AuthorTopic: The Transitional Fossils Problem  (Read 19164 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38939
    • View Profile
Re: Panentheism
« Reply #45 on: January 22, 2015, 05:31:15 PM »
I'm a philosopher -- of sorts. I'm the sort of philosopher who likes to say that "Philosophy is the love of wisdom" -- and that "Wisdom may draw on knowledge, but knowledge (and science) are not sufficient to wisdom.

I don't make these sort of distinctions, to me they are a distraction.  It's in my nature to look for reasons for things being as they are. It may not be in your nature to do that, but reasons are the equivalent of rational or "logical" explanations for what you experience.  Some things Science has a rational explanation for, other things it does not.  When confronted with those things it does not have a good explanation for, you have to go beyond science, which is of course where the spiritual end comes in.

Where science comes up short, you have Theological and Atheological rationales proposed to provide explanation for what you experience.  I have been on both sides of this divide, on balance these days for me the Theological arguments are the better ones.

Nobody can "Prove" the existence or non-existence of God.  I find God as a useful construct to make sense of my experience.  You may not, because your experience is different and it just doesn't "fit" with what you want to believe. However, you cannot explain the Origin of Life or the Origin of Sentience or the Origin of the Universe with any current science, so unless you are willing to live without a rationale, you are basically SOL here without a theological explanation.

RE
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 05:33:47 PM by RE »
Save As Many As You Can

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #46 on: January 22, 2015, 05:37:32 PM »
Hey RE -

I'm a naturalistic mystic.  It's not that I don't believe in God. It's just that I don't divide the universe into God and Not-God, and so have no need for the word "God". If it's all "divine," fine!  Just don't sick any goddam theologians on me. They are ridiculous! They are the best damned stand up comedians God ever created.  Only trouble with 'em is that they don't know how damn funny they are!
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38939
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2015, 05:43:07 PM »
It's just that I don't divide the universe into God and Not-God, and so have no need for the word "God".

That is Pantheism.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #48 on: January 22, 2015, 05:59:34 PM »

I understand the theory, but humans brain development are gigantic sudden leaps, such as seeing seagulls flying at mach 3. We deliberately try and accelerate such traits ourselves with a miniscule modicum of success, breeding racehorses that after 1000 years might be slightly faster. The only way Jane Goodall could produce a significantly smarter gorilla would be to breed with it herself. She can only do that by the means Monsanto uses with maize, not monkey love. Monsanto doesnt need millions of years either, just sayin.

Punctuated equilibrium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Punctuated Revolution is a better term, but the problem not addressed in the theory is WHY this occurs, and the HOW part of a mechanism for it that makes sense without violating entropy law is nowhere to be found.  To get enough mutations over a short period of time which all work beneficially to split a species and POOF evolve wings for instance is statistically improbable just as random chance.  You need Intelligent Design to resolve that problem.

I'm not so sure.

Besides, there must be potentially hundreds of different takes on what "intelligent design" (ID) amounts to. 

No that would be hubris, no proponent of ID claims to know exactly how it works.

Some versions are more or less Biblical, as in the Genesis account.

That is the ONLY biblical version.

  (These seem to me more or less ridiculous.)

You have said already that u understand things that the rest of us cannot comprehend such as a brotherhood of man living in perfect harmony if we adopt the correct design principles, so you dont present pages and pages of equation to someone entrusted to spread the message. Similarly the scribes of Genesis simplified the story to tailor it to the audience of the day. It is not meant to be taken literally. Assuming you are not blind you know the difference between the colours (colors) blue and green, because you have SEEN. Try explaining these to someone who has never seen them without the ttype of analogy and allegory prsented in Genesis.

And some versions will have an external "designer" (or Designer). And others don't.

I think the reason you are not naming any of these supposed versions is that really the people who defer to intelligent design do it to escape requiring an explanation, the versions all involve admitting not knowing themselves how it is accomplished.

