Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:27    I have been posting at ISCID and my old friend, Professor Davison, suggested, in his usual forthright style, a fellow poster, Daniel Smith, should try posting here :   Quote Daniel Smith Better yet, go over to Panda's Thumb and present your views there and see just how far you will get. Look at what is happening to Martin at After The Bar Closes. It is disgusting. I tried to deal with those animals and was banned for life. Like Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb is a closed union shop. Trust me or learn for yourself. So I extended an invitation to Daniel, confident he will receive a warm welcome. Daniel has stated ( please correct me if I mis-state your view)that Leo Berg in "Nomogenesis" and Otto Schindewolf in "Basic Questions in Paleontology" both produce good arguments against RM and NS using the evolution of the horse as an example. Hope to hear from you, Daniel.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,15:57    Hi Alan, I don't think that anyone here is a paleontologist. So if we're going to defend RM+NS, it will probably be on another ground.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:50    what about Deadman?

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,19:48    deadman is an archaeologist, last I heard.

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,22:39    Evolution? The fossils say neigh! Henry

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,17:13    I was hoping otherwise but I wasn't sure.  It's been so long since he's been around anyway.  He may not be available.

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,22:56    I think Dr. GH is an archaeologist. Or something. What about afarensis? Deadman's been hanging around iidb, and could probably be lured back here. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,02:13    Hello to all, Thanks Alan for the invitation and the thread.  I don't really know what to say here.  The reference to the evolution of the horse was one of many that Schindewolf uses in his book for his position against gradualism. Berg essentially argues against selection using many examples from modern biological history. I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton. I also respect immensely Dr. John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, although I must admit, much of it is over my head. I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant.  What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the talk.origins newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone.  I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design. Also, I must say that I have very little free time to devote to this discussion - probably 1 or 2 hours a week - so there might be some long delays between posts for me. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,02:48    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13) I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design. As almost every living thing that has ever existed is extinct, why would that be by design? Seems wasteful to me What's your take on the "designed to go extinct" issue? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:17    Hi Daniel, So you decided to brave the lion's den.   Quote I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant.  What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the talk.origins newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone. There are many posters here who are professional scientists and can answer queries or point you to references.   Quote I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design. Again, I am sure people can supply information and explanation on the scientific evidence. Science does not address anything other than observable, measurable phenomena, however, so the nature and rôle of a supreme being or creator is not available for scientific scrutiny. If you want to claim there is scientific evidence for a designer (intelligent or not) or that "Intelligent Design" can currently claim to be a scientific endeavour, then I expect you may find some disagreement.   Quote Also, I must say that I have very little free time to devote to this discussion - probably 1 or 2 hours a week - so there might be some long delays between posts for me. I too have to ration my time here. I sometimes wonder if academics have too much free time judging by some people's output.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:39    Quote I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design. Any chance you could just open your mind to all possibilities?  Otherwise, what's the point of even one or two hours? Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7 -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,12:29    Quote I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design. What has convinced you of this? The key difference between science and apologetics is that scientific inquiry begins with the data and moves toward the best explanation, while apologetics begins with an "unshakeable" conclusion and finds data to support it. Cherished notions, "common sense," assumptions and "what everybody knows" are all up for examination in science. It's a human activity, so bias and error naturally occur. But because it is a widely distributed activity and its practitioners insist on transparency of method, its explanations converge, ultimately, toward the best available. Science, therefore, seeks consilience. Whatever explanation is proposed for a set of observations must not only be the best fit for those data, it must also fit within the framework of all the other observations and conclusions drawn in the field. The data used to support preferred conclusions in apologetics are often "cherry-picked," that is, they only support the foregone answer if we ignore other, contrary, observations in the field. Finally, when all is said and done, a scientist is allowed to return the answer "we still don't know." Intellectual honesty sometimes compels it, though it is usually deeply unsatisfying to admit ignorance when one has worked hard to explain. There are always unsolved problems, and if there weren't, there would be no need for science. Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:20    Quote Given all of this, I will echo Glen: If you won't adopt the scientific attitude toward these questions but are instead going to stick to your pre-formed conclusion and labor to keep it "evidence proof," then I don't think there will be much of a meaningful exchange here. What is the "scientific attitude" in your comprehension?  Taking darwinian pressupositions to the evolution of horses or what?  Do you mean that "natural selection" had been involved in the phenomenon? Because all the concept of random mutation and natural selection is nothing more as an unproved hypothesis, not the "scientific attitude" as you would like us to believe. Daniel Smith quoted prominent scientists of past like Berg and Schidewolf. Daniel might has been inspired by John Davison's Manifesto, which is an extraordinary anti-darwinian source of information. I supported the view held by John and Daniel using the research of entomologist Franz Heikertinger who waged  war against proponents of "natural selection" more than 40 years. F. Heikertinger (himself an evolutionist)  refuted "natural selection" as the source of mimicry giving vast number of facts, observations and by darwinists neglected phenomenons. Those great men were prominent scientists and you have no right to call anyone using their arguments that they use "pre-formed arguments" and not "scientific attitudes". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:38    Quote Those great men were prominent scientists and you have no right to call anyone using their arguments that they use "pre-formed arguments" and not "scientific attitudes". No right? I beg to differ. Davison is a crackpot. If Daniel thinks there's any merit to any of his, or your own, output, I will say again, I don't see a meaningful exchange in the future of this thread. Now that you're here, I see it even less. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:41    VMartin: Thread subject: Horse evolution and whether works by Berg and Schindewolf contain evidence that undermines current evolutionary theory. Not thread subject: Ladybirds etc.

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:52    Quote have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design. Daniel: I assume you have come to these conclusions because of religous convictions ? I have done quite a few conventional science courses in my time (although I don't have a degree yet) but I have progressed to what are known as 3rd level courses in this country (beyond A-Level). I've also worked in the chemistry end of things for over thirty years although I'm now retired: http://www.premier-power.co.uk/ One thing I've found out about science.....contrary to what groups like AiG claim, it does not try to convert people to Atheism. None of the courses that I have taken have done this, even the ones that had evolutionary concepts like astronomy or geology for example. In fact, in order to be successful in these disciplines they must be approached from an evolutionary viewpoint. Astronomy/cosmology for example, just doesn't make sense when viewed from a YEC perspective despite what people like Dr Jason Lisle say (even he had to learn evolutionary concepts in order to obtain his Phd). What we observe is this field certainly does not confirm a young Earth/Universe. I've also found that one does not need to abandon conventional/mainstream science (and by that I mean evolution since it encompasses a wide range of subjects, not just biology) when one becomes a Christian. I've mentioned this exceptional lady on more than one occasion as a good example: http://www.longman.co.uk/tt_secsci/resources/scimon/jan_01/bell.htm http://www.royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=1481 http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/testing_god_3.htm   Quote Jocelyn Bell Burnell: One of the things that I can never answer is whether my feeling that there is a god is simply some kind of neurological pattern in my brain. I have no answer to that, I just do not know. But the evidence would lead me to think otherwise, because I’m not the only person who feels this, who has the same experiences. And I can recognise what I call god in other people as well, it’s not just in me. I think I feel the same as the above. YECism is more likely to convert me to agnosticism rather than conventional science.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,17:43    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13) I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton. Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book?

