Ape31

Thanks Mark - I like the analogy with the cars.

Presumably then the tree produced from genetic analysis is, in general, considered a more accurate representation of the real tree than those produced by other techniques (morphology, protein structures, etc) even given the level of agreement. Correct?

I understand that in the real world we wouldn't expect 100% agreement across these different techniques due to the difficulties in classification but it would be useful to know how much disagreement we are talking about. This anti-evolution argument (that trees produced with different techniques do NOT match) is not one I had seen before reading this thread.

r.

markfiend

Well... kind of, but only if you had the entire genome for every living thing. At the moment, genetic analysis is done with certain portions of the genome (computer time is a limiting factor I believe).

According to 29 evidences for macro-evolution at talkorigins, this agreement is to the 41st decimal place. To compare, the charge of the electron is only known to the 7th decimal place. So not very much disagreement at all.

*Edit to add -- caveat -- my previous post on this thread is about the limit of my knowledge on this topic, but there are plenty round these parts that know more about it than I.

DMB

I have hesitated to participate in this thread, because I am a layman in biology, but I do think that we have a basic problem here about the understanding of science. And that is odd, because CD claims to be a scientist. So I too would like some elucidation of what he understands as a "scientific fact".

If we look at the fairly short history(approximately 400 years) of modern science, although there have been some totally discredited theories, most progress has been made by building on and refining what has gone before (e.g. Newton's oft-quoted "standing on the shoulders of giants").

In a very few cases, we do seem to have arrived at a finished state, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics as the basis of modern mechanical engineering. Normally, however, the process of adjustment and refinement goes on. Even when a previously unexplored phenomenon such as radioactivity is investigated, it largely adds to scientific knowledge and theory rather than totally superseding it.

It would have been remarkable indeed if Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species had been the final word on evolution. It is true that he spent a long time gathering evidence for it, but the total evidence available at his death was small in comparison with what has subsequently been gathered. And some of that later evidence has refuted some of Darwin's ideas. This is no more surprising than that the periodic table, when first postulated, had gaps and mistakes that have subsequently been adjusted.

There is no particular reason to suppose that biology has nearly run its course in the way that Newtonian mechanics has. So we should expect to see continued minor adjustments to evolutionary theory as new evidence is forthcoming. There is no paradox in asserting that an ancestor tree should exist but that not quite all the details have yet been established beyond doubt. What is so remarkable is that the work of huge numbers of scientific professionals since Darwin have produced evidence, sometimes in fields that did not even exist in Darwin's day, all of which support the fact of evolution.

Xixax

I would just like to point out to Charles Darwin that the cheetah just arose from a very similar cheetah-like ancestor. Likewise, that ancestor came from something very similar to itself, and so on and so on until you have something not much like a cheetah at all.

If Charles Darwin saw a cheetah born without spots, would he scream bloody murder and say that science just can't explain anything like that happening? No. Would he invoke a creator and say "SEE? God just made us a new species, a cheetah without spots!" I'd hope not.

If, for some reason that proved spotless cheetah's were more effective in reproducing and eventually that gene spread throughout a small population, one of the spotless cheetah's then gave birth to a litter with shorter tails, would he see any problem? NO.

Now we have a litter of spotless cheetah's with shorter tails... Charles D, do you see where this is going? Multiply the changes and timeframe by nearly unimaginable quantities and you still fail to understand how evolution works?

I feel similarly to Huxley, it's nearly embarrassing not to understand and recognize that evolution happened and is still happening. It's unavoidable.

Muad'Dib

Ah, that makes sense. I think I misunderstood his post then. If that is the case, then I should rephrase my question as follows:

Is there any claim about the world or the universe, made by physics, chemistry, biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, or any other branch of science, that Charles Darwin considers well-established enough to call a scientific fact?

If so, what is one example of such a claim?

If not, why are we having this discussion?

(Thanks for clarifying, Ape31.)

Ape31

Why not just attack the example he gave? I don't consider his example of a scientific fact anywhere near as well supported as evolution.

r.

Muad'Dib

I'd rather not, as I explain below, but you're more than welcome to if you want.

I've been interpreting "scientific fact" to mean, among other things, "an established result in at least one of the sciences". The statement about the historical Darwin () inventing the theory of evolution is, to my mind, a historical claim rather than a scientific one. I'd rather compare claims made by science to claims made by science.

