Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If it ain’t broke: Lamprey unchanged after 360 million years

arroba Email

This blast from the past is still a source of ruinous commercial fish losses.

Because lampreys do not have bone or any substantial cartilage, they are extremely rare as fossils. This fossil not only reveals a nearly complete soft tissue impression, but it also pushes back their fossil record another 35 million years.

File under: Someone contact the guy who says “Evolution must happen.

Good night CY, I'm off to work in a few minutes. May your rest be restful and rejuvenating. ellazimm
El, You can argue with the undertaker, but it's not wise to argue with the overgiver. :) Good night. CannuckianYankee
Mung: Well, by all accounts I speak WAAAAAAAAAAY too much. One of my primary school teachers threatened to put me back a grade if I didn't shut up. My mother always said I'd be arguing with the undertaker. ellazimm
I apologise for anticipating your response incorrectly. I shall follow my own advice and try to not put words into others’ mouths.
Quite alright. If we cannot place words into the mouths of others would they ever speak for themselves? Mung
Mung: I apologise for anticipating your response incorrectly. I shall follow my own advice and try to not put words into others' mouths. ellazimm
Mung: No biologist said a cow was changed into a whale. They do say that one of the ancestors of whales was a land dwelling ungulate but not a cow.
Is this a belated agreement?
And yes, I believe the consensus view on the issue.
Consensus view? What's that?
But if you’re just going to vilify me and my views then I’d ask for some restraint. I KNOW you disagree and I’m not trying to change your view.
I agree with you. How you turn that into vilification is beyond me. Mung
Hi BA77, Thanks for all those quotes and links. They make the exact opposite case you claim. Do you even bother to read the sources you cite? Mung
BA77: Do any of your references address why there should be at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans? I'd like to see how that issue is considered and as you've listed so many links I could use some guidance. Do any of your references address the issue of finding the same pseudogene in the same chromosomal location in two species? If you could narrow down your references to ones that address these two issues specifically, or just give me your explanations, I'd appreciate it. Also, do any of your references speak to the particular case of the vestigal legs of some whale species. I appreciate that some people disagree with the consensus view but the whale vestigal limbs do exist and they must be there for some reason. Mung: No biologist said a cow was changed into a whale. They do say that one of the ancestors of whales was a land dwelling ungulate but not a cow. And yes, I believe the consensus view on the issue. But if you're just going to vilify me and my views then I'd ask for some restraint. I KNOW you disagree and I'm not trying to change your view. ellazimm
What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale – David Berlinski – video
Anyone here think cows changed into whales? Mung
so much tripe so little time,,, ellazimm as to this chestnut of yours: 'Something I should have brought up earlier is vestigal organs like the rear legs of whales. Why are they there?',,, ellazimm, You really have been brainwashed haven't you? notes; Among the most blatant failed predictions of materialists is this one. For many years materialists predicted much of human anatomy was vestigial (useless and leftover evolutionary baggage). Yet once again, they were proven completely wrong in this prediction. “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568 This following studies provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson's critique of whale evolution in the preceding video: Of Whale and Feather Evolution: Nature's Two Macroevolutionary Lumps of Coal (Dismantling Nature's evolutionary evangelism packet) - Casey Luskin _ November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/of_whale_and_feather_evolution037221.html How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010 Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170 This article shows how misleading Darwinists can be with the 'whale' evidence: Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/meet_pakicetus_the_terrestrial039851.html This following sites is a bit more detailed in their dismantling of the whale evolution myth: Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm This following video are very good, for they use the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists themselves, for population genetics, to show that the evolution of whales, and even of humans, is impossible even by using their own mathematical methods of predicting change: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 "Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned: Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have This following video takes a honest look at just what evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain whale evolution: What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM bornagain77
ellazimm, your main reference site is talkorigins???,,, I would really get another source if I were you, they don't exactly have a stellar reputation for accuracy around here;,,, ellazimm, Once again I remind you that I severely compromised your entire argument for using genetic similarity, with several studies, here; https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/stasis/if-it-ain%E2%80%99t-broke-lamprey-unchanged-after-360-million-years/#comment-381211 ,,,by showing 'genetic similarity is all over the map and it is only in extremely biased sampling of evidence that neo-Darwinists are able to 'hoodwink' anyone that they have evidence. For example of the extreme bias that neo-Darwinists use in gathering 'genetic similarity';,,, This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 'ORFan' genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, and that very well may directly code for proteins, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science! Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm The sheer, and blatant, shoddiness of the science of the preceding study should give everyone who reads it severe pause whenever, in the future, someone tells them that genetic studies have proven evolution to be true. If the authors of the preceding study were to have actually tried to see if the over 1000 unique ORFan genes of humans may actually encode for proteins, instead of just written them off because they were not found in other supposedly related species, they would have found that there is ample reason to believe that they may very well encode for biologically important proteins: A survey of orphan enzyme activities Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/244 Dr. Howard Ochman - Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona Excerpt of Proposal: Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358868 In fact it turns out that the authors of the 'kick the ORFans out in the street' paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/proteins-fold-as-darwin-crumbles/#comment-358547 Moreover the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced: Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life: Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216142523.htm New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract Moreover ellazimm, if that was not enough to compromise the integrity of the genetic similarity studies you are using. I remind you once again that your whole premise of genetic reductionism is falsified: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/stasis/if-it-ain%E2%80%99t-broke-lamprey-unchanged-after-360-million-years/#comment-381245 i.e. appealing to dog breeding to prove that morphological novelty can be had by mutating DNA, which is THE PREMISE you have chosen to defend, simply is ludicrous, for all rigorous studies to DNA itself show that body plan morphogenesis does not arise from changes to DNA. i.e. to prove your materialistic 'central dogma' point of view you must countermand the studies I have alluded to. bornagain77
BA77: Born Again, 1977? I've always wondered. Anyway, I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending my point of view. As I've said, that's not really the reason I'm participating on UD. Also, there are lots of very smart people who know the evidence a lot better than I do, have spent years thinking about it and have written out their reasons. My ability to argue with you is no indication of the truth of what I'm asserting so, unless you just want to win an argument with me, I'm going to be brief. I think there is a difference between tracking genes across species in an attempt to create a map of common descent and noticing that certain DNA sequences are only found along some lines. Some of those sequences could be replaced with different versions that have the same function so there is no reason for a designer to only use some versions in certain branches in the tree of life whereas common descent has to show that pattern. Not only that but as the whole genetic code is informationally redundant so (from talkorigins.com) "the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein." Again, a designer would not have to make the sequences that similar but common descent would. I include that statement partly to give you an idea of the probabilities involved. I'd recommend the discussion at talkorigins.org of these two topics and transposons, redundant pseudo genes and endogenous retroviruses. Each topic is well laid out with falsification standards listed. I consider each of these topics/threads separate because they are independent; any one could be true and not the others. But they are all true. And that's just the main DNA evidence! Something I should have brought up earlier is vestigal organs like the rear legs of whales. Why are they there? What are they for? They're not even visible anymore. Common descent with modification 'explains' their presence whereas I can't think of a reason a designer would put them there. Why do men have nipples? Why do Ostriches have wings and not arms? Why do some humans grow tails? (There's a picture of a man with a tail in Prothero's book on fossils. My son loves it.) I'm sorry to say that many of your references are not from peer reviewed research or are interpretations of research which do not match the consensus view. And again, I cannot believe there is a conspiracy of consensus to stomp down any view which contradicts the modern evolutionary synthesis. In fact, as the theory of evolution has been altered and amended in the last 150 I think it shows that it does take on new data and interpretations once those views have been established as solid. Look at the work of Lynn Margolis for an inspiring example. I think the consensus opinion is conservative and slow to change but it has changed, a lot. It's not hard to find a mainstream discussion of what Darwin got wrong. How is that stifling dissenting views? I'm sure someday most of the ideas about things like why do we walk upright will be disproved. But there's a time to throw out ideas and let others take a shot at them. Advantages anatomical mutations are never observed? What about the breeds of dogs who were bred for specific tasks and jobs? The selection may have been artificial but it rests on the same bed of variation that natural selection works with. Artificial selection is faster and has a goal but it still depends on mutations. What about all the incredible varieties of brassicas? They were all bred by humans for much different purposes. Some of them are considered different species now I believe. I didn't say particles cause quantum entanglement. I said that it seems to me matter and entanglement both arise out of the basic building blocks of nature. They are both material emergent properties. I'm sorry, I cannot take the movie Expelled as serious support for an argument. And many of it's points have been disputed. And I am not going to discuss theology. I'm happy to rake over the scientific evidence but not your own personal and deeply held beliefs. I have respect for what's in your heart and I'd like to leave it there if that's okay with you. I do think Charles Darwin looked at the evidence and I think that the evidence has been mounting ever since. I think the picture has gotten more complicated and messy and . . . well, life like! :-) I don't expect it to ever be completely known; what took billions of years to occur is unlikely to ever be fully elucidated. But the evidence in the ground, on the ground, the DNA and the morphology all are consistent with common descent with modification. Sorry, that wasn't very brief. I apologise. But I think we've probably pursued this as far as we can. I learned a lot about how you see the evidence and data and that is what I was interested in so THANK YOU!! I don't think I have much more to add that hasn't already been said better by Donald Prothero, Kenneth Miller, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould. And LOTS of others. I think your real argument is with them, not me. ellazimm
