Ignorance and evolution

[The_Barbarian]

yes you are correct
Gould is dead

I bet he was surprised

Maybe not so much. Later in life, he went from atheism to agnosticism, and once speculated that the whole evolutionary thing of evolving life (and finally consciousness) was because a creator wanted someone to share it with.

His later discussions of religion and faith show a respect for faith and a longing to believe, that is present in many agnostics. I pray it went well for him.

 

[ricmat]

Later in life, he went from atheism to agnosticism, and once speculated that the whole evolutionary thing of evolving life (and finally consciousness) was because a creator wanted someone to share it with.

His later discussions of religion and faith show a respect for faith and a longing to believe, that is present in many agnostics.

Well, thanks for that good news (really)!

 

[PhilVaz]

Thing << But you see, Phil, that looks like a horse to me. I want to see the fossils of the creature that gave rise to that horse, - and which does not look like a horse, and the transitionals between. >>

Well might look somewhat like a horse (just like “dogs” look somewhat like “horses”), except it was less than 1 foot tall (about 20 centimeters), and had 4/3 toes, while modern horses are much taller and have one toe. The “dawn horse” looked more like a dog and was fox-sized, lived in the forest. That’s 50 million years of evolution. If you want to know the evolution of the “horse” you start with that little one (Hyracotherium).

---

From another site: The horse’s first direct ancestor looked like something between a fox and a hyrax. (Picture of a “rock hyrax” below).

http://www.newrider.com/Library/Misc_Tips/images/feet/rock_hyrax.jpg

Indeed, its first and correct scientific name, Hyracotherium, was coined because it was believed to be related to the hyrax. A later name for the same ancestor, Eohippus, was used because the fossils were first discovered in deposits from the Eocene epoch. (Hippus coming from the Greek for horse.)

---

If you want the evolution before Hyracotherium, then you want to look into the evolution of the Order Perissodactyla, the odd-toed ungulates. I provided the books already.

Further, since these are mammals, you’ll want to examine reptile to mammal evolution, which began about 250 million years ago. There are dozens of transitionals. Also some books are

Kenneth Rose The Beginning of the Age of Mammals (John Hopkins, 2005)
T.S. Kemp The Origin and Evolution of Mammals (Oxford Univ, 2005)
David R. Wallace Beasts of Eden: Walking Whales, Dawn Horses, and Other Enigmas of Mammal Evolution (Univ CA Press, 2005)

Most of these books should be readily available in any university library. They are all 2005 so up to date.

But I still call going from a dog/hyrax/fox to a horse in 50 million years macroevolution.

Do you know any dogs that are the size of horses, have one-toed hooves, wear a horseshoe, and run in the Kentucky Derby?

Phil P

 

[Wolseley]

yes you are correct
Gould is dead

I bet he was surprised

I wonder what the palentologist who digs him up a million years from now will classify him as? Homo undecidedus?

 

[edwest2]

There are many varieties of dogs, from tiny, hairless varieties to the Great Dane. Oh wait, they are all dogs. The Chihuaua is not on its way to evolving into a Great Dane. And look at all those different skull shapes.

Evolution? I doubt it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PhilVaz]

Mr. Ed << There are many varieties of dogs, from tiny, hairless varieties to the Great Dane. Oh wait, they are all dogs. The Chihuaua is not on its way to evolving into a Great Dane. And look at all those different skull shapes. >>

The question was: Do you know any dogs that are the size of horses, have one-toed hooves, wear a horseshoe, and run in the Kentucky Derby?

If you do not, then going from the dog/fox/hyrax Hyracotherium to modern Equus in 50 million years is certainly macroevolution. The Pope and the Cardinal don’t doubt it, Mr. Ed.

Phil P

 

[Thing]

Do you know any dogs that are the size of horses, have one-toed hooves, wear a horseshoe, and run in the Kentucky Derby?

Phil P

Let me get back to you on that one.

I’ll need to spend some time reading all the books in the links first, etc. Ciao.

 

[garysibio]

Gary S << Essentially, PE is a cop-out theory. It was only invented because the evidence did not support evolution. >>

WRONG.



Phil P

The Phil has spoken. The issue is settled, I guess.

Gary

 

[ricmat]

Mr. Ed << There are many varieties of dogs, from tiny, hairless varieties to the Great Dane. Oh wait, they are all dogs. The Chihuaua is not on its way to evolving into a Great Dane. And look at all those different skull shapes. >>

The question was: Do you know any dogs that are the size of horses, have one-toed hooves, wear a horseshoe, and run in the Kentucky Derby?

If you do not, then going from the dog/fox/hyrax Hyracotherium to modern Equus in 50 million years is certainly macroevolution. The Pope and the Cardinal don’t doubt it, Mr. Ed.

