A most promising anti-evolutionist

[DMB]

I have invited him to post here, but I'm not at all sure he will. In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1118111#post1118111) Charles Darwin (yes, it is a bit cheeky of him, don't you think?) wrote:
The naturalistic models of how the likes of the DNA code or echolocation evolved amount to this: "well, since evolution is true then these must have evolved somehow, let's speculate about it."

I do agree with you that there is a heap of evidence for macro evolution, there also is for the flat earth theory and geocentrism. You can even predict ecclipses with geocentrism. But I assume you think the evidence for macro evolution is compelling. This is not the case -- each evidence, in fact, can be used to argue *against* evolution.

For example, the fossils often shows new species arising fully formed, as though they were planted there. Then they don't change for eons. Even the sequence of horse-like fossils, that old favorite of museums and textbooks, is now admitted to be a series of different, overlapping in time, species. If the different species evolved from each other, then it must have been rapidly so as not to have left any fossils of the transition. As Niles Eldredge admitted:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

Or as paleontologist Robert Carroll explains, the fossil record "emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species." So to the rescue comes punctuated equilibrium, which isn't so much a theory as a label. We don't observe gradual evolution and the fossil species are static, so evolution must proceed by fits and starts.

There are, of course, many fossil species with similarities, and these rightfully are evidence for evolution. But the many "explosions" with strange and new species appearing out of nowhere are strong arguments against evolution. We certainly cannot simply conclude that the fossils are strong evidence for evolution. As paleontologist Henry Gee of Nature wrote:

"Many of the assumptions we make about evolution, especially concerning the history of life as understood from the fossil record, are, however, baseless. The reason for this lies in the scale of geological time that scientists deal with, which is so vast that it defies narrative. Fossils, such as the fossils of creatures we hail as our ancestors, constitute primary evidence for the history of life, but each fossil is an infinitesimal dot, lost in a fathomless sea of time, whose relationship with other fossils and organisms living in the present day is obscure. Any story we tell against the compass of geological time which links these fossils in sequences of cause and effect—or ancestry and descent—is, therefore, only ours to make. We invent these stories, after the fact, to justify the history of life according to our own prejudices."

Well, I'm afraid it gets worse from here. I'll spare the details, but the comparative anatomy evidence has all kinds of problems for evolution (calling for all sorts of "convergent" evolution and lateral gene transfer). For instance, we are constantly finding similar designs in otherwise distant species. IOW, the similar designs must have been repeated. Good old echolocation, in fact, probably had to have evolved multiple times if evolution is true. Sometimes these similarities are quite striking.
Some of the habitues from here might care to tackle him there if he doesn't turn up here. BTW he claims to be a physicist.

[Data]

I'll spare the details, but the comparative anatomy evidence has all kinds of problems for evolution (calling for all sorts of "convergent" evolution and lateral gene transfer). For instance, we are constantly finding similar designs in otherwise distant species. IOW, the similar designs must have been repeated. Good old echolocation, in fact, probably had to have evolved multiple times if evolution is true. Sometimes these similarities are quite striking.
He doesn't say why this causes problems for evolution, I can't actually see how it could.

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by DMB
In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1118111#post1118111) Charles Darwin (yes, it is a bit cheeky of him, don't you think?) wrote:


I shall have to give him a stern talking-to!

[charlie d]

Originally posted by MrDarwin
I shall have to give him a stern talking-to!
Indeed! ;)

[Happy Wonderer]

For example, the fossils often shows new species arising fully formed, as though they were planted there. Then they don't change for eons.

Well, I'm afraid it gets worse from here. I'll spare the details, but the comparative anatomy evidence has all kinds of problems for evolution (calling for all sorts of "convergent" evolution and lateral gene transfer).


Any of you at a university should really take the time to sneak a recent copy or two of Nature into both the physics and engineering departments. There have been a couple of discoveries since 1950 that may provide tantalizingly new evidence for evolution...

hw

[DMB]

More from the desk of Charles Darwin:

I would argue from science that naturalistic theories of origins are not good. I'm not saying naturalistic theories are literally impossible; simply that from everything we know about science, it is informing us that naturalistic theories are consistently failing, except in circles where only naturalistic theories are allowed, and therefore there is less critical review (ie, naturalistic theories are viewed critically only to the extent that they are inferior to *other* naturalistic theories).

[wade-w]

I just gave him "official" notification that discussions of evolution are off topic in GRD, and if he wishes to continue to discuss the subject he should post here.

From what he has said in various threads in GRD, he seeems to believe in some variation of ID. And he also claims to have a PhD in physics.

I really hope he shows. Should be intersting to watch.

/me wanders off to get the popcorn ready...

[DMB]

This gem from another thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59858&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) in GRD (he is explaining the impossibility that bats could have evolved echolocation by Natural Selection):
Anyone familiar with today’s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat’s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment. To think that things like this just happen to occur via a series of mutations is not scientific thinking.

[KC]

Originally posted by MrDarwin
I shall have to give him a stern talking-to!

And you can actually say to him, "That's Mr Darwin to you"...:D

KC

[Roland98]

Hmm, how bizarre that he chooses to discuss that in GRD but not over here. I look forward to his first thread in this folder...

[Happy Wonderer]

Yet the bat’s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment.


I love statements like this. Say again how much better bats are at detecting enemy submarines in 300 meters of water? Maybe Raytheon is on the wrong track here...

hw

[Nic Tamzek]

I bet you've got Cornelius Hunter right there. It sure sounds like him...keeps repeating the same general assertions over and over, rather than picking a specific case to see if he can develop a better answer than evolutionary theory provides, etc.

His most recent book is hilarious -- wild self-contradictions on every page, practically. Later in the book he lays out his cards and makes it pretty clear that the whole evolution thing is a Christian apologetics thing for him -- he starts quoting prophecy and "desiring to become wise, they became fools" (the rallying cry of those who don't have the evidence on their side everywhere) and the whole bit. He doesn't quite come out and say it but I think he's probably actually a YEC or hardcore special creationist. Which is highly ironic since he criticizes Darwin et al. ad nauseum for arguing against special creation.

Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science
http://enotalone.com/books/ASIN/1587430568.html

There is also a recent episode where Hunter gave a talk up in the Bay Area (IIRC), and asserted that the similarity of wolk and thylacine skulls was too close to be explained by evolution (this kind of thing is his "evidence" against evolution), and documented this by showing pictures of said skulls.

But, there was a paleontologist in the crowd, who observed that Hunter was just using one picture, of a thylacine skull, which he reversed to represent the "wolf" skull! LOL! In fact the skulls are easily distinguishable by anyone who knows mammal skulls, since the convergences are superficial and numerous hallmarks of placental vs. marsupial skulls remain in each skull.

But, by all means, invite him over here, we haven't had a feisty one in awhile.

[Duvenoy]

Indeed, Charlie D's been invited several times, and even given directions by a mod. I rather doubt he'll show up. Perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable fear of picking up a snake that he knows is going to bite him. Can't blame him for that.

I myself would like to read his response to this:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

In fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat, the Eocene-age Icaronycteris shown at right, shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate.

Might be interesting.

doov

[DMB]

He wasn't quite a drive-by, but he seems to have pretty much disappeared as a result of being asked to post here and in other fora besides GRD.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Indeed, Charlie D's been invited several times, and even given directions by a mod. I rather doubt he'll show up. Perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable fear of picking up a snake that he knows is going to bite him. Can't blame him for that.

I myself would like to read his response to this:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html



Might be interesting.

doov

First, a fellow on another section of this forum (the general religious discussion) had this to say:

"Evolution is fact. We know it happens."

Do you fellows believe this? I have to say that I can't quite imagine how one would think this. Perhaps you could lay out the argument. I'm sure there are many details, but how about the general form of the argument?

Now second, as for doov's point, I'm unclear on why echolocation in an extinct bat makes this capability more likely to be a product of evolution. Can you elaborate?

[Secular Pinoy]

Sure, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is simply the realization that organisms change over time. In more concrete terms, there is a change in alleles in a population. The theory of evolution seeks to provide a mechanism to explain the fact of evolution. These mechanisms include Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Neutral Evolution.

For a very good introduction to this, I suggest you read Evolution as Fact and Theory (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html) by SJ Gould.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
Sure, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is simply the realization that organisms change over time. In more concrete terms, there is a change in alleles in a population. The theory of evolution seeks to provide a mechanism to explain the fact of evolution. These mechanisms include Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Neutral Evolution.

For a very good introduction to this, I suggest you read Evolution as Fact and Theory (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html) by SJ Gould.

I've read Gould's piece, I guess I missed the part where he showed that evolution is a fact (despite the title). Let's see, as I recall he pointed out that fossils exist; that some species are similar to other species; and the we observe small amounts of evolution. Therefore evolution is a fact? I'm sorry, but with all due respect to the late Professor Gould, even my pet cat can't be persuaded by that.

You, OTOH, seem to be saying something different. You're saying that the fact of evolution is changes in alleles in a population over time. This, of course, is not what Gould was talking about. Were you just making an example, or are you making a different claim than Gould's? If so, then why do you cite Gould?

[Data]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
We observe small amounts of evolution. Therefore evolution is a fact?
You answered your own question there. :boohoo:

[Wounded King]

The direct observational evidence of evolution, the 'small amounts' of evolution are the changes in allele frequency which secular mentioned.

As a paleontologist rather than a geneticst Gould preffered to discuss the fossil record, but the first tier of evidence he mentions is exactly what Secular described.

