I will deal with a couple of hannodb’s claims in this post since I think they are related:
Claim 3: The fossil record is equivocal in its support for evolutionary theory
Claim 23: Punctuated equilibrium was postulated to explain away gaps in the fossil record.
The fossil record is often touted by creationists as being a big embarrassment to evolutionary theory and supporting creationism. However the fossil record also led to the creation of a pro-evolutionary theory bumper sticker saying, “We have fossils, we win” (see: http://www.stampandshout.com/_gfx/_bst/_ex/we-have-fossils.gif). That is a pretty big discrepancy in opinions. Who is right? I certainly fall in line with the “We have fossils, we win” group.
In my previous post (http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-2) I have already presented one line of fossils that I think overwhelmingly supports evolutionary theory, the common ancestry between chimps and humans. There are plenty of others. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif) is a diagram of transitional fossils showing the evolution of the inner ear. Here (http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/fig2-12.jpg) is a photo and a recreation of an Archaeopterix, one of the most famous of the transitional species. Note its curious mix of reptilian (especially its long bony, teeth, and claws on its forearms) and bird-like features (the feathers). Here (http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/2006/04/06/fossiltopper.jpg_ is a photo of Tiktaalik, the newest of the many fossils showing a fairly smooth transition between fish and amphibians. Here (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/whaleancestors3.gif) is a recreation of whale ancestors based on fossil evidence. Here (http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/teaching/2001_03/images/fs_horse.gif) is a picture showing some of the fossil evidence for horse evolution. It shows the strata that representive fossils were found, the skulls, fore foot, hind foot and teeth. Here (http://www.gcssepm.org/images/fossil_a.gif) is a recreation of fossil skulls of transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. These are some of the more famous fossil transitions, but there are numerous others. Documenting them all would go beyond the scope of this essay.
While I think all these transitions STRONGLY support modern evolutionary theory, I do not think it is the strongest support we get from the fossil record. I think the strongest support is from the overall pattern that it shows. What do I mean by that?
Each new fossil is a potential opportunity to falsify modern evolutionary theory. Long ago, J.B.S. Haldane gave an example of evidence that he thought would falsify evolutionary theory if it were ever found. His example was a “pre-Cambrian rabbit”. There is no way modern evolutionary theory could accommodate a confirmed instance of a highly developed mammal being found in pre-Cambrian strata. Indeed no such evidence has ever been found. EVERY fossil ever found has been easily incorporated within modern evolutionary theory’s classification of NESTED HEIRARCHIES.
What do I mean by a “nested hierarchy”? That is the branching pattern of evolution that we have all seen in diagrams. Here is one: http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg. Once branching has taken place, lines are separated. Modern evolutionary theory says that is virtually impossible for a complex structure that appears de-novo in one line to appear in a line whose branching occurred before the development of that structure. Thus, we find no feathers in mammals. Nor do we find evidence of the unique and highly efficent avian respiratory system involving hollow bones in mammals. This is true even though such structures would have been potentially useful in species like bats. While we do find the respiratory system in flightless birds like ostrich where presumably the simpler mammalian system would have surficed.
There is no logical reason an intelligent designer would be so restricted, but it is a logical necessity for it to be this way in modern evolutionary theory. So far, NO fossil has ever been found that violates this logical necessity with respect to evolutionary theory. Each and every fossil we find in the future has the potential to do so, the fact that NONE so far have is, in my opinion, VERY STRONG evidence in favor of modern evolutionary theory.
So that leaves us the question of how it is that creationists (including ID proponents) can claim that the fossil record falsifies evolutionary theory? There main criticisms seem to lie in three areas and are based on either a severe misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation of what modern evolutionary theory actually says. Those areas are the Cambrian Explosion, Punctuated Equilibrium, and Cladistics.