Besides that, I don't want to get bogged down in the sematics of what is really meant by "invented", "theory", or "evolution" in the context of CD's example. Evolution's claims aren't always completely crystal clear to me, but they are often easier to pin down than statements about the history of science.

Jack the Bodiless

CD:

Perhaps we should review where we're at in this discussion:

1. Evolution is a fact (the process of evolution is a process that actually does occur).

2. The fossil record is perfectly compatible with common descent.

3. Genetic analysis gives results that agree very closely agree with the "Tree of Life" constructed from the fossil record. The very rare discrepancies are entirely to be expected, given both the incompleteness of the fossil record and the ongoing gene-mangling effects of mutation.

Given the above, it's very difficult to see what your argument is. You keep using words like "amazing" to describe belief in evolution, but you are unable to explain what is so "amazing" about it. Meanwhile you occasionally make oblique references to something called "creation" and something called "God", without explaining these terms or providing any evidence at all that these have any real-world significance whatsoever.

Are you seriously arguing that it would be less amazing if millions upon millions of creatures just popped into existence in a sequence that mimics common descent, rather than evolving from very similar antecedents?

Are there any other fields of science in which you prefer magic as an explanation, even when a non-magical explanation fits the evidence?

Darwin's Beagle

Charles,

I love your moniker by the way. Since you do not appear to believe Charles Darwin�s theory, one must assume that you chose that moniker to honor his character � the way he took up the challenges to his theory, did not misrepresent his adversaries, and responded to each and every one in an honest forthright manner. I can see how you would admire those qualities in others since they seem to be so lacking in yourself.

Originally you asked for the general form of the argument that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution is a fact. You have received many responses, some good and some bad. I admire your egalitarian nature, you have dismissed all of them with the same contempt. So far all the responses have brought up bits and pieces of the argument but ultimately the argument in the factual nature of evolution lies in the OVERWHELMING preponderance of the evidence. No one piece of information is going to be sufficient to convince a person like you. Actually, I doubt that the entire OVERWHELMING preponderance of the evidence will convince a person like you, but it should convince a rational person with doubts.

I cannot present all the evidence for you. Space limitations probably prevent it. Time limitations definitely prevent it. And there is so much evidence to support it, no one could possibly know it all anyway. So, I will settle for an abbreviated version, much of which has already been presented to you, that should be more than enough to convince a rational person.

Let�s begin by defining what is meant by a scientific fact. I know you have graciously conceded the point SAYING that you do not disagree with the standard explanations, but there is no evidence in your ACTIONS that this is true. If a person had reason to question your sincerity, he might think you are showing a certain level of duplicity here.

Science cannot prove anything to a 100% certainty. Everything is tentative and subject to reinterpretation. However, that doesn�t mean that we know NOTHING. Science is in the business of making predictions and it has been the most successful prediction-making endeavor humanity has ever come up with. There are certain things that have been tested well enough to give us a level of confidence that approaches certainty. There are aspects of evolutionary theory that achieve this level.

What are these aspects? The core of modern evolutionary theory has achieved this level of confidence. For me that core can be divided into two major tenets. First, the diversity of life present today is the result of descent with modification. IOW, all organisms are related by common descent. Second, Natural Selection working on variation created by mutation and recombination is an important, though not necessarily exclusive mechanism underlying descent with modification. In this post, I am going to concentrate on the former and leave the second (natural selection) as being intuitively obvious once we have established descent with modification. Even Michael Behe, an Intelligent Design Creationist who believes in descent with modification, should grant that natural selection is an important process although he would take issue with the idea that the variation was created by mutation and recombination. My argument is that there is abundant evidence from unrelated fields that points clearly to descent with modification and that there is no evidence that refutes it. The sum total of evidence makes it such that any person approaching it from an unbiased and rational perspective would agree that there is no reason to doubt it.

First, let�s look at the fossil record. So far the fossil record has been brought up and you have cavalierly dismissed it. Concerning Stephen Jay Gould�s article �Evolution: Fact and Theory� you say:

CD=
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Erm� Gould did not say that. It is surprising that someone with your command of the literature would misrepresent him that way. Actually Gould says the exact opposite. He says that in the fossil record we observe the BIG amounts of evolution. It is the small amounts of evolution we do not observe. This is his theory of punctuated equilibrium. It has been around in the literature since 1972. To use your phraseology, I�m �amazed� you seem to have not heard about it.