[Duvenoy]

Hi Charls! welcome to E/C!

I had another post on bats somewhere, but can't seem to find it. Perhaps, I'll re-do it later.

The point is that the extinct bat was very old -- are you YEC?

Also, not all bats echolocate, and, with one exception, those that do use the larynx to produce the sound. The other, one of the fruit bats, uses tongue clicks.

Further, echolocation ain't all that big of a deal. Many animals have evolved the trait, notably toothed whales, the tenrecs of Madagascar, and some species of shrew. Oddly, bats are the only fliers known to have done so.

Seems to me that if echolocation was bestowed upon these animals by some sort of deity, that deity would have also given it to many other creatures, who could use it to advantage.

On a side note, there are species of moth that take wild, evasive action the instant they hear a bat echolocating. Sound (bad pun! :D )evidence of natural selection, no?

doov

[Duvenoy]

Aha! Found it! I'm re-posting it here mainly for the links, which I think are very good.

Originally posted by DMB
"Charles Darwin" seems to be arguing the irreducible complexity of bats' echo location here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60065).

I was hoping.....

The fact is that not all bats echolocate. The old world fruit bats don't use it. Rather, they have evolved enhanced eyesight. I think there is a single species that echolocates, but it is with tongue-clicking, rather than through the larynx.

Echolocation ain't all that rare. Toothed whales do it, the tenrecs of Madagascar and some species of shrew, non-fliers all, also do it.

One wonders how many times it evolved, in one form or another, over the ages.

Interesting sites:

http://www.tenrec.org/fieldolson.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33452

doov

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
The point is that the extinct bat was very old -- are you YEC?
I don't see how evolution is a fact no matter how much time you have. In other words, I don't think the age of the earth has much of a bearing. My point here is that the fact that a bat, with echolocation, is now extinct doesn't add credence to the theory that the bat (or echolocation) evolved.

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Also, not all bats echolocate, and, with one exception, those that do use the larynx to produce the sound. The other, one of the fruit bats, uses tongue clicks.

Yes, it now looks like echolocation must have evolved several times. Just like so many other designs.

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Further, echolocation ain't all that big of a deal. Many animals have evolved the trait, notably toothed whales, the tenrecs of Madagascar, and some species of shrew. Oddly, bats are the only fliers known to have done so.

Why does the fact that many species make use of echolocation make it no big deal? It sounds like you are presupposing evolution to be true. That is fine if you want to talk to other evolutionists, but it doesn't work if you want to promote evolution.

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Seems to me that if echolocation was bestowed upon these animals by some sort of deity, that deity would have also given it to many other creatures, who could use it to advantage.

I thought you just made the point that echolocation is no big deal because it is bestowed upon many different creatures. Looks like you're having it both ways. Apparently what you are saying is that it occurs sufficiently often for it to be no big deal, and yet not often enough to satisfy your opinion of what a deity would do. So now we're about as scientific as yesterday's astrology column. You're making some sort of vague claim that echolocation is no big deal because it is in multiple species (last time I checked echolocation had the US military's systems beat hands down), and then you're telling us about God.

As far as I can tell both these claims are unsupported. Can you help and explain how you found these things out?

Originally posted by Duvenoy
On a side note, there are species of moth that take wild, evasive action the instant they hear a bat echolocating. Sound (bad pun! :D )evidence of natural selection, no?

Yes, indeed, that is evidence for natural selection. By the way, yesterday's astrology column had it right. More evidence for astrology, no?

Originally posted by Duvenoy
The fact is that not all bats echolocate. The old world fruit bats don't use it. Rather, they have evolved enhanced eyesight. I think there is a single species that echolocates, but it is with tongue-clicking, rather than through the larynx.

Echolocation ain't all that rare. Toothed whales do it, the tenrecs of Madagascar and some species of shrew, non-fliers all, also do it.

One wonders how many times it evolved, in one form or another, over the ages.

doov

Well, I guess evolution must be true! {/sarcasm off}. Thank you for the links.

[Charles Darwin]

Quote from Data: You answered your own question there.

Originally posted by Wounded King
The direct observational evidence of evolution, the 'small amounts' of evolution are the changes in allele frequency which secular mentioned.

As a paleontologist rather than a geneticst Gould preffered to discuss the fossil record, but the first tier of evidence he mentions is exactly what Secular described.

You must be kidding me. Don't tell me I'm going to have to suffer through equivocating on evolution and spend a dozen posts clearing that up? If you think evolution is a fact, then explain why. Gould said it is a fact because there are fossils, similarities, and small levels of evolution. Is that really your reasoning too?

[Wounded King]

Are you saying that we don't observe microevolution? If so there are a couple of hundred pieces of primary literature I can refer you to.

Why not tell us what you understand by evolution and then maybe we can tell you if it is a fact, you obviously don't like the definition Secular Pinoy gave.

Where does the equivocation come in? In trying to dismiss the evidence as only microevolution.

I personally think that evolution is a fact because of the various microevolutionary experiments that have been performed, the radical changes in morphology associated with highly specific mutations seen in developmental biology, the highly conserved nature of developmental programs and developmental signalling pathways, the fossil record, numerous studies on isolated population which have diversified and speciated (such as the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria) and a whole lot of other stuff that doesn't come to mind at the moment.

[Doubting Didymus]

Endogenous retroviral insertions confirming phylogenetic trees constructed on independant data prove that species descend from a common ancestor.

[Doubting Didymus]

On the same note, the phylogenetic trees formed by standard genome comparisons confirm the trees built by morphological comparisons. There's no reason to expect that to happen if species aren't related.

[RRoman]

I always thought that dogs are among the better examples of evolution. But I think Charles Darwin should first tell us what he thinks evolution is.

[Doubting Didymus]

Oh yeah... and the widely accepted endosymbiont theory of chloroplast and mitochondria origin is independant evidence that all multicellular species were unicellular at some point in the past. You probably don't buy the aforementioned endosymbiont theory, but if it's not true, then the similarities between mitochondria and bacteria are slightly mysterious, as is the possession of said organelle of its own genetic material.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by RRoman
I always thought that dogs are among the better examples of evolution. But I think Charles Darwin should first tell us what he thinks evolution is.

The theory that the origin of the species can be explained as the result of natural forces and laws at work.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
On the same note, the phylogenetic trees formed by standard genome comparisons confirm the trees built by morphological comparisons. There's no reason to expect that to happen if species aren't related.

I need a bit of help on this one. Why "no reason"? And what do you mean by related? For instance, why does a relationship prove evolution to be a fact?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by Duvenoy:

Further, echolocation ain't all that big of a deal. Many animals have evolved the trait, notably toothed whales, the tenrecs of Madagascar, and some species of shrew. Oddly, bats are the only fliers known to have done so.

Actually, some birds are known to echolocate -- notably, cave-nesting swiftlets (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/14/7091) and oilbirds. Their echolocation abilities aren't nearly as impressive as are those of bats, however.

Cheers,

Michael

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Wounded King
Are you saying that we don't observe microevolution? If so there are a couple of hundred pieces of primary literature I can refer you to.

Why not tell us what you understand by evolution and then maybe we can tell you if it is a fact, you obviously don't like the definition Secular Pinoy gave.

Where does the equivocation come in? In trying to dismiss the evidence as only microevolution.

I personally think that evolution is a fact because of the various microevolutionary experiments that have been performed, the radical changes in morphology associated with highly specific mutations seen in developmental biology, the highly conserved nature of developmental programs and developmental signalling pathways, the fossil record, numerous studies on isolated population which have diversified and speciated (such as the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria) and a whole lot of other stuff that doesn't come to mind at the moment.

No, I don't doubt that instances of microevolution are observed. Nor do I doubt that instances of macroevolution are observed.

The equivocation comes in when you say the evolution is a fact because instances of microevolution are observed. Some moths changed color, therefore it is a fact that fish evolved into giraffes.

Regarding your ideas of why evolution is a fact, I assume that you mean 'public' fact, not 'private' fact. That is, you intend that this fact is objective, for all to see, not your own private inspiration. If I'm on track here, then I utterly fail to track your logic. How did evolution create the adaptation machine that produces microevolution that you now claim as evidence for your theory? And the same for the developmental programs?

I hope you understand my questions are rhetorical. I have no doubt you can provide speculations on these questions. My point is that the evidence you are citing that evolution is a fact does not support evolution in the way you seem to think it does.

On to the fossil record. How does that help to combine with the other evidences to arrive at telling us evolution is a fact? You mean that species appear out of nowhere? Emm, no, that's probably not what you're referring to. You mean that species don't change once they appear? Emm, no, can't be that. You mean that there are similar species in the fossil record? OK, where does that get you?

Do you see my point? To prove evolution to be a (public) fact, we need more than a jumble of evidences which can be interpreted in various ways (including contra evolution).

Even granting you favorable interpretations of these evidences, why do they prove evolution to be a fact?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
No, I don't doubt that instances of microevolution are observed. Nor do I doubt that instances of macroevolution are observed.

The equivocation comes in when you say the evolution is a fact because instances of microevolution are observed. Some moths changed color, therefore it is a fact that fish evolved into giraffes.

<snip>

Even granting you favorable interpretations of these evidences, why do they prove evolution to be a fact?

Whoa, hang on there a moment.

Evolution is changes in populations of organisms over time, specifically, genetic changes. Period. End of statement.

It is an observed fact that populations of organisms change over time, as you note. Therefore, it is a fact that evolution occurs.

When you're talking about the evolution of giraffes from fish (via quite a few intermediaries), you're talking about common descent. Theories of evolution explain this.