The easiest to deal with is Cladistics. Cladistics has created a revolution in the classification of organisms. It is a very technical subject with its own esoteric vocabulary. Its aim is to classify organism on their evolutionary relationships. They do this by looking at certain characteristics of different organism they wish to classify and comparing them to organisms whose evolutionary branch occurred earlier than the organisms in question. The organisms that one wants to classify are called the “ingroup”, while the ones that features are compared to are called the “outgroup”.
If an ingroup organism shares a feature with an outgroup organism then it is likely that whatever common ancestor the ingroup organisms had also had that feature. This type of feature is called “primitive”. On the other hand, if an ingroup organism has a feature that no outgroup organism has then it is likely that feature evolved after the split. This type of feature is called “derived”. The more derived features two ingroup organisms share suggest a more recent common ancestry.
This type of approach has been especially useful in determining evolutionary relationships when applied to DNA sequences although it was first used with fossils.
One important limitation of cladistics is that it can only tell us how recent the common ancestor may have been, it can NEVER tell us what the common ancestor was. No matter what two fossils you compare you can never say with certainty that one was the ancestor of another. It is always possible that the real common ancestor was a species that we do not yet have fossils for. To emphasize this point some cladists, especially Colin Patterson, have stated that there are no ancestral fossils in the fossil record.
Creationists have quoted him out of context to imply than cladism says that ancestral forms never existed. To the contrary cladism tells you a lot about what an ancestral fossil must have been like and gives you an idea of the time it was around. It even allows you to predict what type of fossil one SHOULD find in a particular strata. These predictions have been well born out. They are excellent evidence that modern evolutionary theory is correct. But cladistics cannot tell us that a particular fossil, no matter how well it fits with the prediction IS the actual ancestor. It is always possible that the fossil is just a very close relative to the actual ancestor.
Punctuated Equilibrium suffers from a similar misunderstanding. The theory was first formalized by Stephen Jay Gould and Nils Eldredge in 1972. If one searches any particular fossil bed, one notices an interesting pattern. What one generally sees is that a fossil species (let’s call it “A”) will appear in the space of a single bedding plane. It will remain essentially unchanged over several bedding planes. Then in the space of a single bedding plane it will be replaced by a very similar fossil (let’s call this “B”). The same thing happens for B. It remains constant until it is suddenly replaced by C. The pattern may well continue for D, E, and F.
So what Gould and Eldredge proposed was that most of the time what we see in evolution is not change but STASIS, no change. Change actually occurs over a brief period of evolutionary time (the time it takes to lay down a single bedding plane which could be as little as 10,000 years or as long as 2-300,000 years). In order to emphasize the relative rapidity of change, Gould (primarily) has pointed out that we almost never find intermediate fossils between species A and B, B and C, C and D, D and E, or E and F. Creationists have again used Gould’s statements out of context to claim that there are no intermediate fossils whatsoever, when in actuality it is quite obvious that between species A and F species B, C, D, and E are most certainly intermediates.
There are several explanations for the observed fossil pattern. Eldredge and Gould’s idea was that it represented competition NOT between individuals (the way the neo-Darwinian theory said), but between species. Thus, in their view it was caused by natural selection working at the level of species competition instead of the level of an individual organism.
Another explanation is that it is all an artifact of sampling. According to this view, speciation takes place over a long period of time. It just occurred outside of the area that fossils were sampled. Or in other words, what would have taken place is that in species A a small group became geographically isolated. It slowly evolved into species B. When species A goes extinct it opens up a niche that species B can fill by repopulating the original area.
A third possible explanation involves neutral mutations and changing environments. Contrary to popular opinion most mutations are not harmful. Most have no detectable effect on an organisms reproductive ability. So these neutral mutations can build up in a stable environment. If however, the environment changes, then these mutations that in the old environment were selectively neutral can undergo positive (ie be selected for) or negative (ie be selected against) selection.
Environments are often known to remain stable for long periods of time and then change rapidly. Under this scenario what is taking place is that with a rapid change in environment selective pressures on previously neutral mutations become large enough to cause rapid evolution.