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,10:58    Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43) Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book? What, somebody went and changed their mind about something? Who'd have thunk it!

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:07    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 20 2007,12:29) The key difference between science and apologetics is that scientific inquiry begins with the data and moves toward the best explanation... Science, therefore, seeks consilience. Whatever explanation is proposed for a set of observations must not only be the best fit for those data, it must also fit within the framework of all the other observations and conclusions drawn in the field. I agree that this is what science should be.   What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:11    Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13) I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton. Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book? Not really.  In the first book, he doesn't really give us an alternative hypothesis; all he does is point out the many deficiencies of the currently held evolutionary theory. In the second book, he starts to give us his own alternative: a designed universe and directed evolution. I see no conflict. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:14    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,02:48) As almost every living thing that has ever existed is extinct, why would that be by design? Seems wasteful to me What's your take on the "designed to go extinct" issue? I don't know "why" many designers do what they do.  I don't think that in any way negates the fact that their products are designed.  Do you? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:38    Quote What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism? What meaning of "gradualism" are you interested in? Might it be the "phyletic gradualism" described by Eldredge and Gould in 1972? Quote     In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as “phyletic gradualism” and identify the following as its tenets:    (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.    (2) The transformation is even and slow.    (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.    (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species’ geographic range. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:48    Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 20 2007,14:52) In fact, in order to be successful in these disciplines they must be approached from an evolutionary viewpoint. Astronomy/cosmology for example, just doesn't make sense when viewed from a YEC perspective despite what people like Dr Jason Lisle say (even he had to learn evolutionary concepts in order to obtain his Phd). What we observe is this field certainly does not confirm a young Earth/Universe. There are many things I have yet to make up my mind about.  For instance; I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it. My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence; not evidence that is made-to-fit the observers viewpoint.  I'm finding that hard to do - since both sides of this issue tend to color the evidence with their own interpretive brush. The first book I read on the subject (other than my high school science books) was "Scientific Creationism" by Dr. Henry Morris, and, although he makes some good points, I found some of his views to be a bit of a stretch and recognized his attempts to fit science to the bible. I then spent quite some time on talk.origins and did much research on the internet looking at the case for the currently held theory of evolution.  I found that much of the evidence for the theory was being interpreted under the assumption of the theory. I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself. This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others.  First, they are true scientists - there are no religious views expressed in their books.  Second, they hold to no preconceived paradigm and they have (or had) nothing to gain by publishing their views.  Most were either ridiculed or shunned, or just put on a shelf and forgotten, but their works stand the test of time (at least so far).  These are the type of people I want to get my information from. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:53    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:38) What meaning of "gradualism" are you interested in? I mean the smooth, gradual, incremental, evolution of forms throughout biological history. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:55    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:38) Might it be the "phyletic gradualism" described by Eldredge and Gould in 1972?     Quote     In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as “phyletic gradualism” and identify the following as its tenets:    (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.    (2) The transformation is even and slow.    (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.    (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species’ geographic range. Of these I'd pick 1 and 2, but not necessarily 3 or 4. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,04:58    Uh, no, it's a package deal. Either you are endorsing all four of the definitional components, or you should be using another term. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,05:00    Quote What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism? Quote I mean the smooth, gradual, incremental, evolution of forms throughout biological history. So, are you asserting that there are no instances of transitional fossil sequences? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,05:02    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:07) What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism? Mine is rather straightforward: Given the billions of animal and plant species that have existed, we've only collected a very small fraction of them as fossils. We don't expect to find most transitional forms.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,09:23    Quote My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence.., This is not a problem, Daniel, this is a good thing. It is always worth trying to look at the primary evidence to see if there is error or bias in interpretation.   Quote I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself. This is the reason I have sought out authors such as Berg, Schindewolf, Denton, Davison and others. But should you not then look at the evidence on which they base their hypotheses rather than accepting their interpretations without question? This must be especially so in the case of Berg and Schindewolf as Berg wrote "Nomogenesis" in 1922 and Schindewolf was proposing saltation as a hypothesis in the '30s. A lot of evidence, the elucidation of the genetic code, for instance, was unavailable to them. I think Berg was quite a polymath, producing works in geography and ichthyology, although there is a question mark as to whether he had some influence on the later disastrous ideas of Trofim Lysenko. Michael Denton seems to have distanced himself from the Discovery Institute lately, and his current research project seems very laudable.

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,11:43    Quote I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself. If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error. This is how it is with this debate (if you could call it that). 99.99% of all scientists accept the age of the Earth/evolution. No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,14:26    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:58) Uh, no, it's a package deal. Either you are endorsing all four of the definitional components, or you should be using another term. OK, let me be more specific: Gradualism is what one would expect to see if the mechanism for evolutionary change were random mutations and natural selection.  If you think that it must entail entire populations and their entire geographical range, then fine - show that by the evidence in the fossil record. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,14:37    Quote     In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer to it here as ?phyletic gradualism? and identify the following as its tenets:    (1) New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.    (2) The transformation is even and slow.    (3) The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.    (4) The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species? geographic range. Darwinian? If I recall correctly, Darwin suggested that evolution is apt to occur in a minority of a species, on the fringe of its territory. That stuff about it being the whole species at once was tacked on later by other scientists. Afaik, only point 1 of those is part of the current theory as phrased above. Number 2 needs a qualifying phrase saying slow relative to the generational span of the species - i.e., that could still be fast relative to geologic eras. Henry

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,15:01    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2007,05:02)           Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:07) What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism? Mine is rather straightforward: Given the billions of animal and plant species that have existed, we've only collected a very small fraction of them as fossils. We don't expect to find most transitional forms. But we have found millions of fossil remains for many types of organisms.  Why then do we still find no evidence of smooth, gradual transitions between types?             Quote "As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes. Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms" Otto H. Schindewolf, "Basic Questions in Paleontology", pp 102-103 And later, when speaking of the sudden appearance of new structural types, Schindewolf comments:       Quote " And these are by no means just isolated occurrences; these strange new forms are usually also represented by large numbers of individuals.  Nonetheless, there is no connecting link with the stock from which they derived.  The continuity of the other species gives us no reason to suspect interruptions in the deposition of the layers, or subsequent destruction of layers already deposited, which, furthermore, would be revealed by other geological criteria.  Nothing is missing here, and even drastic changes in living conditions are excluded, for the facies remain the same. Further, when we see this situation repeated in all stratigraphic sequences of the same time period all over the world... we cannot resort to attributing this phenomenon to immigration of the new type from areas not yet investigated, where perhaps a gradual, slowly progressing evolution had taken place. What we have here must be primary discontinuities, natural evolutionary leaps, and not circumstantial accidents of discovery and gaps in the fossil record" ibid. pp 104-105 (emphasis his) -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,15:38    Quote No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that. My guess: Those who do think about that realize that they don't have an evidence based argument, so they don't go around claiming to have one. So the only ones we here from are the ones who didn't think. Henry