This is why we distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and evolutionary theory which seeks to explain such things as the apparent fact that all organisms share common ancestry.

Cheers,

Michael

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I need a bit of help on this one. Why "no reason"? And what do you mean by related? For instance, why does a relationship prove evolution to be a fact?

When a biologist attempts to construct a phylogenetic tree, they are basically drawing a diagram of how species are related. By 'relationship' here, we aren't talking about the vague colloquial sense (early 1900s church music is 'related' to jazz of the same period, by bent of sharing characteristics). We mean related in the specific sense of family relationships. I am related to my sister, and to my cousin, by blood.

So when a biologist builds a tree of species relationships based on something (morphology, DNA, etc), it's not just an effort in saying "these species look the most alike" but a hypothesis about the lineage relationships. If the tree places humans and chimps on more recently diverging lines than cats, its making a hypothesis about when the ancestors of these species diverged.

Now, if that hypothesis is false, and humans and chimps don't share an ancestor, and neither of us shares an ancestor with cats, then we don't expect the tree we drew based on morphology to agree with our genomes. Our nucleotide sequences shouldn't build a tree that agrees with the hypothesis that certain species are more or less related (again, related in the sense of lineage). It could be anything, building a wildly different tree.

Now, a common objection to this is that there might indeed be a good reason to expect an animals genes to agree with the tree, even if they were never related. Perhaps, goes the argument, animals that just happen to be similar because of the taste of the creator would naturally share more genes with species they look more like, and less than those that don't. The genes would agree with the morphology tree, just because they are more similar in shape to that species. If two cakes taste alike they should have similar recipes, and as the cake becomes less like the first, the recipe should slowly change accordingly. That doesn't mean that all caes are descended from the first cake.

Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold water for a number of reasons. First, we could test areas of the genome that aren't used: genes that don't make anything, and see if the tree is still produced the same way. It does.

Second, we should then be able to take two species that have similar morphology and expect there to be a consistantly higher genetic similarity. We should expect dolphins to have swimming-thing-with-fins-that-eats-fish genomes that are more similar to sharks than to walking-around-a-field-chewing-grass genomes like elephants. But they don't. We should expect the flying suirrel to be more genetically like an australian flying marsupial possum than to, say, a dog. They don't.

Thus, being able to build the same phylogenetic tree over and over, no matter what method we use, is strong evidence that the hypotheses that the tree generates (i.e. that species are related by lineage) are correct.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Endogenous retroviral insertions confirming phylogenetic trees constructed on independant data prove that species descend from a common ancestor.

So does the failure of endogenous retrovial insertions to confirm pre established trees disprove evolution? If so, then you should drop evolution as they are all over the map. For instance, there is the HERV that shows up in gorillas and chimps but not humans. In general:

"As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5' and 3' LTR sequences." PNAS, 96:10254, 1999.

If the failure of endogenous retrovial insertions to confirm pre established trees does not disprove evolution, then how does it tell us that evolution is a fact?

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger
Actually, some birds are known to echolocate -- notably, cave-nesting swiftlets (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/14/7091) and oilbirds. Their echolocation abilities aren't nearly as impressive as are those of bats, however.

Cheers,

Michael

Thanks Ranger. Now that you've said it, I get a little nudge in the back of my mind that I read it somewhere. I should'a looked.

Echolocation is no more big a deal than the ever-growing incisors of rodents or the lure possesed by angler fish. It is just another trait that some organisms evolved to give a slight survival advantage.

Here’s another link, on fossils (not bats), one might find interesting:

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

doov

[Doubting Didymus]

Here is the full text of the article referenced by Charles:

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=17875)

Note that the overwhelming finding of the study found that ERVs support the long standing phylogenetic tree of the old world primates.

An example of findings from this article that support the standard phylogenetic tree:

Three of the loci, HERV-KC4, HERV-KHML6.17, and RTVL-Ia, were detectable in the genomes of OWMs and hominoids, but not New World monkeys, and therefore integrated into the germ line of a common ancestor of the Old World lineages. HERV-K18, RTVL-Ha, and RTVL-Hb were found exclusively in humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, and thus are consistent with a gorilla/chimpanzee/human clade. None of the loci was detected in New World monkeys.

Also note the following paragraph from the papers conclusion:

The study reported here is, to our knowledge, the first to take advantage of special properties of retroelements to provide insight into evolutionary mechanisms. The HERVs analyzed above include six unlinked loci, representing five unrelated HERV sequence families. Except where noted, these sequences gave trees that were consistent with the well established phylogeny of the old world primates, including OWMs, apes, and humans.

The exceptions noted by my emphasis above are, of course, discussed in the article. Evolution does not predict that something so mutable and error-prone as the genome should perfectly preserve every retrovirus it ever includes. we should expect there to be explainations when data is imperfect, which this article devotes some time to doing. I do not believe that a fair reading of this article can lead one to the conclusion that ERVs have "failed" to confirm pre established trees. They overwhelmingly do, and the few exeptions are not mysterious.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
So does the failure of endogenous retrovial insertions to confirm pre established trees disprove evolution? If so, then you should drop evolution as they are all over the map. For instance, there is the HERV that shows up in gorillas and chimps but not humans. In general:

"As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5' and 3' LTR sequences." PNAS, 96:10254, 1999.

If the failure of endogenous retrovial insertions to confirm pre established trees does not disprove evolution, then how does it tell us that evolution is a fact?

For everyones sake, lets try quoting the whole passage:

For each HERV locus, the amplified LTRs from each species were directly sequenced, and the aligned sequences were used to generate phylogenetic trees (Fig. 2). The 5' and 3' LTRs of HERV-KHML6.17 fell into two distinct clusters, in accord with prediction (Fig. 2A). Moreover, both LTR cluster topologies are consistent with established versions of primate species phylogeny (26-29). As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5' and 3' LTR sequences.

Does that make more sense now?

Let's also note Johnson & Coffin's conclusion:

The study reported here is, to our knowledge, the first to take advantage of special properties of retroelements to provide insight into evolutionary mechanisms. The HERVs analyzed above include six unlinked loci, representing five unrelated HERV sequence families. Except where noted, these sequences gave trees that were consistent with the well established phylogeny of the old world primates, including OWMs, apes, and humans

The full text is available here (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254#FN151).

-GFA

[Doubting Didymus]

http://www.cnnsi.com/events/1996/olympics/daily/aug5/images/marathon01.jpg

Beat you by one minute, GFA.

[God Fearing Atheist]

dag-nabbit DD!

;)

-GFA

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger
Whoa, hang on there a moment.

Evolution is changes in populations of organisms over time, specifically, genetic changes. Period. End of statement.

It is an observed fact that populations of organisms change over time, as you note. Therefore, it is a fact that evolution occurs.

When you're talking about the evolution of giraffes from fish (via quite a few intermediaries), you're talking about common descent. Theories of evolution explain this.

This is why we distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and evolutionary theory which seeks to explain such things as the apparent fact that all organisms share common ancestry.

Cheers,

Michael

This is the kind of equivocation I'm talking about. Evolutionists such as Gould are not merely talking about the observed, small-scale, genetic changes in populations when they argue evolution is a fact. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to write at length about it.

[Duvenoy]

Just remembered another echolocater, of sorts; the electric eel (these are not really eels, but one of the South American knifefishs)

The young 'eel' soon becomes blind from electricity-induced cataracs. To navigate and find food, it puts forth a series of electrical discharges that tell it the shape of it's location. It is highly accurate.

I recall reading that the torpedo rays do the same, but it was a popular piece and suspect.

doov

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
This is the kind of equivocation I'm talking about. Evolutionists such as Gould are not merely talking about the observed, small-scale, genetic changes in populations when they argue evolution is a fact. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to write at length about it.

Where, exactly, is the "equivocation"?

There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution occurs, so it's utterly proper to say, "Evolution occurs; that's a fact."

As for saying something along the lines of "all living organisms are the results of billions of years of evolution, and are related by common descent", that is a "fact" in the sense that it has long-ago been established beyond any reasonable doubt. It's not improper to call this a "fact" because if it's not true, our perception of the world around us is so mistaken that we obviously can't rely upon evidence at all, and we therefore can't say that anything is true. As Gould points out in the article referenced above: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

He goes on to point out that "Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."

I've yet to read any introductory-level science textbook which doesn't emphasize that all scientific knowledge is provisional, and subject to revision in the light of new data. Nonetheless, we can confidently state that there are established facts -- things that are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." That all extant organisms are related by common descent is just such a fact.

This fact has been confirmed over and over again, by everything from comparative anatomy to molecular biology, any one of which could have disproved it. If there are data which disprove this "fact," no one has presented them yet.

There comes a time when the evidence in favor of a particular conclusion can become so overwhelming that to deny the factuality of the conclusion is to deny reason. Here, we have just such a case.

Cheers,

Michael

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
The exceptions noted by my emphasis above are, of course, discussed in the article. Evolution does not predict that something so mutable and error-prone as the genome should perfectly preserve every retrovirus it ever includes. we should expect there to be explainations when data is imperfect, which this article devotes some time to doing. I do not believe that a fair reading of this article can lead one to the conclusion that ERVs have "failed" to confirm pre established trees. They overwhelmingly do, and the few exeptions are not mysterious.

Failure is a strong word. You're the one claiming that the ERVs help make evolution a *fact*. Sure, there is a lot of consistencies, there are also important differences, such as the ERV in the gorilla and chimp but not the human.