That's the real crux of the matter, I suppose -- whether or not there is a Designer.  And even this has a spectrum of kinds and versions. One could say that nature itself is the designer and that there is no outside "Creator". This version makes the best sense to me for lots and lots of reasons. (E.g., It's very difficult to imagine a Creator Deity who would spend an afternoon making Guinea worms (Dracunculiasis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis .

Of the lots and lots of reasons you have, you have come up with one version, attributable to yourself, showing your idealization of the superiority of science supposing God in  a laboratory working within the sort of day shifts a scientist would in linnear time on a scale familiar to modern man. This sounds similar to genesis authoring.  Of course this is because explaining what you suppose to be true, of nature being the designer, ie intelligence or God permeating all things is too hard to explain and you only have a fuzzy concept.





Early modern science (especially) seems to depend a great deal on the notion of random chance, but more recent science is revealing another picture, one where basic "laws" and forces of nature exhibit aspects of intelligence (e.g., http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4018.0.html ) and ... well, factors we like to think of as designerly (to coin a term).

I'd be more inclined to explore complexity theory (and science) than, say, theology, for understanding. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems

You are deferring to intelligent design because complexity theory and science are inadequate. This statement smacks of being convinced against ones will is of the same opnion still.

I suspect the concept of "random chance" is more a mathematician's abstraction than a feature of nature, generally. And if I'm right, then nature isn't what it seems to be to folks steeped in the notion that nature mostly occurs in terms of random chance happenings.

Darwin was not a mathemetician, and hardly a human soul does not speak of things that are or were 'meant to' be or happen and by definition non-random, most probably including Darwin himself and about all other proponents of random selection, its just dissonance.


ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2015, 02:54:16 AM »
Quote from: Joseph McCafferty link=topic=4011.msg64958#msg64958
What works to change the genotype over time is mutation, and like any molecule DNA is being constantly bombarded by particles, waves and cosmic rays that cause them to mutate. These mutations then have to survive within a population. The phenotypes they code for are called adaptations.

Place an impenetrable barrier between two or more populations of the same species, and over enough time, enough mutations would have occurred, that individuals sharing a recent common ancestor can no longer recombine their genetic material to produce viable offspring - speciation has occurred. The nature of those environments either side of the barrier could also change, leading to different adaptations making it to successive generations. Brains that make grunts and brains that make complex language, are just different adaptations that have endured.

One among MANY things evolutionary models need to explain is how extremely rare adaptive mutations can outweigh more common deleterious mutations in order to produce new species, and how this new speciation can overcome natural extinction rates (the latter is especially troublesome in more volatile periods of Earth's history). Some of this depends on how you define a new "species". If we are going to use a definition which is rooted in whether the two different animals can mate and produce viable offspring, then it is a FACT that thousands of mammalian species have gone extinct since humans have come on the scene and not a single new one has "evolved".
« Last Edit: January 23, 2015, 02:56:45 AM by Ashvin »

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2015, 10:30:03 AM »
You have said already that u understand things that the rest of us cannot comprehend....

No. I did not. Nor would I.

That would be silly and stupid.

My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline Joseph McCafferty

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2015, 02:05:10 PM »

I understand the theory, but humans brain development are gigantic sudden leaps, such as seeing seagulls flying at mach 3. We deliberately try and accelerate such traits ourselves with a miniscule modicum of success, breeding racehorses that after 1000 years might be slightly faster. The only way Jane Goodall could produce a significantly smarter gorilla would be to breed with it herself. She can only do that by the means Monsanto uses with maize, not monkey love. Monsanto doesnt need millions of years either, just sayin.

You can have abrupt changes in selective pressure, that over time become the new norm. Once adapted to the new norm, selective pressure decreases - these are called niches. It's possible to explain how rapid, slow and gradual change occur, it's also possible to explain the means and resources that facilitated rapid human brain growth, because there were so many of them. First the mechanism.

