Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations (Jazzns, nemesis_juggernaut) (NOW OPEN TO ALL)

Then you must think that a reptile birthed Archaeopteryx or another proto avian fully formed with wings and all. That's a Hopeful Monster. There is only two naturalistic options to choose from. You either have to believe that a series of successive changes slowly evolved, and thus, each successive generation had more and more bird-like features and less and less reptilian features. So, in between that time, and we must be talking about millions of years here, surely there was a creature or a number of creatures in a state of morphological confusion. Your second option is that a reptile inexplicably birthed an avian.If that's the case, then explain to me why you object to "stump-like appendages?" Surely, at some point while they were traveling from A (reptile) to B (avian) there had to have been a long epoch of awkwardness. And yet, we find no confusion in the fossil record-- just fully formed species. I know they think they came from the arms/forelimbs of a distant reptile. I'm not objecting to that. I understand the concept well. However, that still doesn't explain how you can get from A to B without this middle stage of awkwardness as reptilian forelimbs were slowly evolving into what was to become a wing in a distant relative. No, I think you just misunderstood me, which seems inconceivable given the jousting over several posts. You must have thought that I thought that the wings just sort of grew out of their back. I was pretty clear, especially when using the word "appendage." But natural selection does. Not in the same way of cognizant intent, but rather, is a non-random process. If its non-random then nature selects the strong over the weak. What exactly made the progenitor of Archaeopteryx so successful 'while' they were going through these changes? Seriously, this is elementary. There had to have been a middle stage where you don't quite have forelimbs, but you don't quite have a wing either. So, theoretically, what made it so successful while in its initial stages? You can say, "Wings are extremely beneficial." Yeah, no kidding. But surely you understand that it must not always have been a fully functional wing for the first few thousand or million years. Yes, I understand that, hence, what made it so beneficial to begin with. I've been very clear on the matter thus far. Jazzns, I doubt you can say that with even a nominal amount of veracity. I think its you that is mischaracterizing my arguments rather a lack of understanding about the theoretics of evolution. What do you mean? Why shouldn't we talk about intermediaries? You are offering me an ad hoc, completely theoretical explanation for why you personally believe that saurians and avians share a lineage based on morphological similarities. That's fine. Theorize all you want. But if you do, the he next, and obvious question should be, okay, but where is the evidence of this? And I listened to your answer but it was left wanting. You told me that evolution doesn't intend a thing. So you could only logically surmise that it was an accident, a happenstance, somewhere in a point mutation, or whatever, some time in the distant past. Since we can't map the genome of an Archeopteryx, we're going to have to look for other actual evidence, like intermediates. Fair enough. Lets discuss that. Can I ask where you think Pterosaurs fit into all of this, being that they were featherless? There has already been conclusive evidence in a number of specimens that so-called 'proto-feathers- were actually just decomposition flesh. And Feduccia gives a long explanation of how fiction became fact here. But this is all speculative-- its all theoretical based on morpholgical similarities. And to reiterate, this doesn't account for the vast dissimilarities between reptiles and avian as far as their organs are concerned. The thermal physiological dissimilarities is difficult to overcome. We could surmise, in theory, that the proto-feathers were first developed as an insulator and later co-opted as aerofoils, as you suggest, but the fact that one is endothermic and the other is difficult to reconcile. The minor details, such as the similarity of the furcula, known to be a good stabilizer for flight, is also present in theropod dinosaurs. This point is noted, but its full cogency is still up in the air. But perhaps my repertoire is not good enough, in which case, I must defer to referencial analysis of cladograms."At the very heart of the cladistic method is the principle of parsimony, the concept that the phylogeny requiring the fewest steps of character transformation is the preferred explanation. Rieppel (2000) is refreshingly candid in admitting that parsimony is not a testable hypothesis, not something that is correct or incorrect, but it is a first principle, which must be either accepted or rejected a priori. It is my thesis that parsimony, at least the nave form practiced and defended by cladists, should enjoy no special status.