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,15:41    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,15:01) Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2007,05:02)           Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:07) What then, is your position on the lack of evidence in the fossil record for gradualism? Mine is rather straightforward: Given the billions of animal and plant species that have existed, we've only collected a very small fraction of them as fossils. We don't expect to find most transitional forms. But we have found millions of fossil remains for many types of organisms.  Why then do we still find no evidence of smooth, gradual transitions between types?   No evidence? I doubt it. I'm not a paleontologist, but I heard they can study vicariance with the fossil record. That involve fossil species that are very similar, supporting gradualism. And I'm not sure we have fossil remains for millions of species. Let's take hominids. Only rather recently have we discovered many of the forms that separate us from the common ancestor we have with chimps.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,17:13    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,14:26) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,04:58) Uh, no, it's a package deal. Either you are endorsing all four of the definitional components, or you should be using another term. OK, let me be more specific: Gradualism is what one would expect to see if the mechanism for evolutionary change were random mutations and natural selection.  If you think that it must entail entire populations and their entire geographical range, then fine - show that by the evidence in the fossil record. What does it take to convince people that they don't just get to make up their own definitions for terms that are already in use in evolutionary science? I've been running into Humpty-Dumptyism left and right ever since getting involved in these discussions. "Gradualism" is already in use. Broadly, it means non-saltational change. There's nothing about it that requires that such properties of change occur by particular mechanisms. "Phyletic gradualism" is already in use. It means the conjunction of the four tenets listed already. You don't have to take my word on it for either of these; consult any competent evolutionary science textbook and you'll find the same thing. That's something that can't be done for the personal connotations of terms, like Daniel's mishmash for "gradualism". Now, as for "phyletic gradualism" being a term applicable to describing an actual stance on how the fossil record came to look the way it does, I've long said that it has a lot of the character of a strawman. Actually, it is Daniel's claim that the fossil record is in a particular state. I'd be interested to know what experience Daniel has that would underwrite his confidence in his claim. But even more basic than that is getting some concrete idea of what the claim is... that is, I'd like to see some anchors tying the goalposts in place before going any much further with the game. As it stands, Daniel says that one doesn't see something in the fossil record, but he doesn't seem to have any clear notion of just what it is or what actual paleontologists would call it. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,18:03    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,14:26) Gradualism is what one would expect to see if the mechanism for evolutionary change were random mutations and natural selection.  If you think that it must entail entire populations and their entire geographical range, then fine - show that by the evidence in the fossil record. You would only expect to see gradualism if natural selection pressures were relatively constant or changed only slowly.  If  selective forces change abruptly, would you not also expect to see rapid evolutionary change (and lots of extinctions)?  For example, we know that the climate in the past has changed very quickly, for example during shifts between ice ages and interglacial periods.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,18:51    No, you'd also expect gradualism (i.e., non-saltational change) if any incremental evolutionary process is in play, which would include genetic drift. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:05    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:11) Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13) I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton. Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book? Not really.  In the first book, he doesn't really give us an alternative hypothesis; all he does is point out the many deficiencies of the currently held evolutionary theory. Yes, really. In the first book, he treats the reader to such dishonest misrepresentations as a "purely random process of natural selection," as well as the somewhat more sublime idiocy of his failure to understand basic taxonomic relationships, as well as the idea that conserved amino-acid residues represent functional constraints, in his laughable centerpiece of cytochrome sequences. Quote In the second book, he starts to give us his own alternative: a designed universe and directed evolution. I see no conflict. That's predictable. Do you see any evidence? I'm struck by the mind-boggling conflict between your claim to be interested in evidence, while simultaneously conflating evidence with opinion. Have you ever read a paper from the primary biological literature--you know, those ones that have new data in them? Has Denton ever published any data? If not, why not?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,21:57    Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 22 2007,11:43) If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error. We are talking about people here - not clocks. If you were in a meeting, and nine out of ten people agreed with everything the boss said, but one disagreed, would you automatically go along with the 9 or listen closely to the 1? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2007,22:04    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,17:13) Actually, it is Daniel's claim that the fossil record is in a particular state. I'd be interested to know what experience Daniel has that would underwrite his confidence in his claim. But even more basic than that is getting some concrete idea of what the claim is... that is, I'd like to see some anchors tying the goalposts in place before going any much further with the game. As it stands, Daniel says that one doesn't see something in the fossil record, but he doesn't seem to have any clear notion of just what it is or what actual paleontologists would call it. My main source for my argument about paleontology is Otto Schindewolf's "Basic Questions in Paleontology".   I'm pretty sure Schindewolf qualifies as an "actual paleontologist".   Did you read the quotes I supplied from that book in any of my posts so far? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,00:24    Quote We are talking about people here - not clocks. If you were in a meeting, and nine out of ten people agreed with everything the boss said, but one disagreed, would you automatically go along with the 9 or listen closely to the 1? Except there is no authority here; if you follow the scientific method properly, there is no boss. I wouldn't use the clocks as an example, it reminds me of the fallacy: "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong". The truth is that most scientists do use some sort of Bayesian approach to new claims, since there is a lot that we already know.     Quote "As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes. This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing.     Quote Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms" This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:07    Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,00:24)       Quote "As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes. This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing. Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.     Quote and to see such a process is very unlikely. But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?             Quote     Quote Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms" This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find. Schindewolf had no arguments against whale evolution to my knowledge.  He did point out that - despite their similar habitats, ichthyosaurs and whales remained reptiles and mammals respectively and did not revert to "the organizations found in fish".   You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:12    Daniel, Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record? I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:14    Quote (JAM @ Sep. 22 2007,21:05) Has Denton ever published any data? Have a look. Have you? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,04:22    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2007,04:12) Daniel, Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record? I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize? No idea.   I have a question for you: What % of transitional versus non-transitional forms are fossilized? Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,05:40    Quote Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments. I'm sure he understood the process of fossilization and I've seen his data (although I'm surprised with the amount of life that's inhabited the planet compared to the number of fossils, he would be so shocked to see gaps in the fossil record. I guess he wanted a poster child for the transition). He could have spent 250 pages and it still wouldn't make a difference, this is not 1950. He used the evidence that he had at the time to construct an argument and made a case.  Now we have something like this: And here         Quote But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved? Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here! Quote You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views. Sure, and his ideas were shown through observation to be incomplete, and in most cases incorrect.

