How Would You Falsify Evolution?
R.D.H.
Given that one defining characteristic of any legimate
scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. But
there is no one who is capable of actually_designing_
a test which can falsify evolution. In my experience,
most evolutionist assert that uncovering a fossilized
human skull in the precambrian or some such
passive find would falsify evolution. But this is no
test. Not in the sense as the testing conducted by
such great scientist as Louis Pasteur.
Steven J.
"R.D.H." <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hiAyb.41946$W7.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
impossible to falsify a theory with a single test. A falsification is an
observation contrary to the predictions of the theory, but such an
observation can also be explained (in a way consistent with the truth of the
theory) as an error in the observation itself, or as the result of
intervention of other, unknown mechanisms consistent with the theory. The
classic example is the orbit of Uranus, which was observed in the 19th
century not to follow exactly the course predicted by Newtonian celestial
mechanics. This might have been explained by saying that Newton's theories
were wrong, but might equally (for the first few observations of such
deviations) be explained by saying that the astronomers didn't know how to
aim their telescopes. Or they might be explained by an unknown planet
(Neptune, it turned out) affecting the orbit of Uranus in a way consistent
with Newton's theory.
By the same token, if the overwhelming bulk of the evidence continued to
support common descent, a single hominid skull in the preCambrian might be
explained as a probable fraud, or a grossly mistaken dating of the
sediments, or an astonishing example of convergent evolution, or even
evidence of time travel. There are always anomalies and hard-to-explain
features of the data. To falsify evolution, one would need a large body of
data contrary to the theory, and preferably consistent with some other
theory that also explained the data used to support evolution.
The principle evidence for evolution (gradual common descent with
modification) is the nested hierarchy of life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhierarchy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
The most obvious and compelling falsification of evolution would be
systematic violations of the nested hiearchy. Birds with mammary glands, or
three bones in the middle ear, would do, as would octopuses whose eyes had
the reversed retinas of vertebrate eyes, or primates with cytochrome-c more
similar to that of pine trees than that of baboons. Examples could be
multiplied almost endlessly. If Duane Gish had been correct in his
oft-repeated claims that, e.g. human lysozome was more similar to chicken
lysozome than chimp lysozome, or human albumin more similar to frog albumin
than chimp albumin (in each case the human and chimp proteins are
identical), that might not have *falsified* common descent (see initial
weaselling), but it would have been significantly disconfirming. If the
human LGGLO pseudogene was disabled identically to that of guinea pigs, but
differently from that of gorillas, that would have likewise been contrary to
the predictions of common descent.
Note that many tests and observations that have already been designed and
performed offer potential falsifications of evolutionary theory. Tests have
already shown (and they could conceivably have shown quite differently) that
the human LGGLO pseudogene (the reason we can't make our own vitamin C) is
identically disabled to that of chimps, orangutans, macaques, and gorillas,
but differently from that of guinea pigs. They've already shown that the
cytochrome-c of a great many species falls into the same nested hierarchy as
other features (if it fell into a grossly different nested hierarchy, again,
that would amount to a falsification of common descent).
Even the fossil record offers multiple opportunities to test and potentially
falsify the theory. Mere "missing links" don't count for much -- there's no
prediction that any great portion of the history of life will survive in
fossils -- but the fossils, like living forms, should fit into the
evolutionary tree. Intermediates between birds and mammals would be a
thousand times more lethal to the theory than a paucity of intermediates
between dinosaurs and birds. Descendants should not live before their
ancestors. That's problematic, because primitive forms can survive in one
niche long after they have spawned more evolved side branches (the old "if
humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"), and because
fossils, or bits and pieces of them, can be "reworked" into higher or lower
strata. But if all the known whales of the Eocene still were, or had many
strong affinities with, land mammals (e.g. small heads and hind legs), then
modern type whales in the Cretaceous would be nearly as big a problem as
hominids in the preCambrian.
The mechanism of evolution are harder to test and falsify, but not
impossible. If, in fact, beneficial mutations and gene duplications
(allowing for increases in the size of the genome) were not observed, that
would falsify current mechanism theories. So would observations that
survival and reproductive success bore no relation to inheritable variation.
So, as Darwin pointed out, would the presence of structures that could not
be derived by incremental beneficial modifications of previous structures,
though this is harder to ascertain -- it's hard to imagine all the possible
(often indirect) pathways by which one structure can give rise to another.
-- Steven J.
Adam Marczyk
Here's an "active" test from
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity>:
"Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein
sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species... At the
current rate, which is increasing exponentially, over 41,000 new sequences
are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 40 million new bases
sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common
descent. Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of
known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern
species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid
genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly
discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard
genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the
theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that
are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have
non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of
insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard
genetic code."
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2nopam@ixnetcom.nospamcom Matt Silberstein
<rd...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>Given that one defining characteristic of any legimate
>scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. But
>there is no one who is capable of actually_designing_
>a test which can falsify evolution.
That is, itself, an interesting claim. How did you come up with
it?
> In my experience,
>most evolutionist assert that uncovering a fossilized
>human skull in the precambrian or some such
>passive find would falsify evolution. But this is no
>test.
It is a test. The question here is what is meant by "evolution".
If you mean Common Descent, then finding organisms that don't use
DNA/RNA would falsify CD. If the pattern of DNA similarity had
not matched the pattern of morphological similarity (and the
pattern of the fossil evidence and the pattern of biogeographic
distribution) that would have falsified CD.
Or, perhaps you mean Natural Selection. We have already falsified
the notion that NS (and mutation) is the only force of evolution.
To show that NS is not a force at all you would have to show that
there are no trends of genetic differences based on morphological
differences. Of course we have thousands and thousands of tests
that show that NS operates, so you would need a pretty good
result to put this into question. ISTM rather silly to object to
evolution because there is so much evidence in its favor.
> Not in the sense as the testing conducted by
>such great scientist as Louis Pasteur.
Why Pasteur?
Now how about this: if you advocate either creation or its
stalking horse Intelligent Design could you tell me how to
falsify either of those notions?
Frank Reichenbacher
> scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable.
Very true.
But
> there is no one who is capable of actually_designing_
> a test which can falsify evolution.
I'll bet you I could.
In my experience,
> most evolutionist assert that uncovering a fossilized
> human skull in the precambrian or some such
> passive find would falsify evolution.
It would. The "passivity" of the test makes it no less of a valid test. The
same scenario holds true for the many millions of other known fossils of all
species, and of fossils to be discovered. The principles which underlie the
theory of evolution have sustained each and every one of these tests and
there is no reason to expect that future discoveries will present any
greatly differing results.
There are many other such tests:
1. Do any mammals have gills? No, such a discovery would undercut the
phylogenetic structures of evolution.
2. Do any fish have lungs? Yes, certain primitive lungs which may have given
rise to air breathing terrestrial descendants as predicted by the theory of
evolution.
3. Do humans share more genes with their nearest mammalian relatives or with
other organisms such as flowering plants? No, such a discovery would
certainly undercut evolution. In the many gene sequences worked out for
thousands of species the phylogenetic relationships exhibited are always in
line with evolutionary predictions.
4. Do organisms evolve features unique to unrelated species? Generally no.
This is why you do not see fish with tusks just like a boar's, birds that
have tentacles, or radially symmetrical reptiles. Any such developments
would be contrary to evolutionary theory.
But this is no
> test.
Yes it is.
Not in the sense as the testing conducted by
> such great scientist as Louis Pasteur.
Pasteur is dead. He's been dead for over a century. Perhaps you are not
aware of this?
Frank
Roadrunner
This falsifying theory in my opinion is quite subjective. Who decides what
to test. This automatically would mean that results gotten can hardly be
considered 'evidence'.
Staffan S
Maybe he is, but he is still a "great scientist" because -in RDH's
mind- he disproved abiogenesis, which -in RDH's mind- is a fundamental
part of the TOE.
What RDH is trying to do here is making a variety of the "evolution
isn't science if you can't test it in lab" argument. Actually, I think
that you could set up lab tests that could falsify the TOE. However,
these test have been made and the findings do confirm the view of
mainstream science. But the fact that they don't falsify the TOE
doesn't mean that they couldn't do it, perhaps on some other planet
where the local god(s) take(s) a more active interest in the
development of the species.
Imagine, if you will, this other planet. The scientists there have
formed a theory of evolution based only on observations in nature. No
lab test have ever been made. Also, the technology to compare the DNA
of different individuals has just been discovered, but has never been
used. The scientific community is excited about the first lab
experiments to test some of the hypotheses regarding evolution. Some
of the proposed tests are:
A. Hypothesis: The offspring of sexually reproducing animals are
genetically different from their parents. Test setup: Breed lab rats.
Compare DNA from parents to that of young.
B. Hypothesis: Mutations occur. Test setup: Grow bacteria culture
starting with one bacterium (is that the right form of the word?).
Expose culture to conditions known to influence chemical bonds
(radiation/reactive substances). Compare DNA of different generations.
C. Hypothesis: Genotype affects phenotype. Test setup a: Breed lab
rats, identify identical twins (based on high degree of similarity).
Compare DNA.
Test setup b: Breed lab rats. Compare DNA of young. Compare phsyical
traits of those young that have identical DNA.
Test setup c: Compare genetic setup of lab rats with physical traits.
Search for a physical trait that is connected with a specific DNA
sequence in a specific locus.
D. Hypothesis: Phenotype affects the odds of survival. Test setup:
Release lab rats in an enclosed area that resemble a natural habitat
(you can do it inside a tennis hall if you insist that lab work must
be done indoors). Dye test group white, dye control group rat grey.
Release lab cat(s) in area. Count surviving rats in test group and
control group.
E. Hypothesis: Phenotype affects the odds of finding a mate and
reproducing. Test setup: Use a lab peacock ;-) or any other animal
that uses some signalling system to attract a mate. Remove the organ
used to produce signals. Observe sucess (or lack of sucess) of animal
to attract a mate.
Now, all of the hypotheses above are trivially true on this planet.
But (just to continue the thought experiment) they *could* be false,
and if they were I think they would falsify at least parts of the TOE.
Maybe on that planet there is an invisible being that guide predators
to their prey and help animals select their mate. So, theoretically
the TOE can be falsified. The fact that neither you or I can find a
feasible way to falsify it (because it is a good theory) doesn't make
it less falsifiable (in Popper's sence of the word).
Staffan S
2nopam@ixnetcom.nospamcom Matt Silberstein
<peg...@privat.utfors.se>:
Can you give an example of science that is meaningfully
different?
Frank Reichenbacher
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:KtZyb.40335$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net...
What, if anything would you consider to be 'evidence'?
What is the scientific method?
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
"Staffan S" <qswitch2....@passagen.se> wrote in message
news:b3c0ff23.03120...@posting.google.com...
I am well aware of the purpose behind the appeal to Pasteur. It is simply an
appeal to authority.
>
> What RDH is trying to do here is making a variety of the "evolution
> isn't science if you can't test it in lab" argument.
I think it is at least equally the, if a great scientist like Pasteur
doesn't like TOE, then it must be wrong ploy.
My example tests above were intended to get at the foundations of evolution,
in ways which would tend to falsify the whole theory. The creationists often
whine about how you never see camels mutating into fish, as if that were a
weakness in TOE, when, in reality, if that were to happen the whole theory
would be dashed.
>
>
> Now, all of the hypotheses above are trivially true on this planet.
> But (just to continue the thought experiment) they *could* be false,
> and if they were I think they would falsify at least parts of the TOE.
The most significant evidence for TOE will come when life (above the level
of viroids) is discovered on another planet. I don't suppose this will occur
in our lifetimes, but when it does, the wind will be taken right out of the
creationist's sails. Not only will it have the effect of rendering the
Genesis stories the origin myths they always were, it will mean that the
earth truly is not special in the eyes of the Creator, a fantasy the
creationists could always cling to in the absence of knowledge from
elsewhere. In addition, . The discovery of evolution on other planets (there
is no reason to expect that TOE would not operate on other planets the same
as it does here) will result in the elevation of the Theory of Evolution to
the Law of Evolution. Creationism will be (almost) completely dashed when
fully sentient and civilized life is found on other planets.
> Maybe on that planet there is an invisible being that guide predators
> to their prey and help animals select their mate. So, theoretically
> the TOE can be falsified. The fact that neither you or I can find a
> feasible way to falsify it (because it is a good theory) doesn't make
> it less falsifiable (in Popper's sence of the word).
You're absolutely right about this. In order for TOE to become LOE, it will
have to be verified on other planets.
Frank
>
> Staffan S
Dave Oldridge
news:KtZyb.40335$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net:
You can test any cogent logical prediction of the general theory. It
doesn't matter. Pick your own. Just make sure that it is a necessary
consequence of the theory, though, and not some piece of garbage you just
made up. Finding a hominid fossil natively deposited in Cambrian rock
would pretty much upset all our current theories of descent. That would be
a strong blow against evolution generally. But no such fossil has ever
been found. The best creationists can do on this score is 150 year old
tabloid newspaper articles of the same quality as the supermarket tabloid
that announced a B52 on the moon and then claimed two weeks later that it
had disappeared.
You also do not distinguish between general theory and ancillary
hypotheses. The general theory of evolution states simply that species
spawn new species by means of, among other things, mutations and natural
selection. This is a pretty strong theory by now and has been tested a
great deal in the lab and by observing nature. The theory also claims that
these mechanisms explain the fossil record and so far no fossils have
REALLY been found that contradict this. The creationist response by and
large has been to promulgate lies about the actual nature of the fossil
record and this proves once and for all that their efforts are not inspired
by any desire to do science, but rather by an emotional attachment to
whatever religious heresy the science is showing to be false.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Staffan S
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:LsSdnbWzeIR...@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Staffan S" <qswitch2....@passagen.se> wrote in message
> news:b3c0ff23.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:<ZO2dnTqAJb0...@speakeasy.net>...
> > > "R.D.H." <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:hiAyb.41946$W7.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > Given that one defining characteristic of any legimate
> > > > scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable.
> > >
> > > Very true.
> > >
> > >
> > > But
> > > > there is no one who is capable of actually_designing_
> > > > a test which can falsify evolution.
> > >
> > > I'll bet you I could.
> > >
>
> My example tests above were intended to get at the foundations of
evolution,
> in ways which would tend to falsify the whole theory. The creationists
often
> whine about how you never see camels mutating into fish, as if that were a
> weakness in TOE, when, in reality, if that were to happen the whole theory
> would be dashed.
*I* agree that your tests are valid, and that they would falsify the TOE.
But many creationists exploit a misconception that real science can only be
done in a white-coat environment. I wanted to show that you can design
experiments within a lab that could falsify the theory. I also wanted to
show that the reason that the TOE today is considered the best explanation
for the facts is *not* that nobody has been able to design "a test which can
falsify evolution." On the contrary, in fact. The TOE is accepted because
such test have been designed, they have been carried out and they have
*failed* to falsify the TOE.
Frank J
Pasteur did not "disprove abiogenesis." He only demonstrated that it
is not common. Abiogenesis, by definition, had to occur at least once.
There is yet no theory for abiogenesis, but if and when we find one,
it will be no more "a fundamental part of the TOE" any more than it
would be for any other potential alternative to evolution.
Furthermore, evolution is consistent with abiogenesis being a rare
event. Any potential alternative that denies common descent is not.
(snip)
William Hart
"Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
<snip>
> The principle evidence for evolution (gradual common descent with
> modification) is the nested hierarchy of life.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhierarchy.html
It seems to me that this is not very good evidence. The hierarchy has been
created by human beings who are expert classifiers. Nevertheless the two
competing schemes of classification (I always forget the names, is it the
cladists and the systematists) disagree except at the broadest levels.
Any new animal which is found will inevitably be classified as a mammal,
fish, coral whatever and perhaps put into at least a phyla (unless it is a
new one). No one is disputing that such a classification is possible and
will be consistent with the general pattern of the appearance of animals on
earth (at least not if they believe in an old earth). But from there on in
people simply don't agree.
Of course each animal must fit somewhere in this big tree and if animals
come along which have similar traits to animals they aren't supposed to be
related to evolutionists wave the wand of convergence. Take the convergent
evolution that is supposed for:
-bats and whales both use sonar to detect objects
-the broad varieties of eyes that exist with similar features sprinkled
across the animal kingdom where they have no common ancestor with the same
features
-bats and flying foxes,
-hummingbirds, honeycreepers and sunbirds,
-antifreeze in fishes at opposite ends of the earth without a common
relative with this feature,
-beaks in squid and octopus, birds and ceratopsian dinosaurs
-the similar adaptions of the different anteaters on earth,
-magnetic compasses of birds, butterflies and some fish
-lungs in independent lines of fish
-vultures (i.e. large soaring birds which eat carrion) supposedly evolving
twice,
-cactacea (cacti) and euphoribaceae are remarkably similar both even having
a moist pith and prickes
-fruit has supposedly evolved many times so that seeds would be dispersed in
phoeces
-peyotyl cacti and the ayahuasca plant have `evolved independently' the same
form of a hallucinogenic toxin
-the African porcupine, Australian echidna and American porcupine
-gliding in lizards, Australian marsupials and flying squirrels,
-felids, nimravids and marsupial thymacosmilids,
-some Northern hemisphere animals: squirrels, cats, rabbits are extremely
similar to marsupials that supposedly evolved later in Australia
-birds and protoavis (by the way coelurosaurian dinosaurs are not known from
the triassic)
-diapsid dinosaurs share convergent features with birds (diapsids are known
in the triassic) [by the way, we have plenty of fossil intermediates between
dinosaurs and what they evolved from don't we?]
-the Australian duck billed platypus complete with webbed feet
-chameleons and sand lances with their independent eyes
-blood has evolved twice, once with copper another time with iron
-luminescence has evolved more than once
-mineral shells evolved in numerous different kinds of animals all at the
same time, but independently
-C4 photosynthesis is supposed to have evolved 31 different times among
plants and actually amongst other forms as well
I'm sure that is only a few. OK so in these cases you'll say that there are
other features which are different which show that these could not be
related to each other or that they use different genes for the same feature
etc, and that the necessity of a certain form for function will have guided
the evolution. But my point is that you can't use a human built
classification scheme as evidence of evolution, argue about which order
things should go, find features which violate your supposed order of events
which are more specific in a lot of cases than the ones that are used to
decide lineages in other cases and then say that I should believe in descent
with modification.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
>
> The most obvious and compelling falsification of evolution would be
> systematic violations of the nested hiearchy. Birds with mammary glands,
or
> three bones in the middle ear, would do, as would octopuses whose eyes had
> the reversed retinas of vertebrate eyes, or primates with cytochrome-c
more
> similar to that of pine trees than that of baboons. Examples could be
> multiplied almost endlessly. If Duane Gish had been correct in his
> oft-repeated claims that, e.g. human lysozome was more similar to chicken
> lysozome than chimp lysozome, or human albumin more similar to frog
albumin
> than chimp albumin (in each case the human and chimp proteins are
> identical), that might not have *falsified* common descent (see initial
> weaselling), but it would have been significantly disconfirming. If the
> human LGGLO pseudogene was disabled identically to that of guinea pigs,
but
> differently from that of gorillas, that would have likewise been contrary
to
> the predictions of common descent.
How would mtDNA in plants do. There are frequent examples of genes which
cross homological boundaries in plants. So much is this so that mechanisms
of horizontal gene transfer have been invoked.
What about dinosaurs with feathers which didn't come from the currently
supposed `line' between dinosaurs and birds?
>
> Note that many tests and observations that have already been designed and
> performed offer potential falsifications of evolutionary theory. Tests
have
> already shown (and they could conceivably have shown quite differently)
that
> the human LGGLO pseudogene (the reason we can't make our own vitamin C) is
> identically disabled to that of chimps, orangutans, macaques, and
gorillas,
> but differently from that of guinea pigs. They've already shown that the
> cytochrome-c of a great many species falls into the same nested hierarchy
as
> other features (if it fell into a grossly different nested hierarchy,
again,
> that would amount to a falsification of common descent).