[God Fearing Atheist]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
This is the kind of equivocation I'm talking about. Evolutionists such as Gould are not merely talking about the observed, small-scale, genetic changes in populations when they argue evolution is a fact. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to write at length about it.

Its not equivocation Charles. The thing is, the "change in allele frequency in a population over time" and "decent with modification" definitions are functionally equivalent.

-GFA

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger
Where, exactly, is the "equivocation"?

There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution occurs, so it's utterly proper to say, "Evolution occurs; that's a fact."

As for saying something along the lines of "all living organisms are the results of billions of years of evolution, and are related by common descent", that is a "fact" in the sense that it has long-ago been established beyond any reasonable doubt. It's not improper to call this a "fact" because if it's not true, our perception of the world around us is so mistaken that we obviously can't rely upon evidence at all, and we therefore can't say that anything is true. As Gould points out in the article referenced above: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

He goes on to point out that "Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."

I've yet to read any introductory-level science textbook which doesn't emphasize that all scientific knowledge is provisional, and subject to revision in the light of new data. Nonetheless, we can confidently state that there are established facts -- things that are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." That all extant organisms are related by common descent is just such a fact.

This fact has been confirmed over and over again, by everything from comparative anatomy to molecular biology, any one of which could have disproved it. If there are data which disprove this "fact," no one has presented them yet.

There comes a time when the evidence in favor of a particular conclusion can become so overwhelming that to deny the factuality of the conclusion is to deny reason. Here, we have just such a case.

Cheers,

Michael

OK, very good. I agree with your definition of what a "scientific fact" is (ie, evidence is overwhelming; if we're wrong about it, then we're wrong about a whole lot of things). I'll use the term "scientific fact" rather than "fact." So now, you write:

"As for saying something along the lines of "all living organisms are the results of billions of years of evolution, and are related by common descent", that is a "fact" in the sense that it has long-ago been established beyond any reasonable doubt. "

and

"This fact has been confirmed over and over again, by everything from comparative anatomy to molecular biology, any one of which could have disproved it. If there are data which disprove this "fact," no one has presented them yet. "

Now Gould utterly fails to make the sort of proof you are talking about. So my question is, why do you think that evolution is a scientific fact? You mentioned comparative anatomy and molecular biology. Can you go down a level deeper and explain why those areas confirm that evolution is a scientific fact?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin


Now Gould utterly fails to make the sort of proof you are talking about. So my question is, why do you think that evolution is a scientific fact? You mentioned comparative anatomy and molecular biology. Can you go down a level deeper and explain why those areas confirm that evolution is a scientific fact?

Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) a good introduction.

Cheers,

Michael

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Failure is a strong word. You're the one claiming that the ERVs help make evolution a *fact*. Sure, there is a lot of consistencies, there are also important differences, such as the ERV in the gorilla and chimp but not the human.

Didn't you read the results section? If you're talking about the one that this report itself found, then the anomaly was explained within the report.

[Doctor X]

I argued against evolution, but the staphylococcus disagreed with me. . . .

This is all an elaborate complaint that because we do not know "everything"--trace the entire development of species--evolution remains a theory as tenuous as the flat earth.

--J.D.

[Wounded King]

Dear Charles,

You ask
How did evolution create the adaptation machine that produces microevolution that you now claim as evidence for your theory? And the same for the developmental programs?
Do you really expect me to give you a course in evolutionary-developmental biology right here and now? Its a big topic! There is plenty of research into the conservation of developmental programs, wjy not take a look at the primary literature or read a textbook like Gilbert or Wolpert. In fact you can access the text of Gilbert free online at pubmed so you don't even have to go to the library.

As to the 'machinery' for adaptation, its inherent in any population of imperfect replicators, and since it forms the basis of evolution evolution did not 'create' it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oh deary dear... Arguing with a creationist with the temerity to call himself Charles Darwin makes my old Darwin’s Terrier moniker rather embarrassing... or perhaps, rather apposite. Watch your ankles, Charles.

Now then...
Can you go down a level deeper and explain why those areas confirm that evolution is a scientific fact?
Start by thoroughly reading the link Michael (TLR) gave you above.

It’s really quite simple, old chap. We have dozens of separate lines of evidence from a range of fields. Not one of them disagrees with evolution, which they could have if evolution were wrong; instead, they all confirm it. We have biogeography, genetics, anatomy and physiology, for instance, plus those annoying fossils. Where would you like to start?

Okay, I’ll get specific. If evolution -- descent with modification -- is not a fact, perhaps you could explain these two pictures:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Would you mind telling us please which are the ape fossils, and which are human, and why?

Then there’s this:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

See www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html for an explanation.

Care to explain why there are telomeres in the middle of our chromosome 2?

These are two, entirely unrelated fields, both saying the same thing: humans and apes share a common ancestor.

These are just two examples, readily to hand. But all of biology and palaeontology is like this, stuffed with observations that only make sense if evolution is correct. I chose humans because, when the chase is cut to, whatever else creationists can be forced to accept, it is human evolution that they cannot countenance.

Ah, to hell with it, I’ll jump the gun anyway, since bats have been mentioned...

The designer was clever enough to make echolocation. Okay... but maybe, Charles, you could explain why this same creator gave bats a respiratory / lung ventilation system that is ten times less efficient than that of birds?

What is it about the lifestyles of bats that meant their designer was right to give them a breathing system so inefficient, compared to one he used elsewhere in other flying creatures?

And why did He use the avian through-flow system in kiwis, and the mammalian tidal system in cheetahs (sprinters), wolves (long-distance runners) and the pinnacle of His purpose, us humans?

TTFN, Oolon

[Jack the Bodiless]

First, a fellow on another section of this forum (the general religious discussion) had this to say:

"Evolution is fact. We know it happens."
That was me.

Others have already dealt with this, but:

We know for a fact that the process of evolution occurrs. This is NOT a controversial statement: even YEC's accept it (even if they insist on calling it "microevolution").

You were attempting to place the "God hypothesis" on the same level as the "evolution hypothesis". But we KNOW that evolution is an actual process, happening right now in the real world. And, even though we cannot be certain that evolution alone is the full and complete explanation for our own descent from primitive organisms, we know of no reason why this should NOT be the case.

...Whereas I am not aware of ANY actual, successful, scientifically-verified examples of intelligences willing Universes into being, or even very small objects into being. There is no known process that the supporter of the God hypothesis can point to and say "look, there, THAT's what I'm suggesting as the process which led to the emergence of humanity".

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I don't see how evolution is a fact no matter how much time you have. In other words, I don't think the age of the earth has much of a bearing.
So the time needed doesn’t bother you. And even the thickest creationist doesn’t contest ‘microevolution’ -- that is, descent with modification, but only a little of it. Fine.

In which case, perhaps Charles Darwin -- who ought to know, I guess -- could tell us what exactly a ‘kind’ is? Is it roughly a species, a genus, a family, an order... what? IOW, what’s to stop cumulative microevolution making something considerably different? We really need to know, if we’re to tell whether ‘kinds’ are genuinely immutable.

Now take a good hard look at these two pics.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/battwo.gif

http://www.bio.psu.edu/faculty/strauss/anatomy/misc/skeleton2.jpg

On what grounds could descent with modification not have produced these two organisms from a common ancestor?

TTFN, Oolon

[lpetrich]

"Charles Darwin" has maintained that the following are unevolvable:

* Echolocation

* Altruism (behavior that benefits another rather than oneself)

He points to examples of fancy echolocation, and he seems to think that they had emerged in one big jump. Yet such fancy echolocation does not require one big jump to come into existence; a simpler echolocation system can still be functional, even if its performance is less.

He ought to consider human-technology echolocation: radar and sonar. Present-day radar and sonar systems were not developed instantaneously in one big jump, but over the last century.

There is a close parallel with discussions of the evolution of eyes.

Turning to his second problem, there are two favorite solutions:

* Reciprocal altruism (I'll scratch your back, and you'll scratch mine)

That happens in social animals; some even take care to detect cheaters. Vampire bats will share meals with other bats which have not been able to eat -- but only if those others had helped them out in this fashion in the past.

* Kin selection (they share many of one's genes; part of oneself continues to live in them)

There are numerous examples of that, starting with the cells of a multicellular organism. All but a few will die with the organism, and many of them die before that:

The outermost layer of human skin is dead cells, produced by the multiplication of cells just below. There are several other kinds of sacrificial cells in our bodies, including digestive-system-surface cells and various blood cells.

Tree trunks have only a thin "live" layer, the cambium. Cells on the cambium's inside die and become wood; cells on the cambium's outside die and become bark.

Many trees drop their leaves before wintertime or a dry season. Such "deciduous trees" produce leaves that last only a growing season, and die at the end of it.

Development often involves cells dying at strategic places, such as cells between the digits (fingers, toes).

Going back to the organism level, parental care and provisioning is an obvious form of kin selection; it sometimes takes extremes like plants dying as they go to seed or a female octopus starving to death as she protects her eggs.

Kin selection may be involved in sociality, since social groups are often somewhat inbred. This goes to extremes in "eusocial" insects, where a few reproducers produce the rest of the group's members -- members who does not reproduce. Such worker insects are like the non-germ cells in a body; they assist the reproduction of close relatives.

So "Charles Darwin" ought to study some evolutionary biology some time -- he will be amazed at how far it has gone.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Failure is a strong word. You're the one claiming that the ERVs help make evolution a *fact*. Sure, there is a lot of consistencies, there are also important differences, such as the ERV in the gorilla and chimp but not the human.