Two populations - ten people in each. They all have different sized brains. In one population, nine people have offspring except the one with the smallest brain. In the other population, no-one has offspring except the one with the largest brain. You have a rate of change 10 x faster in one population than the other. If it happens again in the next generation it's 10 x 10 x faster. If nature is selecting for bigger brains, it has the mechanism - it also has the means.

Meat is more energy and protein dense, so when we became carnivorous we had the energy and matter to develop bigger brains. Cooked food is more energy dense still, so you can put that gain into even bigger brains. Watching someone make the fire, and learning to make fire (culture) made brain complexity more favourable. The heat from the fire gave off energy that could go into brain development and expansion into colder climes. Energy conserved through wearing clothes could also go into brain development. The making of clothes and tools and the learning process by which knowledge is transmitted adds  complexity - language and culture.

What you have with cooked food, a campfire, language, planning, tool making and culture is a niche - it's an environment where nature selected for bigger, more complex brains. That's a lot of selection pressure on one organ which caused the rapid inflation that can confuse some people. When everyone has a big brain and is adapted to that niche though, the selection pressure eases, and people with average sized 'big brains' got a chance to mate too.

One among MANY things evolutionary models need to explain is how extremely rare adaptive mutations can outweigh more common deleterious mutations in order to produce new species, and how this new speciation can overcome natural extinction rates (the latter is especially troublesome in more volatile periods of Earth's history). Some of this depends on how you define a new "species". If we are going to use a definition which is rooted in whether the two different animals can mate and produce viable offspring, then it is a FACT that thousands of mammalian species have gone extinct since humans have come on the scene and not a single new one has "evolved".

There's only one evolutionary model, and that's natural selection. Now you've made a few similar posts, trying to say there are gaps in the evidence for natural selection. Now even if there are gaps between the evidence, then it follows that there is evidence between the gaps. With the contradictory hypothesis of an intelligent designer, there is only a gap. From when it was first proposed until now, there is just a long gap with no evidence.

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2015, 02:56:59 PM »

I understand the theory, but humans brain development are gigantic sudden leaps, such as seeing seagulls flying at mach 3. We deliberately try and accelerate such traits ourselves with a miniscule modicum of success, breeding racehorses that after 1000 years might be slightly faster. The only way Jane Goodall could produce a significantly smarter gorilla would be to breed with it herself. She can only do that by the means Monsanto uses with maize, not monkey love. Monsanto doesnt need millions of years either, just sayin.

You can have abrupt changes in selective pressure, that over time become the new norm. Once adapted to the new norm, selective pressure decreases - these are called niches. It's possible to explain how rapid, slow and gradual change occur, it's also possible to explain the means and resources that facilitated rapid human brain growth, because there were so many of them. First the mechanism.

Two populations - ten people in each. They all have different sized brains. In one population, nine people have offspring except the one with the smallest brain. In the other population, no-one has offspring except the one with the largest brain. You have a rate of change 10 x faster in one population than the other. If it happens again in the next generation it's 10 x 10 x faster. If nature is selecting for bigger brains, it has the mechanism - it also has the means.

This only happens when breeding is controlled by breeders of racehorses or show dogs etc, and they can only make very small improvements overall from what was once a wolf or fox, not comparable to the difference in humans from apes. We see species go extinct with niches not suddenly become super.

Meat is more energy and protein dense, so when we became carnivorous we had the energy and matter to develop bigger brains.

I was waiting for this to come up. Dogs and cats are not more intelligent than monkeys or whales and vegetarian humans are often well above average intelligence, CHOOSING energy dense food is a cause of our dumbing down.

Cooked food is more energy dense still, so you can put that gain into even bigger brains.

Enzymes are lost and moisture is lost assuming hominids did not make stews and soups with pots, they then needed to drink water.

Watching someone make the fire, and learning to make fire (culture) made brain complexity more favourable.

If they were capable of figuring out making fire in the first place the small brain would be adequate, it requires less brain not more to copy doing something over inventing it.

