speak of "common descent" is simply to think in Darwinian terms. Just think of the fish egg to reptilian egg transition. How did this happen? Gradually? Where are the intermediates? Instead, we are, "a la Gould," treated to discrete jumps in the very essence of inheritance: the egg. And the fossil record gives us no inbetweens. PaV
jurassicmac; one of the main problems I'm having with this whole evolutionary thing, as you can see with the Bat and flying lemur fossils, is that there are fossils that go back millions of years, even hundreds of millions of years, in the fossil record that just suddenly appear in the fossil record and remain unchanged in their shape: Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820 and shoot while we are on fossils, I was hoping you might clear up that whole Cambrian explosion thing for me? The Cambrian Explosion - Back To A Miracle! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4112218 bornagain77
jurassicmac: elongated digits? but theses 'flying lemurs', which they are not, are the most capable of all gliding mammals, using flaps of extra skin between their legs to glide from higher to lower locations. And there skeleton looks like this: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.boneclones.com/images/sc-049_web-lg.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.boneclones.com/SC-049.htm&usg=__n0qcWekvfoI7fv7uIKgAVy_jpic=&h=414&w=500&sz=77&hl=en&start=14&zoom=1&tbnid=AH4eFHYDd5Ae-M:&tbnh=146&tbnw=174&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflying%2Blemur%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D637%26addh%3D36%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C750&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=736&vpy=208&dur=941&hovh=204&hovw=247&tx=183&ty=105&ei=aXWNTLXNNsT_nAeZ5siACw&oei=VXWNTNaZLt_snQeEu7WgCQ&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:14&biw=1024&bih=637 whereas the bat fossil looks like this: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jwaller.co.uk/batgroup/images/biology/bat%2520vs%2520skeleton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jwaller.co.uk/batgroup/biology.asp&usg=__7At-5jE5IwbxxY0LNnMNyzGqhyc=&h=578&w=458&sz=39&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=DeoN7B-VsiqsuM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbat%2Bfossil%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.ubuntu:en-US:official%26channel%3Ds%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D637%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=731&vpy=276&dur=13040&hovh=252&hovw=200&tx=103&ty=146&ei=D3eNTKOQIImrnge7qJCdDA&oei=BXeNTNHKK4iBnwe7pYS-CQ&esq=3&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0 and Bats go back 'unchanged' how many years in the fossil record? Within the roughly 10 million years of time that whales are purported to have dramatically evolved from some wolf-like animal 50 million years ago, with at least +50,000 major morphological innovations no less, bats did not, and have not, changed in their basic shape at all. Bats popped out of the 'evolutionary woodwork' about 55 million years ago. They first appear as a radically new yet fully developed form, which was not in any way significantly different from modern bats. Their debut in the fossil record is sudden, complete, and lacks intermediaries as these following articles make clear: Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old. The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/biology/the-bionic-antinomy-of-darwinism/#comment-340412 Earliest known Australian Tertiary mammal fauna:- 1992 Excerpt: REMAINS of Early Eocene vertebrates from freshwater clays near Murgon, southeastern Queensland, represent Australia's oldest marsupials, bats, non-volant placentals, frogs, madtsoiid snakes, trionychid turtles1and birds. Radiometric dating of illites forming part of the matrix of the mammal-bearing zone has given a minimum age estimate of 54.6 plusminus 0.05 x 106 years, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v356/n6369/abs/356514a0.html First Eocene Bat From Australia Excerpt: Remains of a bat, Australonycteris clarkae, gen. et sp. nov., are reported from freshwater clays radiometrically dated to 54.6 million years old in southeastern Queensland, Australia. It is the oldest bat recorded for the southern hemisphere and one of the world's oldest. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523576?cookieSet=1 Australonycteris clarkae Excerpt: Australonycteris clarkae, from the Eocene of Queensland, is the oldest bat from the Southern Hemisphere and one of the oldest in the world. It is similar to other archaic Eocene bats from the Northern Hemisphere, and could probably navigate using echolocation, like most bats do today. (of note: some "modern" bats do not use echolocation today): http://australianmuseum.net.au/Australonycteris-clarkae Of note; The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers. The echometer cannot be installed into the bat in the afterward as a simple plug-in, rather echometer and brain had to be designed as a whole system from the beginning. http://focus.ti.com/docs/solution/folders/print/119.html and 'flying lemurs' go back at least 34 million years in the fossil record unchanged: http://books.google.com/books?id=LD1nDlzXYicC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Colugos+fossils+million+years&source=bl&ots=fxOhUh0DbY&sig=q3knTigqTQkG8UF3zIcSFRw7kVk&hl=en&ei=A3iNTKrIMsydnwe9oZigDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Colugos%20fossils%20million%20years&f=false So jurassicmac, do you see the problem that I see here? Can you please provide some evidence besides your imaginative speculation to clear this problem up? bornagain77
yet never rodents with elongated digits with webbing between them. Such a mutation would be deleterious to the individual and not advantageous.