Ah, perhaps you have heard about it after all. You allude to it with the common creationist misrepresentation of:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmm, are you referring to the �sudden� appearance in the fossil of new species that punctuated equilibrium purports to explain? Nobody in modern paleontology has ever thought, said, or even implied that these species come from �nowhere�. Why would such a knowledgeable person like you, misrepresent things so badly? How disappointing.

What punctuated equilibrium says is that in the fossil record we see a certain species and fossils of that species can be seen pretty much unchanged over several bedding planes, and then in the space of a single bedding plane it will disappear and be replaced by a similar species or group of species. The new fossil species did not appear from nowhere, it appeared from exactly what it appears (pun intended) to have appeared from -- the previous species. It is just that the morphological change associated with speciation occurred in the space of a single bedding plane.

Ah, but you may well ask do we have any evidence that this is true? Does speciation occur in such a short period of time? Yes, we do. If comes from � Stephen Jay Gould, himself. I am reciting this from memory so I�m afraid I don�t remember the names of the species, but Gould collected shells on a mud-flat. The shells were from two different but highly related species. Also in that mudflat were shells that formed a continuum from the spiky ones to the smooth ones. One had a smooth shell and the other had spikes. IIRC the smooth-shelled species still existed on the mudflat but the spiky one did not. Gould was struck by the observation that the more spiky the shells were, the more eroded they seemed to be. This suggested to him that the spiky ones were older than the smooth ones, but he could not declare that to be the case just on the impression that the spiky shells seemed to be more eroded. Afterwards, new dating techniques became available that were able to date the shells and sure enough the spiky ones were older. The interpretation was that the spiky-shelled species had evolved into the smooth-shelled species and this had taken place over a period that is consistent with a single bedding plane.

Judging from your other arguments you will ask how this proves evolution? The answer is it doesn�t. There are other possible explanations. However, THIS explanation falls naturally from the results. The other possible explanations are purely ad hoc. This is just one piece of the evidence and it provides support that to the idea that punctuated equilibrium does not violate Neo-Darwinian evolution.

Now that we have covered your stated misconceptions concerning the fossil record, let�s take a look at what the REAL fossil record is telling us. What does it show? The first fossils are microfossils found in rocks dated back 3.6 billion years ago. These are bacteria-like organisms, the most simple life known. There is some biochemical evidence for even earlier life. Apatite granules showing an enrichment in C-12 over C-13 over and above that what would be expected if they were produced from abiotic sources were found in rock dated back 3.85 billion years ago. However, this evidence is controversial and while I do not dismiss it completely, I do not put much stock in it either.

There is evidence that beginning about 1.5 billion years ago, oxygen levels caused a big change in the type of microfossils seen. This corresponds temporally with the elimination in rock of banded-iron formations (BIFs) seen in surface rocks of that time. BIF cannot form in an oxidizing atmosphere. Eukaryotic lifeforms have been found in rock dating back 800 million years. These were single-celled protozoan-like creatures. The first evidence of metazoan (multicellular) organisms come from fossilized worm burrows dating back 700 million years. There are also some microfossils of embryonic cell clumps dating back about 600 million years ago.

Then at about 543 million years ago we have the Cambrian explosion, in which a variety of metazoan organisms make their appearance. Creationists make a big deal about this, so I�ll have to spend some time on it for you. Actually, I do not know for sure you are creationist since you have steadfastly not given us much indication of what you DO believe, only what you DON�T believe. You also complain about people making assumptions about your belief, but if you do not tell us, then the fault does not lie with them. It lies with you. Since your rhetoric SOUNDS like that of a creationist, I will assume that is just what you are.

Creationists often use the Cambrian explosion as evidence against evolutionary theory. It is not. It is strong evidence for descent with modification which is one of the core tenets of evolutionary theory. It is during the Cambrian explosion that virtually all phyla emerge. There hasn�t been a new one since (actually, I think the bryozoans arose after the Cambrian but I�ll set that aside for now). Creationists say this pattern is predicted from the theory of Special Creation, while evolutionists say that the Cambrian is a BIG punctuational event. Who is right?

