Specialist
Group: Specialist
Posts: 138
Member No.: 20
Joined: 19-May 04
|
| QUOTE | To: bondserv; Lexinom; dasboot; Gargantua; zarf; PatrickHenry; jennyp; dan1123
Everyone who walks a dog knows that small-scale variation occurs among living species, but non-evolutionists get understandably annoyed when Darwinians extrapolate the observed variations to encompass all of life: as if to say, because finch beaks vary, therefore humans had bacteria ancestors.
...and Darwinians get understandably annoyed when creationists grossly misrepresent the nature of the evidence and science this way. Only a shameless liar, or an inexcusable ignoramus, could misrepresent the science of evolution as if it were nothing more than "extrapolating the observed variations" or making an unsupported leap from finch beaks to unicellular ancestors.
Is the author truly this ignorant of biology? Or is he just a shameless opportunist, purposely misleading the reader?
And what's your excuse for posting this kind of propaganda, Bondserv?
Darwin’s bold hypothesis connected all living things into a branching tree of life. He claimed that, ultimately, whales and oaks and kangaroos and seashells could trace their ancestry to single-celled organisms. The only way to connect this hypothesis to actual earth history is to examine the fossil record.
Apparently the author is massively unaware of the many other multiple lines of evidence which independently support common ancestry in overwhelming detail, such as various types of DNA analysis, etc. Is he a moron, or a liar? Neither option inspires confidence.
Does the record of the rocks show a sequence of life evolving from simple to complex?
In a word, yes. In more than a word:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
And:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
And:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
And:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
And:
In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
Those who assume so might be disturbed by a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences1 by Peter M. Sadler (UC Riverside). The annual reviews are a good place to catch up on the state of the art of this or that discipline. Sadler’s review concerns quantitative biostratigraphy, the attempt to correlate global fossil data. Things are looking up in this field; fossil data is becoming more available in large databases, and computers are making the number-crunching easier. He takes the reader through the latest computer algorithms that attempt to correlate fossils from tens, hundreds, or thousands of sites around the world into a unified, global time sequence. Though his lengthy paper never questions evolution
Bingo. If the authors' analysis of the massive amount of data they covered *had* indicated some problem for evolutionary theory, they'd have said something.
and while written with a tone of scholarly confidence, it gives a distinct impression that biostratigraphy is more art than science.
Typical creationist handwaving -- instead of looking at the evidence, they try to sway the reader with "impressions".
Imagine an ideal record where everything that had died left a fossil,
That's like saying "imagine an ideal record where Jesus's entire life was videotaped". No such thing, and those of us who live in the real world don't waste time pondering such non-existent "ideals". Instead, we learn the most that we can from the incomplete record as it exists. This is what Sadler discusses, but the author of this creationist piece tries to misrepresent its implications.
Alas, as with most things in life, the situation is far from being so simple.
...but that never stops creationists from trying to approach the topic simplistically.
Sadler points out a number of difficulties that make global correlation of fossil-bearing strata a challenge:
[megasnip]
Sadler's points are good, but the author of this piece then goes on to misrepresent them and makes incorrect conclusions about them.
In a few studies, he claims, biostratigraphers can produce sequences of some marine invertebrates to resolutions of 10,000 to 50,000 years, though resolution is usually much lower.
But often at much higher resolution as well -- something the author sort of "forgets" to mention.
Instead of showing a continuous record of evolution, the record is discontinuous or jerky, riddled with gaps.
Yes, since as the author points out, the fossil record is not "ideal" -- it doesn't perfectly preserve every creature which has ever lived. But this doesn't stop creationists from constantly harping on the *inevitable* gaps (although this is as pointless as asking what Jesus might have said between parables and faulting the Bible for having such "gaps"), while biologists look at the fossils which *have* been preserved in order to learn what the available evidence shows. The astute reader will note how often creationists try to draw the audience's attention *away* from the actual fossil evidence and towards the non-issue of the "gaps" (i.e., the fossils which were not preserved or not yet found).
Sadler freely admits that contradictions appear in the results. He just feels that the fewer contradictions, the better.
Well, duh.
One of the criteria for success seems to be how well the result of an algorithm agrees with the “correct” phylogenetic sequence: “Procedures for fitting the best LOC [line of correlation on the graph] include deterministic regression techniques ... and heuristic search algorithms from evolutionary programming,” he explains.
The author reveals more of his ignorance here. "Evolutionary programming" is a means of adaptive computer programming. It has nothing to do with biologically evolved phylogenetic sequences, as the author wrongly presumes.