Do you understand why the retroviral insertions are such convincing evidence in support of evolution? The insertions are in the same position on the same chromosome in two different species (say, chimps and humans). In some cases, these insertion elements are in the same position in more distant common ancestors as well, but are missing in relatives further down the evolutionary line (say in this case, crocodiles). The most parsimonious reason for there identical position is that they were inheirited from a common ancestor; in the example I outlined, it would have integrated into an ancestor prior to the time the chimp/human lineages diverged, but after those lineages shared a common ancestor with crocodiles. Pretty straightforward stuff, and very unlikely to happen by chance. However, the lack of a viral insertion is not evidence against evolution; and I presume you read the explanations the authors provided?

[Wounded King]

Whats up Roland? No balm in Gilead?

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Wounded King
Whats up Roland? No balm in Gilead?

heh heh...kept hitting quote instead of edit...sorry, it's a Monday. :banghead: Mods, please feel free to delete extraneous posts to keep the thread on track, and my apologies.

[RBH]

I suggest that Charles Darwin's definition of "evolution" needs to be addressed. It's very peculiar:Originally posted by Charles DarwinOriginally posted by RRoman
I always thought that dogs are among the better examples of evolution. But I think Charles Darwin should first tell us what he thinks evolution is.The theory that the origin of the species can be explained as the result of natural forces and laws at work.No mention of allele frequency changes, natural selection, population variability and its generators; just "natural forces and laws." That definition is of "science," not "evolution." Substitute any phenomenon for "the origin of the species" in that sentence and it reads just the same. In other words, Charles Darwin equates "evolution" and naturalism, methodological or (this is my bet) philosophical, with no other distinguishing content. Any naturalistic theory of the origin of species is "evolution" to Charles.

RBH

[Jack the Bodiless]

I've used echolocation myself: I've dropped a stone down a well, and I've even made a clicking sound to get a "feel" for the size of a dark cave. The results weren't particulary precise, but it wasn't exactly difficult to do either.

But maybe I'm just a transitional form between the two species depicted above by Oolon.

[HRG]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Failure is a strong word. You're the one claiming that the ERVs help make evolution a *fact*. Sure, there is a lot of consistencies, there are also important differences, such as the ERV in the gorilla and chimp but not the human.

Which (if true) simply means that the gorilla-chimp split occurred after the human-(chimp+gorilla) split.

I wonder why this is apparently so difficult to understand.

Regards,
HRG.

[pangloss]

Originally posted by lpetrich
"Charles Darwin" has maintained that the following are unevolvable:

* Echolocation



I have wondered why creationists find echolocation such a mystery.


I can echolocate. YOU can echolocate. We do it all the time. Blind people have it down to an art, and with training, they can learn to tell the texture of objects by their sound-reflection.

Certainly, bats and such are a level above that, but it seems clear that the basic wiring for the ability is in all mammals, certainly, maybe even most vertebrates.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by HRG
Which (if true) simply means that the gorilla-chimp split occurred after the human-(chimp+gorilla) split.

It might indicate that independantly, but it contradicts all the other phylogenetic tree evidence that places the chimp-human split after the gorilla-(human, chimp) split, including the evidence of all the other retroviruses. It's an anomaly, and needs an explanation, which is supplied in the paper. There are a number of possibilities. The first one that comes to my mind is a deletion in the chimp line, but I'm confident that the papers authors thought of that.

[Urvogel Reverie]

Charles Darwin writes:

"For example, the fossils often shows new species arising fully formed, as though they were planted there. Then they don't change for eons. Even the sequence of horse-like fossils, that old favorite of museums and textbooks, is now admitted to be a series of different, overlapping in time, species. If the different species evolved from each other, then it must have been rapidly so as not to have left any fossils of the transition. As Niles Eldredge admitted:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

Or as paleontologist Robert Carroll explains, the fossil record "emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species." So to the rescue comes punctuated equilibrium, which isn't so much a theory as a label. We don't observe gradual evolution and the fossil species are static, so evolution must proceed by fits and starts.

There are, of course, many fossil species with similarities, and these rightfully are evidence for evolution. But the many "explosions" with strange and new species appearing out of nowhere are strong arguments against evolution. We certainly cannot simply conclude that the fossils are strong evidence for evolution."



To claim that the fossil record is a disproof of evolutionary biology is indicative of either a severe misunderstanding of the paleontological data, or, a disingenuous argument. Either way, the assertion is equally fallacious. Combined with genetics and other molecular biology, paleontology is among the most significant of data substantiating common descent. Indeed, the matter of whether or not evolutionary biology's central premise is valid has been solved since 1861, with the discovery of Archaeopteryx lithographica, which by no means our only anatomical intermediate (indeed a conservative list for Archosauromorpha alone, excluding Avialae would include dozens), remains the most emblematic.

The very fact that there are taxa whose anatomy approaches conditions intermediate between other taxa defies creationist logic, which must by necessity advance morphological stasis over time so as to preclude a speciation event. Evolution predicts these fossils, and we find them. Creationism predicts that no such fossils should exist, and yet we have them in abundance. The parsimonious, indeed rational conclusion, is all too obvious.

As for punctuated equilibrium, it has been consistently misrepresented by creationists, thanks in no small part to the specious manner in which S. J. Gould presented it--as a revolutionary panacea to previous problems in deciphering the rate and process of evolution. However, punctuated equilibrium is simply a period of rapid evolution, following a period of fairly gradual morphological variation. It is explained within the framework of more gradual evolution, and evolutionary biology continues to have no need to devise grandiose schemes and their concomitant rubbish about "species selection" to explain that which is already well modeled. It is for this reason that punctuated equilibrium has rarely been taken to the extremes that Gould, Stanley, and Eldgredge took it. Your claim that the fossil record was the impetus for the formulation of this theory is correct, but also misleading because it is the fossil record itself which demonstrates that paleontology is not so supportive of punctuated equilibrium. In your quotation of Carroll (1988) you conveniently forget to mention that fact that he reviews the extensive morphological studies of various Cenozoic mammal fauna undertaken by Hurzeler (1962), Maglio (1973), Gingerich (1982, 1983), Chaline & Laurin (1986), Fahlbusch (1983), Harris & White (1979), MacFadden (1985), and Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) in which progressive morphological variation over time is observed in multiple eutherian lineages, and you utterly ignore Carroll's conclusions that attention to anatomical detail and not taxonomic convention demonstrate that the fossil basis for punctuated equilibrium is in fact very illusory.

Urvogel Reverie
Archaeopteryx lithographica

[lpetrich]

"Charles Darwin" seems to be proposing that an enormous number of species had been specially created over geological time.

But looking at such well-preserved examples as fossil equines, one wonders why each new allegedly-created species closely resembles existing species. Is this all some massive coincidence? Or does it suggest that the process that creates new species is not really very "creative"?

Even the fossil record of human ancestors has that quality; there's a nice picture showing a series of skulls from chimp to various fossils to human -- and showing remarkable continuity.

[Urvogel Reverie]

Originally posted by lpetrich
"Charles Darwin" seems to be proposing that an enormous number of species had been specially created over geological time.

But looking at such well-preserved examples as fossil equines, one wonders why each new allegedly-created species closely resembles existing species. Is this all some massive coincidence? Or does it suggest that the process that creates new species is not really very "creative"?

Even the fossil record of human ancestors has that quality; there's a nice picture showing a series of skulls from chimp to various fossils to human -- and showing remarkable continuity.


Indeed this sort of gradual and more or less continuous morphological variation over time is a hallmark of most lineages, although it is nowhere as well demonstrated as some exemplar Cenozoic eutherian series, which I already listed some examples of. In addition, my beloved Archosauromorpha display a similar pattern in multiple lineages, including to large degree, the Crurotarsi.

Urvogel Reverie

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger
Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) a good introduction.

Cheers,

Michael

The site is entitled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" but I came away thinking it is a real misnomer. Though it proposes to be an objective approach to the subject, it is actually a clever attempt to hoodwink those less knowledgable readers. It starts out by stating that "scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations." This affirming-the-consequent sleight of hand sets up the reader, as the page goes on to site all kinds of dubious "validations." I could give you 29+ validations for the flat-earth model, that doesn't mean it is true.

There is, in fact, no explanation for how life and her species are supposed to have evolved. To head off that minor little problem, the page explains to the reader that "in evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." How convenient. Now all those thorny complexity problems can be swept under the rug as being outside of scope; but who are we fooling? And of course there still is no explanation for how something like our friend echolocation is supposed to have evolved; or did the first bacteria echolocate too?

The Introduction then ends up with this patronizing (mis) quote:

"Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it." –Feynman

Well if evolution is a fact, then skeptics like me must just be nuts right? Place your opponents in the "irrational" category and everything will be alright. Why is it that evolutionists cannot seem to recognize that their theory is, in fact, not a scientific fact?

I didn't read through the entire site, but went to the first "validation" that caught my eye. It was Section 2.2, Atavisms. It states:

"Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs."

Aside from the fact that nothing is "known" from phylogenetic trees, the idea that hindlimbs are a prediction of evolution is a joke. You don't really believe that evolution would be rejected if such mutants were never discovered do you? What if tails were never discovered in humans? This has got to be one of the most absurd claims I've ever heard. Of course, the text falls back on the standard cretionist punching bag opponent as if to present a serious rebuttal.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
When a biologist attempts to construct a phylogenetic tree, they are basically drawing a diagram of how species are related. By 'relationship' here, we aren't talking about the vague colloquial sense (early 1900s church music is 'related' to jazz of the same period, by bent of sharing characteristics). We mean related in the specific sense of family relationships. I am related to my sister, and to my cousin, by blood.