Alan Fox Posts: 1552 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,06:40    Quote We are very lucky to have fossils at all. After an animal dies many conditions have to be met if it is to become a fossil, and one or other of those conditions usually is not met. Personally, I would consider it an honor to be fossilized but I don't have much hope of it. If all the creatures which had ever lived had in fact been fossilized we would be wading knee deep in fossils. The world would be filled with fossils. Perhaps it is just as well that it hasn't happened that way. Because it is particularly difficult for an animal without a hard skeleton to be fossilized, most of the fossils we find are of animals with hard skeletons - vertebrates with bones, mollusks with their shells, arthropods with their external skeleton. If the ancestors of these were all soft and then same offspring evolved a hard skeleton, the only fossilized animals would be those more recent varieties. Therefore, we expect fossils to appear suddenly in the geologic record and that's one reason groups of animals suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion. There are rare instances in which the soft parts of animals are preserved as fossils. One case is the famous Burgess Shale which is one of the best beds from the Cambrian Era (between 500 million and 600 million years ago) mentioned in this quotation. What must have happened is that the ancestors of these creatures were evolving by the ordinary slow processes of evolution, but they were evolving before the Cambrian when fossilizing conditions were not very good and many of them did not have skeletons anyway. It is probably genuinely true that in the Cambrian there was a very rapid flowering of multicellular life and this may have been when a large number of the great animal phyla did evolve. If they did, their essential divergence during a period of about 10 million years is very fast. However, bearing in mind the Stebbins calculation and the Nilsson calculation, it is actually not all that fast. There is some recent evidence from molecular comparisons among modern animals which suggests that there may not have been a Cambrian explosion at all, anyway. Modern phyla may well have their most recent common ancestors way back in the Precambrian. As I said, we're actually lucky to have fossils at all. In any case, it is misleading to think that fossils are the most important evidence for evolution. Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* We would be in the position of a detective who comes upon a crime after the fact. You can't see the crime being committed because it has already happened. But there is evidence lying all around. To pursue any case, most detectives and most courts of law are happy with 2-3 clues that point in the right direction. (*my emphasis) Richard Dawkins

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,06:44    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2007,04:12) Daniel, Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record? I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize? And multiply that by the % of fossils that are actually found by paleontologists.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,06:49    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:07) But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.   What do you mean by different "types". Something like fishes and tetrapods, saurians and mammals, dinosaurs and birds...?

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:31    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:14) Quote (JAM @ Sep. 22 2007,21:05) Has Denton ever published any data? Have a look. No data that pertain to his two books. Why is that, Daniel? If he has any real passion about the subject(s) of his two books, why not test their assumptions, such as his idiotic assumption that conservation of a residue represents a functional constraint? Quote Have you? Of course, and in better journals to boot. More pertinently, I've published more data relevnt to Denton's assumptions than he has. Why is that?

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:37    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,22:04)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,17:13) ...As it stands, Daniel says that one doesn't see something in the fossil record, but he doesn't seem to have any clear notion of just what it is or what actual paleontologists would call it. My main source for my argument about paleontology is Otto Schindewolf's "Basic Questions in Paleontology".   But that's a book, not the primary literature. Were you deliberately misleading us when you claimed to be interested in evidence? Quote I'm pretty sure Schindewolf qualifies as an "actual paleontologist". But the opinions of an actual paleontologist aren't actual evidence.   Quote Did you read the quotes I supplied from that book in any of my posts so far? But quotes aren't evidence, either. You didn't answer my other pointed question: have you ever read a paper from the PRIMARY literature? I mean those papers with actual, new data in them--we real scientists often read them by looking at the figures and tables, because unlike you, we value evidence over opinion.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,10:43    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:22) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2007,04:12) Daniel, Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record? I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize? No idea. Then you have no basis for claiming that the incomplete nature of the fossil record represents a problem for modern evolutionary theory.  I suggest that you look for the relevant evidence. Here's a place to start: passenger pigeons used to be common, now they are extinct. Has anyone ever found a fossilized one? Quote I have a question for you: What % of transitional versus non-transitional forms are fossilized? You'd have to know the answer, as well as the answer to oldman's question, to come to the conclusion you've already asserted. Quote Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts? Are they more "resistant"? How would the concept of "resistance" work anyway, since the issue is one of sampling?

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,16:36    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,04:07) Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,00:24)       Quote "As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes. This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing. Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.       Quote and to see such a process is very unlikely. But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?             Quote     Quote Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms" This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find. Schindewolf had no arguments against whale evolution to my knowledge.  He did point out that - despite their similar habitats, ichthyosaurs and whales remained reptiles and mammals respectively and did not revert to "the organizations found in fish".   You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views. See, that is the kind of goal post moving Wesley is talking about. Going from land living artiodactyls to ocean going whales is a significant transition, one, I might add, that we have plenty of evidence for. We show him a transition between orders and he demands one between classes. Okay, the reptile mammal transition, which is quite well documented with transitional forms displaying a wide variety of transitional anatomy. Although Schindewolf may have been a paleontologist, I doubt he had a very solid understanding of the fossilization process. Taphonomy - the study of fossilization - is a very young science. Efremov coined the term in the 1940's but the field didn't take off till the 1970's and 1980's. This is not to say that paleontologists were ignorant of how fossils form and the way the fossil record can be biased, rather we have progressed a good deal since then. Daniel is mistaken if he thinks Schindewolf is presenting unbiased and unadulterated evidence. Schindewolf had his own theoretical preconceptions that he used to interpret the evidence. Seems to me that if he really wanted to see the evidence he would be looking at the fossils and not the interpretations of Schindewolf and Berg... -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:02    Quote Daniel Smith Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts? One problem with trying to answer that is that there is no sharp dividing line between "transitional" and "non-transitional". A species is "transitional" if it (or a close relative) produces descendants significantly different than itself; that isn't even a property of the species itself at the time of fossilization, it's a historical occurance afterward. Quote oldmanintheskydidntdoit, posted 9/23/07 3:12 AM Daniel, Just to get a feel for your position, if we say that 100% is every living creature that ever existed then what % would you say are represented in the fossil record? I.E what % of all living creatures fossilize? I recall reading a few years ago that the number of fossil finds that had been studied was around 250 to 500 million. Since quite a few species have multiple finds, the number of species represented would be a good bit less than that. I wonder how many species have lived in the last 500 million years - would that be more or less than 500 million? Henry

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:04    Quote Are they more "resistant"? How would the concept of "resistance" work anyway, since the issue is one of sampling? Resistance is futile. Henry

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:17    Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:37) But that's a book, not the primary literature. But the opinions of an actual paleontologist aren't actual evidence.   But quotes aren't evidence, either. How about opinions quoted from a book by Richard Dawkins? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:34    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)   Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:37) But that's a book, not the primary literature. But the opinions of an actual paleontologist aren't actual evidence.   But quotes aren't evidence, either. How about opinions quoted from a book by Richard Dawkins? They don't constitute original research either, but at least they are arguments. Not like some "John Do says that the fossil record disproves gradualism". If you want to disprove the current theory, you have to provide some new evidence or a better interpretation of the observations. You first need to define what you call "transitional species" between "types".

