Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   creationism predicts more intermediate forms than common ancestry
extremophile
Member (Idle past 5595 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 1 of 3 (302692)
04-09-2006 6:27 PM


It impresses me that creationists constantly complain about the lack of transitional forms predicted by the theory of evolution, but just seem to not be able to compare what would be expected from common ancestry with what could be possible without it.
Common ancestry imposes immense restrictions on the possible forms, and traits in general, of organisms. Species are expected to have their traits in a manner that would make possible to organize them in one phylogenetic tree. But there are many more theoretically possible forms of organisms that one could make up, that would not fit in a tree of life according with the known restrictions of descent.
Bats with bird wings, sirens, "hexapod" pterosaurs, are examples of mosaic distribution of traits that make perfect sense, teleologically, and could not possible be explained by common ancestry, or at least not without prediction a very definite ancestry where fantastic sets of convergences occur, or alternatively, requiring the ad hoc postulation of unknown forms of transmission of traits.
Anyway, this is only a simplistic rough of what could be expected without the restrictions of common ancestry, since it just adds a distantly related trait to an extant organism which is mostly conserved. But the shuffling of traits, if their distribution were random with respect to descent, could be possible to a much higher degree.
Then what creationists have is the evidence according exactly only with a very restrictive process (evolution) while defending that it results, coincidentally, from a much less restrictive process.
Other point that I think that should be made, is that when you have this in mind, what sorts of distribution of traits are expected with and without common ancestry, the transitional fossils are a mere detail, since the extant forms already fit exactly according what would be expected from the result of a restrictive process, rather than not being possible of even start organizing in clear groups of related species and higher groups.
The sorts of ID that accept common ancestry have the same problem in a lesser degree, I think. While most of the restrictions imposed by common ancestry are common to ID, it is a quite weird that even genes do not appear in a pattern of distribution more teleologically expected, for example, the anti freezing proteins in Arctic and Antarctic fishes being coded by the same gene, rather than by different ones, what suggests much more convergent evolution rather than common design/blueprint.
So, where are the incalculabe many more intermediate forms, the chimeras, predictable by creationism? Where are homologies occurring where it "should not" be, according with descent?
This message has been edited by extremophile, 04-14-2006 05:09 PM

"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2006 6:37 PM extremophile has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 3 (302695)
04-09-2006 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extremophile
04-09-2006 6:27 PM


ID or Creationism?
You jump around a bit. IS this an ID topic and in the ID forum or a creationism topic and in the Bio evolution forum?
I think that mainstream ID (if there is such a thing) would NOT suggest that there are the kind of transitionals you suggest. I think (but they don't like to be clear) that ID accepts the largest part of biological evolution (almost all it seems) but then suggest tweaks here and there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extremophile, posted 04-09-2006 6:27 PM extremophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by extremophile, posted 04-09-2006 6:53 PM AdminNosy has not replied

extremophile
Member (Idle past 5595 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 3 of 3 (302696)
04-09-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
04-09-2006 6:37 PM


Re: ID or Creationism?
mmm... maybe ID should not be made explicit in the topic title, but I think the same applies a bit, in a lesser degree, as I've mentioned here
quote:
The sorts of ID that accept common ancestry have the same problem in a lesser degree, I think. While most of the restrictions imposed by common ancestry are common to ID, it is a quite weird that even genes do not appear in a pattern of distribution more teleologically expected, for example, the anti freezing proteins in Arctic and Antarctic fishes being coded by the same gene, rather than by different ones, what suggests much more convergent evolution rather than common design/blueprint.
With IDs that accept common ancestry, while a phylogenetic tree would be possible to infer, I think would still be expected some "troubles" for the hypothesis of natural evolution, such as genetic convergences according to function of these genes.
While would not necessarily be expected something like bats with bird wings, at least things like these two distantly related fishes having the same gene for the same function. Or at least it seems to me to be a reasonably prediction of ID even with common ancestry.
However, IDers could always propose that is not the gene that is projected but the phenotype, and the genome for that comes from a automatic process that may not result in common genes for common phenotype or function in many cases. What would "explain" but make impossible to test anything, I guess.
About where to put it, I think that the better place would be where it would have more answers from creationists. Since I've read that some creationists are banned from bio evolution forum, I think would be better in a creationist forum, since it adresses more directly to them, and in a minor degree to IDers, that I think that could answer there as well untill it becames to much off topic.
This message has been edited by extremophile, 04-09-2006 08:55 PM

"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2006 6:37 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024