GunnerJ

[off topic, way old] From your name, I'd have guessed you were a transitional form between homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens psionicus. But what would that make Diamond Mask? [/OT,WO]

GunnerJ

Out of curiousity, what do you think life "looks like," in relation to it not "look[ing] like" evolution?

Urvogel Reverie

Creates no new sequences? Are you seriously proposing that meiotic recombination fails to yield variety in the genotype? If in fact this is your claim, references for such a bold assertion are requisite, and if it is not your claim, elaboration of a statement no doubt deliberately nebulous, is in order.

Your summation of basic logic is nice and well, however, as my statements about genetics and evolution are meant in the context that whereas evolutionary biology predicted what has now been confirmed by genetics, it is nothing less than special pleading to say that on the contrary the genetics do not substantiate evolution. Hence, "it is not possible to construe the data as anything but" support for evolutionary biology, and still be true to empirical reality.

Lastly, a recurrent laryngeal nerve is apomorphy which, to my knowledge, has not precluded conventional systematic analysis and identified fish as the phyletic progenitor of eutherians. Your implicit and outright assertions to the contrary demand substantiation.

Urvogel Reverie

Urvogel Reverie

It is implicit in your post, and it is in fact a standard viewpoint of creationists as a whole. Your entire farcical post about how punctuated equilibrium is akin to a ideological conspiracy to mask the defficiencies of the fossil record for evolutionary biology, is built upon (among others) the argument that paleontology fails to vindicate evolution.

Urvogel Reverie

Urvogel Reverie

Your post on the matter of chromosome 2 in hominids implied just such a statement. If you do not wish people to misinterpret what you have posted, perhaps you ought to abandon attempts to couch your views in such obfuscation that you can readily change your posts to accomodate whatever particular argument you happen to be making at any one time.

Urvogel Reverie

Urvogel Reverie

And once more you reveal a poor understanding of the methodology of phylogenetic reconstruction, and no doubt, the principals of cladistics as a whole which are so often employed by modern systematists in this endeavor. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, and thus elaboration of this idea of yours that phylogenetic mapping is a problem, would be in order.

Urvogel Reverie

lpetrich

Charles Darwin:
When you say life looks like it evolved you're begging the question. That is the question at hand.

How is it that living things fit into a family-tree-like hierarchy so well?

Is it some obscure whim? Or is it something else? Like descent with modification?

I would argue that life, the most complex thing known, does not look like it evolved; not by a long shot.

Maybe not to you, O CD. But given the success of biological evolution so far, I do think that living things look like the result of evolultion.

You also beg the question when you say that rapidly evolving areas have no function (ie, low constraint). ...

One can test that hypothesis by comparing amounts of constraint to known functionality. And the more critical parts of proteins are indeed found to evolve more slowly.

And no, I'm not just "plain wrong" that we still lack many details of how the phenotype is created from the genotype. Knowing how protein synthesis works is only one step in the process.

However, it's an important step, and you had claimed earlier that we are almost completely ignorant of how the phenotype comes from the genotype.

Regarding phylogenetic mismatches, I'm amazed that I'm even being asked for examples. Look in any research journal or review article dealing with phylogeny. Examples are abundant.

I still don't know what you are talking about. Please give us some examples -- and serious ones.

Doubting Didymus

What do you think the separate creation hypothesis predicts the tree to look like?

When an area produces no polypeptide, or a polypeptide is degraded before being put to use, or a finished polypeptide results that does not have a function. You think when geneticists say 'this stretch of nucleotide sequence has no function' they're just making shit up?

Yes, dolphins are different from sharks. However, dolphins have very nearly got the exact genes of a placental mammal. Why should this be? Evolution explains it nicely: dolphins have mammilian genes because they are descended from mammals. How do you explain this with a separate creation model of biodiversity?

Regarding phylogenetic mismatches: they are few and far between. They get a lot of airtime in phylogenetic publications because they are rare, unexpected, and worthy of receiving an explaination. It's not like these things are impossible under the evolutionary framework, just that it should be unlikely. For example, further study of the problem may reveal answers: segments of chromosome can shift and change on rare occasions, it may be that the genetic segment will be found somewhere else, surrounded by the correct fragments that would have been its neighbors. If something is present in two species, but not in a third which is hypothesised to be between them on a tree, there may have been a simple deletion. An extreme example: evolution predicts that humans should have the same number of chromosomes as chimps. They dont. Has evolutionary theory failed? We look at our chromosomes, and find that one of them has frigging telomeres in the center. What seemed a discrepancy vanishes under scrutiny. So, to sum up: where a discrepancy exists, evidence will be found in most cases that explains it.