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:48    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 23 2007,17:02) I recall reading a few years ago that the number of fossil finds that had been studied was around 250 to 500 million. Since quite a few species have multiple finds, the number of species represented would be a good bit less than that. I wonder how many species have lived in the last 500 million years - would that be more or less than 500 million? Henry 500 million fossils would probably represent at most a million of species, perhaps much less. Given speciation rates and estimations of current biodiversity, hundreds of billions of species may have lived since the cambrian. I'm not sure if there is an estimation of that number. What would be interesting is an estimation of the total number of fossil specices for a given group (say animals with skeleton) and a given time range of 1-5 million years. For instance, from -125 to -100 million years. I guess this number is always WAY smaller that the number of known living species of the same group.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,18:29    So I haven't been keeping up so much recently and this is a new thread to me. Daniel, it seems that you are arguing that there is some bound that constrains evolutionary transition.  I am curious as to why you assume this must be.  As I see it, you either accept that speciation occurs, or it doesn't.  If you accept that it does, then the supposed macro-micro boundary dissolves instantly (indeed, it is a figment of imagination, suriving in the literature because it is a useful fiction for narrative exposition, like any other model).  Why do you invoke boundaries, unless you are wedded to a phenotypical model of evolution? So you ask about 'transitional forms'.  I can point to several instances of speciation observed and/or reconstructed that do not involve transitional forms.  I would start by pointing out the speciation events that involve contact between lineages of Helianthus sunflowers (see Rieseberg, Nature a few years ago) or the ecological speciation event in Rhagoletis dipterans.  There is no transition.  This does not deny Wesley's point about the gradual process, but it does invoke a question "At what temporal scale do we intend 'gradual' to refer to", I believe this has been addressed above.  The argument against transitional forms or lineages boils down to an assertion that Zeno's Paradox is a true problem. [Edited to add] And we know that it is not, because I just went to the store.  And I returned as well. So the saltational opinion can be resolved with the gradualist opinion by virtue of considering that the terms are not necessarily referential to an absolute scale. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,20:18    Daniel wrote: "I have a question for you: What % of transitional versus non-transitional forms are fossilized? Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts?" Does this make sense? The only thing that distinguishes transitional vs non-transitional is order of find, isn't it? A fossil is a fossil; if you find two and then later find a third that seems to be a transition between them, that doesn't make them different as far as fossilization, just how the third fits into the already existing collection. Or am I missing something?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,22:01    Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,05:40) I'm sure he understood the process of fossilization and I've seen his data (although I'm surprised with the amount of life that's inhabited the planet compared to the number of fossils, he would be so shocked to see gaps in the fossil record. I guess he wanted a poster child for the transition). He could have spent 250 pages and it still wouldn't make a difference, this is not 1950. He used the evidence that he had at the time to construct an argument and made a case.  Now we have something like this: And here The saltational events that Schindewolf proposed would go where the dotted lines are on your chart - the part subtitled "suggested lines of descent".              Quote Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here! I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I'll have to get back to you on that. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,22:37    Quote ...so I'll have to get back to you on that. You do that Daniel don't take too long...or change the subject *Snicker*. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,04:52    Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 23 2007,06:40)         Quote We are very lucky to have fossils at all. After an animal dies many conditions have to be met if it is to become a fossil, and one or other of those conditions usually is not met. Personally, I would consider it an honor to be fossilized but I don't have much hope of it. If all the creatures which had ever lived had in fact been fossilized we would be wading knee deep in fossils. The world would be filled with fossils. Perhaps it is just as well that it hasn't happened that way. Because it is particularly difficult for an animal without a hard skeleton to be fossilized, most of the fossils we find are of animals with hard skeletons - vertebrates with bones, mollusks with their shells, arthropods with their external skeleton. If the ancestors of these were all soft and then same offspring evolved a hard skeleton, the only fossilized animals would be those more recent varieties. Therefore, we expect fossils to appear suddenly in the geologic record and that's one reason groups of animals suddenly appear in the Cambrian Explosion. There are rare instances in which the soft parts of animals are preserved as fossils. One case is the famous Burgess Shale which is one of the best beds from the Cambrian Era (between 500 million and 600 million years ago) mentioned in this quotation. What must have happened is that the ancestors of these creatures were evolving by the ordinary slow processes of evolution, but they were evolving before the Cambrian when fossilizing conditions were not very good and many of them did not have skeletons anyway. It is probably genuinely true that in the Cambrian there was a very rapid flowering of multicellular life and this may have been when a large number of the great animal phyla did evolve. If they did, their essential divergence during a period of about 10 million years is very fast. However, bearing in mind the Stebbins calculation and the Nilsson calculation, it is actually not all that fast. There is some recent evidence from molecular comparisons among modern animals which suggests that there may not have been a Cambrian explosion at all, anyway. Modern phyla may well have their most recent common ancestors way back in the Precambrian. As I said, we're actually lucky to have fossils at all. In any case, it is misleading to think that fossils are the most important evidence for evolution. Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* We would be in the position of a detective who comes upon a crime after the fact. You can't see the crime being committed because it has already happened. But there is evidence lying all around. To pursue any case, most detectives and most courts of law are happy with 2-3 clues that point in the right direction. (*my emphasis) Richard Dawkins Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record.  Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it. I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach.  I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it. From the same lecture:         Quote These are all domestic dogs (Slide 1) except the top one which is a wolf. The point of it is, as observed by Darwin, how remarkable that we could go by human artificial selection from a wolf ancestor to all these breeds - a Great Dane, a Bulldog, a Whippet, etc. They were all produced by a process analogous to natural selection - artificial selection. Humans did the choosing whereas in natural selection, as you know, it is nature that does the choosing. Nature selects the ones that survive and are good at reproducing, to leave their genes behind. With artificial selection, humans do the choosing of which dogs should breed and with whom they should mate. These plants (Slide 2) are all members of the same species. They are all descended quite recently from the wild cabbage Brassica olearacea and they are very different cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli, etc. This great variety of vegetables, which look completely different, has been shaped - they have been sculpted - by the process of artificial selection from the same common ancestor. The problem with Dawkins' logic here is that it doesn't match reality: (As you and I have discussed before), artificial selection is not "analogous to natural selection", as Dawkins argues. Artificial selection only works by shielding organisms from natural selection. Throw all domesticated dogs back into the wild and watch as all these breeds go away - to be replaced by mutt dogs which will gradually lose many of their unique, bred-for characteristics and more and more closely resemble the wolf from which they came. The same goes for these cultivated plants.  Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear. These things can be verified in your own back yard. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,06:12    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52) Throw all domesticated dogs back into the wild and watch as all these breeds go away - to be replaced by mutt dogs which will gradually lose many of their unique, bred-for characteristics and more and more closely resemble the wolf from which they came. The fact that dogs under artificial selection have one set of characters, and another set of characters when they are feral and subject to a different kind of selective pressure, is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is, in fact, a prediction of that theory. Do you have any testable predictions from your theory (whatever it is at the moment) that would lead to a different outcome than that predicted by evolutionary theory? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:44    Daniel, it is also not true.  the genetic milieu is changed by selection (artificial is just another form, and it's not really artificial is it?  unless you are arguing it is sooooopernatcheral). offspring of different lineages (or hybrids if you will) can have phenotypes that are completely outside the range of variation in the parents.  if there is any positive selective pressure on those traits then they will persist.  if there is then a mate preference, they will diverge.  it is that simple, and 'throwing dogs into the wild and they all turn back into wolves' is just wrong for a litany of reasons.  think about why that might be.  no way can a chihuaha turn 'back into' a wolf.  for one, it never was one. fancy types of lettuce don't go back to being one single muddy lettuce, there is a quantitative legacy of mutation and selection.  same as the dogs.  new traits can be formed from recombination during contact between different lineages (See the Helianthus sunflower examples, it blows your contentions out of the water in the first paragraph) -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,09:12    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,05:52) (As you and I have discussed before), artificial selection is not "analogous to natural selection", as Dawkins argues. Artificial selection only works by shielding organisms from natural selection. So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:58    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52)       Quote Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* Richard Dawkins Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record. You're quote mining, Daniel, and avoiding the real evidence. He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:   Quote The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern. Quote Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it. He's saying that other sources are more complete and more than sufficient. That's why creationists generally avoid discussing the sequence evidence, and when they do, they grossly misrepresent it. How many trees have you constructed from sequences (evidence) using tools like CLUSTAL and BLAST, Daniel?   Quote I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach. That's because you're afraid of grappling with evidence for yourself. If you any real confidence in your position, you'd be discussing evidence instead of quote mining.   Quote I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it. What part of this don't you understand?   Quote If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other.   Quote The same goes for these cultivated plants.  Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear. These things can be verified in your own back yard. And have you done so?