LGGLO, cytochrome-c, LGGLO, cytochrome-c, LGGLO, cytochrome-c, LGGLO, cytoc
hrome-c. These two examples grow tired. How about the many examples where
other structures in the tree of life have been revised because of genetic
data? IMO, these are predictions which have been falsified. I fail to see
how you are getting more out than you are putting in, and whenever there are
problems just cite convergence, genetic hotspots, differential mutation
rate, mutational hotspots, horizontal gene transfer. If I were prepared to
add enough ad hoc hypotheses which seem reasonable why I could establish
that my pink unicorn is real and not a figment of my imagination.
Then of course there is the good 'ol Cambrian explosion where a large number
of different broad groups of animals just appear without apparent links to
either the preceeding vendian fauna or the tomotian fossils (actually in the
Cambrian) and most of which disappear except for a small number of groups
that were originally there. Now one could say that it was the invention of
hard bodies that allows us to see them. However the vendian fossils are soft
bodied and the Burgess Shale animals are preserved in their entirety, and
they are not actually technically hard bodied anyway. Hard body evolution -
another magic wand, but no evidence and in fact contrary to the evidence.
>
> Even the fossil record offers multiple opportunities to test and
potentially
> falsify the theory. Mere "missing links" don't count for much -- there's
no
> prediction that any great portion of the history of life will survive in
> fossils -- but the fossils, like living forms, should fit into the
> evolutionary tree. Intermediates between birds and mammals would be a
> thousand times more lethal to the theory than a paucity of intermediates
> between dinosaurs and birds.
And yet such things appear (flying mammals etc), but not in the correct
sequence for them to have evolved into birds. So they are ignored. In other
words for something to be transitional it must appear at the right time,
have features of both forms, but not necessarily be completely in between
(i.e. it may have features which don't belong to either form), but if it
doesn't fit these criteria it is rejected as being a possible transitional
form and so is never considered as evidence which might conflict with
evolution. Common descent is assumed and then the evidence is looked for and
found to be scarcer than hens teeth (some birds actually did have teeth
apparently - we know about those, but not about the evidence for evolution).
> Descendants should not live before their
> ancestors.
No I agree. Therefore Archeaopteryx is not a transition from Theropod
dinosaurs to birds, the former of which occur much later than Archaeopteryx
and the latter of which practically appear at the start of the dinosaurs
(chatterjee's may-as-well-be-a-bird protoavis texensis).
> That's problematic, because primitive forms can survive in one
> niche long after they have spawned more evolved side branches (the old "if
> humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"), and because
> fossils, or bits and pieces of them, can be "reworked" into higher or
lower
> strata.
Another magic wand.
> But if all the known whales of the Eocene still were, or had many
> strong affinities with, land mammals (e.g. small heads and hind legs),
then
> modern type whales in the Cretaceous would be nearly as big a problem as
> hominids in the preCambrian.
Of course there were large whale like creatures way back in the fossil
record. But whales coudn't have come from these, because whales are mammals.
Doesn't matter, convergence to the rescue. Of course if whales had come
before mammals in the record we would suppose that whales evolved first and
came out of the water onto land. Actually that would be easier to believe I
think
>
> The mechanism of evolution are harder to test and falsify, but not
> impossible.
Singular or plural? Didn't want to offend the people who believe natural
selection is a/the mechanism I suppose.
Of course I thought natural selection had been verified as a mechanism. Oh
yeah I forgot you still end up with the same species. Oh yes I guess by
*one* of the definitions of species, natural selection has been shown to
cause species to change. But that is only one of the definitions of species.
Of course I've never actually seen a species defined in a consistent way
that fits the evidece. It's a bit like the creationists' `kind'. It doesn't
really exist as a category. But at the level where there is no problem with
the definition of the taxon, evolution has not been observed and mechanisms
have not and cannot be tested.
> If, in fact, beneficial mutations and gene duplications
> (allowing for increases in the size of the genome) were not observed, that
> would falsify current mechanism theories.
But I thought natural selection was the method. I didn't know that mutations
had to occur. Or gene duplications. We know the rates of these mutations and
duplications though don't we and we can show that these rates are consistent
with the changes we see in the fossils and the tree of life over time. We
know all about how the genes specify form. The current mechanisms have all
been tested against our extensive knowledge of genetics, developmental
biology and models of population genetics and we are totally certain that
evolution can have accounted for all the different life forms we see.
Everything is consistent with the evidence we have....isn't it?
> So would observations that
> survival and reproductive success bore no relation to inheritable
variation.
Like Darwin's finches which lost their new beaks when times changed back to
the normal situation.
> So, as Darwin pointed out, would the presence of structures that could not
> be derived by incremental beneficial modifications of previous structures,
> though this is harder to ascertain -- it's hard to imagine all the
possible
> (often indirect) pathways by which one structure can give rise to another.
And I am yet to be presented by a hypothetical such structure which we could
look for which fulfils the obvious requirements of being an organic lifeform
on this planet, that might invalidate his theory. Of course if you add
enough ad hoc hypotheses as you add, something which seemed to be
irreducibly complex might later be found not to be.
>
> -- Steven J.
>
>
>
Bill Hart.
William Hart
"Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
<snip>
> It is a test. The question here is what is meant by "evolution".
> If you mean Common Descent, then finding organisms that don't use
> DNA/RNA would falsify CD.
That's hilarious. So you suppose that non-life became life and eventually
replicated using rna-dna, but you think that a life form which didn't use
these would falsify evolution. Love THAT logic.
> If the pattern of DNA similarity had
> not matched the pattern of morphological similarity (and the
> pattern of the fossil evidence and the pattern of biogeographic
> distribution) that would have falsified CD.
Great then it is falsified in the case of mtDNA in plants, in various shark
proteins similar to human proteins but not those of guinea pigs (if I recall
correctly) and in the myriad day to day problems with finding satisfactory
trees using parsimony analysis when comparing cladistic evolutionary trees
with those that the geneticists are coming up with.
<snip>
> Now how about this: if you advocate either creation or its
> stalking horse Intelligent Design could you tell me how to
> falsify either of those notions?
I would expect that a species found on another planet with sufficient
intelligence and the moral capacity to appreciate the glory of the designer
in the design, but which universally have not conceived of it would be
strong evidence. A designer creates for a purpose and Christians whether
creationists or ID advocates universally suppose that the earth declares
God's handiwork, i.e. so that God will be glorified by mankind. Of course a
species on another planet which believed in God, but where the God of the
Bible was not to be found would also do, e.g where all the God's there were
polytheistic or not triune but quad-une or something. A demonstration that
some of them did not believe in the God revealed in the Bible would not do,
only where they all believed in something which was clearly other than the
God of the Bible.
A demonstration that life of many kinds fundamentally different to that on
earth exists on numerous other planets, even ones which are and have never
been as suitably adapted for life as our own, would constitute a
falsification. Life on earth is supposed to be a special creation and the
designer would adapt conditions to be just right for life, particularly our
designer for that of mankind (with the obvious exception of the fact that
there is disease, sin and death because of the probationary nature of the
world we live in).
A demonstration that one of the animals other than man believes in a God and
an afterlife which they will enter would be a problem, since man is supposed
to be unique in that respect.
If you want to refine it down to things which don't focus on the Christian
aspect of it all, i.e. just look at ID as a scientific theory then you must
look at the specifics of ID theory itself. It is clearly not possible to
disprove the hypothesis that all things were intelligently designed, for
they have the appearance of being just that. If you deny that, then you
believe you can falsify the design hypothesis, if not (then you agree with
me) you can only look at the individual claims of ID'ers.
They claim for example that the flagellum is too complex to evolve in steps,
as are cilia. I personally would add the genetic system itself. There are
too many components which are wonderfully set up to make it work. There is
the DNA itself with its codons and base pairs, RNA polymerase and the
mechanism for transcription to RNA, the ribosomes which rachet the RNA off
three bases at a time, the twenty different tranfer RNA molecules with their
anticodons and exactly matching arms out each side, the twenty amino acids
coded for by a code which is optimal (4x4 = 16 and 4x4x4=64 and 20 is in
between), then there are the recombination systems, the cell itself with its
pairs of chromosomes, the spindle apparatus for separating them by pulling
spindle fibers which attach magically when the homologues align, etc, etc.
Basically if you can demonstrate that a self replicating cell does form
given the right conditions which were known to exist in the early earth from
inorganic components, then I guess I'll have to abandon the design
hypothesis. You can't have life just forming out of inorganic chemicals
based on some unbelievably slim chance. You need to show that it WILL form
under the right conditions and that these conditions were known to exist or
at least could have existed on the early earth. Demonstrate this and you
will have falsified the theory. For if life WILL form spontaneously from
inanimate matter in the right conditions, I see no need for a designer to
code it all up. However if there needed to be a designer to put the first
life together, I have a hard time believing he didn't know that he was
creating life and that he has just been an observer ever since.
Similarly for the flagella or cilia. If you can demonstrate the intermediate
mutations which led to these and that they are sufficiently close and all
beneficial so that they could have stabilised in populations and evolved
naturally in the time given then I think you have demonstrated that God did
not create these complex biological systems. Perhaps that doesn't falsify
the notion of an intelligent designer altogether, but it would obviate the
need for one in these cases and make the case pretty hard for ID'ers who
then wouldn't have a case, since this is precisely the case they have made.
By the way, if ID is not falsifiably, then how do you know it is wrong? You
seem to feel it is.
Bill.
Zachriel
"William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bqmnrh$102$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au...
>
> "Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > The principle evidence for evolution (gradual common descent with
> > modification) is the nested hierarchy of life.
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhierarchy.html
>
> It seems to me that this is not very good evidence. The hierarchy has been
> created by human beings who are expert classifiers. Nevertheless the two
> competing schemes of classification (I always forget the names, is it the
> cladists and the systematists) disagree except at the broadest levels.
I think you miss the power of the nested hiearchy. Why would having mammary
glands be strongly correlated with having three ear-bones; or for that
matter, having hair not feathers, having lungs, etc?
You just don't see mammals with bird-feathers, or fish with
mammalian-hearts, or apes with fish-gills. Of course, genes confirm the
nested hierarchy.
Staffan S
> qswitch2....@passagen.se (Staffan S) wrote in message news:<b3c0ff23.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<ZO2dnTqAJb0...@speakeasy.net>...
> > > "R.D.H." <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:hiAyb.41946$W7.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Not in the sense as the testing conducted by
> > > > such great scientist as Louis Pasteur.
> > >
> > > Pasteur is dead. He's been dead for over a century. Perhaps you are not
> > > aware of this?
> >
> > Maybe he is, but he is still a "great scientist" because -in RDH's
> > mind- he disproved abiogenesis, which -in RDH's mind- is a fundamental
> > part of the TOE.
> >
>
>
> Pasteur did not "disprove abiogenesis." He only demonstrated that it
> is not common. Abiogenesis, by definition, had to occur at least once.
> There is yet no theory for abiogenesis, but if and when we find one,
> it will be no more "a fundamental part of the TOE" any more than it
> would be for any other potential alternative to evolution.
> Furthermore, evolution is consistent with abiogenesis being a rare
> event. Any potential alternative that denies common descent is not.
*I* know. That's why I specifically wrote "-in RHD's mind-". Twice.
Staffan S
William Hart
"Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote
<snip>
> I think you miss the power of the nested hiearchy. Why would having
mammary
> glands be strongly correlated with having three ear-bones; or for that
> matter, having hair not feathers, having lungs, etc?
Er, hair, mammary glands and three ear bones are characteristic of mammals
(although some fish have three `ear bones' called otoliths), but NOT lungs.
See birds, dinosaurs, reptiles. They have lungs too.
Of course the three features that are left could have just as easily been as
a result of a common designer who decided to make mammals distinctive
because of these three features.
The fact that they all occur together and not in other animals and that
design requirements do not seem to demand that if you have one then you have
all three, well, score one for evolution. It isn;t consistent with a common
designer, but there is no particular reason why a designer would have to
have done it this way. However there is a reason why evolution would have
had to do it this way. Or at least there would be if it weren't for this
stupid convergence thing.
>
> You just don't see mammals with bird-feathers, or fish with
> mammalian-hearts, or apes with fish-gills. Of course, genes confirm the
> nested hierarchy.
That's a bit silly. Where would the second circulation system go in a fish
which doesn't have lungs and doesn't need them. Also, have you seen what
happens to a baby when it has a hole in its heart essentially reducing it to
three chambers? These are essential design requirements not evidence for
evolution. How did circulation systems evolve anyhow. You need a pump,
capiliaries to carry the blood and the blood itself to transport the oxygen.
One without the other is pretty pointless. Also how did the various changes
between the two, three and four chambered hearts occur without stuffing up
the delicate fluid dynamics of the different situations? Also why do
crocodiles have four chambered hearts if the mammals didn't evolve from
them? I see you are getting out your convergence wand again. Of course crocs
also have a palette to divide the mouth from the nasal septum, uniquely
amongst reptiles.
I'd also like to mention that birds have a four chambered heart, not three,
yet reptiles have a three chambered heart not a four chambered one like
mammals. Of course this is relevant to diddly squat until we find out what
dinosaurs had, (four chambered concretions excepted) we still don't know
that.
Similarly I wouldn't expect apes to have fish gills. They do not live
underwater so wouldn't have any need of them. This is not an argument for
evolution.
As for feathers on mammals, no you don't find that, but I have pointed out
the problems with feathers on certain dinosaurs which you wouldn't expect
given the current theories of bird evolution. Of course if these really are
examples of convergent evolution then it is a wonder that mammals don't have
feathers! Of course the fact that mammals don't need them since they have
fur should probably not worry evolutionists to much.
<snip>
William Hart
> designer, but there is no particular reason why a designer would have to
> have done it this way.
Sorry, typos. Should read:
> It isn't inconsistent with a common
smiller
William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>Of course the three features that are left could have
>just as easily been as a result of a common designer
To stick my nose in here ... I too think you are missing the
importance of the nested hierarchy.
Just the fact that THERE IS a hierarchy is telling. To paraphrase
an old point made by Ken Cox* --
If evolution is true, the hierarchy is a natural result. It's what
we'd expect to see. All the alternatives involving "design" end up
saying that, out of all the possible patterns available to an omnipotent
designer, this designer just happened to choose one that also makes
it look like evolution happened.
So, if we're choosing explanations, we have one that does not involve
a supernatural deity and one that does involve a deity.
What's that quote from Laplace about having no need for that hypothesis?
smiller
* Whatever happened to Ken Cox? His posts on t.o were often
interesting and/or funny.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail sent to this io.com account goes directly to /dev/null. To send
me email, please use: s...@millerNOSPAM.name [remove the NOSPAM]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom
Gosh Bill, I don't know. Perhaps someone here can help answer your question.
Frank J
I know that this is a cop-out from someone who reads too fast too
often, but I always write with the lurkers in mind.
Zachriel
>
> "Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think you miss the power of the nested hiearchy. Why would having
> mammary
> > glands be strongly correlated with having three ear-bones; or for that
> > matter, having hair not feathers, having lungs, etc?
>
> Er, hair, mammary glands and three ear bones are characteristic of mammals
All mammals have lungs.
> (although some fish have three `ear bones' called otoliths), but NOT
lungs.
> See birds, dinosaurs, reptiles. They have lungs too.
However, other creatures have lungs too. Ironically, you have just pointed
to the nested hierarchy.
> Of course the three features that are left could have just as easily been
as
> a result of a common designer who decided to make mammals distinctive
> because of these three features.
<snip>
In other words, you have no explanation for the strong correlation except
that "God did it", or perhaps the "Design Committee did it." When you start
looking at genes, the nested hierarchy is even more striking. Broken genes
and non-functioning genes form a nested hierarchy, too.
William Hart
"William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote
> > You just don't see mammals with bird-feathers, or fish with
> > mammalian-hearts, or apes with fish-gills. Of course, genes confirm the
> > nested hierarchy.
>
> That's a bit silly. Where would the second circulation system go in a fish
> which doesn't have lungs and doesn't need them.
Doh, that doesn't make sense. It could have a four chambered heart with the
blood going via gills instead of lungs (I think). I guess the reason is that
mammals need the mammalian/bird/crocodile heart but fish do not. In the case
of mammals and birds they are warm blooded and have a more active
metabolism. In the case of the croc I dunno. Seems odd from an evolutionary
and a design point of view, but the croc can be very active and I guess it
has huge muscles to feed with oxygen. Maybe there is a reason it is designed
the way it is. I don't know.
Anyhow, it's just good design that the fish have a heart that suits them and
mammals one that suits them. It's not necessarily a sign of evolution, just
(in this case) fairly efficient design practice.
Bill.
2nopam@ixnetcom.nospamcom Matt Silberstein
<wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au>:
Do you think there is anything in the world that is not designed?
ISTM we need to have non-designed things to compare to.
William Hart
"smiller" <smi...@io.com> wrote in message
news:6r2dnXy89e8...@io.com...
> In article <bqnnpv$ca8$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>,
> William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >Of course the three features that are left could have
> >just as easily been as a result of a common designer
>
>
> To stick my nose in here ... I too think you are missing the
> importance of the nested hierarchy.
>
> Just the fact that THERE IS a hierarchy is telling. To paraphrase
> an old point made by Ken Cox* --
>
> If evolution is true, the hierarchy is a natural result. It's what
> we'd expect to see. All the alternatives involving "design" end up
> saying that, out of all the possible patterns available to an omnipotent
> designer, this designer just happened to choose one that also makes
> it look like evolution happened.
<snip>
Look I agree. If there is a nice hierarchy which fits the descent with
modification idea to a tee, then it makes it look very much like there has
been evolution. No argument there.
But for a start convergence and HGT are invoked too many times for this to
be believable.
My problem is that I don't see this hierarchy in the same way as you. I'm
saying that we as humans expertly classify stuff and that stuff can be put
in a nice hierarchy at the general broad level even when it doesn't exist at
the next level down.
Take languages. Now not only are these intelligently designed (by humans I
suppose), but they violate the principles of evolution in that some
languages have pinched parts of other languages and combined as peoples
mixed etc. Evolution cannot in general borrow from other lineages (although
nowadays plants and eucaryiotic bacteria do that apparently since the
hierarchies are all violated in this way, its called horizontal gene
transfer, something I can perhaps believe for bacteria, but not for plants).
But one can still put languages in a nice hierarchy and I have seen trees
for languages. One splits off semitic languages and asiatic languages and so
on and so forth.
Now back to animals. I agree that there are fairly nice boundaries known as
kingdoms, phyla and even smaller divisions such as mammals which appear in
this hierarchy. The genetic evidence seems to match fairly well with these,
but then it would since the genetic components are like the words of the
language. They should have to be similar to make similar languages. Design
requirements also limit what you do in some cases.
BUT I am saying that even with the best parsimony analysis you get
contradictions between:
cladists
systematists
geneticists
(I hope I have those right) at other levels.
Take a random example. To be fair, take the largest phyla on earth by
species today (80%), the arthropods. Tell me now what are the subgroups of
this phyla (probably not so hard). Now tell me about the evolutionary
relationships amongst these subgroups. You imagine that this is not
difficult to do. It is. You see this nice hierarchy you imagine just doesn't
exist and everyone argues about how it should go, even at this broad level.
Now I haven't gone and picked some totally refined little corner where
almost nothing is known. I couldn't have picked a larger phyla. At the level
of phyla categorization is easy enough, but beyond that you may get the
categories sometimes but not the evolutionary relationships, or elsewhere
maybe you can speculate on the latter, but then not be sure of the former or
whatever.