So when a biologist builds a tree of species relationships based on something (morphology, DNA, etc), it's not just an effort in saying "these species look the most alike" but a hypothesis about the lineage relationships. If the tree places humans and chimps on more recently diverging lines than cats, its making a hypothesis about when the ancestors of these species diverged.

OK ...

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Now, if that hypothesis is false, and humans and chimps don't share an ancestor, and neither of us shares an ancestor with cats, then we don't expect the tree we drew based on morphology to agree with our genomes. Our nucleotide sequences shouldn't build a tree that agrees with the hypothesis that certain species are more or less related (again, related in the sense of lineage). It could be anything, building a wildly different tree.

How do you know it could be anything, such as a wildly different tree?

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Now, a common objection to this is that there might indeed be a good reason to expect an animals genes to agree with the tree, even if they were never related. Perhaps, goes the argument, animals that just happen to be similar because of the taste of the creator would naturally share more genes with species they look more like, and less than those that don't. The genes would agree with the morphology tree, just because they are more similar in shape to that species. If two cakes taste alike they should have similar recipes, and as the cake becomes less like the first, the recipe should slowly change accordingly. That doesn't mean that all caes are descended from the first cake.

Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold water for a number of reasons. First, we could test areas of the genome that aren't used: genes that don't make anything, and see if the tree is still produced the same way. It does.

How do you know that an area isn't used?

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Second, we should then be able to take two species that have similar morphology and expect there to be a consistantly higher genetic similarity. We should expect dolphins to have swimming-thing-with-fins-that-eats-fish genomes that are more similar to sharks than to walking-around-a-field-chewing-grass genomes like elephants. But they don't. We should expect the flying suirrel to be more genetically like an australian flying marsupial possum than to, say, a dog. They don't.

Thus, being able to build the same phylogenetic tree over and over, no matter what method we use, is strong evidence that the hypotheses that the tree generates (i.e. that species are related by lineage) are correct.

But (i) dolphins and sharks; and (ii) marsupial and placental flying squirrels have some dramatic differences too. Furthermore, we really do not understand how the phenotype arises from the genotype. Finally, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the many phylogenetic mismatches. If you believe that phylogentic congruence proves evolution, then what about the mismatches?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Echolocation is no more big a deal than the ever-growing incisors of rodents or the lure possesed by angler fish. It is just another trait that some organisms evolved to give a slight survival advantage. --doov

Well, if that is the way you think, then there is not much I can say. If echolocation means nothing more to you than teeth then I'm not surprised you think evolution is a fact.

[Valentine Pontifex]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin

The Introduction then ends up with this patronizing (mis) quote:

"Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it." –Feynman


Just how is this a misquote?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Failure is a strong word. You're the one claiming that the ERVs help make evolution a *fact*. Sure, there is a lot of consistencies, there are also important differences, such as the ERV in the gorilla and chimp but not the human.

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Didn't you read the results section? If you're talking about the one that this report itself found, then the anomaly was explained within the report.

Oh I have no doubt that there are explanations. I'm not sure that that paper offers an explanation, but no matter, I certainly have read explanations for the [gorilla + chimp but not human] ERV elsewhere; the hand-waving was ferocious. Proving once again that if you allow for any explanation, then any explanation will do.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin

The Introduction then ends up with this patronizing (mis) quote:

"Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it." –Feynman

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
Just how is this a misquote?

Feynman was alluding to far more profound and bizarre theories in the world of QM.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist
Its not equivocation Charles. The thing is, the "change in allele frequency in a population over time" and "decent with modification" definitions are functionally equivalent.

-GFA

Ahh, but who are we fooling? Allele frequencies change all the time. So what? You're not creating anything new. But bird's beak changes shape and size over a few years, and then goes back to the way it was when the environment changes back. Same bird. But since allele frequencies do change, therefore the giraffe came from the fish?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Doctor X
This is all an elaborate complaint that because we do not know "everything"--trace the entire development of species--evolution remains a theory as tenuous as the flat earth.

--J.D.

So you must like astrology too. Sure we don't know all the details, but so what?

[Charles Darwin]

CD wrote: How did evolution create the adaptation machine that produces microevolution that you now claim as evidence for your theory? And the same for the developmental programs?

Originally posted by Wounded King
Dear Charles,

You ask

Do you really expect me to give you a course in evolutionary-developmental biology right here and now? Its a big topic! There is plenty of research into the conservation of developmental programs, wjy not take a look at the primary literature or read a textbook like Gilbert or Wolpert. In fact you can access the text of Gilbert free online at pubmed so you don't even have to go to the library.

As to the 'machinery' for adaptation, its inherent in any population of imperfect replicators, and since it forms the basis of evolution evolution did not 'create' it.

No I don't expect a crash course. However, I also did not expect you to say that the elaborate adaptation machine is merely present in the initial conditions and therefore not a problem. Now who are we fooling?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Oh yeah... and the widely accepted endosymbiont theory of chloroplast and mitochondria origin is independant evidence that all multicellular species were unicellular at some point in the past. You probably don't buy the aforementioned endosymbiont theory, but if it's not true, then the similarities between mitochondria and bacteria are slightly mysterious, as is the possession of said organelle of its own genetic material.

You mean the story that a big cell ate up a little cell and forever after the little one was there, working away to produce all those ATPs via that convenient electron transport chain that just happened to be there, with its series of re-dox steps that just happened to be there, and the ATPase which just happened to be there? Well, you're right, I don't buy it. Aside from all this complexity, there is thorny little problem of organelles common to prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Doesn't quite fit the theory of endosymbiosis.

Oh, also, why is the possession of genetic material mysterious for an organelle?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Start by thoroughly reading the link Michael (TLR) gave you above.

It hardly seemed worthwhile. Did I accidentally stumble on the worst of it?

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
It’s really quite simple, old chap. We have dozens of separate lines of evidence from a range of fields.

Oh really ...

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Not one of them disagrees with evolution

I see, no problems huh? Echolocation and all that has all been explained then? Well evolution must be true.

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Okay, I’ll get specific. If evolution -- descent with modification -- is not a fact, perhaps you could explain these two pictures:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Would you mind telling us please which are the ape fossils, and which are human, and why?

I'm afraid I can't ; shucks, evolution must be true huh? Oh, by the way, one little question: why does that make evolution a scientific fact?

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Then there’s this:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

See www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html for an explanation.

Care to explain why there are telomeres in the middle of our chromosome 2?

These are two, entirely unrelated fields, both saying the same thing: humans and apes share a common ancestor.

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but there's a whole bunch we don't know about micro biology. So, no, I'm afraid I can't explain the presence of the telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2 in humans and apes.

Now, getting back to the question at hand, let's see ... How did evolution create all that? You think evolution created these chromosomes, even though you don't know how it could have done said task. Nor do you have the slightest idea of what function said design might serve.

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
I chose humans because, when the chase is cut to, whatever else creationists can be forced to accept, it is human evolution that they cannot countenance.

If all else fails, bring on the creationists.

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ah, to hell with it, I’ll jump the gun anyway, since bats have been mentioned...

The designer was clever enough to make echolocation. Okay... but maybe, Charles, you could explain why this same creator gave bats a respiratory / lung ventilation system that is ten times less efficient than that of birds?

What is it about the lifestyles of bats that meant their designer was right to give them a breathing system so inefficient, compared to one he used elsewhere in other flying creatures?

And why did He use the avian through-flow system in kiwis, and the mammalian tidal system in cheetahs (sprinters), wolves (long-distance runners) and the pinnacle of His purpose, us humans?
TTFN, Oolon

Good questions. I see that we are not talking about a "scientific" fact anymore, or a "scientific" theory. I respect your religious sentiments. I can see that for you, evolution must be a fact.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But we KNOW that evolution is an actual process, happening right now in the real world. And, even though we cannot be certain that evolution alone is the full and complete explanation for our own descent from primitive organisms, we know of no reason why this should NOT be the case.

So much for science pursuing likely theories. With evolution, science becomes the pursuit of that which has not (or cannot) be proven wrong. No matter that evolution has no explanation for how life arose or how things like echolocation arose. It may not be likely, but it must be a fact.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
So the time needed doesn’t bother you. And even the thickest creationist doesn’t contest ‘microevolution’ -- that is, descent with modification, but only a little of it. Fine.

In which case, perhaps Charles Darwin -- who ought to know, I guess -- could tell us what exactly a ‘kind’ is? Is it roughly a species, a genus, a family, an order... what?

I don't know. Do you need all the details to accept an idea? If yes, then how is it that you accept evolution?

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
IOW, what’s to stop cumulative microevolution making something considerably different? We really need to know, if we’re to tell whether ‘kinds’ are genuinely immutable.

Nothing, in principle. Perhaps by some magical process species transform themselves into other species. Now why does this make evolution a fact?

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Now take a good hard look at these two pics.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/battwo.gif

http://www.bio.psu.edu/faculty/strauss/anatomy/misc/skeleton2.jpg

On what grounds could descent with modification not have produced these two organisms from a common ancestor?

TTFN, Oolon

Far be it for me to falsify evolution. But on what grounds to these make evolution compelling?

[Urvogel Reverie]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
OK ...


But (i) dolphins and sharks; and (ii) marsupial and placental flying squirrels have some dramatic differences too. Furthermore, we really do not understand how the phenotype arises from the genotype. Finally, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the many phylogenetic mismatches. If you believe that phylogentic congruence proves evolution, then what about the mismatches?


