An Evolutionary Journey

you realy doesnt think that animals should be in order from simple to complex according to evolution?

what evidence? you just have fossils. so you can interpret it in many ways.

its indeed scientific evidence.

if my explanation is true- then in most of the cases we sould see a correlation bwtween population size and appearance of fossil in the geologic column.

now back to you- if evolution is a scientific theory how we can test if its false?

its also possible that indeed a several creation events occured in the past. so in this case indeed we should not find a rabbit with dino at all.

b)we cant know how was the dinos population size in the past. so in this case we cant tell. but we can check a modern species and see if we find a correlation between their population and fossil layers.

there is a lot of other options that evolution can explain to make it valid even in this case. you can claim its the result of convergent evolution (dogs like animal) or just push back mammals to cambrian.

because the icthyosaurs get extinct? we actually have a lot of icthy fossils. its possible that the dolphin population was too small to leave a fossil. i also open to the possibility that several creation events occured in the past. so its one of the two.

actually the first insect fossil date about 400 my. so its feat with my argument. also remmember that insect doesnt have bones. so its more rare to find an insect fossil.

why not?

ok. here is one a rgument- can you as intelligent designer change a gps into a cell-phone by a functional step wise? (analogy for e volution of one kind to another).

i also has a question for you- how we can falsified the evolution?

thanks.

Let’s assume a single creation event, originating both rabbits and brachiosaurs. You are then forced to assume that brachiosaurs vastly outnumbered rabbits, and the rabbit population size remained so small for so many generations that no rabbit ever got fossilized - until the rabbit population finally expanded enough, by which time brachiosaurs had already died out. But this violates every principle of ecology that has ever been observed in operation on Planet Earth.

Alternatively, you must entertain multiple creation events, at least one for brachiosaurs and a separate one for rabbits. And yet the rabbit/brachiosaur juxtaposition is just one of many that you could be challenged with. The problem with “progressive creation” scenarios is that, to make sense of all the data, so many creation events have to be postulated, each so finely grained as to comport with the data, that in the mathematical limit (as it were) it approaches the evolutionary picture.

dcscccc, you are very prolific in responding throughout the Biologos Forums and challenging mainstream scientific claims whenever they are at odds with creationism. But honestly, having an answer for everything does not matter, when the answers are utterly illogical, idiosyncratic, and lacking any breadth and depth of support in the relevant professional communities. Every maverick, from UFO true-believers to Bigfoot and Nessie hunters to Holocaust deniers, has an answer for everything. But it it is the quality (rather, lack thereof) of their answers that makes the difference. I’m sorry, but there it is.

Someone could make that claim, but very few people would take it seriously. See, when it comes to actual science, hand-waving things away doesn’t work. You can’t just say “Oh, well, then, mammals came before therapsids.” That doesn’t work. If mammals came before therapsids, then the entire nested hierarchy is not only wrong, it’s completely wrong.

So while icthyosaurs and dolphins were both swimming around, not a single dolphin got fossilized–but after icthyosaurs died off, THEN dolphins started getting fossilized. A remarkable coincidence, don’t you think? And, of course, you think that coincidence happened many, many, MANY times. Rabbits just happened to never get fossilized until after all of the Allosaurs. Sloths just happened to never get fossilized until after all of the pterosaurs. The list goes on and on.

[quote]
i also open to the possibility that several creation events occured in the past. so its one of the two.
{/quote]

So why don’t we have clear boundaries where these new creation events took place? Setting aside the Cambrian explosion (which, despite Creationist attempts to paint it as the Genesis creation event, included no mammals, no birds, no reptiles, no insects, no flowering plants–in short, virtually none of the species we see today) where was the next “creation event?” Where was the one that created reptiles? Where was the one that created mammals?

…which completely undermines your argument. You’ve just acknowledged that some species fossilize more readily than others, which completely undermines your “The biggest population should fossilize first” claim.

Because we have no examples of nature working that way, and you want us to believe that it worked that way for thousands of different species. Your evidence for this is, “Why not?”

That’s not very convincing.

That’s not an answer. Answering the question with a different question is common among Creationists. In fact, Creationists only ever offer four responses to the question, usually in this order:

  1. No answer at all. They either ignore the question, or (as you did) respond with a different question.
  2. A vague non-answer. When pressed, Creationists will say something like “Show me a REAL transitional fossil!” The thing is, when you ask them what features would convince them that it’s a “real” transitional fossil, they can’t answer.
  3. A “square circle” answer. When pressed still harder, some Creationists will demand “proof” that would actually disprove evolution. The most common example is “Show me a dog turning into a cat!” This, of course, would completely contradict the theory of evolution, since it would require a genome to abruptly reverse itself, erase millions of years of accumulated change, and then spontaneously rewrite itself to conform to a different existing evolutionary pathway. Alternatively, they’ll sometimes make a ridiculous demand for an impossible standard like “Create a new universe while I watch!”
  4. The honest answer. “Nothing would convince me that I’m wrong about evolution.”

Thus far, your response falls into category 1. While I’d be willing to answer your questions, I’d appreciate it if you’d actually answer mine first. After all, I asked first.

1 Like

how actually? give me a logical base for this claim and we will check it.

no. its possible that any creation event contain a lot of new species. we actually see this when we check the species biodiversity. see this graph:

see also my comment to benjamin.

i actually have a lot of evidence from the scientific literature. for example: this paper show that we need about 10^60 mutations to evolve a new enzyme:

evolution cant explain that for example.

i also gave the self replicating watch argument. do you think that a self replicating watch need a designer?

what is the problem? we can reverse the evolution of mammals. in this case therapsids evolve fro mammals. or even push both therapsids and mammals. more then that- where you mark the limit that its impossible? by pushing bback 50 my? 100 my? there is no a real limit.

not at all. the last icthyosaurs date about 90 my and the first whale is about 35 my. its a big gap. so its not a coincidence.

see this graph. maybe we can find a pattern:

true. but when we look at vertebrates we should find a main pattern that fit with the population size.

according to my argument we should see about this order (the more species are- the more chance to a big population):

1)bacteria (largest population-10^30)
2)fish( about 33000 species)
3)reptiles (about 10000 species)
4(mammals( about 5000 species)

birds also have about 10000 species but its well known that they doesnt fossilized very well.

you ask me how to prove me that evolution its possible. so i gave you a good way to prove your point.

:

The problem is that–while that’s how Creationists handle evidence that doesn’t fit their predetermined conclusion–it’s not how actual science works. You can’t simply say, “Oh, well, then, therapsids evolved from mammals, problem solved!”

A mammal in the Precambrian would contradict so much of the established evidence of evolutionary order that there would be no structure left. Evolution would be left without a leg to stand on. It would absolutely destroy the theory. A new theory might eventually emerge, but it would be so utterly different from modern evolutionary theory as to bear no resemblance.

Now, I realize that when Young Earth Creationists are confronted with an insurmountable problem–like, say, the twenty million pollen-clay varve couplets mentioned earlier, or the fact that rapid radiometric decay would have melted the planet’s crust–they simply shrug and say, “Well, it happened somehow, God probably used a miracle.” They have the luxury of appealing to undetectable, untestable, miraculous intervention to hand-wave any inconvenient evidence.

Unfortunately, that’s not science.

…and it’s not explained by “Oh, there were just lots more icthyosaurs.”

Not really, no.

This is not dissimilar to the Creationist argument of, “Oh, the fast animals all ran away from the Flood and climbed up hills! That’s why we find bacteria and shellfish at the bottom and humans at the top!”

When more closely examined, the argument falls apart completely. In truth, the spectrum of fossils bears little to no resemblance to any known rules of population. In order to make the “pattern” fit your desired conclusion, you have to exclude most of the evidence, cherry-pick, and then speak in vague terms.

In the meantime, the examples you bring up undermine your arguments. According to your logic, there was obviously a much larger population of ferns than of ALL plants with seeds put together–trees, grass, flowers, vegetables, you name it. After all, ferns appear much earlier than any of those in the fossil record.

No. I asked you to name specific evidence that would convince you that you’re wrong. Thus far, you have been unable to do that. Frankly, I don’t believe you will ever be able to do that; however, I’m going to stick to my guns.

I asked first. Please answer my question before asking further questions of your own.

If you doubt that animals like rabbits would obviously have outnumbered animals like brachiosaurs (had they been alive at the same time), I’m not sure I can help you. Firstly, we observe that all massive animals alive today are slow breeders, and based on their physiology and fossil record there is no reason to doubt that brachiosaurs were as well. While small animals are not necessarily rapid breeders, rabbits certainly are. Thus simple breeding would rapidly cause rabbits to outnumber brachiosaurs.

Secondly, we know from ecology that finite ecosystems cannot generally support the needs (food, shelter/cover, etc) of equal numbers of both massive and small creatures; the latter outnumber the former just because of larger carrying capacities. And so this is another reason that rabbits would have persistently outnumbered brachiosaurs, had they been co-incident.

Thirdly, we also know from ecology that small animals tend to form a wider food base for more predators than do massive animals, and thus small animals must necessarily have larger numbers and more rapid breeding in order to not go extinct from predation. This is yet another reason why, had they co-existed, rabbits would have needed to be more numerous than brachiosaurs.

And these are just some of the reasons why your skepticism on this basic point is absurd.

I regret to say I have no interest in extending this debate further, as your engagement style - seen here and everywhere on the Biologos Forums you have participated - is not conducive to anything productive. Again, it is not impressive that you have a response, a challenge, an alleged refutation, at every point in turn. That fools nobody. What matters is quality, not glibness.

again- not true. you can claim that reptiles evolved from mammals. where do you see any problem? and again- where is the limit? by pushing back 10 my? 20? 50? until you give any limit its not a scientific clai

this is what id did. i check it in the clss level.

its easy. show me animal without an eye evolve an eye. show me that animal without a flagellum evolve a flagellum .

true. but remmember that there is a huge variation even among colse species. primates for example contain a lot of species. but the human species have a population size that is bigger then all primates combine.

and again- another option is several creations.

so- do you think that evolution is testable?

It’s not about the age; it’s about the homology. Reptiles could not have evolved from mammals; there’s neither physiological nor genetic evidence to support such a hierarchy. You seem to think that it’s just a matter of saying “X evolved from Y because we decided it did.”

To that, I can only say that it seems like you have a lot to learn about how evolutionary biology actually works. I don’t say that to be disrespectful, but if you imagine it’s as simple as saying “Oh, well, we think reptiles evolved from mammals because it just seems like a good idea,” then it’s true.

Standard response #3: the “Square circle.” Evolutionary theory does not predict that such evolution will occur within a human lifetime. You’re demanding “proof of evolution” which would contradict evolutionary theory.

Hello d,

No, it doesn’t. The abstract says (very different from what the paper shows, btw), “one in 10(64) signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain,” which is not at all what you say it says, much less shows. “Sequences” does not mean the same thing as “mutations.”

any different sequence get different because of mutation. so its the same.

do you have any evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles?

true. but we can check if there is any small steps between 2 different systems. an eye its like a video camera. do you think that a video camera can work with only 1-2 parts? if not- its mean that a video camera cant evolve step wise.

now the same question for you- what evidence will change your mind about evolution?(fossil for example)

No, because they didn’t; they evolved from early therapsids.

Bad example for your case, seeing as we can observe eyes at every stage of development today, from simple light-sensitive nerve clusters all the way up through eyes quite a bit more advanced than our own.

So, yes: the “camera” DOES work with only 1-2 parts. Not as WELL as the full camera, but it works.

I already listed examples. Show me a rabbit in Precambrian sediment. Show me a mammal with hemocyanin-based blood. Show me an insect with a backbone. Show me a sequence where Triceratops insignis is buried above modern mammals.

Any of these would convince me that the theory of evolution is wrong. Would you like more? I can give you fifty examples, or a hundred, or however many you want–because, again, my acceptance of evolution is based on evidence, not faith.

I’m still waiting for you to name actual evidence that would convince you that you’re wrong.

therapsids was reptiles.

here is some of the simplest eye in nature. it contain about 200 parts:

“Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins”-

so even a simple camera need more then 1-2 parts.

great. before i will try to find a fossil in the wrong place (and disproving evolution according to you) i need a definition of “fossil out of order”. so what is your definition of such fossil?

see

Well, not quite. You do realize that mammals are also therapsids, right? Modern reptiles descended from the saurposids, not the synapsids.

Were cynodonts reptiles? Were they mammals? How do you know?

“1-2 parts” was your expression. I assumed you were using it hyperbolically to mean “much simpler,” which the eyespot assuredly is. I mean, you could say that a lump of lead has “millions of parts” because it has millions of atoms. The eyespot has 200 parts, yes. Quite a bit fewer than the “impossibly complex!” eyes ID advocates like to tout. Whatever happened to eyes being “irreducibly complex?” This looks pretty significantly reduced in complexity from a human eye.

Now, you implied that you would be convinced if we could see numerous transitional stages of a biological feature–but we CAN see that, in terms of eyes. Clearly, that does NOT convince you that you’re wrong about evolution. Nor would ANY transitional sequence, because you could just say, “Oh, those aren’t transitions, that’s just a whole series of created features that LOOK transitional.”

So what would convince you? We still haven’t got an answer.

Heck, I’d settle for having a Creationist use superior Creationist science to tell me whether this fossil is of the “human kind” or the “ape kind.” Since they assure us that there’s no overlap at all, it should be trivially simple to do so.

Well…no. I’m sorry, but I have to be firm here.

I’m still waiting for you to answer MY question.

What specific, testable evidence would convince you that you’re wrong?

So far, you’ve given me a “square circle” answer, by demanding that I show you evolution at a scale which the theory of evolution says is impossible.

Once we actually resolve this question–once you actually commit to a testable standard of evidence–then we can move on to other questions.

It’s hardly fair for you to demand that I commit to a standard of proof when you yourself have yet to do so, despite the fact that I asked first.

Fair’s fair.

true. so why you are claimed that mammals doesnt evolved from reptiles but therapsids?

not realy. what we finding its actually very different level of eye complexity. you cant go from the simplest eye to the more complex one because there is no step wise from one to another. more then that- the first eye need to be very complex. so again- for a minimal eye you will need at least several parts to begin with.

see above. you claimed that you can show me how eye evolved step by step. i showed that it isnt true. now back to you- so what is your definition of fossil out of order?

@dcscccc, I’ve noticed that you often ask people questions on these forum threads which seem to imply that they are defending a personal definition, a personal scientific conclusion, or even a personal item of evidence. (Thus, here you have asked “so what is YOUR definition of such fossil?”) In competitive debate tactics, this is done to imply to audiences that the person is operating in isolation, defending some casual, poorly-supported, personal belief—rather than reflecting what is commonly used terminology or standard knowledge found in any textbook. It is often used as a means of stalling and perpetually prolonging debate, knowing that no forward progress in the discussion will ever be possible. Accordingly, it can be an entertaining tactic if someone is past or present student of debate strategy—or of often similar political debates during election season—but it doesn’t generally lead anywhere other than conversations-in-circles when the actual objective is to deny all fruits of scientific investigation. (Indeed, as someone who was part of the “creation science” movement for many years, I’m very familiar with the “We LOVE science!” tactic which, at the same time, denies science and the scientific method at every possible turn. Some things never change.)

Accordingly, I’m naturally curious as to what your objectives are on these forums. I’m not implying anything negative or disapproving in asking that question. Not at all. I’m just curious. I’ve read dozens and dozens of your posts on Biologos and, from what I can gather about your positions, you surely must find it very frustrating to interact here. Your questions are often similar to those of a defense attorney who must, by law, defend a guilty client using absolutely every possible tactic at his/her disposal. This often includes denying the obvious or demanding tedious explanations of things which, ultimately, would require a point by point review of a sixth grade science textbook. (e.g., “But how do you know THAT?” and "What is YOUR DEFINITION of that? Or, as Bill Clinton once said in a legal deposition, “That depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”) This creates a dialogue which can “run out the clock” no matter WHAT the remaining time may be! So I naturally wonder: What is your actual objective here? Have these dialogues ever produced fruitful conclusions? Have you ever turned around a published, peer-reviewed fallacy? Has the academy adopted any of your “corrections”? Or are you saying that the academy is so hopelessly devoid of any successful methodologies which can possibly lead to any rational conclusions about science?

After all, if all the scientific principles you’ve denied on the threads are just as invalid as you claim, then modern science is hopelessly flawed and should be incapable of producing anything of value. Yet it does! How do you explain this?

There will ALWAYS be those who will deny some conclusion of the scientific method, whether it be the Copernican Solar System, the Germ Theory of Disease, a spherical earth, or Common Descent. (Indeed, one can find very real deniers of each of those ideas online in a matter of seconds.) Although the individuals who deny those various ideas have all sorts of motivations and personal worldviews, they are all united in one respect: They believe the academy is wrong and needs their expertise and tutelage in seeing the errors of their ways. Yet, the passage of time and the preponderance of evidence never vindicates that contrarian self-confidence. So, what exactly is achieved in these Quixotic crusades? (When people give me their alleged “counter-examples”, they all predate modern science. So blood-letting “errors of science” won’t cut it.)

Clearly you believe that entire fields of science are mired in error. Clearly you believe that Biologos is wrong in affirming various fields of science. So do you feel frustrated here? Or do you feel a “calling” of sorts to correct the various academic disciplines we represent, and hope that we will take your “message” back to the academy after learning from you here? Or do you simply find these topics interesting and like playing devil’s advocate? (I have no problem with that! Indeed, it can be an excellent way to learn.) I ask these questions in hopes that if I understand your objectives, perhaps I will be able to interact with you in more interesting and educational ways.