Evolution A Pseudo Science?

[Rogerteder]

Again please only comment on the content not the persons involved in the dialogue thank you

Question 119 - Fossils from New Genes from Evolution?

Robert: I’m a regular visitor to your site, I own “Not by Bread Alone”, and have corresponded with you before.

Currently, I’m in a dialogue over Youtube with a person who created several evolution videos. One of them is titled “What Creationists Must Deny”. In it, he lists several transitional fossils. Also, I asked him your evolution challenge question, and his response is #2 below. Personally, I’m a Catholic who wants to understand evolution better. I have taken college level biology, chemestry, biochemestry, and physics, so I can understand scientific arguments. Please see his responses below. Interesting.
Greg Theisen, Dallas
gtheisen@tx.rr.com

1. Each of the ones listed in my video “What Creationists Must Deny” is scientifically classified as a transitional fossil. Unfortunately what I’ve heard some creationists claim they want as a transitional fossil is a fossil of one species in the process of giving birth to the fossil of another species. A) The chances of such an event being fossilized are ridiculously low, so setting the bar so high you know it will never be achieved is extremely unfair.

 

[Rogerteder]

R. Sungenis: We all have “videos” that supposedly establish our cherished view, but they don’t prove much.

Earlier the evolutionist told us “The chances of such an event being fossilized are ridiculously low, so setting the bar so high you know it will never be achieved is extremely unfair,” yet now he tells us “It’s all been directly observed.” So which is it? The fact is, he has a few specimens that he might be able to pass off as transitions to those less informed, and then he wants you to believe that this tiny sample is representative of all other specimens in the world. Sorry, that is not scientific, that is presumption.

Moreover, if these things are so easy to see, as he claims, why did Gould and Eldredge (of whom the latter regularly went out on fossil hunting expeditions) admit that, after 100 years of searching since Darwin’s book in 1859, they couldn’t find any transitional fossils and thus opted for the theory of punctuated equilibrium? Eldredge is still living today, and hasn’t made any claims of finding transitional fossils.

As for observing gene additions, I’m reminded of Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. If memory serves me correctly, in it he shows how a certain scientist (I believe it was Kenneth Brown of Princeton) was claiming that genetic material was added by the phosphase reaction. Behe showed that the scientist was reading into the phenomenon what he wanted to see. Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh, and believed in evolution at one time. The fact is, no one has ever shown us one verifiable instance of the addition of genes into the DNA of any organism, and that is precisely what would be required to prove evolution – the addition of genes. We are not talking about the mutation of genes already present, but the addition of new and functional genes, unhampered by the 99% failure rate of mutated genes.

In fact, if we were to base the rate that mutated genes produce beneficial changes so as to give a consistent upward progression of complexity and functionality to new organisms, Evolutionary Theory should change its name to Devolutionary Theory, since mutated genes devolve the organism 99% of the time. And even in the 1% or less of genes mutations that some might call neutral or beneficial, they don’t last beyond the host organism, and always make the host organism reproductively sterile. Even mutations that are touted as providing new anatomical structures (such as the fruit fly which developed two additional wings), what the evolutionists don’t tell you is that the wings were non-functional and actually got in the way of the two functional wings, and eventually fell off. They were not produced in a second generation, and the original fruit fly became sterile. This is nature’s way of stopping evolution, not advancing it.

Evolution is bankrupt. It is pseudo-science posing as truth, intimidating those who don’t know science.

God be with you, Greg.

 

[Orogeny]

Rogerteder:

Moreover, if these things are so easy to see, as he claims, why did Gould and Eldredge (of whom the latter regularly went out on fossil hunting expeditions) admit that, after 100 years of searching since Darwin’s book in 1859, they couldn’t find any transitional fossils and thus opted for the theory of punctuated equilibrium?

My reply is that your leader is wrong as usual.

Stephen J. Gould:

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

— “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, New York: W. W. Norton, 1994, p. 260.

Why would your leader make such a claim when it is so easily refuted?

Maybe he learned that during his Ph.D. studies.

Peace

Tim

 

[Teflon93]

What infuriates me is that the most vociferous evolution proponents don’t understand basic statistics and sampling.

What I mean by this is that when you take a look at the ridiculously small number of samples available for certain “species” (which are often declared despite not being able to prove whether or not these were truly isolated and incapable of producing non-sterile offspring with similar “species”), you have to ask just how representative the samples we have from the fossil record are of the actual population of living organisms we simply assume them to be typical of.

Add to this that fossilization is not truly a random process and that few species throughout time have been equally distributed globally across the Earth and we’ve got a real problem proving much of anything based on the fossil record alone.

So just like the climatologists do, computer models are employed to “fill in the gap”. Since one can hardly model without sufficient (name removed by moderator)ut data, convenient assumptions are employed and buried in the notes.

It’s exactly the approach used in that bogus equation to estimate the number of extraterrestrials. All of the numbers are made up—indeed, they may well each be completely unknowable—and yet this is treated as evidence by the credulous.

All of which is driven by the arrogance of the materialists who have religious faith in spades when it comes to extrapolating cosmic inferences from tiny and compromised data sets.

“We haven’t a clue” doesn’t seem to be an answer which gets federal grants or sells books or lecture series.

 

[Orogeny]

What infuriates me is that the most vociferous evolution proponents don’t understand basic statistics and sampling.

Well, you might be surprised that we do.

What I mean by this is that when you take a look at the ridiculously small number of samples available for certain “species” (which are often declared despite not being able to prove whether or not these were truly isolated and incapable of producing non-sterile offspring with similar “species”), you have to ask just how representative the samples we have from the fossil record are of the actual population of living organisms we simply assume them to be typical of.

Familiar with microfossils? How about corals? Bivalves? I don’t think you are based on your claim that we have a ridiculously small number of samples. If we can show evolution through those types of fossils, haven’t we shown evolution?

Add to this that fossilization is not truly a random process and that few species throughout time have been equally distributed globally across the Earth and we’ve got a real problem proving much of anything based on the fossil record alone.

Why would you need global distribution to be able to infer something from the fossil record?

So just like the climatologists do, computer models are employed to “fill in the gap”. Since one can hardly model without sufficient (name removed by moderator)ut data, convenient assumptions are employed and buried in the notes.

Um, much of paleontology was around long before computer models. Were the interpretations we made prior to computer models valueless?

“We haven’t a clue” doesn’t seem to be an answer which gets federal grants or sells books or lecture series.

Not much of a scientific answer for anything, don’t ya think?

Peace

Tim

 

[redhen]

The fact is, no one has ever shown us one verifiable instance of the addition of genes into the DNA of any organism, and that is precisely what would be required to prove evolution – the addition of genes. We are not talking about the mutation of genes already present, but the addition of new and functional genes, unhampered by the 99% failure rate of mutated genes.

Evolution can only arise through the addition of new genes? Where did you read this? Evolution is simply a change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

Although you have taken courses in biology, chemestry(sic), biochemestry, and physics, I would suggest a course in Physical Anthropology.

Actually, forget about transitional fossils, forget about fossils completely. Go to your nearest library and see if you can get a copy of findingdarwinsgod.com/

Dr. Kenneth Miller is … ah nevermind, you can look up his bio in Wiki.

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Here’s a 4 minutes of summary from the Dover school district trial, where he provided expert testimony. 4 minutes well spent.

 

[Teflon93]

Well, you might be surprised that we do.Familiar with microfossils? How about corals? Bivalves?

Yes. But you’ve inserted an assumption here—that the mechanism is the same regardless of the complexity of the organism. That’s precisely what’s in question, right?

I don’t think you are based on your claim that we have a ridiculously small number of samples.

How many hominid samples are there of the various hominid species claimed today? How many of those are complete specimens?

If we can show evolution through those types of fossils, haven’t we shown evolution?

For that population, sure. But you can’t extrapolate beyond your data. That’s what I mean by not knowing your stats.

Why would you need global distribution to be able to infer something from the fossil record?

Good question. It’s because the conditions which lead to fossilization tend to be localized conditions. Beyond the obvious problem of the fossil record really only being skewed toward vertebrates, there is the matter that a very small portion of the global landscape will produce fossils enduring from whatever time period the organism lived in until now. The La Brea tar pits yielded a wealth of fossils, but of course you won’t find kangaroo fossils there, right?

The population is not evenly distributed across the globe, and not all spots on the globe at any given time produce the conditions which produce in turn fossils. We therefore miss those organisms not abiding in such places with such conditions. Moreover, we wind up with a sample which is not representative of the population as a whole a problem worsened when sample sizes are small or specimens less complete.

For example, in my family, my eldest brother was over 6 feet tall. The middle brother is just 5’5" tall. If you had only the one or the other, what inference would you make regarding the height of my family?

Um, much of paleontology was around long before computer models. Were the interpretations we made prior to computer models valueless?Not much of a scientific answer for anything, don’t ya think?

Peace

Tim

And much of that earlier paleontology was quite limited in its inferences.

Hasn’t the global warming hoax amply demonstrated the problem with such modeling?

Does it bother you at all when claims are made out of all proportion to the evidence?

What I tend to find is that the actual expert researchers tend to refrain from making grand claims from very (and necessarily) limited evidence.

Indeed, the Church does this itself, which is why it does not condemn evolution (although obviously many Catholics do). The Church is quite reluctant to claim knowledge beyond which has been entrusted to it by God or discovered through the long centuries of inquiry.

For a similar example from the world of physics, the speed of light is known not to be a constant----it varies in a vacuum slightly due it is thought to gravitational effects. Now, as a practical matter, this doesn’t “refute” Einstein—it just means that a correction may be needed at extreme distances or when light moves through denser areas of space.

But neither did Einstein “refute” Newton—Newtonian physics works quite well and requires only minor correction for some applications at the margins.

And again, my quarrel isn’t with biologists operating within the evidence but rather with the know-nothings who take what has consumed lifetimes to learn and blow it up into the Universal Theory of Everything by relying on the ignorance of those they tell.

 

[hecd2]

As for observing gene additions, I’m reminded of Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. If memory serves me correctly, in it he shows how a certain scientist (I believe it was Kenneth Brown of Princeton) was claiming that genetic material was added by the phosphase reaction. Behe showed that the scientist was reading into the phenomenon what he wanted to see. Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh, and believed in evolution at one time. The fact is, no one has ever shown us one verifiable instance of the addition of genes into the DNA of any organism, and that is precisely what would be required to prove evolution – the addition of genes. We are not talking about the mutation of genes already present, but the addition of new and functional genes, unhampered by the 99% failure rate of mutated genes.

I am not going to debate someone by proxy, but Sungenis is talking arrant nonsense here. By claiming that new genes cannot be added to a genome, he is demonstrating his usual ignorance of science. There is very clear evidence for the process of gene duplication and new functions can be seen to arise by the co-option and modification of existing genes. There is a great deal of evidence for the addition of new genes to genomes.

In fact, if we were to base the rate that mutated genes produce beneficial changes so as to give a consistent upward progression of complexity and functionality to new organisms, Evolutionary Theory should change its name to Devolutionary Theory, since mutated genes devolve the organism 99% of the time. And even in the 1% or less of genes mutations that some might call neutral or beneficial, they don’t last beyond the host organism, and always make the host organism reproductively sterile.

Rubbish. All of these claims are also arrant nonsense. The science of population genetics goes back to 1930s and shows no such thing. What evidence can he possibly produce that beneficial or neutral mutations make organisms sterile and that they cannot fix. He wouldn’t be able to produce any evidence to support this assertion, because it’s false and such evidence doesn’t exist. This is another example of the contempt for truth displayed by creationists and IDers. They make it up as they go along. Sungenis also ignores the influence of purifying and stabilising selection. All that this proves is that Sungenis has no idea what he is talking about.

Evolution is bankrupt. It is pseudo-science posing as truth, intimidating those who don’t know science.

It’s Sungenis who is intellectually bankrupt. Those who do know science overwhelmingly disagree with what he has written here. It is creationists and IDers who try to persuade the scientifically illiterate with their pseudo-science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Orogeny]

Yes. But you’ve inserted an assumption here—that the mechanism is the same regardless of the complexity of the organism. That’s precisely what’s in question, right?

Depends. Are you arguing that evolution doesn’t happen or that the current theory doesn’t adequately explain how evolution works?

Besides, you are inserting an assumption that the mechanism is different regardless of the complexity of the organism. What basis do you have for inferring that the mechanism of evolution is different for an invertebrate versus a vertebrate?

How many hominid samples are there of the various hominid species claimed today? How many of those are complete specimens?

Unless you are arguing that hominids didn’t evolve, your question is meaningless. Enough has been found to demonstrate that evolution has occurred. Do we have the entire picture? No, of course not. But we have enough to know that they existed and evolved.

For that population, sure. But you can’t extrapolate beyond your data. That’s what I mean by not knowing your stats.

You mean “those” populations. I am not talking about one single line (although that is actually enough to show that evolution is a fact). I am talking about many different populations. Unless you want to claim that those animals that leave few fossils don’t evolve simply because there are few fossils, extrapolation is entirely appropriate.

Good question. It’s because the conditions which lead to fossilization tend to be localized conditions. Beyond the obvious problem of the fossil record really only being skewed toward vertebrates, there is the matter that a very small portion of the global landscape will produce fossils enduring from whatever time period the organism lived in until now. The La Brea tar pits yielded a wealth of fossils, but of course you won’t find kangaroo fossils there, right?

Actually, you have that backwards. We have many, many more invertebrate fossils than we do vertebrate fossils.

We find kangaroo fossils, so your scenario using La Brea is flawed. They don’t come from La Brea, but we have plenty of them to show that they evolved. Does the fact that they are not found in La Brea somehow mean that they didn’t exist or evolve?

The population is not evenly distributed across the globe, and not all spots on the globe at any given time produce the conditions which produce in turn fossils. We therefore miss those organisms not abiding in such places with such conditions. Moreover, we wind up with a sample which is not representative of the population as a whole a problem worsened when sample sizes are small or specimens less complete.

We don’t have fossil remains of all the animals or plants the have lived on the earth, that is correct. I don’t know how that somehow discounts the fossils we do have. Perhaps you can explain why I should discount the fossil horse sequence, for example, simply because I don’t have fossils of some other animal that existed in an environment that didn’t allow for fossilization.

For example, in my family, my eldest brother was over 6 feet tall. The middle brother is just 5’5" tall. If you had only the one or the other, what inference would you make regarding the height of my family?

That the individual was either over 6 ft tall or only 5’5" tall. Would I be wrong? Would the basic structure be different, other than size? Would you both have the same number of bones? Would the proportion of those bones be the same? Now, if we found the other brother and analyzed him, would we consider him a different species? No, because the structure is the same.

And much of that earlier paleontology was quite limited in its inferences.

What I tend to find is that the actual expert researchers tend to refrain from making grand claims from very (and necessarily) limited evidence. I suppose that I would ask you who the actual expert researchers are and what defines a grand claim. Actual expert researchers will affirm evolution and that the fossil record is very strong evidence for evolution.

And again, my quarrel isn’t with biologists operating within the evidence but rather with the know-nothings who take what has consumed lifetimes to learn and blow it up into the Universal Theory of Everything by relying on the ignorance of those they tell.

You mean like “Dr.” Sungenis? I agree.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Depends. Are you arguing that evolution doesn’t happen or that the current theory doesn’t adequately explain how evolution works?

Originally Posted by **Orogeny **[here](Originally Posted by Orogeny here)

*I know of no flaw in the theory of evolution. *

 

[Orogeny]

That’s right, reggie. I know of no flaws in the theory. Neither do you or you would have provided your evidence. Since you cannot do that, I know that you, as a rational person, cannot refute what I wrote unless you are doing so simply based on emotion. Which of course does not seem out of the realm of possibility.

Peace

Tim

 

[Teflon93]

Depends. Are you arguing that evolution doesn’t happen or that the current theory doesn’t adequately explain how evolution works?

Well, that would depend on which of the various definitions of evolution are in play. I would say that the narrow definition—that species change over time—is true and proven so. I would say that the larger claim—that evolution is unguided and fully explains the diversity of species—is unproven and may be untrue. The mechanism clearly has some gaps because punctuated equilibrium has been so difficult to test for complex species.

Besides, you are inserting an assumption that the mechanism is different regardless of the complexity of the organism. What basis do you have for inferring that the mechanism of evolution is different for an invertebrate versus a vertebrate?Unless you are arguing that hominids didn’t evolve, your question is meaningless.

You are assuming what you are attempting to prove—that the mechanism seen within smaller, short-lived species is the same for larger, complex species. One example for hominids is that humans do not always choose mates on the basis of desired genetic characteristics for offspring as other species seem to do.

It’s the same thing in physics, where Newtonian physics doesn’t seem to apply to the same degree at the subatomic level.

My frustration is that people keep insisting on assuming what they wish to prove.

Enough has been found to demonstrate that evolution has occurred.

What’s the definition? The definition of evolution keeps changing from when Darwin defined it. This also makes me more skeptical, since whenever we go back to the definition of species—isolated individuals not able to produce non-sterile offspring with each other—somebody comes up with a different definition for “species”. Since evolution attempts to explain the origin of the various species, this is fudging.

[QUTE]
Do we have the entire picture? No, of course not. But we have enough to know that they existed and evolved.You mean “those” populations. I am not talking about one single line (although that is actually enough to show that evolution is a fact). I am talking about many different populations.

I used “population” above in the statistical sense. In this case, it should be synonymous with “species.”

Unless you want to claim that those animals that leave few fossils don’t evolve simply because there are few fossils, extrapolation is entirely appropriate.

Not at all. We can’t extrapolate without enormous error when our sample is not typical of the population of interest for the characteristic of interest.

Actually, you have that backwards. We have many, many more invertebrate fossils than we do vertebrate fossils.

As a proportion of species? I would agree that in absolute numbers you are correct. I would argue that that would probably be due to the ecosystems being better for fossilization—such as seabeds.

We find kangaroo fossils, so your scenario using La Brea is flawed.

You are missing my point. We didn’t find them in La Brea, did we?

They don’t come from La Brea, but we have plenty of them to show that they evolved. Does the fact that they are not found in La Brea somehow mean that they didn’t exist or evolve?

I was using La Brea to indicate areas where fossilization occur are a small subset of the ecosphere.

This is what I mean when I say evolution advocates don’t understand statistical reasoning. They take a population—those species which exist in the fossil record—and apply characteristics of this to ALL species. It is not a RANDOM sample, and thus points to characteristics only of those which get fossilized.

If for example all I have are samples from La Brea, my findings legitimately apply only to flora in that area at that time. Going beyond that—extrapolating beyond my data set—introduces error which may well dwarf the variation inherent in my sample.

In my other example, you would be claiming that the mean height of my family would be 5’5"—or worse that the mean height of all 21st century humans was 5’5"—based on a low sample size and a skewed sample.

We don’t have fossil remains of all the animals or plants the have lived on the earth, that is correct. I don’t know how that somehow discounts the fossils we do have.

It doesn’t so long as one doesn’t try to draw inferences to all of that species or to all species in general.

I find that the researchers dealing with those particular specimens are typically quite cautious, until Gould or Dawkins or somebody rolls in and starts making claims well beyond the data.

And yes, it is better to have fossils than not.

A statistician would say the more samples the better, and of course the more randomly gathered samples the better. By focusing on the fossil record, we select for species and individuals within a species which lend to being fossilized.

It’s unavoidable, but one should also understand the limits of such inferences.

 

[Teflon93]

Perhaps you can explain why I should discount the fossil horse sequence, for example, simply because I don’t have fossils of some other animal that existed in an environment that didn’t allow for fossilization.That the individual was either over 6 ft tall or only 5’5" tall. Would I be wrong?

Yes, if for that particular sample of horse was not typical of the horse population and you’re applying inferences to the population as a whole.

Just as if you tried to predict the U.S. presidential election results by dropping by my house and asking my wife and I whom we voted for.

Would the basic structure be different, other than size?

It may well be so. There is significant variation in characteristics within a species, sometimes as much as between species depending on the characteristic in question.

In my own family, we range in height from 5’3" tall to 6’1" tall. That’s quite a difference, isn’t it?

Would you both have the same number of bones? Would the proportion of those bones be the same? Now, if we found the other brother and analyzed him, would we consider him a different species? No, because the structure is the same.

But as you no doubt know there has been much controversy in hominid anthropology over where to draw species lines based on a) the small number of extant specimens, b) the incompleteness of the extant specimens and c) the definition of species.

What I tend to find is that the actual expert researchers tend to refrain from making grand claims from very (and necessarily) limited evidence.

I suppose that I would ask you who the actual expert researchers are and what defines a grand claim. Actual expert researchers will affirm evolution and that the fossil record is very strong evidence for evolution.You mean like “Dr.” Sungenis? I agree.

Peace

Tim

A grand claim is that evolution has been proven to explain the diversity of species, the change of one species into another over time, that evolution is a blind and unguided process, etc.

Dawkins among others makes such claims.

I don’t feel the need to denigrate Sungenis—it’s telling that you do rather than focus on the facts.

It is one thing to say some claims of evolution have not proven out yet and another to say it’s wrong.

You don’t seem very open-minded on the subject based on this exchange.

Shouldn’t the object be truth, even if something dear is proven mistaken?

 

[Teflon93]

As for evolution being a “pseudo science”, I think unfortunately zealous materialists have hijacked it and tried to make it so in much the same way that unscrupulous leftists hijacked climatology.

They forget that Gregor Mendel was a monk.

If anyone has a mind to understand the true intersection of science and religion versus the atheist ranting that makes headlines today and attempts to put science and religion at odds, The Teaching Company has an excellent lecture series worth checking out:

teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1200

 

[reggieM]

That’s right, reggie. I know of no flaws in the theory [of evolution].

 

[reggieM]

The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of … [any theories of evolution] which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

 

[Orogeny]

Well, that would depend on which of the various definitions of evolution are in play. I would say that the narrow definition—that species change over time—is true and proven so. I would say that the larger claim—that evolution is unguided and fully explains the diversity of species—is unproven and may be untrue. The mechanism clearly has some gaps because punctuated equilibrium has been so difficult to test for complex species.

So you agree that evolution is a fact. Good. We can disagree on how it happens. The mechanism or mechanisms don’t have gaps. Our understanding of those mechanisms do, but that in no way invalidates the theories.

You are assuming what you are attempting to prove—that the mechanism seen within smaller, short-lived species is the same for larger, complex species. One example for hominids is that humans do not always choose mates on the basis of desired genetic characteristics for offspring as other species seem to do.

The mechanism is a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Those changes, if beneficial to the environment the organism is living in, will be passed on. That is true for short-lived species and for long-lived species.

What’s the definition? The definition of evolution keeps changing from when Darwin defined it. This also makes me more skeptical, since whenever we go back to the definition of species—isolated individuals not able to produce non-sterile offspring with each other—somebody comes up with a different definition for “species”. Since evolution attempts to explain the origin of the various species, this is fudging.

You acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The problem you have is with the current theory.

I used “population” above in the statistical sense. In this case, it should be synonymous with “species.”

My point remains.

Not at all. We can’t extrapolate without enormous error when our sample is not typical of the population of interest for the characteristic of interest.

Unless the organisms that we have small sample sets for operate under different natural laws, we certainly can extrapolate. We do not need every single individual of a species to be fossilized and found for us to understand that evolution occurs. Do you have any reason, statistical or scientific, to think that organisms that rarely fossilize don’t evolve or are not subject the same processes as those we have many fossils of?

You are missing my point. We didn’t find them in La Brea, did we?

I was using La Brea to indicate areas where fossilization occur are a small subset of the ecosphere.

Perhaps I am not understanding your point. Are you suggesting that we extrapolate the biota of the entire world based on one fossil site?

This is what I mean when I say evolution advocates don’t understand statistical reasoning. They take a population—those species which exist in the fossil record—and apply characteristics of this to ALL species. It is not a RANDOM sample, and thus points to characteristics only of those which get fossilized.

Do you have any reason, statistical or scientific, to think that there was a species that was not subject to the same forces as those species that we know evolved? If so, I am all ears.

If for example all I have are samples from La Brea, my findings legitimately apply only to flora in that area at that time. Going beyond that—extrapolating beyond my data set—introduces error which may well dwarf the variation inherent in my sample.

One minor correction, I think you meant fauna instead of flora.

Ok, so we have a series of fossils that we found at a place like La Brea. We know those animals evolved over time (although part of the problem with La Brea is that it really is a geologically recent site so we don’t have a long period of fossilization to look at) because we have the fossils to study. Based simply on that, you claim that we cannot say that any other animals, alive at the time but not represented in our set of fossils, evolved? If not, can we say they were carbon based? That they breathed air?

I find that the researchers dealing with those particular specimens are typically quite cautious, until Gould or Dawkins or somebody rolls in and starts making claims well beyond the data.

I guess I don’t know where you are getting this. I know of no scientific claimes that Gould made regarding evolution that was not based on the evidence. I don’t know Dawkins very well, so I will defer to you on him.

And yes, it is better to have fossils than not.

We definately agree on that.

A statistician would say the more samples the better, and of course the more randomly gathered samples the better. By focusing on the fossil record, we select for species and individuals within a species which lend to being fossilized.

Statisticians are not the only ones who understand that.

Peace

Tim

 

[redhen]

I still invite the OP and others to put aside, for now, paleontology, anthropology and the fossil record for a moment, and spend four minutes to watch this Catholic professor of cell biology recap his testimony in the Dover district school trial.

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

[Teflon93]

So you agree that evolution is a fact. Good. We can disagree on how it happens.

Sure, but as noted, it depends on your definition of “evolution”. Father Mendel rather convincingly proved that species can be changed by controlling their reproduction, right? I don’t think too many Catholics think Mendel was mistaken.

The mechanism or mechanisms don’t have gaps.

Well, hang on. That’s not true for Newtonian physics, is it?

Our understanding of those mechanisms do, but that in no way invalidates the theories.

Well, that is the definition of invalidation. Ptolemy’s system worked just fine; it simply didn’t work as well as Copernicus’.

The mechanism is a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Those changes, if beneficial to the environment the organism is living in, will be passed on.

Kind of a “just so” story. The dinosaurs were quite successful until that asteroid hit the Yucatan; that whole generation of dinosaurs never passed anything on. It’s a dodge to say “See! The environment caused it!” for what statisticians would call “special cause variation”.

In short, you’ve simply assumed that all species extant today were perfectly tuned to their environment. It has no predictive power.

Makes it kind of shoddy as a theory, right?

That is true for short-lived species and for long-lived species.You acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The problem you have is with the current theory

Not even so much that as the cosmological extrapolations of the theory from the very limited evidence we have.

People fudge terms, which make it all the more difficult as they shoehorn in their own pet ideas.

.My point remains.Unless the organisms that we have small sample sets for operate under different natural laws, we certainly can extrapolate.

It would depend on the sample size and how typical the sample is of the overall population of the species. For some hominid species, we have a handful of incomplete specimins. Would you agree that that is a big problem in extrapolating to a hypothesized species population of tens of thousands or millions?

We do not need every single individual of a species to be fossilized and found for us to understand that evolution occurs.

No, we’d need three things:

1. A sufficient representative sample to produce acceptable confidence intervals of the characteristic mean for the population in question;
2. Enough samples taken over time to adequately capture the variation over time;
3. A plausible (statisticians would look for a good model fit (R-sq) value) model to explain the variation.

Do you have any reason, statistical or scientific, to think that organisms that rarely fossilize don’t evolve or are not subject the same processes as those we have many fossils of?

Well, that’s what evolution advocates tell us when trying to explain why there are so few fossils. I take them at their word.

Perhaps I am not understanding your point. Are you suggesting that we extrapolate the biota of the entire world based on one fossil site?

Per species, sometimes, yes. But keep in mind that a fairly large sample size would be needed to significantly reduce error if the process is not purely random.

It’s easier to think of this in climatology, actually. Part of the problems with the temperature data is that a whole lot of Siberian temperature stations went off line when the USSR did, leaving us without surface data over a big part of the coldest portion of the earth. This drove the mean temps up from the remaining surface data.

Something like this could well be going on with the fossil record. It’s tough to say because it’s so spotty, but don’t you think we should avoid simply assuming that the fossils we have are representative of the overall species?

We don’t do this in any other scientific discipline that I’m aware of.

Do you have any reason, statistical or scientific, to think that there was a species that was not subject to the same forces as those species that we know evolved? If so, I am all ears.One minor correction, I think you meant fauna instead of flora.

You’re correct—should have been “fauna”.

Sure—bacteria at heat vents in the ocean.

And I’m sure you know there are a lot of things which simply don’t survive fossilization.

Ok, so we have a series of fossils that we found at a place like La Brea. We know those animals evolved over time (although part of the problem with La Brea is that it really is a geologically recent site so we don’t have a long period of fossilization to look at) because we have the fossils to study.

Yes, and dating measurement error is another headache-inducing problem which ought to be factored in.

 

[Teflon93]

Based simply on that, you claim that we cannot say that any other animals, alive at the time but not represented in our set of fossils, evolved?

If it met the three conditions above, sure. But you know as well as I do how difficult it has been to demonstrate evolution even when we control everything, such as multiple generations of fruit flies. This is the heart of the transitional fossil problem and why it has been insoluble to date.

If not, can we say they were carbon based? That they breathed air?I guess I don’t know where you are getting this. I know of no scientific claimes that Gould made regarding evolution that was not based on the evidence. I don’t know Dawkins very well, so I will defer to you on him.We definately agree on that.Statisticians are not the only ones who understand that.

Peace

Tim

Absolutely, some characteristics are easier to prove than others. And believe me, I don’t think statisticians explain much of anything. Indeed, it’s darned difficult to prove anything in multivariate situations. I just think statisticians in general do a better job explaining what we don’t know since the focus of statistics is probability and error.

And I don’t equate absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

I think that we should have great respect for the biologists who’ve spent lifetimes understanding the world around us, but we should also have derision for those who attempt to take huge shortcuts for fame, fortune, or power.

The Church does not condemn evolution per se, but has a real problem with people like Dawkins who claim without evidence to have cracked the origins of life.

For myself, I’m still a skeptic on evolution between species as I haven’t seen compelling evidence for punctuated equilibrium which overcomes measurement and sampling error.

I also don’t want to oversell the reductionist view of this—the very real concerns over sampling and measurement don’t imply that we haven’t learned much of value from the fossil record. I for one hope that the genome mapping effort and proteomics (think that’s right—the study of proteins) will continue to yield insight into the origins of life.

Good discussion.