The fossil record fits best with progressive creation

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@T_aquaticus

They seem to bluster their way through it, in my experience. When we discuss how the twin nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution we usually get the grand pronouncement, “Progressive Creationism would also produce a nested hierarchy”. The problem is that a) they usually have no idea what a nested hierarchy is, and b) they have no idea why Progressive Creationism would produce a nested hierarchy over any other pattern of shared derived traits. They just claim Progressive Creationism would produce a nested hierarchy to make it look like they have an argument.

For reference here is an article on automobiles and the fossil record by Fuz Rana at RTB:

The Evolution of the Automobile: Evidence for Intelligent Design

And he basically concludes that:

The approach the UCLA research team used to study technology development, once again, highlights the fact that the sequential changes seen in the fossil record just as reasonably reflect the work of a mind as mechanism.

But, it is possible to take the implications of their work one step further. Not only can we argue that the progressive anatomical changes observed in fossilized organisms reflect the Creator’s handiwork, but so do overall patterns in the fossil record. The UCLA study demonstrates that when it comes to technology produced by human designers, the number of design variants and the rate that designs appear and disappear from the marketplace have a rational basis. Though the rationale may be different than what the UCLA researchers discovered for the automobile’s evolution, it becomes all the more reasonable to view changes in biological diversity and origination and extinction rates in the fossil record as reflecting a Creator’s intentional activity.

In other words, the evidence (the fossil record and homology) that biologists insist provides compelling support for the evolutionary paradigm actually finds ready explanation from a creation model perspective.

Another method employed would be related to casting doubt upon any phylogenies or relationships:

Mismatches between Genetic Data and the Fossil Record

[Edgar]

@T_aquaticus

Thermodynamics is not useful in fighting the Ebola virus. Does this mean we should chuck the theory?

You seem to have missed the point: Thermodynamics has endless practical uses in applied science. Conversely, common descent has no practical uses in applied science.

The theory of evolution is an extremely useful theory for explaining the natural history of species which is a very important question in biology.

No, it isn’t; explaining the natural history of species is not at all important in biology. What is important in biology is facts, not untestable theories (aka stories) about what might have transpired millions of years ago, which are completely useless in any practical sense.
Atheist scientists, on the other hand, place a great deal of importance on these evolutionary tales of yore because they have a powerful psychological need to believe that’s what happened. It seems you’ve been caught up in all the atheist hype.

Why do species have the features they do? Why do genomes look like that? Why do fossils look the way they do? These are all very important questions, at least to those with a bit of curiosity.

None of these things are important because none of them are practically useful in biology; they are mere curiosities that some scientists theorise about (in the case of atheists, obsessively). No pharmaceutical companies and no animal or plant breeders, for example, waste time studying how feathers, or whales or humans or genomes (supposedly) evolved, because such theories are irrelevant and offer them nothing that’s practically useful.

“This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless”.
Louise Bouroune, Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg.

“That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [of how evolution occurs - Ed] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements.”
Louis Bouroune ( Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79

[Edgar]

@T_aquaticus

how can you say the fossil record best fits progressive creation if you don’t know what progressive creation would produce?

You appear to have it back-to-front: My Progressive Creation model is predicated on the fossil record.

[Edgar]

@Haywood

I’m not objecting to your posts because you dissent, Edgar. I’m objecting because you came to your conclusions about fossils based entirely on quote mines, yet you aren’t up front about that.

You seem to be implying that one of the most distinguished paleontologists of the twentieth century is not worth quoting. Is this because you know the fossil record better than even Gould did, or because you simply don’t like what he says?

My Gould-quotes came from my copy of one of his books, The Panda’s Thumb. If you believe I have quoted him out of context, kindly demonstrate how.

Instead, you present your position as directly revealed by the fossil record when in fact you are several layers away from it.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I freely admit that I have no direct knowledge of the fossil record, but rely on the opinion of experts (as most evolutionists do, btw).

[Edgar]

@AMWolfe

Interesting proposal. But then why would there be similar mutations in, say, rats and mice, with other rodents (say, capybaras) sharing more mutations with rats and mice than with humans?