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,11:05    Crikey Daniel has extensive experience 'in the wild' Quote These things can be verified in your own back yard. We don't stand a chance. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,13:10    Uf, it seems you are having hard time here. Your arguments refuting Adam Smith's opinions are very weak I would say. 1) If you think that Schindewolf was wrong, do you think the same about Gould and Eldredge? You know their conception of Punctuated Equilibria. Do you really think that Schindewolf was as wrong as was Gould? Gould 1987: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils …. 2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding. Btw. the great Dawkins seeing the picture from 19 century painted by 17 years old yougster came to this ridiculous conclusion:     Quote Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Bernard has never carried a cask of brandy. It is only in Dawkins imagination that he "is strong enough" to carry it. Maybe he would be surprised if he checked it in reality. Another Dawkins fantasy - I can discuss it in detail at another thread if you like - is his explanation of origin of mimicry. He often offers only his imagination instead of facts . -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,14:00    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,14:10) 2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding. It seems obvious that artificial selection pressures have resulted in a wide variation of dog phenotypes in a very short amount of time.  Whether or not these are "species" by any rigorous definition is irrelevant.  The point is that selection pressures can produce physical variation. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,14:54    Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,10:58)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52)           Quote Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* Richard Dawkins Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record. You're quote mining, Daniel, and avoiding the real evidence. It wasn't my quote so how could I be "mining" it?   Quote He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:       Quote The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern. Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.  No one disputes this. What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.  For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.     Quote Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it. He's saying that other sources are more complete and more than sufficient. That's why creationists generally avoid discussing the sequence evidence, and when they do, they grossly misrepresent it. How many trees have you constructed from sequences (evidence) using tools like CLUSTAL and BLAST, Daniel? None.  And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online.  I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure.     Quote     Quote I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach. That's because you're afraid of grappling with evidence for yourself. If you any real confidence in your position, you'd be discussing evidence instead of quote mining. I didn't quote mine.  And I'm happy to discuss any evidence you want to discuss.  It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance. Quote       Quote I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it. What part of this don't you understand?       Quote If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. I understand all of it.  None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.   Quote       Quote The same goes for these cultivated plants.  Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear. These things can be verified in your own back yard. And have you done so? No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments.  His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,14:59    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,14:54) the PEH not the PEH surely? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:02    Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 23 2007,05:40) Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here! I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.  The passage you quoted was from the chapter on taxonomy and he was discussing phylogenetic classification (which he deemed subjective) as opposed to morphological classification (which he called objective).   You seem to be arguing as if he denied common descent or evolution in general.  He denied neither.  His contention was with the mechanism of evolution. Schindewolf proposed that evolution proceeded according to patterns.  He gave the example of the marsupial and placental wolves.  These obviously unrelated animals developed eerily similar features quite independently of each other.   He also proposed that evolution proceeded as if constrained by a goal.  He gives the example of the evolution of the one-toed foot on the horse - which began long before the horse moved onto the plains and the one-toed foot became advantageous. He also proposed that evolution occurred during ontogeny and gave several examples of ammonoid suture and coral septal apparatus evolution to support his views. Again, I'm not sure what you are arguing against. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:06    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10) 2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding. Martin, You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:14    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06) Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10) 2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding. Martin, You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you? I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:21    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,16:14) Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06)   Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10) 2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding. Martin, You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you? I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind? I'm pretty sure creationists are the only people claiming that there has been massive speciation from dogs over the past few thousand years. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:23    To me it seems at least possible that dog breeders were primarily interesting in getting particular features in their breeds. Obtaining a speciation event was probably not their goal. I wonder if speciation would even be consistent with the usual goals of breeders, since it would limit the possibility of crossing their breed with another in order to import different genes. Henry

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:35    The only aspect of "artificial" selection in dogs that's really artificial is the fact that theoretically any breed of canis familiaris can produce viable offspring with any other. We've artficially suppressed speciation. But how long would it take a population of chihuahuas and a population of great danes to fully speciate in wild conditions? As a rule, creationists abuse the concept[s] of speciation. Ring Species are illustrative of the complexities that are always ignored in this type of argument. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:38    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 24 2007,15:35) The only aspect of "artificial" selection in dogs that's really artificial is the fact that theoretically any breed of canis familiaris can produce viable offspring with any other. We've artficially suppressed speciation. But how long would it take a population of chihuahuas and a population of great danes to fully speciate in wild conditions? That's an instance of mechanical isolation. They certainly can't mate and could be considered as true species.

Henry J Posts: 5760 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:47    That's kind of analogous to ring species, but without the geographic aspect of it. Henry

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:50    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,15:14) Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06)   Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10) 2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding. Martin, You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you? I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind? It seemed to me you were looking for some speciation event, not especially in dogs. But you remark was irrelevant. Evolution "in Darwinian way" is not synonymous with speciation.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:55    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2007,15:47) That's kind of analogous to ring species, but without the geographic aspect of it. Henry That's what I think. I wonder if there is a review paper about it. If not, some expert should publish one. Apparently, speciation in dogs races is hardly studied.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,16:02    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,14:54) It wasn't my quote so how could I be "mining" it? Very easily.   Quote   Quote He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:             Quote The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern. Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other. Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people. Quote No one disputes this. Which is why you employ it as a straw man. Quote What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS. Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer. If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS. Quote For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution. No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush. Quote None. Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence? Quote And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online. That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature? Quote I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure. So why do you consider your uninformed conclusions to be more correct than mine? Quote And I'm happy to discuss any evidence you want to discuss. Let's discuss this paper, then: http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104 ...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence. Quote It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance. Sorry, but you're supposed to familiarize yourself with the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion. Quote Quote What part of this don't you understand? I understand all of it.  None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.       I don't think you understand it at all, since you blew it off as mere similarity. Quote No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments.  His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based. To know that, you'd have to be familiar with the evidence, not just that someone offered citations. Are you familiar with these data, or are you faking it? Do you realize that science is not about appraising arguments, but about predicting and grappling with the actual evidence, not what anyone says about it?