​

As a first principle, I reject it. Parsimony makes sense only if there is some reason to believe that nature is parsimonious. Is there any reason to believe that a phylogeny requiring 200 steps is more likely to reflect the actual course of evolutionary history than one with 201 steps...

​

Indeed, the idea that nature is parsimonious is a rather peculiar one, indeed an austere, possibly Calvinistic one. It flies in the face of a lengthy tradition in Western thought that speaks of the plenitude of nature, the fullness of creation, or to use Darwin's term, the prodigality of nature...

​

Cladistic analysis is based on the primacy of morphology as data. It systematically excludes or suppresses other kinds of data, such as may derive from stratigraphy, biogeography, ecology, physiology, or DNA hybridization.

​

The justification appears to be that to admit data from fields other than morphology is to multiply ad hoc hypotheses. Rieppel, for example, notes that evaluation of the fossil record requires theory, for example, the principle of superposition. This seems to imply that morphology requires no theory, which is patent nonsense." (Emphasis added)"To the extent that a well sampled fossil record documents the temporal course of evolution through successive strata, stratigraphy should be a relevant consideration. Clyde and Fisher (1997)Go concluded from an analysis of 29 fossil data sets that a relaxation of morphological parsimony by 4% resulted in a 49% decrease in stratigraphic parsimony debt. Why should the unencumbered creation of ghost lineages." -Peter DodsonNo, I have no denial of this. What I am in denial about, as Dobson eloquently put it, is the emphasis of parsimony when its anything but parsimonious. You do realize that the vast preponderance of mutations that would cause such an exaggerated feature are injurious, right? You also should know that in order to create a fully functional wing from an original forelimb must have required numerous, successive mutations. Again, the entire theory of avian evolution is purely theoretical. The sheer fact that there must have been numerous gradations, and yet we have no evidentiary models to model after, is enough to keep it strictly in the realm of wild vagaries and imagination, not in the annals of science. Yes, I understand that, but, surely you understand that there must have been a number of generations that was in a state of morphological confusion, right? On some level, even a small one, that has to sink in for you. I think the overwhelming consensus between paleontologists is that Archaeopteryx was a bird. For a long time, most seemed to think that he was earthbound, but there is growing support that he was a fully functional, true-blue, bird. Why I don't think he was a theropod is because there is no reason to think that he was. Among the skeleatal remains, Archy had an air-filled cavities within the vertebrae and pelvic region. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, which is common among avian. Among some of the more ubiquitouss and unique avian traits, is their pulmonary design. Reptiles have no such features. And to think that all of these advances took place, in what appears to be, one felled swoop, seems highly implausible to say the least.Alright, this is where I'm gonna have to stop for the day. Your posts are really long, (not a bad thing), and I want to thoroughly answer the questions. In a way to not make sparse or spurious statements, I should break it up into sections.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

I apologize for yet another late entry. To be perfectly honest, I'm really burned out on the science arguments. Before I came to EvC that's pretty much what I was mostly interested in. I seem to go in waves between theology and science.I saw that you mentioned that you've invested too much time in to this debate to simply let it die. Let me say that I'm sorry for neglecting it the way I did. Yes, you certainly did invest a lot of time with this and your posts are far too eloquent and well put together for me to overlook them.My suggestion is to cut this debate loose into a new forum where you can debate your heart out. I only say this because I don't want to tell you that I'm going to be more active on this forum when I may not be. If you need a moderator to move the thread, just let me know and I'll move it to Biological Evolution or a thread of your choice. Let me know what you think.Again, I apologize for disrespecting your efforts. Its not about MY standard, its about what is sensible. When we see various breeds of canine, we see an evidentiary series of events in a clear and concise stepwise fashion. It makes sense. Why then are these gaping holes present in between every well-defined specie? There is nothing tying one into another. See, what they do is find some kind of anatomical similarity. For instance, in reptile/bird evolution, they note that the furcula (wishbone) is only present in therapod dinosaurs and avian. While that's true, and its certainly something to make note of, lets not get carried away. Why? Because the rest of the anatomy doesn't match up at all. Its a false cladogram, IMO.How did this come about? Probably because no other suitable candidates for avian progenitors exist. Nothing else makes any remote sense. And we must remember that once Darwin came along and the seeds of possibility flourished, those in the fields of science were utterly enraptured by such a theory and let their imaginations and vagaries run wild. As a result, misinterpretations of anatomy allowed for an over-simplification about convergent evolution. That's a convenient scapegoat. I too would expect some missing pieces of the puzzle. I fully recognize that the process of fossilization is not an easy one. However, with the sheer volume of extant creatures, coupled with the those extinct, yields a rough estimate of over 2 billion species and sub-species. Now, how many of those species have lived at one point for each specie? The determining factor would be the rate of reproduction, how many offspring per specie, the average survival rate, etc. But lets give a generous figure of 10 billion extant species alive on earth at one time. (It should be unquestionable that far more than 10 billion have existed. I'm just being generous with the figure). Now multiply that number. What we have is millions of organisms captured in the fossil record. Of all of those potentials, there are no clear signs of gradation. All we see is subspecies and nothing more. These hierarchies are completely subjective as it draws parallels that only superficialliy seem to match. For instance, lets say that we have series of shapes. Of those shapes, we have a scalene triangle, an Isosceles triangle, a square, a diamond, a circle, an oval, and an equilateral triangle. All these shapes were drawn by one man. Other people ambling along see these shapes and determine their origin by categorizing their similarities. Naturally, the three kinds of triangles match most closely. The evolutionist says, "Aha! See? I told you. We predicted that we'd find similarities and therefore, we have proven evolution." But what really happened? What really happened is to picked the most similar ones and claimed that they must somehow be related. Sorry, but that's circular logic and circumstantial evidence at best. If evolution were introduced into criminal court, the prosecuting attorneys would rip it to shreds for relying far too much on circumstantial evidence. I keep up with the latest arguments added by TalkOrigins and Ed Babinski and whatnot for this very reason. What's the latest one? Oh, right, the Dolphin with legs. Lets tackle this one real quick. The claim is that the dolphin is just genetically expressing an atavistic trait. If you look at the proto fin, its exactly what it is... A fin. How many people are born with one or two superfluous nipples? Many? Is that some sort of atavism where our simian ancestors had two sets of breasts? No. Its just a mutation. Aside from which, if the Dolphin is related to a four legged land dwelling ancestor, where does that leave these two extra fins? The dorsal fins would the forelimbs of a land dwelling ancestor and the flipper is supposed to have consolidated the hind limbs. So where do these two extra limbs come from? Was there a creature with 3 sets of limbs in the distant past? Probably not. So what is this really about? Its about people drawing conclusions that don't exist because they believe what they want to believe. Well formed intermediatesThat's because science is tentative. The half life of "fact" in science lasts about 5 years on average. If evolution is true, then there is invariably a process of refining. If that's the case, there is an emphasis on a general direction from less complex to more complex. Life seems to be continually improving, getting better and better, more adaptable, more intelligent, etc, etc. Why is there an objection to "better?" I think its because there is a perceived social taboo. We all know that the early evo's paved the way for eugenics programs and racial domination. Since evolution, if true, shows that creatures grow less autonomy to more autonomy, less intelligence to more intelligence, etc, then if one race was the progenitor of another, there is an implication that one is better than the other.Another reason, I believe, that contemporary evo's have abandoned this antiquated rationale is that it also has implications for morals could have developed. In the early days, the emphasis was on "survival of the fittest." The most aggressive dominates the competition. There is no love lost when it comes to survival. But then they had to piece together how empathic emotions came about and quickly abandoned such a hard-nosed philosophy about biology. No, that's what you think I think. I'm saying you must come to grips with that notion if there is no intermediary between Archy and birds, since Archy was far more bird than he was reptile. Its not just the wings that presents the problem. We have a completely different pulmonary, integumentary, cardiovascular, etc, system that makes a mountain out of your mole hill. If Archy is indeed an intermediate, he surely must have been an intermediate in between a series of intermediates. There is no way that one day a reptile just popped out Archy, and, voila, the first avian. A belief such as that implies that the evolution occurred in one felled swoop-- which would inevitably make you believe in hopeful monsters.So, again, its not that I believe you actually think that, its that I feel you would be inextricably woven into that belief if you assert that Archy is the exact intermediate between theropods and avian. I stand corrected with my previous statement... You do believe in hopeful monsters. I'm curious to know where to place pterosaurs in the evolution of theropods and avian. Especially when considering that the majority of theropods stood well over 10 feet tall, while Archy is about the size of a chicken. Kind of strange that a megalithic-sized creature could, by happenstance, produce such diminutive progeny. I realize that some classified theropods are of small stature, but we see those earlier in geologic record. It seems that the main candidate was a small theropod in the late Jurassic, such as, Coelurosauria. But where does it leave Pterosaurs which are said to have existed in the late Triassic period? It seems that flight has come about much longer than avian have been around, according to evolution. I'm curious to gather your input. Jazzns, really.... Come on. Its very simple. For a forelimb in a distant relative to become a fully functional wing in a preceding generation, there surely would have to have been innumerable gradations in between. Likewise, for forelimbs to have become a fin, or vice versa, there must have been stages in between that were absolutely sub-optimal and possibly awkward-- so much so that its any wonder what could have possibly enhanced its survivability, rather than inhibit it.You can't paint this smooth transition when, 1. you don't have any transitions to base your belief off of, and 2. You can't overlook the fact that though it may look nice and neat on paper, in morphological terms, without all of the necessary components in place simultaneously, the wing or the fin, or whatever else makes no sense.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

