Skeptical

And your _evidence_ that "some of these are shams" is what exactly? That some non-scientist, non-specialist who runs a fundy website thinks so? Right, they're going to be totally reliable adn they don't have any agenda in spouting about things they don't understand. Riiiiight.

Oh, that's right! How could I forget that the fundies were the group that discovered that Piltdown man was a hoax. They did all the research and investigation and....wait a minute....it wasn't the fundies it was the _scientists_! Wow, how about that. Scientists showing that "the find of the century" was a fake. Man, you'd think that they would have kept quiet about something like this because all they ever do is fabricate data, right?

Yes, one can _imagine_ quite a bit if one let's ones _imagination_ take over ones limited critical faculties.

This would be funny if you weren't serious. I have seldom seen anything so ridiculous. As pointed out, DNA is _exactly_ proof of common descent. Your children have your DNA. Their children will have your DNA, etc. etc. Geneticists can trace this trend. It's a fact. Try reading some science textbooks instead of fundy websites and maybe you won't talk our of your arse for a change.

Honestly, your spouting nonsense. How do you expect to be taken seriously? If I came to a biblical forum and claimed that Jesus was a 5th century Tibetan buddhist, would you take me seriously? That's about as far out as your take on DNA. You are completely, utterly and undeniably wrong.

CRDbulldog

Sigh -- Vanderzyden, I can see that you are stuck in creationist mode. However, on the off-chance that you are actually open to scientific facts I will answer your posts with courtesy and in detail. Perhaps, it can be of use to any lurkers out there who may not know what the true facts are.

As you read this post I want you to follow the advice of Stephen R. Covey (see _The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People_) and seek first to understand, then to be understood. I do not expect you to agree with what I have to say, but I do expect you to try to understand the concepts behind what I am going to say and not look for "sound bites" that you can pick and choose to respond to with canned creationist misrepresentations. OK.

Here goes:

Vanderzygen:
Unfortunately, you do not have it right. I went into some detail in my original post explaining that neo-Darwinian theory is composed of many parts. It can not be "simply defined". I will summarize for you again:

Neo-Darwinian Base Concept
(a) All life is related by common descent. (Note: Carl Woese believes that there may have been at least 3 origins of life and they combined through lateral gene transfer to form the root of the "evolutionary tree". Since this would be at the very beginnings all life today would still have a common ancestor, thus, this proposal is easily incorporated into a Neo-Darwinian framework).
(b) Natural selection is an IMPORTANT MECHANISM but NOT NECESSARILY the EXCLUSIVE MECHANISM. There are others equally natural (i.e. not requiring intervention of a supernatural agent) that may also be important.

Since creationists are so fond of quotes from famous scientists I'll conclude this section with one from Albert Einstein:

"Theories should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Vanderzyden:
When I read this statement I can only shake my head. I can imagine you typing this and thinking, "this will throw him for a loop. I'll bet he never thought of this!" Unfortunately, your statements are simply incorrect. You are uncritically accepting creationist propaganda.

This may surprise you. There is not a single paper in any top tier peer reviewed journal directly supporting young earth creationism (YEC), old earth creationism (OEC), or intelligent design (ID). The creationist propaganda is that this is due to censorship on the part of the scientific establishment. Poppycock! The scientific establishment HAS allowed the publication of such controversial ideas as cold fusion and polywater in top tier journals. The reason nothing has been published in any top tier journal is that the quality of their science does not even reach the quality of cold fusion or polywater (which as it turns out is not very high). Thus, THERE IS NO STRONG CONTROVERSY ON EITHER descent with modification OR natural selection.

Vanderzyden:
Again you have uncritically accepted creationist’s misrepresentations. There are already several excellent responses to you pointing out many transitional forms especially the one by Oolon Colluphid in which he shows you pictures of the intermediates between apes and humans. There will probably be more by the time I am able to post this. I will add only the following. Let's look at the fossil record on its largest scale.