Phil P

From your Pope link above (italics mine):

Now let us go directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here. They are constantly penetrating deeper into the inmost mysteries of life, attempting to decode its secret language and to understand what life really is. In so doing they brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in common. For both of them realize a project, a thought-out and considered plan, which is itself coherent and logical. Their functioning presupposes a precisely thought-through and therefore reasonable design.

Looks to me like he’s pushing ID.

Sorry, I couldn’t find anything about believing “going from the dog/fox/hyrax Hyracotherium to modern Equus in 50 million years”, but maybe I missed that.

 

[garysibio]

re: so-called evolution of horses

There are a couple of points that never seem to get mentioned when evolutionists use the horse example:

1. As you go through the line as they represent it, the number of ribs jumps around all over the place. This is highly unlikely if they really did evolve.
2. The ranges where these animals lived don’t overlap.

Gary

 

[PhilVaz]

ric << Looks to me like he’s pushing ID. Sorry, I couldn’t find anything about believing “going from the dog/fox/hyrax Hyracotherium to modern Equus in 50 million years”, but maybe I missed that. >>

Well hopefully we’ll know for sure when Ignatius Press publishes this book due in April 2008:

http://www.bringyou.to/PopeBenedictEvolution.jpg

The Pope obviously accepts a “form” of “intelligent design” (as do I), as does the Bible (Romans 1:19-20) and Vatican Council I:

“The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason….” (“On Revelation” chapter 2, paragraph 1; cf. Romans 1:19-20; Wisdom 13:1-9).

The question I’ve had is whether this is the “Intelligent Design” promoted by the Discovery Institute and modern “ID movement.” I don’t think it is. If you read the "Wedge Document" (PDF) and read Cardinal Schonborn’s or the Pope’s book, you find some overlap, but the Church is not interested in changing science to “theistic science” and rejecting evolution as most in the D.I. want. There are some exceptions of course.

Meanwhile, I take back some of what I said about the horse

Thumbelina: The World’s Smallest Horse, not photoshopped, apparently a real horse

http://www.bringyou.to/ThumbHorse.jpg

Still, you don’t have dogs growing to horse size, but I guess the reverse is possible.

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the link to the book.

God bless,
Ed

 

[garysibio]

Phil,

While I am looking forward to his book, we need to remember that the debate between creationism, evolutionism and ID is not covered by papal infallibility. Regardless of which position he takes, it cannot be taken as the official position of the Church. It will only be his opinion.

This does not mean that the Church cannot speak on anything connected to origins. For example, faithful Catholics are not free to believe in polygenesis since it contradicts our doctrine of original sin.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

That seems pretty straightforward to me. Gould came up with his theory to explain a certian set of data.

Actually, Gould invented PE to explain a lack of data, the gaps in the fossil record.

Gary

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually, Gould invented PE to explain a lack of data, the gaps in the fossil record.

No, that was cited by Gould as support for his theory, which was based on the observation by Mayr that isolated species tended to be aberrant in features, compared to others of their clade.

Gould himself admitted this.

 

[The_Barbarian]

re: so-called evolution of horses

There are a couple of points that never seem to get mentioned when evolutionists use the horse example:

Sounds interesting; let’s hear your story.

1. As you go through the line as they represent it, the number of ribs jumps around all over the place. This is highly unlikely if they really did evolve.

Hmm… it also varies among modern members of Equus caballus (the species we currently call “the horse.” Arabian horses, for example, have one less set than mustangs.

Your source didn’t tell you this, most likely, but modern humans can also vary in the number of ribs. So can swine, cats, and other mammals. They are really grasping at straws on that one.

1. The ranges where these animals lived don’t overlap.

Hmm… early on, the range of fossils found might not have. But, of course, that didn’t mean (as we later found when the distribution of fossils turned out to be much wider) that the range didn’t overlap. It just meant that at the time, we didn’t have overlapping ranges of fossils. Which species are you referring to, and what is your evidence that they didn’t overlap?

Hint: Always check before recycling old creationist stories.

 

[steveandersen]

…Meanwhile, I take back some of what I said about the horse
Still, you don’t have dogs growing to horse size, but I guess the reverse is possible.

Phil P

come on Phil

size is not the distinction between a dog and a horse

 

[reggieM]

I can see folks debating the Theory of Evolution such as the finer points between PE and gradualism, I can see folks talking about the theological implications, but to out and out deny the data……

One of the problems I have in this discussion is that the ardent supporters of Darwinian theory here often take significantly different stances on various points. There is one individual who tends to interject his opinion on every post (I’m surprised he has waited one whole day before interrupting) and thus his view dominates. He attacks intelligent design theory as if it is something evil. I then read from another very ardent Darwin supporter that he accepts “some intelligent design”. That statement is not attacked with the ordinary ridicule that we get from our “dominant voice” here because apparently he accepts enough Darwinian theory to be immune from such attacks.