Sorry, I don’t understand your point. Can you try rephrasing it, please?

[T_aquaticus]

@Edgar

You seem to have missed the point: Thermodynamics has endless practical uses in applied science. Conversely, common descent has no practical uses in applied science.

The theory of evolution does have practical use in explaining why species look the way they do, why fossils look the way they do, and why genomes look the way they do. The theory of evolution has endless practical use in explaining natural history.

@Edgar

No, it isn’t; explaining the natural history of species is not at all important in biology.

It may not be important to you, but it is very important to biologists. You see, biologists are curious. You may not be curious, but scientists are. They want to know how nature arrived at its current state.

Are you really saying that knowledge isn’t worth pursuing unless it has immediate practical use?

[T_aquaticus]

@Edgar

You appear to have it back-to-front: My Progressive Creation model is predicated on the fossil record.

And yet your Progressive Creation model makes no predictions about the pattern of shared features for those fossils and living species. Why do we never find a fossil with feather impressions and three middle ear bones? How does Progressive Creation explain this? Why don’t we find fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features? How do you explain the nested hierarchy that fossils fall into, along with living species?

[AMWolfe (Andrew M. Wolfe)]

@Edgar

Sorry, I don’t understand your point. Can you try rephrasing it, please?

I’ll explain by way of metaphor to astronomy.

Before Galileo, there was geocentrism. Every planet was thought to travel in its own sphere around the earth.

Galileo with his newfangled telescope witnessed the phases of Venus. The phases changed from one side to the other as Venus traveled its solar orbit. For the first time, here was PROOF that two other heavenly bodies were rotating around EACH OTHER and not around earth. Shocking! And it could no longer fit with geocentrism.

This idea that the fall caused mutations according to genetic distance from H. sapiens is kind of like geocentrism, but it’s anthropocentrism.

Noticing that rats and mice share some modifications that we don’t have, and that capybaras share modifications with rats+mice that we don’t have, is kind of like noticing the phases of Venus.

That is to say, here we have observations that show that these things group together in nested hierarchies with one another, with no reference whatsoever to H. sapiens. What matters as we group them together is not their distance to H. sapiens but their distance from one another in their own group that has nothing to do with ours.

This cannot be accommodated in an anthropocentric view of mutations.

Pardon me if this makes no sense; it’s quite late where I am and I’m committing the cardinal error of posting while sleep-deprived.

[T_aquaticus]

@AMWolfe

That is to say, here we have observations that show that these things group together in nested hierarchies with one another, with no reference whatsoever to H. sapiens. What matters as we group them together is not their distance to H. sapiens but their distance from one another in their own group that has nothing to do with ours.

Or better yet, humans nest within groups no differently than other species. The following phylogeny is based on genetic distance.

Orangutan genome paper

Added in edit:

Genetic equidistance is also of interest. According to the theory of evolution, humans and mice share the same common ancestor with chickens. That is, there should be an equal distance between mice and chickens as there is between humans and chickens. That’s exactly what we see. The following comparison is between cytochrome c genes for human, mice, and chickens (using Homologene if someone wants to play along).

Human v. mouse = 90.5% similar
Human v. chicken = 81.6%
Mouse v. chicken = 81.9%

The distance between mouse and chicken is nearly identical to the distance between human and chicken.

[AMWolfe (Andrew M. Wolfe)]

@Edgar

You appear to have it back-to-front: My Progressive Creation model is predicated on the fossil record.

I’m pretty friendly with you Edgar and will continue to remain so, I hope, but you have to admit (don’t you?) that it’s a bit odd to say your model is predicated on the fossil record when you refuse to discuss the actual fossil record but instead continue to harp on a quote or two from a single scholar. That’s not the fossil record…

[Edgar]

@Christy

This kind of contention is an example of the kind of YEC response that I personally find incredibly lacking in theological rigor

On the contrary, my hypothesis is based on orthodox Christian theology.

For example, consider Revelation 21:1, which says, “Then I saw a new new heaven and new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away”.
Why will the first heaven and earth be replaced by a new heaven and earth? The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible explains: "John sees all creation transformed and made radiant with the glory of God. It is no longer a world subject to death and decay and suffering the damaging effects of human sin (Genesis 3:17-18, Rom 8:20-22).

Now consider Romans 8:18-23,
“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.”

Regarding this passage, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible says, “Paul hears creation crying out like a woman giving birth. The pangs of labour will not subside until the children of God are revealed and the whole material creation is renewed. The earth groans under the curse of Genesis 3:17. The passage shows that Adam’s trespass had catastrophic consequences not only for himself but for the world in which he lived.”

[Chris_Falter]

@Edgar

You seem to be implying that one of the most distinguished paleontologists of the twentieth century is not worth quoting. Is this because you know the fossil record better than even Gould did, or because you simply don’t like what he says?

My Gould-quotes came from my copy of one of his books, The Panda’s Thumb. If you believe I have quoted him out of context, kindly demonstrate how.

Hi Edgar,

I won’t speak for Haywood, but I will speak for myself.

You apparently read the entire book without grasping that Gould was propounding a stochastic model of evolutionary rates of change. No one who understands the science could possibly think that you are citing Gould correctly.

Moreover, you even acknowledged that you have no clue as to what a stochastic model is. You essentially 'fessed up to ignorance about Gould’s big ideas.

Yet a few days later, here you are citing Gould in the same mistaken way, once again.

I don’t understand why you spend so much energy arguing the same points over and over…after you have conceded that you have no understanding of the source you are citing.

What resources are you using to understand stochastic models in science, Edgar?

Best regards,
Chris

[Haywood (Haywood Clark)]

@Edgar

You seem to be implying that one of the most distinguished paleontologists of the twentieth century is not worth quoting. Is this because you know the fossil record better than even Gould did, or because you simply don’t like what he says?

I’m not implying anything of the sort, and you know it.

How’s this quote?

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”

@Edgar

My Gould-quotes came from my copy of one of his books, The Panda’s Thumb. If you believe I have quoted him out of context, kindly demonstrate how.

That’s odd, given these exchanges:

Which books and papers have you read, Edgar?

I can’t remember.

May I ask what you have read about gaps other than a few mined Gould quotes?

Sweet bugger all, to be honest.

You appear to be contradicting yourself, as your answers to those questions should have been different if you owned The Panda’s Thumb.

And there’s also the fact that Gould’s whole point is the stochastic nature of evolution, to which you said:

@Edgar

What is your level of familiarity with stochastic models in biology, chemistry, climate studies, and physics?

Zero. I can’t even spell “stochastic”.

Finally, have you quoted anything from the book other than what is on creationist web sites?

[Haywood (Haywood Clark)]

@Edgar

What is important in biology is facts, not untestable theories (aka stories) about what might have transpired millions of years ago, which are completely useless in any practical sense.

Like the sequence evidence you claim requires an advanced degree to even contemplate?

@Edgar

Atheist scientists, on the other hand, place a great deal of importance on these evolutionary tales of yore because they have a powerful psychological need to believe that’s what happened.

I’m not an atheist, but I’m putting a great deal of importance on facts, while you place everything on quote mines that you’ve cribbed from creationist web sites.

@Edgar

No pharmaceutical companies and no animal or plant breeders, for example, waste time studying how feathers, or whales or humans or genomes (supposedly) evolved, because such theories are irrelevant and offer them nothing that’s practically useful.

Why does your immune system only recognize foreign antigens in the context of self? Why is your response to tissues from another human so much stronger than your response to those from another species? What are the ramifications of these for bone-marrow transplantation, which saves so many children’s (and plenty of adults’) lives?

Are there any creationist pharma companies?

[Haywood (Haywood Clark)]

@Edgar

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible explains:

Are the explanations of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible the Word of God?

Are there other interpretations? It seems that if you have to cite non-Biblical sources, you’re not very convinced of that particular interpretation. Correct?

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Edgar

ERVs will function as ERVs do, regardless of what humans think or say about their role in evolution.

Indeed. They do something in our genome whether we understand them or not. However, we do understand them quite well and just like with the fossil record they follow very specific patterns between different species. We’ve got some 200,000 of them and share all but 100 with chimpanzees (they have 200 unique ones that we don’t- but the other 200,000 are in homologous locations in the genome) so just like with the fossil record a good question to ask is how did it get that way? Did these things just so happen to all insert independently from one another or where they passed down through common descent? I’ll give you a little hint though – only one of those hypotheses survived.

[jasonbourne4]

@pevaquark

We’ve got some 200,000 of them and share all but 100 with chimpanzees (they have 200 unique ones that we don’t- but the other 200,000 are in homologous locations in the genome) so just like with the fossil record a good question to ask is how did it get that way? Did these things just so happen to all insert independently from one another or where they passed down through common descent?

Once someone understands the significance of the comparative genomic data, intellectual honesty demands concession to common ancestry as beyond reasonable doubt.

[Bill_II]

@Edgar

You seem to be implying that one of the most distinguished paleontologists of the twentieth century is not worth quoting.

@Edgar if you are going to quote Gould the least you could do is not edit the quote to make it say what you want it to say. It is strange but the version you quoted back in post 114 contains the ellipses in exactly the same location in the quote as found on YEC sites.

For your edification here is the quote in it’s entirety. I have indicated where you made the cuts to change the meaning and added some bolding for the parts that don’t fit your message.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. [cut] Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.[end cut]

Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.[cut] In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots).[end cut] I wish only to point out that it was never “seen” in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge[cut] of the American Museum of Natural History[end cut] and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox.[cut] We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism.[end cut]

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

I. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”[end of quote]

Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist for long. Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

S.J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, pp. 181-182

Comment?

[Haywood (Haywood Clark)]

@Edgar

My Gould-quotes came from my copy of one of his books, The Panda’s Thumb. If you believe I have quoted him out of context, kindly demonstrate how.

That’s been done very well by others.

Here’s an idea: how about if you produce 5 quotes from the book that support your claim, which are not found on ANY creationist web sites?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I’m aware of the Bible passages you cite and I believe all of nature is affected by human sin and awaiting redemption and the culmination of the re-creation initiated by the Incarnation and Resurrection.

What I don’t believe is that there is anything in the Bible that supports the idea that there was a second creation event post-Fall in which God fundamentally altered the existing perfect creation to the degree that would turn herbivores into carnivores (that requires new jaw and teeth structures, different digestive tracts, and predatory capabilities, not just a different appetite), invent billions of new harmful and parasitic species of plants, animals, and micro-organisms, design genetic mutations for birth defects and disease and proactively insert them in the genome. Or a second creation event that would alter the foundational systems of earth science and institute a new system of plate tectonics and weather that before did not cause any death with natural activity like earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanoes, floods, wildfires, avalanches, and hurricanes, but because of sin, is now “unleashed.” How exactly would plate tectonics be unleashed? Either we live on a crust that floats on a molten mantle, or we don’t. Crust that floats on molten mantle means earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis.

YECs say we have an issue with death existing in God’s good world before sin, but how is it not more concerning that God cursed the world by initiating a second creation in which he proactively created all sorts of nasty stuff as a punishment for a sin event?

And I think it is a cop-out to pretend that there was this magical transformation and God simply “allowed” these things to “come about” because of the curse. YECs have no natural mechanism that explains that. It has to be God. Evolution proposes actual mechanisms for how animals adapt and become predators and how birth defects just “happen.” Creationism doesn’t have a real explanation other than “The Fall did it,” which is really “God did it,” because it was God’s curse and only God can radically re-design life in the way that is described.

It’s pure imagination to say “Maybe the genomes were such that something was triggered with the Fall and bada-bing, bada-boom, herbivores into carnivores.” We know a lot about genomes, and they don’t ever work like that. The fact that some creationists have agile imaginations and it sounds “plausible” to them, isn’t anything close to a working model. Plus, you still have God putting those “evil” futures into the genomes, just waiting to be triggered magically by sin, so God does not get off the hook as the creator of the bad stuff. There are even Scriptures where God takes delight in the predators he has created, and there is no hint that he only created them that way because of a curse.