Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 03-14-2003, 02:49 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me introduce you to Theophilus.

Over in EoG, which I don�t often visit, I happened upon this thread. Where I read the following:

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
The theory of evolution is held to be "tenable" only because it offers a possible naturalistic (read anti-theistic) explanation of origins. The theory was not arrived at as the only reasonable explanation for the evidence; indeed much of the "evidence" did not exist when the Greeks first came up with the idea.

Darwin's theory assumed evolution (it did not prove it) and was an attempt to define the evolutionary mechanism.

There is no "evidence" for evolution. There are data, fossils, etc., which are placed (often against evidence) in an evolutionary scheme.

There is a display at the Smithsonian that shows two distinct species of current animals and the placard explains that they came from (I'm not kidding) an "unknown common ancestor." That's the quality of evolutionary science. You draw a conclusion and then fabricate evidence to justify it.

Real science would follow the develpment and divergence of various species and, if one species split into two, would accept a connection. In other words, it would begin at the beginning and trace the development. Evolutionary science begins at the present, makes certain assumptions about the origin of life and then forces all data to fit that model. If the data will not accommodate itself to the theory, we just create and "unknown common ancestor" based on the belief (faith) that we'll find it eventually, since our theory must be true.

As I said, evolution is a religious committment, not a scientific necessity. That's why the history of evolution is filled with frauds.

Hmm, I thought. But didn�t have time to reply. A bit later though I found this gem:

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
The problem is, there are no observations. Evolution, by its very nature cannot be observed. All that can be done is to examine extant remains to see if they suggest that evolution occurred. This is not what happens. A fossil is found and it is "assigned" an evolutionary significance. See my other post regarding the "unknown common ancestor."

When it became evident that the fossil record did not support the kind of gradual, long term modificaiton required by Darwin, Gould simply provided another explanation, Puntuated Equlibrium. Why? Because of an absolute committment to a naturalistic explanation to the origin and development of life, regardless of what the evidence shows.

The post below is my reply. The one following is theo�s reply. Sorry for all this background, but it is about time Theo was brought to book, and in the appropriate forum. He seems unlikely to come here voluntarily, so I�m twisting his arm a little.

Cheers, DT

[Edited to replace repeated quote with the correct one!

]

Oolon Colluphid · 03-14-2003, 02:54 AM

Jobar, I?d be delighted to see Theo in E/C. But meanwhile, may I take these bits here? Oops, looks like I have!

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
The problem is, there are no observations. Evolution, by its very nature cannot be observed.

Hogwash.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. You will find that even most creationists do not deny that bit. Search for Peter Grant and Galapagos finches.

Such evolution, up to and beyond speciation, has been observed. See Observed Instances of Speciation.

You will also find that, though creationists rarely define ?kind?, it is generally considered to be some group much larger than species. ?Baraminologist? Kurt Wise is on record as saying it is more or less the Linnaean grouping of ?family?, which makes musk oxen and chevrotains, gemsboks and sheep the same kind, ie descended by evolution from a common ancestor. Creationists accept a big chunk of evolution.

And evolution is also observed, overwhelmingly, in the pattern of the fossil record. No feathered dinos before theropods; no birds before either; then birds, for instance. Feel free to discuss this further in E/C.

Quote:

When it became evident that the fossil record did not support the kind of gradual, long term modificaiton required by Darwin,

Please cite references for Darwinian gradualism meaning ?constant speedism?. Other than that, you are utterly wrong.

Quote:

Gould simply provided another explanation, Puntuated Equlibrium. Why? Because of an absolute committment to a naturalistic explanation to the origin and development of life, regardless of what the evidence shows.

Punk Eek is about the relative pace of evolution. It simply notes that evolution is not at a constant steady rate. It only contrasts with ?constant speedism?... which nobody believed anyway. And note that Gould was as ardent a Darwinian as anybody. Please cite a full reference (not an out-of-context quote) where Gould denied the validity of Darwinian, generation-to-generation evolution.

Now. Get into E/C. Or else shut up about stuff of which you are ignorant.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-14-2003, 03:11 AM

Now, one might have hoped that he�d take the hint. But no, as we�ve seen before, ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand. Here is Theo�s reply.

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:

DT: Search for Peter Grant and Galapagos finches.

Did you read this link before posting it here? It does not support your contention, at all.

"3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. ]i]Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events]/i]?

IMHO, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.

Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.

Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.

Most of the reports, especially the recent reports, can be found in papers that describe experimental tests of hypotheses related to speciation. Usually these experiments focus on questions related to mechanisms of speciation

DT: Please cite references for Darwinian gradualism meaning �constant speedism�. Other than that, you are utterly wrong.

Please cite references where Darwin ever said "Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

[skulls pic]

An these pictures prove what? Were these skulls all found in the same location in sequential order of development?

DT: Now. Get into E/C. Or else shut up about stuff of which you are ignorant. [edited by Wyz_sub10]

This line of argument developed in response to my contention that there is no such thing as "objective" evidence. If you want to strictly segregate the threads, then you'll have to chastise your atheist friends for positing science as providing "objective" evidence.

I�ll get round to this myself shortly (setting this up has taken time in itself). But meanwhile, this sub-thread now has a home of its own; feel free to chew on it too if you'd like.

Cheers, DT

Secular Pinoy · 03-14-2003, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Darwin's theory assumed evolution (it did not prove it) and was an attempt to define the evolutionary mechanism.
There is no "evidence" for evolution. There are data, fossils, etc., which are placed (often against evidence) in an evolutionary scheme.

Utter hogwash. Charles Darwin himself, in his Origin of Species, mustered overwhelming evidence of patterns in nature which cannot be understood except in the context of evolution. Let me just note one such evidence:

The Biogeographic Evidence

On chapter 12 of Origin, Darwin showed several facts on the geographic distribution of plants and animals. (See here). Species tend to be more similar to other species residing nearby, rather than to other species living in the same habitat. If god fashioned creatures to live and thrive in a certain ecological niche, then we should expect similar habitats, in different parts of the globe, to have the same, or nearly the same, species. Parallel habitats beget parallel species. Yet, as Darwin points out:

Quote:

There is hardly a climate or condition in the Old World which cannot be paralleled in the New- at least as closely as the same species generally require. No doubt small areas can be pointed out in the Old World hotter than any in the New World; but these are not inhabited by a fauna different from that of the surrounding districts; for it is rare to find a group of organisms confined to a small area, of which the conditions are peculiar in only a slight degree. Notwithstanding this general parallelism in the conditions of the Old and New Worlds, how widely different are their living productions!

And,

Quote:

In the southern hemisphere, if we compare large tracts of land in Australia, South Africa, and western South America, between latitudes 25 and 35, we shall find parts extremely similar in all their conditions, yet it would not be possible to point out three faunas and floras more utterly dissimilar. Or, again, we may compare the productions of South America south of lat. 35 with those north of 25, which consequently are separated by a space of ten degrees of latitude, and are exposed to considerably different conditions; yet they are incomparably more closely related to each other than they are to the productions of Australia or Africa under nearly the same climate. Analogous facts could be given with respect to the inhabitants of the sea.

Instead, where do we find the similar species? Why in nearly the same place as the original species!

Quote:

[T]he naturalist, in travelling, for instance, from north to south, never fails to be struck by the manner in which successive groups of beings, specifically distinct, though nearly related, replace each other. He hears from closely allied, yet distinct kinds of birds, notes nearly similar, and sees their nests similarly constructed, but not quite alike, with eggs coloured in nearly the same manner. The plains near the Straits of Magellan are inhabited by one species of Rhea (American ostrich) and northward the plains of La Plata by another species of the same genus; and not by a true ostrich or emu, like those inhabiting Africa and Australia under the same latitude. On these same plains of La Plata we see the agouti and bizcacha, animals having nearly the same habits as our hares and rabbits, and belonging to the same order of rodents, but they plainly display an American type of structure. We ascend the lofty peaks of the Cordillera, and we find an alpine species of bizcacha; we look to the waters, and we do not find the beaver or musk-rat, but the coypu and capybara, rodents of the S. American type. Innumerable other instances could be given. If we look to the islands off the American shore, however much they may differ in geological structure, the inhabitants are essentially American, though they may be all peculiar species.

What can explain this?

Quote:

The bond is simply inheritance, that cause which alone, as far as we positively know, produces organisms quite like each other, or, as we see in the case of varieties, nearly alike. The dissimilarity of the inhabitants of different regions may be attributed to modification through variation and natural selection, and probably in a subordinate degree to the definite influence of different physical conditions. The degrees of dissimilarity will depend on the migration of the more dominant forms of life from one region into another having been more or less effectually prevented, at periods more or less remote;- on the nature and number of the former immigrants;- and on the action of the inhabitants on each other in leading to the preservation of different modifications; the relation of organism to organism in the struggle for life being, as I have already often remarked, the most important of all relations. Thus the high importance of barriers comes into play by checking migration; as does time for the slow process of modification through natural selection. Widely-ranging species, abounding in individuals, which have already triumphed over many competitors in their own widely-extended homes, will have the best chance of seizing on new places, when they spread into new countries. In their new homes they will be exposed to new conditions, and will frequently undergo further modification and improvement; and thus they will become still further victorious, and will produce groups of modified descendants. On this principle of inheritance with modification we can understand how it is that sections of genera, whole genera, and even families, are confined to the same areas, as is so commonly and notoriously the case.

He follows it up with:

Quote:

According to these views, it is obvious that the several species of the same genus, though inhabiting the most distant quarters of the world, must originally have proceeded from the same source, as they are descended from the same progenitor. In the case of those species which have undergone during the whole geological periods little modification, there is not much difficulty in believing that they have migrated from, the same region; for during the vast geographical and climatal changes which have supervened since ancient times, almost any amount of migration is possible. But in many other cases, in which we have reason to believe that the species of a genus have been produced within comparatively recent times, there is great difficulty on this head. It is also obvious that the individuals of the same species, though now inhabiting distant and isolated regions, must have proceeded from one spot, where their parents were first produced: for, as has been explained, it is incredible that individuals identically the same should have been produced from parents specifically distinct.

Secular Pinoy · 03-14-2003, 05:28 AM

Quote:

When it became evident that the fossil record did not support the kind of gradual, long term modificaiton required by Darwin, Gould simply provided another explanation, Puntuated Equlibrium. Why? Because of an absolute committment to a naturalistic explanation to the origin and development of life, regardless of what the evidence shows.

Gould/Eldredge did not posit another explanation distinct from Darwinism. Rather, they expanded it to incorporate the evidence from the fossil record. And bear in mind that both Punc Eq and Phyletic Gradualism are found in the patterns of the fossil record. The Punc Eq debate centers on which of the two is more common.

BTW, you keep claiming that scientists insisting on evolution, " regardless of what the evidence shows." I'd like to see what the evidence does show. Please provide some examples.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-14-2003, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:

DT: Search for Peter Grant and Galapagos finches.

Did you read this link before posting it here? It does not support your contention, at all.

What link? I suggested looking into Peter and Rosemary Grant�s thirty-odd years of research into the finches on eg Daphne Major. Okay, I�ll do it for you. Try here for instance. Read it, and check the data sheet.

Or you could try Ecology and Evolution of Darwin�s Finches, or Weiner�s
The Beak of the Finch

Quote:

"3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations

Ah, I see. You ignored the finches. This is from the Talk Origins Observed speciation link. Okay... I�ll pull out the bits you emphasise.

Quote:

Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question.

Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

[...]most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time

[...]a speciation event has been inferred [from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen.]

Sorry, but I fail to see the significance of these emphasised bits. Are you saying that these inferences are unjustified... or that any sort of scientific inference is unjustified? We see what evolution predicts we should see. What is unclear here?

One thing is clear: you have not read that page right through, or else didn�t understand it and ignored it. Please explain, for instance, these two:

Quote:

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

and

Quote:

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminate
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

If you don�t understand the significance of reproductive isolation, read this.

Perhaps this would be a good point at which for you to define �kind�.

Quote:

DT: Please cite references for Darwinian gradualism meaning �constant speedism�. Other than that, you are utterly wrong.

Theo: Please cite references where Darwin ever said "Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Ah, I see. Attach �Darwinian� to something, and it has to be something Darwin himself said. Since I have clearly confused you, I�ll rephrase. Please cite references for neo-Darwinian gradualism meaning �constant speedism�.
Now will you answer the question?

Quote:

[skulls pic]

An these pictures prove what?

I�m just curious if you could tell me which ones are the ape ones and which are the human?

Quote:

Were these skulls all found in the same location

Do you mean in the same countries, in the same valley, or on the same building site? Evolution simply predicts such things might be found in the same general region: within an area they could move around in. So asking for anything more is attacking a straw man.

Ignoring A and N, since they are modern (and A not ancestral, just there for comparison):

(B) Sterkfontein, South Africa
(C) Sterkfontein, South Africa
(D) Koobi Fora, Kenya
(E) Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
(F) Koobi Fora, Kenya
(G) Dmanisi, Georgia
(H) Koobi Fora, Kenya
(I) Kabwe, Zambia
(J) La Ferrassie, France
(K) La Chappelle-aux-Saints, France
(L) Le Moustier, France
(M) Les Eyzies, Dordongne, France

Get an atlas. Get a photocopy of the page that shows the whole world. Get a felt tip pen. Put a blob where each of these places is. Notice anything?

Quote:

in sequential order of development?

One could quibble over what you mean by development... but still...

(B) 2.6 million years
(C) 2.5 million years
(D) 1.9 million years
(E) 1.8 million years
(F) 1.8 million years
(G) 1.75 million years
(H) 1.75 million years
(I) 300,000 - 125,000 years
(J) 70,000 years
(K) 60,000 years
(L) 45,000 years
(M) 30,000 years

Quote:

This line of argument developed in response to my contention that there is no such thing as "objective" evidence. If you want to strictly segregate the threads, then you'll have to chastise your atheist friends for positing science as providing "objective" evidence.

= <petulantly> �It weren�t me sir, he started it!� :boohoo:

We have a forum for Evolution / Creation matters. I couldn�t give a stuff who started it. Here is where it belongs, and here it now is. Get on with it. Put up or shut up.

TTFN, DT

RufusAtticus · 03-14-2003, 07:28 AM

Dr.GH · 03-14-2003, 07:59 AM

RufusAtticus,

Very nice graphic.

RufusAtticus · 03-14-2003, 08:08 AM

Yeah, I know. Talk about a Chromosome Challenge.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-14-2003, 03:48 PM

Speaking of chromosome challenges, Lilith on the talk.origins newsgroup has been doing a bit of it recently.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2003, 07:28 AM	#7
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853

03-14-2003, 07:59 AM	#8
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	RufusAtticus, Very nice graphic.

03-14-2003, 08:08 AM	#9
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Yeah, I know. Talk about a Chromosome Challenge.

03-14-2003, 03:48 PM	#10
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	Speaking of chromosome challenges, Lilith on the talk.origins newsgroup has been doing a bit of it recently.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.