Congruence with evolutionary phylogeny seems to define Sadler’s “best-fit” or “optimal” sequences. In the opening, he indicates that evolutionary sequence information takes priority over geological dating information:
Geologic time correlation proceeds by constructing a global calendar of past events in which the appearances and extinctions of fossil species dominate the entries. Other events include changes in ocean chemistry, reversals of Earth’s magnetic field, and the deposition of volcanic ash beds, some of them dated by radiometric methods. The challenge is to merge incomplete inventories of physical events and partly contradictory faunal successions from many local thickness scales (measured stratigraphic sections) onto a single calendar that correctly sequences all the events and scales the time intervals between them. Because correctly sequenced events serve the purpose of correlation, with or without knowledge of their numerical ages, sequencing is the fundamental task and the focus of this review. Numerical estimates of age are available for very few events, especially in the older periods of the Phanerozoic. Furthermore, estimates of the relative size of time intervals between events rest largely upon questionable assumptions about rates of sediment accumulation and biological turnover. Consequently, scaling and calibration tasks are best attempted after the optimal sequence of events has been determined.
The astute reader will note that nothing in Sadler's paragraph actually supports the author's assertion. Sadler never mentions evolution nor common descent in his paragraph.
[Sadler writes:] "To date, more effort has been committed to questions concerning the place of stratigraphic information in cladistic analyses of morphology than to the possibility that the resulting cladograms provide independent evidence of sequence that can improve biostratigraphy."
How this does not produce circular reasoning he does not explain.
Sadler most certainly *does* explain how it does not produce circular reasoning, when he points out that it would be INDEPENDENT evidence of sequence. Perhaps the author was too busy putting "[sic]" marks all over Sadler's writing to actually bother reading what it said.
Instead, he suggest how evolutionary systematists can help – by revealing, for instance, “the order of FADs that best fits the morphologic information.”
Bingo.
It must be acknowledged that Sadler neither doubts evolution nor intended to cast doubt on evolution in this paper.
...because Sadler has found no reason to doubt it, and has seen much evidence in favor of it...
A casual reading would lead one to think that everything is fine and the Darwinians are making great progress.
And that casual reading would be 100% correct.
But then here comes the typical creationist sowing of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD):
Nevertheless, if you read it without evolutionary assumptions, it is quite revealing.
This is rather like saying, "if you read a text on orbital mechanics without assuming gravity and the roundness of the Earth, it is quite revealing."
Where is the proof of the pudding? Where is the clear sequence in the fossil record that shows Charlie was right?
Where in every text on orbital mechanics do they re-prove that gravity exists and the Earth is round? If they don't, then, *gasp*, does this mean it's all a sham?
But to answer the non sequitur question he poses, you can look here, for example, for just a small taste of the massive amount of fossil evidence that supports evolution and common descent.
Sadler exposes to view what a huge “optimization” problem he is faced with. The best he can do is try to keep the contradictions and misfits to a minimum.
Yeah, so? Real-world data is messy, especially in the finer details. That doesn't mean that the larger trends aren't blindingly obvious to anyone who cares to look at them, though.
As with everything else in evolutionary theory, the tweak space is greater than the data space.
Absolute 100% horse manure. The "data space" of evidence for evolution is absolutely massive and overwhelming. The "tweak space" is down in the finer details. You wouldn't know that from listening just to the creationists, though.
Only massive inputs of questionable assumptions keep the story intact; the story clearly does not jump out of the data, as if it were an intuitively obvious fact that only an obscurantist would deny.
The reader will note how quickly the author leaps several thousand miles from his alleged topic (Sadler's article) into simply making a sweeping, out-of-thin-air statement which is in no way supported by the particulars of his overview of Sadler's paper.
Nor is it even remotely true.
No; instead of supplying the Darwin Party with the proof they desire, he needs to ask them for help as he stumbles through a contradictory, unmanageable, confusing, formidable task.
Ooookay...
It’s reminiscent of the impossible dream the molecular phylogenists face trying to keep Charlie’s imagined tree of life connected to reality (see 07/25/2002 and 06/13/2003 headlines).
There's nothing "imagined" about it. It's supported by literally mountains of evidence across dozens of independently confirming lines of verification. This is well known and easily ascertained -- unless one is a dogmatic creationist, that is.
In the end, they must assume evolution to prove evolution.
"In the end", the author is making it up as he goes along.
Instead of taking the evidence where it leads,
It leads to evolution. That's why evolution has grown from a novel idea in 1859 to a field of science so firmly established today that it is less in doubt than Relativity, and for good reason.
they apply similar heuristic “optimization” approaches to handling overwhelming and contradictory inputs, where “optimal” means “mostly agrees with Charlie, if we neglect the misfits.”
The author does his credibility no good when he is reduced to petulantly calling Darwin "Charlie".
Nor does he appear any less of an ass when he makes comments such as the above, which makes it clear that he failed to understand Sadler's paper in particular, and the field of evolutionary biology in general.
Notice that “gap” is a loaded word.
And note that creationists load it up as heavily as they can every time they use it.
What if it is a brute fact that the data are discontinuous?
What if the author is reaching? The continuous nature of "the data" has been established "as a brute fact" in countless ways, countless times, by countless tests. Only hardcore creationists pretend it hasn't. And only hardcore flat-Earthers continue to maintain that the Earth isn't round.
Then that is the true sequence; there are no gaps. A gap is only a gap if you assume evolution.
Nice try, but there are even bigger "gaps" in the fossil record if you assume, for example, that Genesis is literally accurate. For example, where in the hell are all the human beings during the several hundred million years between the first land animals and the very-late-in-the-record eventual appearance of human beings -- or even any mammal whatsoever, for that matter? Now *THAT's* a *GAP*! And so on.
Why not face the evidence squarely: living taxa are discontinuous, and fossil taxa are discontinuous.
Because the evidence as a whole says the exact opposite. No fair just looking at tiny pieces of it, especially "the gaps", like the creationists do.
They appeared abruptly, and some died abruptly.
On the contrary, the vast majority of fossil forms appear in the fossil record clearly preceded by obvious precursor forms. Why is the author lying? Why do creationists bear false witness so often? And Bondserv, why do you post it?
If it weren’t that such an admission destroys Darwinism, that would be what the textbooks would matter-of-factly present.
The textbooks "matter-of-factly" present the truth, which is that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
Skeptical readers are encouraged to put aside “questionable assumptions” about “rates of sediment accumulation and biological turnover,” and to study this article without Darwin-tinted glasses on.
And they are also encouraged to study articles on orbital mechanics without round-Earth-tinted glasses on...
Look at the fossil data as objectively as possible.
Been there, done that, unlike most hardcore creationists.
What is found?
Evolution and common descent, overwhelmingly. Then when I also look at the DNA and other independent lines of evidence, they support the same.
Multitudes of non-overlapping “isolated faunas” without clear “seriation” information.
Entirely consistent with evolution, contrary to the author's implication.
A preponderance of seashells.
Because the hard shells are ideal for fossil preservation, because oceans cover 2/3 of this planet, and because shelly fauna are very successful and common. Duh. I'm sorry, how is this supposed to indicate that evolution is wrong, again?
Fossil graveyards.
In a few places, sure. But not even close to "almost everywhere", as the author's alternative "explanation" would predict.
Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
..and billions of dead things buried in rock layers NOT laid down by water all over the Earth. Why does the author fail to mention this? Oh, right, because it would OBVIOUSLY INVALIDATE THE CONCLUSION HE DESIRES.
Sadler suggests a solution in his ending sentence; biostratigraphers might have better success by looking outside the box and adapting the techniques of other disciplines. Most likely he did not intend to consider some disciplines that the ruling Darwin Party has placed off limits.
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but this one isn't very good. "Ruling Darwin Party"? I must have missed the invitations to the Cabal. "Placed off limits"? Careful, your whackjob paranoia is showing.
Sorry, but nothing is "placed off limits" in science. If you actually come up with a better explanation for the evidence (*ALL* the evidence, not just the one or two things you can pull out of context to "support" your cherished belief), then there's a Nobel Prize in it for you, and countless people will jump on your bandwagon. Both Relativity and Quantum Physics were bizarre "heresies" to conventional wisdom when they were proposed, but they caught on almost overnight because they *worked* (i.e., explained the evidence) and thus were obviously *right* (or at least "more right" than what came before), so all but the most stubborn scientists accepted their truth no matter how strange they seemed.
And, I should point out, the same was true of Darwin's theory -- it became almost universally accepted because it *works*, and it makes sense of vast amounts of evidence that would make no sense without it (and not because some Evil Cabal of Satanic Scientists have been "placing off limits" alternative explanations, *snicker*).
Too bad; what if that’s where the true solution is?
If so, why does the evidence point overwhelmingly towards evolution and common descent?
75 posted on 05/24/2004 3:25:19 AM PDT by Ichneumon |
And here is EvoLOON PatricHenry's Reply to it:
| QUOTE | To: Ichneumon
[Thunderous applause!]
97 posted on 05/24/2004 4:09:12 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist!) |
|
Ichneumon's long BORING EvoLOON post at FR, (For those who can STAND it ONLY!!!)
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
