john t.
you said:
“That can indeed happen, if the private evidence is bizarre enough. But so what??!! What does that tell us about the confidence that non-experts should place in a scientific consensus in the absence of private evidence to the contrary?”
ok. so we both agree that one proof is better then the consensus opinion.
now we just need to check if there is such evidence. but before of that- do you think that the consensus among scientists is that there is no designer to the univrese?
hi bren. sorry, but i need at least one example. so i give one example of mine. do you think that there is a phylogenetic hierarchy among apes and human? it should be if hierarchy is real.
you said:
“a van or a small car can both be ordered with the same ergonomic leather seat or the same airbag from the same company”-
what is the problem? its a convergent design. exactly like convergent evolution. what is the different?
you said:
“In fact they are independent proof of the very same phenomenon; we also have a large set of apparently non-functional OR genes. This is the point that needs to be addressed”
so now we are talking about pseudogenes in general? its a different topic. before of that you talked about the same position of the genes.
" If you are the only person on earth with new, credible data that overturns the consensus, then yes, you are obviously rational to follow this lead"-
thanks. now we just need to check my claim against the consensus. agree?
Dcscccc,
I would politely ask that you try to get my name right (though I suppose I would settle for at least one consistent version of the wrong name;-).
“hi bran. sorry, but i need at least one example. so i give one example of mine. do you think that there is a phylogenetic hierarchy among apes and human? it should be if hierarchy is real.”
Bren: I find that an odd question given that you already know my position. You seem to want to make some observation, so I will simply let you make it here.
“you said: “a van or a small car can both be ordered with the same ergonomic leather seat or the same airbag from the same company” what is the problem? its a convergent design. exactly like convergent evolution. what is the different?”
Bren: I’m afraid you completely missed the point here. I don’t think I can improve on it too much, so I’ll just let you reconsider the original comment.
"you said: “In fact they are independent proof of the very same phenomenon; we also have a large set of apparently non-functional OR genes. This is the point that needs to be addressed” so now we are talking about pseudogenes in general? its a different topic. before of that you talked about the same position of the genes.
Bren: nope, still discussing OR genes in whales, just like before. You brought up humans not me. I only pointed out that you weren’t helping your case. I have introduced nothing at all so it is safe to say that this is still the same subject. No, I don’t mind if you reintroduce the sub-topic of gene position. Yes, OR gene position (continues to) strongly support the implied evolutionary relationships and yes, same thing for the relationship between humans and other mammals (dogs, mice etc).
“” If you are the only person on earth with new, credible data that overturns the consensus, then yes, you are obviously rational to follow this lead"- thanks. now we just need to check my claim against the consensus. agree?"
Bren: Agree to what? Check what claim against the consensus? I’m afraid you lost me. Do you have secret, conclusive evidence against evolution? Your words seem to imply this but it obviously can’t be what you mean. You are not dealing with the points I made on this one and I think they are important for what you are trying to get across.
Dcscccc, I’m wondering if maybe this discussion is bearing less and less fruit at this point because misunderstandings are starting to pile up. This tends to lead to diminishing returns, so if you agree, I think we should drop it for the time being.
hi bren. sorry for the wrong name (i fix it).
now, here is a problem for the primate phylogeny: from genetic prespective- chimp is the closest to human. but in terms of unique traits, orangutan is the closest:
and in terms of general morphology- all apes are closer to each other then to human (because they all apes and human isnt).
but there is more- in terms of speech, parrot is the closer to huamn. and in terms of painting skills, elephant is the closest . you get the idea?
about the pseudo or- actually they may be functional(even those who look like pseudogenes). and even if not- its not evidence for evolution but for degeneration.
Dcscccc,
You do not seem to be aware of what is actually predicted if evolution has occurred, which is, I am guessing, the reason why you view this as some sort of a falsification. Maybe it would be best for you to read up on what is actually to be expected before continuing. This would include what kinds of discrepancies are expected, to what degree, and why; we’ve already discussed one thing that causes problems when constructing phylogenies so you already should have some idea of what to expect. I would suggest also checking to see what special creation does not predict: it should not be remotely possible to construct any sort of consistent phylogeny at all, it would just be a great mass of contradictions at the higher levels; you would only see working phylogenies within created kinds but nothing would work between kinds. You have not responded to my other points and as I said, it would be best if you run through the chapter I linked to before saying anything more about phylogenies, since I simply don’t have the time to review and regurgitate, as interesting as it is to read up on it.
Thanks
hi bren. i gave you an example of contraticion in the primates phylogeny. this is what evolution doesnt predict. so before you send me to read articles about phylogeny (i already read a lot of them), feel free to disprove my argument. here it again:
evolution predict that it should be hierarhy when we check the phylogeny of primates. we see that there is no such hierarchy. so the phylogeny actually support creation and not evolution.
thanks.
Dcscccc,
The point was missed again and I will again have to repeat. Nothing in the theory of evolution predicts, in any way, shape or form, that there will be no contradictions/discrepancies in independently inferred primate phylogenies. If this was a clear prediction of evolutionary theory, you would be right, but as you must be well aware, no one predicts any such thing. We even spent multiple comments discussing a case that actually should lead to some discrepancies for some sequences (less relevant for the case at hand) when comparing phylogenies, so I cannot understand why you are suddenly forgetting that this is entirely normal given our current knowledge of molecular biology. Discrepancies are to be expected in many specific cases due to the reasons given in the article (you may have read other articles on this subject, but you are surely not demonstrating this background knowledge at this time), as I have already said more than once.