correction; I mistakenly stated: Moreover in science, not theology, a hypothesis is considered very strong when its predictive power matches experimental confirmation very closely. On that front, evolution has failed miserably time and again; I was wrong to exclude 'predictive power' from theology for actually Biblical prophecy is one of the primary 'supernatural watermarks' for establishing the authenticity of the Bible; Even though this historical evidence for the Bible is certainly very strong, I feel the Bible finds a greater level of verification for its claim for supernatural (divinely inspired) authorship from the hundreds of precisely fulfilled, and unambiguous, prophecies in it that can be verified by numerous outside sources. (of personal note: I consider Nostradamus to be a fairly ambiguous, after the fact, prophet). Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by. ;Ross RTB) Here are a few resources showing the clarity and authenticity of Bible prophecy: The Bible: The Word of God? Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence - video http://vimeo.com/22684022 The Prophesied Second Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Yyhb0EH6KaMTeX5bYuLD2fRFgEYJC2RKsjiTcqgEbII Probability Of Just Eight Prophecies Being Fulfilled - Jesus - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041170 The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr. Excerpt: But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation Stoner used 48 prophecies (even though he could have used 456) and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is one in 10^157. http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-3.pdf The King Jesus (A Precise Mathematical Prediction) http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/kjesenpr.htm 'Other than Christ, no other religious leader was foretold a thousand years before he arrived, nor was anything said about where he would be born, why he would come, how he would live, and when he would die. No other religious leader claimed to be God, or performed miracles, or rose from the dead. No other religious leader grounded his doctrine in historical facts. No other religious leader declared his person to be even more important than his teachings.' StephenB The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317 Isaiah 46:9,10: "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times which have not been done, Saying, My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure." bornagain77
ellazimm, you said that Darwin built his case from the evidence, yet the fact is that 'Origin of Species" was and is primarily based on a 'bad theological' argument; Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html And the theological 'bad design' argument, which Darwinists unwittingly continually use to try to make their case, is actually its own independent discipline of study within Theology itself called Theodicy: Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8). http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214a Moreover in science, not theology, a hypothesis is considered very strong when its predictive power matches experimental confirmation very closely. On that front, evolution has failed miserably time and again; Failed Predictions of Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-11-09T15_20_49-08_00 bornagain77
one further note ellazimm in your appeal to 'consensus' in the 'cut throat world of science'. to use your phrase, You are right ellazimm, science is cutthroat, but the only ones who are having their throats cut are the brave souls who dare reveal that the neo-Darwinian emperor has no clothes; Though the evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution is overwhelming, anyone who dares question the sufficiency of Darwinism to explain all life on earth in the public school classroom is persecuted, as this following movie/documentary, book, and article, clearly point out: EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - Part 1 of 10 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4 Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Guillermo Gonzalez & Stephen Meyer on Coral Ridge - video (Part 1) http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=CRH1118_F Guillermo Gonzalez & Stephen Meyer on Coral Ridge - video (Part 2) http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=CRH1119_F Despite the 'documented fact' of widespread discrimination against anyone who dares question neo-Darwinism, there are several hundred scientists who stand their ground, and will not be bullied by the neo-Darwinian thugs; A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 further notes: I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that denying the overwhelming evidence for design in biology makes the science of biology ‘irrational’. As well Dr. Behe makes it clear that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting their very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and thus are in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr - 2010 - video http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000355_cicero_040710.mp4&dir=mp4/lectures Main page - with audio of debate http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=lecture&SFor=18fdfd28-e682-421f-9acf-2940402af8e3 Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher http://www.icr.org/article/455/ bornagain77
ellazimm, to focus on just one thing that you said about quantum entanglement in molecular biology: 'I don’t see how anything transcendent is required.' ellazimm, Alain Aspect falsified material particles as to the causation of quantum entanglement, and yet neo-Darwinism is built on materialism in the first place. i.e. neo-Darwinism is built on the premise that it can explain all the amazing complexity and diversity we find in life simply by appealing to purely material processes, yet here we find a primary, foundational, transcendent entity in life that is clearly shown not to be reducible to material processes i.e. not reducible to athesitic materialism!!! ellazimm neo-Darwinism is falsified from first principles and your response was just to ignore the elephant in the living room??? I guess I should not be surprised, for that is par for the course when dealing with the bizarre world of neo-Darwinists! bornagain77
further: Moreover ellazimm, by appealing to sequence similarity of 'Junk DNA' sequences, you are in fact operating from a falsified premise of genetic reductionism (i.e. the central dogma), Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/ The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010 Excerpt: So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.,,, So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used.,,, Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show 'exceedingly rare' beneficial morphological changes from mutations to the DNA code. The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 This following video and article are much more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned: Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4798685 Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine “Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan)." Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent This lack of beneficial morphological novelty also includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations: ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 bornagain77
