lpetrich

"Charles Darwin":
You can have all the time you want. 4.5 Byr, 45 Byr, whatever. ...

Tell that to the young-earthers.

Furthermore, the age of earth isn't terribly relevant because the radiations typically occur rapidly (they show up in the fossil record fully-formed).

Point to some examples, especially relatively recent ones like Cenozoic ones. Did modern equines (horse, donkey, zebra) originate in one big jump from Hyracotherium?

(urate-oxidase difficulties...)

I'm not familiar enough with this question to make reasonable comments, but how do such difficulties indicate the origin of individual species by poofing?

me:
"Charles Darwin" has indicated elsewhere that he considers only a fully-worked-out scenario acceptable. I think that he'd have a great career as a defense lawyer -- he'd demand similar fully-worked-out scenarios from the prosecution, with even the tiniest gaps construed as absolute proof that his client is 100% innocent.

Tiniest gap?

Yes, the tiniest gap. If not, then indicate to us what you'd consider an acceptable case for guilt.

You've got to be kidding; this is evolutionary mythology. No POOFs? Sorry, your RNA-world scenario is loaded with them:

*POOF!* the first proteins had been short coenzymes assembled with RNA enzymes, and *POOF!* once this mechanism got going, the "coenzymes" *POOF!* became big enough to become the primary parts, with the RNA *POOF!* becoming reduced to coenzyme status or dropping out altogether.

This is, of course, my text with "*POOF!*" inserted. Extra molecules getting accidentally attached and genes becoming accidentally lengthened are hardly "*POOF!*" steps, especially when compared to the creationist scenario of the whole system popping into existence out of thin air.

The family trees produced by comparison of the alpha and beta chains agree closely with those derived by traditional means -- and also with each other.

What did you expect? You can get convergent phylogenies on man-made categories of objects too (already discussed in this thread).

One gets the best approximations to biological phylogenies when one considers the work of multiple designers that work from each others' work, like manuscript copyists. In fact, manuscript copyists are a good analogy with genome replication. Is that what you believe about the Earth's biota, O CD? That it was produced by a large community of designers over the last 3.5+ billion years?

Aside from the obvious fact that the cellular machinery behind adaptation is phenomenally complex.

Like how?

it is now being understood that the adaptation function itself is quite clever, with mutational hotspots, hypermutators, etc. (already discussed in this thread).

I don't see any great complexity in mutational hotspots and the like.

The Burgess Shale fossils look like they were planted there, but there isn't any evidence to the contrary.

How do they look "planted there"?

CD has yet to explain why he thinks they look "planted there".

I'm surprised you would bring up the Chengjiang fossils as they certainly are not supporting evolution. In fact they have left Chinese scientists questioning evolution.

Seems that CD has spent much time in creationist quote mines; I don't know of any such thing.

The Chengjiang fossils closely resemble Burgess Shale ones, though the Sirius Passet fossils resemble these ones less. These locales are "Lagerst�tten", exceptional regions that preserve soft body parts, which is why these fossils look as if they had come from nowhere.

I think your points are all reasonable. My objection remains, however, that we are dealing with a theory capable of indulging in practically any story.

CD has not explained to us what would falsify his pet "*POOF!*" theory of origins.

Remember, protein synthesis is supposed to have arisen all by itself.

Again, a belief in poofing.

Here's an example. The histone IV proteins show high conservation across a spectrum of species. Evolutionists assumed this meant they were highly constrained in their amino acid sequence. They could not tolerate very many mutations. But this raises the question of how they arose in the first place. If they cannot tolerate many substitutions, how are you going to construct one gradually with a sequence of functional intermediates?

It started off with an ancestor that was not as dependent on the precise structure of histone IV as its descendants clearly are. It's like the evolution of honeybees from solitary bees -- they had had a bumblebee-like intermediate state.

The facts that (a) echolocation and protein synthesis are highly complex,

Well-developed echolocation, yes, but it's possible to perform relatively crude echolocation without being specially adapted for it.

and (b) that you have no explanation beyond speculation, are not sufficient for you.

CD has not indicated what he considers acceptable short of going back in a time machine and following the generations.

(CD quotes on how photosynthesis evolution seems to have involved much lateral gene transfer...)