The heat from the fire gave off energy that could go into brain development

You cant mean directly, you must mean that figuring ways of harnessing the heat such as scaring off large predators with burning sticks helped to survive.

and expansion into colder climes.

the first 4 million years were all in africa, where it is not really cold enough to need fire to keep warm anywhere, after that amountof time its safe to say population pressure could have pushed man at the state he was in out towards europe but we were already vastly more intelligent than the apes by the time we did venture to  colder europe.


Energy conserved through wearing clothes could also go into brain development. The making of clothes and tools and the learning process by which knowledge is transmitted adds  complexity - language and culture.

Agreed.

What you have with cooked food, a campfire, language, planning, tool making and culture is a niche - it's an environment where nature selected for bigger, more complex brains. That's a lot of selection pressure on one organ which caused the rapid inflation that can confuse some people. When everyone has a big brain and is adapted to that niche though, the selection pressure eases, and people with average sized 'big brains' got a chance to mate too.

I agree, however the state of homo erectus was adequate for that and could be found far from africa on the other side of the world in Java etc. Theres nothing to suggest we needed to all of a sudden become capable of reflecting on the meaning of life, yet we did, suddenly.

Good that you present your own thinking and not just defer to references.


ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38939
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2015, 09:45:38 PM »

I understand the theory, but humans brain development are gigantic sudden leaps, such as seeing seagulls flying at mach 3. We deliberately try and accelerate such traits ourselves with a miniscule modicum of success, breeding racehorses that after 1000 years might be slightly faster. The only way Jane Goodall could produce a significantly smarter gorilla would be to breed with it herself. She can only do that by the means Monsanto uses with maize, not monkey love. Monsanto doesnt need millions of years either, just sayin.

You can have abrupt changes in selective pressure, that over time become the new norm. Once adapted to the new norm, selective pressure decreases - these are called niches. It's possible to explain how rapid, slow and gradual change occur, it's also possible to explain the means and resources that facilitated rapid human brain growth, because there were so many of them. First the mechanism.

Two populations - ten people in each. They all have different sized brains. In one population, nine people have offspring except the one with the smallest brain. In the other population, no-one has offspring except the one with the largest brain. You have a rate of change 10 x faster in one population than the other. If it happens again in the next generation it's 10 x 10 x faster. If nature is selecting for bigger brains, it has the mechanism - it also has the means.

Meat is more energy and protein dense, so when we became carnivorous we had the energy and matter to develop bigger brains. Cooked food is more energy dense still, so you can put that gain into even bigger brains. Watching someone make the fire, and learning to make fire (culture) made brain complexity more favourable. The heat from the fire gave off energy that could go into brain development and expansion into colder climes. Energy conserved through wearing clothes could also go into brain development. The making of clothes and tools and the learning process by which knowledge is transmitted adds  complexity - language and culture.

What you have with cooked food, a campfire, language, planning, tool making and culture is a niche - it's an environment where nature selected for bigger, more complex brains. That's a lot of selection pressure on one organ which caused the rapid inflation that can confuse some people. When everyone has a big brain and is adapted to that niche though, the selection pressure eases, and people with average sized 'big brains' got a chance to mate too.

One among MANY things evolutionary models need to explain is how extremely rare adaptive mutations can outweigh more common deleterious mutations in order to produce new species, and how this new speciation can overcome natural extinction rates (the latter is especially troublesome in more volatile periods of Earth's history). Some of this depends on how you define a new "species". If we are going to use a definition which is rooted in whether the two different animals can mate and produce viable offspring, then it is a FACT that thousands of mammalian species have gone extinct since humans have come on the scene and not a single new one has "evolved".

There's only one evolutionary model, and that's natural selection. Now you've made a few similar posts, trying to say there are gaps in the evidence for natural selection. Now even if there are gaps between the evidence, then it follows that there is evidence between the gaps. With the contradictory hypothesis of an intelligent designer, there is only a gap. From when it was first proposed until now, there is just a long gap with no evidence.

This is nice in theory, in practice you can't show it.