It seems that where there are nice distinct (IMO created) divisions such as
the phyla and subphyla levels, we have no problem putting things into nice
categories but then we can't work out the evolutionary relationships (or
find fossil evidence for them) between the categories (since there isn't
any). At the other end of the spectrum down near the species level where
speciation has occurred (what people term microevolution) we can do genetic
analysis and resolve what has evolved from what, but here our morphology
fails us and we get arguments, since the people who rely on morphologies to
distinguish phyla apply the same techniques at the species level. So at one
end you can put things into categories. At the other end you can determine
evolutionary relationships, but no one can agree in the middle. This is
precisely what I would expect if my hypothesis was correct, and it is indeed
correct with every new book I open on the topic. (I have been doing rather a
lot of reading on this since I have been away from this newsgroup).
It all works well at a very broad level, but not at finer levels in general.
Furthermore you still have no idea where the phyla in the Cambrian came from
and in general the transitional forms leading to other different big groups
just don't seem to exist, and when they are touted to exist such as the
dinosaur to bird transition there are major problems that are ignored, such
as the ancestors of birds only appearing after birds and more birdlike
creatures appearing before that.
Its like the ape to human `line'. Here we started believing we came from
erectus. But then it was decided we must have come from gracile forms not
robust ones, especially since erectus was around at the same time as modern
humans in the past. So now we come from Australopithecines, except that more
recent fossils finds which are much earlier in geological history have been
unearthed which have more human like faces than australopithecines possibly
pushing australopithecines off to a side branch. Or we could just wave the
convergence wand and the whole problem goes away.
A theory like that can prove anything and I don't accept it. To me the
evidence points to God having created the first animals in phyla and
subphyla and at later stages after things have stablised, inserting more
kinds of animals in stages and even causing mass extinctions of animals at
various stages to clear the way for other kinds of animals. That is what the
evidence suggests to me big time, and I am sticking with it until I find any
evidence to the contrary. I've said before I'd be just as happy to accept a
guided evolution as I would this hypothesis, but I just don't see that the
evidence supports it. I have to go with the evidence. It trumps every time.
Bill.
William Hart
"Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
Why sure there are plenty of things that weren't designed as such. I'd count
minerals and rocks and snowflakes all as examples of undesigned things. Now
I'm not saying that God didn't design the principle of rocks or
mineralization or of snowflakes, but I can see that the arrangements that
you end up with there are practically random. A snowflake for example has a
very low information content mathematically. A genome on the other hand has
a very large amount of information.
Now recall that I am not saying that microevolution does not occur either. I
accept that small morphological changes can be the result of genetic
mutation and combination of alleles due to the way recombinant DNA is set
up. But I don't accept that there is evidence of the sort of large scale
evolution people talk about, say to turn a dinosaur into a mammal or the
common ancestor of a coral and a fish into either of them. You'd first have
to show that the genetic changes could bring this about. That requires
understanding exactly how genes code for morphology, how complex system
changes that would be required for these changes could occur incrementally,
how they could occur in the time allowed, and you'd have to have some
evidence in the genes that these actual changes did take place. Hard I know,
but this is the only satisfactory way to demonstrate evolution at the phyla
and subphyla level since we can't sit around and wait for it to happen.
Bill.
Nick Keighley
> "Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
> > It is a test. The question here is what is meant by "evolution".
> > If you mean Common Descent, then finding organisms that don't use
> > DNA/RNA would falsify CD.
>
> That's hilarious. So you suppose that non-life became life and eventually
> replicated using rna-dna, but you think that a life form which didn't use
> these would falsify evolution. Love THAT logic.
you seemed to miss the Common Descent bit. All life on earth uses
DNA/RNA
*because* of CD. Non-DNA/RNA life would not be related by CD. Hence
falsification. Life that evolved independently would very likely not
be
DNA/RNA based.
<snip>
> > Now how about this: if you advocate either creation or its
> > stalking horse Intelligent Design could you tell me how to
> > falsify either of those notions?
>
> I would expect that a species found on another planet with sufficient
> intelligence and the moral capacity to appreciate the glory of the designer
> in the design, but which universally have not conceived of it would be
> strong evidence. A designer creates for a purpose and Christians whether
> creationists or ID advocates
ID is a Christian philosophy? I thought the Designer didn't have to be
God?
> [...] universally suppose that the earth declares
> God's handiwork, i.e. so that God will be glorified by mankind. Of course a
> species on another planet which believed in God, but where the God of the
> Bible was not to be found would also do, e.g where all the God's there were
> polytheistic or not triune but quad-une or something. A demonstration that
> some of them did not believe in the God revealed in the Bible would not do,
> only where they all believed in something which was clearly other than the
> God of the Bible.
there are some people on this planet who don't believe in your God.
> A demonstration that life of many kinds fundamentally different to that on
> earth exists on numerous other planets, even ones which are and have never
> been as suitably adapted for life as our own, would constitute a
> falsification.
why? Why couldn't your designer have designed life for other planets?
<snip>
> If you want to refine it down to things which don't focus on the Christian
> aspect of it all, i.e. just look at ID as a scientific theory
which it isn't. Why don'twe just pretend red is blue?
<snip>
> By the way, if ID is not falsifiably, then how do you know it is wrong? You
> seem to feel it is.
ID isn't a scientific theory.
--
Nick Keighley
William Hart
"Nick Keighley" <nick.k...@marconi.com> wrote in message
news:8ad2cfb3.0312...@posting.google.com...
> "William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:<bqms00$2cs$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>...
> > "Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
>
> > > It is a test. The question here is what is meant by "evolution".
> > > If you mean Common Descent, then finding organisms that don't use
> > > DNA/RNA would falsify CD.
> >
> > That's hilarious. So you suppose that non-life became life and
eventually
> > replicated using rna-dna, but you think that a life form which didn't
use
> > these would falsify evolution. Love THAT logic.
>
> you seemed to miss the Common Descent bit. All life on earth uses
> DNA/RNA
> *because* of CD. Non-DNA/RNA life would not be related by CD. Hence
> falsification. Life that evolved independently would very likely not
> be
> DNA/RNA based.
Or a common designer. Your point is what exactly?
You seem to have assumed that RNA was the first molecule to self replicate.
If there was a precursor which could, it would not be based on RNA and DNA
and so would violate Matt's test but would not violate common descent.
Evolution not falsified by the test. Please provide another.
What you are proposing only tests whether or not all life came from a common
ancestral pool *if* evolution, i.e. descent with modification is actually
correct. It is not a test of evolution as a theory. Yes if another life form
is found which is not DNA/RNA based, provided it does not satisfy the
criteria I mentioned, then it would indeed falsify the proposition that all
life on earth has descended from a common ancestral pool. But would you then
accept that evolution was not true. I don't think so. You would just say
that DNA/RNA life evolved and that pretty little pink borbs life evolved
separately. Not much of a falsification. Also not very useful as a test.
Well thanks for clearing all that up and repeating those opinions in case I
had not already noted that these are the opinions people hold around here.
You've added significantly to the debate with your thoughtful response.
Everyone give Nick a clap.
By the way, go and learn some mathematics so you can grasp the science of
complexity and information theory. Then tell me it is not scientific.
Zachriel
This is incorrect. You are asserting that we must understand genetics in
order to demonstrate common descent. Darwin posited common descent based on
the nested hierarchy of extant life, and the nested hierarchy in time of
extinct life. Common descent was accepted by scientists long before the
advent of modern genetics. However, modern genetics adds a huge amount of
confirming information, including the direct observation of genetic
mutation, change in allele frequencies, and the nested hierarchy of genomes.
This nested hierarchy of genomes includes a nested hierarchy of broken genes
and non-coding genes.
Genetics confirms and validates the theory of common descent, but it isn't
required to demonstrate the basic facts.
> That requires
> understanding exactly how genes code for morphology, how complex system
> changes that would be required for these changes could occur
incrementally,
> how they could occur in the time allowed, and you'd have to have some
> evidence in the genes that these actual changes did take place. Hard I
know,
> but this is the only satisfactory way to demonstrate evolution at the
phyla
> and subphyla level since we can't sit around and wait for it to happen.
This has already been demonstrated. We *know* that heredity is chemistry,
and can manipulate it accordingly.
Zachriel
>
> "smiller" <smi...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:6r2dnXy89e8...@io.com...
> > In article <bqnnpv$ca8$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>,
> > William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > >Of course the three features that are left could have
> > >just as easily been as a result of a common designer
> >
> >
> > To stick my nose in here ... I too think you are missing the
> > importance of the nested hierarchy.
> >
> > Just the fact that THERE IS a hierarchy is telling. To paraphrase
> > an old point made by Ken Cox* --
> >
> > If evolution is true, the hierarchy is a natural result. It's what
> > we'd expect to see. All the alternatives involving "design" end up
> > saying that, out of all the possible patterns available to an
omnipotent
> > designer, this designer just happened to choose one that also makes
> > it look like evolution happened.
>
> <snip>
>
> Look I agree. If there is a nice hierarchy which fits the descent with
> modification idea to a tee, then it makes it look very much like there has
> been evolution. No argument there.
>
> But for a start convergence and HGT are invoked too many times for this to
> be believable.
The fact that bats and birds and pterosaurs have wings is evidence of
convergent evolution, and it is quite apparent that they evolved separately.
Bats have skin stretched over elongated fingers, birds have feathers
attached to their arms, and pterosaurs have skin stretched between their
arms and legs. Three different solutions, becuase they were working from
three different starting points.
You have never responded as to why the existence of mammary glands is
strongly correlated with having three ear-bones, except to say that the
Design Committee made it that way, apparently just some peccadillo.
> My problem is that I don't see this hierarchy in the same way as you. I'm
> saying that we as humans expertly classify stuff and that stuff can be put
> in a nice hierarchy at the general broad level even when it doesn't exist
at
> the next level down.
You are confusing a weak nested hierarchy, such as human design, with a very
strong nested hierarchy, such as is found in life. The nested hierarchy of
life can be verified mechanically. With modern genetics, there is not even
the slightest question about the nature of the nested hierarchy. Even broken
genes and pseudo-genes are carried through the lines-of-descent.
> Take languages. Now not only are these intelligently designed (by humans I
> suppose), but they violate the principles of evolution in that some
> languages have pinched parts of other languages and combined as peoples
> mixed etc. Evolution cannot in general borrow from other lineages
(although
> nowadays plants and eucaryiotic bacteria do that apparently since the
> hierarchies are all violated in this way, its called horizontal gene
> transfer, something I can perhaps believe for bacteria, but not for
plants).
> But one can still put languages in a nice hierarchy and I have seen trees
> for languages. One splits off semitic languages and asiatic languages and
so
> on and so forth.
Yes. Languages form a weak nested hierarchy. By the way, even this weak
nested hierarchy also demonstrates common descent. Consider the Latin
languages and how they evolved from the original Latin.
> Now back to animals. I agree that there are fairly nice boundaries known
as
> kingdoms, phyla and even smaller divisions such as mammals which appear in
> this hierarchy. The genetic evidence seems to match fairly well with
these,
> but then it would since the genetic components are like the words of the
> language. They should have to be similar to make similar languages. Design
> requirements also limit what you do in some cases.
Human design is not limited by the nested hierarchy. If Ford introduces a
new engine system, it is usually not long before GM will match it. With
evolution, it is quite apparent that not only does one branch of life not
copy from another branch, but each branch is totally unaware of what the
other branch is up to. It's as if GM can't even look under the hood of a
Ford.
All you are saying here is that if there is some debate on the details, then
we can't know anything.
>
> It all works well at a very broad level, but not at finer levels in
general.
> Furthermore you still have no idea where the phyla in the Cambrian came
from
> and in general the transitional forms leading to other different big
groups
> just don't seem to exist, and when they are touted to exist such as the
> dinosaur to bird transition there are major problems that are ignored,
such
> as the ancestors of birds only appearing after birds and more birdlike
> creatures appearing before that.
And yet, we can provide relative dates for the advent of the different forms
of life. Birds and mammals are never found before the first reptiles. The
first reptiles are never found before the first amphibians. Once "primitive"
boney organisms are found in the fossil record, they are followed by a
diversification of boney organisms. Once lunged creatures appear in the
fossil record, they are followed by a diversification of lunged creatures.
Once mammals are identified in the fossil record, they are followed by a
diversification of mammals. This is the nested hierarchy *in time* of
extinct life.
Are you suggesting a continuous process of "creation"?
--------------
One easy way to see the various development of homologies in evolution is by
examining the fossil record. From geology, the Principle of Superposition,
briefly, that strata above are newer than strata below. This allows the
*relative* ordering by time of fossils found in the strata.
* New biological forms appear at different times in the fossil record.
* All new forms are preceded by a similar form.
* Any new features will be modification of features existing in the
preceding form.
This creates a nested hierarchy, a diversification of forms from common
ancestors. Meanwhile, nuclear physicists are able to use completely
independent methods to confirm the ages of the strata; and now biochemists
can confirm the nested hierarchy of genomes.
Once you see the sequence of development of the various organic forms, then
the homologies of the wide variety of individual organs is easier to
understand.
--------------
>
> Its like the ape to human `line'. Here we started believing we came from
> erectus. But then it was decided we must have come from gracile forms not
> robust ones, especially since erectus was around at the same time as
modern
> humans in the past. So now we come from Australopithecines, except that
more
> recent fossils finds which are much earlier in geological history have
been
> unearthed which have more human like faces than australopithecines
possibly
> pushing australopithecines off to a side branch. Or we could just wave the
> convergence wand and the whole problem goes away.
Nonsense. Rather it just means that life is complicated, and the fossil
record is incomplete. We can rarely be sure of the exact line-of-descent.
However, from theory we can state that any two creatures will have a common
ancestor. From this, we can *predict* the existence of intermediate forms.
These are the forms we find in the fossil record.
Darwin in the 19th century predicted the existence of such intermediate
forms. They have been found--repeatedly. More are found everyday.
> A theory like that can prove anything and I don't accept it.
This is incorrect. The nested hierarchy is a very specific and unique
pattern. (And we do know of some violations, such as gene transfer in
bacteria, sexual reproduction within species, hybridization between closely
related species, etc. Speciation, in particular, turns out to have some gray
areas. However, they do not call into question the overall Theory of Common
Descent. Instead, they help confirm it.)
If you find some actual evidence that contradicts common descent, let us
know.
Steven J.
>
> "Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > The principle evidence for evolution (gradual common descent with
> > modification) is the nested hierarchy of life.
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhierarchy.html
>
> It seems to me that this is not very good evidence. The hierarchy has been
> created by human beings who are expert classifiers. Nevertheless the two
> competing schemes of classification (I always forget the names, is it the
> cladists and the systematists) disagree except at the broadest levels.
>
apparently did not construct it to support evolution (since he considered
species, for the most part, to be separately created "kinds"). Linne
started the trend of classifying creatures by shared homologies -- features
whose similarities were *not* necessary for similarity of function. Thus,
e.g. whales, despite fins and aquatic habits, were not classed with fish,
but with mammals, who share numerous similarities of bones, circulatory
system, etc. which were hardly needed for the whales' watery lifestyle.
Note that it's perfectly possible for, e.g. cladists, pheneticists and
classic evolutionary phylogenists to reach identical conclusions about the
evolutionary tree, or some part of it. Conversely, two cladists who weight
different traits differently can disagree about an evolutionary tree. I
think what you mean is that conclusions reached by comparing proteins and
genes often disagree with those based on morphological comparisons
("molecules vs. bones").
It seems to me that the disagreements arise not at the lowest or highest
level, but where the phylogenies were most uncertain (e.g. relationships
among different orders of mammals). Thus, e.g. the existence of the Glires
(a group combining rodents and lagomorphs like rabbits) was always a bit
controversial, so it wasn't a total shock when early (and, IIRC, superceded)
molecular studies suggested the two orders weren't that closely related.
Turtles, whose relationships were always mysterious, seem shockingly close
to diapsids (see below). But you don't find shocks like, e.g. monkeys that
aren't in primates, or frogs more closely related to reptiles than mammals.
Some of the supposed "disagreements," by the way, aren't. I've seen, e.g.
astonishment that molecular studies put chordates (our phylum) among
enchinoderms (starfish, urchins, etc.) -- but that's where
morphological-based comparisons (based on embryology) always put them.
Likewise, even in the 19th century, birds were concluded to be more closely
related to crocodilians than lizards were (as molecules show). Finding that
whales were nested in the artiodactyls was a shock, but agrees with new
fossil evidence. Finding that humans were (despite traditional
"grade-based" taxonomy) more closely related to chimps than orangutans were
would not have shocked Darwin (who proposed just that).
>
> Any new animal which is found will inevitably be classified as a mammal,
> fish, coral whatever and perhaps put into at least a phyla (unless it is a
> new one). No one is disputing that such a classification is possible and
> will be consistent with the general pattern of the appearance of animals
on
> earth (at least not if they believe in an old earth). But from there on in
> people simply don't agree.
>
It ought, though, to be possible to find a creature with fur and mammary
glands that has both multiple bones in the lower jaw, and three bones in the
middle ear, or has closer molecular affinities to birds than to other
mammals -- if such a thing existed. Conventional taxonomical categories
don't prevent anomalous results, or prevent the existence of things like
centaurs or griffins (neoDarwinian evolution would prevent such things, but
taxonomy doesn't).
>
> Of course each animal must fit somewhere in this big tree and if animals
> come along which have similar traits to animals they aren't supposed to be
> related to evolutionists wave the wand of convergence. Take the convergent
> evolution that is supposed for:
>
If mutation and natural selection can do a thing once, one would think they
can do it twice, or twenty times. If a mutation can occur multiple times in
one species (e.g. some mutations that confer antibiotic resistance in _E.
coli_, or the mutation that produced hemophilia in humans), it can
presumably occur in identical or near-identical genes in different species.
If different mutations can produce the same phenotypic effect (e.g., again,
different mutations for antibiotic resistance), then different chains of
mutations can produce similar end results.
It seems to me that if only a single pathway (or a very few very narrow
pathways) can produce an adaption, *and* if many different mutations are
needed, then it would be odd to see it emerge twice. If many different
pathways exist (e.g. the differences in the makeup of vertebrate and
cephalopod retinas suggest that similar function can be achieved by
different combinations of genes), or if the pathways are short (e.g. a few
mutations to a single protein for fish antifreeze), there is no great
mystery about similar adaptions arising in similar environmental niches.
One would not expect, except where the starting points are identical or very
similar and the pathway of changes very short, to see *identical* adaptions,
or adaptions in which features not essential to similarity of function were
highly similar.
>
> -bats and whales both use sonar to detect objects
>
The common ancestor of mammals could make sounds, and hear echoes, and
presumably use echoes to to crudely estimate distance. The refinement of
such abilities is startling, I grant, but again, if it could be done once,
why not twice?
>
> -the broad varieties of eyes that exist with similar features sprinkled
> across the animal kingdom where they have no common ancestor with the same
> features
>
There is a famous paper by Nilsson and Pelger
(http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye_stages.html) which argues
that box-camera eyes are simply not that difficult to evolve (again, if
mutation and natural selection can do it once...). I don't know of any
studies of the evolution of compound eyes, but again the similarity of
features in different taxa is limited to those features which are
functionally necessary to a certain type of eye; other features differ
greatly.
>
> -bats and flying foxes,
>
I understand that there is a dispute as to whether their last common
ancestor was a bat; if it was, then the similarities are shared inheritances
from that ancestor.
>
> -hummingbirds, honeycreepers and sunbirds,
>
"But they're still birds!" You are talking about modifications of features
(e.g. beaks) that are present in the common ancestor of all these birds.