This post smacks of significant misunderstandings in the modern methodology for phylogenetic reconstruction, in addition to aspects thereof including outgroup analysis and parsimony analysis. In addition, your claim that we are utterly in the dark as to how the genotype and phenotype interact, and in turn how normalizing selection interacts with the genotype are misleading, as we have learned a great deal about both of these subjects, as any review of, for instance, Maynard-Smith, Dawkins, or Mayr, would illustrate.

Urvogel Reverie

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by lpetrich
"Charles Darwin" has maintained that the following are unevolvable:

* Echolocation

* Altruism (behavior that benefits another rather than oneself)

He points to examples of fancy echolocation, and he seems to think that they had emerged in one big jump. Yet such fancy echolocation does not require one big jump to come into existence; a simpler echolocation system can still be functional, even if its performance is less.

He ought to consider human-technology echolocation: radar and sonar. Present-day radar and sonar systems were not developed instantaneously in one big jump, but over the last century.

There is a close parallel with discussions of the evolution of eyes.


I don't say one big jump, nor do I say it cannot have evolved. I say it isn't likely. Also, the analogy with human technology suffers from the fact that human designers were involved.

Originally posted by lpetrich
Turning to his second problem, there are two favorite solutions:

* Reciprocal altruism (I'll scratch your back, and you'll scratch mine)

That happens in social animals; some even take care to detect cheaters. Vampire bats will share meals with other bats which have not been able to eat -- but only if those others had helped them out in this fashion in the past.

Do you know how big the design space is which evolution had to randomly search through and hit upon, and test, this design? How many years were available, and what mutational rates would be required? I don't think we have a good handle on this, so this is really just speculation.

[Urvogel Reverie]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Ahh, but who are we fooling? Allele frequencies change all the time. So what? You're not creating anything new. But bird's beak changes shape and size over a few years, and then goes back to the way it was when the environment changes back. Same bird. But since allele frequencies do change, therefore the giraffe came from the fish?


Specious rot. Shift in allele frequency is at the very heart of allopatric speciation in that it precludes the mixture of populations and the maintenance of genotypic homogeneity. It is not possible to construe the variation in the frequency of alleles within populations both isolated and otherwise, as anything but the most compelling of data to substantiate evolutionary biology. It furthermore accounts for the dynamism which was implicit in the Darwinian treatment of organic evolution and yet unquantified due to the lack of genetic understanding comparative to ours, in 1859--after all, it was not even until 1900 that Mendel's work on heredity was rediscovered, and it would be another half century before the composition of the gene would be discovered. Genetics, synthesized with the traditional Darwinian mechanisms, has rather than refuting evolutionary biology, as anti-evolutionists long predicted, overwhelmingly corroborated it.

As a side note, as not a single work of evolutionary biology labels giraffes or any other eutherians as the phyletic progenitors of even a paraphyletic hodgepodge such as "fish", your claim to the contrary is quite simply assinine.


Urvogel Reverie

[Urvogel Reverie]

CD:

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but there's a whole bunch we don't know about micro biology. So, no, I'm afraid I can't explain the presence of the telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2 in humans and apes.



And you completely avoid the issue that the fusion of chromosomal elements plesiomorphic in chimps, in humans (constituting an autapomorphy of genus Homo), is compelling evidence for evolutionary biology, not the least of the reasons being that by anti-evolutionary standards, no such fusion should be present. Your response to this particular claim was nothing less than categoric dismissal without examination of the data presented. I believe if you modify it slightly, one could have a Gish Gallop.

Urvogel Reverie

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Roland98
Do you understand why the retroviral insertions are such convincing evidence in support of evolution? The insertions are in the same position on the same chromosome in two different species (say, chimps and humans). In some cases, these insertion elements are in the same position in more distant common ancestors as well, but are missing in relatives further down the evolutionary line (say in this case, crocodiles). The most parsimonious reason for there identical position is that they were inheirited from a common ancestor; in the example I outlined, it would have integrated into an ancestor prior to the time the chimp/human lineages diverged, but after those lineages shared a common ancestor with crocodiles. Pretty straightforward stuff, and very unlikely to happen by chance. However, the lack of a viral insertion is not evidence against evolution; and I presume you read the explanations the authors provided?

Yes, I do understand the retroviral insertion argument. They are supposed to be irreversible markers; which is why, for example, the [Ape + chimp but not human] ERV is interesting since at the homologous human site the DNA sequence clearly shows a clean pre insertion site. I also understand know that ERVs can have site selectivity. And I also understand that, if evolution is true, there must have been a sort of "punctuated equilibrium" in the HERV world; and that HERVs must have played a role in evolution since they, in fact, have a regulatory function.

One can always contrive some sort of explanation if one is willing to invoke enough contingencies, special events, what-if's, and so forth. And so therefore, you may argue this is not evidence against evolution. But the price you pay is your theory becomes less compelling because it is so moldable. And your position that it is a fact is likewise weakened (as if it ever had any strength to it).

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Urvogel Reverie
And you completely avoid the issue that the fusion of chromosomal elements plesiomorphic in chimps, in humans (constituting an autapomorphy of genus Homo), is compelling evidence for evolutionary biology, not the least of the reasons being that by anti-evolutionary standards, no such fusion should be present. Your response to this particular claim was nothing less than categoric dismissal without examination of the data presented. I believe if you modify it slightly, one could have a Gish Gallop.

Urvogel Reverie

Sorry, you have to read down to the bottom of the post. I was typing fast, and meant for that response to go along with my other responses for the remainder of the post, because he was bringing up similar types of claims.

I was not at all disimissing the claim, but merely pointing out the nature of the claim. I fully agreed with him that evolution becomes a fact (for him).

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
(29 evidences for macroevolution, talkorigins.org)
... There is, in fact, no explanation for how life and her species are supposed to have evolved.

What did you expect? These are evidence of a fairly continuous chains of species that have a branching-tree topology.

CD, are you challenging that? And if you think that some alternative is closer to the truth, then what is it?

Do you accept this topology of equine relationships (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html), or do you believe it was something else?

And if you do, do you believe that it represents ancestor-descendant chains or something like

55 myr: *POOF!* Hyracotherium was created
50 myr: *POOF!* Orohippus was created
40 myr: *POOF!* Mesohippus was created
35 myr: *POOF!* Miohippus was created
17 myr: *POOF!* Merychippus was created
12 myr: *POOF!* Dinohippus was created
4 myr: *POOF!* Equus was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Various present-day equine species created

And in human ancestry:

5 myr: *POOF!* Ardipithecus ramidus was created
4 myr: *POOF!* Australopithecus afarensis was created
3 myr: *POOF!* Australopithecus africanus was created
2.7 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus aethiopicus was created
2.3 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus boisei was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus robustus was created
2.5 myr: *POOF!* Homo habilis was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Homo erectus was created
0.7 myr: *POOF!* Homo heidelbergensis was created
0.3 myr: *POOF!* Homo neanderthalensis was created
0.1 myr: *POOF!* Homo sapiens was created

With each species having a suspicious resemblance to existing species.

And of course there still is no explanation for how something like our friend echolocation is supposed to have evolved; or did the first bacteria echolocate too?

Echolocation is much simpler to develop than CD seems to think -- why does he seem to think that only a full-scale, very-fancy echolocation system could ever be useful?

All you have to do to start echolocating is making sounds and listening for echoes. It's that simple.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Urvogel Reverie
Specious rot. Shift in allele frequency is at the very heart of allopatric speciation in that it precludes the mixture of populations and the maintenance of genotypic homogeneity. It is not possible to construe the variation in the frequency of alleles within populations both isolated and otherwise, as anything but the most compelling of data to substantiate evolutionary biology.

That's an interesting claim. How could it be that :

"It is not possible to construe the variation in the frequency of alleles within populations both isolated and otherwise, as anything but the most compelling of data to substantiate evolutionary biology."

Starting with the 2nd half of the claim, you are saying that these data are "most compelling." That's awfully strong language for something that, in fact, creates no new sequences. Obviously evolution requires massive genetic changes, and this gives us none. Hmmm.

Then, on to the 1st half of the claim, you seem to think "it is not possible to construe" the data "as anything but" supporting evolution. This is, of course, not a scientific statement. In science we propose theories rather than make metaphysical proclamations. We say, "If P, then Q", not "If and only if P, then Q". The former describes the expected outcome of a theory. The latter is a universal truth claim about Q. But then again, who said this was science.

Originally posted by Urvogel Reverie
As a side note, as not a single work of evolutionary biology labels giraffes or any other eutherians as the phyletic progenitors of even a paraphyletic hodgepodge such as "fish", your claim to the contrary is quite simply assinine.

Urvogel Reverie

Then why is the recurrent laryngeal nerve evidence for evolution?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Charles Darwin:
(29 evidences for macroevolution, talkorigins.org)
... There is, in fact, no explanation for how life and her species are supposed to have evolved.

What did you expect? These are evidence of a fairly continuous chains of species that have a branching-tree topology.

CD, are you challenging that? And if you think that some alternative is closer to the truth, then what is it?

Do you accept this topology of equine relationships (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html), or do you believe it was something else?

I really don't know, but I do know that the mythical horse sequence convinced many a lay person for the better part of a century before it was finally admitted to be, well, ... mythical. What we have is a bunch of different species which, if evolution is true, must have punctuated into each other. I also know that evolution, beyond handwaving, doesn't explain how any of those species got there in the first place anyway. Why is it you think this makes evolution a scientific fact?



Originally posted by lpetrich
And if you do, do you believe that it represents ancestor-descendant chains or something like

55 myr: *POOF!* Hyracotherium was created
50 myr: *POOF!* Orohippus was created
40 myr: *POOF!* Mesohippus was created
35 myr: *POOF!* Miohippus was created
17 myr: *POOF!* Merychippus was created
12 myr: *POOF!* Dinohippus was created
4 myr: *POOF!* Equus was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Various present-day equine species created

And in human ancestry:

5 myr: *POOF!* Ardipithecus ramidus was created
4 myr: *POOF!* Australopithecus afarensis was created
3 myr: *POOF!* Australopithecus africanus was created
2.7 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus aethiopicus was created
2.3 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus boisei was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Paranthropus robustus was created
2.5 myr: *POOF!* Homo habilis was created
2 myr: *POOF!* Homo erectus was created
0.7 myr: *POOF!* Homo heidelbergensis was created
0.3 myr: *POOF!* Homo neanderthalensis was created
0.1 myr: *POOF!* Homo sapiens was created

With each species having a suspicious resemblance to existing species.

I see. You and the other folks -- I see a pattern. Of course we cannot believe they were created, so ..., evolution must be true. We were talking about a scientific fact, but this is a switch. What you are really saying is this is a metaphysical fact. Given your metaphysical position, evolution is a fact. Ok, I'll buy that.

Originally posted by lpetrich
And of course there still is no explanation for how something like our friend echolocation is supposed to have evolved; or did the first bacteria echolocate too?

Echolocation is much simpler to develop than CD seems to think -- why does he seem to think that only a full-scale, very-fancy echolocation system could ever be useful?

All you have to do to start echolocating is making sounds and listening for echoes. It's that simple.

Sorry, it is a little more complicated than that.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Urvogel Reverie
Charles Darwin writes:

"For example, the fossils often shows new species arising fully formed, as though they were planted there. Then they don't change for eons. Even the sequence of horse-like fossils, that old favorite of museums and textbooks, is now admitted to be a series of different, overlapping in time, species. If the different species evolved from each other, then it must have been rapidly so as not to have left any fossils of the transition. As Niles Eldredge admitted:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

Or as paleontologist Robert Carroll explains, the fossil record "emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species." So to the rescue comes punctuated equilibrium, which isn't so much a theory as a label. We don't observe gradual evolution and the fossil species are static, so evolution must proceed by fits and starts.

There are, of course, many fossil species with similarities, and these rightfully are evidence for evolution. But the many "explosions" with strange and new species appearing out of nowhere are strong arguments against evolution. We certainly cannot simply conclude that the fossils are strong evidence for evolution."

-------------------

To claim that the fossil record is a disproof of evolutionary biology is indicative of either a severe misunderstanding of the paleontological data, or, a disingenuous argument. Either way, the assertion is equally fallacious.

Urvogel Reverie
Archaeopteryx lithographica

But since I did not, in fact, say that, your point is irrelevant.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Urvogel Reverie
In addition, your claim that we are utterly in the dark as to how the genotype and phenotype interact,

Urvogel Reverie

But, in fact, I did not say that.

[Doctor X]

One can always contrive some sort of explanation if one is willing to invoke enough contingencies, special events, what-if's, and so forth. And so therefore, you may argue this is not evidence against evolution. But the price you pay is your theory becomes less compelling because it is so moldable. And your position that it is a fact is likewise weakened (as if it ever had any strength to it).

Look OUT! TAKE COVER!!!

http://shanek.ispofusa.net/images/iron-e.gif

--J.D.

[lpetrich]

Charles Darwin:
(on falsehood of evolution implying discrepant family trees...)
How do you know it could be anything, such as a wildly different tree?

What alternative do you think is plausible? Special creation of species with the appearance of evolution?

(unused areas of the genome...)
How do you know that an area isn't used?

Experience with molecular-level genetics: the more functionally-constrained something is, the more the sequences look alike between species. So some rapidly-evolving area implies low constraint.

But (i) dolphins and sharks; and (ii) marsupial and placental flying squirrels have some dramatic differences too.

So what? That's how one can recognize convergent evolution.

Furthermore, we really do not understand how the phenotype arises from the genotype.

Which is just plain wrong. We know how proteins are made from genes, and we are accumulating clues as to how other features are made.

Finally, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the many phylogenetic mismatches.

Like what?

If you believe that phylogentic congruence proves evolution, then what about the mismatches?

Whatever you have in mind. Please explain in more detail.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin:

The site is entitled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" but I came away thinking it is a real misnomer. Though it proposes to be an objective approach to the subject, it is actually a clever attempt to hoodwink those less knowledgable readers. It starts out by stating that "scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations." This affirming-the-consequent sleight of hand sets up the reader, as the page goes on to site all kinds of dubious "validations." I could give you 29+ validations for the flat-earth model, that doesn't mean it is true.
How, exactly, is this a “clever attempt to hoodwink those less knowledgable [sic] readers”? And where is the sleight of hand? One tests the validity of scientific hypotheses and theories by testing to see whether their predictions conform to reality, just as the site states. Do you know of some other way?

Every scientific theory makes predictions which can be, in principle, tested. If the theory fails these tests, then it must be modified or abandoned. While it’s true that if the predictions are verified, this doesn’t prove the theory to be true, it does give us more confidence in the theory. Evolutionary theory makes quite a number of predictions, and has a spectacularly good track record. So far, no one has found anything which contradicts it.


I could give you 29+ validations for the flat-earth model, that doesn't mean it is true.
Can you? I don’t believe that you can.

Remember, for the flat-earth model to be a legitimate scientific theory, it must be based upon actual evidence, and it must make specific predictions which can be tested and falsified. If the predictions are shown to be false, they are not "validations" of the theory.

I would assume that a “validation” of the “theory” would be that the Earth appears to be flat to an observer. Upon casual observation, this may be so, but it takes only a little work to show that the prediction does not hold up. Anyone who has observed a ship sailing out to sea, for example, can clearly see that the Earth does not appear to be flat when viewed on a sufficiently large scale.

This is why the flat Earth theory is not taken seriously, because any non-trivial predictions it makes are easily falsified. So, please tell us which of the predictions of evolutionary theory have been falsified, and how. I know of no examples, myself.


There is, in fact, no explanation for how life and her species are supposed to have evolved.
You asked for evidence that evolution is sufficiently well-established to be called a “fact.” That is precisely what the site offers. If it’s an explanation of evolutionary theory that you want, that information is readily available. You have only to ask.


To head off that minor little problem, the page explains to the reader that "in evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." How convenient. Now all those thorny complexity problems can be swept under the rug as being outside of scope; but who are we fooling?
I’m at a loss to understand why so many people have the erroneous impression that evolutionary theory has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of life. Repeat after me: evolutionary theory is about how living things have evolved over time – since the origin(s) of life. Saying that evolutionary theory is incomplete or invalid because it doesn’t explain the origin of life is like saying that chemistry is an invalid field because it doesn’t explain the origins of atoms.


And of course there still is no explanation for how something like our friend echolocation is supposed to have evolved; or did the first bacteria echolocate too?
The point of the site – as per your request – is to provide evidence for the fact of evolution, not to explain every little adaptation. Do you consult the owner’s manual of your automobile for an explanation of how the Bernoulli effect applies to the function of a carburetor? Do you throw the manual down in disgust and conclude that it's worthless because it doesn't provide that explanation?

Besides, as several posters have pointed out, echolocation isn’t difficult. Any animal with ears and the ability to produce sound can echolocate, at least crudely. Why is it so difficult to conceptualize how the process could have been refined by natural selection? Indeed, we have living examples of animals that can echolocate very crudely (humans, for example), to those that can echolocate rather more effectively (oilbirds, for instance), to those that can echolocate quite well (bats and cetaceans).


The Introduction then ends up with this patronizing (mis) quote:
"Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it." –Feynman
Whether it’s a nice thought or not, Feynman has a legitimate point. If you’re determined not to believe a thing, you’re not going to be convinced by evidence, nor are you likely to gain a very thorough understanding of the subject. With respect, you give every indication of being someone who very much wants for evolution not to be true. If this is the case, it’s going to be difficult to convince you of the legitimacy of evolutionary theory on the basis of something as inconsequential as evidence.


Well if evolution is a fact, then skeptics like me must just be nuts right? Place your opponents in the "irrational" category and everything will be alright. Why is it that evolutionists cannot seem to recognize that their theory is, in fact, not a scientific fact?
Well, to put it bluntly, there are many thousands of evolutionary biologists over the world who have studied the matter quite thoroughly. They’re quite convinced that the evidence in favor of evolution is so voluminous – and the evidence against it is conspicuously nonexistent – that they’re quite comfortable calling it an established fact. Oddly, the only ones who deny that evolution is a fact consistently show themselves to be a.) ignorant of the subject, and/or b.) strongly prejudiced against acceptance of evolution for religious/political/whatever reasons.

I note, in passing, that you still seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the fact of evolution (that all organisms show clear and unmistakable evidence of being related through common descent) and the theory of evolution (which explains that fact). Why is that so difficult a concept? If one didn’t know better, one would suspect that you conflate the ideas because you don’t want to understand the differences.

In a later post, you ask:
Do you know how big the design space is which evolution had to randomly search through and hit upon, and test, this design? How many years were available, and what mutational rates would be required? I don't think