We've been selectively breeding Dogs for at least 30,000 years, possibly as long as 100,000, and Dogs never get any new abilities like bigger brains or speech or wings to fly with.  Populations of Chihuahas and German Shepherds have been bred separately for 100's of years, they still can breed with each other.  If you can't get speciation selectively breeding over thousands of years  and hundreds of generations,  why would random breeding pull off this stunt?  Mice have even shorter lifespans and you can do more generations and you STILL won't get speciation.

This is not even worthy of the word "theory", it's more like conjecture or hypothesis.  There just is no evidence for it.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #54 on: January 23, 2015, 11:57:28 PM »
I have been away. I see the old arguments continue.

I humbly suggest that we get back to the fossil record. I am quite willing to show reams of evidence for all concerned on how natural selection is a SUBTRACTIVE process unable to explain INCREASES in complexity.

I am also quite willing to discuss the probability of obtaining the most simple of organisms (About 250 complex proteins in a precise sequence) through random mutations in a 12 to 14 billion year old universe.   

At the end of that logical chain is the giant bone of contention, Intelligent Design. I think it is futile to discuss ID without getting into the evidence, or lack of it, for SET. It's a waste of time and produces shouting matches.   :emthdown:


But let's be clear that there are NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. The scientific data Darwin expected did not materialize.

Once everybody here accepts that the fact that there are no transitional fossils, we can discuss the implications of that.

Dr. Stephen Meyer wrote a book called "Darwin's Doubt".  Here's a two minute video by him that states (this book is PEER REVIEWED) in two minutes the issue of the lack of transitional fossils and the Cambrian Explosion. I present it so we can PUT TO REST any claim that the fossil record supports SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory).

In fact, the fossil record does not even support Punctuated Equilibrium Evolutionary Theory (PEET) by Gould (Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Gould wrote a long paper before his death admitting that there was no evidence for PEET because that hypothesis required even more information and organization than SET. That defeated the whole purpose of PEET - he originally postulated it to explain evolution with LESS information, not more. ).

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/bqQbqpima-c&amp;x-yt-cl=84503534#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/bqQbqpima-c&amp;x-yt-cl=84503534#&fs=1</a>



No transitional Fossils  ???


In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin himself admitted that at the time of writing, the fossils discovered made it look like a series of acts of creation between each main order of life. Although he urged people to look for links between them, he also admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect. It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever, that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year, representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms, and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed life forms discovered between layers. No matter how much digging around we do, there really is no back door away from this issue. In fact so much of evolution’s credibility depends on this starting issue, nothing in this belief system even begins to carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists.


In the last several decades, the fossils in the Cambrian Explosion have been found to be highly complex. I think Darwin would be willing to question his own theory based on the latest scientific findings. But it doesn't really matter what Darwin would say, does it? What matters is whether the scientific community is willing to weigh the evidence AGAINST SET dispassionately or will they irrationally and unscientifically cling to their pet theory?

Well, the clingers are clinging like crazy. I have some info from a scientist that demonstrates the Darwinist belief system rejects hard scientific evidence even though the test was done 17 times by a credentialed researcher!  But I'll get to that after we all agree that the fossil record does NOT support SET.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 12:00:07 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Joseph McCafferty

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2015, 06:26:54 AM »
If you've got a competing hypothesis Agelbert, put it to the test.

I'm all ears and eyes. The only reason I take an interest in such things is to be changed, and I love it when something does change my mind or even my behavior. That's what information is - change. That's why individuals communicate information to other individuals - to change their behavior; to 'in' 'form' them.

That's why I'm tapping out this information now. I'm trying to change you. But the most important bit of information, I put in the first post I made in response to your OP. That is that evolution by natural selection is not the SET (as you mistakenly call it), it's the GUT - the Grand Unifying Theory of the science of biology. I'm warning you of what you are up against.

Let's call Darwin's contribution to science - and there's already a science behind this - a meme. This meme was added to by other scientists and over time it became a long strand of memes, that formed what came to be the theory behind the science of life. Now memes are like genes - where genes produce parts of bodies (tissue, cells etc.) that face natural selection, memes produce behaviors with end products that also face natural selection.