Also, there are the many convergences. I will repeat from an earlier post; common descent predicts similarities to be inherited. What we find are a great many similarities that could not have been via inheritance. ...

Convergent evolution is well-known and can often by recognized by looking at details.

Third, as Per Alberch put it, homologies with different development paths are common: Alberch, Systematic Zoology, 34:46-58, 1985.

Have you read that paper? Can you give us its abstract?

Wounded King

Presumably Charles you are familiar with the concept of heterochrony, this explains a number of examples of homologous structures with different developmental pathways.

Or for an even more extreme example there is the direct developing frog species Eleutherodactylus coqui which lacks the free swimming larval stage of related frogs but of which the adult stages are morphologically and genetically highly similar. If the frog can lose an entire stage of development and still produce all the same morphological features why is it hard to believe that certain elements of a much simpler developmental program could be lost and still produce a highly homologous organ?

markfiend

I'm getting pretty sick of consistently trying to debunk this notion of yours, Charles. The point is that you can get multiple, massively divergent phylogenies on man-made categories of objects too (already discussed in this thread).

The point is that the convergent phylogenies observed in living and fossil species agree with the predictions of the hypothesis of common descent to within one part in 10^47.

Are you ignoring this inconvenient fact because it contradicts your religious dogma?

NottyImp

This is really not a topic for this thread, but briefly, yes I am satisfied that a materialist explanation of all aspects of human existence is possible. Were there any evidence to the contrary that bore consideration (for example, evidence that "the soul" exists as a separate entity from ther body), then I might reconsider that position.

The implication of what you write, CD, is that you feel diminished by this; I do not.

But any old load of hokum could do that, not just a Christian load of hokum. How is it any use if it is just an unverifiable story?

Yes, I want to know how God did it. What is wrong with that? And how is "god a machine" and "creationism defined away" by my wanting to understand that methodology?

No we shouldn't as there is plenty of evidence against geocentrism and a better theory exists. You're missing my point. Why do you choose creationism as a default position in the absence of what you consider a satisfactory naturalistic explanation?

NottyImp

The problem that evolutionists have is with the deliberately tendentious use of terms like "spontaneous" and "just arose", not with the notion itself. I (and I'm willing to bet every evolutionist on here) has no problem at all with the statement:

"This means that the species arose via the play of natural forces."

That, to me, is describing evolution as it really is, and I am entirely happy with it.

CD, surely you're aware of the uses of rhetorical techniques to try to influence a debate? What you are doing here (and what many other creationsist do with even less of a scruple) is precisely that. Do you really think that evolutionary biologists are somehow unaware of the consequences of their theory?

NottyImp

Forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat yourself (refer me to the post if I am), but what evidence do you have for this?

Outblaze

A likely response is that evolution deals with living things, whereas the others do not. Regardless, there is every reason to accept that evolution similarly bolsters naturalism in all disciplines and to endeavor to construct a fundamental difference between them I think, is misleading. Such impersonal "naturalism" is never completely at home in the monotheist universe and possibly a reason for CD's *I can't believe the species just arose* personal incredulity plea.

Outblaze

No, creationism really doesn't hold any explanatory value. But I understand your protestation given your personal belief in it. Your attempt to incorporate creationism into science's methodology robs legitimate scientific theories of their distinction and places them in the same category as any other story of origins. All answers to questions of where we came from then have equal scientific standing---which is to say, no scientific standing at all.

RufusAtticus

I have the Scadding paper and the two follow up papers to it, which CD missed.

I will start a new thread on them latter tonight.

Charles Darwin

I suspect you are misreading the intent of my post. First, one can imagine different levels of hypothesis. Just to make up a purely theoretical example, imagine that after a volcano one observes the creation of certain geological formations. Then one finds other similar formations elsewhere in the world. Surely it is reasonable to hypothesize that a volcano was the cause.

Now imagine one finds a unique geological formations. But what if, using everything we know of natural laws, one can faithfully simulate the creation of this formation. In other words, the unique formation is, in fact, 'produced' by the simulation which is an accurate and faithful model of natural laws. Surely it is reasonable to hypothesize that a process not unlike what the simulation models was the cause.

Evolution is a very different case. The intent of my post was not to suggest that there is something wrong with positing natural explanations for observed phenomena. The intent was to describe accurately the theory of evolution.