GunnerJ

However, a dolphin is morphologically more similar to a shark than to an elephant, at least in terms of swimming ability. So if the "Creator" is "re-using" code for similar functional morphologies, why is a dolphin's DNA closer to an elepahnt's than a shark's?

No. This does not follow from what DD said at all.

Why? Because there are lots of reasons why, for example, an "HERV... shows up in gorillas and chimps but not humans." They have been listed. Thus, it's plausible that an HERV would not conform to the phylogenic tree for reasons other than the falsehood of evolution.

However, outside of evolution (by this we mean the fact of evolution, i.e., common descent) being accurate, there is no reason for HERVs to confirm the phylogenetic trees.*

If you can't tell the difference between this and mere hand-waving and ad-hoc rationalization, then, well, there isn't much I can do to help you.

*Unless, of course, the "Creator" just liked putting the same viral DNA fragments into the genome of independant creations just for the hell of it.

Charles Darwin

How do you dress up an idea that makes no sense, get it accepted as science, and even as a scientific fact? Well it isn't easy. You'll have to stretch the truth in several different ways. First, and most obviously, you have to direct attention away from the fact that your idea is nothing more than handwaving, and doesn't actually explain how life and her intricacies were supposed to have arisen.

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?

It is not a matter of knowing another way, it is a matter of understanding science. One doesn't get carried away with an absurd notion, claiming it is a fact, because it can be used to model some observables. No one believes the earth is flat, though I can give you 29+ validations for that model.

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.

The flat-earth theory is probably one of the most successful false models in the history of science. Physicists and engineers use it literally everyday. It has produced an untold number of incredibly accurate predictions and is indispensable in such areas as machine design, projectile motion, construction, architecture, structural engineering, etc., etc.

But since contrived predictions are all you've got, you're going to have to stick with them, and make falsification your king:

If the theory fails these tests, then it must be modified or abandoned.

This, of course, is not at all true. Falsification can be sustained in one of a number of ways short of abandonment or modification. Likewise, you'll have to elevate verification beyond its limit, for remember, you goal is to establish your idea as a scientific fact:

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.

Again, without serious qualification, this is not true. False models make plenty of correct predictions. And because your idea is so absurd, you're going to have to stretch things to come up with your supposed "predictions:"

So, one way to test the validity of the phylogenetic trees � and of the evolutionary theory that they�re based upon � is to see if the predictions they make hold up in the real world. The trees predict that whales are descended from ancestors with hindlimbs. A corollary of that prediction is that whales should still possess genes for hindlimbs, and therefore we would expect to occasionally find a whale with hindlimbs. This is a straightforward prediction.

No, in fact, this is not a corollary. Let's read on:

if whales were never observed to have atavistic hindlimbs, and a careful analysis of whales� DNA showed conclusively that they did not have genes that were homologous to those which cause the growth of hindlimbs in terrestrial mammals, that would indeed be a serious blow to evolutionary theory.

A "serious blow"? Come now, do you really believe this would falsify evolution? Try hard, can you not think up just one explanation for such a finding? Gee, could those genes have been lost in the evolutionary process. After all, remember, it took millions of years.

If we didn�t see the occasional whale born with hindlimbs, this would indeed be evidence that evolutionary theory was in need of revision.

Ah yes, a little revision:

"Researchers at Cambridge University have now discovered that genes are not only altered in the evolutionary process, but that they can be lost altogether. 'We are now gaining a much deeper insight into how evolution really works," said Charles Darwin, great-great-great-great Grandson of the inventor of evolution."

That�s the point. The observations could have provided evidence that evolution is not a fact. If so, we�d have no choice but to accept that. They didn�t though; they did just the opposite. That�s how science is done. We put our hypotheses and theories on the chopping block by testing their claims against reality. If they fail the tests, out they go. So far, evolutionary theory has not failed any of the tests we�ve been able to devise for it.

I'm sorry, but you're confusing mythology for science, but what's new?

Next, you'll have to narrow the scope of your theory. Defending the absurd is hard enough as it is, let's not make it any harder:

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.