An example of this is the product specifications of a Toyota Corolla. It's a collection of memes in a big manual, that when followed by the people involved, make replica Toyota Corollas one after the other. Whereas the genotype has a product called the phenotype, memes also have their products.

What are the products of the GUT and the science it describes? It's only all of medicine, all the doctors, nurses, paramedics. All of farming and food production - every occupation that has a grounding in biology. What is being produced by competing memes? How are they faring in the natural world? Yes they are surviving on the edge, and yes they are replicating. But there's little product in the real world.

But if you only want to talk about the lack of transitional fossils, I just googled that and there's loads:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I particularly like this one:

"Protoclaviger is an extinct Early Eocene transitional fossil myrmecophile of the rove beetle subfamily Pselaphinae, and a stem group of the modern supertribe Clavigeritae, of which Claviger is a representative. All modern Clavigeritae are morphologically specialized obligate colony parasites of ant nests, soliciting food via trophallaxis from worker ants, and preying on the nest brood."

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #56 on: January 24, 2015, 09:46:53 AM »
Quote from: Joseph McCafferty link=topic=4011.msg65072#msg65072
There's only one evolutionary model, and that's natural selection. Now you've made a few similar posts, trying to say there are gaps in the evidence for natural selection. Now even if there are gaps between the evidence, then it follows that there is evidence between the gaps. With the contradictory hypothesis of an intelligent designer, there is only a gap. From when it was first proposed until now, there is just a long gap with no evidence.

There are many evolutionary models, but you're right that they all RELY on RANDOM mutations and natural selection to work. I have not been talking about "gaps in the evidence", if by that you mean the fossil record. AG has that topic well covered and your only response was something like, "if we didn't have the fossil record, we could still use modern science to 'discover' Darwinian evolution".

That's why I have been talking about microbial genomics (a topic which you brought up as evidence supporting SET or GUT or whatever you want to call it), and the fact that modern science has NOT been able to explain the origin of eukaryotic cells with genomic studies. I also mentioned the statistical (IM)probability that random genetic mutations would lead to new speciation over time, something we have not observed, directly or indirectly, a single example of in higher order species.

So far you are not produced ANY scientific evidence which supports SET, only loose analogies and thought experiments. The genomic similarities between species is obviously, by itself, not any evidence of a common ancestor. Rather it is easily explained in terms of a designer who uses common templates in his creative process.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #57 on: January 24, 2015, 01:40:51 PM »
Well now, what have we here? A fellow geek that also wishes to engage in a scientific approach to challenging established SET or a thoroughly biased individual using fallacious debating techniques to avoid hard scientific issues?  :icon_scratch: Only his hairdresser knows.  :icon_sunny:

Mr. Joseph McCafferty, please spare me the warning(s). I am not impressed by warnings; I prefer logic. Appeals to authority DO NOT WORK on me; scientific method based logic and evidence, when available, does.

Let's be clear. I do believe Darwin was a serious scientist attempting to explain the Origin of Species. If you want to call that GUT because the word "Evolution" has been applied UNSCIENTIFCALLY (i.e. sans natural selection in precise combination with random mutations) to several disciplines from cosmology to protein synthesis, that's fine with me. But when we are discussing SCIENCE, specificity is the key to understanding.  Broad, general terms appealing to consensus "authority" do not cut it. So please keep your GUT out of the discussion and keep specific issues in it.

The following points describe briefly how I think this through. I will not engage in a verbal dancing, goal post moving, contest with you if you refuse to discuss these points, period. I do not DO fallacious argumentative techniques.  8) 

1. When evidence is NOT available, the exact same logic used by Darwin (subsequently used by DR. Stephen Meyer to argue against SET) of using the "best explanation inferred by the observed evidence" to postulate SET is what I base my conclusion that natural selection and random mutations (two separate and distinct mechanisms  that need to work TOGETHER for SET to be scientifically valid) DO NOT explain the Origin of the species.

2. AFTER we get past the ORIGIN of the species in general and the ORIGIN of single celled life in particular, natural selection and random mutations continue to be insufficient to produce a MORE complex organism.

3. Although frequently trotted out as "transitional" fossil examples over the past 60 years or so, the scientific journals have consistently discarded each and every alleged "new" group "transitional" fossils as new scientific inquiry and research on these fossils reveals they are nothing of the kind. In short, alleged "transitional" fossils have a peer reviewed shelf life of approximately 10 to 15 years before another group of "transitional" fossils is trotted out.

4. ALL the organs in Homo sapiens hitherto labeled "vestigial" (according to SET) have been proven to not be vestigial at all. I have studied this thoroughly.

5.  The speculation about SET evidence in embryo formation and the "use it or lose it" adaptation mechanism earthlings have only proves the SUBTRACTIVE nature of natural selection.

6. Selective breeding of of animals by Homo SAPS is evidence of HUMAN UNnatural selection.  And in ALL cases, the mechanism has been SUBTRACTIVE of genetic information, just as natural selection is.

7. Homo SAP GMOing  of E. coli to make it produce insulin and/or what Monsanto does to plant genomes is an OBSERVED example of Intelligent Design by humans (depending on your point of view.  :evil4:). At any rate, neither natural selection or random mutation mechanisms are in evidence so GMO changes CANNOT be defined as Evolution according to SET or GUT.
 


Let us begin with item "1." above. Dr. Stephen Meyer claims the Cambrian Explosion is scientific proof of the lack of transitional fossils. If you want to trot out some "transitional" fossils found subsequent to the Cambrian rock strata layer, then you are not serious. WHY? Because the Cambrian layer has COMPLEX life forms. You cannot "get there from here", as they say in Vermont.


The scientific community accepts the fact that their is no SET explanation for the Cambrian Explosion lack of transitional fossils. Why don't you? In fact, that is why Gould came up with PEET (Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution Theory) in 1972! That didn't work out either, as Gould himself admitted before his death.  8)

So that leaves us with the "do not pass go, do not collect $200" Cambrian Quagmire for SET.

To finish framing the argument for you so you know I do appreciate the possibility that you believe it is laughable, magical thinking "creationist superstition" to even broach the possibility that SET or GUT is not scientifically valid, please take five minutes of your time to watch Dr. Stephen Meyer answer the charge that Intelligent Design (the competing theory) is NOT SCIENCE:

http://viewrz.com/video/demarcation-argument (five minute video)    

Ashvin and Ka, both scholars and philosophers that can argue the fur off a grizzly bear, will probably enjoy his answer.  :icon_mrgreen: I leave it to them to get into the details of the Demarcation Argument (often used to restrict definitions in order to defend consensus view).

The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 01:46:23 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #58 on: January 24, 2015, 03:04:37 PM »
JoeMc says
Quote
"Hey, you know what all these genomes are telling us? They're telling us that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and the reason there are different species, is because they evolved through natural selection."

You see the theory of evolution is so tight, you can run it in reverse. You can look at every part of what today's species have inherited and it still holds true
.

Uh. no, Joe. That's NOT what the incredibly complex mechanisms within the cells of ALL life forms discovered in the last two decades have provided NO BRAINER evidence for.

"Run it in REVERSE"!!? Is that a joke? DNA isn't a pack of random nucleotide bases that piggy backed on some crystals to become single celled life forms. That postulate is so improbable it is laughable. And even if you could get single celled life forms to spontaneously self organize (impossible in a 12 to 14 year old universe), there is that minor issue of what DNA actually does BEYOND providing a structure for protein replication.

I am talking about encoding that PREVENTS speciation. It's there. EVERY CELL IN EVERY EARTHLING HAS IT. It's a watch dog. Did you not learn about it in your ecology courses? HOW does a code for life that, according to SET, came into being RANDOMLY encode to AVOID randomness, JoeM?

That's what species do, you know. Our genetic engineers have one hell of a time when they "intelligently" (depending on your point of view  ;D) modify the design of complex life forms. Unlike a bacterium that you can switch out and replace plasmids in to get them to pump out this or that protein, complex animals like sheep and fish have mechanisms that do one of two things in general:

1) DNA code causes the organism to reject new genetic material, NOT as an IMMUNE RESPONSE, but because the cells (in an, as yet, unexplained "this is not me" mechanism) trigger organism death.

2) The GMOed organism becomes sterile ( "This is not me so I do not wish to pass this on" mechanism). Sometimes sterility does not occur. BUT, the new material does not make it to the next generation. So when you read about how Monsanto cleverly makes GMOs self destruct, realize that THEY did not come up with that. That is the NORM when you jack around with species DNA. Typically of corporations, they claim they invented it. LOL!

That said, GMOers have had some (VERY) limited success at getting complex life forms to incorporate new genetic information. But there is no way in hell that anybody can call THAT evidence of how "tight" SET is. The evidence proves that ONLY by GMOing life forms (i.e. "Intelligent" Homo SAP Design  :evil4:) can you CROSS THE SPECIES BARRIER encoded in the DNA.

Your assumption that because we all have DNA, synthesize proteins, have form following function analogous "peripherals" like limbs, bone structure, nervous systems, cartilage and so on explains nothing about HOW all these separate and distinct species BECAME separate and distinct from the speciation of single celled life. Correlation is not causation here because life, speciation and replication comes from the DNA code, not from the observed hundreds of thousands of species that are the PRODUCT of a VERY species specific, non-random code sequence that fights tooth and nail to prevent any modifications in it.

The Correlation that POINTS to CAUSATION is in the species barrier mechanism that PREVENTS increasing complexity and discards genetic information from lack of use. This is evidence for entropic DEVOLUTION, not EVOLUTION.


It is clear that you have never actually read some of the hard scientific literature about the gargantuan number of possibilities present, even if you have 250 complex proteins AVAILABLE RANDOMLY in the CORRECT sequence (impossible in 14 billion years), to CODE the DNA so it will ERROR CORRECT (prevent change) in defense of the life form template.

 
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The Transitional Fossils Problem
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2015, 03:48:37 PM »
I've been reading the four pages of posts. I will ignore the snark.

I believe the discussion of entropy merits some clarification.

ENTROPY EVIDENCED in LIFE FORM THERMODYNAMICS:

JRM asked,
Quote
Do you understand in essence what thermodynamic entropy has to do -- generally -- with order and complexity in various living and non-living complex systems?

Is this something that can be explained to people with basically no "higher math" skills or knowledge? To a scientific layman? 

The Trophic pyramid is the best explanation for entropy in the thermodynamics of living organisms. It applies 24/7 to all life forms on this planet.

Every trophic level has about one tenth the biomass of the one it feeds on below it. WHY? Because 90% of the ENERGY the life forms need to live and reproduce is LOST due to entropy when the one biomass is consumed by another. And, of course, every life form dies. That is further evidence of entropy in the thermodynamics of life forms.

NO ONE can say this entropy is not happening. NO ONE can say there is any evidence that it will happen "in reverse" some day, despite what cosmologists postulate about oscillating universes. And what happens in the non-living universe of matter is off topic here anyway.


The MASSIVE amount of energy stored in the base from captured sunlight is necessary because energy is LOST as the secondary and tertiary trophic levels EAT the life forms below them.

And entropy flies in the face of the increasing complexity of life forms postulated by SET. Yeah, there is a LOT of complexity out there in life forms. Science DOES NOT have an answer to that one, despite what JoeMc claims.
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
1462 Views
Last post November 29, 2012, 03:17:38 AM
by g
0 Replies
879 Views
Last post March 15, 2014, 02:13:10 AM
by Guest Blogger
0 Replies
324 Views
Last post December 16, 2014, 11:58:49 AM
by MKing