First, something that creationists do not seem to acknowledge is that NONE of the organisms that were spawned during the Cambrian explosion are around today. There has been a significant change in the make-up of the flora and fauna since then. This change in the make-up of the flora and fauna STRONGLY supports descent with modification (more on this in a moment). Second, creationists also do not seem to acknowledge is this �sudden� appearance actually occurred over several million years, so there is plenty of time for a lot of evolution to happen.

The radiation of species like the 800+ Drosophila species in Hawaii and the Darwin finches in the Galapagos suggest that when new niches to exploit and with little competition there is likely to be rapid evolution. The Cambrian explosion had this in spades. Thus, there is good reason to believe that the Cambrian was a punctuational event.

Furthermore, what the fossil record shows since the Cambrian explosion is a continual change up until present day of the make-up in the flora and fauna. The change is such that organisms in adjacent bedding planes are much more similar to each other than they are in distant bedding planes.

To me the only reasonable conclusion from this data is that there has been continual evolution � descent with modification � from then until now.

Creationists claim that the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion fits with predictions from the theory of Special Creation better. How so? To fit the REAL data with Special Creation one would have to postulate a creator that poofs a number of bacteria-like organism into existence, waits around 2 billion years for them and their descendents to put enough oxygen into the air then poof some different bacteria-like organisms into existence, wait another 700 million years poof some simple eukaryotes into existence, wait another 100 million years and poof the first simple multicellular organisms into exxistence. Then after almost 3 billion years have a sudden fit lasting several million years of poofing new multicellular organisms and then periodically after some go extinct poof some other similar ones into existence until the present time. While this is logically possible, it is not reasonable. The ad hoc nature does not stand up to scrutiny.

Of course, Charles you may be able to show me where this is wrong and give a REASONABLE counter explanation for the real evidence. I�ll doubt that you will do that. Instead you will try and bring up instances in which the fossil record is incomplete and say that it is evidence against evolutionary theory. But the OVERALL picture of the fossil record is quite clear. It is the way I presented it. You are trying to make a case against evolutionary theory based on what we DON�T know. Although your STATED acceptance of the definition of scientific fact acknowledges that we do not have to be able to explain everything, your argument boils down to �if you can�t explain everything then you can�t claim it to be a fact�. You are (or at least have been) totally ignoring and refusing to respond to what we DO know. And what we do know leads us to one reasonable conclusion � evolution as defined by descent with modification is a fact.

You were given links to the REAL fossil record of horse evolution and asked how you would explain it. Here is your response:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Charles, Charles � don�t you find it a little hard to look at yourself in the mirror when you intentionally distort the facts. There was no mythical horse sequence. There was incomplete data that led to erroneous assumptions as to the true intermediates but so what? I�ll bet there are some wrong intermediates in our ideas right now that will be modified when we find new data. The REAL data has only gotten stronger over the years supporting evolutionary theory. We could have of course found a Cambrian horse fossil. If we would have done that THEN evolutionary theory would be in real trouble. But we haven�t. Every find so far has only added support to evolutionary theory. The fossils fit in the right places. The new fossils we will find in the future will fit in the right places as well.

You were shown a picture of fossil skulls showing a pretty complete line of intermediate forms between early apes and present-day humans. Even you admitted that you could not tell where the cut-off between apes and humans was. Your next sarcastic statement is a bit of a puzzle:

F++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh, by the way, one little question: why does that make evolution a scientific fact?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One would think that a clever guy like you could see how this fits well with evolutionary theory while any non-evolutionary theory is going to have be an ad hoc explanation. IOW it is a piece of the evidence that makes it unreasonable to not to view descent with modification as a fact.

I will stop here on fossils and go to the next line of evidence that has been discussed so far � molecular biology.

Your responses along these lines have so far been pretty pathetic. The first piece of evidence presented to you was endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). You seem to acknowledge that ERV are consistent with the predictions of relatedness from evolutionary theory. But you find some exceptions that even you admit evolutionary theory can explain and then you dismiss the evidence as worthless. This is like the fossil record scenario. You look at what it is clearly strong evidence in the overall pattern, but because the data isn�t perfect you feel justified in ignoring it all.

The authors of the paper you (mis)quote found STRONG support for the evolutionary relatedness by examining ERVs. They found this support by looking at insertion sites of a variety of organisms and then by phylogenetic analysis found the most parsimonious fit. Your response was that phylogenetic analysis is not reliable, and that you can come up with anything you want.