The bit about chemistry is a nice touch. Equate the origin of life with matter itself. Who in their right mind expects science to get metaphysical, after all? Meanwhile, evolutionists are busy writing books, conducting conferences, publishing journals, writing research proposals, and so forth, all dedicated to the origin of life problem. They even claim the problem is all but solved. It is not a question of if, but how, they assure us, though they've precious little to show us in the way of actual results. Oh, but I forgot, this is not actually part of evolution.

Not only have we narrowed scope, but we've got a wonderful trash bin to stash all those nasty complexity problems. The DNA code, protein synthesis, the Krebs cycle? No problem, they're not part of evolution.

Now what about all those nasty macro problems. How do we explain the gzillion optimizations and adaptations nature reveals to us? Well, this is really no problem at all. The strategy is two-fold. First, downplay the design. It isn't really all that complex after all. A few mutations here, a few selections there, and who knows what might pop out:

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).

Ignorance is bliss. This is the "just add water" version of biology, and you'll need to stick to it. Second, don't forget to chastise the creationist (always call them creationists by the way) for demanding all the details. Explain that this is the way real scientists do things:

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?

Always differentiate between the "fact" of evolution, which we all know, and the "theory" of evolution, that is, the details, which shouldn't concern us too much. The owner's manual analogy is brilliant. Evolution is like the owner's manual, and the details of evolution are like the details of how the car works. The owner's manual isn't worthless just because it doesn't tell all. And likewise, evolution isn't worthless. This subtle shifting of the claim from "evolution is a fact" to "evolution isn't worthless" works wonders in reducing your evidential burden too.

Next, never forget that offense is the best defense. You're trying to defend the absurd, and it will help to shift the focus onto the skeptic:

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.

Yes, there must be something wrong with the skeptic to be ignoring all this obvious evidence. Religious motivations no doubt. The next fallacy you'll need to use at some point is the argument from authority:

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.

Notice too how the ad hominem can be inserted just about anywhere. Tell them that they must be ignorant or prejudiced. Now if this battery of fallacies still haven't shut'em up, and they are still raising those thorny complexity problems, you'll need to fall back on the fact vs. theory distinction. Just remember this: every scientific problem they raise falls into the "theory" box, and every supportive argument we can raise falls into the "fact" box:

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.

Again, toss those ad hominems in there wherever you can. The key is to enforce the idea that the problems and unknowns with evolution are trivial, and that therefore questioning evolution is no different than doubting the obvious:

Whining that no one has explained every little detail is not the same thing as providing evidence that the conclusion is false. If you see and videotape Person "A" shooting Person "B", if you see Person "B" bleeding afterward, if you see the surgeons removing the bullet from Person "B"'s body, if you hear Person "A" confess to the crime -- do you claim that it's not a fact that Person "A" shot Person "B" because you don't know where the bullet was manufactured?

Next, be on the watch for any criticisms of natural selection. The rules of the game are that the mutations are random, but the selection is not. Whenever they use the word random, tell'em they don't understand the theory to begin with:

If you think that natural selection is a random process, then yours is a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory indeed.

Another trick that comes in handy is to shift the burden of proof. True, science is all about theories that are supposed to be backed up by evidence; and we are the ones making the claim that evolution is a fact. But it never hurts to put'em on their heels by asking them to falsify our theory (don't tell'em that avoiding falsification means very little):

Perhaps you think that there exists some sort of �genetic� barrier which would somehow prevent one species from evolving into another, I would like to point out that no studies have ever provided evidence that such barriers exist.

So now you've got'em where they have to show a genetic barrier, excellent. No matter that they never claimed any such barrier, or that our theory requires enormous amounts of change compared to our puny examples of speciation.

Now at some point you may feel the need to overstate the evidence. Go ahead, have no trepidation, for it will either silence them, or if it doesn't you can fall back any number of explanations:

Molecular biology and genetics provide overwhelming evidence that all living organisms are related and share common ancestry.

The fossil record provides unambiguous evidence that organisms have been evolving for quite some time.

Obviously these are not scientific statements, but if they complain, just shift the burden of proof again:

what evidence do you have that evolution is not true and that 99.99% of the world�s biologists, geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, cosmologists, etc. are completely deluded?

See how easy it is? I'm beginning to believe it myself.