R
reggieM
Guest
This is a beautiful video on stasis in evolution.
youtube.com/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ&feature=player_embedded
youtube.com/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ&feature=player_embedded
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you ed for that further confirmation of what Charles Darwin said in “On the Origin of Species”:Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.
- Origin, Chapter Ten
Finding an example of a long lived species is not a problem for the theory of evolution. As Darwin pointed out from the start, different species evolve at different rates. Some species evolve very slowly indeed.
M
mathematician
Guest
Insofar as certainty is possible at all, certainty in the area of biblical exegesis is achieved in the same way as certainty is achieved anywhere else, through debate and concensus. A craving after absolute certainty is just another name for an inflexible fundamentalism.
A RC biblical scholar would get told, “Fell free to investigate the biblical text, taking into full account all that previous discoveries and archeology have to reveal to you, and go wherever the evidence takes you… oh, and by the way, here is the conclusion you are going to come to.”
R
reggieM
Guest
It is claimed that chimpanzees from Africa evolved into philosophers and micro-biologists in less than 6 million years.
Now, that a human skull much older than the oldest African version was found in Europe, the story has changed to include several more speculations. Additionally, some researchers are claiming that it wasn’t chimpanzees but rather orangutangs that turned into nuclear physicists.
These are “minor adjustments” to the claims of the theory. The theory predicted one thing and a contradictory result followed.
In the same way, the claim that chimp-to-human in 5 million years is included in the same data-set as an organism that shows no evolutionary change in 500 million years.
No information is provided on why massive evolutionary changes occurred for some organisms and none for others. This again is for a theory which claims to explain the entire diversity found in nature.
We could then look at examples of ultraconserved DNA regions which similiarly cannot be reconciled with Darwinian theory.
Now, that a human skull much older than the oldest African version was found in Europe, the story has changed to include several more speculations. Additionally, some researchers are claiming that it wasn’t chimpanzees but rather orangutangs that turned into nuclear physicists.
These are “minor adjustments” to the claims of the theory. The theory predicted one thing and a contradictory result followed.
In the same way, the claim that chimp-to-human in 5 million years is included in the same data-set as an organism that shows no evolutionary change in 500 million years.
No information is provided on why massive evolutionary changes occurred for some organisms and none for others. This again is for a theory which claims to explain the entire diversity found in nature.
We could then look at examples of ultraconserved DNA regions which similiarly cannot be reconciled with Darwinian theory.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Wrooooong! But nice strawman.
Truth be told, there is a lot of speculation there, as we don’t have very many “in between” bones or fossils. Also, it’s a “common ancestor” not any monkey that is known today. Third, comparing evolution rates of animals on land to those in the sea (or bacteria) is ridiculous.
blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Rates_of_evolution4.asp
M
mathematician
Guest
I don’t know who came up with that baloney, but one thing is for sure; they know nothing about the theory of evolution. No evolutionary biologist could make the claims you have just credited them with.
R
ricmat
Guest
Actually, I’m curious about that myself. Is there an actual firm definition used by “experts” which defines species?
I haven’t been following your sub-thread closely, but whenever I see Teilhard invoked in support of an argument, I feel obligated to mention that his teachings of this sort have been condemned by the Church.
OK, I agree with this. What puzzles me is that many “random mutation” evolutionists invoke “but there’s so MUCH TIME for evolution to occur” to overcome the low probability of the right things happening. If in fact, “so much time” can account for the right mutations popping up, then it seems to me that “so much time” would also leave a large number of these missing fossils.
M
mathematician
Guest
The answer is that when two groups belonging to species A become geographically seperated, and evolve under different environmental pressures, one group will eventually evolve into species B, and one group will evolve into species C. What makes them different species? After long ages of seperate development, they can no longer interbreed.
R
ricmat
Guest
So inability to interbreed means different species?
M
mathematician
Guest
If they cannot interbreed they do not belong to the same species.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Species is a human conceptual tool, meant to help organize our thinking about different populations. But biology itself knows no such concept – it’s an artificial bit of language we impose on it. The inability to crossbreed (I think Mayr introduced this test) is the most useful definition we’ve come up with, although that’s a problematic criterion in many cases.
Also, this is implicit but may be good to point out – the “cross-breeding test” means that two populations can not only produce offspring, but fertile offspring. A male donkey and a female horse can produce a mule, but the offspring are almost always infertile (all males are infertile, but some small number of females are fertile, IIRC).
Anyway, nature is gradual, incremental, and pays no heed to the human labels and buckets we like to use. So interbreeding is the most practical test we have in deploying our labels.
-TS
R
ricmat
Guest
Thanks, that’s essentially the definition I heard (from long ago), but I wasn’t sure if the thinking/definition had changed.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Dogs are a strange topic to apply this too, because they are a product of artificial selection, not natural selection (modern breeds, anyway). I don’t know if a Great Dane could breed with a Chihuahua, it seems unlikely, but if it was physically problematic, in a technical sense here, you’d have the basis for saying that the “species barrier” had been crossed.
But in nature, endogenous changes are what causes the split way between two populations way before the morphology (body shapes/sizes) becomes a practical barrier to interbreeding. For example, in fruit flies, experimentally, if you separate two populations, after a large number of generations, they lose their interbreeding capabilities. This is NOT because the practicalities of the hardware or plumbing between the two populations of fruit fly has changed dramatically, as it has been a population of Great Danes and a population of Chihuahua.
Rather, when the populations are separate, mutations and changes accumulate endogenously, affecting the germ line of that population. That means that fly population A has reproductive genetics that begin to diverge from the reproductive genetics of population B. The flies remain the same size, and are physically quite capable of trying to create offspring, but the genetics of reproduction between them have become incompatible.
I’m not familiar with any work on this, but my guess is that artificial insemination would be effective for producing a Great Dane-Chihuahua cross. The germ lines of these breeds is likely perfectly amenable to producing fertile offspring, because not enough time/reproductive events has taken place since the populations separated for endogenous divergence that would make artificial insemination fail.
In nature, you can find populations/species that are practically compatible for interbreeding, and even inhabit the same ecosystem – they are neighbors – but their genetic divergence is great enough in the key (reproductive) areas that fertile offspring are a no-go. The example I gave of horses and donkey fits in this category, with the caveat that the divergence is not complete (these are very slow processes); some female mules are fertile, meaning that some reproductive compatibility remains, even if it is statistically rare.
-TS
R
ricmat
Guest
OK, I had some rare time on my hands, and instead of thinking up snappy rejoinders to those who disagree with me, I wrote the following “parable” based on a thought I posted a few months ago. Note: This is NOT directed at any person who posts here, but more at a certain mindset which we encounter in many places.
A Parable of Physics, Bowling, and Evolution
One day, not long ago, a physics conference was being held in (of all places), Cleveland. Cleveland is a hotbed not just of physics, but also of that sport known as “bowling”. One of the attendees was Dr. X, world renowned expert in Physics. He was assisted by Mr. Y, whose job was to carry Dr. X’s bags. Both men were from a small Eastern European country where no one had even heard of “bowling”. (Note: for the rest of this parable, imagine Dr. X and Mr. Y speaking with strong foreign accents).
One evening, after a long day of Physics lectures and speculations, Dr. X and Mr. Y wandered away from the conference center and stumbled across a “bowling alley.” Intrigued, they decided to go inside and see what this strange phenomenon actually was. As luck would have it, they arrived just as the last ball of the evening was being rolled down each of the 10 alleys at the same time. They watched as the balls started to hit the pins, which ricocheted around the sides and back of the pits. As this was going on, Mr. Y, unable to control his relatively “base” nature, said “Look over there, they sell BEER!” Dr. X also quickly looked around and spotted the bar area. Although preferring wine and brie to mere beer, Dr. X was willing to temporarily adopt the any-port-in-a-storm philosophy. So they started to walk (quickly) towards the bar.
Halfway to the bar, Mr. Y looked back at the alleys, and said “Hey, look at that. All the pins are standing up. In exactly the same place they were before.”
Dr. X was initially surprised by what he saw, but being an expert in Physics, especially classical mechanics, he commented with bored condescension to Mr. Y, “Ah, yes. The pins must have bounced around the pit for a while, then come to rest, standing up in the same positions in which they started. On all 10 alleys.”
Mr. Y thought about this for a few seconds, and said (obviously from extreme ignorance), “Excuse me Dr. X but that’s a bit hard to believe.”
Dr. X retorted “Mr. Y. I’m the expert here. The laws of Physics certainly do not preclude the possibility of all those pins bouncing around the pits, and ending up exactly where they started.” As he gestured with his hands at the alleys he continued, “What is not precluded by science is inevitable. Isn’t Physics marvelous?”
Mr. Y continued, “But isn’t that highly unlikely? Even on just one lane, much less 10 lanes. What would be the probability of that happening?”
Dr. X - with an irritated tone, “As unlikely as was, since we actually see the pins right now standing exactly in those same positions, the probability it would occur must have been 100%, and what I described must be exactly how it happened. Our observations of those pins, right now, prove that when we weren’t looking, they bounced around the pit, driven only by the laws of physics - and ended up in exactly the same place. This can all be explained by science.”
Mr. Y was puzzled, but then, it was his job to carry bags, not to be a high powered thinker like Dr. X. Summoning up all his resolve (and at the risk of losing his job of carrying Dr. X’s bags), Mr Y continued…“Don’t you think it is possible that when we weren’t looking, that some sort of intervention occurred to force the pins back to their original positions?”
Dr X - angrily - “Now look here Mr. Y. How many Nobel prizes do YOU have? How dare you question my pronouncements on this. The science community stands firmly with me on this matter. There is no need to invoke some imaginary “force” or “intervention” to account for what we saw. It can all be clearly explained by the laws of motion, and the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. You are an idiot, which is why you are carrying my bags. Say no more on this matter. Now, let’s have that beer we started out for.”
So Dr. X and Mr. Y sat down at the bar and each ordered a large foamy Cleveland beer. Finding it somewhat difficult to converse with someone as ignorant as Mr. Y at this point, Dr. X turned to the gentleman on his other side. “Hello, I’m Dr. X, and I’m here for the Physics conference. What is your profession, sir?”
Stranger - “Hi there, and welcome to Cleveland. Actually, I’m not here to bowl. I’m the design engineer for the pin resetting machines, and I’m here to make sure they’re calibrated correctly.”
(From the other direction, Dr. X hears the sound of beer coming from someone’s nose…)
A Parable of Physics, Bowling, and Evolution
One day, not long ago, a physics conference was being held in (of all places), Cleveland. Cleveland is a hotbed not just of physics, but also of that sport known as “bowling”. One of the attendees was Dr. X, world renowned expert in Physics. He was assisted by Mr. Y, whose job was to carry Dr. X’s bags. Both men were from a small Eastern European country where no one had even heard of “bowling”. (Note: for the rest of this parable, imagine Dr. X and Mr. Y speaking with strong foreign accents).
One evening, after a long day of Physics lectures and speculations, Dr. X and Mr. Y wandered away from the conference center and stumbled across a “bowling alley.” Intrigued, they decided to go inside and see what this strange phenomenon actually was. As luck would have it, they arrived just as the last ball of the evening was being rolled down each of the 10 alleys at the same time. They watched as the balls started to hit the pins, which ricocheted around the sides and back of the pits. As this was going on, Mr. Y, unable to control his relatively “base” nature, said “Look over there, they sell BEER!” Dr. X also quickly looked around and spotted the bar area. Although preferring wine and brie to mere beer, Dr. X was willing to temporarily adopt the any-port-in-a-storm philosophy. So they started to walk (quickly) towards the bar.
Halfway to the bar, Mr. Y looked back at the alleys, and said “Hey, look at that. All the pins are standing up. In exactly the same place they were before.”
Dr. X was initially surprised by what he saw, but being an expert in Physics, especially classical mechanics, he commented with bored condescension to Mr. Y, “Ah, yes. The pins must have bounced around the pit for a while, then come to rest, standing up in the same positions in which they started. On all 10 alleys.”
Mr. Y thought about this for a few seconds, and said (obviously from extreme ignorance), “Excuse me Dr. X but that’s a bit hard to believe.”
Dr. X retorted “Mr. Y. I’m the expert here. The laws of Physics certainly do not preclude the possibility of all those pins bouncing around the pits, and ending up exactly where they started.” As he gestured with his hands at the alleys he continued, “What is not precluded by science is inevitable. Isn’t Physics marvelous?”
Mr. Y continued, “But isn’t that highly unlikely? Even on just one lane, much less 10 lanes. What would be the probability of that happening?”
Dr. X - with an irritated tone, “As unlikely as was, since we actually see the pins right now standing exactly in those same positions, the probability it would occur must have been 100%, and what I described must be exactly how it happened. Our observations of those pins, right now, prove that when we weren’t looking, they bounced around the pit, driven only by the laws of physics - and ended up in exactly the same place. This can all be explained by science.”
Mr. Y was puzzled, but then, it was his job to carry bags, not to be a high powered thinker like Dr. X. Summoning up all his resolve (and at the risk of losing his job of carrying Dr. X’s bags), Mr Y continued…“Don’t you think it is possible that when we weren’t looking, that some sort of intervention occurred to force the pins back to their original positions?”
Dr X - angrily - “Now look here Mr. Y. How many Nobel prizes do YOU have? How dare you question my pronouncements on this. The science community stands firmly with me on this matter. There is no need to invoke some imaginary “force” or “intervention” to account for what we saw. It can all be clearly explained by the laws of motion, and the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. You are an idiot, which is why you are carrying my bags. Say no more on this matter. Now, let’s have that beer we started out for.”
So Dr. X and Mr. Y sat down at the bar and each ordered a large foamy Cleveland beer. Finding it somewhat difficult to converse with someone as ignorant as Mr. Y at this point, Dr. X turned to the gentleman on his other side. “Hello, I’m Dr. X, and I’m here for the Physics conference. What is your profession, sir?”
Stranger - “Hi there, and welcome to Cleveland. Actually, I’m not here to bowl. I’m the design engineer for the pin resetting machines, and I’m here to make sure they’re calibrated correctly.”
(From the other direction, Dr. X hears the sound of beer coming from someone’s nose…)
L
liquidpele
Guest
Peer review and reproducible results trump your absolutely horrible story. You simply made a fictional (and pretty ridiculous) story where you demonized the scientist and made the simple person right in the end. I mean, do you really think that’s how science works? Seriously? I mean, sure, people can be arrogant sometimes, but evidence trumps whatever someone claims no matter how detailed an explanation. Even Einstein was wrong from time to time. That’s the beauty of science, it’s about evidence, not about how you think it should be.
R
ricmat
Guest
What? You have no appreciation for great literature
My fictional story (that’s what a parable is) is about physics and bowling.
I see the attitudes expressed in that story all the time, both on this forum and elsewhere. By scientists.
“We’re here aren’t we? That proves that evolution did it.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is where his story rings true. DNA “fights” to eliminate mutations. It has self correcting mechanisms. This feature makes the effects of random mutations less plausible. The pins keep getting reset to their original positions is a problem for evolution.
R
ricmat
Guest
Actually, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make, although it appears that I did make it accidentally.
The main points I was making were more that:
- The contention that “if physics (or more generally, nature) doesn’t preclude a thing from happening, then it must happen eventually.” (and the sub-contention that “take as much time as required for it to happen eventually”) ((And there’s even another sub-contention that “if there still isn’t enough time for it to happen, then invoke as many universes as you need such that it can happen eventually.”)
- The willingness by believers to accept an outcome as undirected, no matter the improbability of it.
- The attitude of believers towards non-believers. We’re the experts, trust us.
- The unwillingness of believers to ignore the most obvious explanation for something because it doesn’t fit their pre-defined notions (even though those notions might be based on science). This is actually quite an anti-science attitude.
R
ricmat
Guest
Well, it’s a fictional story. Somebody has to be the bad guy.
Einstein was wrong at times, of course. So are all scientists. Except, apparently when it comes to [undirected random mutations] + natural selection accounting for the complexity of life on Earth. As we’ve all heard here, evolution is as proven as gravity. But that’s not arrogance, is it?
LATE EDIT: Liquid…my original post was not directed at you personally so please take no offense. And if you happen to be from Cleveland, that was strictly a coincidence. I like Cleveland, the roads are much cleaner there than they are here in So Cal.
L
liquidpele
Guest
The thing about natural selection is that it explains all the evidence - and there is a lot of evidence. What’s the alternative? That God stuck his magic finger down here to nudge some species to change, or that they never changed at all? You seem to want to pull down the theory that explains it the best just because it’s not 100% proven in a lab.
Hahaha, how did you know that I was Drew Carey??LATE EDIT: Liquid…my original post was not directed at you personally so please take no offense. And if you happen to be from Cleveland, that was strictly a coincidence. I like Cleveland, the roads are much cleaner there than they are here in So Cal.
- Status