>
> -antifreeze in fishes at opposite ends of the earth without a common
> relative with this feature,
>
These are the antarctic perch and arctic cod. The proteins are identical
modifications of a digestive enzyme (where would evolution be without
digestive enzymes? our blood-clotting proteins, the crystallins of reptile
eyes, and various other wonderful things are all modified digestive
enzymes). As Steve Jones (another Steven J. who is not me) notes in
_Darwin's Ghost_, the noncoding introns in the genes for these proteins have
been compared, and those of the antarctic perch are, as expected, closer to
the corresponding introns of perch than to those of any cod, and vice-versa.
Again, the features of the genes that are essential for their shared
function are very similar; the features that do not need to be similar are
not similar.
Note that since the species started with identical proteins which evolved
similarly under similar selective pressures, this is strictly speaking
parallel rather than convergent evolution.
>
> -beaks in squid and octopus, birds and ceratopsian dinosaurs
>
The similarities of parrot and ceratopsian beaks (all ornithischian
dinosaurs were beaked) are, I suppose, the result of similar selection for
beaks functioning as vegetation loppers. Both beaks are, of course,
modified jaws. This is perhaps less astonishing that the similarities of
shrimp-filtering jaws and strainers in flamingos, baleen whales, and an
extinct pterosaur that presumably also filtered shrimp. The squid is ...
hard to explain.
>
> -the similar adaptions of the different anteaters on earth,
>
Again, similar modifications to similar structures under similar selective
pressures.
>
> -magnetic compasses of birds, butterflies and some fish
> -lungs in independent lines of fish
>
Do these require separate origins? As I understand it, lungs are primitive
in bony fish (i.e. a feature of the last common ancestor of the group); it
is swim bladders that evolved from lungs, not the other way around.
>
> -vultures (i.e. large soaring birds which eat carrion) supposedly evolving
> twice,
>
Unremarkable, if you ask me; which astonishes you more: that two different
species of bird would evolve the habit of feeding on carrion, or that the
same traits would be beneficial to, and selected for, both groups?
>
> -cactacea (cacti) and euphoribaceae are remarkably similar both even
having
> a moist pith and prickes
> -fruit has supposedly evolved many times so that seeds would be dispersed
in
> phoeces
> -peyotyl cacti and the ayahuasca plant have `evolved independently' the
same
> form of a hallucinogenic toxin
>
A similar principle applies, I would guess, as with antarctic perch and
arctic cod.
>
> -the African porcupine, Australian echidna and American porcupine
> -gliding in lizards, Australian marsupials and flying squirrels,
> -felids, nimravids and marsupial thymacosmilids,
> -some Northern hemisphere animals: squirrels, cats, rabbits are extremely
> similar to marsupials that supposedly evolved later in Australia
>
I have no answer to make except, again, if selective pressures acting on
mutations can modifiy an ancestral structure one way, once, it seems
reasonable that it could do it twice, working from similar ancestral
structures. Note that the most striking convergences are in marsupials and
placental mammals, whose early forms shared many features in common already.
>
> -birds and protoavis (by the way coelurosaurian dinosaurs are not known
from
> the triassic)
>
Though small theropods are known. Has Chaterjee offered a proper
description of "Protoavis" yet, or allowed others to see it.
>
> -diapsid dinosaurs share convergent features with birds (diapsids are
known
> in the triassic) [by the way, we have plenty of fossil intermediates
between
> dinosaurs and what they evolved from don't we?]
>
Diapsids are a group of reptiles characterized by two holes (fenestrae) in
the back of the skull, behind the eyes; the group includes archosaurs (who
have an additional hole in front of the eyes) as well as squamata (lizards,
snakes, and mososaurs). The archosaurs include dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and
crocodilians, and a few other groups. So all dinosaurs (and all birds) are
diapsids; unless birds share features with Squamata that they don't share
with crocodilians, their diapsid features are primitive, not derived and
convergent.
Dinosaurs evolved from early archosaurs, like _Euparkeria_ (these early
archosaurs are sometimes called thecodonts). The basal archosaur closest to
dinosaurian ancestry is generally given as _Lagosuchus_ (Gregory S. Paul
lists it as a primitive dinosaur itself, but most experts disagree). The
fossil record of dinosaurs is, of course, very "gappy," but there are some
intermediates between dinosaurs and earlier archosaurs.
>
> -the Australian duck billed platypus complete with webbed feet
>
Webbed feet don't seem a very great leap; mammalian embryos start with their
digits connected by tissue whose cells later die (usually). Prevent this
cellular death, and you get webbed digits, or even digits embedded in a
solid fin. The "duck bill" is more striking, although this rubbery
modification of the lips (with teeth, in ancestral forms) is not
structurally much like a real duck bill.
>
> -chameleons and sand lances with their independent eyes
> -blood has evolved twice, once with copper another time with iron
> -luminescence has evolved more than once
> -mineral shells evolved in numerous different kinds of animals all at the
> same time, but independently
> -C4 photosynthesis is supposed to have evolved 31 different times among
> plants and actually amongst other forms as well
>
> I'm sure that is only a few. OK so in these cases you'll say that there
are
> other features which are different which show that these could not be
> related to each other or that they use different genes for the same
feature
> etc, and that the necessity of a certain form for function will have
guided
> the evolution. But my point is that you can't use a human built
> classification scheme as evidence of evolution, argue about which order
> things should go, find features which violate your supposed order of
events
> which are more specific in a lot of cases than the ones that are used to
> decide lineages in other cases and then say that I should believe in
descent
> with modification.
>
It seems to me that the sequences in the introns of antartic perch and
arctic cod are just as specific as the more similar sequences in the exons,
and that the biochemistry of the retina or crystallins of octopus eyes (and
their differences from the human versions) are just as specific as the
morphological similarities.
And, again, it seems that a human-built classification system that was noted
before common descent was thought of, that can operate without consideration
of evolution, and that is generally recognized even by creationists (no
creationist considers, e.g. cows and bats to be the same "kind," but all
consider them both mammals), can indeed serve as evidence for common
descent.
>
-- [snip]
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
"William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bqmnrh$102$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au...
>
>
could explain?
Languages fall into a nested hierarchy, and it is not, so far as I know,
doubted by much of anyone that the nested hierarchy of cognates among, e.g.
the Indo-European languages reflect branching descent with modification
among these languages. Yet it is well-known that borrowing of words (and
even sounds) occurs between languages; these sometimes confuse but rarely
completely hide the "phylogeny" of these languages. Nor, of course, do
loan words, pidgins, and creoles prevent us from recognizing that, in
general, languages form families evolved from older languages.
By the same token, horizontal gene transfer is a complication to, not a
contradiction of, common descent.
>
> What about dinosaurs with feathers which didn't come from the currently
> supposed `line' between dinosaurs and birds?
>
Why do carnivores have fur and mammary glands, even though they aren't on
the currently supposed line between Cretaceous placental mammals and us?
Feathers presumably evolved as display and insulation features in early
theropods, and would have been inherited by all their descendants, including
the ones that didn't evolve into birds. Successful lineages tend to
proliferate and speciate, generating side branches all over the place.
Those side branches often preserve features in an intermediate state, even
though the species themselves are not intermediate between the common
ancestor and any modern form.
If you want more and better examples of the nested hierarchy of molecular
homologies, come over to talk.origins. There are actual biologists there
who can cite actual recent research. If you want to talk about examples
that contradict the general phylogenic tree, though, it might help to cite
examples. Obviously, trees constructed from different molecules don't agree
perfectly. There are proteins that imply that chimps and gorillas are
closer than either is to humans, and others that imply that gorillas and
humans are closer than either is to chimps, and a larger number that group
humans and chimps.
If, after the three lineages split up, a mutation occurs in one while the
primitive allele of the gene remains unchanged in the other two, those two
will appear more similar, and "closer," even though the mutation alters
nothing about the actual timing of the split. Less probably, identical
mutations in two different lineages will create identical genes that could
be interpreted as shared inheritance from a common ancestor with that
allele. Or, after three lineages split apart, by sheer chance two mutations
may affect a gene in one of them, while only one affects the homologous gene
in the other two. Again, the line with two mutations looks as though it's
spent more time separated from the other two than they've spent separated
from each other, even if this is not true.
Because of this, "molecular clocks" keep imperfect time, and different
"clocks" give slightly different readings. Cladistic analysis of different
proteins or genes ought to be expected to give slightly different results.
If selective pressure on a gene has been strong, they might give strongly
different results (remember that the nested hierarchy is constructed,
ideally, by considering features whose similarities and differences aren't
correlated to functional necessity). Note, by the way, most of these "ad
hoc hypotheses" are based on experimental observation, or else are implied
by the theory itself, or both. They aren't really arbitrary hypotheses of
the sort necessary to justify, e.g. phlogiston theory, or pink unicorns.
>
> Then of course there is the good 'ol Cambrian explosion where a large
number
> of different broad groups of animals just appear without apparent links to
> either the preceeding vendian fauna or the tomotian fossils (actually in
the
> Cambrian) and most of which disappear except for a small number of groups
> that were originally there. Now one could say that it was the invention of
> hard bodies that allows us to see them. However the vendian fossils are
soft
> bodied and the Burgess Shale animals are preserved in their entirety, and
> they are not actually technically hard bodied anyway. Hard body
evolution -
> another magic wand, but no evidence and in fact contrary to the evidence.
>
Quite a few of the Burges Shale animals are hard-shelled; most are
arthropods of various types. Others are cnidarians (and cnidarians are
known from the preCambrian). There are various guesses as to why plausible
precursors to most Cambrian fauna are not known from the Vendian (including
suggestions that some Vendians do look very much like, e.g. soft-bodied
trilobites). There are ichnofossils (borrows and tracks) from the Vendian
and earlier with no signs of the creatures that left them. There are fossil
embryos of ... something ... that doesn't look like typical Vendian life
forms. And I'm not sure how one would be sure what was an apparent link to
the Tomotian fossils -- the "small shelly fauna" that are just tiny bits and
pieces of coverings from, presumably, larger animals.
>
> >
> > Even the fossil record offers multiple opportunities to test and
> > potentially
> > falsify the theory. Mere "missing links" don't count for much --
there's
> > no prediction that any great portion of the history of life will survive
in
> > fossils -- but the fossils, like living forms, should fit into the
> > evolutionary tree. Intermediates between birds and mammals would be a
> > thousand times more lethal to the theory than a paucity of intermediates
> > between dinosaurs and birds.
>
> And yet such things appear (flying mammals etc), but not in the correct
> sequence for them to have evolved into birds. So they are ignored. In
other
> words for something to be transitional it must appear at the right time,
> have features of both forms, but not necessarily be completely in between
> (i.e. it may have features which don't belong to either form), but if it
> doesn't fit these criteria it is rejected as being a possible transitional
> form and so is never considered as evidence which might conflict with
> evolution. Common descent is assumed and then the evidence is looked for
and
> found to be scarcer than hens teeth (some birds actually did have teeth
> apparently - we know about those, but not about the evidence for
evolution).
>
Bats are not, in a hundred different respects that have nothing to do with
the timing of their appearance, suitable as intermediates between primitive
mammals and birds. They are synapsids, not diapsids; their bones are not
hollow; they do not have gizzards; they retain the pentadactyl limbs, not
the three-toed version of primitive birds. Note that cold-blooded amniotes
have two aortic arches emerging from the heart; mammals and birds each
retain only one -- but not the same one. These are just a few of the
morphological features, of course; and ignore molecular contrasts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a transitional ... may have features that
don't belong to either form." It may have features that are, well,
intermediate in form between earlier and later forms (e.g. the diminished
but not vanished hind limbs and nascent _rete mirabile_ of various fossil
whales). A "transitional" may be (as noted above) a "dead end" side branch
that inherits primitive transitional features, and has derived features that
weren't present in the common ancestor, and aren't inherited by species
that, after all, aren't descended from the side branch. But such a
"transitional" is not an ancestor of modern forms.
Several ancient birds species had teeth (and other features which were more
like those of basal theropods than are features of any modern bird). All
these species are extinct. That's moderately odd, from a non-evolutionary
standpoint -- another example of how the older the fossil fauna, the less,
overall, it resembles the modern fauna.
>
> > Descendants should not live before their
> > ancestors.
>
> No I agree. Therefore Archeaopteryx is not a transition from Theropod
> dinosaurs to birds, the former of which occur much later than
Archaeopteryx
> and the latter of which practically appear at the start of the dinosaurs
> (chatterjee's may-as-well-be-a-bird protoavis texensis).
>
Chatterjee's _Protoavis texensis_ is pretty fragmentary; reconstructions of
the skull especially depend very heavily on imagination. It may be a bird;
it may be a primitive theropod, no more birdlike than many others, but which
Chatterjee reconstructed as birdlike. Better fossils would tell. The
absence of obvious birds between the late Triassic and late Jurassic is not,
of course, even close to *proof* that birds did not exist much before
_Archaeopteryx_, but it's worth considering.
>
> > That's problematic, because primitive forms can survive in one
> > niche long after they have spawned more evolved side branches (the old
"if
> > humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"), and because
> > fossils, or bits and pieces of them, can be "reworked" into higher or
> > lower strata.
>
> Another magic wand.
>
That's two different magic wands. Note that _Archaeopteryx_ could be a
slightly evolved descendent of _Protoavis_ (if Chatterjee is right about
it), or even of the more primitive ancestors of _Protoavis_. This would not
be intrinsically more astonishing that the survival of numerous other
"living fossil" forms. Nor is there anything very "magical" about noting
that things can happen to fossils between being deposited and being
discovered by humans. Burrowing animals can move bits of fossilized bones
as easily as they can any other small rocks; so can earthquakes, erosion,
etc.
>
> > But if all the known whales of the Eocene still were, or had many
> > strong affinities with, land mammals (e.g. small heads and hind legs),
> > then
> > modern type whales in the Cretaceous would be nearly as big a problem as
> > hominids in the preCambrian.
>
> Of course there were large whale like creatures way back in the fossil
> record. But whales coudn't have come from these, because whales are
mammals.
> Doesn't matter, convergence to the rescue. Of course if whales had come
> before mammals in the record we would suppose that whales evolved first
and
> came out of the water onto land. Actually that would be easier to believe
I
> think
>
Whales can't come from ichthyosaurs or pliosaurs, because (_inter alia_)
whales are synapsids, not euryapsids. I'd think, really, you'd give
evolutionists some respect for noting the implausibility of deriving whales
from them, rather than simply using such an obvious ancestry to fit whales
into the phylogenic tree. It would be very hard to explain land mammals
evolving from whales. Unlike lobe-finned fish, whales don't have anything
from which hind limbs could very plausibly evolve (and, indeed, the
rudimentary structures derived from embryonic hind limb buds in whales don't
make much sense, except as vestigial remnants of functional limbs, rather
than evolutionary antecedents of them).
>
> > The mechanism of evolution are harder to test and falsify, but not
> > impossible.
>
> Singular or plural? Didn't want to offend the people who believe natural
> selection is a/the mechanism I suppose.
>
Now, if you can use "phyla" when you mean "phylum" (above, in the first part
of your post), and I didn't rag you over it, you should tolerate me writing
"mechanism" when I meant "mechanisms." I omitted one letter; you omitted
two and added one (so I'm two up on you -- NYAH NYAH NYAH!). The
"mechanisms of evolution" commonly proposed are mutation, natural selection,
and genetic drift.
>
> Of course I thought natural selection had been verified as a mechanism. Oh
> yeah I forgot you still end up with the same species. Oh yes I guess by
> *one* of the definitions of species, natural selection has been shown to
> cause species to change. But that is only one of the definitions of
species.
> Of course I've never actually seen a species defined in a consistent way
> that fits the evidece. It's a bit like the creationists' `kind'. It
doesn't
> really exist as a category. But at the level where there is no problem
with
> the definition of the taxon, evolution has not been observed and
mechanisms
> have not and cannot be tested.
>
There is no level where there is no problem with the definition of a taxon,
but "speciation" has been observed for any commonly recognized definition of
"species." Note that if evolution occurs, there *must* be cases where
populations are still in the process of diverging into different species, so
that they can't be confidently placed either in the same or different
species. If special creation is correct, though, there ought to be
unambiguous "kinds." It's one thing not to know whether a particular
population consists of herring gulls, lesser black-backed gulls, or
something else. It's quite another not to know whether or not cheetahs
belong to the "cat kind" or some different "kind."
>
> > If, in fact, beneficial mutations and gene duplications
> > (allowing for increases in the size of the genome) were not observed,
that
> > would falsify current mechanism theories.
>
> But I thought natural selection was the method. I didn't know that
mutations
> had to occur. Or gene duplications. We know the rates of these mutations
and
> duplications though don't we and we can show that these rates are
consistent
> with the changes we see in the fossils and the tree of life over time. We
> know all about how the genes specify form. The current mechanisms have all
> been tested against our extensive knowledge of genetics, developmental
> biology and models of population genetics and we are totally certain that
> evolution can have accounted for all the different life forms we see.
> Everything is consistent with the evidence we have....isn't it?
>
Yes, the theory is consistent with all the evidence we have.
Not everything has been explained in detail. For that matter, I suppose
most things have not been explained in detail. But we see a great deal of
evidence that is explained on basis of common descent by mutation, selection
and drift. I do not suppose that anyone has said that evolution -- or at
least not current theories of evolution -- can explain *EVERYTHING* that is
observed, or, for that matter, that science is in the business of being
totally certain about anything. But there are no rival theories that
actually explain anything, nor is there any reason to suppose that
abandoning current understandings in favor of either some vacuous notion of
"intelligent design" or simple agnosticism would constitute a sounder basis
for doing research or a closer approach to truth.
>
> > So would observations that
> > survival and reproductive success bore no relation to inheritable
> > variation.
>
> Like Darwin's finches which lost their new beaks when times changed back
to
> the normal situation.
>
No, that shows that *different* inheritable variations are advantageous in
different environments. If the finches' large beaks had continued to grow
even when their former diet became available, that would have come closer to
a falsification.
>
> > So, as Darwin pointed out, would the presence of structures that could
not
> > be derived by incremental beneficial modifications of previous
structures,
> > though this is harder to ascertain -- it's hard to imagine all the
> > possible
> > (often indirect) pathways by which one structure can give rise to
another.
>
> And I am yet to be presented by a hypothetical such structure which we
could
> look for which fulfils the obvious requirements of being an organic
lifeform
> on this planet, that might invalidate his theory.
>
I'll try to think of something.
>
> Of
course if you add
> enough ad hoc hypotheses as you add, something which seemed to be
> irreducibly complex might later be found not to be.
>
There's no great difficulty in evolving irreducibly complex structures. The
basic point to remember is that the function either of an entire structure
or a given component may start out as inessential, and only later become
essential. For example, a protein may start out able to perform, say, two
steps of some process; later another protein (modified from some protein
serving a completely different function, perhaps) is added, and can perform
one step of this process. The new protein isn't necessary at first, but if
the original protein is modified so that it loses the ability to perform one
step (but gains enhanced ability at the other), the two-protein combination
is now irreducibly complex. For that matter, the entire function of the
combination may start out as a useful but dispensible function, but the
species may evolve to depend on it.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Bill Hart.
>
>
-- Steven J.
Zachriel
"Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
>
Excellent posts, Steven J. (I was working on something similar, but yours is
quite complete and answers William Hart's well-thouht questions quite well.)
> "William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:bqmnrh$102$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au...
> >
> > "Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The principle evidence for evolution (gradual common descent with
> > > modification) is the nested hierarchy of life.
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhierarchy.html
> >
> > It seems to me that this is not very good evidence. The hierarchy has
been
> > created by human beings who are expert classifiers. Nevertheless the two
> > competing schemes of classification (I always forget the names, is it
the
> > cladists and the systematists) disagree except at the broadest levels.
> >
> The nested hierarchy was first explicitly noted by Karl von Linne . . .