But in this case, the question was why Gould came up with PE as a theory with the assumption that since the idea of slow, gradual evolution did not fit the fossil record, Gould looked for another answer. I believe you’ve confirmed this by saying that Gould offered another way that evolution happens.

The original notion that evolution happens in a slow, gradual progression was “enhanced” with another idea that says evolution also happens in quick bursts followed by stasis.

What I notice is that these two proposed methods – slow, gradual versus quick, abrupt – are claimed and accepted as if they are not radically different. They are just offered as “alternate ways” that evolution happens without the acknowledgement that if both of those methods happen, then the original notion of what evolution is (Darwin’s view) is completely mistaken. The “rapid appearance” of new forms requires much more explaination than merely to say “it happened”. The slow, gradual change was proposed as a means of explaining how so many changes could occur. The complex order and function that was the supposed result of evolution “had to” be the result of a long, slow, gradual process that caused small changes over time (or so it was said).

Gould’s idea however is so radically different that (to more neutral observers) it is a refutation of evolution itself. When once it was claimed that slow gradual change was necessary because of the complexity and precision of the order in the final result, it was then in a nearly opposite claim said that same result could be achieved by a rapid and abrupt evolution.

What I’m saying is not a matter of “denying the data”, but rather of questioning the interpretation of the data.

To say that something “suddenly appears” in the fossil record is vastly and radically different than saying that a species evolved slowly and gradually over a long time through a series of small transitions from one form to another.

 

[edwest2]

Phil,

While I am looking forward to his book, we need to remember that the debate between creationism, evolutionism and ID is not covered by papal infallibility. Regardless of which position he takes, it cannot be taken as the official position of the Church. It will only be his opinion.

This does not mean that the Church cannot speak on anything connected to origins. For example, faithful Catholics are not free to believe in polygenesis since it contradicts our doctrine of original sin.

Gary

“…not covered by papal infallibility.” ? “…cannot be taken as the official position of the Church.”? “…only be his opinion.”?

Excuse me, but isn’t this an example of criticizing a book before reading it? And if the Pope cannot offer the ‘official position’ of the Church, who do we ask?

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

One of the problems I have in this discussion is that the ardent supporters of Darwinian theory here often take significantly different stances on various points.

There are still plenty of problems left to solve in evolution, as there are with chemistry, physics, etc. It would be a healthy thing, I think, if you focused on the problems instead of personal problems with various people here.

There is one individual who tends to interject his opinion on every post (I’m surprised he has waited one whole day before interrupting) and thus his view dominates. He attacks intelligent design theory as if it is something evil. I then read from another very ardent Darwin supporter that he accepts “some intelligent design”. That statement is not attacked with the ordinary ridicule that we get from our “dominant voice” here because apparently he accepts enough Darwinian theory to be immune from such attacks.

Or maybe it’s not the idea of intelligent design, but only the people who used it as a cover for creationism?

But in this case, the question was why Gould came up with PE as a theory with the assumption that since the idea of slow, gradual evolution did not fit the fossil record, Gould looked for another answer. I believe you’ve confirmed this by saying that Gould offered another way that evolution happens.

Gould actually accepted that both PE and gradualism are a fact.

The original notion that evolution happens in a slow, gradual progression was “enhanced” with another idea that says evolution also happens in quick bursts followed by stasis.

Well, the idea of saltation (rapid evolution) is nearly as old as Darwinism. Huxley argued with Darwin on that point, and as you might know, the idea of stabilizing selection in evolution is quite old.

What I notice is that these two proposed methods – slow, gradual versus quick, abrupt – are claimed and accepted as if they are not radically different. They are just offered as “alternate ways” that evolution happens without the acknowledgement that if both of those methods happen, then the original notion of what evolution is (Darwin’s view) is completely mistaken.

Many of Darwin’s contemporaries thought he was wrong about only gradualism. And as you might know, modern evolutionary theory has a number of modifications that were not part of Darwin’s theory. Darwin was right about gradualism in the sense that we know that it sometimes happens that way. But also there can be rapid (in thousands, rather than millions of years) evolution. It works the same way, of course.

The complex order and function that was the supposed result of evolution “had to” be the result of a long, slow, gradual process that caused small changes over time (or so it was said).

As you see, that changed almost immediately. Huxley and others showed how the evidence allowed for rapid change, too.

Gould’s idea however is so radically different that (to more neutral observers) it is a refutation of evolution itself.

Odd then, that Gould considered himself a Darwinian. In fact, like all theories, evolutionary theory has been modified as the evidence showed a need.

Many people have a problem with deep time, and the difference between tens of thousands and millions of years. So it can seem to be a problem. But a little math can show you that it is not.