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,16:38    Quote Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design". For instance, why do all primates share a non-functional copy of a gene normally involved in the production of vitamin C? And why do the phylogeny of this useless pseudo-gene reflects phylogenies of coding regions? And also, why are we more genetically close to the coelacanth than it is close to the trout? The irony is that the fossil record, which according to you disproves the ToE, predicted that.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,16:58    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38) Quote Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design". That's what I'm trying to do with the cannabinoid receptor paper. Quote For instance, why do all primates share a non-functional copy of a gene normally involved in the production of vitamin C? And why do the phylogeny of this useless pseudo-gene reflects phylogenies of coding regions? That might be too complex, as well as getting into Daniel's likely misconceptions about pseudogenes and "junk" DNA.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,17:58    Holy shit. Another one. Daniel starts with this admission:   Quote I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant. What little I know has been self taught. Full Stop. Daniel: based upon your own self-description, we need no longer give the slightest attention to your thoughts on evolutionary biology. You don't know shit from Shinola on the topic, by your own admission. Plus your wingtips stink. Daniel admits abject ignorance of contemporary evolutionary science, yet nevertheless feels qualified to reject a priori the hard won findings of a community of thousands of scientists laboring over decades in an attempt to better understand the history of life on earth. Moreover, he prefers a priori a handful of crackpots and outliers who "work" outside the scientific community and whose ideas have been ridiculed, shunned, and forgotten by that community. In short, although he claims interest in the work of scientists who themselves operate "free of preconceptions," he freely admits being motivated by the biased assumptions and foregone conclusions of science denial. A position that emerged from his admitted ignorance.   Daniel: I now invite you to abandon the pretense of "objective, direct consideration of the evidence, free of preconceptions," to which your own self-descriptive statements (and subsequent posts) utterly give the lie, stop holding forth on a topic of which you are self-admittedly utterly ignorant, and tell us what is motivating your anti-science stance. What commitments and what community identification account for your stance? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,18:32    Quote I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant. What little I know has been self taught. I'm still waiting for him to figure out what advances have been made in molecular genetics since 1950. Oh well.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,00:03    Quote Daniel admits abject ignorance of contemporary evolutionary science, yet nevertheless feels qualified to reject a priori the hard won findings of a community of thousands of scientists laboring over decades in an attempt to better understand the history of life on earth. Moreover, he prefers a priori a handful of crackpots and outliers who "work" outside the scientific community and whose ideas have been ridiculed, shunned, and forgotten by that community. In short, although he claims interest in the work of scientists who themselves operate "free of preconceptions," he freely admits being motivated by the biased assumptions and foregone conclusions of science denial. A position that emerged from his admitted ignorance. These words remind me how Giordano Bruno was wellcommed in Oxford. Pundits there ridiculed him considering themselves to be brilliant scientists. Giordano Bruno was only a layman who knew nothing about movement of planets in their eyes. I can see the same is now happening to ideas of Schindewolf, Berg and Davison. Their supporters are ridiculed as well. (But you are too ignorant to adress also entomologist Punnett or Heikertinger, who called your alike "Hypothetiker" and who showed that natural selection play no role in evolution of insect forms and coloration).     But do not be so sure in your convictions. It doesn't mean if you dismiss their ideas that you are right. You are operating with very funny arguments: we are so many, so we are right. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,00:06    What is your argument, VMartin? That you are anti-establishment, thereby you are right? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,01:15    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,18:51) No, you'd also expect gradualism (i.e., non-saltational change) if any incremental evolutionary process is in play, which would include genetic drift. Not much time to keep up here.  Just like to say that I'm obviously using the terminology incorrectly.  What I was trying to say is that rate of evolution under RM+NS is not necessarily slow and constant.  I was under the impression that this was the model of evolution Daniel was working under.  Periods of rapid gradualistic change might not be captured by the fossil record if resolution is poor, thus resulting in the appearance of saltation.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,01:58    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2007,06:12) The fact that dogs under artificial selection have one set of characters, and another set of characters when they are feral and subject to a different kind of selective pressure, is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is, in fact, a prediction of that theory. I didn't know the theory had any predictions. Quote Do you have any testable predictions from your theory (whatever it is at the moment) that would lead to a different outcome than that predicted by evolutionary theory? Since my view holds that selection is a conservative function, my statements about dogs and cabbage would probably qualify as predictions. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:11    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2007,08:44) Daniel, it is also not true.  the genetic milieu is changed by selection (artificial is just another form, and it's not really artificial is it?  unless you are arguing it is sooooopernatcheral). It's artificial in the sense that it's not natural - man selects the breeding partners - not nature.   Quote offspring of different lineages (or hybrids if you will) can have phenotypes that are completely outside the range of variation in the parents.  if there is any positive selective pressure on those traits then they will persist.  if there is then a mate preference, they will diverge.  it is that simple, and 'throwing dogs into the wild and they all turn back into wolves' is just wrong for a litany of reasons.  think about why that might be.  no way can a chihuaha turn 'back into' a wolf.  for one, it never was one. I never predicted that a chihuahua would "turn into" a wolf.  Chihuahuas and great danes would probably be the first breeds to go extinct - due to a lack of reproductive partners.  Medium sized dogs would have more partners to breed with and dog size would most likely gravitate towards that median.  All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well. Quote fancy types of lettuce don't go back to being one single muddy lettuce, there is a quantitative legacy of mutation and selection.  same as the dogs.  new traits can be formed from recombination during contact between different lineages (See the Helianthus sunflower examples, it blows your contentions out of the water in the first paragraph) No idea what sunflower example you're talking about.  Perhaps a link? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:16    Quote (improvius @ Sep. 24 2007,09:12) So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd. Come on now.  You're really can't be that dense, can you? I said artificial selection (that's the part where people actively protect their dogs from breeding with any other breed of dogs) works by shielding (i.e.: protecting) the dogs from natural selection (that is, what would happen if the dogs got out and just ran the streets, breeding with any dog they felt like). -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:46    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,01:58) I didn't know the theory had any predictions. Predictions Start here EDIT: And Darwin himself made predictions about his theory that were later confirmed. Here and here I expect this is more to your taste however. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,03:08    Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,16:02)               Quote Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other. Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.             Quote Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people. Lots of designed objects fit into nested hierarchies.  One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.                 Quote               Quote What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS. Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer. If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS. Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?                 Quote           Quote For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution. No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush. What claim did he backtrack on? Denton's last book supports directed evolution.                 Quote Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence? So, in order to show that I'm interested in evidence, I must construct trees?               Quote           Quote And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online. That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature? I guess I don't know what you mean by "primary literature".  Is that only peer-reviewed journals?           Quote             Quote I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure. So why do you consider your uninformed conclusions to be more correct than mine? Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.             Quote Let's discuss this paper, then: http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104 ...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence. Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.                 Quote             Quote It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance. Sorry, but you're supposed to familiarize yourself with the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion. But I've reached no firm conclusion as of yet.  Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction.                 Quote                 Quote I understand all of it.  None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.       I don't think you understand it at all, since you blew it off as mere similarity. Similarities and differences can be mapped out into a neat hierarchal pattern.  What part of that is inconsistent with evolution by law?                 Quote             Quote No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments.  