A big problem for Evolution?

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

No I understood, thanks.

Apparently not (more later).

You're trying to suggest that gaps in the fossil record show that evolution was not continuous.

It’s not gaps per se, but the type of gaps we observe.

I'm saying that this is clearly not the case. The fossil record contains discontinuities not because there were discontinuities in the evolutionary process, but because there were discontinuities in fossilization itself.

True, but the problem is that it would not lead to the pattern of the gaps we see. As Michael Denton said earlier...

"The fundamental problem in explaining the gaps in terms of an insufficient search or in terms of the imperfection of the record [i.e. the rarity of the fossilization procedure] is their systematic character - the fact that there are fewer transitional species between the major divisions than between the minor. Between Eohippus and the modern horse (a minor division) we have dozens of transitional species, while between a primitive land mammal and a whale (a major division) we have none"

To whatever extent Denton is correct here, these would certainly not be the type of gaps one would expect from a straightforward Darwinian model. If we have one basic type arrive on the scene--with some evolution and variations--then we have a big gap between this and the next basic type, this fits more within the limited evolution model. Why is it that the fossilization process would only fossilize lots and lots of A's in addition to lots and lots of M's but no transitional forms in between--almost as if they never existed? It is this systematic pattern of gaps that cannot be satisfactorily accounted for merely by denoting the imperfection of the fossil record. The most straightforward expectation from a Darwinian viewpoint would be gaps that are spread around more evenly, but this is not quite what we see.

The presence of these missing links is not nearly enough to derail evolution

True, but let's take a look at the different point of view regarding missing links. As one creationist put it, What do we find? Nothing, so what do we call them? Missing. Is it that we're missing the evidence, or we're asking the wrong question and the transitional forms were never there to begin with? Add to that we cannot see the types of changes necessary for the evolution of new basic types to occur, we can perhaps understand why (a minority) of scientists are intellectually skeptical of organ-evolving evolution. (Not saying that they're necessarily right, only that one understand why they believe orthodox evolution rests on shaky evidence).

as the overall trend of increasing complexity is still present, and because there do exist cases where we can see clearly the evolution of a new species in the fossil record.

Two things I should note here. (1) I agree that increasing complexity is more or less present and that creationists (and some ID adherents) have not satisfactorily accounted for the order in the fossil record. (2) However, creationists in general have rejected the fixity of species, accepting that at times evolution of new species and genera can occur. Rather, they believe the limits of evolution are somewhat broader (supposedly the limits lie within a "basic type" or "basic kind"; the more technical term is "baramin"--somewhat similar to the clade concept). Thus, the evolution of a new species in itself isn't enough to discredit creationism.

[tyciol]

I don't really understand how evolution could be proven impossible through using random word arrangers.

[talisman]

"discredit creationism"? It has to be "credited" first, and there is no evidence, to my knowledge, supporting it.

Furthermore, I do know exactly what you mean by the nature of the gaps. But it is still a preposterous argument, not only because you ignore certain fundamental observations regarding the nature of evolution, but also because while you talk about "As" and "Ms", you don't define what distinguishes between these "types". As far as I'm concerned, showing evolution of different species, aka the the horse from its predecessors, IS going from "A" to "M". A different species is a different species is a different species. You're trying to say that "oh no way... you have to show me where in the fossil record it goes from Fish to Amphibian."

But given that

1) Evolution of such dramatic differences that I think characterize what you are calling "types" (e.g. fish to amphibians) would, by the theory, take millions of years.
2) Preserved fossilization is a rare occurrence. It does not happen in one place for millions of years straight, to allow for these kinds of changes to be recorded.

Therefore, it should not be surprising at all that what glimpses fossilization does provide us are not the entirety of the tree of life. Yet there are examples of natural speciation in the fossil record, and, as I mentioned earlier, it is an invaluable tool in showing how life forms became increasing more complex as time has gone on, a natural prediction of evolution.

You've been essentially stating a "Kent Hovind" (the infamous young earth creationist who offered 250,000 dollars to show evolution between what he vaguely described as "kinds") argument. But it is ridiculous to assume that, given the gradual nature of evolutionary change and the hit-or-miss nature of fossilization, that such changes should be present in the fossil record, and that their absence weakens evolution.


And let's not forget that the fossil record is but one piece of supporting record. The evidence of DNA conservation is perhaps the strongest evidence out there, and I've yet to see you explain away that.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Originally Posted by talisman

*snip*

I'd just like to add that there are very good theories that explain the so-called gaps in the fossil record, such as punctuated equilibrium. It's also worth noting that the gaps in the fossil record are pretty small, actually. That's why punctuated equilibrium is pretty well accepted--it says speciation goes quickly compared to the rest of evolution. (Though in human terms, quickly is a smeg-load of a long time). That's why between species there are fewer fossils, but the transition between bigger groups is plenty documented.