Precambrian (4,500 - 590mya) The first fossils are found in rock 3.5 billion years old. They are intricate bacteria-like fossils. (Note: There is some controversial evidence of carbon 13 depletion in apatite inclusions in rocks dated as old as 3.85 billion years which suggests life may have started as early as that). There is evidence for single celled eukaryotic life (lifeforms with a true nucleus - bacteria are prokaryotes and do not have a true nucleus) in rocks date 2.1 billion years. There are casts of putative worm burrows dated back 1.1 billion years ago. There are unmistakable signs of small multicellular eukaryotic life about 680 million years ago.

Cambrian (590 - 505 Mya) - First vertebrate fossils found. They are jawless fish.

Ordovician (504 - 438 Mya) - Find more jawless fish.

Silurian (438 - 408 Mya) - Ray finned fish, some lobe-finned fish, early sharks.

Devonian (408 - 360 Mya) - Fish are dominant but amphibians make their first appearance.

Carboniferous (360 -286 Mya) - Amphibians become dominant on land, Reptiles make their first appearance, Fishes diversify. (Note: some authorities divide the Carboniferous into the earlier Mississippian and later Pennsylvanian periods. Reptiles did not make their appearance until the later part of the Pennsylvanian)

Permian (286 - 248 Mya) Amphibians are still dominant, reptiles proliferate, mammal-like reptiles make their first appearance.

Triassic (248 - 213 Mya) Mammal-like reptiles dominant, Dinosaurs make first appearance.

Jurassic (213 - 144 Mya) Dinosaurs dominant, first true mammals and birds.

Cretaceous (144 - 65 Mya) Dinosaurs dominant, small mammals and birds.

Tertiary (65 - 0 Mya) Mammals dominant on land, birds prominent, bony fish dominant in the oceans.

This is only the largest scale look at the fossil record (note: I have concentrated on vertebrates since I am most familiar with them, there is significant fossil evidence for invertebrates, bacteria/archaea, and plants as well).

A consistent pattern found in the fossil record is that fossils in adjacent bedding planes are more similar to each other than they are in more separate bedding planes. This is only consistent with an interpretation of gradually changing (read - evolving) life.

So how then do creationists get away by saying that there are no transitional forms? They resort to dishonesty. They take quotes out of context and then use them to support an interpretation of the fossil record that the scientist making the quote did NOT mean. The most conspicuously misquoted evolutionist of our time is Stephen J. Gould. Most of his quotes used by creationists concern punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium was first presented by Niles Eldridge & Gould in an article in Science in 1972. It has been controversial in evolutionary science but I think it has now become the dominant view. Here is a brief overview what the punctuated equilibrium REALLY says (caution: read this for understanding, not to find "sound bites" that strike a chord with what you've read from your creationist literature).

When Charles Darwin first proposed his theory on the origin of species he knew that natural selection would have to work slowly. Note that "slowly" is a relative word here. Contrast that with what was a dominant view of the time -- species were created in a single day. Darwin acknowledged that there would be times when evolution would proceed faster than others but he felt that the process must be gradual ... Species don't just appear overnight. Darwin almost certainly had a picture in the back of his mind that there would be slight change within each generation of species that would eventually lead to speciation. In other words, he felt like each generation was a step on an infinitely long stairway leading from one species to another and so on. This is not exactly (operative word here "exactly") what is seen in the fossil record. Species appear morphologically static over a long period of time and then in the space of time required to lay down a single bedding plane a new (or several new) species will emerge from a previously existing species. How does one explain this? Well, there are many different ways without having to resort to "Goddidit". One possible way is through allopatric speciation followed by repopulation. Allopatric speciation occurs when a small peripheral population becomes isolated from main group. Their gene pool is likely to be different from that of the main population and they are likely to be in an environment in which there are open niches in which to develop. Should the main population die off, the now new species can return without competition and dominate. Present-day paleontologist examining the fossil data will notice what appears to be the sudden extinction followed by the sudden appearance of a fully formed well-adapted species. It is my opinion that this is an important explanation for some of the observed instances of punctuated equilibrium, but I do not think it can account for all of them.