Whichever way(s) the final results fall, it will not threaten the framework of modern evolutionary theory.
Originally, I had intended to discuss the Cambrian Explosion in this essay as well. However, the post is getting too long and the Cambrian Explosion requires a bit of time to explain properly. I think I’ll save it for next time when I deal with hannodb’s claim 4:
The Cambrian Explosion clearly falsifies modern evolutionary theory.
Regards,
Darwin’s Beagle
I think it's also good to re-emphasize that PE does not require saltation, or hopeful monsters. While PE moments occur 'rapidly', rapid is a relative qualification: we are still talking about centuries or thousands or tens of thousands of years. Many of those who mis-represent evolution seem to equate PE with dogs giving birth to cats.
For lurkers out there, saltation is a sudden jump. Not too long after Gould and Eldredge published their paper on Punctuated Equilibrium in the journal SCIENCE, Gould published an essay in column in NATURAL HISTORY magazine defending the controversial evolutionist, Richard Goldschmidtt. Goldschmidtt believed speciation was a rare event that involved MACROMUTATIONS. A macromutation is a mutation that has a huge noticeable effect. Thus, what Goldschmidtt was saying was that occasionally an individual is born that is vastly different than his parents and sometimes fortuitously so. Thus, instead of Darwinian gradualism, speciation takes place by the gradual build up of mutations over a long period of time, Goldschmidtt felt like speciation took place in jumps.
In his defense of Goldschmidtt it appeared to some that Gould was equating Punctuated Equilibrium to Goldschmidtt jumps. Gould was not, of course. With Goldschmidtt speciation occurs in a single generation. With Gould it occurs over a period of time required to lay down a bedding plane. As I TRIED to indicate in my post this period is generally somewhere between 10,000 and 300,000 years.
Instead of JUMPS, Gould called Punctuation Equilibrium "jerky". By that he meant that evolution was not a straight-line gradual process, but a flat-line process punctuated by these short jerky period of relatively rapid evolution.
Gould was always an arrogant guy and could overstate his case. This caused some polarization in the field of evolutionary biology. Some colleagues were not enamored with the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium ... mainly those favoring the explanation that the reason the fossil record is as it is, is because of geographic isolation of a peripheral group followed by extinction of the original population followed by repopulation by the now evolved new species from the peripherally isolated group. Some of them began to refer to Punctuated Equilibrium as "Evolution by jerks".
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
The debate between ID and Evolution is peppered with accusations and counter accusations, and I don't know how many alledged straw men on both sides.
I've read some of the science of ID, and their case seemed pretty conclusive. I was quite surprised to see with how much confidence darwinists claim "IC is refuted" and "ID is not science but religion and creationism". Aspecially the last claim did not correspond with what I know from ID, but the only way to find out, was to test the case for the first claim.
I decided to participate in this debate to see if the darwinist case really have the substance their self confidence suggested. I didn't participate in this debate as a public demonstration that ID is right and Darwinism is wrong. I simply debated to see for myself which side makes the stronger case. I have no intension to chase all the replies to my posts in all of ProgresiveU and attempt to awnser them all, wherever they pop up. I'm sticking to http://www.progressiveu.org/155822-blood-clots-panspermia-ediacarn-fauna-and-empty-black-boxes#comment-130177 If you want me to respond, you are welcome to place links there, and I will have a look at them and respond to them there.
Evolutiongeek is a worthy oponent, because he has read the books from ID proponents, and, because he is informed, he knows what ID is and what it isn't. For one thing, he knows that ID is not creationism, and many arguements against creationism are simply irrelevant for ID. It is a pleasure to debate with him. Though I do not agree with his conclusions, I have learned quite a bit from him.
So far, Darwinism is loosing hands down, because their bricks of evidence is kept together with only cement of assumptions.