His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based. To know that, you'd have to be familiar with the evidence, not just that someone offered citations. Are you familiar with these data, or are you faking it? Do you realize that science is not about appraising arguments, but about predicting and grappling with the actual evidence, not what anyone says about it? Berg spent years in the field documenting case after case that confounded those he called "Selectionists".  I respect his findings because they are not arguments but are documented observances.  Many here and at talk.origins who fervently hold to the evolution by RM+NS (and drift and horizontal transfer) seem to be more interested in theoretical arguments than documented field work. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,03:33    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38)           Quote Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design". How about this?           Quote "The new view transforms our view of the genomic fabric," explained Dr Tim Hubbard, from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, "The majority of the genome is copied, or transcribed, into RNA, which is the active molecule in our cells, relaying information from the archival DNA copy to the cellular machinery. This is a remarkable finding, since most prior research suggested only a fraction of the genome was transcribed." "But it is our new understanding of regulation of genes that stands out. The integrated approach has helped us to identify new regions of gene regulation and altered our view of how gene regulation occurs."... The team showed that transcription of DNA is pervasive across the genome, and that RNA transcripts overlap known genes and are found in what were previously thought to be gene 'deserts'.(all emphasis mine) I am especially interested in these overlapping coding areas.  What that means, as near as I can tell, is that the coding in DNA is more elaborate and more sophisticated than previously thought - with regions that code for regulatory RNA overlapping (sharing parts of the same code with) regions that code for proteins. If this is true (and it looks like it is), it would seem to be a nightmare for any theory based on random mutations - since one mutation would have to not only improve the protein produced, but the RNA as well. Of course those of us who hold to a designed life theory have been predicting that there is no such thing as "junk DNA" all along. I'm sure, however, that many of you will say that the ToE predicts this as well. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,05:07    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33) Of course those of us who hold to a designed life theory have been predicting that there is no such thing as "junk DNA" all along. I'm sure, however, that many of you will say that the ToE predicts this as well. So, if "junk" DNA is in fact found then that will, to your complete satisfaction, disprove the "designed life theory"? If not, well you can't have it both ways can you? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,06:51    Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 25 2007,01:03) But do not be so sure in your convictions. It doesn't mean if you dismiss their ideas that you are right. You are operating with very funny arguments: we are so many, so we are right. VMartin: however funny my argument, you failed to grasp it. I'll simplify: 1) Daniel Smith claims to be interested in evidence gathered free of bias and preconception. 2) But Daniel himself, per his own frank and repeated self-description, is operating from a decisive bias (one you appear to endorse), specifically that he prefers to learn from those who have been ignored, laughed at and shunned. This massive bias, and its accompanying a prior assumption that mainstream scientists have nothing to offer to him, renders 1) absurd. 3) I'd like him to publicly abandon 1), given 2). I'd also like him to articulate the origins of his bias. I'm not interested in a reply couched in terms of some biological challenge or other, because he has already confessed his abject ignorance of the field, as well as this self-same bias. Rather, I'd like to hear about his commitments and community identifications, a description of the non-scientific allegiances from which his biases arise. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,08:25    'junk' is a sloppy term that covers many different phenomenon.  we prefer non-coding.  there is a lot of repetition in there, daniel, and it acts as if it were selectively neutral.  or, as if it were doing nothing but accumulating dust. sunflower hybrid speciation here punchline?  new traits evolve from lineage contact that promote ecological divergence and reproductive isolation via selection.  you are completely wrong.   your 'super specialized' breeds have different ecological niches.  chihuahas and terriers would do just fine in a habitat where they could nail mice and dig burrows.  pit bulls hunt in packs.  I, uh, don't know if you have noticed, but every place is not like every other place.  Things vary.  This matters. It all boils down to my fundamental biologic law:  Shit varies.  It matters.  Sometimes. Now, we are waiting to hear what makes you doubt the findings of hundreds of thousands of biologists, since it is very clearly not the evidence (perhaps your unfamiliarity with the evidence...).  It could be that you just prefer the German mystical archetype position, but this was refuted in the 20s 30s and 40s (although VMartin may not have access to those journals in the caves he lives in).  Phenotypes may very quickly surpass the range exhibited by parentals, and there is a ton of evidence to show this.  For god's sake look at the work of Dolph Schluter. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:09    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,02:11) All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well. The gene pool would be enriched. Domesticated dogs have high homozygosity from inbreeding, not low.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:31    Here's a snapshot of Daniel's level of comprehension: Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:08) ...evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.             One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.                 Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory? Similarities and differences can be mapped out into a neat hierarchal pattern.  What part of that is inconsistent with evolution by law? Many here and at talk.origins who fervently hold to the evolution by RM+NS (and drift and horizontal transfer) seem to be more interested in theoretical arguments than documented field work. Edit: formatting snafu -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:18    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33) Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38)           Quote Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design". How about this? This has hardly anything to do with my objection. JAM was right about your misconception regarding pseudognes and junk DNA. Regions of unknown functions (what you like to call “junk”) may actually have some phenotypic effects. And, guess what? This is tested by building phylogenies on those regions, and detecting evidence of selection acting on them. In a typical gene, synonymous mutations are far more frequent that non-synonymous ones. (To give you an example, the 30 point mutations that separate two species of aphids that I study at a 700 bp locus are all synonymous). These kinds of observations have been the primary argument of Kimura, who first formulated the neutral theory of evolution. We know that synonymous mutations lead to the same proteins, and are very unlikely to have a significant effect on the organism. Hence they are not eliminated by natural selection. Same goes for pseudogenes, once they are knocked-out (typically by a frame shift or a stop mutation), we notice an acceleration of their mutation rates. This is expected if they are no longer active. So again, why do related species share mutations that have no effect? And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:58    D: Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. JAM:That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other. D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around. Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then. [quote][quote]Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.[/quote] Lots of designed objects fit into nested hierarchies.[/quote] They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.           Quote One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out. But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.                             Quote Quote Quote What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS. Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer. If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS. Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory? Probably because you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance. Quote Quote Quote For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution. No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush. What claim did he backtrack on? The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted. Quote Denton's last book supports directed evolution. Evidence supports positions, not books. You don't give a damn about evidence, do you? Quote Quote Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence? So, in order to show that I'm interested in evidence, I must construct trees? Since the relationships between these sequences represent the overwhelming evidence favoring MET that make fossils unnecessary, it would be the inevitable prediction for someone who claimed an interest in evidence. Quote Quote Quote And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online. That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature? I guess I don't know what you mean by "primary literature".  Is that only peer-reviewed journals? Within most journals, there are both primary (those with new data) and secondary (reviews). Usually, only the former are peer-reviewed. So I'll ask again: have you ever read a paper from the primary literature--meaning one that reports data that have never been reported before?                         Quote Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong. Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.   Quote   Quote Let's discuss this paper, then: http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104 ...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence. Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, :D then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice No, those were already sequenced.   Quote and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing? Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences. What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?   Quote I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me. It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?                             Quote But I've reached no firm conclusion as of yet. Read all the conclusions you advanced above.   Quote Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction. That's because you haven't looked at evidence. Look at how you misrepresented the tree as "theoretical" above.