<big snip>
Ronald Dean
If it had been found that plants, and reptiles had a totally different code
for
transmission of genetic traits, how would this have falsified evolution?
"Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vsv6gr9...@corp.supernews.com...
Matt Silberstein
<rd...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>If it had been found that plants, and reptiles had a totally different code
>for
>transmission of genetic traits, how would this have falsified evolution?
It would have falsified Common Descent. I think it is Common
Descent, more than anything else, that bothers most creationists.
All of the other objections are just to try to oppose the notion
that all life on Earth descend from a common ancestral
population. It would not falsify, however, the notion that humans
and bats and chickens descend from a common ancestral population.
Ronald Dean
"Matt Silberstein" <matts....@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:vtu6tv876e1qaaebp...@4ax.com...
> In alt.talk.creationism I read this message from "Ronald Dean"
> <rd...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >
> >If it had been found that plants, and reptiles had a totally different
code
> >for
> >transmission of genetic traits, how would this have falsified evolution?
>
> It would have falsified Common Descent. I think it is Common
> Descent, more than anything else, that bothers most creationists.
>
falsified evolution. Wings arose at least four times: eyes forty or
more, so there would be no reason that life could not have risen
multiple times. Evolution could have easily adapted to such
*discoveries* and indeed could be seen as evidence for evolution.
>
> All of the other objections are just to try to oppose the notion
> that all life on Earth descend from a common ancestral
> population. It would not falsify, however, the notion that humans
> and bats and chickens descend from a common ancestral population.
>
descended from a common ancestor that arose from a separate
source had they had a unique (to plants) genetic code.
>
The same could be said of birds and reptiles.
Evolution could just as easily accommodate each of these
hypothetical scenarios.
>
Steven J.
"Ronald Dean" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3LLAb.19055$mG....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Matt Silberstein" <matts....@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:vtu6tv876e1qaaebp...@4ax.com...
> > In alt.talk.creationism I read this message from "Ronald Dean"
> > <rd...@bellsouth.net>:
> >
> > >
> > >If it had been found that plants, and reptiles had a totally different
> > >code for
> > >transmission of genetic traits, how would this have falsified
evolution?
> >
> > It would have falsified Common Descent. I think it is Common
> > Descent, more than anything else, that bothers most creationists.
> >
> Even so, I don't see how multiple origins of life would have
> falsified evolution. Wings arose at least four times: eyes forty or
> more, so there would be no reason that life could not have risen
> multiple times. Evolution could have easily adapted to such
> *discoveries* and indeed could be seen as evidence for evolution.
>
separately is that they have quite different modifications of the forelimbs
serving as wings. Similar selective pressures ought to shape similar
adaptions, but they'll work from slightly (or greatly) different starting
points, with different mutations. The structures will be similar in
respects necessary to their similar function ("analogous"), but different in
respects not necessary to their similar functions (not "homologous").
This would apply, even more forcefully, to differences in the genetic code.
Let us suppose (as I think was implied in the original question) that birds,
mammals, amphibians, insects, grasses, etc. all had the same genetic code
(the same correspondence of DNA triplets to amino acids) as they do in our
experience, but snakes and lizards had a completely different genetic code.
That would imply, at the very least, that the evolutionary line leading to
Squamata branched off from that leading to plants and animals *long* before
plants and animals branched off from each other, or even before eukaryotes
and bacteria branced off from each other. Perhaps it would imply that
Squamata represented a completely different abiogenesis event, with no
shared ancestors with birds or grasses.
In that case, though, how would we explain the fact that the Squamata are
animals, much less vertebrates, amniotes, diapsids, etc.? The theory of
evolution predicts that if lizards traced back to a separate abiogenesis
event than birds, they wouldn't be "lizards" as we know them. Separate
origins for different classes would not be a problem for the theory of
evolution. Lineages with completely separate origins that happened to
evolve almost identically would be a coincidence too astonishing to stomach.
Considerable convergence is one thing, but perfect duplication of thousands
of details that aren't necessary for the shared niches is absurd.
Dolphins and ichthyosaurs are both amniotes, shaped by very similar
selective pressures and strongly convergent -- but there's no difficulty
telling one from another. Squid and dolphins, shaped by convergent
evolution from less similar ancestors, are trivially easy to distinguish.
If lizards shared their last common ancestor with birds four billion years
ago, or never had a common ancestor at all, the fact that both fit
anatomically into the "diapsid" branch of the amniote tree would be
incomprehensible. Thus lizards with a genetic code different from that of
birds -- or lizards without DNA at all -- would be a massive problem for
evolutionary theory. Known mechanisms could not explain -- could not, so
far as we know, permit -- such a thing.
>
> > All of the other objections are just to try to oppose the notion
> > that all life on Earth descend from a common ancestral
> > population. It would not falsify, however, the notion that humans
> > and bats and chickens descend from a common ancestral population.
> >
> Of course, and cabbage plants, ginkgo bilob, and sugar cane could have
> descended from a common ancestor that arose from a separate
> source had they had a unique (to plants) genetic code.
>
> The same could be said of birds and reptiles.
>
Plants are different enough from animals that, if *all* plants seemed to
trace back to one origin of life, and all animals and fungi to another, it
would not astonish evolutionists much, if at all. As for birds and reptiles
... well, morphologically, birds are nested in reptiles; they share more
homologies with crocodilians than crocodilians share with lizards and
snakes. Finding that their genes showed no signs of common ancestry would
be only a little bit more shocking that finding that some chickens didn't
share the same genetic code as other chickens.
>
> Evolution could just as easily accommodate each of these
> hypothetical scenarios.
>
Not with anything remotely resembling current evolutionary theory.
>
-- Steven J.
William Hart
"Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dnoAb.2751$ZD6.60...@twister1.starband.net...
I agree that if evolution has occurred then surely bats, birds and
pterosaurs are examples of convergent evolution. No way did one evolve from
the other. One is a mammal, the bird is a bird and well a pterosaur is I
suppose a dinosaur that doesn't look much like a bird. But of course that is
my point. We know that they cannot have evolved from each other and yet they
have convergent features, i.e. wings. My point with all the examples of
convegence here are features which are similar but across different
different parts of the nested hierarchy. I'm struggling to see what *would*
be a violation of the nested hierarchy in your eyes. You say that all these
features don't count, because we know they couldn't have evolved from each
other. Well isn't that my point?
You mention possibilities like birds or fish with mammary glands, or mammals
with feathers. But why would a creator create a mammal and put some feathers
on it? It seems to me unlikely that he would create monsters. The universe
is so orderly and carefully thought out, that I have trouble believing that
he would just shove feathers on mammals to make them fly. As for birds with
mammary glands, I do not understand why that would be a problem. It would be
another example of convergent evolution. They generally have the same
pressures which include the need to tend their young after birth for a long
time. It is conceivable that this could take place under the scheme you
propose. Fish on the other hand, while not having mammary glands, do seem to
have three ossicles. I think they are used for balance not hearing and are
probably quite different, but there are three `ear bones' nevertheless.
Now I still don't understand why birds have a four chambered heart. If I
have understood correctly, mammals are not thought to have evolved from
dinosaurs, but birds are. Mammals are supposed to have evolved from some
`reptile-like' creature, i.e. the synapsids, about the same time dinosaurs
evolved from who knows what....archosaurs or something. It doesn't matter
how I think about this, I can't see how this could have happened the way
they say. Here it seems to me is a very distinctive feature which clearly
crosses your boundaries. Of course then there is the crocodile, but
apparently molecular studies have shown it to actually be closely related to
birds.
>
> You have never responded as to why the existence of mammary glands is
> strongly correlated with having three ear-bones, except to say that the
> Design Committee made it that way, apparently just some peccadillo.
Well in the case of fish this is violated. But if you speak of the hammer
anvil stirrup system, then yes it is correlated well to mammary glands. I'm
afraid any attempt at answering this will be weak. The reason is that in
fact I think God created the mammals as a separate created kind (or probably
many kinds). However I'll mention a few possibilities. Mammals tend to have
young which need care after they are born. This is due to their extensive
development. Mammary glands are a perfectly good solution here. Birds are
similar in some ways I guess. But I can't help but think that the plumage of
birds requires special diets. Also there is the fact that birds have an
extremely high metabolic rate. They need lots of food. I can't imagine birds
surviving very well carrying around heavily laiden mammary glands. As for
the ear bones, well the mammalian inner ear amplifies sound 20x. I can only
imagine that their highly developed ears are so they can recognize the calls
of their mothers or babies since there is such a reliance of the one on the
other. Thus animals which tend their young in the way mammals do should be
expected to be designed in this way. I guess similar things apply to some
birds which perhaps even more so need to recognize their parents from
amongst a wide variety of voices. But birds themselves have unique ears. I
do not know why birds do not have three ear bones. Instead they have
specialised feathers which reflect and guide the sound to the appropriate
place. I guess you have me there, but I have to say that just because I do
not understand why God designed the way he did does not mean that he did
not. There may well be a reason why God did not put three ear bones in the
bird. I can only point to the four chambered heart and say, so the score is
one all.
By the way, the ear is fascinating. This has nothing to do with evolution
per se. But did you know that the ear has specially designed microvilli
which actually amplify the sound coming into the ear. Apparently people have
decided that they probably have some sort of motor mechanism which causes
them to vibrate at the different frequencies they are sensitive to and
actually *actively* amplify sound! A terribly incredible design. The reason
for this is that if it weren't for the amplification the ear sensory organs
would need to be responding to movements smaller than the width of the
hydrogen atom. This would have caused immense problems with background noise
from the nearby atoms as you can imagine. The ear virtually attains the
theoretical maximum efficiency possible.
Now about the supposed `reptile' to mammal evolution. Talk.origins has a big
long splurge about this. But I notice that there is a huge gap between the
last known protomammal where the reptilian jaw bones have become very small
and the first true mammals in the late jurassic (I think). However, probably
after they put that together, a complete true mammal with three ear bones
already in place has been found at the start of the Jurassic! The scientists
who described it (hadrocodium) have decided that it is evidence that mammals
did exist at the time of the dinosaurs (in fact right from the start) but
they were just very small. I guess there is some possiblity of size changes
in mammals via evolution. Looking at the difference between the smallest
breed of dog and the largest one can see that this is not impossible. Of
course if I am right and God created all the early mammals (perhaps not the
placentals) in one go, then that has other implications. But I will wait
until our genetic knowledge is greater before I start spouting those ideas.
It is too early to tell at this point whether those ideas could be correct.
So I'll keep them to myself. At any rate this supposed true mammal there at
the start of the Jurassic does not seem to have phased anyone. It seems to
me that since different animals can continue on for long periods after they
first appear, things like this have no meaning to evolutionists. Also the
various problems with the fact that the reptilian jaw would need to function
all the way through this transition and ears would need to function right
the way through the process of acquiring two new bones can probably be
ignored by people whose area of science doesn't deal with the wholesale
changes to physiology that evolution seems to demand at times. Also the fact
that there is now very little time for that transition to have happened can
probably be explained by some mechanism of high selection pressure. We do
seem to have a magic wand for everything. I guess at least this would
explain why we don't have heaps of fossils documenting the migration of
these bones up into the ear, even though we have ones documenting the
changes of the size of the reptilian jaw bones. My guess is that where truly
new complex features evolve they will always happen suddenly overnight and
conveniently leave no trace in the fossil record to document them.
>
>
> > My problem is that I don't see this hierarchy in the same way as you.
I'm
> > saying that we as humans expertly classify stuff and that stuff can be
put
> > in a nice hierarchy at the general broad level even when it doesn't
exist
> at
> > the next level down.
>
> You are confusing a weak nested hierarchy, such as human design, with a
very
> strong nested hierarchy, such as is found in life. The nested hierarchy of
> life can be verified mechanically. With modern genetics, there is not even
> the slightest question about the nature of the nested hierarchy. Even
broken
> genes and pseudo-genes are carried through the lines-of-descent.
Interestingly however, whales are genetically closer to the hippo than
anything else. That does stuff up some of the supposed transitional fossils
that are cited over there at talk.origins. There is no evidence of any
fossil relationship between hippos or their predecessors and whales.
Also, someone made the point that the fact that there is a nested hierarchy
indicates evolution. I countered by showing that languages have a nested
hierarchy. But languages do not self replicate, they are designed not
naturalistic and yet they have a nested hierarchy. OK so it is a slightly
weaker hierarchy in theory than what would be expected for evolution of
lifeforms. But my whole argument is that this lifeform hierarchy isn't as
strong as people make out.
>
>
> > Take languages. Now not only are these intelligently designed (by humans
I
> > suppose), but they violate the principles of evolution in that some
> > languages have pinched parts of other languages and combined as peoples
> > mixed etc. Evolution cannot in general borrow from other lineages
> (although
> > nowadays plants and eucaryiotic bacteria do that apparently since the
> > hierarchies are all violated in this way, its called horizontal gene
> > transfer, something I can perhaps believe for bacteria, but not for
> plants).
> > But one can still put languages in a nice hierarchy and I have seen
trees
> > for languages. One splits off semitic languages and asiatic languages
and
> so
> > on and so forth.
>
> Yes. Languages form a weak nested hierarchy. By the way, even this weak
> nested hierarchy also demonstrates common descent. Consider the Latin
> languages and how they evolved from the original Latin.
But it is not naturalistic but designed and languages do not self replicate.
Therefore to base evolution entirely on the existence of a nested hierarchy
is fallacious. You need fossil evidence as well, to document that primitive
life forms actually did gradually change into all the forms we have now.
That evidence whilst there in general outline (marine before terrestrial,
fish before amphibians and reptiles (I believe the earliest reptile is known
from the same horizon and locality as the earliest amphibian) before mammals
dinosaurs and birds (all seem to occur at about the same time) is not there
in the detail.
OK so coming up with a comprehensive alternative does prove difficult.
However I take comfort from Steven J Gould's comment that we seem to find
`evolutionary lawns' rather than this continual march of progress. Of course
he only mentions that because he wants his readers to realise that
punctuated equilibrium is the only alternative. However in a lot of ways he
is just supporting what I think is the more likely scenario. God created in
stages. I wouldn't call it progressive creation. I don't see that God
created in multitudes of infinitesimally small stages which mimic what
evolution would have done (that would be pointless and also not supported by
the evidence), but that he created new sets of animals as others became
extinct. The timing of the mass extinctions is important in this. I believe
he was preparing a food chain and setting things up for the eventual crown
of his creation, man. I even believe there are hints of this in the first
two chapters of Genesis.
Of course I can't urge this interpretation of the fossils to the exclusion
of other options at this time. Whilst I hold to this view rather than a
guided evolution because of the fossil evidence and other bits and pieces of
evidence. I admit that the idea that God created everything comes from the
Bible not science, even if I don't know for sure how he did it in detail.
Nevertheless I am happy with the decision to believe the Bible in this
regard and seek to understand from science how God did it. Of course I will
change my mind later if I feel the proponderance of evidence goes the other
way.
>
>
> > Now back to animals. I agree that there are fairly nice boundaries known
> as
> > kingdoms, phyla and even smaller divisions such as mammals which appear
in
> > this hierarchy. The genetic evidence seems to match fairly well with
> these,
> > but then it would since the genetic components are like the words of the
> > language. They should have to be similar to make similar languages.
Design
> > requirements also limit what you do in some cases.
>
> Human design is not limited by the nested hierarchy. If Ford introduces a
> new engine system, it is usually not long before GM will match it. With
> evolution, it is quite apparent that not only does one branch of life not
> copy from another branch, but each branch is totally unaware of what the
> other branch is up to. It's as if GM can't even look under the hood of a
> Ford.
This is similar to Eldgreges study of the `evolution' of the cornet. He
noted that the `nested hierarchy' that was obtained really wasn't the same
as that for the animal kingdom. But I never thought this was a satisfactory
analogy. There is a feature of these examples which is not a feature of
intelligent design or evolution of the species. That is the fact that there
are multiple competing intelligent designers. There is a market that they
must satisfy. In the case of evolution `some' accidental convegence or
parallel evolution is supposed to be possible, but in the case of cars or
cornets if one person grabs the market share with a particular adaption,
then everyone must have that adaption or they will not compete. If these
were evolutionary adaptions the species would just become extinct unless it
could find *another* way of competing or escaping competition. In the case
of a single designer, especially with ultimate intellect. He is unlikely to
steal exactly a competing design precisely at the time it is required to
satisfy market pressures. He may prepare his new animals for when he places
them in his design. But they will have all their own adaptions which make
them complete, fully formed, aesthetic, intricate and pleasing to him. This
looks more like evolution than the car or cornet examples, but there are
ways of telling even evolution and design apart.
But apparently at the same time and place!
> Once "primitive"
> boney organisms are found in the fossil record, they are followed by a
> diversification of boney organisms. Once lunged creatures appear in the
> fossil record, they are followed by a diversification of lunged creatures.
> Once mammals are identified in the fossil record, they are followed by a
> diversification of mammals. This is the nested hierarchy *in time* of
> extinct life.
Again, this broad detail is satisfied by my successive design hypothesis.
>
> Are you suggesting a continuous process of "creation"?
Not quite. Successive but certainly not continuous. There was a reasonably
small number of creative acts.
>
> --------------
> One easy way to see the various development of homologies in evolution is
by
> examining the fossil record. From geology, the Principle of Superposition,
> briefly, that strata above are newer than strata below. This allows the
> *relative* ordering by time of fossils found in the strata.
>
> * New biological forms appear at different times in the fossil record.
That is an almost worthless statement. It merely tells us that everything
did not appear all at once. I do not deny this, nor do I have a problem with
it.
> * All new forms are preceded by a similar form.
Not true. Tell me about the similar forms that preceed sponges, arthropods,
brachiopods, sea lillies, sea anemones, the first fish agnatha, lizards,
deer, giraffe (don't say okape, since the earliest true giraffes that appear
in the fossil record have longer necks than the current ones), primates and
a heap of others. The fossil record is so incomplete there are virtually no
transitions for anything and those that are supposed can in many cases be
disputed with genetic data, by the fact that they occur almost at the same
time or perhaps even later in the fossil record or because they have other
unique features which make them unsuitable as transitions.
> * Any new features will be modification of features existing in the
> preceding form.
>
> This creates a nested hierarchy, a diversification of forms from common
> ancestors. Meanwhile, nuclear physicists are able to use completely
> independent methods to confirm the ages of the strata; and now biochemists
> can confirm the nested hierarchy of genomes.
I read a paper (not a creation science one either) the other day written in
2001. It said that all of the many earliest fossils of a particular type
(can't remember what it was, but it was dinosaurs or something of that kind)
cannot be dated radiometrically except for one lot in Argentina, but must
all be dated by nearby fossils. This concept that people have of dating
things in most cases radiometrically is rubbish. The dates are frequently
way off, so they are discarded and things are dated by index fossils
instead. There possibly are times when you can date things to within +/-1
million years on some nearly absolute scale, but they are extremely rare.
In the case of humans, if you push australopithecines off to the side (as
someone has suggested that we may eventually need to do) then all the
adaptions that they are supposed to have which led to humans must have
developed earlier still or convergently. As far as I am concerned it is more
magic wands to fix something which shouldn't need fixing if it was true. By
the way there really are fossils that are earlier than australopithecus with
more human looking faces and dentition. The question is not about the data,
but about how to interpret it. I choose to ignore it until the evidence is
strong enough to make a case out of. Until then I assume God created man as
a separate creature 50,000 years ago or something (not that I am inspired by
the accuracy of the dating methods involved for small dates like this).
>
> Darwin in the 19th century predicted the existence of such intermediate
> forms. They have been found--repeatedly. More are found everyday.
I don't see the fact that transitionals in the way that they are now defined
is strong enough evidence to make a case out of.