ellazimm, you state that DNA evidence is the strongest piece of evidence for neo-Darwinism that you have, in response I showed several studies that show DNA SIMILARITY DOES NOT support neo-Darwinism at all. Yet you state: 'It’s not just the tracks of common genes through existing living creatures,,, (NO ellazimm at least have the honesty to admit that piece of evidence is not true!!!) ,,,it’s also protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses.' So for the most part ellazimm, since you can't make your case by DNA sequence similarity, you are appealing to the sequence similarity of JUNK DNA??? Am I missing something here ellazimm, but did I not show you that DNA sequence similarity is compromised of integrity for drawing firm conclusions??? Yet anyway, pretinding that you are not being completely irrational, here are some studies compromising the integrity of your junk DNA argument: ,,,Amazingly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) still insist that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, is useless 'Junk DNA'. Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html This irrational stance by them has severely hindered scientific progress: On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. - Richard Sternberg Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679 As well it is now known that many of the hereditary diseases that afflict humans arise from the large 'Junk DNA' regions: International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases" Excerpt: A primary goal of IHGS is to elevate awareness of the fact that "some, if not all" hereditary diseases do not stop at the boundaries of "genes" http://www.junkdna.com/junkdna_diseases.html uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-discovery-institute-needs-to-be-destroyed/#comment-357177 ,,,,Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists: Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm This following site tells of a fairly embarrassing exchange for three Darwinian professors who insisted Intron sequences in DNA were junk,, yet were contradicted by the evidence for functionality: Introns - The Fact-Free “Science” of Matheson, Hunt and Moran: Ridicule Instead of Reason, Authority Instead of Evidence - Jonathan Wells - June 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/the_factfree_science_of_mathes035521.html This following article shows that at least one molecular biologist, who believes in Darwinian evolution, seems to sense the obvious problem of calling the vast majority of our genome 'Junk'; Non-coding RNAs and eukaryotic evolution - a personal view - John Mattick - May 2010 Excerpt: "But you certainly need to have a more complex regulatory framework to get to a more complex organism, and the astounding thing is that the only thing that does scale with complexity - because the number of genes does not - is the extent of the non-protein-coding genome." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905358/ bornagain77
BA77: Interesting that all the people you quoted regarding the dearth of the fossil record still continued to believe in common descent with modification. Perhaps they were all in thrall of the materialistic mind set. I suspect though that they all also considered the other threads of evidence. For example, even in Darwin's time, there was a fairly clear picture of species dispersion along geographical lines that very strongly supports evolution. Darwin spent years and years contemplating his idea, knowing it would be controversial, knowing his own wife (who he loved greatly) would be disturbed by its implications. Yet he still published it. And he didn't have as much evidence as we do now. He knew nothing of protein function redundancy or transposons or endogenous retroviruses. I find it hard to believe that the thousands and thousands of scientists who have access to 150 years of data are all too scared or too brainwashed to stand up and decry the consensus. Especially those who do believe in a transcendent being. But hey, that is just my opinion. I'm interested in how you see that issue: why is there so much support for the modern Darwinian synthesis among a vast majority of working biological scientists? ellazimm
BA77: Thanks for the considerable time you took in replying. As far as the notion that the DNA evidence for common descent with modification does not stand up . . . well . . . there are a lot more people who think it does stand up than those who think it doesn't. I know scientists, they love kicking the stuffings out of old or existing ideas and grabbing academic glory. So . . . I'm thinking . . . the evidence is still pretty strong. I agree that the phylogenic tree/bush/shrub is in a state of flux/revision. And your links don't (I think) address some of the lines of DNA evidence I mentioned. As I said, it's not just one thread, it's the accumulation of lots of threads. It's not just the tracks of common genes through existing living creatures, it's also protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses. And I agree that the origination of genes has not been spelled out completely yet. But not knowing is not the same as being wrong; especially when you have a multitude of other data threads, including other DNA threads that all support common descent with modification. Now, as far as your citation of quantum entanglement as evidence for design in nature . . . Well, again, lots of people who study/research quantum mechanics would say that it cannot be applied on a macroscopic level. Sure a single particle may occasionally tunnel through a barrier but tables, chairs, people, etc only do so extremely rarely, i.e. never observed or solid evidence discerned. IF quantum entanglement is necessary for the DNA structure then I don't see how that implies design. It sounds more to me that 'life' arose within the existing structures and rules that govern the material world and quantum entanglement is part of that. You say: "To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space!" Well, gravity acts across a distance, we don't know how it works, but we don't invoke another cause. It's just the way the universe works. Same with quantum effects. Them's the rules. And so life arose playing the game according to the rules as they exist. I don't see how anything transcendent is required. It's hard to take quantum effects on board when they've been only elucidated and defined in the last century. Historically and in our daily lives we do not see nor need to understand quantum mechanics. But they've always been there, all natural processes have to obey those rules. So sure, they're spooky and hard to understand and seem in contradiction to classical, Newtonian mechanics. And it's not just DNA that exhibits quantum behaviour, so does everything!! I admit, I'm not a professional physicist and so my arguments might be complete rubbish. But, again, I think if your idea had more traction then someone in the mainstream would have used it to break into the citadel already. It's a cut-throat world science. They really don't take prisoners. When I was in graduate school a bad idea was never allowed to stand for very long. I find your argument very interesting and not at all what i expected. And thanks again for taking so much time. I don't know how you find the time! I'm going to skim through your replies (to me and others) again to see if I've got any more comments. I hope you're having a good weekend! Looks like another nice day here . . . .but it's Yorkshire. If you don't like the weather just wait . .. . hahahahahah ellazimm