Plus, you're totally right. Fossils are but one of the many piles of evidence. It's about consilience from many many lines of inquiry.

Originally Posted by Michael Shermer

Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics and population genetics, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved.

[Jehoshephat]

** disclamer ** i didn't read any posts after the initial

be sure to note the sources from which you study such things
religious bias obviously plays a large role in the authenticity of the argument

for example, smarter christians feed the following example to their herds with regards to philosophy!

"Philosopher's say stuff like, you know, if god is all powerful, then can he create a rock that is so heavy that even he can't lift it?"

HMMMM
I think everything boils down to the concept of faith. faith in something or faith in nothing or faith in a fraction between something and nothing, or faith in a fraction that varies according to an infinite timescale from nothing to something, or faith in the random seed that drives the thought. Maybe when computers can trace back to the first occurence of mutation, we will understand things better. hopefully not using binary by then!

so i guess you are questioning the faith you were brought up in!! OH NO, DONT LOSE FAITH, you will burn in hell for acting the same way without believing in JC....

good luck

[GuidoHunter]

**disclaimer** I didn't read any posts between #64 and this one.

It's only four pages; you can suffer through that.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Dwhite]

Here's a riddle. What is this successful mutation that has fur, is not a bird that lays eggs and has a poisionous dew claw.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

"discredit creationism"? It has to be "credited" first, and there is no evidence, to my knowledge, supporting it.

You have to keep in mind that creation would predict the kinds of gaps we see in the fossil record, as I explained earlier. Even if evolution is correct, I don't think the evidence is all one-sided in favor of it.

Furthermore, I do know exactly what you mean by the nature of the gaps. But it is still a preposterous argument, not only because you ignore certain fundamental observations regarding the nature of evolution

By all means, please tell me what these "fundamental observations regarding the nature of evolution" that explain the pattern of gaps we see in the fossil record.

To recap the "type" of pattern I'm referring to...

Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.

but also because while you talk about "As" and "Ms", you don't define what distinguishes between these "types".

Groups of organisms can be recognized as the same type if they possess alternate forms of the same genes. See also my previous post where I made a rough sketch of what it means to be a basic "type."

As far as I'm concerned, showing evolution of different species, aka the the horse from its predecessors, IS going from "A" to "M".

More like A to B, if we're only talking about the variants of horses that Denton was referring to. A to M would be like going from a land mammal to a whale.

A different species is a different species is a different species. You're trying to say that "oh no way... you have to show me where in the fossil record it goes from Fish to Amphibian."

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the pattern should be spread around more evenly. Why is it that we gaps among known species are sporadic and often small, whereas gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large? See my paragraph below where I help illustrate this.

1) Evolution of such dramatic differences that I think characterize what you are calling "types" (e.g. fish to amphibians) would, by the theory, take millions of years.
2) Preserved fossilization is a rare occurrence. It does not happen in one place for millions of years straight, to allow for these kinds of changes to be recorded.

Yes, but again that does not explain the pattern of the fossil record, only its quantity. Of course we should not expect an entire tree of life, but we would also not expect wide gaps with numerous fossils of type C and numerous fossils of type M with no fossils in between. Consider two sets 1 and 2—both with equal amounts of fossils. If gaps are merely due to the rarity of the fossilization process, we would expect something like 1:

B-C-------------GG-------------HH------J---------K--------MMMM-N


But instead the pattern is more like 2:


B-CCCC-DD-----------------------------------------------LL-MMM-N

We have small gaps between species, we have large gaps between major groups. The rarity of the fossilization procedure explains why the quantity of fossils is smaller, but not the quality. Note that the number of letters in 1 and 2 are equal--what's different is the pattern. 1 is the pattern of gaps we would expect if evolutionary transition occurred. 2 is the pattern we would expect if only limited evolution occurred. Why is it that the pattern of the gaps is more akin to 2 than to 1--almost as if there was no such transition? This is a question that the mere imperfection of the fossil record does not answer. Why? Because the rarity of the fossilization process explains the quantity of the fossils, not the pattern (note that pattern 1 and pattern 2 had equal amounts of "fossils").

Yet there are examples of natural speciation in the fossil record, and, as I mentioned earlier

That's true, however none of these changes can be extrapolated to create the type of transition that would disprove creation (e.g. evolution of new organs) because it is not the type of evolution that creationists object to.

The evidence of DNA conservation is perhaps the strongest evidence out there, and I've yet to see you explain away that.

Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate here, but one thing a creationist could say is that a designer would create similar code for similar functions, and different code for different functions--so it would hardly be a surprise that similar code exists. As a computer programmer, I have often reused code to suit my purposes.

Another thing to remember is this. DNA might support the theory of common descent, but it does not tell us anything about the mechanism used to create those changes. Here an ID adherent could claim that artificial intervention is the mechanism, not mutation and natural selection.

[talisman]

To your last point, they could claim it, but they'd have no supporting proof other than "well the other guys haven't proved their thing yet so we must be right" which is drenched in fallacy.

I would question your assertion that the pattern is the #2 that you have provided. My thinking and my sources (essentially my intro bio textbook and wikipedia's page) say that the pattern is closer to that of #1.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

Keep in mind I'm playing devil's advocate here, but one thing a creationist could say is that a designer would create similar code for similar functions, and different code for different functions--so it would hardly be a surprise that similar code exists. As a computer programmer, I have often reused code to suit my purposes.

Originally Posted by talisman

To your last point, they could claim it, but they'd have no supporting proof other than "well the other guys haven't proved their thing yet so we must be right" which is drenched in fallacy.

Be aware, a creationist could accuse the same thing of the evolutionist.

Part of the problem with "evidence" here is that the empirical data do not announce what they are evidence for. They have to be interpreted. The fact is that we have two theories that explain the data, each accusing the other of not having "evidence."

I would question your assertion that the pattern is the #2 that you have provided. My thinking and my sources (essentially my intro bio textbook and wikipedia's page) say that the pattern is closer to that of #1.

In that case, what of the cited sources I've provided earlier? Many of those scientists were evolutionists, not creationists. (Wikipedia, I have found, is not always reliable BTW.) Out of curiosity, what exactly (i.e. a quote) does your bio textbook say on this matter?

Also, you might want to look at the "Cambrian Explosion." We have many, many fossils of e.g. trilobites (and various soft-bodied species, e.g. sponges and worms) but huge gaps between them and their evolutionary ancestors. Some have tried to explain this away via noting that the earlier forms would be soft-bodied and thus more difficult to become fossilized. While it is true that soft-bodied creatures are more difficult to fossilize, this is not a complete explanation--especially since the majority of Cambrian fossils are soft-bodied and we have a great paucity of transitional forms linking them to their evolutionary predecessors (like Pre-Cambrian single-celled organisms). Even soft-bodied creatures can become fossilized, and this variant of “the imperfection of the fossil record” (i.e. that not every animal gets fossilized) does not explain the pattern of the gaps we see here. Why? Because with the Cambrian explosion, we have a clear case of pattern 2.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by BluE_MeaniE

I'd just like to add that there are very good theories that explain the so-called gaps in the fossil record, such as punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium does explain the gaps between species, but not the larger gaps. It is the larger gaps that need explaining.

It's also worth noting that the gaps in the fossil record are pretty small, actually.

You might want to look up the Cambrian Explosion before adhering to that claim.

[talisman]

I already cited the relevant passage from by bio textbook. I know wikipedia is a weak source obviously, but I really don't feel like going beyond casual research.

To settle this, we would have to know what the rarity of fossilization really means. Maybe it means that stuff like pattern 2 DOES happen. Maybe there could be millions of years of evolutionary record potentially unrecorded, or recorded and then subsequently wiped out. The scientists you cited earlier said nothing about these gaps disproving evolution in those passages, they merely point out the presence of these gaps.

And a creationist could not use that retort. A creationist has the burden of proving that an intelligent designer exists and then created arbitrarily and perhaps sporadically every living thing. An evolutionist merely has to show that a system exists where by species change over time autonomously. And since this system HAS been shown to exist, and has mountains of evidence in favor of it, the likelihood is great that it is correct. The evidence does not really have to be interpreted at all. Are there changes in DNA? Yes. Do these changes introduce changes to the organism and future generations? Yes. Is this a system whereby a species can change over time? Yes. (the same works out for natural selection).

One could argue that, "Oh well, sure, evolution is happening but God is just directing it" or whatever. In that case, God becomes synonymous with the laws of nature, and as far as I'm concerned, redundant.

[GuidoHunter]

To what time periods do those fossil gaps appear? I'm curious if it's during one of our mass extinctions or not...

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

I already cited the relevant passage from by bio textbook.

May I ask where exactly did you cite the passages that pertain to the pattern of the gaps in the fossil record? Perhaps you could provide me with a post number?

Maybe it means that stuff like pattern 2 DOES happen.

I think the Cambrian explosion would establish that quite well.

The scientists you cited earlier said nothing about these gaps disproving evolution in those passages, they merely point out the presence of these gaps.