>
>
> > A theory like that can prove anything and I don't accept it.
>
> This is incorrect. The nested hierarchy is a very specific and unique
> pattern. (And we do know of some violations, such as gene transfer in
> bacteria, sexual reproduction within species, hybridization between
closely
> related species, etc. Speciation, in particular, turns out to have some
gray
> areas. However, they do not call into question the overall Theory of
Common
> Descent. Instead, they help confirm it.)
>
> If you find some actual evidence that contradicts common descent, let us
> know.
Evidence that contradicts common descent, easy. Evidence that is accepted as
contradicting common descent, much harder because of the numerous magic
wands out there. All I can say is that the more of these hypotheses that are
added the less robust the theory of evolution becomes. Actually Steven J 's
parallel evolution is slightly more believable than convergent evolution.
The latter is just a name given to things that contradict the theory. The
former at least has a mechanism, even if it hasn't been demonstrated at the
genetic level in many of the cases where it is cited.
>
>
> > To me the
> > evidence points to God having created the first animals in phyla and
> > subphyla and at later stages after things have stablised, inserting more
> > kinds of animals in stages and even causing mass extinctions of animals
at
> > various stages to clear the way for other kinds of animals. That is what
> the
> > evidence suggests to me big time, and I am sticking with it until I find
> any
> > evidence to the contrary. I've said before I'd be just as happy to
accept
> a
> > guided evolution as I would this hypothesis, but I just don't see that
the
> > evidence supports it. I have to go with the evidence. It trumps every
> time.
> >
> > Bill.
> >
> >
>
>
Now I have to compose some answers for Steven J. Damn that man has got a lot
of facts. I can't see how I can answer him properly in the time required
before his posts expire. I might have to do just some of it and in stages.
If it weren't for the fact that the great Steven J Gould had sadly passed
away and the fact that this Steven J often espouses quite different views, I
would suspect they were the same person. It's very hard to argue with an
expert like him, especially when you are not an expert yourself. But I do
appreciate the challenge in that it helps me to focus my reading on relevant
issues which help me to form opinions based on the facts rather than just a
perception of the current concensus or anticoncensus.
Bill.
Matt Silberstein
<rd...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <matts....@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
>news:vtu6tv876e1qaaebp...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.talk.creationism I read this message from "Ronald Dean"
>> <rd...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >
>> >If it had been found that plants, and reptiles had a totally different
>code
>> >for
>> >transmission of genetic traits, how would this have falsified evolution?
>>
>> It would have falsified Common Descent. I think it is Common
>> Descent, more than anything else, that bothers most creationists.
>>
>Even so, I don't see how multiple origins of life would have
>falsified evolution.
What do you mean by "Evolution" then? Clearly it does not mean
Common Descent.
> Wings arose at least four times: eyes forty or
>more, so there would be no reason that life could not have risen
>multiple times. Evolution could have easily adapted to such
>*discoveries* and indeed could be seen as evidence for evolution.
I was quite specific in my answer. Common Descent says that life
as a common origin, multiple origins contradicts that. It is that
simple. How life diversified after that beginning is a different
question. Multiple origins would not falsify the subsequent
diversification via mutation, selection, and drift. If that is
what you mean by "evolution", descent with modification and
natural selection, then we are in agreement. There are, however,
other observations that, if they were made, would falsify that
particular meaning of evolution.
[snip]
Dick C
>
> "Nick Keighley" <nick.k...@marconi.com> wrote in message
> news:8ad2cfb3.0312...@posting.google.com...
>> "William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:<bqms00$2cs$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>...
>> > "Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
>>
>> > > It is a test. The question here is what is meant by "evolution".
>> > > If you mean Common Descent, then finding organisms that don't use
>> > > DNA/RNA would falsify CD.
>> >
>> > That's hilarious. So you suppose that non-life became life and
> eventually
>> > replicated using rna-dna, but you think that a life form which didn't
> use
>> > these would falsify evolution. Love THAT logic.
>>
>> you seemed to miss the Common Descent bit. All life on earth uses
>> DNA/RNA
>> *because* of CD. Non-DNA/RNA life would not be related by CD. Hence
>> falsification. Life that evolved independently would very likely not
>> be
>> DNA/RNA based.
>
> Or a common designer. Your point is what exactly?
Wow, that common designer is pretty powerful. No matter what is shown
to be a potential falsification of the TOE, and yet confirms it, the
common designer just might have done it that way. Of course, the common
designer might have done it some other way to, but for some reason this
designer chose to do it in such a manner that the design fits evolution
to a t. Why is that?
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Dick C
>
> Given that one defining characteristic of any legimate
> scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. But
> there is no one who is capable of actually_designing_
> a test which can falsify evolution.
Gee, Charles Darwin did when he wrote Origins of the Species.
He said that one thing that would falsify his theory was that
if an organism could be found that had something thatexisted solely
for the benefit of other species, and had no benefit to itself, his
theory would be falsified. However, inspite of Al Capp, Shmoo's do not
exist.
Also, Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the earth based upon how fast
it would have cooled to its' present temperature. His calculations gave
an age of about 20 million years, and then he recalculated and came up
with about 100 million years. Far to short of a time for life to have
evolved on earth. However, once radioactivity was discovered, those
calculations were worthless, since radioactivity has kept the home
fires burning hot.
In my experience,
> most evolutionist assert that uncovering a fossilized
> human skull in the precambrian or some such
> passive find would falsify evolution. But this is no
> test.
Why not? It would certainly falsify the age of man, now
wouldn't it? Since the precambrian was over 500 million years
ago, and what could be termed modern man is only about 120,000
years old.
Not in the sense as the testing conducted by
> such great scientist as Louis Pasteur.
I suspect that you do not understand what Pasteur tested and
discovered. And what he falsified.
Nick Keighley
> "Nick Keighley" <nick.k...@marconi.com> wrote in message
> news:8ad2cfb3.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > "William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:<bqms00$2cs$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>...
> > > "Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
> > > > It is a test. The question here is what is meant by "evolution".
> > > > If you mean Common Descent, then finding organisms that don't use
> > > > DNA/RNA would falsify CD.
> > >
> > > That's hilarious. So you suppose that non-life became life and
> > > eventually replicated using rna-dna, but you think that a life form which > > > didn't use these would falsify evolution. Love THAT logic.
> >
> > you seemed to miss the Common Descent bit. All life on earth uses
> > DNA/RNA *because* of CD. Non-DNA/RNA life would not be related by CD.
> > Hence falsification. Life that evolved independently would very likely not
> > be DNA/RNA based.
>
> Or a common designer. Your point is what exactly?
designers don't produce strict hierarchies. ID has to explain the
CD-like
pattern to life. CD follows naturally from evolution. Successful
attacks
on CD undermine evolution.
> You seem to have assumed that RNA was the first molecule to self replicate.
I wasn't assuming anything actually.
> If there was a precursor which could, it would not be based on RNA and DNA
> and so would violate Matt's test but would not violate common descent.
> Evolution not falsified by the test. Please provide another.
>
> What you are proposing only tests whether or not all life came from a common
> ancestral pool *if* evolution, i.e. descent with modification is actually
> correct. It is not a test of evolution as a theory. Yes if another life form
> is found which is not DNA/RNA based, provided it does not satisfy the
> criteria I mentioned, then it would indeed falsify the proposition that all
> life on earth has descended from a common ancestral pool. But would you then
> accept that evolution was not true. I don't think so. You would just say
> that DNA/RNA life evolved and that pretty little pink borbs life evolved
> separately. Not much of a falsification. Also not very useful as a test.
there isn't going to be single test that destroys evolution but a
series.
All life being DNA/RNA based is a strong prop of evolution. Removing
it
wouldn't destroy the theory but remove one strong line of evidence.
There could be single tests that could destroy evolution as a theory
but
they would have to be extraordinarily strong. Eg. copyright notice
found in human genome.
> > > > Now how about this: if you advocate either creation or its
> > > > stalking horse Intelligent Design could you tell me how to
> > > > falsify either of those notions?
> > >
> > > I would expect that a species found on another planet with sufficient
> > > intelligence and the moral capacity to appreciate the glory of the
> > > designer
> > > in the design, but which universally have not conceived of it would be
> > > strong evidence. A designer creates for a purpose and Christians whether
> > > creationists or ID advocates
> >
> > ID is a Christian philosophy? I thought the Designer didn't have to be
> > God?
no response?
<snip>
> Well thanks for clearing all that up and repeating those opinions in case I
> had not already noted that these are the opinions people hold around here.
you seeemed to have problems understanding. I thought if I explained
simply
and clearly you might understand.
> You've added significantly to the debate with your thoughtful response.
> Everyone give Nick a clap.
<smile> <bow> <wave>
> By the way, go and learn some mathematics so you can grasp the science of
> complexity and information theory. Then tell me it is not scientific.
could you give a quick summary? Does complexity theory show that
evolution
is impossible? Does it strongly support ID? ID is not a true theory.
It
proposes no mechanism, makes no observable predictions and is not
falsifiable. Nor is it it particularly parsimonious. You do a nice
line
in sarcasm but seem to have little of substance.
--
Nick Keighley
William Hart
to reply to it in detail or the one further down for quite a while. I am
going on holidays to beautiful Tasmania for 3 weeks and then to New Zealand
for a conference for a week. Thus it will be some time before I have time to
work up a reply. I will however take a copy of the posts and reply at length
when I return. I will start a new thread of essentially the same title, i.e.
was [Re: How Would You Falsify Evolution?]
This one (in another of your messages further down) couldn't wait for a
reply though:
>Now, if you can use "phyla" when you mean "phylum" (above, in the first
part
>of your post), and I didn't rag you over it, you should tolerate me writing
>"mechanism" when I meant "mechanisms." I omitted one letter; you omitted
>two and added one (so I'm two up on you -- NYAH NYAH NYAH!).
Back to you, no returns, triple immunity, no crosses -- NYAH NYAH NYAH!
We are childish. :-) Happy Christmas.
Bill.
"Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:vt5bom6...@corp.supernews.com...
howard hershey
Ronald Dean wrote:
Sure, evolution *the mechanism* could easily accommodate separate
origins. Indeed, if life is found on some other planet, it is quite
likely that that life will have a separate origin from life on the earth
and will have evolved indepedendently.
However, the *fact* is that the evidence clearly points to Common
Descent for current life on this planet. Unless you have some
unpresented evidence that clearly points to separate origins for certain
groups organisms on this planet, you have to go where the evidence
points. And the evidence points to all current life on this planet
having a common origin (although, there may well have been separate
abiogenesis events and the ur-organism, the common ancestor, may well
have been a bit of a mosaic creature made up of the best of several such
events).
smiller
William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>That [fossil] evidence whilst there in general outline ...
>is not there in the detail.
But EVERY TIME, for the last century, that we have been able to
find fossils that let us drill down into the details, what do we see?
>... is the more likely scenario. God created
>in stages.
So again, the actions of your deity just happen to correspond to
what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Sheesh.
Your whole argument is "my deity COULD have done this."
And since the objective evidence for your deity is just about zero,
how can you possibly think this should be part of science? It's
your personal opinion, based on your religious beliefs. Your whole
position is more argument from personal incredulity.
>I admit that the idea that God created everything comes
>from the Bible not science
And since nothing we've yet found indicates that this "God" exists,
it's not part of science. The most parsimonious explanation so
far is that evolution accounts for all the facts we know.
>The fossil record is so incomplete
The early fossil record IS incomplete. True. But that's a god of the
gaps argument, and we both know what's happened to that argument over
the last 200 years.
smiller
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail sent to this io.com account goes directly to /dev/null. To send
me email, please use: s...@millerNOSPAM.name [remove the NOSPAM]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Dave
(smiller) wrote:
> In article <br0m9o$798$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>,
> William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >That [fossil] evidence whilst there in general outline ...
> >is not there in the detail.
>
>But EVERY TIME, for the last century, that we have been able to
>find fossils that let us drill down into the details, what do we see?
>
>
> >... is the more likely scenario. God created
> >in stages.
>
>So again, the actions of your deity just happen to correspond to
>what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Sheesh.
>
>Your whole argument is "my deity COULD have done this."
God created in six literal days.
>And since the objective evidence for your deity is just about zero,
The objective evidence for what you believe, is zero.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"In fact, there is a great deal more to the
creation/evolution controversy than meets the eye,
or rather than meets the carefully cultivated media
stereotype of 'creationists' as Bible quoting know
nothings who refuse to face up to the scientific
evidence. The creationists may be wrong about many
things, but they have at least one very important
point to argue, a point that has been thoroughly
obscured by all the attention paid to Noah's Flood
and other side issues. What science educators
propose to teach as 'evolution' and label it as fact,
is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical
evidence (scientifically proven facts, ed.), but upon
a highly controversial philosophical presupposition.
The controversy over evolution is therefore not going
to go away as people become better educated on the
subject. On the contrary, the more people learn
about the philosophical content of what scientists
are calling the 'fact of evolution', the less they
are going to like it." - Philip E. Johnson, Evolution
as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism
eyelessgame
> Given that one defining characteristic of any legimate
> scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. But
> there is no one who is capable of actually_designing_
> most evolutionist assert that uncovering a fossilized
> human skull in the precambrian or some such
> passive find would falsify evolution. But this is no
> such great scientist as Louis Pasteur.
You have a poor understanding of science if you don't think the
discovery of a fossil counts as a test. Every *observation* is a
test. Every *search* for a fossil is a test. Tests don't have to
involve a laboratory; observation of fossils and fossil-bearing
strata, like any other observation -- starlight, molecular chemistry,
DNA, igneous rock isotopes, primate behavior, or any other field -- is
a test, and potentially can provide falsification evidence for some
scientific theory.
"Evolution" means a lot of things. "Evolution" arguably covers as
much ground as "physics". How do you falsify physics? Answer: you
don't, not by a single observation; all you can do it revise small or
arcane bits of it at a time, because the current model is built up as
a result of a *huge* number of congruent observations.
You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
happens -- it'd be like trying to falsifying "gravity occurs" (yet the
study of gravity is certainly a science). At most, you could falsify
"these are the explanations for how evolution occurs". You'd do that
by demonstrating, for example, that changes to DNA don't propagate in
all circumstances -- again, we've *seen* mutations propagate in at
least some circumstances, so at worst the current mechanisms are an
incomplete explanation.
You could falsify the current models of common descent. Easily, in
fact. Find a fossilized griffon -- it would at the least throw the
tree of common descent into disarray. (A mermaid, or a centaur, would
do the same. I like griffons because they don't involve human parts
and because they cross classes: we shouldn't see bird/mammal
intermediates in the fossil record, and we don't. If we did, much of
what we think we know about the vertebrate sequence of common descent
would be known to be wrong.)
You can demonstrate pieces of evolutionary theory are incomplete --
i.e. correct only to the extent we've so far measured, but ultimately
inaccurate for some underlying reason. Einstein showed Newton's
physics was incomplete, for example, yet Newton's physics is still
"correct" for relatively moderate masses and relatively low
velocities. One could envision some sort of deeper understanding of
the properties of inheritance that demonstrated the simple models of
DNA transmission of traits to be incorrect for sufficiently complex
traits. The current model of DNA transmission of traits would still
be known to be "good enough" for the traits it's been shown to
explain, but we could theoretically replace it with some more subtle
better-understood mechanism. (It's unlikely, but one could imagine
it.)
Evolution encompasses the inheritance of characteristics (seen it),
the preservation of inherited characteristics better suited to the
environment (seen it), speciation of isolated populations given
sufficient time and differing environmental pressure (again, seen it),
and common descent (supported by overwhelming amounts of multiple
lines of evidence -- but one could easily envision a discovery, i.e.
test, that demonstrated it to be an incomplete answer.)
What you really want isn't for (the current understanding of)
'evolution' to be demonstrated to be inaccurate. What you want is
some test result such that evolution would be replaced by *your
creation story*, as opposed to being replaced by a slightly different
description of evolution. That ain't gonna happen. We don't
reconsider our rejection of the Zeus theory of thunder every time we
make a new discovery in meteorology that revises our understanding of
storms.
eyelessgame
David Jensen
wrote in <3dc9tv8nkbb117k60...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:01:13 -0600, smi...@io.com
>(smiller) wrote:
>
>> In article <br0m9o$798$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>,
>> William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> >That [fossil] evidence whilst there in general outline ...
>> >is not there in the detail.
>>
>>But EVERY TIME, for the last century, that we have been able to
>>find fossils that let us drill down into the details, what do we see?
>>
>>
>> >... is the more likely scenario. God created
>> >in stages.
>>
>>So again, the actions of your deity just happen to correspond to
>>what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Sheesh.
>>
>>Your whole argument is "my deity COULD have done this."
>
>God created in six literal days.
This assertion is unsupported by any evidence. The story as told in
Genesis is known to be scientifically wrong.
>>And since the objective evidence for your deity is just about zero,
>
>The objective evidence for what you believe, is zero.
The objective evidence for scientific discoveries is greater than zero.
Dave Oldridge
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:01:13 -0600, smi...@io.com
> (smiller) wrote:
>
>> In article <br0m9o$798$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>,
>> William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> >That [fossil] evidence whilst there in general outline ...
>> >is not there in the detail.
>>
>>But EVERY TIME, for the last century, that we have been able to
>>find fossils that let us drill down into the details, what do we see?
>>
>>
>> >... is the more likely scenario. God created
>> >in stages.
>>
>>So again, the actions of your deity just happen to correspond to
>>what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Sheesh.
>>
>>Your whole argument is "my deity COULD have done this."
>
> God created in six literal days.
Except the physical evidence of both the heavens and the earth say
otherwise. Are you actually claiming that God deceived us with physical
evidence and then put the truth in the Bible?
>>And since the objective evidence for your deity is just about zero,
>
> The objective evidence for what you believe, is zero.
Wrong. There is literally tons of it, everywhere.
Why do creationists persist in lying in God's name?
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Zachriel
Pterosaurs are probably not dinosaurs, though they do share a common
ancestor.
> But of course that is
> my point. We know that they cannot have evolved from each other and yet
they
> have convergent features, i.e. wings.
Well, if your entire knowledge of physiology were that they have wings, then
I can see why you might be confused. But certainly a closer look reveals the
profound differences, that they are in fact different solutions to the same
problem.
> My point with all the examples of
> convegence here are features which are similar but across different
> different parts of the nested hierarchy. I'm struggling to see what
*would*
> be a violation of the nested hierarchy in your eyes.
A centaur, a pegasus, a griffin.
A mammal with bird-feathers. A bird with mammaries. A fish with an avian
heart.
A bacteria that produces distinctly human insulin.
If you ever see an ape with fish-gills, then you'll know that it was
designed (probably by humans).
> You say that all these
> features don't count, because we know they couldn't have evolved from each
> other. Well isn't that my point?
You have already made your decision, and are trying very hard to make the
facts square with your prejudice. Try the scientific method instead.
Hypothesis, Prediction, Observation, Validation, Repeat.
>
> You mention possibilities like birds or fish with mammary glands, or
mammals
> with feathers. But why would a creator create a mammal and put some
feathers
> on it? It seems to me unlikely that he would create monsters.
You only call them "monsters", but an ostrich with hair, or a mammal with
feathers for warmth and a little extra lift when running for cover doesn't
have to be monster. Is a T.Rex a monster by your definition? A platypus?
Basically, you are defining a "monster" to be anything you don't understand
or accept, which in this case, certainly means anything which violates the
nested-hierarchy. In any case, there are thousands of data points for the
nested-hierarchy of homologies.
> The universe
> is so orderly and carefully thought out, that I have trouble believing
that
> he would just shove feathers on mammals to make them fly.
That is called argument from incredulity. Let's be specific. New species are
being found everyday.
* Prediction from the Theory of Evolution: any new species found will fit
the nested hierarchy.