further notes: further notes If this abrupt appearance for all these completely different and unique phyla in the Cambrian was not bad enough for materialists, the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there are today due to extinction. Of Note: "Phyla are broad categories of classification. All fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are in the same phylum. Squid, octopi, oysters, clams and snails are in another phylum. Lobsters, crayfish, insects, and millipedes are in still another." Ray Bohlin PhD “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.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=52 I like this following article for it highlights the principle of Genetic Entropy, i.e. loss of variety: Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm "The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion." Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46 The evolutionary theory would have us believe that we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. These following timeline graphs highlight the loss of phyla through time: Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 - July 2009 Excerpt: "going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time." ---"Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater.html The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: Evolution has been implicitly viewed as a uniformitarian process where the rates may vary but the underlying processes, including the types of variation, are essentially invariant through time. Recent studies demonstrate that this uniformitarian assumption is false, suggesting that the types of variation may vary through time. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar bornagain77
DrREC, from your site on trilobites it states: 'When all is said and done, it is clear that trilobites began their evolution long before their first known appearence (sec) in the fossil record, ' Why in the world would they appeal to a 'gap' in the fossil record DrREC ans such gray shading of transitions when we now know,,, 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 Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm As well, as is often overlooked, the Ediacaran biota themselves were soft bodied, but well preserved, fossils that add even more evidence testifying to the suddenness of the Cambrian Explosion. Because to state the obvious one more time, "if there were any transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion then they certainly should have been found": Macroscopic life in the Palaeoproterozoic - July 2010 Excerpt: The Ediacaran fauna shows that soft-bodied animals were preserved in the Precambrian, even in coarse sandstone beds, suggesting that (the hypothetical transitional) fossils are not found because they were not there. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/02/macroscopic_life_in_the_palaeoproterozoi Response to John Wise - October 2010 "So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record." Sean Carroll developmental biologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Just a thought DrREC, do you think that perhaps theory is driving evidence even when there is no evidence to be found, such as in your cited paper??? bornagain77
DrREC, you state; 'Not a problem for evolution.' Why sure DrREC nothing is ever a problem fro evolution, lampreys stay lampreys for 360 million years,,, not a problem for evolution,,, Trilobites suddenly appeared, stayed trilobites for over 270 million years without ever transforming into anything else! not a problem for evolution; Morphological traits are lost on such a consistent patern in the fossil record that it is made into a law, whereas there is no law whatsoever for the appearance on novel morphological traits; not a problem for evolution! DrREC, I appreciate your blind faith in neo-Darwinism, but you may want to inform these guys that the fossil record is not a problem for evolution: "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 perhaps after you get through saying I have taken these quotes out of context, or whatever neo-Darwinian rationalization you are going to throw my way, maybe you will falsify this null hypothesis for me so as to establish that neo-Darwinian evolution has any place at the table of modern science in the first place! The main problem, for the secular model of neo-Darwinian evolution to overcome, is that no one has ever seen purely material processes generate functional 'prescriptive' information. The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/3426.pdf http://www.us.net/life/index.htm bornagain77
"the morphological novelty that the lamprey would have to exhibit over 360 million tears to conform to neo-Darwinian expectations is far greater than the minor variations you have listed." I think you've ascribed a neo-Darwinian hypothesis where there is none. "of stasis conforming to ‘variation within kind'" What is a kind? I'm not familiar with 'kind' in phylogeny. "there is actually ample evidence in the fossil record to infer that the principle of Genetic Entropy has been rigidly obeyed over the course of the history of life on this earth. " Lampreys got more complex teeth. Is that entropic? "they (trilobites) appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian " Or not. Parvancorina minchami, Archaeaspinus fedonkini, Primicaris larvaformis, Naraoia, etc. etc. Putative simple ancestory Transitionals you choose to ignore or something. Early trilobites: http://www.trilobites.info/firsttrilos.htm Not early trilobites of a SINGLE ORDER: http://www.trilobites.info/galodontopleurida.htm You can't tell me there isn't diversification and complexity there. "DrREC, why in blue blazes did the trilobites not find a nich (sic) somewhere to evolve into something else since they had worldwide distribution????" Most species have gone extinct. Horseshoe crabs and trilobites are thought to have shared a close common ancestor. Not a problem for evolution. "A general rule of thumb for the ‘Deterioration/Genetic Entropy’ of Dollo’s Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:" Dollo's law is unrelated to genetic entropy. Quite the opposite. Particularly in the link you give, in relation to molecular evolution, where a receptor had specified fo one hormone It says that once a feature has evolved (been repurposed or new function specified), it is difficult to re-evolve the ancestral function. Dollo was looking more at organs,where one lost in evolution will not reappear in exactly the same form in that line of organisms. That is whales didn't re-evolve gills. The genes has been repurposed or lost. Not a problem for evolution. For design, maybe. DrREC
ellazimm you state; 'Anyway, it’s your turn now. And no more comments from me ’til you return the favour!' ellazimm, This is the piece of evidence that I personally think is the strongest piece of evidence for ID that cannot be refuted: Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ ellazimm, It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect)
Quantum Entanglement - The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html This following study adds to Alain Aspect's work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the 'hidden variable' argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous 'spooky action at a distance' found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for 'spooky' forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.)