PS. Darwin's Beagle : You've asked somewhere what I would concider evidence for macro evolution, pointing to my statements regarding the white rhino and the black rhino. I think I've made myself pretty clear on that. I want to see empirical evidence that evolution, whether natural or artificial, can produce anything completely new, which wasn't there before. If darwinian theory is true, the following experiment shouldn't proof to be too challenging. If you start a breeding program with dogs, where artificial selection favours the dogs with the longest horns, and your breeding program actually succeed in producing dogs with horns, I will be impressed.
(1) I have argued that ID is a form of creationism. I have presented evidence of that:
(a) The textbook promoted by ID has undeniable creationist roots.
(b) ID proponents include both young-earth and old-earth creationists
(c) Virtually all their arguments are recycled creationist arguments.
(d) They have failed to acknowledge past scientific explanations.
I think my argument for that is pretty convincing. You have not responded to my points. But, I don't care if it is religion or not. If it makes claims about the natural world then it also enters the realm of science. I have been meticulous in presenting scientific evidence to the contrary. Again you have not responded to that.
(2) Behe's concepth of irreducible complexity has been refuted as well as it is possible to refute it. I will detail the evidence for that in a future post.
(3) I believe what you have said are common misconceptions that are out there. I write not only to you but to others as well. I have tried to keep the length of each post to a reasonable length but to respond to all your assertions necessarily requires both time and space. That is why I do have separate threaads for each one. It would be nice if you were to respond here, but if you feel like it is too much of a burden that is fine too. I think that if were to resond in evolutiongeek's thread my comments would be lost to most readers.
(4) evolutiongeek is certainly knowledgable about evolutionary theory and I encourage you to continue your dialogue with him. I, too have read what ID has to say. I was even involved in a prolonged internet debate with Cornelius Hunter, an ID proponent, over at the forum on infidels.org a couple of years ago. If you want another mainstream scientific point of view I would encourage you to follow what goes on here as well.
(5) I am having a hard time seeing where "Darwinism is loosing [sic] hands down". I think I have built a pretty good case for modern evolutionary theory based solely o the evidence. You have not yet indicated exactly where I am mistaken.
(6) So the only evidence of macroevolution that you will accept is the production of something new? Could you please explain to me why it is what I have shown concerning the evidence of commmon ancestry between chimps and humans does not qualify as evidence for macroevolution? Are you saying that this is microevolution? Wasn't something new created in that process?
But if you REALLY want to see evolution produce something new then here is an experiment that has been replicated numerous times:
You can plate bacteria at very low concentrations on an agar plate. What you will see are colonies growing on that plate. Each colony was started by a single bacterium. That means that all the bacteria are genetic clones of each other.
Next, plate a few of those bacteria on another agar plate. Except this agar plate has an antibiotic in it at the bacteria's LD50 concentration level. LD50 means that concentration that will kill 1/2 of the bacteria. What you will get is a few more colonies. These are the more resistant bacteria.
Repeat the process over again except using bacteria from one of the surviving colonies. You will find that you get a higher survival of colonies. Keep doing it and eventually you will get colonies that are unaffected by the antibiotic.
Now remember that the bacterium you started with had no special resistance to the antibiotic. You end up with bacteria that are totally resistant to it. Why is this not the production of something new? Why would this be more evidence of macroevolution than is what I showed in the previous post concerning human/chimp common ancestry?
As for selective breeding, why is the skin folds of a Shar Pei not "something new"? See (http://www.pedigree.com.au/breeds/images/shar_pei.jpg). Charles Darwin used pigeon breeding as one of his evidences for the power of selection. Why is the long neck, stubby body and wings in this specimen (http://www.pigeoncote.com/images/maltbb.jpg) or the coloration, showy tail fan, and puffed up chest in this specimen (http://www.samsunlu-ali.de/strta4.jpg) not something new?
All of those things ARE something new. But none of them in my mind constitute as clear an evidence for macroevolution as does the evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle