For scientists who accept evolution

[hammegk]

Agreed.

Now, to keep all this on the up & up scientifically, how would we falsify either just-so narrative?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Don't know how you'd falsify ID (especially since they seem to design it to be unfalsifiable), but for evolution, anachronistic fossils come to mind. Also, if properly designed artificial life programs start coming up with consistent negative results, that'd probably be good enough.

 

[hammegk]

Don't know how you'd falsify ID (especially since they seem to design it to be unfalsifiable), but for evolution, anachronistic fossils come to mind. Also, if properly designed artificial life programs start coming up with consistent negative results, that'd probably be good enough.

Er, I was replying to ohms comment on dissension in the scientific community on the dino-bird links.

The old anachronistic fossil ploy ... and if you dropped something and it fell up, we'd have to re-think gravity. I'd say the chances are about the same. I agree that falsifying ID isn't in the cards yet either.

On the not-evolution thought about artificial life -- even if one built the correct structure from scratch, say the atom by atom level, and it "animated", how would one know if one had created life, or if life chose to animate that perceived physical structure?

 

[Bronze Dog]

The old anachronistic fossil ploy ... and if you dropped something and it fell up, we'd have to re-think gravity. I'd say the chances are about the same. I agree that falsifying ID isn't in the cards yet either.

So... what's your complaint?

On the not-evolution thought about artificial life -- even if one built the correct structure from scratch, say the atom by atom level, and it "animated", how would one know if one had created life, or if life chose to animate that perceived physical structure?

You're talking about abiogenesis. That's down the hallway, second door on the left.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The old anachronistic fossil ploy ... and if you dropped something and it fell up, we'd have to re-think gravity. I'd say the chances are about the same.

Yes indeedy. Evolution is about as likely to be falsified as gravity. Thank you.

Both theories are of course eminently falsifiable, so we must conclude that the reason they never are falsified by observation is that they're true.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The old anachronistic fossil ploy ...

And you stepped right into it, didn't you?

... and if you dropped something and it fell up, we'd have to re-think gravity. I'd say the chances are about the same.

 

[Dr Adequate]

A bit of light reading for our hardcore evolutionists on some of Dr.A's favorite "intermediate links".

So your promised "detailed look at the underlying data and assumptions" is in fact a link to YEC crapola? Why am I not surprised?

"Light" reading? Not only light, but humorous. So, what do they have? A few outdated quotes by people who've been proved wrong by the most recent fossil evidence, plus a wretched attempt to change the meaning of "intermediate form" so that it means what they want it to mean, taken from Morris, a raving nutter who attributed evolutionary biology to demonic possession and whose fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible convinced him that trees are not alive.

And, most significantly, they produce no argument that the species I list are not actually intermediate forms, as defined by biologists. Well, heck, that would be difficult. They prefer to twist, bluster and, of course, lie.

So, is that the best they can do? Is that the best you can do?

Hammy, listen carefully. Swallowing fundie nonsense whole and then puking it up on my shoes in an undigested mass is not a "detailed look" at anything. It's a reflex action of the stomach.

Go away until you've done what you promised and taken a detailed look at the evidence. If, as it seems, you find this exercise too intellectually fatiguing, just go away.

And finally, cetaceans are cetaceans, (useable) legs or not.

Right. Land animal to whale is just "micro-evolution", so it doesn't count. Yes hammy.

Come to think of it, there's not that much difference between a dromeosaur and a bird, is there? Is that "micro-evolution" at play again?

How far are you going to backpedal?

* pats hammy on head *

Run along and play.

 

[stamenflicker]

And, most significantly, they produce no argument that the species I list are not actually intermediate forms, as defined by biologists. Well, heck, that would be difficult.

Once again the onus of proof is not on the skeptic of the theory, its on the theory itself. The theory of gravity is demonstrated by dropping things and observing them fall, over and over again. You are basically asserting that these are intermediate forms just because someone cannot prove they aren't. In reality, intermediate forms, if they exist are determined by an interpretation of homology, be it anatomic, genetic, behavioral or otherwise.

The reason it would be difficult to prove these are not intermediate forms, is the same reason it is difficult to prove that they are. These are inferences, nothing more. Just like inferring that a croc and bluejay have a common ancestor because both have nests with eggs. In the case of so many of these "intermediate forms," we are left with a quasi-observable anatomical picture that leads us (based on the apriori assumption of common descent) to draw similarities. Once similarities are drawn, they should be tested before assuming they are homologous.

I'm curious as to what emperical and repeatable tests have been run to determine these interpretations of intermediate forms are in fact correct.

With regard to the ambulocetus, it seems many assumptions were made based on the anatomical interpretation of the fossil data, without regards to the questions of molecular biology. Is this this the same for the other "forms?"

I'm also curious as to the answers to the "YEC crapola" as you seem to be fond of calling anything that questions the dominant paradigm. I am not familar with the YEC complaints, short of what I just read in the link above, nor am I familiar with any particular rebuttals. What I am familiar with on this forum, is something being labeled as junk without a formal response.

From what I gather, the case for intermediate forms is the direct result of anatomic considerations in the fossil record. Is that all or is there more?

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Both theories are of course eminently falsifiable, so we must conclude that the reason they never are falsified by observation is that they're true.

I can't speak for Hammy, but TOE is often "falsified" by observation. Unlike gravity however, TOE just moves the goalposts most of the time it finds an exception to its interpretation.

That doesn't particularly bother me because it leads to further understanding and sharper definitions, and ultimately a better arrangement of natural kinds which benefits society in numerous ways. At some point though, someone is going to ask, "Hey, why doesn't gravity undergo these sorts major of 'tweaks'?"

Perhaps because gravity is dealing with a singular force that is better understood, more easily testable, and repeated every time we lift our feet. Gravity is a higher science (IMO) due to its direct relationship with mathematics. Gravity also has the advantage of having been observed and studied for much longer-- and lets face it there is less to study.

Life is infinitely more complex, probably the result of numerous forces of which NS and mutation are only two of the ones that we can even begin to understand. For the problems in which NS or mutation seem unlikely canidates as answers, we can always create new terms like "punctuated equilibria," but these don't win a lot fans with the skeptics.

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

Once again the onus of proof is not on the skeptic of the theory, its on the theory itself. The theory of gravity is demonstrated by dropping things and observing them fall, over and over again.

No arguments there. In this case, the "skeptic" (who uncritically regurgitates fundie propaganda, but let's call him a "skeptic" for the sake of argument) has denied the existence of intermediate forms. I've produced some.

You are basically asserting that these are intermediate forms just because someone cannot prove they aren't.

No, not at all. I'm asserting that they're intermediate forms because based on the morphological evidence, scientists say that they're intermediate forms.

However, hammy challenged me to name the intermediate forms of his choice, and said that he would take a close look at the evidence. He hasn't, has he?

In reality, intermediate forms, if they exist are determined by an interpretation of homology, be it anatomic, genetic, behavioral or otherwise.

Quite so. It is on this basis that scientists identify Archyopteryx, for example, as an intermediate form.

The reason it would be difficult to prove these are not intermediate forms, is the same reason it is difficult to prove that they are. These are inferences, nothing more.

Oh, right, like all other empirical knowledge. Well dang me for making inferences.

Just like inferring that a croc and bluejay have a common ancestor because both have nests with eggs.

No-one makes that inference. That is simply one tiny fact in the whole picture of nature, and no-one would make so bold an inference from it any more than they'd infer descent of rabbits from frogs on the basis that they both hop. Take away your straw man.

In the case of so many of these "intermediate forms," we are left with a quasi-observable anatomical picture that leads us (based on the apriori assumption of common descent)...

Not so. It is possible to say whether a form is intermediate between two other forms without supposing common descent, or anything else, a priori. On the contrary common descent is an inference drawn (amongst other things) from the existence of intermediate forms.

As you point out, the question is purely one of morphology.

As for "quasi-observable", though bird fossils are rare, where they are found they are often very well preserved, which is one reason why they make a good example.

I'm curious as to what emperical and repeatable tests have been run to determine these interpretations of intermediate forms are in fact correct.

I don't follow you, sorry.

With regard to the ambulocetus, it seems many assumptions were made based on the anatomical interpretation of the fossil data, without regards to the questions of molecular biology. Is this this the same for the other "forms?"

Again, I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you look at a fossil, there's not going to be any molecular biology to study.

You can of course use genetics to confirm evolutionary ideas about the family tree of life by looking at the living "leaves" of the tree --- the species existing now --- and confirm, for example, that birds are closer to crocodiles than they are to anything else. But this is quite separate from the question of intermediate forms in the fossil record, which is a seperate question to be decided on anatomical grounds.

By a noncoincidence, the two methods give the same answer.

I'm also curious as to the answers to the "YEC crapola" as you seem to be fond of calling anything that questions the dominant paradigm.

"Fond of calling it"? Do I use the phrase often?

I am not familar with the YEC complaints, short of what I just read in the link above, nor am I familiar with any particular rebuttals. What I am familiar with on this forum, is something being labeled as junk without a formal response.

Hammy promised a detailed look at the data. He gave me a link to a bunch of people whose mission, did they know it, is to make Christianity look silly.

I thought I'd made it clear what the main objections are, but to go over it again in more detail: they need to redefine what an intermediate form is in order to escape the fact that they are abundant in the fossil record; to discredit Archaeopteryx they use quotations from Feduccia and Feduccia and, oh yes, let's not forget Feduccia, to suggest that Archaepteryx should be placed with the modern birds, which is anatomically ridiculous; the quotations which they use are out of date and precede the discovery of almost every fossil I listed; they simply do not present any arguments to show that the fossils I listed are not intermediate forms. If you think they have, please quote the relevant passage.

Hammy, in place of that detailed examination of the data he promised me, provides us with a link. Am I supposed to debunk the entire page line by line, or would you like to say which bits you think are relevant to the question of intermediate forms that I haven't yet covered?

From what I gather, the case for intermediate forms is the direct result of anatomic considerations in the fossil record. Is that all or is there more?

There are also examples of living intermediate forms between species. However, hammy would dismiss that as "microevolution". Since macroevolution takes a long time by definition, we are obliged to refer him to the fossil record.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I can't speak for Hammy, but TOE is often "falsified" by observation. Unlike gravity however, TOE just moves the goalposts most of the time it finds an exception to its interpretation.

First, I should like to see examples.

Second, no example you could give is going to be relevant, if you think about it. Whatever spin you put on the theory of evolution, or even if you prefer to believe in another theory but still believe that evolution has taken place, then you would expect to see a coherent story in the fossil record, and to find otherwise would most definitely falsify it.

That doesn't particularly bother me because it leads to further understanding and sharper definitions, and ultimately a better arrangement of natural kinds which benefits society in numerous ways. At some point though, someone is going to ask, "Hey, why doesn't gravity undergo these sorts major of 'tweaks'?"

And at that point, someone will be told "Oh, you mean like the progress of the theory of gravity from Galileo to Newton to Einstein and now on to "quantum gravity" and the search for the "graviton"... which theoretical physicists are planning to supplant with "string theory" anyway just as soon as they can figure out how to do the maths."

The only comparable shift in biology is from design to evolution.

Gravity is a higher science (IMO) due to its direct relationship with mathematics.

Is it also a "higher science" than the germ theory of disease?

For the problems in which NS or mutation seem unlikely canidates as answers, we can always create new terms like "punctuated equilibria," but these don't win a lot fans with the skeptics.

This is an incredible misconception. "Punctuated equilibrium" describes one of the results of evolution: it is not suggested as a cause of it.

 

[stamenflicker]

Am I supposed to debunk the entire page line by line, or would you like to say which bits you think are relevant to the question of intermediate forms that I haven't yet covered?

No, that's silly of me to ask, and lazy on my part. I'll try to do some catch up reading tonight and maybe form a decent question, if there is one to be formed . My apologies.

I'm asserting that they're intermediate forms because based on the morphological evidence, scientists say that they're intermediate forms.

Well they certainly look like transitional forms. After artist renderings, they look even more so. I have no real problem with them being so, I just like playing devil's advocate... o wait, no I can't be the devil's friend.

I do have a few questions on this point, I'll try to articulate them later, although this thread is getting long.

That is simply one tiny fact in the whole picture of nature, and no-one would make so bold an inference...

But behavioral homogeny is one method available to the scientist isn't it? It just happens to not be the best way. Now the case really has to be made that anatomical homogeny is the best way... and maybe its really not, but its the best way currently available to us with regards to intermediate forms. If I've done my reading correctly, we also have developmental homogeny and genetic homogeny as other tools. Like I mentioned above (and provided a link), what do we do when anatomical homogeny doesn't recon with molecular biology?

http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/ueg/pd...&Weiler_98.pdf

The contrary common descent is an inference drawn (amongst other things) from the existence of intermediate forms

This is a chicken and egg argument, I don't really see how to view it any other way. I think maybe I'm buying it more due to genetic similarities in current living species, than merely the fossil record.

I don't follow you, sorry.

Well, if its going to qualify as science and not a historical narrative of what we think happened, there should be something "experimental" about it. Whether we agree with ID and complexity theorists or not, they at least take an empirical approach through biochemistry to determine not only if a mutation occurred, but also whether or not such a change is even possible in the system as it currently stands. [[ETA-- and that is more significant than just saying "I can't explain this, goddidit." It is demonstrating biological and molecular constraints on the system and on TOE, which do have to be answered]] I don't think the author I linked to above is an ID theorist, nor does his paper entirely rule out anything, it just demonstrates the difficulty of the molecular evidence when considering taxa. From what I gather, that's pretty much what Behe was doing in his Proceedings journal article.

The only comparable shift in biology is from design to evolution.

And yet with the everyday observable evidence, things still fall down and not up, but I see your point. The closer you look at gravity, the more whacky it seems, and this is true for evolution as well. "Whackiness" doesn't negate the overall assumption, I think is what you are asserting.

Flick

 

[hammegk]

Yes indeedy. Evolution is about as likely to be falsified as gravity. Thank you.

Yeah, mine was a poor example. If something fell "up" we would search for the explanation of anti-gravity. Should gravity per se be false, we wouldn't be asking these questions in this universe.

Both theories are of course eminently falsifiable,

Got a better suggestion than anachronistic fossils? Here ev runs into one of its' problems; do we date the fossil by the time-stratigraphic unit, or does the fossil actually provide the date. And yes, palynology, etcetc are also available, yet in the end, which came first, the fossil or the age?

so we must conclude that the reason they never are falsified by observation is that they're true.

Not true, as I pointed out above re gravity. Should ev be false, you say this conversation would not be happening; I'm not so sure.

However, hammy challenged me to name the intermediate forms of his choice, and said that he would take a close look at the evidence. He hasn't, has he?

And as we both know, no single individual will ever be able to look at every question in the detail it needs. How good are the fossils, how much actually recovered, how many, how good are the ages, who did the analyses, etc.

At the lab end and life we enter the domain of genetics-mutation-inheritance extending onwards to "medical science", etcetcetc.

Any scientist's attempt to publish contrary results would not be acceptable no peer reviewed journal -- Theory of Ev is a FACT, donchaknow.

I linked to one of the attempts in a non peer-reviewed form written by people who have made their best attempt to examine the data, and the analysis from the view that Theory of Ev may NOT be a fact. I agree that most if not all have religious-nuts somewhere in the picture, if for nothing else to provide funding and a chance to publish in some form.

So your promised "detailed look at the underlying data and assumptions" is in fact a link to YEC crapola? Why am I not surprised?

"Light" reading? Not only light, but humorous. So, what do they have? A few outdated quotes by people who've been proved wrong by the most recent fossil evidence, plus a wretched attempt to change the meaning of "intermediate form" so that it means what they want it to mean, taken from Morris, a raving nutter who attributed evolutionary biology to demonic possession and whose fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible convinced him that trees are not alive.

And, most significantly, they produce no argument that the species I list are not actually intermediate forms, as defined by biologists. Well, heck, that would be difficult. They prefer to twist, bluster and, of course, lie.

So, is that the best they can do? Is that the best you can do?

Got a fact rather than a diatribe you'd care to share?

Yeah, "intermediate form" is as problematical as the ever-changing definitions of species. And now I'm curious; what biology has been found to work with at the dino-bird epoch your fossils were at? Paleontologists have morphology -- just another try at butterfly collecting as (hard) scientists well know.

 

[hammegk]

flick and others who actually are sceptics ....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/005/377xndpp.asp?pg=1

The discipline of evolutionary biology today resembles astrophysics when Galileo was attempting to explain the planetary orbits and the oceanic tides but lacked the concept of the force of gravity. His observations were accurate enough, but explanations awaited an Isaac Newton. And until such a thinker emerges--to provide a fuller conception of the history of life and especially the forces at play that explain how things happened as they did--those who would expel all challenges to the Darwinian narrative from the high school classroom are false to their mission of teaching the scientific method.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Cite the "intermediate form" you like best, and we'll take a detailed look at the underlying data and assumptions.

I'd be happy to let you pick, but since you ask, let's do the transition through forms represented by featherless therapods such as Deinychus and Comsognathus, feathered wingless therapods such as Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, and Protoarchaeopteryx, winged therapods such as Archaeopteyrx, primitive birds such as Sinornis, and modern birds.

The underlying assumption is that "intermediate forms" means exactly what Darwin said it did in the Origin of Species, and the underlying data is the fossils.

hammy challenged me to name the intermediate forms of his choice, and said that he would take a close look at the evidence. He hasn't, has he?

And as we both know, no single individual will ever be able to look at every question in the detail it needs.

Nice backpedalling.

If you "know" that it is impossible to do what you offered to do, then why did you offer to do it?

I notice, by the way, that whenever you wish to tell the sort of massive, ridiculous lie that would make Goebels gasp and stretch his eyes, you precede it with the even more halfwitted lie that I "know" your lie to be true. I do not live in your pathetic fantasy world, and I know your lies to be false.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Got a fact rather than a diatribe you'd care to share?

Certainly. Here are some facts.

"Light" reading? Not only light, but humorous. So, what do they have? A few outdated quotes by people who've been proved wrong by the most recent fossil evidence, plus a wretched attempt to change the meaning of "intermediate form" so that it means what they want it to mean, taken from Morris, a raving nutter who attributed evolutionary biology to demonic possession and whose fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible convinced him that trees are not alive.

And, most significantly, they produce no argument that the species I list are not actually intermediate forms, as defined by biologists. Well, heck, that would be difficult. They prefer to twist, bluster and, of course, lie.

And you would have gotten away with it too...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Any scientist's attempt to publish contrary results would not be acceptable no peer reviewed journal -- Theory of Ev is a FACT, donchaknow.

You seem to be sketching out a witless lie rather than actually telling one. Is that because you have some vestige of respect for the truth, or have you just not thought out all the details yet?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Paleontologists have morphology -- just another try at butterfly collecting as (hard) scientists well know.

So now it's "hard scientists" who share your puerile fantasy world?

Not only that, but in your imaginary world they express themselves in hammygibbble! How nice for you!

Yes, in hammyworld, every single fact in natural history can be magically made to disappear by calling it "butterfly collecting". And in hammyworld, this is what "hard scientists" do.

I guess this lie is more polite than lying about the opinions of the person you're actually talking to, and is also marginally less stupid. But it isn't any more convincing.

 

[hammegk]

Certainly. Here are some facts.

Morris: Archaeopteryx is a “mosaic” of useful and functioning structures found also in other creatures, not a “transition” between them. A true transitional structure would be, say, a “sceather”—that is, a half-scale, half-feather—or a “ling”—half-leg, half-wing—or, perhaps a half-evolved heart or liver or eye. Such transitional structures, however, would not survive in any struggle for existence (1996, 2:70).

taken from Morris, a raving nutter who attributed evolutionary biology to demonic possession and whose fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible convinced him that trees are not alive.

Care to attack the facts in Morris comment above, rather than attack Morris?

And would you care to source your assertions on "demonic possession" and "trees not alive"? I agree that Henry & John are founders of ICR, but do you assert every comment made by a creationist (which both are) is factually wrong?

BTW, the Morris quote above you've attacked is iirc the only place in my linked article Morris is involved. Care to try another jibe, or would you care to provide a fact or two yourself? Are you sure the intermediate forms "proving" dino-to-bird evolution are the best you've got? Or shall we switch to cetacean legs?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Care to attack the facts in Morris comment above, rather than attack Morris?

I have already done so. He needs to redefine "intermediate form" in order to deny that Archaeopteryx is one. This demonstrates the desperation of the fundie case.

And would you care to source your assertions on "demonic possession" and "trees not alive"?

You would like me to source information which you find irrelevant to the discussion? Why? Is this just a ploy to waste my time?

If you will admit that Morris's claim that trees are not alive casts legitimate doubt on his biological credentials, then I will find the source.

I agree that Henry & John are founders of ICR, but do you assert every comment made by a creationist (which both are) is factually wrong?

I've checked a lot of creationist gibble against scientific sources, and it is certainly rare for them to get through more than a paragraph without a gross error in fact or reasoning. This means that a statement by a creationist is worthless in itself: it needs to be backed up by someone who isn't a halfwitted fraud babbling about matters of which he's ignorant.

Are you sure the intermediate forms "proving" dino-to-bird evolution are the best you've got?

They're certainly my personal favorite example of a transition which you are prepared to admit is "macro-evolution", which is why I nominated them.

Or shall we switch to cetacean legs?

You request to be let off the hook is denied.

Dromeosaurs to birds it is.