This shows an appalling lack of knowledge about not only phlogenetic analysis but about science as well. Scientists do not like to use techniques that do not give reliable results. Reliable results are their bread and butter. Phylogenetic is a technique that has been used in thousands of published works. It would be surprising if the technique has not been verified. Guess what! It has. The reference is:

Hillis DM, Bull JJ, White ME, Badgett MR, Molineaux IJ (1992). Experimental phylogenetics: Generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255:589-592.

To briefly summarize, phylogenetic analyses involving many different factors is invariably done by computer program due to the large number of possible trees needed to evaluate. Hillis et al. took a virus (T7 bacteriophage) and subjected it to mutagenic chemicals in 300 successive generations in which the viruses were split into different lineages. This caused mutations to develop, it also produced a known phylogeny. They then looked at restriction sites and subjected the results to phylogenetic analysis. Out of a possible 135,135 different trees, phylogenetic analysis narrowed it down to the single correct tree. Thus, phylogenetic analysis is not so easily dismissed as you seem to think it is.

In a sense every paper published using that technique is a test of the technique. If the technique gives unreliable results, it is likely to return nonsense solutions. But so far the results it gives fit in well with expectations from theory.

Next, you were shown a picture of human chromosome #2 side-by-side with its G-banding matches in the chimp, gorilla, and orangutan. The picture and the fact that the chromosome contains an extra centromere and telomers in the center STRONGLY suggest that human chromosome #2 was produced by a Robertsonian translocation of chromosomes much like that of chimp/gorilla/orangutan chromosomes 12 and 13.

Here is your response to that data:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is �amazing� that an intelligent and informed person like yourself doesn�t have a clue about micro biology [sic]. Let me help you out some. Microbiology deals primarily with viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and fungi. Humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans being metazoan eukaryotes do not fall in its realm. What this picture was referring to falls in the field of genetics.

While there is a lot of genetics we still do not know, we do know the function of telomeres. Since DNA replicase enzymes need to attach to the DNA strand they cannot copy the entire chromosome. There is a bit at the ends that they are incapable of copying. If there were no solution to this problem then after a number of replications the chromosomes would shorten to the point of involving genes. Telomeres are stereotypic sequences that can be added onto the end of chromosomes to prevent this shortening.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans have 24. Each human chromosome has a G-banding analog in the other apes except Chromosome 2. Chromosome 2�s G-banding aligns up with the two leftover chromosomes from the apes, their chromosomes 12 and 13. The G-banding pattern suggest that human chromosome arose from a fusion of chromosomes very similar to ape chromosomes 12 and 13. Such fusion events have been seen in vivo. They are called Robersonian translocations. The fact that human chromosome 2 has an extra centromeric region and telomeres in the center STRONGLY support the idea that such a chromosomal fusion took place. The OBVIOUS interpretation of this is that human chromosome 2 and the chimp/gorilla/orangutan chromosomes 12 and 13 have a common ancestor. If they have a common ancestor so do humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Any other explanation for the data requires a bunch of hand-waving and ad hoc explanations. While these may be logically possible, they are not reasonable. The only reasonable explanation is the evolutionary one.

That may not help you much with your ignorance of �micro biology�, but it should help you understand the significance of the data with respect to evolution.

Next, I would like to go into other molecular data that has not been presented that independent of each other lend strong support to descent with modification, and taken together lead to the conclusion that it is a fact.

The correlation of sequence homologies between a variety of proteins (cytochrome C, the hemoglobins, etc) with the phylogenetic trees created from the fossil record is outstanding. Furthermore, the more closely the related the organism the more similar are their chromosomal structure, the more similar is their genome, them more similar is even the non-coding part of their genome.

Amongst mammals, only primates and the guinea pig do not make their own vitamin C. The gene for the enzyme that is essential in its biosynthetic pathway has been located and it turns out that chimps, humans and guinea pigs also have this gene but they have a mutation that puts in a premature stop codon so it is not functional. The mere fact that they have this pseudogene is suggestive of evolution. But even more suggestive is that the mutation that inactivates the gene is at the same place in humans and chimps while it is at a different place in guinea pigs. I will make the prediction that as the genomes of other primates are sequenced you will find a mutation similar to the one in humans and chimps and not like that of the guinea pig. Any takers?

Charles, I�m guessing you would again avoid analyzing the data and fall back on what we don�t know. You would complain that we don�t know how any biochemical pathway evolved so therefore since evolutionary theory can�t explain that how can one say that evolution is a fact. Again, this is avoiding the issue. The overwhelming evidence is not in what we don�t know, it is in what we do know. We do know the above, and any explanation other than the evolutionary one is fraught with so many problems as to make them unreasonable. While we do not know how any biochemical pathway DID evolve, there is no shortage of possible pathways they COULD have evolved.

The next line of evidence that has been gone into is evidence from suboptimal design. The idea here is that these types of structures are just what one would expect from design created by an algorithm without foresight but would be difficult to explain if they were designed by something with the intelligence of a human or better.

So far your response to these has been even more pathetic. The first of these structures you deal with is hind-limb atavisms in whales. You take issue with the author�s presentation claiming that atavisms of this type are to be expected in evolutionary theory:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

�� one of the most absurd claims [you�ve] ever heard�. You have a led a charmed life, more on this later. First I would like to point out you have totally ignored the content. How else do you explain the presence of atavistic hind limbs in whales (and some snakes for that matter) other than by evolutionary theory? You have responded to similar questions by saying that you don�t know. This suggests that you cannot come up with one and thus as far as you know evolutionary theory is the only one capable of explaining this fact. If it is the only one capable of this fact, then why isn�t evolutionary theory a scientific fact in itself? Because there can be something we don�t know? But again even here your objection to evolutionary theory is based on something we don�t know. When there is so much evidence based on what we DO know that points in one way and one way only then that is sufficient to establish it as a scientific fact.

Now, as to your absurdity remark. What was the author REALLY saying? He was saying that it makes sense for whales to have atavisms such as the one mentioned and it does not make sense in any other light. Knowing what we know now about the genome and genetics if there were no atavisms anywhere then it would most certainly be a severe problem for evolutionary theory to explain.

You were next asked to consider why it is that bats, who function more like birds, have a mammalian respiratory system which is 10 times less efficient than that of birds. You again avoided addressing the issue, instead you decided to take it as a metaphysical question. It is a scientific question as well, Charles. Evolutionary theory explains it very well. The fact that bats have hair, give birth to live young and nurse them on milk says they are mammals. The reason they have a mammalian respiratory system is because that is an evolutionary constraint. Remember evolution has no foresight. No other explanation is nearly so parsimonious.

The same reasoning goes for kiwis. They have a much better respiratory system than they need for what they do. The evolutionary explanation is that it is also an evolutionary constraint. Special creation�s apparent explanation is that that is the way God just happened to do it, or there may be reasons for doing it that way that we do not yet understand. NOW you are talking handwaving.

There are MULTITUDE such questions that can be asked? The evolutionary constraint explanation in every case is the most parsimonious. Special creation�s explanation is handwaving. They include things like:

Why do dolphins and whales have lungs instead of gills?
Why do seals have fur and penguins have feathers?
Why do the halteres (vestigial winglike structures that are used as flight stabilizers) of dipteran (2-winged) insects look just like tiny wings and are positioned exactly the same place as the hindwings of other insects? Etc.

There are other structures that make sense only from an evolutionary perspective. They include teeth in embryonic toothless whales, teeth in chickens that have been incubated with embryonic reptilian jaw tissue, the vermiform appendix, human piloerector muscles, human muscles that wiggle the ears, the long roots of our canine teeth, the fused coccyx, the homology in bone structure of the forelimb of a bat (in which the forelimb is used as a wing), a seal (in which the forelimb is used as a flipper), a mole (in which the forelimb is used as a spade), a dog (in which the forelimb is used as a leg) and humans (in which the forelimb is used for grasping). The evolutionary explanation is that these are remnants of the organism�s evolutionary past. Special creation�s explanation is that they are there (or that way) at the whimsy of the creator. More heavy duty hand-waving.

From your previous responses I guess your answer to the above things will be that some of them have definable functions so they cannot be vestigial. I don�t care what you want to call them, they are best (and in some cases, only) explained by as evolutionary remnants, function or not. I also expect you to object on the grounds that it is impossible to know the purpose the creator may have for these things. This is simply a disingenuous cop-out and again unduly requires evolutionary theory to rule out all possible explanations instead of all reasonable explanations before it can be described as a fact.