The subjectivity of the cladograms is always suspect especially with the inclusion of reversed traits. Meaning, they tend to allow for transitions that don't actually exist, but make it so that they give a false impression of this. The horse series evolution cladogram but even more pronounced, the whale series cladogram, shows evidence of bias and subjective interpretation. But more simply, you can't hang it all up on by looking at the feet of theropods because their feet are similar. By that premise, we could conclude that we are directly descended for octopi.Consequently, the most outspoken critic of such faulty inference comes from a strict naturalist, not a proponent of ID or creationism."Personally, I continue to find it problematic that the most birdlike maniraptoran theropods are found 25 to 75 million years after the origin of birds... Ghost lineages are frankly a contrived solution, a deus ex machina required by the cladistic method. Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only “sister taxa”. Are we being asked to believe that a group of highly derived, rapidly evolving maniraptorans in the Jurassic gave rise to birds, as manifested by Archaeopteryx, and then this highly progressive lineage then went into a state of evolutionary stasis and persisted unchanged in essential characters for millions of years? Or are actual ancestors far more basal in morphology and harder to classify? If the latter, then why insist that the problem is now solved?" -Peter DodsonDodson isn't alone in the criticism. Alan Feduccia, a leading ornithologist, routinely asserts that there are many problems in the theory, but most notably, that the cladograms are based on a superficial resemblance rather than actual ties. Well, lets go over this because there are quite a few discontinuities. You say they are ground dwelling, which obviously means they are runners. If so, then what selective advantage feathers would have for running underneath the canopy of trees? Feathers create an awful lot of drag on the ground. So, we can deduce that couldn't have developed to help it run down prey. What then was it developed for? You say for insulation. But mammalian hair is far less costly and easier to facilitate heat than feathers-- which Feduccia says is uniquely optimal for flight.If that's the case, then what pressures existed for such an evolution to occur in the first place, but more importantly, what granted its success in biological terms? What made it so successful that the creature learned to co-opt it for flight? That's not the problem. The problem is that Crocodiles are placed before birds on the chain. If that's the case, then when did they diverge, since the bones of avian are hollow? Where exactly do beaks, which is cartilaginous, btw, come in? When did the vascular system completely alter? When did the pulmonary system completely alter? For every superficial similarity that exists between theropods and avian, there are vast differences in the far more important inner-contrivances of each specie. The weakness of such an argument, focusing on the fact that both theropod's and avian have tridactyl forelimbs, is not nearly enough to suggest ancestry. Why? Because not only is that completely subjective, but its cherry picking superficial similarities when it ignores much larger and neccessary ones in order to support the theory. But, if we were to focus on such a similarity, we should also note the difference in the number of digits between birds and dinosaurs. Where did this disparity come from if they are in fact so similar?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