Perhaps this is just a mistake in your reasoning, so I’ll try to clear this part up by way of an observation about the logic of your argument: “I gave you an example of a contraticion (sic)…this is what evolution doesn’t predict.” This is correct but sort of funny and logically inane; evolution does not predict any specific contradiction in phylogenies (of course), but nor does it predict that there will be no such contradictions (given the known complicating factors). Obviously this implies that this is a meaningless point for saying anything at all about evolution. If evolution does not predict either the presence or absence of something, then obviously the presence or absence of that thing is a silly test to use for determining whether evolution is true! It doesn’t mean that there are no tests available, it simply means that this would be a dumb one to use. Please think this through step by step and let me know if you need any clarification on why this follows. This logical error has nothing at all to do with language problems (I realize English is not your first language), it has to do with not thinking it through carefully enough.
On the other hand, I think you realize that the presence or absence of a general pattern (nested hierarchies) would be a good test, since it explicitly rules out special creation, which does not predict it, and supports evolution, which does predict it (wherever known complicating factors do not obscure this outcome), so this must be why you are intent on focusing on the trees (whatever individual discrepancies you can find) instead of the forest (the overall pattern). The problem for evolution would only be if no such pattern existed, not if there were no exceptions/discrepancies. I suspect that you need to carefully think through the structure of your argument and maybe reformulate it so that it doesn’t contain these errors.
hi bren. lets do this simple. give me your evidence for the claim of hierarchy in the overall pattern (forest).
if its in the article you already gave here, show me the specific part in the article. by the way- i dont think that it would be so different, because any collection of species can give us a good answer.
Dcscccc, If you do not wish to acknowledge or respond to any of the points made so far, then no thank you, I think we should wrap it up.
Bren, if I may jump in… It seems you are saying that evolution would predict a presence of a general pattern (nested hierarchies), with some discrepancies/exceptions here and there. You also say that this general pattern would rule out special creation. I believe your first sentence is correct, but the second is incorrect. Special creation would expect similarities among and between species due to the functions being designed and programmed in similar ways. Just like all organism contain similar organic compounds, so they would be expected to contain some similar proteins and programming dna. Both theories would allow for exceptions, where some similar homologies could be programmed thru different genetics, but it is not a surprise to find the similarity of dna programming for basic functions, with differences in dna for differences in homologies.
However, in terms of prediction, evolution predicts everything and nothing at the same time. Most of the predictions are made after the evidence is already there, and when evidence contradicts it, then of course the theory is revised. You would say, naturally it is revised… that is science. But the usefulness of theory outside of what can be observed without the theory? In other words, some of the books we used to use for keying plants used a lot of homology (without evolution), to categorize and group organisms into similarities and differences. Some of those differences did not follow purely genetic similarities, but yet they were useful for identification.
With genetics, not all genetic differences are created equal. In other words not all bp substitutions of similar size have an equivalent effect; some are barely noticed, while others are fatal. Thus merely examining genetic similarities and differences cannot always provide the essence of an organism, which must of necessity be revealed in the actual physical result of its place in the ecosystem. For this reason, it is also more reasonable to assume that much of the non-functional dna is probably more functional than we presently realize, and if this is true, then it will be more and more difficult to maintain the position that non-functional dna is an indicator of inheritance from a non-related ancestor.
I am guessing a bit, but perhaps dcscccc is hinting that there are groupings, but there is no overall hierarchy at all, other than what is artificially and selectively imposed by specific selection of specific traits, while other traits are ignored or sidelined. So the question of whether size, or shape, or eyesight is more significant than vocalization, brain size, lung capacity, nostril location, etc. What makes us focus on the traits that we focus on?
Hope these thoughts make sense to you, and I hope I have clarified a bit where I suspect dcscccc was headed.
JohnZ
“Bren, if I may jump in… It seems you are saying that evolution would predict a presence of a general pattern (nested hierarchies), with some discrepancies/exceptions here and there. You also say that this general pattern would rule out special creation. I believe your first sentence is correct, but the second is incorrect. Special creation would expect similarities among and between species due to the functions being designed and programmed in similar ways. Just like all organism contain similar organic compounds, so they would be expected to contain some similar proteins and programming dna. Both theories would allow for exceptions, where some similar homologies could be programmed thru different genetics, but it is not a surprise to find the similarity of dna programming for basic functions, with differences in dna for differences in homologies.”
I appreciate that you are prepared to accept the first point, and that you understand that such discrepancies in this way become moot with regards to the question of whether or not evolution occurred. For the second point, the “pattern” in question is not, as you say, the fact that there seem to be similarities between species (that’s not a “pattern”). Were this the case, I would easily agree that it could be predicted by either hypothesis or, in fact, by any old hypothesis, in which case it would also be useless as a litmus test for which view is correct. That being the case, it seems likely that you misunderstood what pattern is being referred to or how it is to be understood (I’ll get to this).
As an aside, I would seriously question the statement that “special creation would expect similarities…”; special creation could predict differences just as well as it could predict similarities and a great diversity of strategies as well as precisely the same optimized strategy used over and over – there is simply nothing that would dictate how God would or should choose to accomplish something or what purposes would best be filled in choosing one approach over another. Obviously things in nature are not optimized; by this I mean that slower animals could always go faster if so designed, weaker animals could be stronger, birds could be more streamlined and humans could be more intelligent. Would it be more glory to God if every animal and every body part performed to the limit of physical possibility or is God better glorified by a range of functional optimization across the board? The answer is that it is a silly question, because our subjective judgments on such a matter are not even meaningful. Any prediction made on the premise of special creation is based on the idea that God would reasonably do such and such (are at least we would if we were him). This resembles absurd pseudo-theological chutzpah far more than it resembles a clear scientific prediction on which all parties can easily agree (I certainly don’t!). You don’t seem to be pushing for this point, but if you did, you wouldn’t be the first.