There are other unrelated areas of biology that also point to descent with modification. Biogeography for instance. Why are Darwin�s finches limited to Galapagos? Why is the bird that is most closely related to them found on the western coast of South America? Why does Hawaii have 800 plus species of Drosophila? Why are there such an abundance of marsupials in Australia and very few elsewhere? Why do the onset of fossil remains of marsupials elsewhere correspond to times when continents were together?

There are organisms that appear to be in the process of speciating as we speak. I�ll bet you cannot tell a Boat-tailed Grackle from a Great-tailed Grackle but an expert birder can and so can the birds themselves. Eastern Meadowlarks and Western Meadowlarks are the same way. There are four species of Empidonax flycatchers that are difficult to tell apart. A little bit further along the speciation trail are birds like Sharp-shinned Hawks and Cooper�s Hawks � very similar but you could tell them apart if they were side-by-side.

Other evidence that speciation is going on right now includes the abilities of certain animals to produce hybrids. A jack-ass and a horse produce a mule. A lion and tiger can be artificially mated to produce a liger. Many warblers naturally hybridize to form different morphs.

I have discussed only a small percentage of the data that STRONGLY supports evolutionary theory. The data that I have discussed comes from paleontology, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, biogeography, and field biology. Each one taken by itself is STRONG support for descent with modification. Considering the various unrelated fields, all with evidence pointing strongly to the same conclusion the result is such that anybody who gives the data a fair look should agree that descent with modification reaches the lofty heights of scientific fact. And, in case you are wondering, I do think that if you disagree you are not being rational, at least as to evolution. And, yes, I do lump those people in with the nutters that believe in flat-earth and astrology and other silly bug-a-boos of nature. No, not everybody who disbelieves in evolutionary theory is a nutter. There are plenty of people who have not yet given the data a fair look. Of course this is in a large extent due to successful creationist efforts to keep the data out of our schools.

Regards,

Darwin�s Beagle

Urvogel Reverie

First and foremost, I must say you put up a rather excellent post, which I must disagree with in only two regards: the extent of punctuated equilibrium, and the Cambrian "explosion."

While one does not question that evolution and moreoever cladogenesis occur at irregular rates, neither being wholly unformitarian and gradual in the rate of change, nor entirely punctuated (indeed I prefer Simpson's terms bradytely, horotely and tachytely), the real question must be, is punctuation in cladogenetic or anagenetic change as marked as Stanley (1975, 1981, 1982), Eldredge (1984, 1985), Gould and Eldredge (1977), Eldredge & Stanley (1984) and Gould (1980, 1982) have asserted? Given that review of the fossil record specifically geared at testing this supposition has failed to reveal a pattern of morphologic stasis over time (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1982), followed by rapid appearance of taxa, it seems that Gould et al's presentation of punctuated equilibrium as near dogma for the pattern and process of animal evolution is hardly correct (the worst offender has been Bakker, 1986). Indeed, the vast body of work on morphologic variation over time in Cenozoic mammals has consistently failed to corroborate punctuated equilibrium as elucidated by Gould et al (Hurzeler 1962, Chaline & Laurin 1986, Fahlbusch 1983, Harris & White 1979, Rose & Brown 1984, MacFadden 1985, Krishtalka & Stucky 1985 and Carroll 1988). Curiously, this pattern is extended even to teleost fishes from Upper Miocene lacustrine deposits of Nevada, in which gradualistic morphologic variation was observed by Bell, Baumgarten and Olson (1985). Even such exemplar cases as the punctuated pattern by which the Neornithes were derived (as primarily laid out by Feduccia in 1995, 1996, and 1999), have increasingly been called into question.

That matter aside, we can move on to the Cambrian "explosion," which represents in my opinion a great misnomer of paleontology. Granted, it is not my specialty, but the extensive Vendian fauna combined with our knowledge of developmental genetics--and moreover methods for molecular phylogenetic reconstruction, tax the well-worn notion of the Cambrian witnessing a significant punctuational event. The data seem to suggest a more moderate adapative radiation, in which the incipient phenotypic and genotypic characters of today's phyla were elaborated and differentiated.

Look forward to more of your posts,

Urvogel Reverie