Beretta responds to me:
quote:
quote:
because the fossil record clearly shows that happening
No it doesn’t
Yes, it does. Again, the fossil record is literally overflowing with transitional fossils.
quote:
(Were you there? Was anybody there?)
I don't have to be. The fossil was there and it will tell us. See, this is what I was saying. You seem to be about half a step away from demanding videotape of every single birth from the very first life on this planet up to the present day and until you can be shown that complete parent-child geneology, then you won't accept anything.
By this logic, we should open up the prisons and let everyone out. Most crimes take place without witnesses and yet somehow we manage to determine who did it and how and when.
You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to say its valid when you like the results but invalid if you don't.
quote:
How about evidentially? Is it scientifically provable that the morphological mutations of the extent seen in the fossil record are even possible?
Yes. How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate any more? We've seen pretty much every mutation imaginable down to complete duplication of the entire chromosomal record. We have seen point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplications, transpositions, frame shifts, you name it. What would stop it?
You're the one claiming that there's a barrier. You're the one that needs to provide the evidence.
quote:
How do you know that?
Because we can see it happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us deny it? You seem to be saying that while you agree that 1 exists, 2 exists, addition works, and equality is real, none of that is sufficient to conclude that 1 + 1 = 2.
We have presented the evidence to you over and over again here. The fact that you deny it doesn't change the fact that it exists.
quote:
quote:
The fossil record is quite literally overflowing with transitionals
Are you sure?
Yes. Hie thee to a natural history museum and look at them for yourself. See, you can't do science just sitting behind a computer. You have to go out and get your hands dirty.
quote:
Even Darwin knew that wasn’t true but he thought that with time, some convincing transitionals might be found.
Incorrect. What Darwin knew was that we didn't have very many fossils. What he said was that his theory would be upheld or fall upon the finding of new fossils. And sure enough, we found the fossils that Darwin predicted. That's what made his work scientific: It made a prediction that could be tested.
You seem to be complaining that everything Darwin said would be needed to show his theory to be accurate was actually found.
quote:
Then there’s Stephen Jay Gould who said that the history of most fossil species includes two features most inconsistent with gradualism -
1. Stasis -they appear looking pretty much the same as when they disappear with morphological change being limited and directionless
2. Sudden appearance - everything appears all at once and ”fully formed.’
Nice misquote. Gould was actually quite pissed off that people would misquote him so. What you are trying to do is claim that Gould and Eldredge were arguing against evolution when what they were doing was arguing for punctuated equlibrium.
From
Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes:
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equlibria 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 troups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge ... are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Gryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium-see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Godlschmidt in
The Panda's Thumb.) Creations Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently accoridng to Gould, a reptile laid an edd from which the first bird, feather and all, was produced." Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that ecould ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism-with God acting in the egg.
It is quite clear that you haven't actually read Gould's work but instead stole a quote from a creationist quote mining site. He directly contradicts your conclusions.
quote:
So you see Darwinist evolution pretty much always happens in such a manner as to escape detection.
Incorrect. We see all the changes we expect to see: I can show you genetic changes happening in the lab and the fossil record shows you the big changes. 1 + 1 = 2 no matter how much you say they don't.
quote:
If you find the handful of so-called ”intermediates’ convincing then you have more faith than I do.
"Handful"? How does one interpret "abundant" to mean "handful"? I repeat my claim: You haven't actually read Gould. Instead, you stole a quote from a creationist quote mining site.
quote:
quote:
We can literally watch the bones of the reptilian jaw move and repurpose to become the bones of the mammalian jaw.
Well you can certainly imagine that that happened but is it true?
You mean the fossils don't exist? The jaws that I have handled with my own hands were just frauds? Again from
Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes:
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common-and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section)-but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendents of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like repitles) with a double jaw joint-one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stand, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape's of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features-increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rehtorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am-for I have become a major target of these practices.
You haven't actually read anything about the subject, have you?
quote:
All mutations ever seem to be able to do (demonstrably) is cause a defect in or a loss of information. You know, like typing errors.
Incorrect. Most mutations are never noticed. The most common type of mutation, responsible for over 90% of all mutations, is the point mutation. You'll never see such mutations affect the morphology of the organism.
And of those mutations that do cause deleterious effects, they are selected against, so they do not spread.
Thus, all you wind up with over the generations are neutral and beneficial mutations.
But that said, how do you know a mutation is beneficial until it is put into the environment and tested? You seem to have forgotten about selection. Is a short, squat body that retains body fat easily "beneficial" or is a long, thin body that sheds body fat "beneficial"? Until you define what the environment is, you'll never know.
quote:
quote:
We can see hydracotherium change over time to become modern Equus.
Can we?
You mean the fossils don't really exist? They're really scattered across the strata rather than being in chronological order?
quote:
Even now we have varieties of horses of different sizes.
As if the only difference between Hyracotherium and Equus were size.
quote:
Sticking an hydracotherium at the beginning of the line up is based on a belief that it must have happened, not on proof that it is possible.
As if the only reason we put Hyracotherium first is because the morphology puts it there (which is sufficient enough, but it's always good when you can justify it on multiple levels...it provides independent corroboration.)
quote:
That would be nice but I’d be prepared to accept some positive examples of information building in organisms that goes beyond such things as antibiotic resistance and bacteria being able to adapt to a nylon diet.
Why is that not sufficient? Why don't you tell us what you demand and then when we show it to you, we can watch you shift the goalposts again. First, you claimed it can't be done and then when shown that it does happen, you claim it wasn't a "big" change and hope to high heaven that nobody notices that your original claim was that it couldn't happen at all.
Duplication followed by mutation. Is that or is that no "information building"?
Very simple question. How many times am I going to have to ask it of you before you answer it?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2