* Prediction from Creationism: There is no reason that the Creator would be
limited by a nested hierarchy, and wouldn't be able or willing to borrow
across lineages. Human designers are not so limited. So what is the
prediction? That new species may or may not fit the nested hierarchy.
The only way to distinguish the two predictions is to find a new species
that violates the nested hierarchy. Let us know when you have evidence,
rather than simply having "trouble believing."
> As for birds with
> mammary glands, I do not understand why that would be a problem. It would
be
> another example of convergent evolution. They generally have the same
> pressures which include the need to tend their young after birth for a
long
> time. It is conceivable that this could take place under the scheme you
> propose. Fish on the other hand, while not having mammary glands, do seem
to
> have three ossicles. I think they are used for balance not hearing and are
> probably quite different, but there are three `ear bones' nevertheless.
>
> Now I still don't understand why birds have a four chambered heart.
Birds have a higher energy requirement even than mammals. In fact, the avian
heart is distinctly different than the mammalian heart.
> If I
> have understood correctly, mammals are not thought to have evolved from
> dinosaurs, but birds are. Mammals are supposed to have evolved from some
> `reptile-like' creature, i.e. the synapsids, about the same time dinosaurs
> evolved from who knows what....archosaurs or something. It doesn't matter
> how I think about this, I can't see how this could have happened the way
> they say. Here it seems to me is a very distinctive feature which clearly
> crosses your boundaries. Of course then there is the crocodile, but
> apparently molecular studies have shown it to actually be closely related
to
> birds.
>
> >
> > You have never responded as to why the existence of mammary glands is
> > strongly correlated with having three ear-bones, except to say that the
> > Design Committee made it that way, apparently just some peccadillo.
>
> Well in the case of fish this is violated.
Mammaries implies three ear-bones. You are consciously stretching the facts
to cover your prejudice.
> But if you speak of the hammer
> anvil stirrup system, then yes it is correlated well to mammary glands.
I'm
> afraid any attempt at answering this will be weak. The reason is that in
> fact I think God created the mammals as a separate created kind (or
probably
> many kinds). However I'll mention a few possibilities. Mammals tend to
have
> young which need care after they are born. This is due to their extensive
> development. Mammary glands are a perfectly good solution here.
And apparently, three ear-bones? Come on. There is no reason in design to
not mix and match parts. There are many cases where mixing and matching
would be appropriate. Consider adding gills to whales.
We're right back where we started. It looks like common descent. It quacks
like common descent. We can make valid predictions based on the hypothesis
of common descent. The only way it looks designed is if it was designed to
look like common descent.
> Birds are
> similar in some ways I guess. But I can't help but think that the plumage
of
> birds requires special diets. Also there is the fact that birds have an
> extremely high metabolic rate. They need lots of food. I can't imagine
birds
> surviving very well carrying around heavily laiden mammary glands.
Not all birds fly.
Excellent! Now, can you find similarities between this design and the ears
of dogs or cats? Differences? And what of the similarities and differences
with reptiles and birds? Now trace similarities in their hearts, their
blood, their genes. All form a nested hierarchy.
> The reason
> for this is that if it weren't for the amplification the ear sensory
organs
> would need to be responding to movements smaller than the width of the
> hydrogen atom. This would have caused immense problems with background
noise
> from the nearby atoms as you can imagine. The ear virtually attains the
> theoretical maximum efficiency possible.
Let's venture a guess. Ear design forms a nested hierachy that matches the
overall nested hierarchy in other respects. In other words, various aspects
of the ear are shared by closely related species.
The ear, the eyes, the lungs, the skeletons, all affirm the same nested
hierarchy of homologies.
No we don't have to explain every single transition in the history of life.
The vast majority of mammalian traits precede mammals in the fossil record.
This includes bones, spinal cords, heads, one mouth, lungs, four legs, two
eyes.
At one time, there was life, but no bones. Then there were boney creatures,
which were fruitful and diversified.
At one time, there was life, but no lungs. Then there were lunged creatures,
which were fruitful and diversified.
At one time, there was life, but no quadrapeds. Then there were quadrapeds,
which were fruitful and diversified.
At one time, there was life, but no mammary glands. Then there were mammals,
which were fruitful and diversified.
Each of these seminal events were at different times in the fossil record.
This is the nested hierarchy in time. Genetics strongly confirms the nested
hierarchy.
> My guess is that where truly
> new complex features evolve they will always happen suddenly overnight and
> conveniently leave no trace in the fossil record to document them.
This is always your complaint. We don't know everything, so we can't know
anything. The fact that we have found thousands of fossils, and that they
all confirm the nested hierarchy is very strong evidence.
Prediction: Any new species found, whether extant or extinct, will conform
to the nested-hierarchy. When you find evidence which is contrary to this
nested-hierarchy of homologies, then you might have a point.
> > > My problem is that I don't see this hierarchy in the same way as you.
> I'm
> > > saying that we as humans expertly classify stuff and that stuff can be
> put
> > > in a nice hierarchy at the general broad level even when it doesn't
> exist
> > at
> > > the next level down.
> >
> > You are confusing a weak nested hierarchy, such as human design, with a
> very
> > strong nested hierarchy, such as is found in life. The nested hierarchy
of
> > life can be verified mechanically. With modern genetics, there is not
even
> > the slightest question about the nature of the nested hierarchy. Even
> broken
> > genes and pseudo-genes are carried through the lines-of-descent.
>
> Interestingly however, whales are genetically closer to the hippo than
> anything else. That does stuff up some of the supposed transitional
fossils
> that are cited over there at talk.origins. There is no evidence of any
> fossil relationship between hippos or their predecessors and whales.
Our knowledge is constantly being refined. So? We know that whales are
descendents of mammals. It has always been a question as to which mammals.
> Also, someone made the point that the fact that there is a nested
hierarchy
> indicates evolution. I countered by showing that languages have a nested
> hierarchy. But languages do not self replicate, they are designed not
> naturalistic and yet they have a nested hierarchy.
Languages are not designed.
> OK so it is a slightly
> weaker hierarchy in theory than what would be expected for evolution of
> lifeforms. But my whole argument is that this lifeform hierarchy isn't as
> strong as people make out.
You are confused on this point. Steve J made a very good post on this issue.
The more closely you look at the evidence, the stronger the nested
hierarchy.
Remember, the only reason you have been able to come up with for the
correlation between mammary glands and three ear-bones is the designer just
felt like it.
> > > Take languages. Now not only are these intelligently designed (by
humans
> I
> > > suppose), but they violate the principles of evolution in that some
> > > languages have pinched parts of other languages and combined as
peoples
> > > mixed etc. Evolution cannot in general borrow from other lineages
> > (although
> > > nowadays plants and eucaryiotic bacteria do that apparently since the
> > > hierarchies are all violated in this way, its called horizontal gene
> > > transfer, something I can perhaps believe for bacteria, but not for
> > plants).
> > > But one can still put languages in a nice hierarchy and I have seen
> trees
> > > for languages. One splits off semitic languages and asiatic languages
> and
> > so
> > > on and so forth.
> >
> > Yes. Languages form a weak nested hierarchy. By the way, even this weak
> > nested hierarchy also demonstrates common descent. Consider the Latin
> > languages and how they evolved from the original Latin.
>
> But it is not naturalistic but designed and languages do not self
replicate.
Languages are not designed. Nevertheless, the nested hierarchy of languages
implies common descent, which can be verified by other means.
> Therefore to base evolution entirely on the existence of a nested
hierarchy
> is fallacious.
This is incorrect, unless you limit the creator to being less than mere
human design.
> You need fossil evidence as well, to document that primitive
> life forms actually did gradually change into all the forms we have now.
We don't need it, but we have it.
> That evidence whilst there in general outline (marine before terrestrial,
> fish before amphibians and reptiles (I believe the earliest reptile is
known
> from the same horizon and locality as the earliest amphibian) before
mammals
> dinosaurs and birds (all seem to occur at about the same time) is not
there
> in the detail.
The general outline, as you call it, confirms the nested hierarchy.
>
> OK so coming up with a comprehensive alternative does prove difficult.
> However I take comfort from Steven J Gould's comment that we seem to find
> `evolutionary lawns' rather than this continual march of progress.
So? That just means the nested hierarchy has more branches at the species
level than previously believed.
> Of course
> he only mentions that because he wants his readers to realise that
> punctuated equilibrium is the only alternative. However in a lot of ways
he
> is just supporting what I think is the more likely scenario. God created
in
> stages. I wouldn't call it progressive creation. I don't see that God
> created in multitudes of infinitesimally small stages which mimic what
> evolution would have done (that would be pointless and also not supported
by
> the evidence), but that he created new sets of animals as others became
> extinct.
Well, at least that is a testable hypothesis. Unfortunately, it doesn't
reflect the data. All the features of mammals can be traced to ancestor
species. In other words, at the demise of the dinosaurs, God didn't start
from stratch. Each line-of-descent was preserved.
And apparently always derivations of the nested hierarchy. It is more like
having a gazillion designers, all working independently, each solving their
various problems independently, never sharing notes, or even looking at the
other design options available.
> This
> looks more like evolution than the car or cornet examples, but there are
> ways of telling even evolution and design apart.
Yes, design repeatedly violates the nested hierarchy.
Now that's quite interesting. Not scientific, but interesting. Please
analyse your thought-processes. You are putting God into a very small and
rapidly dwindling gap.
Joe Blow
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:01:13 -0600, smi...@io.com
> (smiller) wrote:
>
> > In article <br0m9o$798$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>,
> > William Hart <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > >That [fossil] evidence whilst there in general outline ...
> > >is not there in the detail.
> >
> >But EVERY TIME, for the last century, that we have been able to
> >find fossils that let us drill down into the details, what do we see?
> >
> >
> > >... is the more likely scenario. God created
> > >in stages.
> >
> >So again, the actions of your deity just happen to correspond to
> >what we would expect to see if evolution were true. Sheesh.
> >
> >Your whole argument is "my deity COULD have done this."
>
> God created in six literal days.
A religious statement. Creationism requires some scientific observations
before it can reach this conclusion. Do you have any?
> >And since the objective evidence for your deity is just about zero,
>
> The objective evidence for what you believe, is zero.
Except for the centuries of fossil discoveries and the genetic data
that support the hierarchy of living organisms which began here on
earth 3 billion years ago. The evidence supports common descent.
Joe
Zachriel
<snipped>
>
> Evidence that contradicts common descent, easy. Evidence that is accepted
as
> contradicting common descent, much harder because of the numerous magic
> wands out there.
You need to understand the nested hierarchy. Consider another example: the
inheritance of the Y-chromosome in species with heterozygous males. You have
your father's Y-chromosome who has his father's chromosome, who has his
father's, and his fathers' before him (with mutation). There is no mixing by
mating of the Y-chromosome. It is inherited only from father to son. And it
forms a nested hierarchy.
We can track the Y-chromosome back in time. When a specific gene is changed
during replication, we can see this changed gene passed from generation to
generation. If your father has a trait or mutation or pseudo-gene or viral
insert, and if you are male, you inherit the allele, and then pass it on to
your sons. This is *observed* inheritance, and *observed* evolution.
Regardless of your feelings in the matter, we can determine the number of
generations that separate each male of us from our brothers, and how long
ago lived each of our common male ancestors. (The same can be done with
female mitochondria.)
This is the exact same technology which allows us to determine genetic
relationships between species.
Frank Reichenbacher
>
> "Nick Keighley" <nick.k...@marconi.com> wrote in message
> news:8ad2cfb3.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > "William Hart" <wb_...@maths.nospam.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:<bqms00$2cs$1...@au-nws-0001.flow.com.au>...
> > > "Matt Silberstein" <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
> >
> > > > It is a test. The question here is what is meant by "evolution".
> > > > If you mean Common Descent, then finding organisms that don't use
> > > > DNA/RNA would falsify CD.
> > >
> > > That's hilarious. So you suppose that non-life became life and
> eventually
> > > replicated using rna-dna, but you think that a life form which didn't
> use
> > > these would falsify evolution. Love THAT logic.
> >
> > you seemed to miss the Common Descent bit. All life on earth uses
> > DNA/RNA
> > *because* of CD. Non-DNA/RNA life would not be related by CD. Hence
> > falsification. Life that evolved independently would very likely not
> > be
> > DNA/RNA based.
>
> Or a common designer. Your point is what exactly?
You mean a designer which chose, for unknowable reasons, to create in such a
manner as to mimic natural processes acting on raw materials according to
their physical properties.
>
> You seem to have assumed that RNA was the first molecule to self
replicate.
I don't see that he made that assumption at all. RNA as the precursor to
life is the best available theory today, but it is far from certain.
> If there was a precursor which could, it would not be based on RNA and DNA
> and so would violate Matt's test but would not violate common descent.
> Evolution not falsified by the test. Please provide another.
Somehow, I do not believe that there is a test which would satisfy you. Not
that there isn't such a creature, just that there isn't one that would
satisfy you. This is a symptom of the standard creationist paranoia -- all
of science is united in a common conspiracy to prop up evolution and deny
God his rightful place over man.
I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
It's funny if you think about it, you know. Here we are, supporters of
evolution, some, like me have even done research and published in
evolutionary biology, trying to convince you, an enemy of empiricism and the
naturalistic method, that there are ways to test whether the theoretical
basis for our science is sound -- and we can't do it! How ironic.
>
> What you are proposing only tests whether or not all life came from a
common
> ancestral pool *if* evolution, i.e. descent with modification is actually
> correct. It is not a test of evolution as a theory.
Evolution as a theory, which teaches that all living organisms derived from
one or a very few common ancestors.
Yes if another life form
> is found which is not DNA/RNA based, provided it does not satisfy the
> criteria I mentioned, then it would indeed falsify the proposition that
all
> life on earth has descended from a common ancestral pool. But would you
then
> accept that evolution was not true. I don't think so. You would just say
> that DNA/RNA life evolved and that pretty little pink borbs life evolved
> separately.
Standard whinge: "You're all aganist me!"
> Not much of a falsification. Also not very useful as a test.
Like I said, there aren't any tests that could satisfy you.
<sticks fingers in ears>
Blah, blah, blah! Goway lemme 'lone! I don't believe you, I never will,
neener, neener, neener!
</sticks fingers in ears>
>
> By the way, go and learn some mathematics so you can grasp the science of
> complexity and information theory. Then tell me it is not scientific.
I didn't follow that part of your thread, but I would argue that whether the
so-called 'science of complexity' (whatever that is) and information theory,
are or are not science, has nothing to do with the falsifiability of the
theory of evolution.
Frank
Pastor Dave
Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
>numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
>information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
>block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
>the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
>evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
there is no nested hierarchy.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said
He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11).
Zachriel
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
> >numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
> >information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
> >block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
> >the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
> >evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
> there is no nested hierarchy.
Whoa! Explain how you can reject the nested hierarchy. We can take the
genomes from various species and put them in a computer, and can identify
the nested-hierarchy mechanically. This is no longer an issue in science.
Pastor Dave
(eyelessgame) wrote:
>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
>happens
You have not watched one kind come from another.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
The real problem with creationism is that
our governments don't have the will to
prosecute the offenders (there are more
troublesome criminals around for one thing)
and our churches have lost the will to combat
heresies. - Dave Oldridge
David Jensen
wrote in <vmgbtvg8e9sog4ied...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
>Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
>>numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
>>information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
>>block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
>>the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
>>evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>
>Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
>there is no nested hierarchy.
That is a flat out lie.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-...@minister.com> wrote in message
news:vmgbtvg8e9sog4ied...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
> >numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
> >information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
> >block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
> >the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
> >evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
> there is no nested hierarchy.
<sticks fingers in ears>
Blah! Blah! Blah! I don't believe you, I never will! Neener, neener, neener!
</sticks fingers in ears>
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
> >numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
> >information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
> >block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
> >the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
> >evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
> there is no nested hierarchy.
Ohio State University:
http://catalog.oregonstate.edu/MajorDetail.aspx?major=620&college=08
"HSTS 415. *Theory of Evolution and Foundation of Modern Biology (3)"
You could get three semester hours for this Dave.
From the American Geological Institute:
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/foreword.html
"Indeed, evolution forms the foundation of modern biology and
paleontology..."
City University of New York:
http://faculty.lagcc.cuny.edu/jmcphee/SCB201.html
"General Biology is an enormous field. During this first semester we will
discuss those areas which are the foundation of Modern Biology. These
include Cytology, Energetics, Molecular Biology, Genetics and Evolution."
Oregon State University:
http://biology.science.oregonstate.edu/biominor.pdf
"HSTS 415 Theory of Evolution and Foundation of Modern Biology, Junior
standing F 3"
You could be a Junior! Maybe you should think about a few courses in
Continuing Education at a local college Dave.
From the Edinburgh Zoo:
http://www.edinburghzoo.org.uk/education/howanimalsevolve.htm
"The theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology (and much
beyond) and an understanding of its concepts is essential to budding
biologists (to everyone, some would argue!)."
From the University of Alaska at Fairbanks (item #6 in the list of major
subjects at the university science library):
http://www.uaf.edu/library/biosciences/subject.html
"6. Evolution (the foundation of modern biology, biotechnology and
biomedicine)"
From McGraw Hill Publishing Co., Peter H. Raven & George Johnson, Biology,
4th edition, Chapter 1:
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/rjbiology/chapteroverviews/ch1over.html
"We begin our study of biology by examining the theory of evolution by
natural selection-what it says, the evidence on which Darwin based his
theory, and how the theory has withstood the test of time. We start with
this theory because it forms the foundation of modern biology. "
From the University of Colorado:
http://www.colorado.edu/geolsci/courses/GEOL1020-3/syllabus.pdf
"Evolution, simply defined as 'change through time,' is one of the
fundamental underlying concepts of
modern science; it forms the foundation of modern biology and paleontology."
Should I continue?
*Scientists* believe that the theory of evolution is one of, if not the one
foundation of modern biology. Nobody cares what crackpots like you have to
say about it.
There is no nested hierarchy, huh? What do we do then, with all of the data
on genomic DNA we've been collecting which illustrates, in near-perfect
conformity with previous studies based on morphology, the predicted
relationships of organisms?
Frank
Dave Oldridge
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
>>numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
>>information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious
stumbling
>>block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not
mirrored
>>the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
>>evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is
today.
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
> there is no nested hierarchy.
Why do you lie about these matters? Did you know that God forbids such
behaviour?
Romans 13:9
Dave Oldridge
> On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
> (eyelessgame) wrote:
>
>
>>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
>>happens
>
> You have not watched one kind come from another.
Moreover, the genetic evidence clearly shows that chimps and humans descend
from a common ancestor. Are chimps and humans the same kind?
Dave Oldridge
> On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
> (eyelessgame) wrote:
>
>
>>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
>>happens
>
> You have not watched one kind come from another.
But we have, we have seen the hairy kind and the bald kind of fruit flies
emerge from the ordinary kind. We can even provoke this speciation in the
lab by selection alone.
Seppo Pietikainen
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
>>numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
>>information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
>>block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
>>the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
>>evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
> there is no nested hierarchy.
>
>
ROTFL!
Assertion from ignorance does not quite cut it!
Try again.
Seppo P.
Seppo Pietikainen
> On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
> (eyelessgame) wrote:
>
>
>
>>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
>>happens
>
>
> You have not watched one kind come from another.
>
>
Did you watch the "creation" occur, "pastor" Dave?
(Whatever the hell a "kind" is supposed to mean?)
Seppo P.
Joe Blow
> On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
> (eyelessgame) wrote:
>
>
> >You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
> >happens
>
> You have not watched one kind come from another.
I watched a green light come from a red one just this morning down
at the corner. Is that the "kind" you mean?