Tell that to this guy: http://tinyurl.com/324ggx5 Apparently, he didn't get the memo. jurassicmac
Bats are my favorite argumant as to why evolution is impossible. We see illustrations of two legged donosaurs with feathers on their arms, yet never rodents with elongated digits with webbing between them.
Yeah, it's not like there are any such creatures as flying squirrels or lemurs, Y'know, mammals with webbed skin between limbs that allow them to glide. And it's also not like any other animals have "musculare, tendons, etc." that could be modified by genetic variation. And, it's not like having some gliding abilities is better than none at all in certain environments, giving a creature with a better ability a selective advantage, or anything. (maybe pick a better 'argumant' as to why evolution is impossible) jurassicmac
Davem, you are right, a mutation like that would be pretty harmful. If bats evolved, it would have to be gradual. Ie early bats would have only been able to glide short distances like the common sugar glider. Only then would slightly elongated digits offer small degrees in glide distance. Fross
Bats are my favorite argumant as to why evolution is impossible. We see illustrations of two legged donosaurs with feathers on their arms, yet never rodents with elongated digits with webbing between them. Such a mutation would be deleterious to the individual and not advantageous. According to evolutionary theory, this advantage would result in longer digits and more webbing until eventually the animal becomes capable of flight. A number of other physiological changes would have had to take place also; musculature, tendons, etc. The laws of aerodynamics are very strict and for a land animal to mutate over thousands of generations into one capable of flight is nothing short of miraculous. Davem
Gil: I perfectly agree with you. I accept common descent as a reasonable scenario to explain some facts, but only in the context of ID. And anyway, only facts can solve that specific problem, which is in itself much less important than the problem of the causal explanation. But, absolutely, I don't believe in slow gradualism, In that sense, I am an IDist "a la Gould". The fossil record is clear about that. I really hope that IDists may agree that common descent is not the main problem. Moreover, I am convinced that some common descent scenarios can really strengthen the ID position. gpuccio
On the subject of common descent one thing is certain: Darwin's step-by-tiny-step gradualism thesis is dead. Irreducible complexity works at all levels, from the level of biochemistry to that of the entire organism, to that of the universe itself. (Change any of the laws of physics by the slightest amount, and they are no longer functionally integrated to make life possible.) The testimony of the fossil record is clear, and that is one of profound and consistent discontinuity. After 150 years of intense fossil hunting with the explicit goal of cramming the evidence into Darwin's gradualism, a few speculative examples have been proposed, with no way of determining ancestor-descendent genealogy. Bats appear in the fossil record pretty much as they are today, and the obvious reason is that all of their highly sophisticated systems must function in perfect coordination: echolocation technology, central nervous system flight-control systems with echolocation feedback, etc. It seems unreasonable to assume that bats just popped into existence from nonliving matter, but it is equally unreasonable to assume that they evolved step-by-tiny-step through Darwinian mechanisms, and the empirical evidence is that they did not. Of course, humans represent the most profound "evolutionary" discontinuity of all. The bottom line is that we do not know how all this occurred. But one thing seems certain to me: Life was designed by an intelligence, astronomically more sophisticated than ours. GilDodgen

Leave a Reply