The initial claim is that evo's and creo's are looking at the same evidence, only interpreting it differently. Which is right in their assessment and which is wrong is the part to debate. So, how could I possibly not have supported that? We've had a lot of discussion on Archy, right? Both evo's and creo's can clearly see the fossil and make their determination based on the anatomical structures. Its the same fossil! Its the same piece of evidence. How both groups come to their conclusions is where they differ. How then was I not able to make this distinction? You did win the debate, whether by sheer volume, your tenacity, or my sparse participation. However, I see at the bottom that you made a laundry list of objections against me that include my alleged contradictions. I'll save my commentary until I reach each objection individually.

quote:

---

These hierarchies are completely subjective as it draws parallels that only superficialliy seem to match.

---

Exactly Jazzns, read what I wrote. Homologous anatomy IS subjective-- i.e. fossils. Case in point: if I draw certain shapes and leave them for you to find, you could make the argument that the one's most similar to one another are obviously related. However, that wasn't the case at all since I have created them all individually. You simply assumed that they were related, therefore, its subjective. What I said, in defense of macroevolution, is that sharing features does not have primacy here. What could take primacy is showing shared mistakes in specific loci, like retroviral insertions. And I said that THIS argument is the best in defense of macroevolution, not nested heirarchies. You seemed to be taken back by this admission of mine and even admired my candor for it. But now you are attacking a straw man. Read what I said again.

quote:

---

Homologous features, especially down to the genetic level, would be a very impressive case in defense of common ancestry. Assuming that genes with similar sequences would be unlikely to originate independently via random mutations or whatever, your retroviral insertion would indicate ancestry. All subsequent phylogenetic features that appear similar could be considered cladistic evidence. There's only one problem I can see currently. The fact that homeotic sequences are universal asks a simple question. If the hypothesis of common ancestry could be falsified by the discovery of the same retrovirus at the same locus in two species that do not share a common ancestry, then the entire argument is incorrect. And that would place this argument onto a lengthy list of alleged markers. Since I don't know of any studies that have found such homogenous sequences at specific loci or transposons, I can't testify to it. I will say that this is the best argument in defense of macroevolution by far.

---

In other words, your bastion of hope is going to be on the genetic level, not the anatomical level. Why? Because the anatomy is subjective. And even of this, on the genetic level it still can show subjectivity. What wouldn't is shared mistakes only by two or a few species. That would be the best evidence for macroevolution. And if I were an avowed evolutionist, this is where I would look to make my case in its defense. I didn't. Read a third and a fourth time if need be. The focus is on "mistakes," whether perceived or not, they make the best evidence because the level of improbability is so great. Whereas, just looking at the anatomy is subjective. Its like saying, "all things with atoms are obviously related because why else do they share atoms?" That obviously doesn't work because all material is composed of atoms. Don't they use atavisms to point to ancestry! Isn't that how they attempt to tie one specie to another!? Evolutionists look at similar structures and say, "Hey, this has a furcula, and this has a furcula. Eureka, they're related!" The same with the Dolphin's "alleged" atavistic legs. "Aha, this proves that dolphins descended from land-dwelling animals that took to the sea millions and millions of years ago." Where in that am I incorrect? If ever I go off an a tangent it is not deliberate. Just say, "Hey, that's all fine and good, but I'd like to focus on the strata, not what lays beneath the strata." Same rule applies. Lucy is an incomplete skeleton found over a large surface area, which seriously discredits the entire integrity of the study, does it not? So, if I mentioned it, its because this kind of sleight of hand has been used in the past. I was just giving you an example. Again, if I go off on a tangent, just specify. I have no aversion to it. As I write, examples pop into my head and I use them as illustrations to solidify my point why something alleged by evo's is inherently incorrect or shown to have been demonstrably false in the past.

quote:

---

150 years of anthropology, archeology, and biology should yield some proof, no? Those are seconds in evolutionary time but aeons of time to dig up some legitimate, tangible proof of evolution.