Joe
Joe Blow
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
> >numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
> >information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
> >block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
> >the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
> >evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
> there is no nested hierarchy.
You don't know much about biology do you?
Joe
Adam Marczyk
> On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
> (eyelessgame) wrote:
>
>
>> You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
>> happens
>
> You have not watched one kind come from another.
You have to define "kind" in an objective and appropriately rigorous manner
before you can use that argument.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Marczyk
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
>> numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
>> information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
>> block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not
>> mirrored the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall
>> scope, evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it
>> is today.
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
No, evolution is. But common descent is one of the key parts of the modern
theory of evolution.
> there is no nested hierarchy.
Dave, this would be like if I said to you "There is no Bible." What do you
hope to gain by making such patently absurd claims?
Steven J.
> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
> >numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
> >information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
> >block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
> >the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
> >evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>
> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
> there is no nested hierarchy.
>
deny? What would a nested hierarchy be, if it existed? Why do you believe
it does not exist?
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
> "As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
> to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
> thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
> before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
>
> In the beginning, God created...
>
> And He did it in six days and said
> He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11).
>
Andrew
> Pastor Dave <nospam-...@minister.com> wrote in
> news:q6gbtvkuevr3jrffk...@4ax.com:
>
> > On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
> > (eyelessgame) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
> >>happens
> >
> > You have not watched one kind come from another.
>
> But we have, we have seen the hairy kind and the bald kind of fruit flies
> emerge from the ordinary kind. We can even provoke this speciation in the
> lab by selection alone.
Aaaah, but of course, that won't be a separate "kind" in "Pastor"
Dave's dictionary. His use of the word "kind" is merely to provide a
moving target that can be adjusted to promote creationist lies. For
example, the commonly accepted definition of macroevolution as
"evolution at or above the level of species" becomes "evolution
between kinds" in Dave's book. This allows him to peddle his
ridiculous falsehoods regarding evidence for macroevolution.
I invite "Pastor" Dave to explain his lack of consistency regarding
his definition of a kind. For example, "Pastor" Dave has, in previous
posts, grouped the *entire* plant kingdom into one kind! However, for
some reason the animal kingdom is not treated the same?? Pastor Dave
has grouped all birds into a kind (no doubt so he can claim that
archaeopteryx is not a transitional), but he doesn't come up with a
mammal kind, or even a primate kind. No, humans simply *must* be a
whole kind unto themselves or "Pastor" Dave's world will fall apart.
"Pastor" Dave, please provide us with a basic list of kinds that you
feel evolution cannot occur between. I would be interested to see what
other quirks show up in your use of this undefined term. To get you
started I have a couple of trains of thought:
1) If plants are all one kind (as you have claimed) I presume you have
no problems with, say, daisies and redwoods sharing a common ancestor?
So, would you would define the evolution of such wildly-differing
plants as "microevolution"??
2) If birds are all one kind, what is the specific genetic barrier
that forces us to reject all the evidence that modern birds evolved
from ancient reptiles? What are we to make of that, rather famous,
bird/reptile transitional fossil that gets all creationists in such a
dander?
Actually, while you're at it, would you be so good as to define the
word "kind" for us in a way that will clear up its ambiguity in
scientific circles?
Andrew
Dave Oldridge
news:27eaec6.03121...@posting.google.com:
> Dave Oldridge <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns944C469031749...@24.69.255.211>...
>> Pastor Dave <nospam-...@minister.com> wrote in
>> news:q6gbtvkuevr3jrffk...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
>> > (eyelessgame) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as
>> >>it happens
>> >
>> > You have not watched one kind come from another.
>>
>> But we have, we have seen the hairy kind and the bald kind of fruit
>> flies emerge from the ordinary kind. We can even provoke this
>> speciation in the lab by selection alone.
>
> Aaaah, but of course, that won't be a separate "kind" in "Pastor"
> Dave's dictionary. His use of the word "kind" is merely to provide a
> moving target that can be adjusted to promote creationist lies. For
Yes, but it's up to him to PROVE me wrong, not just make an assertion.
To do that, he has to provide a definition of "kind" that we can then use
to examine his claim further. I only chose to give one example, there
are others.
> example, the commonly accepted definition of macroevolution as
> "evolution at or above the level of species" becomes "evolution
> between kinds" in Dave's book. This allows him to peddle his
> ridiculous falsehoods regarding evidence for macroevolution.
Of course. The "Pastor" is an habitual sinner, bearing false witness on
this issue at every opportunity. He is also totally, and arrogantly
unrepentant. I would not want to be him on that day when he meets his
Maker.
> I invite "Pastor" Dave to explain his lack of consistency regarding
> his definition of a kind. For example, "Pastor" Dave has, in previous
> posts, grouped the *entire* plant kingdom into one kind! However, for
> some reason the animal kingdom is not treated the same?? Pastor Dave
> has grouped all birds into a kind (no doubt so he can claim that
> archaeopteryx is not a transitional), but he doesn't come up with a
> mammal kind, or even a primate kind. No, humans simply *must* be a
> whole kind unto themselves or "Pastor" Dave's world will fall apart.
>
> "Pastor" Dave, please provide us with a basic list of kinds that you
> feel evolution cannot occur between. I would be interested to see what
> other quirks show up in your use of this undefined term. To get you
> started I have a couple of trains of thought:
>
> 1) If plants are all one kind (as you have claimed) I presume you have
> no problems with, say, daisies and redwoods sharing a common ancestor?
> So, would you would define the evolution of such wildly-differing
> plants as "microevolution"??
> 2) If birds are all one kind, what is the specific genetic barrier
> that forces us to reject all the evidence that modern birds evolved
> from ancient reptiles? What are we to make of that, rather famous,
> bird/reptile transitional fossil that gets all creationists in such a
> dander?
>
> Actually, while you're at it, would you be so good as to define the
> word "kind" for us in a way that will clear up its ambiguity in
> scientific circles?
I doubt he will even answer either of us. I know he has ME blocked (or
is ignoring me which amounts to the same thing) on the mistaken theory
that if he does so I will go away. (I will not. I will continue to
expose his falsehoods whenever I catch him uttering them).
eyelessgame
> On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
> (eyelessgame) wrote:
>
>
> >You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
> >happens
>
> You have not watched one kind come from another.
>
populations of organisms mutually similar and sufficiently diverse
such that no directly-observed speciation event to date has produced
an organism belonging to a different kind." We will never ever
*ever* see one kind come from another.
If you disagree with that definition, kindly post yours. Be warned
that you'll have to keep revising it over time, as we keep watching
evolution occur.
eyelessgame
Pastor Dave
<s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
>> (eyelessgame) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
>>>happens
>>
>>
>> You have not watched one kind come from another.
>>
>>
>
>Did you watch the "creation" occur, "pastor" Dave?
No, I haven't, so that means we're even. You can't
seem to comprehend that though.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Pastor Dave
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam-...@minister.com> wrote in message
>news:vmgbtvg8e9sog4ied...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
>> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
>> >numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
>> >information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
>> >block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not mirrored
>> >the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall scope,
>> >evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it is today.
>>
>> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
>> there is no nested hierarchy.
>>
>Could you define this thing, "nested hierarchy," the existence of which you
>deny? What would a nested hierarchy be, if it existed? Why do you believe
>it does not exist?
Why wouldn't you ask the person who claimed it's there,
to define it? Oh, never mind, I know why.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
Pastor Dave
<ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Pastor Dave <nospam-...@minister.com> wrote in message
>news:vmgbtvg8e9sog4ied...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:21:05 -0700, "Frank
>> Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I can assure you that had it turned out that living organisms exhibited
>>> numerous radically different mechanisms for transmitting heritable
>>> information, evolution theorists would have run into a serious stumbling
>>> block. Even worse, had the biochemical basis for inheritance not
>>> mirrored the nested hierarchy of life, in detail as well as in overall
>>> scope, evolution would not today be the foundation of biology that it
>>> is today.
>>
>> Common descent is not the foundation of biology and
>
>No, evolution is. But common descent is one of the key parts of the modern
>theory of evolution.
And has never been demonstrated.
>> there is no nested hierarchy.
>
>Dave, this would be like if I said to you "There is no Bible." What do you
>hope to gain by making such patently absurd claims?
Absurd to you, because you believe what you do.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but
could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an..
Unknown atmospheric composition...in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place.
Dr. Henry Morris
Pastor Dave
Evolution is the sense of natural selection. Molecules
to man is not the foundation of biology.
>Should I continue?
Do whatever you want. Anyone who says more than that,
is lying.
>*Scientists* believe that the theory of evolution is one of, if not the one
>foundation of modern biology. Nobody cares what crackpots like you have to
>say about it.
>
>There is no nested hierarchy, huh? What do we do then, with all of the data
>on genomic DNA we've been collecting which illustrates, in near-perfect
>conformity with previous studies based on morphology, the predicted
>relationships of organisms?
Predicted after the fact, as always with evolutionists.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Zachriel
This is simply false. You are quite aware that the nested hierarchy has been
confirmed repeatedly--every time a new species (extinct or extant) is
discovered, and every time a genome is decoded.
Zachriel
You have conflated evolution with abiogenesis.
Frank Reichenbacher
Translation: "Evolution in whatever sense it has to be for Frank to be
wrong."
>
>
> >Should I continue?
>
> Do whatever you want. Anyone who says more than that,
> is lying.
How did I lie?
Ooops! I said more...ohmigwawd, what'll happen to me now?
>
>
> >*Scientists* believe that the theory of evolution is one of, if not the
one
> >foundation of modern biology. Nobody cares what crackpots like you have
to
> >say about it.
> >
> >There is no nested hierarchy, huh? What do we do then, with all of the
data
> >on genomic DNA we've been collecting which illustrates, in near-perfect
> >conformity with previous studies based on morphology, the predicted
> >relationships of organisms?
>
> Predicted after the fact, as always with evolutionists.
Pfft! Evolutionary biologists worked on developing phylogenies of living
organisms from Darwin's time down to the middle part of the 20th century
with little or no solid genetic basis for their constructs. Advances in
molecular biology, and of course wuite recently the sequencing of many
genomes, they had a chance to see how phylogenies based on morphology,
development, physiology, and biogeography stood up against the actual
genetic code. Voila! It works! How is that 'after the fact?'
Frank
Steven J.
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:41:22 -0600, "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> >Could you define this thing, "nested hierarchy," the existence of which
you
> >deny? What would a nested hierarchy be, if it existed? Why do you
believe
> >it does not exist?
>
> Why wouldn't you ask the person who claimed it's there,
> to define it? Oh, never mind, I know why.
>
certainly one of them. I know the definition. It seems to me that if you
say it does not exist, *you* should know the definition -- otherwise, you
might find yourself in the awkward position of denying something you didn't
mean to deny.
Still, rather than stumble through my own attempt to define it, I'll refer
you to the following URLs. They should explain what the nested hierarchy
is, and why evolutionists regard it as evidence for common descent. Note,
please, that identification of the nested hierarchy does not depend on
agreeing with evolutionary explanations of it (the original discoverer was
Carolus Linnaeus -- Karl von Linne -- a creationist).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm
Now, why do you claim, not merely that evolution is not the explanation for
the nested hieararchy, but that the nested hierarchy does not exist?
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Seppo Pietikainen
Nope, "Pastor" Dave. *verified*, not *just* predicted. Verified
practically "countless" times. Live with it.
Seppo P.
Seppo Pietikainen
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:35:54 +0200, Seppo Pietikainen
> <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 Dec 2003 13:03:27 -0800, aa...@oro.net
>>>(eyelessgame) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
>>>>happens
>>>
>>>
>>>You have not watched one kind come from another.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Did you watch the "creation" occur, "pastor" Dave?
>
>
> No, I haven't, so that means we're even. You can't
> seem to comprehend that though.
>
>
I do, you don't.
Seppo P.
Elmer Bataitis
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:35:54 +0200, Seppo Pietikainen
> >>>You can't falsify "evolution occurs", because we've watched it as it
> >>>happens
> >> You have not watched one kind come from another.
Yes we have Dave. That what speciation means. Speciation has been well
documented.
> >Did you watch the "creation" occur, "pastor" Dave?
> No, I haven't, so that means we're even. You can't
> seem to comprehend that though.
No Dave. There is no scientific evidence that "creation" (ala your
particular interpretation of scripture) ever happened. There is nothing
but tons of scientific evidence for evolution and for speciation.
Dave, wanna define *what you mean* by speciation and macroevolution for
us?
Exaunt hurriedly, pursued by a bear ;-)
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
Joe Blow
What on earth do you mean?
> >Should I continue?
>
> Do whatever you want. Anyone who says more than that,
> is lying.
More than what?
> >*Scientists* believe that the theory of evolution is one of, if not the one
> >foundation of modern biology. Nobody cares what crackpots like you have to
> >say about it.
> >
> >There is no nested hierarchy, huh? What do we do then, with all of the data
> >on genomic DNA we've been collecting which illustrates, in near-perfect
> >conformity with previous studies based on morphology, the predicted
> >relationships of organisms?
>
> Predicted after the fact, as always with evolutionists.
You should think of it as the DNA data confirmed the conclusion that evolution
is reflected by the observed nested hierarchy. That it happened after the
theory was well developed and merely confirmed it in an unexpected manner
points to the strenght of the scientific theory of evolution.
Joe
Pastor Dave
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
>http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm
>
>Now, why do you claim, not merely that evolution is not the explanation for
>the nested hieararchy, but that the nested hierarchy does not exist?
It does not exist.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
The real problem with creationism is that
our governments don't have the will to
prosecute the offenders (there are more
troublesome criminals around for one thing)
and our churches have lost the will to combat
heresies. - Dave Oldridge
Steven J.
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:52:00 -0600, "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
> >http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm
> >
> >Now, why do you claim, not merely that evolution is not the explanation
for
> >the nested hieararchy, but that the nested hierarchy does not exist?
>
> It does not exist.
>
but I'm going to try a few questions.
Does the class Mammalia exist? I mean, I'm sure you agree that various
animals called "mammals" exist, but that does prove the class has biological
validity. Various animals called "shellfish" exist, but biologists
recognize no actual taxon containing crabs, lobsters, clams, etc. but not
squids or cockroaches. Is "mammal" simply a category of creatures with no
more essential traits in common than "shellfish?"
Does the subphylum Vertebrata exist? Do birds (again, of course "birds"
exist, but does the class Aves exist as more than a taxonomically irrelevant
label of convenience like "shellfish?" Do Primates exist? Do apes? Are
apes a "kind?" Are primates? Mammals? Vertebrates?
Dave Oldridge
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:52:00 -0600, "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
>>http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm
>>
>>Now, why do you claim, not merely that evolution is not the
>>explanation for the nested hieararchy, but that the nested hierarchy
>>does not exist?
>
> It does not exist.
So it is your CLAIM that the scientists who see it are liars and even
that the computers that compute it from pieces of the genomes of living
organisms are lying?
I think you better check your false witness at the church door the next
time Pastor.
Frank Reichenbacher
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:52:00 -0600, "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
> >http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm
> >
> >Now, why do you claim, not merely that evolution is not the explanation
for
> >the nested hieararchy, but that the nested hierarchy does not exist?
>
<sticks fingers in ears>
> It does not exist.
Blah! Blah! Blah! I don't believe you and I never will! Blah! Blah! Blah!
</sticks fingers in ears>
Frank
Pastor Dave
Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> Evolution is the sense of natural selection. Molecules
>> to man is not the foundation of biology.
>
>Translation: "Evolution in whatever sense it has to be for Frank to be
>wrong."
Natural selection is a fact. What you believe, has
never been demonstrated.
>> >*Scientists* believe that the theory of evolution is one of, if not the
>one
>> >foundation of modern biology. Nobody cares what crackpots like you have
>to
>> >say about it.
>> >
>> >There is no nested hierarchy, huh? What do we do then, with all of the
>data
>> >on genomic DNA we've been collecting which illustrates, in near-perfect
>> >conformity with previous studies based on morphology, the predicted
>> >relationships of organisms?
>>
>> Predicted after the fact, as always with evolutionists.
>
>Pfft! Evolutionary biologists worked on developing phylogenies of living
>organisms from Darwin's time down to the middle part of the 20th century
>with little or no solid genetic basis for their constructs. Advances in
>molecular biology, and of course wuite recently the sequencing of many
>genomes, they had a chance to see how phylogenies based on morphology,
>development, physiology, and biogeography stood up against the actual
>genetic code. Voila! It works! How is that 'after the fact?'
You have not provided any information. Only claims.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Frank Reichenbacher
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:21:18 -0700, "Frank
> Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Evolution is the sense of natural selection. Molecules
> >> to man is not the foundation of biology.
> >
> >Translation: "Evolution in whatever sense it has to be for Frank to be
> >wrong."
>
> Natural selection is a fact. What you believe, has
> never been demonstrated.
Evasion noted.
>
>
> >> >*Scientists* believe that the theory of evolution is one of, if not
the
> >one
> >> >foundation of modern biology. Nobody cares what crackpots like you
have
> >to
> >> >say about it.
> >> >
> >> >There is no nested hierarchy, huh? What do we do then, with all of the
> >data
> >> >on genomic DNA we've been collecting which illustrates, in
near-perfect
> >> >conformity with previous studies based on morphology, the predicted
> >> >relationships of organisms?
> >>
> >> Predicted after the fact, as always with evolutionists.
> >
> >Pfft! Evolutionary biologists worked on developing phylogenies of living
> >organisms from Darwin's time down to the middle part of the 20th century
> >with little or no solid genetic basis for their constructs. Advances in
> >molecular biology, and of course wuite recently the sequencing of many
> >genomes, they had a chance to see how phylogenies based on morphology,
> >development, physiology, and biogeography stood up against the actual
> >genetic code. Voila! It works! How is that 'after the fact?'
>
> You have not provided any information. Only claims.
Evasion noted.
Frank
Pastor Dave
Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
It is not evasion, to note that you have evaded
providing scientifically demonstrable and repeatable
evidence of what you claim to be true.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
In the beginning, God created...
David Jensen
wrote in <0k2stvo9om9vc91q5...@4ax.com>:
People have pointed out places that you can learn of the evidence again
and again. You have dishonestly ignored these. All of the evidence is
consistent with evolution by variation and natural selection. No other
model exists that is consistent with this evidence.
Merry Christmas, heretic.
Frank Reichenbacher
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:ifcstvkkpkghjt5bv...@4ax.com...
Uh oh, Dave. I wouldn't wish him a merry Xmas if I were you. Remember, our
good pastor has it figured out that Xmas is a plot of Satan to turn
believers away from the one true God.
A more appropriate salutation would be, "Happy Suffering in Eternal
Damnation!" with a little smiley emoticon :)
Frank
David Jensen
wrote in <qZCdnVKRLpZ...@speakeasy.net>:...
>> People have pointed out places that you can learn of the evidence again
>> and again. You have dishonestly ignored these. All of the evidence is
>> consistent with evolution by variation and natural selection. No other
>> model exists that is consistent with this evidence.
>>
>> Merry Christmas, heretic.
>
>Uh oh, Dave. I wouldn't wish him a merry Xmas if I were you. Remember, our
>good pastor has it figured out that Xmas is a plot of Satan to turn
>believers away from the one true God.
Be glad my youngest sister didn't read that. She used to have a rant
about the X. I think her husband, a minister, has finally straightened
her out on the fact that X as chi is a perfectly acceptable way to
shorten Christmas, but it seemed to have taken a while. I wonder if
Pastor Dave will be offended about a shorthand of a religious holiday
that he rejects.
>A more appropriate salutation would be, "Happy Suffering in Eternal
>Damnation!" with a little smiley emoticon :)
Do you live in the Upper Midwest, too? I realize that winter isn't
really eternal damnation, but around Groundhog Day, you'll have a hard
time persuading me of it.