Thus, I think punctuated equilibrium is a real phenomenon. Gould believes the mechanism behind punctuated equilibrium is SPECIES SELECTION. That is, selection that occurs not at the level of the individual (or gene as Dawkins believes) but at the level of the species. I have my doubts about this. I am more of a believer in NEUTRAL SELECTION and SELF-ORGANIZATION. I believe that as mutations that are silent increase the variation within the gene pool. As these genes get shuffled about mutually complementary alleles will combine and unmask their beneficial effects, and especially so during times of high selection pressure such as a dramatic and prolonged change in the environment.

So how fast can speciation occur? The creationist misrepresentation of punctuated equilibrium is that it happens instantaneously. Remember that the fossil record shows speciational events happen in a single bedding plane. But this it takes a few 10's of thousand years to form a bedding plane. Thus, punctuated equilibrium has speciation occurring over 20 to 50,000 years instead of millions of years. Is this enough time? More than enough especially if there is a sustained period of directional selection. And such periods are known to occur during and after mass extinctions.

With this in mind, you should be able to see how punctuated equilibrium also fits well within the neo-Darwinian framework and is NOT, as creationists portray, a problem for the theory.

Vanderzyden:

"and empirical observations have yet to reveal that adaptation may be extrapolated to be a mechanism for the generation of entirely new species."

Again, this is creationist poppycock. There are many OBSERVED examples of speciation. You have been given links to the data. Can this be attributed to adaptation? Some can't, such as speciation in plants by chromosomal duplication. But others can, such as Dobzhansky's speciation event with Drosophila published in Science or Nature circa 1964 (I don't remember exactly when).

Vanderzyden:
This is a classical example of someone reading evolutionist writings through the lens of creationism. I did not imply that it difficult to find neo-Darwinians who agree. In fact, I explicitly stated that all neo-Darwinians agree that (1) evolution occurred, (2) all present-day life is descended from a common ancestor, and (3) natural selection is a very important process in evolution. Even Dawkins and Gould would have agreed on that much. That IS the core of the theory. Disagreements concern the peripheral details. The result is that papers are being published, experiments are being performed, and other research is being done. These are signs of a HEALTHY THEORY.

Contrast that with creationism. No research is being done. The theory doesn't even have a defined framework. To publish in ICR's Technical Journal one has to sign a declaration of faith stating that they believe in Jesus Christ and biblical inerrancy. THERE you have all the signs of a terribly sick theory.

Vanderzyden:
As others have told you abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. It is a separate theory on its own. Abiogenesis is without a doubt less well established than is evolutionary theory. There is support for it but to go into detail would require a post at least as long as this one and I don’t feel like doing that now. Here is a list of some good books you can read on the subject.

Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle
Christian de Duve, Vital Dust
Stuart Kaufman, The Origin of Order

I would guess Davies’ book is the one you would enjoy the most. De Duve’s is easy to understand and I think is better. Kaufman’s book is highly technical and I would recommend you obtain a good understanding of fitness landscapes first.

Vanderzyden:
My post was on the definition of evolutionary theory, not on creationism. I am quite aware of many different aspects of creationists. They can roughly be divided into 3 groups; YECs, OECs, and IDs.

YECs are the most numerous. They believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is how life and the universe began. They are deluded, and in at least this area of their life, have lost (or never developed) their ability to think critically. Unfortunately, they have quite a bit of political power so I do view them as a threat to reason. They are headed by people like Henry Morris, Duane Gish, John Morris, Jan Peczis (aka John Woodmorappe), Walt Brown, and Kent Hovind. In my opinion these people have the same intellectual honesty displayed by Jerry Falwell when he blamed the WTC and Pentagon attacks of 9/11 on atheists.

OECs are a bit more reasonable. They view some of the things in Genesis as being allegorical (most notably the concept of a 24 hour day). They still come up with all sorts of convoluted scenarios to make Genesis more congruent with scientific facts. The leading OEC is Hugh Ross.

