Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[Digger71]

mike182d:

Why would nipples on birds discredit evolution? Lack of function?

Evolutionary theory is based (in part) on the fact features run in lineages, “family resemblance”, if you like. These similarities are a FACT of biology and are EXPLAINED by evolutionary theory.

Nipples are a feature found only in mammals, evolutionary theory explains this by claiming they evolved after reptiles and mammals diversified. Mammals went down the nipple route, developing fur, follicles, sweat glands and milk (Synapsids I think) and the other branch got impermeable skin and scales.

The latter branch then branched again producing dinosaurs, and branched again producing birds. Birds, being a type of reptile never got prototype material for nipples (that had aapeared on another branch). They got feathers, not fur. they retained scales, they never developed sweat glands and so never had an excretory system for releasing milk, and so no opportunity for mammal-like milk glands existed.

Now, if nipples did appear on birds we have the problem that nipples evolved on a different branch of the tree of life after diversification of mammals from reptiles. And reptiles diversified further. For nipple to appear on birds the feature would have to leap from one branch to another like a squirrel. The features that nipples are clearly derived from (remember, descent with modification) are absent in birds. So for nipples to be found there would mean the features appeared by some mechanism other than by adaption of a pre-existing feature.

Is that clear?

Oh, that does not mean that a similar effect cannot evolve by a different pathway. The Discus fish produces a food-slime from the side of its body for it’s young. It serves a similar function as milk and is produced by slime glands (again, an excretory system), but its similarity is in function, not composition.

Penguins, alleged birds, possess wings but cannot fly and yet they pose no threat to evolution.

As the problem of nipples and does not relate to function, but to descent with modification, your argument is moot.

If there was a fossil found of a mammal with feathers, it could *easily *be explained away by evolutionists as being the product of random mutations that failed and thus consistent with their existing model of evolution.

Feathers evolved on a different branch of the tree of life. For mammals to have them would falsify descent with modificaton.

Evolution as a theory amounts to nothing more than saying that things change and the fact that they change is true because of the fact that they change.

Evolution explains why features of animals run in lineages. That is, it explains why birds dont have nipples.

Name one thing that could possibly disprove the theory of evolution in its current state. I’m all ears. If it is not falsifiable, it is not a valid scientific theory.

Nipples on birds.

 

[mike182d]

TheRaiders:

stop imposing absolute truths on me, becasue absolute truths do not exist.

Absolute truths do not exist absolutely.

 

[mike182d]

Digger71:

Evolutionary theory is based (in part) on the fact features run in lineages, “family resemblance”, if you like. These similarities are a FACT of biology and are EXPLAINED by evolutionary theory.

Then why is it that a lineage constructed from genetic similarities diverges greatly from a lingeage constructed from aesthetic appearances? If common ancestry and evolution are true, would not the two be the same?

Nipples are a feature found only in mammals, evolutionary theory explains this by claiming they evolved after reptiles and mammals diversified. Mammals went down the nipple route, developing fur, follicles, sweat glands and milk (Synapsids I think) and the other branch got impermeable skin and scales.

If that’s evolution’s explanation, it doesn’t explain anything. It only says “mammals have nipples because only mammals developed nipples.” I suppose evolution is also going to tell us that the Pope is Catholic because he’s Catholic. Curiously absent are the reasons why mammals would develop nipples and how this is advantageous over their reptilian descendents. Once again, evolution looks at the past and what has happened and says that it happened because it happened.

The latter branch then branched again producing dinosaurs, and branched again producing birds.

How?

Now, if nipples did appear on birds we have the problem that nipples evolved on a different branch of the tree of life after diversification of mammals from reptiles. And reptiles diversified further. For nipple to appear on birds the feature would have to leap from one branch to another like a squirrel. The features that nipples are clearly derived from (remember, descent with modification) are absent in birds. So for nipples to be found there would mean the features appeared by some mechanism other than by adaption of a pre-existing feature.

Is that clear?

Not quite. If a series of genetic mutations occured within birds that allowed them to provide sustenance for their young by means of “nipples” or an equivilent, that would be entirely consistent with the theory of evolution. Nowhere within the theory of evolution does it state that one species cannot exhibit traits of another, regardless of how far along the phylogenic tree. In fact, evolution seems to argue the contrary. Mutations within an species are *random *and so if evolution were true, it *would *be entirely possible for a bird to develop nipples as such development is not dependent upon the limitations of its own species or bound by any structured, organized categorization - that would be *organized *or *planned *mutation.

Here’s my main problem with evolution regarding this matter. If the theory of evolution is true, there is no such thing as speciation as every organism is a variation of the same thing to one degree or another and our classification of organisms into “species” is merely an attempt by human beings with limited mental capacities trying to put everything into a box. You don’t have “jumps” from one species to the next within evolution, but rather gradual change through a series of mutations over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

I would say that because you will not find a bird with nipples or that you can even categorize organisms into definitive classes a part from others is evidence contrary to evolution.

Feathers evolved on a different branch of the tree of life. For mammals to have them would falsify descent with modificaton.

And yet be consistent with random mutations giving rise to speciation.

Evolution explains why features of animals run in lineages. That is, it explains why birds dont have nipples.

How? How does evolution “explain” this? It only says that animals “evolved” into their current lineages because animals evolve into lineages. It doesn’t explain why there’s only one direct lineage, as opposed to multiple lineages created over time, or even decide *which *lineage to follow. Are we to believe the lineage determined by morphology or the lineage determined by molecular composition? Why aren’t the two consistent? Why should we believe one over the other?

 

[Digger71]

mike182d:

1. Does an organism owe its existence to its biological makeup and ability to 1.1adapt to its surrounding environment?

2.The “advantageous” property of any organism’s traits is not an objective one that can be quatifiably measured.
2.1 It is the subjective opinion of reasoned human beings viewing the history of life in retrospect and fitting it into their preconceived molds and ideas of how life works.

I’ll give a demonstration of what you require in a moment. First.

1. Yes, that is exactly right except for 1.2 where you mean survive, adaption does not occur at a genetic level during the organisms life.
2. Yes it is. 2.2 Science and culture are based on culmulative experience, as are day to day judgements.

So, to demonstrate.

We will design a fitness landscape and populate it with 2 organisms and then guess which will produce most offspring, and which will die out.

The landscape: a vivarium of clay based mud with free standing pools of water populated with algae. No pool is more than 6" long or wide, and 3" deep. 80% of the vivarium is ground. Food in the form fo bugs and worms is added daily, always enough for the inhabitants. The environment is kept moist witha fine water mist, but artificial drainage keeps the pools at their present size.

Yes, it’s a marshy vivarium.

We will add a purely aquatic organisms, male and female. we want it to be full sized sexually mature. We’ll make them carnivorous so they can eat bugs.

We will add a second semi-aquetic organism we want it to be full sized sexually mature. We’ll make them carnivorous so they can eat bugs.

Which would you expect to flourish? Without specific animals mentioned we would guess the semi-aquetic species would provide more young as they are adapted to both the watery and the land environments.

If we get specific and add two koi carp and two common or garden frogs we see immediately that the carp would die as the environment is not suitable. A full grown Koi at 12" long would not even fit in one pool.

We can run the experiment anyway.

Thus we can objectively claim we know what environment a creature needs. The Koi needs enough water to breath in, and that means a pool at least twice it’s size by volume. Even then, it would die, but not as quickly.

If we came back to the experiment and the Koi had suddenly devloped lungs and traits to survive on land then we would have to throw out all ideas of descent with modification, we would have discovered that survival does not depend on an organism to lanscape match.

Oh, and a Koi survivng out of water would clearly break all our preconcieved notions about koi carp and how life proceeds.

Demonstrate to me, quantifiably, how it is more advantageous to have lungs over gills,

The exact figures I don’t know. But I would think it would be to do with the amount of accessable oxygen in the environment. Gills extract oxygen from water, but not from air, lungs do the reverse of this. Water could be breathable IF it’s oxygen content was high enough, but it isnt.

However, liquid breathing is possible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

The point being we can calculate an organisms oxygen requirements and compare it to available oxygen and make a calculation of the organisms viability in that environment.

It’s not subjective. It’s measurable. And we can make predictions based on measurements and comparisons.

You are not, by the way, attacking evolutionary theory here, but biology; a subsiduary claim you are making is we are being ‘subjective’ when we say ‘animals need food’ or ‘plants need light’, or ‘guppies die in artic tempuratures’.

 

[Digger71]

I will deal with your latest post piece by piece.

mike182d:

If that’s evolution’s explanation, it doesn’t explain anything. It only says “mammals have nipples because only mammals developed nipples.”

That is not what evolutionary theory says. It says that nipples evolved after mammals split from reptiles, which it why it is not a shared feature.

For features that evolved before the split evolution says we would expect those shared features to exist in both branches.

mammals and reptiles are tetrapods, four limbed. This shared feature is explained by the last common ancestor being a tatrapod. Because tetrapodism evolved before the split, it is a shared by both groups. Because birds evolved from dinosaurs which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from the last common ancestor with mammals, birds too are tetrapods.

Curiously absent are the reasons why mammals would develop nipples

Why? I think you mean ‘how’. Not everthing is known and may never be, but this is a different question.

Once again, evolution looks at the past and what has happened and says that it happened because it happened.

No, evolution posits several mechanisms by which mutations occur creating slight differentials in a creatures reproductive chances, and these differentials mean certain features become more common.

 

[Digger71]

mike182d:

Not quite. If a series of genetic mutations occured within birds that allowed them to provide sustenance for their young by means of “nipples” or an equivilent,

It is quite possible that ‘an equivilent’ could evolve in birds. But ‘equivilent’ would not make it a mammalian nipple. This is a vital distinction.

In fact, evolution seems to argue the contrary. Mutations within an species are *random *and so if evolution were true, it *would *be entirely possible for a bird to develop nipples as such development is not dependent upon the limitations of its own species or bound by any structured, organized categorization - that would be *organized *or *planned *mutation.

And here you is where you go wrong. Random mutation is correct, but it is mutation working on material that is already present. If you take a normal 6 sided die you can only get the numbers 1-6 on the top face. If you take a 20 sided die you can get the numbers 1-20 on the top face. The number shown is random, but the range of results is limited by the dice type.

So random in this case means does not mean ‘limitless’ and it does not magic up features out of no where. Of course, with each new mutation the material for future mutations is modified.

 

[PhilVaz]

R McGed << OK here goes, I don’t know who or when, but a scientist once theorised that the Earth orbitted the Sun. That is now irrefutably proven. >>

Make sure you quote the right person. Tim said this (see post #68 in this thread), not Shelby:

Tim (Orogeny) << What you want are absolutes. NO science works that way. Name me one single scientific theory that has been proven. One. I’ll wait. >>

Tim is right. Proof is for mathematics, logic, and alcohol. Scientific theories are not proved, they are disproved. There are no absolutes in science. Geocentrism was abandoned because of the strong evidence against it. Evolution is not proved either, but there is strong evidence for it, and no evidence against it, and no alternative scientific theory to replace it.

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

mike182d:

Absolute truths do not exist absolutely.

and this is the absolute truth of the matter.

 

[Digger71]

mike182d:

Then why is it that a lineage constructed from genetic similarities diverges greatly from a lingeage constructed from aesthetic appearances? If common ancestry and evolution are true, would not the two be the same?

But this isnt true. Closely related species resemble each other, for example, the african great apes (including us), darwins finches, the galapagos tortoises.

Nowhere within the theory of evolution does it state that one species cannot exhibit traits of another, regardless of how far along the phylogenic tree.

There may be a mixture of issues here. Evolution specifically does state that one species can have the traits of another, if that trait existed before the species branched. Tetrapodism is a trait shared by many species, for example.

But evolution also notes that natural selection transfers information from the environment to the animal and that similar solutions produce similar outcomes.

Two examples: The galapogus (sp?) islands have two generic types of tortoise, the round back and the saddle back. The saddle bak tortoises have an arch at the front of their shells, a long neck, and long legs. The round backs have a low arch, short necks and short legs. The two sorts feed at different levels, the saddle backs eating leaves higher off the ground than the round backs.

Does tha description remind you of anything? Giraffes and Okapis, perhaps?

The trait of a ‘long neck’ is shared by saddle backs and giraffes, does this make it aa shared trait? Well, yes is does, but does that make giraffes reptiles or tortoises mammals? No it doesnt.

 

[AquinaSavio]

PhilVaz:

Scientific theories are not proved, they are disproved. There are no absolutes in science. Geocentrism was abandoned because of the strong evidence against it. Evolution is not proved either, but there is strong evidence for it, and no evidence against it, and no alternative scientific theory to replace it.

I noted that most of your links are evolutionist pages. We should be more like Fox News: Fair and Balanced.

Funny, but I remember hearing plenty of evidence against evolution. Why should a scientific theory replace it? Evolution is more philosophy than anything else. You can’t observe it, and many theories involving it are based on naturalism or circular reasoning.

By the way, no one has responded to my post about evolution’s failure to explain instinct.

 

[rossum]

mike182d (Post #160):

I have not heard any convincing proposals for whatadequately falsify evolution.

Evolution-as-fact cannot be falsified as it is a fact. The genetic makeup of interbreeding populations does change over time. Evolution-as-theory can be falsified. When JBS Haldane was asked the same question he replied “A Devonian rabbit.” A Devonian rabbit would be an immense problem for the ToE because there are no immediate ancestors for rabbits found in the Devonian. The nearest there was to a rabbit was something like the newly discovered Tiktaalik. The jump from that to a rabbit is far too big to be covered within the Devonian period.

mike182d:

The “advantageous” property of any organism’s traits is not an objective one that can be quatifiably measured.

The ability to hold breath underwater can be quantifiably measured. It is trivially advantageous to whales, dolphins, seals etc. The optical qualities of different eyes can be objectively measured using the equations of optics. Your point here is incorrect.

mike182d:

Demonstrate to me, quantifiably, how it is more advantageous to have lungs over gills

Having gills allows breathing in water, provided the water has oxygen dissolved in it. Having both lungs and gills allows the use of oxygen from the air when the oxygen in the water is depleted, for example when a shallow pool dries up and it is necessary to get to another pool, or just to survive until the next rains refill the pool. Algal blooms can also deplete oxygen in water making lungs an advantage. Our tetrapod ancestors lived in shallow waters where these issues were likely to be a problem. That is how Tiktaalik was found, they were looking for fossils in rocks of a particular age laid down in shallow water.

mike182d:

can evolution make any predictions for the future regarding which traits will succeed and which traits will eventually die off in organisms? Or what is the current perceived rate of evolution and what can we expect it to yield in the next 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000 years?

Evolution keeps organisms adapted to their environment, so in order to predict evolution it is necessary to be able to predict the environment. You tell me what the environment will be like in 1,000,000 years, and I will tell you what evolution will produce. I can predict that if global warming continues then a number of cold adapted species will go extinct or else change so they are better adapted to a warmer climate. The larger the animal the more likely it is to go extinct because of the longer time for a generation.

Evolution can make predictions. We will never find a fossil of a pegasus, a horse with bird’s wings. The last common ancestor of a bird and a horse was neither a mammal nor a bird. Once two lineages have separated they can never join again so it is not possible for a characteristic unique to one lineage to transfer across to a different lineage. When mammals evolved flight, they used a very different kind of wing, as seen on bats.

As I said above Tiktaalik was a successful prediction. Both the age of the rocks and the environment in which the rocks were initially laid down were successfully predicted.
mike182d (Post #163):

Then why is it that a lineage constructed from genetic similarities diverges greatly from a lingeage constructed from aesthetic appearances? If common ancestry and evolution are true, would not the two be the same?

Your source is wrong. The “lineage constructed from aesthetic appearances” and the “lineage constructed from genetic similarities” are the same. That is one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution, called the “twin nested hierarchies”. The “appearance” version was constructed long before the discovery of DNA. The “genetic” version is recent and the two match to a very high degree of accuracy. Mathematically there is an immense number of possible trees yet these two trees are almost exact matches. See here for further details. This article gives potential falsifications for its points, so it also answers the question about how evolution can be falsified.

rossum

 

[rossum]

AquinaSavio:

You can’t observe it

We can observe bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, that is evolution. Your statement is incorrect.

AquinaSavio:

By the way, no one has responded to my post about evolution’s failure to explain instinct.

Evolution has not “failed” to explain instinct, your question was answered before you even asked it. See Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter 7 Instinct. Darwin spent a very long time thinking about evolution before publishing and anticipated many possible questions, including this one. His book is well worth reading.

rossum

 

[Digger71]

rossum:

We can observe bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, that is evolution. Your statement is incorrect.

Single celled organisms have been observed to become multi-celled — big morphological change.

Wild species of plants have been recreated by hybridisation in the lab — big morphological change, instant speciation.

Some species are threatened with being ‘hybridised’ out of existance — big morphological change.

Tusklessness in African elephants has gone from 5% to 80% in parts of africa — big morphological change.

Reproductively isolation has been created in fruitflies based on environmental choices — true speciation.

 

[Donald45]

AquinaSavio:

I noted that most of your links are evolutionist pages. We should be more like Fox News: Fair and Balanced.

Are you suggesting that one should go to anti-evolution sources for an accurate explanation of evolution? Again (as was posted earlier), this is somewhat akin to appealing to Fidel Castro for a “fair and balanced” view of free market capitalism. No, one should obtain his information directly from the horse’s mouth, and not through second-hand, anti-evolutionary sources.

Don

 

[Donald45]

AquinaSavio:

Funny, but I remember hearing plenty of evidence against evolution.

No, you heard the misinformed anti-evolutionists’ claims of evidence against evolution. Do you also recall hearing the voluminous responses to those claims made by evolutionists on this (and other) thread(s), as well as the mountain of empirical scientific evidence which exists to establish evolution as a scientific principle undergirding the entire scientific enterprise? Or have you already, on a purely theological basis, dismissed evolution in general, and therefore proceed to brush aside any proposed arguments in its favor in particular?

I’d be interested in your understanding of Genesis 1-2, Noah’s flood, etc.—in general, your basic approach to interpreting Scripture in light of the findings of science. It might illuminate things considerably.

Truly,
Don

 

[AquinaSavio]

rossum:

We can observe bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, that is evolution. Your statement is incorrect.

Well, evolutionists claim that evolution takes place over thousands of years. How then, can bacterial resistance come about in one generation?

Evolution is the transition of one kind to another. Simply becoming resistant to antibiotics produces no new kinds.

rossum:

Evolution has not “failed” to explain instinct, your question was answered before you even asked it. See Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter 7 Instinct. Darwin spent a very long time thinking about evolution before publishing and anticipated many possible questions, including this one. His book is well worth reading.

Thank you. I wasn’t saying that an explanation for instinct did not exist. I was asking for the explanation.

 

[AquinaSavio]

Donald45:

Are you suggesting that one should go to anti-evolution sources for an accurate explanation of evolution? Again (as was posted earlier), this is somewhat akin to appealing to Fidel Castro for a “fair and balanced” view of free market capitalism. No, one should obtain his information directly from the horse’s mouth, and not through second-hand, anti-evolutionary sources.

I agree, we should go through a source that holds no predjudice. Such sources are hard to find.

Donald45:

No, you heard the misinformed anti-evolutionists’ claims of evidence against evolution. Do you also recall hearing the voluminous responses to those claims made by evolutionists on this (and other) thread(s), as well as the mountain of empirical scientific evidence which exists to establish evolution as a scientific principle undergirding the entire scientific enterprise? Or have you already, on a purely theological basis, dismissed evolution in general, and therefore proceed to brush aside any proposed arguments in its favor in particular?

So, you are saying that there is no evidence against evolution? That sounds like predjudice. My doubt of evolution is based on theological basis as well as scientific. However, you have already shown that you have dismissed these and “brushed aside any proposed arguments in [their] favor…” Therefore, there is no reason to continue this. Let’s agree to disagree again.

 

[Digger71]

AquinaSavio:

Well, evolutionists claim that evolution takes place over thousands of years. How then, can bacterial resistance come about in one generation?

Another misconception. Evolution happens all the time and the results depend on the mechanisms invlved and the environmental pressures…

Evolution is the transition of one kind to another. Simply becoming resistant to antibiotics produces no new kinds.

‘Kinds’ is a value free, definition free concept.

Tigers and lions can produce fertile offspring. Therefore they are the same ‘kind’ (cats), but dometic cats and tigers do not breed, so they are of ‘different kinds’ (yet still cats).

 

[AquinaSavio]

Digger71:

Another misconception. Evolution happens all the time and the results depend on the mechanisms invlved and the environmental pressures…

I’m very mistaken, I’m sure. I guess if a person considered unintelligent studies for years and becomes quite intelligent, they have evolved!

This is not so. Organisms can change…that does not mean they have evolved.

 

[Donald45]

AquinaSavio:

I agree, we should go through a source that holds no predjudice. Such sources are hard to find… So, you are saying that there is no evidence against evolution? That sounds like predjudice. My doubt of evolution is based on theological basis as well as scientific. However, you have already shown that you have dismissed these and “brushed aside any proposed arguments in [their] favor…”

There are no sources that hold “no prejudice.” My point is that one should go to primary evolutionary sources to learn about evolution, and to primary creationist sources to learn about creationism. I wouldn’t go to Richard Dawkins for lessons on creationism, any more than I’d turn to Duane Gish for an explanation of evolution.

Yes, I am saying there is no compelling scientific evidence against evolution per se. Creationism (including Intelligent Design) offers no such evidence, since it is essentially a theological position, rather than a scientific one. Therefore, my rejection of such “arguments” are not prejudicial, but are based upon a scientific analysis of the nature of creationism itself. As a religious viewpoint, it simply doesn’t fit the self-described criterion of “science.”

My acceptance of evolution as a scientific position is in no way based upon my personal theology, as you admit your rejection of evolution is. Though I am a Christian, and hold to Christian doctrine, I embrace evolution because of the overwhelming empirical case for its occurrence, both in the past and as we speak. To deny this reality would be to refuse to engage in the God-given process of critical thought, which would hardly be a way to honor One I’ve pledged to love with all my mind.

I have not “brushed aside any proposed argument” in favor of your position. I have denied the legitimacy of using theological convictions in place of scientific conclusions. I have refused to treat biblical or doctrinal arguments as “science” when they in fact are not. And I have argued against various anti-evolutionary arguments which claim to be “scientific,” yet must be disqualified on the basis of their being both uninformed and even ill-informed concerning evolutionary theory. The very first task of the scientific critic is to properly, accurately, and clearly represent his opponent’s position. The anti-evolutionist who repeatedly and continually misrepresents, misunderstands, and misapplies his opponent’s views ought not be surprised when his conclusions about evolution are questioned, critiqued, and rejected by those who have expended the long hours and hard work of comprehending evolution as it is actually held by professional scientists.

Also, you neglected to answer the second part of my Post #175.

Don