Quite true. The passages were only meant to establish what the data are, not the correct way to interpret them. However, my purpose of those sources was merely to establish the data.

Still, keep in mind that creation does predict pattern 2 of the fossil record--evolution must merely explain it away. Can you then understand why some scientists (albeit a minority) would reject orthodox evolution in favor of some form of creationist theory? This is not to say that creationist theories don't have their problems, only that the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory.

And a creationist could not use that retort.

Well, not necessarily. The reason creationists quote evolutionists is an attempt to establish what the data are. After all, when you have two opposing sides agreeing what the data are, we can be more confident that the data exist as described.

A creationist has the burden of proving that an intelligent designer exists and then created arbitrarily and perhaps sporadically every living thing.

I'm not sure why a creationist must prove that the designer created arbitrarily, but it is true that the creationist carries a burden of proof just as the evolutionist does.

An evolutionist merely has to show that a system exists where by species change over time autonomously.

An evolutionist would have to show more than that. (1) the evolutionist would have to demonstrate that the kinds of changes are of the sort that could create the vast diversity of life we see. While there certainly is some evolution, do we observe the kinds of changes that could produce a new basic type? We have pointed to organs that have deteriorated and become vestigial, but do we see new organs now developing in existing species? We do not. One cannot merely extrapolate the observed changes we see to produce a new basic type. The extrapolation of a mutation that produces a duplicated limb of an insect will only yield a many-limbed insect. Fundamentally new material (e.g. a new organ) is a bit harder to come by.

The evidence does not really have to be interpreted at all.

Indeed it does. One interpretation of the Cambrian explosion is that evolution took place very rapidly (on a relative scale, e.g. 10 million years). One interpretation of why we don't see the kinds of changes necessary for large-scale evolution to occur (e.g. evolving a new organ) is that evolution happens too slowly. A creationist could say that a better, simpler explanation is that large-scale evolution does not happen at all. Keep in mind that a creationist theory predicts both of these observations (the pattern in the fossil record, and that we wouldn't directly observe large-scale evolution), whereas evolution does not and merely explains it away.

Bear in mind, I think evolution better explains plenty of things than creation (or at least lower-tier creationism) e.g. the order of the fossils. However, I think we should recognize that the evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory. Whether it merely be bad coincidence or otherwise, creation happens to predict some data that evolution does not.

Are there changes in DNA? Yes. Do these changes introduce changes to the organism and future generations? Yes. Is this a system whereby a species can change over time? Yes.

Do we see any changes that could be extrapolated for large-scale evolution to occur (e.g. evolving new organs)? No.

One could argue that, "Oh well, sure, evolution is happening but God is just directing it" or whatever. In that case, God becomes synonymous with the laws of nature, and as far as I'm concerned, redundant.

Even this is not necessarily so. For instance, the laws of physics are fine-tuned for life to exist in the universe. One could argue that a creator of the universe was needed (confer the thread regarding the impossibility of an infinite past).

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

To what time periods do those fossil gaps appear?

Perhaps the most notorious one is between the Pre-Cambrian and the Cambrian. I can think of no better apotheosis for gap pattern 2 (patterns 1 and 2 were described in post #68).

[talisman]

post 51

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

May I ask where exactly did you cite the passages that pertain to the pattern of the gaps in the fossil record? Perhaps you could provide me with a post number?

Originally Posted by talisman

post 51

Nice post, but it provides nothing to explain pattern 2 of the fossil record.

[das1ngerplayer]

It's not hard to invent stories to make any idea seem true. No matter what facts say you have to realize that those "facts" are only science. Almost everything in science is just theories, nothing is proven. There are some things in science I believe are true but I also believe in God. It doesn't make sense to believe just one or the other. If you really think about it scientists have to true evidence of what happened millions of years ago. And you can't deny that the Bible is true, it's not everyday people make up huge stories like that.

If you want to make your choice on to believe in Creationism or Evolution I'd say it would be best to study both. Don't believe what science says right away. Just remember that.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by das1ngerplayer

And you can't deny that the Bible is true, it's not everyday people make up huge stories like that.

Uh, yes they do. This doesn't mean the Bible is completely a fabrication by any means, but what you say isn't the slightest bit of evidence proving the Bible to be true.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[das1ngerplayer]

Originally Poeted by GuidoHunter
Uh, yes they do. This doesn't mean the Bible is completely a fabrication by any means, but what you say isn't the slightest bit of evidence proving the Bible to be true.

--Guido

The evidence proving the Bible to be true in in the book. Read it and it will talk about things far into the past. Some of things things refer to what science tell us, other things contradict science. And, no it's not everyday a book is made that has billions of followers who look to it for guidance. (Then again who knows, there could be some bogus book about science or life that people look to ).