IDs are perhaps the most dangerous. Some are real practicing grant-getting scientists (e.g. Mike Behe), and they derive financial support from the Templeton foundation which has deep pockets. They have a variety of beliefs, for instance Phillip Johnson (a UC-Berkeley law professor) seems to have beliefs very similar to OECs – God made each species individually but he did so at different times – while Behe believes evolutionary theory all the way through common descent, he just believes that God made a “super-Adamite” bacteria with all the genes that would be needed for future life and let it evolve until … Ouila, you get us. The leaders of the ID movement are Phillip Johnson, Mike Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyers. I think Johnson and Wells have the same intellectual integrity as do YECs. Behe is the best of the bunch. Dembski is a master at obfuscation. Meyer, I’m less familiar with.

Vanderzyden:
The phrase is not intrinsically irrational, it intrinsically useless. Goddidit could be used to explain anything. God is supposed to be omnipotent. Therefore He COULD do anything. For instance, suppose I see an apple drop from a tree. I could investigate that phenomenon and discover the laws of gravity and the mathematical relationships behind them. We did do that and it has proved to useful. Alternatively, I could come up with a theory that Goddidit. God pulled that apple down. Furthermore, God does that to every apple (and everything else that falls). It is only because God decides to pull it down with a certain force that it falls that way. God one day may well decide to not pull it down in which case it will either float away or stay where it is. Or, He may decide to pull it down with more or less force. There is no way you can prove that theory wrong. That is why Goddidit is intrinsically useless.

Lizard

CRDbulldog:

That was a masterful post -- and respectful, too -- Thank you!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Mageth

CRDbulldog: Great post! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Dr.GH

Very good job.

CRDbulldog

Thanks for the compliments. It is nice to know the effort was appreciated.

Defiant Heretic

OK, I'm going to try and simplify this issue here.
There are three possibilities of how life arose.

1) Evolution (or some variant thereof)
2) Creationism (or some variant thereof)
3) Other (anything other than 1 or 2)

I included option 3 so as to point out that even if evolution were disproved completely, it still wouldn't prove creationism.

Now I am going to state the general theory of evolution in its simplest terms. However, for the sake of completeness, I do at times state the obvious.

1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.

2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.

3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.

4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.

5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.

6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.

7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)

8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).

9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.

10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.

Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.


This wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be, but I wanted to make sure I didn't leave any loopholes.

Anyway, If anyone out there believes that the theory of evolution (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Defiant Heretic ]</p>

raistlinjones

I'm not sure this theory of evolution is complete. You neglect to mention where new traits come from.

Birds, for instance. At some point along the line, they did not have feathers, right? In fact, it would seem that there was a time when there were not any creatures with feathers on the planet. Assuming that's correct (and if it's not, substitute some other trait), where did the feathers come from? I've yet to hear a very good explanation for how new traits come about. Most of the time I just hear that there are mutations that just happen to be useful. It's hard for me to buy that. Anyway, an explanation would be helpful.

Dr Rick

You may about the evolution of feathers <a href="http://www.eurekah.com/chapter.php?chapid=594&bookid=53&catid=20" target="_blank">here</a>.

Thanks to Simon (Oolon) for providing the link.

Rick

Quetzal

Hi raistlinjones:

There's a bit of a misunderstanding in your post. "At some point along the line they [birds] did not have any feathers." Birds have always had feathers. The question is really when did birds become birds, rather than something else (e.g., theropods). Ya see, we have a bunch of bipedal dinosaurs running around that were not birds, but had lots of bird-like traits (hollow bones, three toes, etc), who had modified scutae (a kind of scale) that resembled feathers, probably as insulation for not-very-homeothermic dinos. One or more branches of theropods came up with the idea that the air was a whole new ecological niche for them to exploit. By using their by-now highly modified feathers, they were able to do so. Modern birds are really just feathered dinos in drag. Next time you eat a chicken, be content in the knowledge that you're getting even for a hundred million years where the chicken's ancestors used to eat yours...