,,,, ellazimm, Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does since it is based on the materialistic framework, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'special' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism's inability to explain this 'transcendent quantum effect' adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a 'eternal soul' for man that lives past the death of the body. Further notes: The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y now ellazimm, your only option to explain this transcendent quantum effect adequately, within a highly modified neo-Darwinian framework would be to for you to appeal to a 'non-reductive' materialistic framework. Such as the 'Many-Worlds' scenario, as Eugene Koonin tried to appeal to in his 'Biological Big Bangs' paper. But the problem that this highly modified 'non-reductive' neo-Darwinian framework presents to you is that it destroys your ability to practice science rationally; BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012 further note: Quantum mechanics Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[39] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: etc.. etc.. bornagain77
ellazimm you state; 'if I had to pick the one I think is the strongest I’d pick the DNA.' And yet your strongest piece of evidence does not withstand scrutiny; Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html I would like to point out that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year. further notes; ,,, Here is another paper, dealing with genes, that dealt a 'death blow' to Darwinian gradualism, at its very root, for ever coherently explaining multicellular organisms: More Questions for Evolutionists - August 2010 Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacteria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too! https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/more-questions-for-evolutionists/ Here is another article, written by an evolutionist mind you, that states the true pattern found for life, from comparative genetic evidence, is not the tree pattern Darwin had envisioned: A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - May 2010 Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4 As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, this following article and video shows that the 'same exact genes' in different species have actually been shown to produce 'completely different' body structures: A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more Neo-Darwinism's Gene Homology Problem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P6bXA50c0 Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009 Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. http://www.discovery.org/a/10651 ------- ,,,the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced: Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life: Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010 Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked." New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010 Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages. I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome: Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." etc.. etc.. etc.. bornagain77
DrREC, as you probably well know, the morphological novelty that the lamprey would have to exhibit over 360 million tears to conform to neo-Darwinian expectations is far greater than the minor variations you have listed. DrREC for a far more stunning example to make my point DrREC, of stasis conforming to 'variation within kind, let's compare the trilobite fossil record to your neo-Darwinian expectations; note; Besides the fossil record lacking transitional forms, there is actually ample evidence in the fossil record to infer that the principle of Genetic Entropy has been rigidly obeyed over the course of the history of life on this earth. The following article is important in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth (Note: Trilobites are one of the most prolific 'kinds' found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the 'simple' creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record despite the fact they are found in the fossil record for 270 million year period). The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly to the authors)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html DrREC, why in blue blazes did the trilobites not find a nich somewhere to evolve into something else since they had worldwide distribution???? Why the consistent loss of morphological variation throughout deep time DrREC??? Should not this send up a humongous red flag for you if you were truly interested in questioning your neo-Darwinian belief system, instead of dogmatically defending them no matter what the evidence says??? further notes; Evolution vs. The Trilobite Eye - Prof. Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032589 The Optimal Engineering Of The Trilobite Eye - Dr. Don Johnson https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1TiZcs0eginyh6rijCGd3kwC3CeawjQV1AsC6Xvvnx44 In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a 'scientific law': Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html A general rule of thumb for the 'Deterioration/Genetic Entropy' of Dollo's Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here: Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints; http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html Dollo's Law was further verified to the molecular level here: Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo's law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, "The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html Evolutionary Adaptations Can Be Reversed, but Rarely - May 2011 Excerpt: They found that a very small percentage of evolutionary adaptations in a drug-resistance gene can be reversed, but only if the adaptations involve fewer than four discrete genetic mutations. (If reverting to a previous function, which is advantageous, is so constrained, what does this say about gaining a completely novel function, which may be advantageous, which requires many more mutations?) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511162538.htm Some Further Research On Dollo's Law - Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig - November 2010 http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/Sample/FOB_4(SI1)1-21o.pdf bornagain77
BA77, I apologize. I've been spending too much time here I think. You continue doing as you do. I won't worry about it unless it's in response to something I wrote. Best Wishes p.s. I'm only saying this in case the rapture happens today. I wouldn't want to be "left behind" because of something I wrote on a blog. :) Mung
BA77: Okay! I'll take you up on that! I think the most compelling evidence for common descent with modification is that many different strands of evidence all are consistent and do no contradict the theory. So it's the combination of the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the morphological traits, the geographic distribution, etc. I think all the strands were well discussed in Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True but there are many, many places to read all about it. Including the Talk Origins website. Now, I know you're wanting me to pick one of those strands. :-) And if I had to pick the one I think is the strongest I'd pick the DNA. Because the DNA evidence includes several strands within it. These include: protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses. Aside from www.talkorigins.org there was an excellent podcast a few years ago, Evolution 101, which presented the genomic evidence (and all the other evidence) very, very well. So, when I weigh up all the evidence, and I see all those strands interweaving and all consistent with and not contradicting common descent with modification AND when a transitional form like Tiktallic can be targeted and found where it should have been then . . . I think the case is very, very, very strong. I cannot think of another scientific theory which has so much and such diverse evidence stacked up in its favour. And I think the evidence continues to accumulate. As more and more genomes are sequenced, as more and more fossils are found, as the tree/bush/shrub of life is revised, as our understanding of the various selection processes increases I do not see anything overthrowing the theory. In 150 years whole museums of evidence have been accumulated. All the genomic evidence has only been collected in the last 60 years. I'm certainly not saying every step or twist and turn is understood, but the way the path is heading seems pretty clear to me. And so even if a singe piece of evidence was overthrown it hardly matters. Even if one of the threads of evidence was proven to be flawed it doesn't matter. There is still so much data supporting the theory. We see intelligent selection acting on the base of genomic random variation creating all the dog species in a few thousand years. Or all the brasicca plants in less time than that. t's not hard to imagine natural selection acting on the same base over millions of years being able to do even more. Anyway, it's your turn now. And no more comments from me 'til you return the favour! :-) And thank you for making the deal. I think this will be very interesting. ellazimm
" ....think I’ll stick to taking the legs out from underneath DrREC’s whole argument. And will defend that point with as much tenacity as the good Lord allows me!!!" Before you injure yourself tilting at windmills, lets remember my entire point in this thread: the post "Lamprey unchanged after 360 million years" is wholly unsupported by the data that suggest the lamprey has changed-in size, teeth complexity, body plan. And that's from a fossil-who knows about behavior, immune system, reproduction, genetics, etc. Am I totally dismissing stasis? Of course not. "DrREC, I agree, but the whole lamprey connection thing needs to be covered up with a new name! Especially so that the ‘unwashed masses’ don’t get misled by ’360 million years’ of evolutionary stasis!" Odd remark-publishing articles, and press releases seems a hard way to start a cover up. Do you think that is what is going on here? DrREC
Just my off-topic $.02 - this is one of the best threads I've read in a while. ScottAndrews
ellazimm, what do you personally think is the most convincing piece of evidence there is for neo-Darwinian evolution??? The one piece of evidence that I would have to be absolutely bonkers not to accept the conclusion of! Let's honestly look at that piece of evidence out in the open, and see if it is nearly as solid as you think it is!! If you want I will reciprocate with what I feel is the most irrefutable piece of evidence for ID in molecular biology, though evidence for ID is everywhere. bornagain77
BA77: :-) I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that! Anyway, off to a swimming birthday party. Whee!! ellazimm
ellazimm, you state; 'You have made me relook at my interpretation of the evidence.' Well ellazimm since there is no evidence for neo-Darwinism that withstands scrutiny, this could not possible have been reassuring for your confidence in the truthfulness of your interpretation! :) bornagain77
BA77: I know you're not trying to score points, it's just my way of saying: you're right! You have made me relook at my interpretation of the evidence. I just haven't changed my mind yet. Anyway, I hope you consider it worthwhile to make sure I understand what ID is saying. I know a lot of ID proponents complain that their view is frequently misinterpreted and I'd like to NOT do that. If you're only talking to me because there's a chance I will change my mind then I'm afraid you're probably going to be disappointed. And I have no desire or intention or hope of changing your mind. Not because I think you're foolish or blinded. I think you have thought long and hard about your interpretation and I seriously doubt I'm clever enough to dissuade you from it even if I wanted to which I don't. Which is fine I think. ellazimm
ellazimm, I'm not looking to 'score points' against you so much as I'm wanting you yourself to question the basic assumptions you have made for the truthfulness, but more importantly, the plausibility of neo-Darwinism. It does no good for me to point out the fatal flaws of neo-Darwinism if you personally refuse to even question the premises yourself! bornagain77
BA77: Umm . . . nope! :-) I see your point, very clearly. I used the word rationale in deference to you, thinking about how you would view it. Acknowledging that we would disagree. But you definitely get two points for that! You all have got me to look more closely at my views, it's true. I haven't changed them yet. But I do understand yours better and for that I am grateful. ellazimm
ellazimm, thanks for agreeing I was not off topic, yet, despite your honesty on that point, you also state this; 'BA77: If a creature is very good at exploiting its niche environment then most mutations will be deleterious and the creature will not change much even over many, many generations. Creatures like that tend to get locked into their habitat and when that habitat changes they die out. This sort of situation happens a lot in the deep ocean where conditions do not change much. And, mutations occur randomly so it’s not possible to predict when and how much change will occur. I’m sure you’ve heard that rationale before but I just thought I’d put it on the thread.' Watch out ellazimm, when you said 'rationale' you got very, very, close to saying the truth of what you were actually doing,,, 'rationalization' Rationalization In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation. It often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29 So ellazimm would you care to have another moment of honesty within yourself and tell me exactly why what you said is not scientific, but is merely rationalization??? bornagain77
Mung: Capitulation, in this case, was admission that I had wandered off topic (as we are doing now) and had nothing to do with the validity of my points. On this particular thread I thought the generalisation to other species was valid but I don't mind the way threads here get wild and wooly. Anyway, I'm glad you're having a good time! :-) ellazimm
Mung: My, you are in a mood! I've been out to prove a point, yes. Does that point involve a prior history with BA77? Absolutely. Does that prior history invalidate the point? No. You were gracious in admitting that you'd gone off topic. In fact, after you capitulated, no further comments ensued. capitulation Does that invalidate the points you raised? Mung
BA77: If a creature is very good at exploiting its niche environment then most mutations will be deleterious and the creature will not change much even over many, many generations. Creatures like that tend to get locked into their habitat and when that habitat changes they die out. This sort of situation happens a lot in the deep ocean where conditions do not change much. And, mutations occur randomly so it's not possible to predict when and how much change will occur. I'm sure you've heard that rationale before but I just thought I'd put it on the thread. Mung: My, you are in a mood! ellazimm
BA77, I'll agree that you were no more off topic than was ellazimm. But your argument against ellazimm was that he/she had departed from the subject in the OP. So did you. And your excuse is? Why can you not forgive ellazimm rather than demand a strict adherence to the subject of the OP? I have to say, to me it seems like a double standard. You think you've "taken the legs out from underneath" DrREC's argument, but have you really? You posted 9 links, only one of which had anything to do with a lamprey, and that link only contained a picture of a fossil. Argument by quote and link is not argument at all. Argument by quote and link does not take the legs out of anything.
I hope this is all okay with you.
Obviously the tactic of flood with quotes and links and then retreat is not ok with me. I don't know why you would hope that it was.
But something tells me that nothing I do will ever be good enough for you.
Not true. I just expect consistency. Don't stifle discussion an the basis of lack of adherence to topic of he OP and then engage in the exact same behavior you had previously condemned. Mung
Mung, thanks for your personal opinion, but I think I'll stick to taking the legs out from underneath DrREC's whole argument. And will defend that point with as much tenacity as the good Lord allows me!!! Plus, I don't think I am off topic in the least for DrREC would love to try to play all this off as a mere anomaly of the fossil record, as he is already trying to do somewhat in post 1 & 4, and I don't intend to let him get away with it. I hope this is all okay with you. But something tells me that nothing I do will ever be good enough for you. bornagain77
Sorry BA, I thought this thread was about lamprey evolution (or lack thereof). I'm not convinced that posting links to a bunch of other material that has nothing to do with lampreys helps. And does this bring back any memories?
Yet the topic of the thread is; ‘The Spirituality of Physics’ So the whole point of this thread is to ‘discuss that issue’;
So please, can we discuss lampreys? Thanks p.s. For what it's worth, and you'll probably find it's not worth much, lol, but I can live with that. For me personally, all the cutting and pasting you do isn't much better than spam. Others may find the quotes and links interesting, I don't know. I'm sure they do have their place. But typically, they come in like a flood and it's difficult to see what point you're trying to make, if any, and whether they are even relevant to the topic. And again, I don't know about others, but I am just not inclined to follow all your links to see what they say and why you may think they somehow make a relevant point. I can't read your mind. I just did follow ALL the links in your post above and found 1 link of 9 that was relevant to lampreys. Let me put it another way. Someone posts a comment, and you respond with a flood of links, and little or no commentary of your own. It's like you're saying, here, don't argue with me, argue with all these links I'm posting. No one wants to debate an impersonal comment or link. Don't you think it would be better for you if you could put arguments into your own words? Again, just my opinion, but I do hope you'll consider what I've said. Mung
Mung, though my links did not specifically focus on the stasis of lampreys, did any other pattern in my links happen to strike you as very antagonistic to neo-Darwinian thinking? Do you think that maybe perhaps that is the point that I was wanting to make so as to establish that lamprey stasis is by no means the only 'anomaly' of stasis in the fossil record but that stasis is in fact the overriding dominant pattern of the fossil record? Perhaps you could forgive me for trying to specifically establish such a esoteric point? bornagain77
Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
No mention of lampreys.
The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium
No mention of lampreys.
Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles
No mention of lampreys.
Picture of the ancient 360 million year old fossil shrimp compared to a modern shrimp
No mention of lampreys.
Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years
No mention of lampreys.
No mention of lampreys.
A lamprey!
Fossils Without Evolution – June 2010
No mention of lampreys.
Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:
No mention of lampreys. 9 links and 1 lamprey. Not a very good rate of return for someone following your links to see if there's anything relevant. Here's the one good link again, for anyone who is interested: lamprey Mung
DrREC, I agree, but the whole lamprey connection thing needs to be covered up with a new name! Especially so that the 'unwashed masses' don't get misled by '360 million years' of evolutionary stasis! I'm sure you agree that it is a subtle point of 'variation within kind' that truly only fine discerning evolutionary minds can really appreciate the reasons for, and we mustn't ever let young minds get the wrong impression that Darwin was full of bull should we? "Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle," Richard Dawkins - River Out Of Eden pg. 83 Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles - November 9 2010 Excerpt: Rodney Feldmann and Carrie Schweitzer (both Kent State University) report on the oldest fossil shrimp known to date. The creature in stone is as much as 360 million years old and was found in Oklahoma. Even the muscles of the fossil are preserved. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-oldest-fossil-shrimp-muscles.html Picture of the ancient 360 million year old fossil shrimp compared to a modern shrimp: http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/oldestfossil.jpg Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820 "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 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 Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010 Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100618a Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg bornagain77
"Perhaps you should write them and suggest a new name to them..." Oh, I don't have to. The authors gave it a unique species name. Actually, the fossil is so different from modern Lampreys that they gave it a unique genus. http://www.taxonomy.nl/taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=987562 I don't understand the snark-I was just pointing out that the post title "Lamprey unchanged after 360 million years" seems at odds with the data. The lamprey seems quite changed. DrREC
Lampreys evolving into lampreys is still evolution (pun intended- get it as in "stay still evoution"). :cool: Joseph
Whew DrREC, amazing they were even able to classify it as a lamprey! Perhaps you should write them and suggest a new name to them so that people won't get the wrong idea that Darwin was full of bull! :) bornagain77
Looks a lot different from modern lampreys: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/images/061025.lamprey2.jpg "A small lamprey differing from all other living and fossil lampreys in having a large oral disc, the diameter of which approximately equals the length of the branchial region, and accounts for around one-half of total head length." " Modern lamprey circumoral teeth usually display specialized shapes, and such teeth are often the largest of multiple series radiating to the oral disc perimeter. In Comparison, the circumoral teeth of Priscomyzon are very simple, and in this respect probably primitive." The body is short, fins extending from different places, and unlike modern lampreys. DrREC

Leave a Reply