---

And I'm telling you that 150 years is a long time to still be wondering about evolution. All the evidence in favor of evolution is purely circumstantial, and conveniently subject to amendment the second something threatens to refute it. In other words, the ToE is just as inept to prove itself today as it was 150 years ago. In fact, Darwin would probably be very disillusioned to know that the progress is slow and arduous.

quote:

---

You know, more could be stated about what's missing from the hominid record.

---

So, you wanted to talk about the environment rather than the suitability? Well, excuse me all over the place. Lets discuss it now. Ask me a specific question and I'll give you a specific answer. Can I ask why you get to control the dialogue? Why must I only answer your questions without introducing some questions of my own? Again, if I go off on a tangent, its because something you've said has triggered a memory about other arguments that logically follow the premise-- in this case, about geological formations or occurances. Just say, "Hey, you didn;t really answer my question. I'd like to focus on that first, then we can address your points." Because in order to get to one, you have to have the other first!!! Its completely applicable and its what is expected. Evolutionists ALWAYS talk about how traits arise, but they never suck it up and offer any proof. Its all theoretical and relies purely on circumstantial evidence. The blatantly obvious answer is that we should see a mountain of tangible evidence, which even Darwin himself conceded to, and yet we don't. I doubt you cannot say that this lack of intermediaries is the single most condemning argument against evolution.But since you'll charge with me being OT, again, tell me how traits arise and explain to me what evidence exists of such. Its not a tactic or a conscious effort to change the subject. I see it as applicable by actually offering some examples instead of endlessly talking about the theoretical aspects. Debating specific pointsAnd once again, this is so voluminous that I'm going to have to break it up in to sections. Then again, we're unleashing this creature out into the wild, right? So where are we going to move it, and where are we going to pick up from? And who is going to move it? Because I'm engaged in this conversation, I really shouldn't put on my Admin hat for the sake of impartiality.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Jazzns, I've said from the beginning of this thread that some evolutionists and some creationists are suspect to catering in their own dogmatic interests, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. I'm not sure why you feel the need to protect every single evolutionist and demonize every single creationist, rather than proceeding case-by-case.The plain fact is that the evo-creo debate has gotten out of hand, where an "Us vs Them" mentality has taken shape. Its to the point where I've grown so disenchanted with the whole debate, (not you and I, but in general), that I'm losing interest in the whole thing. Its to the point where I'm so disillusioned that exposing truth from falsehoods, bias from unbias, is exceedingly difficult to uncover.But having said that, there should be no ambiguity that evo's and creo's are in fact looking at the same evidence, only interpreting it differently-- and indeed, perhaps skewing it to their advantage. If both groups are looking at the same supernova, but interpret their significance differently, they are looking at the same evidence, but are coming to different conclusions. If both groups are looking at Archaeopteryx, one group concludes that its evidence of therapod-avian evolution, while the other says that its nothing more than an extinct avian. They both are looking at the same evidence, but they are interpreting it differently.Presumably, you are saying that creo's will ignore one piece of evidence in order to make their claims more appealing. But a creationist could say the same thing about an evo. Indeed, this little cat and mouse game is always going on. And I for one am disillusioned by both parties. Maybe I'll get back into again, but as of now, its rehashing over the same stale points only to have no resolution. Science is tentative, including scientific "fact." It was a fact that the earth was flat and it was also a fact that the earth is round. Obviously, only one or none could be right. It was once a fact that caffeine was neutral. Then it was a fact that caffeine is terrible for you. Now its a fact that it has legitimate medicinal purposes. Do you understand what I'm saying? And, yes, its great that science can keep evolving in order to uncover the truth, whatever it may be, but this "truth" or "fact" may be supplanted the following year, which makes people leery of committing to anything.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis