Fossil and Evolution

[Dancing David]

Don't get too cynical, mijo. There are many people on the board. We're all different. Give people time. They make mistakes sizing people up. If after time goes by you still think they are rude, the ignore feature is actually quite useful.

In the meantime, I think there was silly suspicions, not that you didn't have a science background, but that your degree sounded fishy. They could have just checked the web before

I wouldn't make too much of it.

Where sceptics and non-sceptics meet to argue in a lively fashion...

 

[aggle-rithm]

Christianity is based on God "sacrificing" his son (who was really him). And why did he have to do this--because of "original sin". Well, if evolution is true, then that make the whole garden of Eden thing a parable (not to mention the talking snake)--and who has someone killed for a "parable"--was the the Jesus story just a parable too?

It's really an allegory to explain the REAL origin of original sin, which is:

Long ago, before time began, God made a terrible mistake with this laundry. First, he mixed the "sinless" in with the "sinful", then, to make matters worse, he accidentally washed them on "warm". Thus, the sinless was stained forever, and nothing could be done about it.

Well, he could have thrown it away and bought a new wardrobe, but it was getting kind of late.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well, are you a supporter of "intelligent design"? Perhaps you have a different opinion of a creationist than I do. Supporters of "intelligent design" avoid the label creationist because of it's faith implications...and yet, they are creationists... they believe that an "intelligent designer" is an explanation and that unintelligent (bottom up...without a plan design) is unlikely or impossible. Should someone ask a question with that belief, then often, their desire is not to understand the answer, but to assure themselves that humans can't explain it. It was your dismissal of good answers and your lack of curiosity that brought me to my conclusions...I felt like you had insulted people who had gone out of their way to defend you and educate you and answer your "ill conceived" question. Also, it has been suggested that the candle analogy has been used by promoters of "intelligent design". Is that an example you came up with yourself; or did you hear the argument before--perhaps from a proponent of "intelligent design"? And surely you can understand the reaction when it is well known that proponents of intelligent design use science education and some knowledge of science to actually obfuscate--like Behe. Certainly you can see how you might have been perceived as being similar to him. Did you read the link people I gave you to the Dover trial or about the wedge strategy. Their whole game is to try to be scientific and avoid all mention of religion or "creation" while muddying peoples understanding and acceptance of evolution so that they (as spokespeople for god) can be seen as "authoritative" and worthy of funding, allegiance and ego-gratifying respect as the prop up their favorite delusion.

If you compare your postings with other evolution obfuscators versus evolution educators, I think you'd see why I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you had goals other than answering the question you asked. Read Behe--or on this forum, VonNeumann, Kleinman, and Hewitt and see if some of your statements don't sound similar. They all deny being "creationists" too. They all seem to accept or at least not take issue with some of the more salient aspects of evolution--but they all have varying arguments as to why there must be some sort of intelligence evolved. All arguments that have been repeatedly refuted...and never to their satisfaction. All are educated and seemingly intelligent enough to understand what others are saying, and yet they don't "register" it...there is never any recognition. In fact, I am sure that like you did they would state that absolutely no-one has solved their particular conundrum. If that makes you angry and defensive, then I suspect it's because you were found out.

Otherwise, I would imagine, that you would be able to understand why there was confusion and be eager to clear it up--you would presumably understand how deceptive evolution obfuscators could be because your original post indicated that you were trying to explain stuff to them--the truth is, you can't. You can't fix faith based assumptions with fact based evidence...at least not when someone believes their salvation is at stake. If they ask you a question, you'd be best off asking them if they REALLY are interested in the answer. Science isn't "easy"...and an actual answer might take some time and education--plus it takes an actual willingness on the person asking the question. If you are familiar with creationist as your OP states--then you are familiar with questions that aren't really questions at all--but faith boosting assertions that bespeak of arrogance and ignorance.

I don't think anyone here holds grudges. It's just our experience that creationists never really cede a point no matter how much effort you expend in trying to answer their queries. Read through the annoying creationist thread if you can stomach it for stellar examples.

Again, articulett, I think you haven't bothered to read my posts. I have apologized copiously and even gone as far as to retract what I said in my OP. I have also attempted to explain the misunderstanding that led me to use such a hackneyed analogy.

As I have mentioned before, I do not have an intuitive understanding of appropriate or reasonable time frames over which a given evolutionary change can take place. Likening an evolutionary change to an everyday process is therefore, in my case, essentially meaningless. For instance, I don't know whether the creation of a species is like boiling a liter of water or boiling a liter of ethanol, starting from the same temperature and use the same power. My chemical intuition tells me that, since ethanol has both a lower boiling point and a lower heat capacity, it will boil in a shorter time that same volume of water will. Calculations show that the ethanol will boil in about half the time that ethanol will, given the previously stated initial conditions. Thus, I have a reason to suspect that something is up if the ethanol boils before the water, given identical initial conditions. However, since I lack such intuition with evolution, I (and I can say this quite honestly) have absolutely no idea what constitutes an appropriate or reasonable time frame over which a given evolutionary change should take place. Given that I have also been presented with examples (both actual and possible) of instances in which speciation can occur in a generation (as with the mechanism of polyploidy) or the formation of higher order taxa in 500,000 years (as with the forams), I have been able to modify my understanding of "appropriate time frames" but still have not developed the intuition that is necessary to say "that's too short" or "that's too long", or even determine whether such a judgment means anything interesting. Because of this focus on the length of time between intermediate form and the emphasis I placed making evolution, when scaled to a day (which is a common analogy that I have encountered in many science books with no obvious link to creationism or intelligent design, in fact the specific book that I recall offered a very clear explanation of homonid evolution), seem continuous to the human senses, I didn't find the information offered about alternative mechanisms of evolution (e.g., phyletic gradualism or punctuated equlibrium) or alternative evidence for evolution (e.g., genetic clocks, etc.) didn't seem especially relevant, since, according to the analogy I was using the extant data didn't provide a continuous "movie" of evolution.

On further thought, I think that I might be useful for people who are so accustomed to explaining evolution to examine their explanations because it seems they have become so accustomed to approaching the question they are asked about evolution in a certain way that they don't consider that could be answering a question that wasn't asked and therefore ignoring the question that was asked when they provide their evidence. For people who seem to like to bemoan the fact that the American public or the general public of the world have such a poor understanding of evolution that they are easily swayed by the arguments of the deliberately deceitful, those who have responded to me in this thread seemed to take quite an adverse view of people who openly remark that they don't understand all of evolution completely. I realize that this s complicated by the fact that there are many people who come here just for the sake of provoking you but there are also people who honestly have trouble understanding the point on which creationists and ID proponents have obfuscated and would like some clarification on them. After thinking a lot about what I have written in this thread, I have decided that it was ill-advised of me to use the candlestick analogy because it did seem to place a greater emphasis on a transcendent intelligence manipulating events on our plane. I should have just stuck with the day-scaling analogy because the apparent continuity of evolution is what I was having trouble understanding. However, now (as I have explained many times before, including earlier in this post) I understand that even this analogy is false because without an intuitive understanding of the temporal aspects of evolution it is impossible for me to determine what would seem continuous or discontinuous over evolutionary time.

Nonetheless, I think it is fairly obvious from what I have said here and on other threads where I stand on evolution. Although I don't think I have explicitly stated this yet, I see no reason why the fact that I didn't quite understand how the fossil record demonstrated continuous evolution precludes me from understanding that evolution itself doesn't depend solely on the fossil record. Therefore, a lack of understanding of the fossil record (and for that matter a difference of opinion on the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution) does not constitute a refutation of evolution. I realize that such a lack of explicitness could have fostered the distrust and even animosity the I feel I have experienced here, but I hope the above description of my intellectual approach to evolution has clarified my stance on the topic.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

<snip>
those who have responded to me in this thread seemed to take quite an adverse view of people who openly remark that they don't understand all of evolution completely.

It's just that the M.O. of less than sincere posters is to pose a question when they're not at all interested in an answer; it's just a way for them to put forth their view without having to take responsibility for making an indefensible claim.

Another common M.O. is the old "I'm a skeptic, but" intro--as in, "I'm a skeptic, but explain how this works" as a veiled way of saying "I believe in something supernatural or pseudoscientific, so I'll challenge a conventional scientific explanation by asking a question."

And finally, you would be surprised at how many creationists/ID supporters actually think they're coming up with the gap argument (an argument from ignorance) for the first time.

Even the judge in the Dover case remarked how devious these ID/creationist people had behaved. They have no qualms about trying to mask religion as science and pretend that books they published were not donated by their organization and so on. (It's another topic, but the problem is people who believe they are right by divine fiat have no problems pushing their agenda by any means.)

In short, our suspicion is understandable--sorry if it seemed like an unwarranted attack.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, now (as I have explained many times before, including earlier in this post) I understand that even this analogy is false because without an intuitive understanding of the temporal aspects of evolution it is impossible for me to determine what would seem continuous or discontinuous over evolutionary time.

I think the problem perhaps is the insistence on needing an "intuitive understanding of the temporal aspects of evolution" in order to accept or reject that forms have changed in a continuous way. Sometimes reality is counterintuitive (it sure looks like the sun goes around the earth), and sometimes getting that kind of grasp of something just isn't necessary.

(Imagine if physicists needed intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics!)

 

[articulett]

Yes...exactly...Look at this dishonesty from creationists printed today!

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24270.html

And compare it to the actual latest news printed in peer reviewed science articles like nature and disseminated to the media yesterday:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3034619&page=1

Clearly, someone is spreading misinformation and has a complete lack of curiosity about the latest science. Look at Kleinman's questions about "how does a gene evolve de novo" for another fine example of an asinine question that will never be answered to his satisfaction.

I think the scorn directed at "obfuscators" is well deserved. No matter how you slice it, it's dishonesty in the name of one's "intelligent designer".

 

[articulett]

Hmmm....

Sunday school is child abuse?

I think it's pretty damn twisted to tell a kid they can suffer forever if they don't believe the right thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's just that the M.O. of less than sincere posters is to pose a question when they're not at all interested in an answer; it's just a way for them to put forth their view without having to take responsibility for making an indefensible claim.

Another common M.O. is the old "I'm a skeptic, but" intro--as in, "I'm a skeptic, but explain how this works" as a veiled way of saying "I believe in something supernatural or pseudoscientific, so I'll challenge a conventional scientific explanation by asking a question."

And finally, you would be surprised at how many creationists/ID supporters actually think they're coming up with the gap argument (an argument from ignorance) for the first time.

Even the judge in the Dover case remarked how devious these ID/creationist people had behaved. They have no qualms about trying to mask religion as science and pretend that books they published were not donated by their organization and so on. (It's another topic, but the problem is people who believe they are right by divine fiat have no problems pushing their agenda by any means.)

In short, our suspicion is understandable--sorry if it seemed like an unwarranted attack.

What he said.

It's true mijo. You just happened to pose your question in an all too familiar way. And skeptics like to let those proselytizers know they aren't fooling anyone. But everyone makes mistakes.

Did you say anywhere you supported Intelligent Design? If you didn't, just challenge articulett to provide the quote. If you do support it, you will be challenged here since irreducible complexity and the "natural selection didn't have time" arguments have long ago been debunked.

I missed where you said anything about supporting Intelligent Design claims.

 

[articulett]

It's really an allegory to explain the REAL origin of original sin, which is:

Long ago, before time began, God made a terrible mistake with this laundry. First, he mixed the "sinless" in with the "sinful", then, to make matters worse, he accidentally washed them on "warm". Thus, the sinless was stained forever, and nothing could be done about it.

Well, he could have thrown it away and bought a new wardrobe, but it was getting kind of late.

I feel so sullied.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes...exactly...Look at this dishonesty from creationists printed today!

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24270.html

And compare it to the actual latest news printed in peer reviewed science articles like nature and disseminated to the media yesterday:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3034619&page=1

Clearly, someone is spreading misinformation and has a complete lack of curiosity about the latest science. Look at Kleinman's questions about "how does a gene evolve de novo" for another fine example of an asinine question that will never be answered to his satisfaction.

I think the scorn directed at "obfuscators" is well deserved. No matter how you slice it, it's dishonesty in the name of one's "intelligent designer".

Now here's a case where I agree with the use of the word, dishonesty. It's likely most people making these arguments are truly fooled themselves. But as the judge in the Dover trial ruled, the initiators of the claims science supports the Biblical description of Creation actually planned the deceit. They planned it with the goal of slipping their religious convictions into public schools.

The Wedge Strategy

Phase I was to have funded research which challenged evolution theory. The challenge failed. So they went ahead anyway and used the false premise science was keeping their research out of the mainstream because science is actively anti-religion.

The truth is mainstream science would have considered the research if it was valid. Scientists aren't out to disprove the Bible. They are out to follow where the evidence leads.

 

[articulett]

What he said.

I missed where you said anything about supporting Intelligent Design claims.

See, I think he's avoiding the question as to whether he supports intelligent design. It's easy enough to say rather you do or you don't. Just like I think he's avoiding acknowledging that it wasn't his science degree or apologies that were problematic--it was his lack of interest in the answers...or of clarifying the question and his statement at the end that absolutely no-one answered his question. Do those without a vested interest in a particular answer really respond that way? And if so, why doesn't he acknowledge that he did sound like a creationist--not because of his lack of knowledge--kleinman is knowledgeable, just his insistance that there was no good answer to his conundrum. I want to be wrong...and I may define "creationist" too loosely--but I've developed a theorem over the years that I will call articulett's theorem. If a man over 40 has a certain evolution conundrum and believes in an intelligent designer--no amount of evidence or explaining will allow his brain to assimilate an answer.

So mijo, do subscribe to an "intelligent design" explanation of origins?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can't you start with the premise people are honest, articulett and go from there?

 

[articulett]

Can't you start with the premise people are honest, articulett and go from there?

I do. Or at least I try. But when you read that article in that conservative paper, it's hard not to feel disgust.

And regarding Mijo, he ignored some really good points...made by many, many people. And then blamed it on not understanding the time frame... and on people not giving good explanations and scientists being the reason for people not accepting evolution. But people accept gravity and atomic theory just fine...or trust scientists. Plus he also ignored some very direct questions...that would clarify his intent and then got defensive. He accused me and others of not reading his posts when I say a much better argument could be made that he didn't read many of ours--nor check out our links. Which is bizarre if he really was eager to have his question answered.

I gave him the example of dog evolution early on to show that it really wasn't a time scale problem. One could argue that there is a discontinuity between dogs and wolves in the fossil record...heck there is a discontinuity between the various breeds of dogs. And dogs are subspecies of wolves--they can breed with them and produce fertile offspring. ? But it's also hard to understand why the oceans don't spill out if we are on a spherical earth...or why we can't feel the earth spinning. Yet, if someone wanted to really know the answer...they'd ask clarifying questions not dismiss everything or blame the person giving the information or include that scientists really didn't have the answer (and therefore someone else did...namely an "intelligent designer" or one who speaks for him.)

The question itself was the wrong one if a person actually wanted to understand...and the answer involves understanding delphi's number line example and the way phenotype isn't the best measurement of genotype (as in dogs)--but there was never an acknowledgment of these answers...or even which fossils he was concerned about--just the assertion that there WAS this discontinuity that couldn't be explained in the fossil records. Plus the assertion that he was trying to explain it to creationists...as if you can explain something to someone with a vested interest in believing that evolution cannot be explained by totally natural, bottom up means. It was the information he ignored and the blaming of those who gave him "absolutely" no help at all in answering his question that makes me wary. And his refusal to acknowledge that he's doing exactly what it is that Behe and Kleinman do--emphasize a conundrum and then keep asserting that it no scientist can explain it.

The facts are not any scientists fault. The fact that it's complicated and we are just filling in the details are not any scientists fault. It's the continual obfuscation and the arrogant disregard of explanations by "intelligent design" proponents that are the real reason that Americans don't accept evolution. It's sound bite sciency sounding things like "scientists can't explain the gap in the fossil record, or explain how evolving structures could function before they are fully "evolved" (as if evolution has an "end point")--or Kleinman's inane math model that fails to factor in very relevant facts, or Hewitt's insistence that it's the cell that should be considered the true replicator and the endless blather about scientists not being able to explain morality or ethics or altruism or humor or consciousness (as if that meant that someone else was doing a better job at it.)

But science is explaining those things. It's just that intelligent design proponents will make sure that they don't understand the answer, while obfuscating the issue to make others believe that "scientists can't explain it...therefore it's a miracle"--

I'm more than willing to apologize and be wrong. But I still don't think I am. All he has to do is say that he understands why he might have been confused with a creationist AND assert that he is not a proponent of intelligent design.

Until then, I see him blaming everyone but himself for his less than welcoming reception and possible misperception. I've already been scolded by Dr. A. and Mijo for accusing him--and I've taken the heat for accusing Hewitt and Von Neumann too. But I still believe I am correct. All they would have to do is to tell us what it is that would convince them that their problem with evolution is not a problem at all--and I will be convinced. Because all it would take was some convincing understandable useful evidence for an alternate theory to change the mind of scientists. But when it comes to faith, there is no answer to that question. And so they ignore it completely. Some questions are designed not to be able to be answered. They are rhetorical, and used to support a belief or propaganda.

Do you believe that mijo is just trying to find a good explanation to give creationists as he asserted in his opening statement. And what would make him think any answer would satisfy a creationist when no answer seemed to satisfy him even (and he asserts he is not a creationist.)

Would you call Francis Collins a creationist? He's no young earth creationist...but he believes that human life is "intelligently designed" for a "purpose".

 

[mijopaalmc]

See, I think he's avoiding the question as to whether he supports intelligent design. It's easy enough to say rather you do or you don't. Just like I think he's avoiding acknowledging that it wasn't his science degree or apologies that were problematic--it was his lack of interest in the answers...or of clarifying the question and his statement at the end that absolutely no-one answered his question. Do those without a vested interest in a particular answer really respond that way? And if so, why doesn't he acknowledge that he did sound like a creationist--not because of his lack of knowledge--kleinman is knowledgeable, just his insistance that there was no good answer to his conundrum. I want to be wrong...and I may define "creationist" too loosely--but I've developed a theorem over the years that I will call articulett's theorem. If a man over 40 has a certain evolution conundrum and believes in an intelligent designer--no amount of evidence or explaining will allow his brain to assimilate an answer.

So mijo, do subscribe to an "intelligent design" explanation of origins?

To answer you directly, articulett: no, I don't believe that any aspect of life was intelligently designed.

As much as I would really like to continue to explain what I meant in my OP, I feel that I would be digging myself in deeper. I guess the problem is that there is no proper analogy to describe what I was trying to describe and the very act of analogizing was confusing me.

I guess the question would be: for those of you who have taught evolution, how did you explain to your students in a comprehensible way that the seemingly large gaps between transitional forms were not in fact large at all at least in relation to the time periods over which evolutionary changes were observed to occur? Or is there something I am missing in the very definition of an evolutionary time period?

Is observing evolution through the fossil record like observing continental drift through the geologic record? We can match up different strata on the different continents to see where they were when each stratum was laid down and we can observe the actual drift happening now using GPS and other methods. Therefore, we can extrapolate where the continent have been in the past. Even though, we can see continents drifting by standing at the Straight of Gibraltar and seeing Morocco get closer to Spain, we can predict that on day the two will meet and, conversely, at some point in the past, the two were farther apart. I realize that we can't at least in any meaningful way predict what the next evolutionary change will be, so at least that part of the analogy is incorrect, but the part about the past position of the continents is what I'm trying to emphasize. Since I at least think I understand continental drift, an affirmation of this analogy will help me understand the relationship between the fossil record and evolution.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

where you supported Intelligent Design? If you didn't, just challenge articulett to provide the quote.

The one that set off warning lights for me was the end of the opening post--after the stuff about you look away and the candle becomes an electric lamp--where he said, "I am trying to understand the creationist (or ID) position by think thinking like an creationist (or ID proponent)".

I don't see any possible way where thinking that way (irrationally) can be helpful. When I asked what's the point, the only answer was from Dr. A saying "'Cos we might want to know the answer" which prompted me to ask what the topic was, fossils & evidence or the psychology of creationists (in other words--we might want to know the answer to what?)

When the accusations started flying (you're an IDer in drag! you're close-minded and rude!), I also asked what is the difference between thinking like a creationist and being a creationist?

 

[articulett]

The one that set off warning lights for me was the end of the opening post--after the stuff about you look away and the candle becomes an electric lamp--where he said, "I am trying to understand the creationist (or ID) position by think thinking like an creationist (or ID proponent)".

I don't see any possible way where thinking that way (irrationally) can be helpful. When I asked what's the point, the only answer was from Dr. A saying "'Cos we might want to know the answer" which prompted me to ask what the topic was, fossils & evidence or the psychology of creationists (in other words--we might want to know the answer to what?)

When the accusations started flying (you're an IDer in drag! you're close-minded and rude!), I also asked what is the difference between thinking like a creationist and being a creationist?

Hey...read the articles I linked to above. Any actual scientist should be offended by the fossil article in conservative paper by the "biologist" from Bob Jones University (as if it were an accredited university). It's just so deceptive. And it has to be purposeful. And it's spreading misinformation. How are scientists supposed to counter lies told by those religious folks people are told are trustworthy? And what an obfuscating deceptive article it is in light of the molecular evidence proving what has long been accepted in paleontology--birds are descendants of dinosaurs.

 

[articulett]

To answer you directly, articulett: no, I don't believe that any aspect of life was intelligently designed.

I guess the question would be: for those of you who have taught evolution, how did you explain to your students in a comprehensible way that the seemingly large gaps between transitional forms were not in fact large at all at least in relation to the time periods over which evolutionary changes were observed to occur? Or is there something I am missing in the very definition of an evolutionary time period?

Then I apologize. I hope you read the links above so that you can see why others may be quick to judge. I hope you are as offended by the fossil article in the conservative newspaper as I was. Especially in light of the evidence regarding dinosaurs and chickens.

My kids never ask about the the gaps. I have a picture on my bulleting board of various things that inspire questions... and I start from the present... sometimes they will say something like humans didn't come from no monkeys, and I tend to divert the question...I ask them what they believe about humans came here...and I talk about how many religions have stories, but science is like math...it's not about beliefs...it's about tools and facts that are the same for everybody--like math. I show them skeletons of various primates including neanderthals and Lucy and ask them if they think they look human or not. I tell them what the DNA evidence tells us regarding Neanderthals. I have a picture of a zebra donkey hybrid...and it's a good intro for talking about speciation...and how we can see that zebras and donkeys are related...and we knew this for some time from the fossils and because they can produce living offspring. I tell them how dogs are all wolves--and that it is human selection from wolves having particular traits that lead to all the breeds of dogs we have to day--the gene for varying dog size in breeds like Chihuahua vs. Wolfhound was just discovered...it's an insulin gene. I tell them how one little change can lead to big results--like in dwarfism--both in humans and dachshunds (same mutation). I have this great film from National Geographic of mammals in the womb that is breathtaking, but you can also see the similarities of their development--the "hands" then streamlined to fins in dolphins. They love things like Ligers and Thylacines--the exotic hybrids and the extinct on film. I have videos of the great apes showing very human and moral type behaviors--other mammals too. And they know that all life has DNA...and it is this DNA that we can now see that tells us exactly how related two life forms are--they all know about paternity tests and forensic testing...but they didn't know that it's the same type of testing that shows how related people are. I have some great web interactives.

But they never ask about the fossils, because no one has ever put the idea that there are gaps in their head. And when someone does, they will know how rare it is to come across a fossil...and why...and how closely related things can look very different (dogs) and very different things can look like the same species (many rodents)--many beetles. I like to know creationist arguments, because I want the kids to have a core understanding that refutes it...so when I read the article like that above, I find the base of what needs to be understood. For example, the article implies irreducible complexity--so I will make sure my kids understand about adaptation...we've already gone over how how various eyes evolve and how even life forms without eyes have cells that respond to light...and how a little bit of vision is better than no vision and how tiny increments in visual acuity have increments in survival value. I have some great posters of evolutionary trees and tons of science magazines and National Geographics around my classroom--because I want them to know just how matter-of-fact evolution is. When they ask about my beliefs, I point out that I am much more interested in the facts that are the same for everybody than in discussing what cannot be verified. I let them draw their own conclusions. I have a couple of videos and clips I show them...and I'll ask questions... like I'll say, "Does Carl Sagan say evolution is a fact or a theory?" and in cosmos he says, "evolution is a fact; not a theory--it really happened." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667&q=sagan+evolution&hl=en

I just don't want them saying there is no evidence without getting a glimpse of just how much there is. I have a Darwin fish in my room, and a kid pointed to it and said "that's against some peoples' religion", and I laughed it off, and said, "so..."

I think if someone did ask me about the fossil evidence, I would ask them to be more specific...

You can see from Kleinman's questions why there are some people whose queries are not worth entertaining. No matter how kind and careful and detailed the answers are--you will only be insulted...and your answers will be rebuffed. Really. Read that article...and see just how dishonest creationists can be. Even nice, well-meaning, ones.

Gene changes are ratched through time--but phenotypic changes can be sudden or completely internal without a trace in the fossil evidence...It really is like doing a puzzle of a tree--sometimes you can gather approximately where the pieces go...but you can't quite fill in the blanks yet--More fossils, better dating techniques and DNA REALLY continue to fill in the blanks. Think of dog breeds and how they all evolved from wolves...think of that as a tree, and I think you will see better how to explain to yourself and others speciation...think of the skeleton of primitive horses...and todays equines--another branch with more twigs off of a tree....and they meet together further down a bigger branch and so forth...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I guess the question would be: for those of you who have taught evolution, how did you explain to your students in a comprehensible way that the seemingly large gaps between transitional forms were not in fact large at all at least in relation to the time periods over which evolutionary changes were observed to occur? Or is there something I am missing in the very definition of an evolutionary time period?

I still don't see an issue that needs to be cleared up. Fossils are one line of evidence (among many) that support the theory of evolution. The gaps are simply because not every single individual (or species or population or even genus) is likely to have been preserved by fossilization. No one should expect the fossil record to be a perfectly continuous record of the story of life.

Since you like analogies (which are fraught with logical "dangers"), try this one: you've got a super slow-mo film (hundreds or even thousands of frames per second), where each frame represents a generation (NOT the same individual) in a lineage. Over hundreds of frames, you'd see very little change. What if, though, the film were horribly mutilated such that you only got a random collection of individual frames--some of them closer together and some of them from places far apart in the movie. You could painstakingly put the frames back in their correct order (noting that you are likely to make mistakes, and the sequence is tentative and subject to change as you consider other frames), and maybe get an overall idea of what the movie is like. The gaps (or rather the wider "discontinuities"--because they are all gaps), however, won't tell you anything about the subject filmed. (Logical pitfalls include, among others, the fact that the "movie" analogy only takes one lineage and doesn't follow the multi-branching tree structure you'd expect.)

Another way is to consider the whole thing a sort of forensic investigation. You've got some clues, some physical evidence, and you try to reconstruct a story.

The only way to support the idea that forms did NOT change continuously is some sort of special or spontaneous creation of new species. Looking at the physical evidence, which story makes better sense--which is most parsimonious?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It wasn't your comments about the Conservative Web page article I was referring to, articulett. And I fully understand the way the OP could have been contrived. But after mijo said repeatedly his intent had been misread, I saw no reason to doubt his clarification, at least until something which blatantly contradicts that claim is posted. I think you could have let up a bit sooner is all.

...
As much as I would really like to continue to explain what I meant in my OP, I feel that I would be digging myself in deeper. I guess the problem is that there is no proper analogy to describe what I was trying to describe and the very act of analogizing was confusing me.

I guess the question would be: for those of you who have taught evolution, how did you explain to your students in a comprehensible way that the seemingly large gaps between transitional forms were not in fact large at all at least in relation to the time periods over which evolutionary changes were observed to occur? Or is there something I am missing in the very definition of an evolutionary time period?

Is observing evolution through the fossil record like observing continental drift through the geologic record? We can match up different strata on the different continents to see where they were when each stratum was laid down and we can observe the actual drift happening now using GPS and other methods. Therefore, we can extrapolate where the continent have been in the past. Even though, we can see continents drifting by standing at the Straight of Gibraltar and seeing Morocco get closer to Spain, we can predict that on day the two will meet and, conversely, at some point in the past, the two were farther apart. I realize that we can't at least in any meaningful way predict what the next evolutionary change will be, so at least that part of the analogy is incorrect, but the part about the past position of the continents is what I'm trying to emphasize. Since I at least think I understand continental drift, an affirmation of this analogy will help me understand the relationship between the fossil record and evolution.

I think it is pretty easy to demonstrate evolution to kids. One need only look at dog and cat breeding, bird breeding, or gold fish breeding to demonstrate the principles involved in speciation. You divide groups and isolate them from each other. Then you subject them to different selection pressures. You get Great Danes and Chihuahuas. If you had tens of thousands of years you'd get descendants that weren't the same species but which had a common ancestor. And if those selection pressures caused rapid changes, then you took the selection pressure away and just let the group reproduce on it's own, you'd have a new equilibrium. Considering the number of animals in the group during rapid changing remained small and the population rebounded when results were achieved, you'd have too few animals in the transition phases to be likely to find them in the fossil record. As the group re-stabilized now adapted to the new conditions, the population would grow and more fossils would eventually result. Thus you find groups with traceable relations such as backbones, but that punctuated equilibrium gives you step increases, not gradual inclines.

Selection pressures in animal breeding are unnatural but similar events occur in nature. So the model is accurate.

Did any of you see the PBS special, Secrets of the Dead, on the delta 32 (CCR5 deletion) mutation? There is now good evidence that mutation allowed survival after the plague epidemics in Europe. If you had the mutation you were more likely to survive. So the plague survivors now had a very high percentage of that mutation.

Today the same mutation offers resistance to HIV infection. There may be a slight amplification of that genetic mutation in the population yet again due to the HIV pandemic.

But back to your question, why would you want to teach evolution merely using one line of evidence? Discuss all the evidence. First we had Darwin's observations. Next the fossil record followed the same pattern. Then we observed inheritance in real time. Finally we began to discover the specific mechanisms involved and today we can see the whole blueprints and how they are related.

And two of my favorite examples, (yes I boringly repeat myself yet again), one mutation gets you 6 fingers. It doesn't get you 5 fingers and a new stub. The way DNA directs development is in segments. So the instruction for numbers of fingers is separated from the instructions for the bones, muscles, skin and so on. A small mutation can not only go a long way, it also isn't as likely to have a catastrophic result.

And the second example is we have been able to gene swap and genes from things as remote as fruit flies and rabbits work just fine in each other's species. We are all related.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ok, I suppose that you are going to laugh at me now, but way back when I was talking about representations of evolution as being a continuous "morph" from one organism to the next exemplified in this "The Simpsons" opening sequence:



I know its rarely if ever wise to assume that popular representations of a scientific theory are what the scientists mean when they talk about the theory in question, but I seem to recall evolution being represented in similar videographic form at some well-known science museum, possibly the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland, or even the Museum of Natural History in New York City. I think the thread would have taken a much different track if I had opened with the question being about popular representations resembling academic representations and mentioned that my problem in understanding evolution was more in light of how I thought it was being represented popularly. However, not remembering the representation that I had gained through the preparation I received for my degree, I assumed that the above clip accurately represented the academic consensus in reference to the "morphing" organisms. I suppose the emphasis of the genotypic changes in evolution that was presented in my sophomore genetics class should have been a tip-off that morphological changes, while telling, do not tell the whole story of evolution. In other words, the "invisible" changes (i.e., those that cannot be seen by the naked eye) are more important than the visible changes (i.e., those that can be seen by the naked eye).

Anyway, I would like your opinions on how accurate you think the representation I picked was, how accurate the other representations you have seen are, and how dire a situation it is that popular representations don't match up with academic representations, if they don't. I guess that the representations that I have seen are how I have formed my intuitive understanding of evolution as a filmstrip. This has been the main thrust of my posts throughout the thread and if evolution as laid down in the fossil record cannot be understood as a filmstrip, I should probably stop trying to find analogies for it and accept it as something that is non-analogous and counterintuitive like most of the quantum behavior that I learned about when I took physical chemistry.