Fossil and Evolution

[articulett]

When I write a book, I type on pages and throw intermediate and extinct pages away, and if you looked you'd find the fossil record of my book's evolution on my floor of my office. It would be fossil evidence that my book evolved. And in more recent eras, you'd find the fossil evidence in the upper strata of my hard drive with date stamps and it would be proof that I don't create books, the words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, they self-create or evolve.

Heheh, don't get too carried away with the ambiguity of this line of thinking. It does not stand alone. But if you are already sure that books evolve, the intermediate files are damn good evidence of it and anybody'd be a stupid fool to doubt it.

Nice try. But we know that humans make letters, so I think we'd recognize that your fossils were human detritus. Of course Butterflies sometimes have letters on their wing patterns.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N

But we don't pretend these are put there by a designer. We understand how they evolved and we interpret. Of course, if we were schizophrenic, we could consider such lettering a "sign".


Using your example, if you believed that everything complex was pre-designed, you'd leave your bread out, and some intelligent designer would move a colony of mold in onto it and change it into something entirely different. And you'd look at mountains and think--who could have made a pile of dirt that high--must have been some giant invisible child-god playing in his sandbox. You'd look at a tumor, and say, "demons must be spawning in those cells--how else could something grow so big and painful and stinking and ugly?" You'd look at the earth and say, "If the earth is really a sphere, god must hold the oceans in, because otherwise they'd surely spill out." You'd look at a pattern of stars and say--that looks familiar--god is giving me a sign--something about a 'big dipper'". You'd think--"gee I fit so perfectly in this world, the world must have been made to bring forth me!"

The human mind sees patterns and designs everywhere it looks--and assumes agency even when there is none. It's a useful evolutionary trait. Heard of Pareidolia? If you're not aware of this human proneness to logical fallacy, it can be a mighty strong means of validating a claim that seems true in your head. But in science we don't just say, "I don't understand--must be designed"-- We keep filling in the details and facts. Do you have any of those to offer?

Von, you've been proffering this semi creationist theory for some time now--so where are the testable claims? The evidence? Or is it just more of an attack on the gaps or the parts that you haven't bothered to find out about yet?

But I shan't continue being mean-spirited. Look, here's some nature scenes that were intelligently designed by pornography gods:

http://www.heatherfirth.com/gallery1.html

You can use one as your avatar if you want.

 

[articulett]

Von, would any evidence ever be enough to convince you that there was no intelligent designer? If so, what would it be? If not, then you have to admit you have a faith based claim, and so you shouldn't be pretending to have an interest in "the truth".

You are a smart guy--and you could enjoy and really understand all this new information coming to light. Why didn't you know about it?--why didn't you know about the flagellum proofs? Creationists just seem so incurious of new findings and so stuck on old conundrums. You are missing some really interesting information in your quest to poke holes in evolution and attempts to sway the skeptics. Come on over to the dark side. It's way more interesting. And it isn't so dark. And it's really super interesting. Plus it's factual. A way better use of your brain power.

 

[Thabiguy]

Well, I do have a question to ask. (And I hope that I won't be accused of being a creationist for asking a question. )

I read the very interesting Skeptigirl's post back there (the one that got nominated) and this particular thing caught my eye:

The evidence from the fossil record and Darwin's observations led us to look for slowly changing features like one sees when you make a morph from one image to another on a computer. But now that we know a lot more about genetics, we know there is more to it than simply morphing fins into limbs. The embryo has an organized blueprint with interchangeable parts. A rabbit gene that initiates a mammal eye in a rabbit fetus can be inserted into a fruitfly egg which has the equivalent gene removed and an insect eye will grow in the right place in the fruitfly larva. This experiment has been done.

If you think about what has to happen for an animal to grow an extra finger or toe, it doesn't start out as a bump and turn into a digit after subsequent generations. We don't have people with digit stubs getting longer with each generation. A simple mutation in the gene that directs the fetus to grow digits gets you a complete digit because there are separate genes for growing all the structures. You only need a mutation in the number of digits gene. This is one reason the time argument was so flawed. The math guy didn't understand the genetic science.

So in a nut shell, the genetic record has replaced the fossil record and science is no longer concerned with the gaps.

The final summary is confusing to me. In context of the previous text, where you are showing examples of changes that are not gradual but sudden, it seems to imply that sudden emerging of new features is okay and that gaps in fossil record can be explained by sudden activation of previously inactive genetic code which had been mutating silently without being expressed in the fossil record but which can be shown in the genetic record.

Now this would be quite surprising. I always thought that natural selection acted only on expressed traits and that gradual accumulation of unexpressed changes in genetic code leading towards a beneficial trait would be inconsistent with the theory of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. So I really can't see a way how the genetic record could 'replace' the fossil record or make us less concerned with the gaps in fossil record.

My question is this: Am I missing something and there is something else that I'm not aware about? Or am I misinterpreting the summary ("genetic record has replaced the fossil record and science is no longer concerned with the gaps")?

If the latter is the case, could you please, Skeptigirl, elaborate on the actual meaning that you intended there? How has the genetic record replaced the fossil record and in what sense is science no longer concerned with the gaps?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But the gap in ignorance just stays as wide as ever. Does religion make people uncurious? Or does it just allow you to have a sort of cognitive dissonance where information is filtered through what you've been told is "higher truth"?

I think the gaps in evolutionary understanding exist primarily in the heads of the indoctrinated. Why would they assert that there are gaps in the record, and show no curiosity over how science has filled those gaps--and why aren't they as interested in all this new information as I think humans would be? I think it's a stunning testament to human intelligence that we have figured all of this stuff out (without help from any divine source).

If we look at the shorter time scale it looks bad. But if you think about two steps forward, one step back and look at the last couple centuries instead of the last couple of decades, it is less depressing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You make it sound as if a precursor genetic code for a structure was found. And you say it as if there was only one component. I thought the problem was to come up with a precursor for each component and then show how they may have mutated/adapted and come together to make the whole system. After all, you have several major sub-systems: the motor, the bearings, the seals, the ion delivery, the "propeller", etc. You say "flagellum" as if it is just one simple structure that has a precursor structure that has been found.

Was it found or is it merely postulated that a plurality of structures for different function other than locomotion could have adapted in parallel?

Did you look at Ken Miller's web page?

My point was that a 'flagellum stub' was not the only possible precursor and Behe's work was flawed for that reason. When I look at the discussion on Miller's web page, there are obviously complicated structures involved. I do think however, given the current science, that Miller's hypothesis is better supported and Behe's is full of 'gaps'.

So I'm not sure if you are asking, has Behe been debunked, or has the precise mechanism of the evolution of the flagellum been determined conclusively? Yes to the first question and after reading the rebuttal to the rebuttal about Miller's hypothesis, I'd say it is likely correct but perhaps not conclusively correct.

Behe, of course, replied to Miller. I posted that and Miller's response.

The Panda's thumb has this article, Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology. It takes a subscription to read the article but the source of the above data is here: TABLE 1 | Homologies of flagellar proteins

Then there is Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum; Copyright 2003 by N. J. Matzke with a 9/06 update if you are looking for the most detailed research I am aware of.

The point is Behe's claim the flagella has no precursor has most definitely been debunked, IMO, and in the opinion of most if not all genetic scientists. If you think I overstated the current state of knowledge about flagellum evolution, feel free to correct me. If you think Behe's hypothesis that the flagellum is a candidate for evidence of irreducible complexity hasn't been disproved, I beg to differ.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I do have a question to ask. (And I hope that I won't be accused of being a creationist for asking a question. )

I read the very interesting Skeptigirl's post back there (the one that got nominated) and this particular thing caught my eye:



The final summary is confusing to me. In context of the previous text, where you are showing examples of changes that are not gradual but sudden, it seems to imply that sudden emerging of new features is okay and that gaps in fossil record can be explained by sudden activation of previously inactive genetic code which had been mutating silently without being expressed in the fossil record but which can be shown in the genetic record.

Now this would be quite surprising. I always thought that natural selection acted only on expressed traits and that gradual accumulation of unexpressed changes in genetic code leading towards a beneficial trait would be inconsistent with the theory of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. So I really can't see a way how the genetic record could 'replace' the fossil record or make us less concerned with the gaps in fossil record.

My question is this: Am I missing something and there is something else that I'm not aware about? Or am I misinterpreting the summary ("genetic record has replaced the fossil record and science is no longer concerned with the gaps")?

If the latter is the case, could you please, Skeptigirl, elaborate on the actual meaning that you intended there? How has the genetic record replaced the fossil record and in what sense is science no longer concerned with the gaps?

I think what you might be missing is the understanding about the mechanisms of evolution that we have learned from genetic science which refined our understanding of evolution in a way that the fossil record was unable to reveal.

First, the concept of only fittest and most survivable traits surviving is much too simplified to explain what we actually see. There are I think about 30,000 genes in the human genome give or take 5,000. With that many genes, selection pressures for one gene might mean others come along for the ride. You end up with some genetic changes being selected, some being deselected, and some being neutral with everything else somewhere in between.

It's better to think of natural selection as selection pressures. Some things also might act as amplifiers. For example, some cultures have 10 or more kids as the norm while others have 2 on average. There's a period of time in the improvement of economic prosperity that you still have large families but the previous compensating death rate decreases. You get a population surge until the desire to have fewer children becomes more common. So a gene born into that population might be amplified by sheer chance of being born into that culture at that time.

Take the CCR5 deletion which is the mutation that makes HIV infection harder to occur. That gene mutation exists in about 5% of the northern Europeans but it doesn't exist in Africa where HIV arose. There is some speculation it might be something which increased survivability from the plague but I don't know how far that hypothesis has been taken.

Take a look at the surveys for this gene in various populations:

The deltaccr5 mutation conferring protection against HIV-1 in Caucasian populations has a single and recent origin in Northeastern Europe.

From these data, it was inferred that most, if not all Delta ccr5 alleles originate from a single mutation event, and that this mutation event probably took place a few thousand years ago in Northeastern Europe. The high frequency of the Delta ccr5 allele in Caucasian populations cannot be explained easily by random genetic drift, suggesting that a selection advantage is or has been associated with homo- or heterozygous carriers of the Delta ccr5 allele.

So you have a selection advantage to some extent, but it isn't quite like the simplified version of fittest surviving. Because even though a genetic change might have a selection advantage, look at how it then spreads through various populations:

Genotype and allele frequency of a 32-base pair deletion mutation in the CCR5 gene in various ethnic groups: absence of mutation among Asians and Pacific Islanders.

RESULTS: The comparative frequency of CCR5/D32 heterozygosity was 61 of 363 (16. 8%) in Caucasians, 17 of 303 (5.6%) in Puerto Rican Hispanics, 9 of 490 (1.8%) in Pacific Islanders, 0 of 606 (0%) in Asians, and 0 of 150 (0%) in Africans. CONCLUSIONS: The data confirm the high frequency of CCR5/D32 heterozygosity among Caucasians. Intermediate and low-level D32 allele frequencies among Puerto Rican Hispanics and Hawaiians could be attributed to recent European Caucasian gene flow. By contrast, the inability to detect the D32 allele among Asians and other Pacific Islander groups suggests that other mechanisms are responsible for resistance to HIV-1 infection in these populations.

And here, though there is a benefit of having the mutation for an unknown reason, there is this additional benefit which has not acted on the gene selection yet. (I haven't seen the 16% figure in Caucasians before so I don't know if the number reflects a small sample size or is the result of better data and the 5% figure I had heard before was incorrect. But I digress.)

If we were to have a new disease arise and this mutation was weakly selected in the past, the new disease might make the gene strongly selected in the future.

Distribution of the CCR5 gene 32-basepair deletion in 11 Chinese populations.

The frequency of the mutant alleles of delta 32CCR5 is low in China and reflects (or might reflect) ancestral gene flow from Europe to Chinese ethnic groups and recent intermarriage within the ethnic groups.

And here you can see that genetic science tracks population movement and mixing by following the presence of genetic markers.

Some evolution is very slow and gradual, but major events can have a big impact. There is genetic evidence there was bottleneck in the human population where our numbers decreased to as few as a thousand members. Such a severe population die off can have a dramatic effect on the changes within a species.

Which all this reminds me, we can tell a lot about the entire existence of a species over time by looking at a sufficient number of DNA samples within the current population. We know about the bottleneck because of what our DNA shows today. We can trace the migrations our of Africa by following genetic markers that arose along the way. We know chimpanzees did not experience the same bottleneck. They have much greater diversity in their gene pool than humans do.

I'm a bit tired so I'll leave it there but if it doesn't answer your questions, let me know. I know of all sorts of interesting little discoveries in addition to these.

 

[delphi_ote]

This tread has turned out rather well, I think...

Spoke... too... soon...

IC is such a garbage argument. "I believe there is a difficulty in a scientific theory I don't understand, so allow me to propose another theory which does not explain this difficulty."

Also, there exists fossilized protobacteria from more than 1BYA. Incredible! What happened in between? ... some yet to be discovered thing...

See what I mean?

So for me, it all comes down to a common question about what is "mind" and what is "intelligence" and especially what is "consciousness". I've come to doubt it is mechanism.

So have I, dude. So have I.

 

[Taffer]

Spoke... too... soon...

Spooky.

 

[VonNeumann]

Nice try. But we know that humans make letters, so I think we'd recognize that your fossils were human detritus. Of course Butterflies sometimes have letters on their wing patterns.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N

But we don't pretend these are put there by a designer. We understand how they evolved and we interpret. Of course, if we were schizophrenic, we could consider such lettering a "sign".


Using your example, if you believed that everything complex was pre-designed, you'd leave your bread out, and some intelligent designer would move a colony of mold in onto it and change it into something entirely different. And you'd look at mountains and think--who could have made a pile of dirt that high--must have been some giant invisible child-god playing in his sandbox. You'd look at a tumor, and say, "demons must be spawning in those cells--how else could something grow so big and painful and stinking and ugly?" You'd look at the earth and say, "If the earth is really a sphere, god must hold the oceans in, because otherwise they'd surely spill out." You'd look at a pattern of stars and say--that looks familiar--god is giving me a sign--something about a 'big dipper'". You'd think--"gee I fit so perfectly in this world, the world must have been made to bring forth me!"

The human mind sees patterns and designs everywhere it looks--and assumes agency even when there is none. It's a useful evolutionary trait. Heard of Pareidolia? If you're not aware of this human proneness to logical fallacy, it can be a mighty strong means of validating a claim that seems true in your head. But in science we don't just say, "I don't understand--must be designed"-- We keep filling in the details and facts. Do you have any of those to offer?

Von, you've been proffering this semi creationist theory for some time now--so where are the testable claims? The evidence? Or is it just more of an attack on the gaps or the parts that you haven't bothered to find out about yet?

But I shan't continue being mean-spirited. Look, here's some nature scenes that were intelligently designed by pornography gods:

http://www.heatherfirth.com/gallery1.html

You can use one as your avatar if you want.

Art', I don't know why you make it a habit of producing so much "response" to what I say, that is not directed to anything I said -- isn't that classic "strawman"?

With regard to KenMiller, thank you for the link. I only had time to scan it but I see that a large part of his verbage contains "therefore X is debunked", or "therefore X has failed". He attempts to make a good point but the ability for the reader to make the big leap to "therefore..." is correlated to the susceptibility of the reader to tumble toward that attractor - he is already biased toward the conclusion. I say this after noticing that Miller's point is that TTSS is a precursor to a sub-assembly of the flagellum system. Maybe it is. I'd like to know more about how similar the two subsystems are. Clearly, the TTSS possibility is at best one piece of the whole thing. I am not so inclined to see one piece and fill in all the gaps with hand waving and "surely it be so that..." and "therefore...", yet.

The first thing you said was:
"Nice try. But we know that humans make letters, so I think we'd recognize that your fossils were human detritus. "

You made a good point there, but it doesn't help you any.That is, you say that we already know my book did not evolve and we know it was designed by me. So you are saying then that the "fossil" precursors to the book look like evolution but we have a priori evidence that it isn't? The only reason I win the argument that I designed the book is because you are already convinced of it? What if you DIDN'T know that. Seems you would say it evolved - huh? Fossil evidence (I noticed someone already made a statement like this on this thread) does not reveal the mechanism of evolution. About all it can do for us is to show us some things about intermediate forms and some chronology, but whether the intermediate forms exist as my intentionally discarded rough drafts exist, or whether they are self-written intermediate drafts that appear due to no-purpose-whatsoever, is not revealed by the fossil evidence alone.

So, Art', you already know evolution is a complete theory and satisfies you in every way. "TalkOrigins says it; I believe it; and that settles it." Hmmmm?

By the way, you never, nor anyone else ever, rebutted my post about a year ago against the nylonase point.

 

[VonNeumann]

http://www.heatherfirth.com/gallery1.html

You can use one as your avatar if you want.

You're flirting with me now, aren'tcha? I know, secretly, deep down, you really dig me.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

With regard to KenMiller, thank you for the link. I only had time to scan it but I see that a large part of his verbage contains "therefore X is debunked", or "therefore X has failed". He attempts to make a good point but the ability for the reader to make the big leap to "therefore..." is correlated to the susceptibility of the reader to tumble toward that attractor - he is already biased toward the conclusion. I say this after noticing that Miller's point is that TTSS is a precursor to a sub-assembly of the flagellum system. Maybe it is. I'd like to know more about how similar the two subsystems are. Clearly, the TTSS possibility is at best one piece of the whole thing. I am not so inclined to see one piece and fill in all the gaps with hand waving and "surely it be so that..." and "therefore...", yet.

I'm not sure what your problem with Miller is, but his "debunking" claim was only to counter Behe's claim that the flagellum system is irreducibly complex. Since Behe defines irreducibly complex to mean that no part of the system works without all the other parts in place, his claim is debunked. That subsystem provides a different function for the cell when not in the presence of the other parts that comprise the flagellum. No big claim there, only a direct rebuttal of Behe's prior claim.

You made a good point there, but it doesn't help you any.That is, you say that we already know my book did not evolve and we know it was designed by me. So you are saying then that the "fossil" precursors to the book look like evolution but we have a priori evidence that it isn't? The only reason I win the argument that I designed the book is because you are already convinced of it? What if you DIDN'T know that. Seems you would say it evolved - huh? Fossil evidence (I noticed someone already made a statement like this on this thread) does not reveal the mechanism of evolution. About all it can do for us is to show us some things about intermediate forms and some chronology, but whether the intermediate forms exist as my intentionally discarded rough drafts exist, or whether they are self-written intermediate drafts that appear due to no-purpose-whatsoever, is not revealed by the fossil evidence alone.

I think you need to be more careful with your language. Evolutionary theory is not correct because of a priori evidence. That very term "a priori evidence" is a self-contradiction, anyway, since evidence (what we see around us) does not enter the a priori "realm".

We see evidence. We make sense of that evidence within an explanatory framework -- a theory. We look at new evidence to determine if the new evidence supports or refutes the explanatory framework. If the evidence refutes theory we discard the theory. If it does not we move onto new evidence, rinse and repeat. No a priori evidence. The original evidence can be used only to arrive at the theory and can be re-evaluated in light of the theory.

So, for the book analogy, I have evidence of written works. I form a theory based on my experience of those written works. My theory says that humans write stuff. I look at other written works. Dang, it looks like humans wrote those too. So far nothing I have encountered contradicts my "humans write stuff" theory, so I keep it. I conclude that whatever I see written is produced by humans. If I find something that cannot possibly be explained by human intervention, then I discard, expand, or someway alter the native theory to take the new information into account. In other words, the theory explains the mechanism by which the evidence came to be. If it doesn't do its job, then it goes.

 

[delphi_ote]

By the way, you never, nor anyone else ever, rebutted my post about a year ago against the nylonase point.

Some undiscovered thing. QED.

 

[Thabiguy]

You made a good point there, but it doesn't help you any.That is, you say that we already know my book did not evolve and we know it was designed by me. So you are saying then that the "fossil" precursors to the book look like evolution but we have a priori evidence that it isn't? The only reason I win the argument that I designed the book is because you are already convinced of it? What if you DIDN'T know that. Seems you would say it evolved - huh?

No. The theory that your book evolved would not be valid, because it does not correspond to observation: books are not known to breed and pass their traits to their offspring in variable amounts.

Fossil evidence (I noticed someone already made a statement like this on this thread) does not reveal the mechanism of evolution.

You've got it backwards. The mechanisms of evolution are not inferred from fossil evidence. They are observed. The theory of evolution then goes on to infer how these observed mechanisms explain the variability of life as we know it. These explanations are verified and supported by fossil evidence.

I suggest that you read this very good summary of what the theory of evolution is actually all about.

 

[Thabiguy]

I'm a bit tired so I'll leave it there but if it doesn't answer your questions, let me know. I know of all sorts of interesting little discoveries in addition to these.

To be honest, it did not answer my questions. It was however so much more interesting than the answer that I was looking for, that I'm satisfied anyway and drop the original issue. But of course, if you have more interesting stuff to add, please, don't be discouraged from doing so.

 

[fls]

I think that this is the most clear answer that I have received. My problem most probably arose in that I was trying to directly answer an irrelevant question. If it can be agreed that the fossil record is not in and of itself evidence of natural selection, as Linda suggests, then it seems that it is missing a vital component to make it a strong (I know this is a vague term) example of evolution. This is not to say that the fossil record does not constitute an example of evolution at all. Nevertheless, since the succession of fossils lacks an empirical demonstration of natural selection, one of the most important mechanisms of evolution (and, from what I understand of the philosophy of science, one of the defining characteristics of science is that it offers a mechanistic explanation for empirical phenomena), it is not as strong an example of evolution as one that contains demonstration of more mechanisms that have been defined to be part of evolution.

I'm not trying to say something different than what others here are saying, but rather trying to say it in a different way in order to illustrate just what conclusions can be drawn from "gaps".

The fossil record demonstrates evolution (change, variety, progression (as has been described in more detail by others here)). The mechanism for this change is constrained by the record (i.e. it provides an example of what must be explained), but it does not prescribe the mechanism, by itself. What I'm trying to get at is that it is our observations about life - arising through reproduction, inheritance of characteristics, etc. - that prescribes the mechanism. The theory (proposed mechanism) predicts what can happen; fossil findings limit the possibilities by showing us what did happen. But the nature of the fossil record is that it is coarse (even in those areas where we have been fortunate to have relatively greater detail), and is inadequate to give us the information that we need. The fossil record is superseded by information obtained from other areas of inquiry.

Natural Selection explains our findings in the fossil record, including those areas where the findings are more detailed. But all pathways in evolution do not need to be detailed to confirm that Natural Selection explains evolution anymore than the paths of all asteroids need to be predicted with accuracy to confirm Gravity.

I think underlying the use of the word "gap" is the pretense that any gaps could hold a mystery; a mystery that would overturn the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. And until we've explored all the "gaps" (an unreasonable idea as others have already outlined here), we can not rule out the possibility of disconfirming evidence. But let's get real here. Would the discovery of a stellar object that did not move in a manner predicted by Gravity lead to a rejection of the Theory of Gravity?

I was looking for a less hand-wavy way of addressing the "gappiness" of the fossil record and since it appears that it is actually irrelevant to evolution (if I am accurately reading what Linda is saying), it seems that explaining that you can actually see evolution happening before your eyes today is a much more fruitful of demonstrating that evolution exists.

The gappiness of the fossil record is irrelevant to Natural Selection since the fossil record does not inform as about the mechanism (we are way beyond that). The fossil record informs us about evolution, and its completeness is more than adequate in that regard.

I guess probably a better question would be:

In the sum total of all our evidence for evolution, how does the fossil record fit?

Forgive me if I am repeating myself; I am just thinking out loud right now.

I would say the bulk of our evidence for evolution is formed by the fossil record, with other methods, like tracing DNA, filling in the details. But that is a somewhat arbitrary (and changing) characterization.

Linda

 

[articulett]

You're flirting with me now, aren'tcha? I know, secretly, deep down, you really dig me.

But I'm such a tease.

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479

So how does your theory incorporate the observed phenomena?

 

[articulett]

If the latter is the case, could you please, Skeptigirl, elaborate on the actual meaning that you intended there? How has the genetic record replaced the fossil record and in what sense is science no longer concerned with the gaps?

I had explained this in a prior post. Now that we understand DNA better, we know that small changes can have big skeletal results (a point mutation can cause achondroplasia--the most common form of dwarfism.) Because fossils can look different (like dog remains) and be the same species--and look the same and be different (many, many examples in nature--rodents are super at this...they've evolved from a lot of different designs that look just like one another from a macroperspective.) We know that on an Island, bigger organisms tend to get smaller and smaller organisms tend to get bigger, and it appears to related to the predator prey relationship unique to that piece of space. But when we see pygmy elephant remains, and today's Indian and African elephants, and mammoth skeletons--a size continnuum would not give us a very good means of sorting out the timing for obvious reasons. It would even be confusing. And we might not know how many more elephant like fossils we may discover. But with carbon dating and DNA we can get the details of the family tree.

The picture of descent of man is a tree that has a line back through time where we converge with other ancestors--and all life springs from the tree--we have the entire outline of the most of the tree and many, many of the fine details. The more pieces of the puzzle we work out--the more details that are filled in. Being able to decode genomes on computers has given us a wealth of information. Check out the tree of life website, http://www.tolweb.org/tree/

If you are really interested, I hope this helps; and I hope you check out the website. It's cool info. Way better than anything any guru might have told you about life's origins.

 

[articulett]

So, Art', you already know evolution is a complete theory and satisfies you in every way. "TalkOrigins says it; I believe it; and that settles it." Hmmmm?

By the way, you never, nor anyone else ever, rebutted my post about a year ago against the nylonase point.

I know that evolution is as a complete a theory as gravity or atomic theory or germ theory. That is not to say there isn't more to learn. But it is to say that we are on the right path--the information is factual and useful--predictive and replicable and readily understood by all those in the field. It is axiomatic and translates across languages, like math. It's a puzzle people all over the world can add information too. And it's right. It stands up to every scrutiny--even those with very strong motives for believing otherwise. To me, not understanding it, is a loss for a person--just as not understanding or having access to the internet would be--or not being able to read. Understanding it can innoculate people from all sorts of beliefs others would gladly foist upon you (complete with a staying power meme.)

As for nylonase. I can't remember your argument. The last time I read you, I think you were doing a variation on the turing machine--consciousness thing.

What is your solution to your nylonase conundrum? Or are you using gaps in knowledge to show that science doesn't know everything. Yes, science doesn't know everything. But I suspect religion and philosophy and gurus know nothing...or at least nothing useful and demonstrable. To me, you (though smarter than most creationists) spend a lot of time trying to dismantle evolution--and no time proffering anything better or more explanatory. You seem to want room for your magical explanation which will allow you to continue to have whatever beliefs you have about the purpose of your existance.

But you never answered my question. Would any amount of evidence be good enough for you to say--"Wow, evolution is a fact--maybe, there was no intelligent designer--or maybe his role is much smaller and less definable than I've been willing to admit to myself."

Also, have you read any of Francis Collins?--he's a Christian evangelical and head of the Human Genome Project. He's a hard core evolutionist (and you really can't be once you see and understand the DNA picture)--but he's also able to keep his comforting beliefs. So, one can understand and accept evolution and still feel "saved" or "chosen" or "special".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
With regard to KenMiller, thank you for the link. I only had time to scan it but I see that a large part of his verbage contains "therefore X is debunked", or "therefore X has failed". He attempts to make a good point but the ability for the reader to make the big leap to "therefore..." is correlated to the susceptibility of the reader to tumble toward that attractor - he is already biased toward the conclusion. I say this after noticing that Miller's point is that TTSS is a precursor to a sub-assembly of the flagellum system. Maybe it is. I'd like to know more about how similar the two subsystems are. Clearly, the TTSS possibility is at best one piece of the whole thing. I am not so inclined to see one piece and fill in all the gaps with hand waving and "surely it be so that..." and "therefore...", yet.
....

You made a good point there, but it doesn't help you any.That is, you say that we already know my book did not evolve and we know it was designed by me. So you are saying then that the "fossil" precursors to the book look like evolution but we have a priori evidence that it isn't? The only reason I win the argument that I designed the book is because you are already convinced of it? What if you DIDN'T know that. Seems you would say it evolved - huh? Fossil evidence (I noticed someone already made a statement like this on this thread) does not reveal the mechanism of evolution. About all it can do for us is to show us some things about intermediate forms and some chronology, but whether the intermediate forms exist as my intentionally discarded rough drafts exist, or whether they are self-written intermediate drafts that appear due to no-purpose-whatsoever, is not revealed by the fossil evidence alone.

So, Art', you already know evolution is a complete theory and satisfies you in every way. "TalkOrigins says it; I believe it; and that settles it." Hmmmm?

.....

Adding to what others have said, you make the usual faulty argument that because the one example given which has more to it as well, means that is all the evidence there is.

Genetic science opened the floodgates to scientific research which both expounds upon and supports the theory of evolution. So I'm afraid to say, one can't help but know the claims made by Behe are not going to pan out. That doesn't mean because one looks for the evidence to show Behe is wrong it necessarily follows one would ignore evidence to the contrary which might support Behe's claims. Peer review and repeatable results are the means by which we counter the pre-existing bias that NO ONE escapes completely.

But getting back to Miller and Matzke (did you notice Miller isn't the only one who took on Behe's work?), you can add to that the fact that the genetic record contains overwhelming evidence that a structure like the flagellum evolved. In addition to the proposed precursor system (a better word than structure now that you mention it) you have the simple fact one can look directly at the blueprints of multiple organisms and see how they are connected.

You can see which genetic changes occurred in closely related organisms without flagellum. You can then work out what was gained to produce flagella or what was lost with the loss of the flagella. You can determine then where to look for the genetic code that gives you flagella. You then manipulate it and see what results.

Whether or not this work has been carried out with the flagellum, it has been carried out with numerous other genes and genetic mutations.

What do we consider the steps of confirming a scientific theory? You formulate it, you test it, and the final step is you use it to make predictions.

We can predict what will happen when genes are manipulated and low and behold, it happens. We can manipulate genes and create designer bacteria.

We can predict how genes will respond to selection pressures and low and behold, they indeed respond that way. Bacterial Resistance: Origins, Epidemiology, and Impact

We mapped human migration out of Africa using DNA markers and it matched very closely to the archeology record. Where it didn't match, the theories based on archaeological evidence were corrected. The DNA evidence proves to be much more accurate. For example, the question of whether or not Pacific Islanders migrated to South America during the same era as Asians migrated across the Bering Straight to North America has been answered. There exists today the last of group of people who settled on an island off the southern tip of South America who are genetically related more closely to Australian Aboriginals than to any other group.

While the evidence of migration is not evidence of species evolution, it is one of the results of our increasingly complete understanding of the theory of evolution.

Another thing which genetic science has found which offers the ability to make predictions, is the rate of genetic mutation allows for fairly accurate estimates of the time since two species diverged: Synchronizing Molecular Clocks and Genome-Wide Molecular Clock and Horizontal Gene Transfer in Bacterial Evolution

For you genetic science geeks, here's a highly detailed analysis hypothesizing what the earliest bacteria might have been: Rooting the tree of life by transition analyses; Thomas Cavalier-Smith; Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK

The point I make by these varied citations is those people who are still wasting time arguing that, "evolution theory hasn't yet been confirmed", or "there are scientists who don't believe the evidence is complete enough", are doing just that, wasting time. Those floodgates I mentioned being opened are indeed real. It isn't just a metaphor for my personal convictions. Spend an hour searching out the sheer volume and variety of progress in genetic science research. Behe and the wishful thinkers who still hope to be proven right about their religious convictions are sitting somewhere thousands of miles back in a cloud of dust.

-

And a post script to your "designed' book. You couldn't have written it without evolution of the human brain, vocal cords, language, written language, paper, writing instruments, printing, bookbinding and perhaps computer word processing and printing. Everything evolves over time, even designs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To be honest, it did not answer my questions. It was however so much more interesting than the answer that I was looking for, that I'm satisfied anyway and drop the original issue. But of course, if you have more interesting stuff to add, please, don't be discouraged from doing so.

Suffice it to say if I don't explain the details correctly or leave out some key detail, there is a correct explanation with the missing details explained somewhere out there.