Not that special creation doesn’t have any predictions that relate to phylogeny. There is a wonderfully clear prediction. Since created kinds (assuming this to be standard creation theory; it is, after all, required by the physical limitations of the Ark) are each independent, but each has given rise over a few thousand years to a large number of often very diverse species, we would expect to see the following: within each kind, we should be able to construct multiple independent phylogenies that are usually consonant; using measurable morphological traits, RNA, protein sequences, etc. In each case, all of these phylogenies (when resolved and where possible) should look something like a family tree (because, in each case it would actually be a family tree), with a trunk, nodes and branches. Here’s where the key prediction comes in: there should be a very abrupt change in the pattern as soon as we pass the limits of the created kinds. In this abrupt transition, there would no longer be any reason to use different traits/sequences and end up with anything like similar phylogenies; the trees should not fit together at all; there would be no particular reason why animals in one kind couldn’t have a particular bone arrangement, reproductive system or molecular signaling pathway found in a very different kind. There would be no reason why marsupials such as the tazmanian wolf (now extinct) wouldn’t have the same reproductive system as the coyote (which fills a very similar niche in North America); especially strange if you happen to put them within the same kind. No reason why humans couldn’t eat less by having photosynthesizing chloroplasts in their skin cells (definitely different kinds!). In fact, you would need an unbelievable amount of independent hypotheses to explain why everything continues to look like a family tree as you go beyond the (rather fluid) limits of created kinds. One way or another, we can expect that there would be an abrupt change as soon as we reach the border of each kind, and this would really show up when constructing phylogenies.
Evolution does not predict such a transition (in fact, such a transition would be very useful in baraminology, wouldn’t it? You could find out exactly where the borders lie). It does predict that you would see crystallized historical “accidents” like the particular reproductive system of the Australian marsupials, which would act as clues to common ancestry, even though so many of these animals fill similar niches to mammals in other continents. You would otherwise need individual hypotheses for each animal, explaining why the particular reproductive setup is critical for this species, but not for the mammal who happens to have a similar life-history, live in a similar climate and fill the same niche. How many hypotheses would you need to patch it up? How many would you need to explain why the exact same pattern seems to occur beyond the boundaries of created kinds? Evolution does predict nested hierarchies (not at all the same thing as “similarities between species”, for which no specific pattern can be inferred); all life should sort into family trees (more or less) by grouping taxa according to synapomorphies. This has nothing to do with whether or not there are similarities between species; this has to do with the specific pattern that results when synapomorphies are used to construct phylogenies.
“However, in terms of prediction, evolution predicts everything and nothing at the same time”
The idea that evolution predicts “anything and nothing” is simply not true (though it is an annoyingly commonplace assumption) and I suspect it is essentially a category error. All evolutionary pathways occur within the evolutionary paradigm, but the evolutionary paradigm itself does not predict any of the specific pathways. This is simply not the kind of prediction that can be expected. Evolution predicts nested hierarchies, the possibility of atavism, biogeographic distributions, past biogeography (based on fossil distributions), anatomical and molecular suboptimal functions, transitional forms and which forms should or should not be found (this is highly specific), molecular and anatomical parahomology, anatomical and molecular vestiges, current genetic and morphological change (with a non-blending mechanism for change and inheritance), location of specific transitional types within the geologic column etc, etc, etc. Within these predictions are a myriad of more specific predictions that have been born out, a plethora of expected patterns that are consistently seen across the board that would make no sense under any other known paradigm, and so on. Some are direct predictions from the theory itself (how genetic inheritance would need to work, how and what kind of genetic changes occur), some are predictions that are inferred from a combination of the theory with some specific set of observations or data. You have perhaps simply misunderstood what sort of thing the theory is supposed to predict.
“With genetics, not all genetic differences are created equal. In other words not all bp substitutions of similar size have an equivalent effect; some are barely noticed, while others are fatal. Thus merely examining genetic similarities and differences cannot always provide the essence of an organism, which must of necessity be revealed in the actual physical result of its place in the ecosystem. For this reason, it is also more reasonable to assume that much of the non-functional dna is probably more functional than we presently realize, and if this is true, then it will be more and more difficult to maintain the position that non-functional dna is an indicator of inheritance from a non-related ancestor.”
I don’t really see how this argument follows in logical terms. I can’t make it work, so you may need to re-explain how you get to the conclusion.
“I am guessing a bit, but perhaps dcscccc is hinting that there are groupings, but there is no overall hierarchy at all, other than what is artificially and selectively imposed by specific selection of specific traits, while other traits are ignored or sidelined. So the question of whether size, or shape, or eyesight is more significant than vocalization, brain size, lung capacity, nostril location, etc. What makes us focus on the traits that we focus on?”
Traits that are sidelined are not used to construct phylogenies are usually not used for very obvious reasons. For example; a highly variable region of DNA may obviously change so much as to obscure relationships between species, so it would be far less useful for higher level comparisons (might work for comparing individuals within a species). A sequence that is highly conserved may not yield enough variation to safely compare closely related species (lack of resolution). A sequence that is under heavy selection pressures in one species but not in others would result in a skewed outcome. A sequence that may be inferred to have been involved in lateral gene transfer based on genetic context would not be useful. A trait that has more to do with nurture than nature would not yield consistent results. You ask the question “what makes us focus on the traits that we focus on?” as though there were not textbooks filled with such careful reasoning. Usually it is simple; either we cannot actually construct any tree based on this trait, or we know we would have good reasons not to trust the resulting tree based on this trait for because of xyz, so it is not used. You can look at the link I provided above for more information.
Hi Bren,
As you know, I very much appreciate your willingness to bring your expertise to this discussion and deal with each of these issues in such a detailed way. We non-experts need to see that, and we need to know where even more detailed information is available. And also as a non-expert, I can still discern that your responses are representative of the unified and effective response that the community of biological scientists has made to challenges to common ancestry. So, thank you!
Here is a worry… and I’m not even sure how big a worry it is. You wrote that “our subjective judgments on such a matter are not even meaningful. Any prediction made on the premise of special creation is based on the idea that God would reasonably do such and such (or at least we would if we were him). This resembles absurd pseudo-theological chutzpah…”
I think we need to be careful not to lay down epistemological principles that will prevent us from placing any confidence at all in our intuitive judgments about what a perfectly good God would do. True, we must regard ourselves as poorly equipped to discern all the things that God must take into account. And true, our judgment of our own inadequacies must lead us to be willing to let strong counter-evidence overturn, or defeat, any such judgments we might make (though presumably we would go on to at least attempt to understand why God did not act as we expected Him to act). And true, in the case of evolutionary biology we are indeed presented with overwhelming evidence that God did not in fact choose to create with optimal engineering efficiency, or maximizing physical possibilities, as goals. (And I think we can make at least a start at explaining why, but don’t ask me to try that here.) But can’t we at least say that it is reasonable to think that God would want such things… all other things being equal? And then we can let experience serve as a corrective. I’m just worried that if we condemn all such speculations with moral (or moral-sounding) disapproval, even speculations that have not been defeated by clear experience, then we are depriving ourselves of a very important source of reasonable belief or judgment that would have seriously negative effects in a number of other areas (such as how to respond to the problem of evil). Evolutionary biology does present us with “evils” that require us to adjust our expectations of what God would or would not do, just as all evils require that of us to some degree. And in the face of the overwhelming evidence we now have, there is something very wrong with refusing to make those adjustments. But can’t we at least retain the idea that our initial expectations were at least justified, and not just “absurd pseudo-theological chutzpah”?
Hi John,
I appreciate your thoughtful point and I’ve enjoyed your very lucid discussions above. It does strike me that I should temper the thought somewhat (and I’ll straight out drop the chutzpah bit!), though I think it still stands to a great extent. The moral-sounding disapproval is out of place and probably stems from hearing such things, never well justified, before.
The thing is, this is not similar to the problem of evil. With the problem of evil, we arguably have what Christians would view as an evidentiary resource in the Bible and/or the Church traditions that at least constrains the type of answer that may be given. It happens that these resources are intimately concerned with this question. This resource is not universally accepted obviously, and an agnostic would not view it as useful, but then, the problem of evil does not masquerade as a scientific problem, and it is often being addressed within a specific tradition, with the various premises underlying that tradition being viewed as a given. Where the problem of evil is addressed from a philosophical standpoint, it’s a bit different, and suddenly everything depends on context; within the atheistic tradition, there is arguably no problem of evil, within the theistic tradition, the problem of evil is significantly dependent on how both God and evil are defined. Obviously God can be defined in such a way that it is no longer a problem; if Loki was thought to be the “Lord of Lords”, the problem may be that there isn’t enough evil in the world to be consistent with his existence. So I see the problem of evil as being largely relative to the grounds being agreed upon by all parties, and since such grounds are theological, it can never really enter the scientific arena.
For the problem of what the different nephesh or non-nephesh containing categories would be expected to look like (there we have our first [rare] Biblical distinction on the subject), we could run with the biblical data, but it seems that both the Bible and the major Church traditions are largely not interested in this question. According to the Bible, we can expect an animal/plant division (prokaryotes and archaea get no mention), a flying things/swimming things/walking things/creeping things division, and probably you could work out a few other things, but you get little to no commentary on why the created things are “good” at each stage. Nor does God’s personality lead to any direct inferences as far as I can see. We can see what moral decisions we might be able to expect, but hardly what aesthetic choices. We do not get any sense of whether complexity should have value over simplicity in most contexts or whether optimization is better than diversity, though I suppose loose arguments could be hammered out for either side. Could we do something with the ideas of perfection and holiness? I don’t think so. At least, it isn’t clear what “perfection” would mean in a biological context, if it doesn’t mean optimality for a given purpose, which I guess it doesn’t, since things aren’t and since the Bible doesn’t use the word in this context. For holiness, the Bible informs us of the clean/unclean division but is again somewhat obscure on the why question. Holiness may imply that God wishes to “set apart” various animals for specific purposes, but I’m not sure how this would play out. There may be some Biblical justification for thinking that God would favor simplicity as well as diversity, though I don’t know where that leaves us. Basically, even when we rely on the much firmer vision of who God is by relying on the Bible, I can’t see any useful or solid predictions that come from this. If we don’t agree on using the Bible (or even some other religious tradition) to decide such questions, it seems we are even more in the dark, and every idiosyncratic view of God may or may not lead to equally idiosyncratic inferences about what is to be expected in the natural world. And of course, the non-theists would not agree to any of these views.
For these reasons, it may be justified to discuss what might be expected based on God’s character or the Bible from within a specific tradition (which is, I guess, what you have in mind, since I guess that we can agree that atheists would never submit to such a procedure), but even then, we are not in a position to really agree on how to understand even the premises we agreed to, and it is hardly the case that we are enabled to make predictions in the scientific sense (though I can see that this is theoretically possible from within the tradition, even if I can’t seem to do it myself). There is also a “psychological” layer that comes into play; even if you know God’s character, exactly how would that character express itself in any given non-moral context. We aren’t good at such inferences with humans, so how about with God?
The problem is not with letting intuitions guide expectations and then letting experience serve as a corrective (this is probably a solid approach for theological discussions). The problem is that such speculations are being packaged as scientific predictions; which are not tentative and malleable in this way. A prediction should be solid and should lead to corroborating or falsifying the premise (if it is to be useful). It doesn’t seem to serve this purpose in the case discussed above. I guess it is the misuse of this word that I am arguing against, though I am not really arguing directly against JohnZ’s point on this count.
The other problem is that a number of what we might call our intuitive expectations, theologically driven or otherwise, don’t seem to work out in the sciences (very few of them do actually). This last has often been viewed as a point that especially characterizes the major scientific discoveries of the last few centuries.
I’m sort of meandering, but I guess that all in all, I agree with you in theory that it is possible and I agree that we can’t ever rule such a procedure out of court without first considering it, but in practice I find it intractable and I find it to be especially wrongheaded when creationists use “prediction” terminology, usually meant in the scientific sense, when basing themselves on such fluid and subjective premises and easily upturned layers of interpretation (and when they are not using it as a true test for the hypothesis they provide).
Bren, thanks for your reply. First, what I accept about the first point is that this is what evolution expects; I do not accept discrepancies become moot. Second, I think similarities are a type of pattern by definition. Just like a pattern for a dressmaker can be used to make similar dresses, but out of different materials and different colors, with different buttons and even different lengths.
Yes, special creation would predict differences as well as similarities. But then, so does evolution. God is most glorified by all the unique characteristics of what he has made, within the limits of their design. For us to put conditions on this would be chutzpah. Yet, we can understand that even within these limits of design, there is disease, genetic problems, and environmental deleterious effects, which seem to counter the design.
I must admit that what you suggest as an abrupt change in pattern being necessary when we are outside of the created kinds, is not an assumption I would make. I would argue there would be a distinct change, but not necessarily so abrupt that there are no similarities. Trees are all still trees… why would there not be similarities in dna? Fish are all fish… why would there not be similarities in dna? As to whether animals in one kind could not have a particular thing found in a very different kind… that question does not make sense. Of course it could happen. In some cases, it has happened… such as egg laying mammals, or a duck billed platypus, there are probably more, but to say that marsupials should have the reproductive system of the coyote is meaningless. Isn’t that chutzpah on your part? Why would we determine what they should look like? We know there are many more possibilities we could imagine, but so what? God created what he created the way he wanted to. Many things are similar, and many things are different. So what? Similarities by design do not equate to similarities by inheritance.
In a niche, you cannot assume that there is only one possibility. Whether a chimp carries its young in its arms, or the young hold on tight, or are carried in a pouch, or hang on to the tail… they are all possibilities, and even with small differences in survival, will not eliminate the possibility of success. So there is no argument that there is only one survival or adaptation option that is critical. In addition, that dissimilar species or kinds all choose to eat grass, is no argument for some similarity of inheritance. They are different, but are all made of carbon and protein compounds, and so require or can subsist on similar sources of nutrients.
Evolution predicts everything and nothing at the same time. It predicts things based on observations of things that are already seen. It predicts many more transitional fossils, and then predicts that these should be few and far between. It predicts that extinct animals are extinct and non-extinct animals are not extinct. It did not predict the survival of the coelecanth fish, which was determined to be extinct, but was not. It did not predict the usefulness of several/many “vestigial organs”. It changes its predictions when previous predictions were found to be false by observation. It did not predict the usefulness of most "non-functional"dna. It did not have a prediction for finding red blood cells or dna in dinosaur bones. It cannot explain kangaroo fossils in Europe and no kangaroo fossils in Australia. It does not explain one thousand horizontal kilometers of water laid sediment up to 1000 m deep, in the western usa which has little to no expected erosion features within the layers in it. It did not predict the pattern of helium diffusion in zircon crystals. It did not predict the magnetic field strength in several planets and moons.
Family trees were identified long before evolution was formulated, based on similarities observed by creationist scientists. The entire classification system was based on those similarities, whether it was plants or animals. Evolution has merely taken this system and revised it based on placing more significance on certain parts of the genome, or certain parts of the anatomy, and then attributed this not merely to significant similarities, but to inheritance.
"…It is also more reasonable to assume that much of the non-functional dna is probably more functional than we presently realize, and if this is true, then it will be more and more difficult to maintain the position that non-functional dna is an indicator of inheritance from a non-related ancestor.” by this I mean similar non-functional dna.emphasized text
Leaving aside the affects of nurture, it is interesting that you say that a highly variable region of dna may obscure relationships between species, yet it is these regions which actually allow differentiation between individuals within species. A “conserved sequence” is by evolutionary definition something that denotes inheritance, rather than similarity of species. So when it is present, it is used to denote common descent, and when it is absent, it is also used to denote common descent from something that did not yet have the conserved sequence, and then saying that the conserved sequence must have originated later in the separation of the taxa. It answers everything and nothing.
Hi JohnZ,
Thanks for your response.
You raise the point of platypuses and then you bring up the Coyote/Tasmanian devil issue again. In both cases, a distinction may be made that could help you to see the point a bit more clearly. Convergent evolution does exist and one may expect that it would confuse things somewhat. But as it turns out, convergent evolution does not seem to be a major problem when constructing phylogenies. No biologist seriously plays with the idea of categorizing the platypus with some outlier avian group (is it a cousin to the duck?). Why? Well, for the simple reason that it is only the feature that are particularly crucial to the niche that it fills that are convergent, while the other features establish a clear pattern that help us to determine ancestry. Other features that are important to the species, but do not serve to specialize in that particular environment, give us all the data we need for clear and consonant clues to their ancestry. This is an entirely logical outcome and it seems to play out. The dolphin and the shark seem similar; their characteristic fusiform shape may immediately give the impression that they are cousins (one of whom went bad I guess!). How would we test this? When we go ahead and list the differences, something interesting happens; sharks are cold-blooded (like fish) while dolphins are warm-blooded (like mammals), sharks use gills (like fish) while dolphins need to surface to take air (like mammals), most sharks give birth to live young, but some release eggs that hatch later (like fish), while dolphins have extended gestation periods and feed their young with milk (like mammals). As we continue to list the differences, they seem to yield an obvious pattern, with dolphins having a large number of features that unexpectedly match up with those of land-dwelling mammals instead of fish. Want to test it further? Time to look at genetic homologies (which bear this case out with flying colors). With the Tasmanian wolf and the coyote, they both seem similarly adapted to their similar environment, but as soon as you start to look at characteristics that are not necessary for the niche they are in (reproductive system discussed above), you end up listing large and fundamental differences that just happen to align with particular groups. Why this alignment of the other features? Evolution can answer that question and the answer covers every such case, special creation cannot come up with any comparable global answer that explains these particular patterns of alignments (so far). Why the convergence? Selection pressures are a very sound reason for evolution, and design is a very sound reason for special creation. Special creation has an answer for one observation (the similarities), but does not have anything that explains the particular pattern of differences and why they all happen to align with the same groups. That is a huge gap in explanatory power.
“Evolution predicts everything and nothing at the same time. It predicts things based on observations of things that are already seen. It predicts many more transitional fossils, and then predicts that these should be few and far between. It predicts that extinct animals are extinct and non-extinct animals are not extinct. It did not predict the survival of the coelecanth fish, which was determined to be extinct, but was not. It did not predict the usefulness of several/many “vestigial organs”. It changes its predictions when previous predictions were found to be false by observation. It did not predict the usefulness of most "non-functional"dna. It did not have a prediction for finding red blood cells or dna in dinosaur bones. It cannot explain kangaroo fossils in Europe and no kangaroo fossils in Australia. It does not explain one thousand horizontal kilometers of water laid sediment up to 1000 m deep, in the western usa which has little to no expected erosion features within the layers in it. It did not predict the pattern of helium diffusion in zircon crystals. It did not predict the magnetic field strength in several planets and moons.”
This paragraph is nearly entirely disconnected from the actual set of predictions that can be inferred from the theory. This is what I cannot understand. I even gave a short list of actual (general) types of predictions that can be expected, yet this above paragraph has only the most tenuous links to the kind of thing found on that list.
Your coelacanth point clearly supports this last statement. I can’t begin to imagine how a theory that allows for conservative as well as directional selection pressures, that allows for stasis as well as change and that allows for large or small ongoing populations is supposed to predict that or when an animal has gone extinct (again; not at all the right category when it comes to figuring out what evolution can predict). An absence of specific fossils prior to the emergence of a species (a giraffe in the Jurassic for example) can be predicted based on the current evidence, not the continuing presence or absence of these fossils after the species has emerged! That doesn’t make sense as far as I can see. For transitional fossils, the theory of evolution has never (I think obviously) predicted the completeness or incompleteness of the fossil record – Darwin’s Origin has rather a long stretch where he investigates that very point from the standpoint of geology, and with less than sanguine results. The completeness of the fossil record is a point that has to do with the processes of fossilization and on geological considerations, and expectations have changed as these points over time – there is no logical inference on this point from the theory itself. You were obviously following some of the conversations above, so it should come as no surprise that secondary acquired function in vestigial organs is entirely beside the point and there is no prediction one way or another as to whether or not such new functions will arise. I would temper this by saying that high selection pressures and need for strict economy of features and genetic material (many viruses in particular exhibit a need for such economy, restricting their genetic material to a great degree, and even coding for more than one completely different protein – by way of a translation frameshift, in the same sequence) can lead to the exaptation of vestigial organs/sequences, so we would expect that under such conditions, the organs/sequences may either acquire such functions or be removed – this needs to be considered on a case by case, but it doesn’t at all sound like the prediction you are suggesting (somewhat closer to the very opposite). The actual prediction has more to do with, once again, the pattern; vestigial organs, whether there is a new function or no discernable new function, happen to have many of the same features and are in the same position as organs that have a very different function in species inferred to be closely related based on multiple lines of evidence. It is that which needs explaining (atavism is a dramatic example of the same idea). Soft tissues (after rehydration by the way) in dinosaur bones is again somewhat obviously not a prediction of evolutionary theory; it was an expectation based on previous findings or lack of findings. Depending on the conditions, the expected stability of organic materials can vary by many orders of magnitude. Obviously the extensive cross-linking caused by free radicals (from the released iron molecules that were associated with the heme compounds) is one such condition, as was the context that lead the bone preservation in the first place and the protective matrix of the bone itself. But this is beside the point; the point is that it is clearly not a prediction of the theory. I’ve addressed the first four points, and in each case, it has nothing to do with any inference made by the theory. Do I need to go on? It gets even more outlandish, with evolution predicting something about the zircon crystals and the planets, so I really thing I’d better not go on. You make the theory sound like quite the superhero! I’m hoping you are seeing the underlying point that I’m making here, not one in your list of predictions is actually a prediction of evolution and most are very obviously not even predictions that are in the same domain of science (and in most cases, they aren’t even predictions, period). This is somewhat striking.
“Family trees were identified long before evolution was formulated, based on similarities observed by creationist scientists. The entire classification system was based on those similarities, whether it was plants or animals. Evolution has merely taken this system and revised it based on placing more significance on certain parts of the genome, or certain parts of the anatomy, and then attributed this not merely to significant similarities, but to inheritance.”
I enjoyed the plug for creation scientists! Anyway, a simple point about this; Linnaeus, in his classifications, relied on clear patterns of nested hierarchies, codifying the pattern of proximate and more remote relationships between life-forms, depending on measurable similarities and differences. I’m not sure whether he or his contemporaries ever figured out that this arrangement was not actually a foregone conclusion. This classification system was rendered far more simple and objective due to the actual nested hierarchies found in nature. Centaurs and winged lions did not exist, but if they did (and objectively, why wouldn’t we see fantastic hybrids of one kind or another?), such a classification system would have been rendered impossible; we would have the lower half classifying in one way and the upper half classifying in a wildly different way; no classification would really be possible, since no pattern would be consistent and each would depend entirely on the morphological trait being measured. A few traits may depend on each other to such a degree that they must vary together for mechanical reasons (a very large bulk should lead to strong legs across the board, assuming that legs are used), but wherever there is no such necessary correlation (the details of the ocular system, the reproductive system and the leg strength would have no reason correlate in this way, for example), such an attempt at classification should be a disaster; there is simply no logical reason why the same classification system would work on each of these independent features, yielding results consistent enough to build such a classification system. This has only become obvious since we realized that the system conveniently sorts as a family tree because it actually is a family tree! I think you need to seriously consider nested hierarchies; they are not the somewhat irrelevant and universal pattern you seem to think they are, and they are definitely NOT a prediction of special creation. Your first few paragraphs seem to indicate that you are not seeing either the nature or the significance of the pattern being discussed. The fact that you have not recognized the nature of the pattern is probably the reason why you don’t see why there should be any visible transition when going from intra-baraminic phylogenies to extra-baraminic phylogenies (if you will permit my borrowing the vocab!).
“Leaving aside the affects of nurture, it is interesting that you say that a highly variable region of dna may obscure relationships between species, yet it is these regions which actually allow differentiation between individuals within species. A “conserved sequence” is by evolutionary definition something that denotes inheritance, rather than similarity of species. So when it is present, it is used to denote common descent, and when it is absent, it is also used to denote common descent from something that did not yet have the conserved sequence, and then saying that the conserved sequence must have originated later in the separation of the taxa. It answers everything and nothing.”
The point is missed here; conserved sequences (the presence or absence of) are being used, in the context of which we are speaking , to decide relationships between species, with evolution being taken as the premise, not as the point in question. We were not discussing conserved sequences as some sort of proof of evolution. You are involving a category error in this discussion. I have already said that I think many of your concerns with evolution have more to do with category errors than anything else. I have listed the type of thing that serves to test the truth of evolution itself, but your discussion seems to naturally gravitate to things that are considered in the context of evolution but are not appropriate tests for the truth of evolution. This is an extremely important distinction; as an example from another area - the fact that we see the sun moving in the sky is obviously within the context of the heliocentric model, but it also obviously does not serve as an appropriate test for whether or not it should displace the geocentric model, since we would see the same thing regardless of which model is used.
No, I did not miss this point. Evolution is taken as a premise… I understand that pretty well. But definitely, conserved sequences of non-functional dna is also used as a “proof” of evolution. That I also understand pretty well. The category error is not mine.
The subject has been changed. We were discussing what to look for in a sequence in order to determine whether it is useful for phylogenetic inference. You are suddenly discussing the use of non-functional DNA as a test for whether evolution occurred. How did that switch happen? If you take my former discussion on phylogenetic inference and then complain that it seems to assume common descent, my answer is; um, of course it does, that was the topic, and those were the necessary grounds for the topic. I actually never stated that non-functional DNA could not be useful for bolstering the case for evolution (though the focus would have to be very different if this was the goal), but (a) we were not specifically discussing non-functional DNA, and (b) the points discussed were not designed to “denote common descent… explaining everything and nothing”, they were designed to assume common descent and then consider what conserved sequences would be useful for phylogenies given this assumption. I said that you seem to be making a category error; the error is in assuming that the premise of the discussion (the assumption of common descent) was actually the goal of the discussion (the truth of common descent). Given this completely different purpose, obviously the discussion failed to accomplish it. It would probably have been very odd indeed if it succeeded. This category error is true whatever I happen to think about whatever other jobs we can assign to DNA. I suspect you maybe just lost track of the thread of the discussion, which is understandable given that we were also discussing evidentiary support for evolution elsewhere.
bren. i gave you an example of contradiction- human and orange utan share 29 unique traits, but chimp and human share only 2. its mean that your example of whale phylogeny mean nothing (unique traits of whale with other mammals). when we see contadiction we can call it “convergent” or “loss”. but its actually a contradiction.
I can’t begin to imagine how a theory that allows for conservative as well as directional selection pressures, that allows for stasis as well as change and that allows for large or small ongoing populations is supposed to predict that or when an animal has gone extinct (again; not at all the right category when it comes to figuring out what evolution can predict). An absence of specific fossils prior to the emergence of a species (a giraffe in the Jurassic for example) can be predicted based on the current evidence, not the continuing presence or absence of these fossils after the species has emerged! (bren)
As I said, Bren, the theory predicts everything and nothing at the same time. Everything in generalities, but nothing in specifics. Stasis as well as change, conserving as well as directional selection, large or small populations, etc. as you say. After seeing the evidence, it predicts the evidence.
Your sentence itself is something you take for granted, without realizing the implications. “The theory predicts the absence of fossils prior to emergence”… why? because they are absent prior to when we see them. Of course they are. If they are seen, then they are no longer absent, and the emergence is earlier… Well. But what you don’t realize is you cannot prove their absence (of the species) prior to its assumed emergence. You only see the absence of fossils. But you know that in other cases, absence of fossils after “emergence” does not prove the absence of the species. You know this by many species, and the coelacanth is only one obvious example. As a result, it would not be illogical for me to say that all species existed prior to their emergence in the fossil record. Nor can we tell how long they existed before their appearance in the fossil record. Not without inserting and forcing our paradigm into the evidence.
Selection pressures are a very sound reason for evolution, and design is a very sound reason for special creation. Special creation has an answer for one observation (the similarities), but does not have anything that explains the particular pattern of differences and why they all happen to align with the same groups. That is a huge gap in explanatory power.(bren)
Selection pressures are indeed a very sound reason for why certain species exist in certain environments. Obviously a whale is not going to do well on land, and an iguana will not do well beside the polar bears. However, the selection pressures do not provide a good reason for why a polar bear should become a lizard or vice versa.
A group is a group based on its similarities. But differences within the group are what allows a group to be a group that consists of similar but yet different entities by definition. The similarities define the group; the differences are what identify the group members. The fewer the similarities, the larger the grouping. The more varied the environment, the more likely that there will be more diverse groups and individuals.
Design implies that animals can survive in their environment. Design implies that animals will continue to survive in their environments. Design implies that there will be diverse groups and individuals to occupy the various environments, but it does not imply that only one type is possible, or that what exists there is the only option. We know that when rabbits were introduced to Australia, they did very well. Their absence did not imply that they could not exist there. We know that weeds introduced to North America do well once they get there, even though they were absent. Thus a niche is not determined by what does not exist there.
Soft tissues (after rehydration by the way) in dinosaur bones is again somewhat obviously not a prediction of evolutionary theory; it was an expectation based on previous findings or lack of findings. Depending on the conditions, the expected stability of organic materials can vary by many orders of magnitude. Obviously the extensive cross-linking caused by free radicals (from the released iron molecules that were associated with the heme compounds) is one such condition, as was the context that lead the bone preservation in the first place and the protective matrix of the bone itself. But this is beside the point; the point is that it is clearly not a prediction of the theory.
Right. As I said, it did not have a prediction for finding red blood cells or dna in bones. Why? because the red blood cells and dna should have deteriorated, by all normal expectations of deterioration. To say that it can survive by “many” orders of magnitude, is generally not true, but could be true only under certain known conditions such as extremely low temperature, but even then, it cannot survive the periods suggested, not for 60 million years. Under the assumed conditions, it certainly would not survive that long. So it didn’t. Not that long. That is what the evidence shows.
Continuing with the uncertainty of determining age of rocks or fossils, I want to bring up something from another thread mentioned by Ted Davis.
In lectures I have heard myself, Wolgemuth shows precisely why the K-AR method simply can’t be used to date lava from Mt St Helens or any other volcano, b/c (if I recall correctly) the liquid state of the rock does not trap Argon gas. It’s more complicated, obviously, but Wolgemuth says more at comment #89 here: Blog Post - . The comments by Tim Hebble at the same URL are also good. (Davis)
I gave a reply on that thread (Americans discover deep time) but want to highlight something else. Ken Wolgemuth states at comment #89 that the K-Ar method only works if lava was actually flowing from the volcano. It is only then that all the argon is expelled from the lava at 1800F before it cools when new Ar40 is formed from K40 by radioactive decay. If it is rock expelled or blown into the air, then it doesn’t work to try to date it by K-Ar. However, whether the lava flows out at a certain temperature, or whether it has been re-heated, or how quickly it cooled is difficult to determine. And this may involve circular reasoning once again. But it certainly makes the dating of volcanic ash layers suspect, doesn’t it.
Fossils are never directly dated. They are indirectly dated by proximity to certain layers of rock. It is entirely possible to have fossils and sedimentary rock much younger than the rock around them, as when sedimentary rock is laid on top of granite or basalt. The fossils I have seen, pachyrhinosaurus, had no serious rock above them… only clay, and possibly some thin layers of sandstone (sedimentary rock). No serious constraints at all on the age of the fossils. Yet, dated quickly by geologist to be about 40 million years old. Assumptions, assumptions.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.