NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

Ahmad,You respond to Schraf;

quote:

---

Huh? So you're telling me (correct me if I am wrong) that a change from one species to another does not require a great advantageous change in the genetic information?

---

Correct, there need not be anything advantageous (or disadvantageous, for that matter) about speciation. All speciation requires (under the biological species concept) is genetic isolation between two populations. There is absolutely no stipulation that the mutations involved cannot be neutral.For example, the sperm in population A may change to such a point that they are no longer compatible with population B's eggs. Genetic exchange is now impossible between the two populations, they have passed a point of no return, they are separate species. Note the changes in population A's sperm are neutral with respect to it's own population.This is known as gametic incompatibility.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

quote:

---

Um, so, do you understand that what Gould means when he says "abrupt" is not what you mean when you say "abrupt"?

---

​

quote:

---

Hmm... what does he exactly mean?

---

​

---

He means in most cases tens of thousands of years.

quote:

---

But do you understand them? Why not explain them in your own words here?

---

quote:

---

I did.

---

Well, you got them wrong. Try again.

quote:

---

Ah, as I suspected. You do not understand PE at all.

​

Here is a good explanation of the basics. Please read it and show where it suggests anything remotely like the "bird out of a reptile egg" scenario is predicted.

​

Punctuated Equilibria

---

quote:

---

What else can you expect from a pro-evolutionist site?

---

I expect science articles to reference peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that's what TalkOrigins does.TalkOrigins is the best source for the lay person on the web for evolutionary information which is well-supported by current scientific research. You can see all the references to those peer-reviewed journal articles at the ends of the essays.You HAVE read those essays, haven't you?

quote:

---

But PE does fit in the "bird out of a reptile" scenario.

---

No, it doesn't. Repeating that it does will not make it so.I asked for your explanation of WHERE in PE it allows for such a scenario. You did not provide any such explanation, only assurances. If you cannot specifically explain the part which allows for it, your claim is unsupported and will be rejected.

quote:

---

No, see below. PE explains the rate of the apparent appearence of fossils.

---

quote:

---

And why was PE proposed? They claimed that this theory arose out of biology, but there is no empirical biological basis for such speciation events. It seems that the 'mechanism' was adopted because it 'explained' their observation of the fossils.

---

EXACTLY!! What is wrong with that? Why is it so surprising that 100 years of paleontological research after Darwin, we might have a teensy, tiny bit more information, or some scientist might have had a teensy, tiny bit of insight beyond that of Darwin because of this additional information?Do you reject Einstein's Relativity because it modified Newtonian physics?

quote:

---

Also, you are incorrect that PE was developed to explain gaps in the fossil record:

​

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

​

"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

---

I am requoting this because it seems as though you didn't actually read it.What you seem to want to say is that PE supports the notion of "a bird out of a reptile egg", i.e. PE explains the absence of all transitional fossils. It, as the article states, ONLY explains the apparent rarity of small-scale gradual speciation events.. We don't need the fossil record to see speciation; we observe it today. We also have fossil evidence, even though it is rare, of small-scale gradual speciation. None of what you posted contradicted this, and the stuff about the idea of PE being "borrowed" is irrelevent to it's validity.

quote:

---

Really? Care to back this up? Cites from the literature, or at least from Biologists' work, not Creationists or Creationist sites.

---

quote:

---

Huh? So you're telling me (correct me if I am wrong) that a change from one species to another does not require a great advantageous change in the genetic information?

---

No, speciation doesn't require a great advantageous change in genetic information. Why do you think that it does? Cites from the professional literature, please.What do I think of Morris' arguments in "Creation Science"?He has been peddling the same baseless arguments for decades. What's really hilarious is that many of his arguments were abandoned by Creationists (because they were invalidated by the geological record) over a century before he started using them again.If you would like to start a thread on any specific Morris argument, please feel free to do so.

quote:

---

Um, considering that you don't even know what a peer-reviewed science journal is

---

quote:

---

Standard norm where the theories of scientists get evaluated by their peers. What about it?

---

The point is, you came on to this board saying that Evolution wasn't true and saying that you were a student of science, yet you apparently had no idea what professional scientific journals were, or how to judge the relative quality of source material. We had to spend several days explaining this to you. Can't you see the problem with this?

quote:

---

misrepresent evolutionary theory

---

quote:

---

The theory misrepresents itself

---

The fact reamains that you have continually misrepresented what the ToE actually states in favor of an incorrect version of it.

quote:

---

physics, and the scientific method

---

quote:

---

Just what according to you is the scientific method?

​

Regarding the nature of scientific enquiry, you tell me about it. What are the physics of this nature?

---

There is no room here to post all that is needed to answer your question, but I will post a link:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comThe following is a summary from a related link:pseudoscience - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible."

quote:

---

and think that posting out of context, dishonestly-altered quotes instead of arguing from an informed position is legitimate debate

---

quote:

---

I apologise for the "out-of-context" quote of S.J Gould.

---

That's good, but let's remember that this was not just an out of context quote. This was an intentional misquote, in which the end of the sentence was removed in order to completely change the meaning of what the author intended.This leads me to ask you again; what do you think of such dishonest tactics, and what do you subsequently think of the honesty of the site you cut and pasted it from? Have you notified the site to tell them of the mistake? Have they changed it? Does this lead you to call into question any other quotes or information on this site and how trustworthy they are?

quote:

---

Henceforth, I'll try my best to quote evolutionists in their proper context. However, I quote them to prove my point, not as an alternative to a legitimate debate.

---

Except if you primarily quote, rather than debate in your own words, it is an avoidance of legitimate debate.

quote:

---

I don't really think you are in a position to judge if our responses are adequate or not.

---

quote:

---

I am a science student and I think I have every right and position to question the adequacy and veracity of claims of anyone I wish to. And I do exercise my right.

---

OK, I should have said something like, "Because you get all of this basic science and debate stuff wrong, you are probably not the most qualified person to judge the quality of the science or the debate."You keep saying you are a science student, but I really can't see that. What branch are you studying? What level of university are you in?

quote:

---

That's my whole point. In your arrogance and ignorance, you have decided we are wrong, yet you don't have the barest understanding of what you are attempting to deny.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, I respect your opinion about me as arrogant and ignorant and take that as an ad hominem.

---

They are not ad hominem. You are, most assuredly, ignorant of many things WRT science, biology, and the history of the Creationist movement. You are also arrogant because even though you have little knowledge of these subjects (and have been shown repeatedly that this is the case) you feel utterly confident in your correctness.

quote:

---

Secondly, I don't think I have decided about anyone being erroneous.

---

Um, you have said repeatedly that Evolution is false. This is deciding that we are all wrong and you are right.

quote:

---

There are people triple times more intelligent and thoughtful than me in this forum, I bet. There is certain amount of truth in everyone. How do supposedly impose your own decision about me deciding that you guys are wrong is bizarre, since I don't recall making such an accusation.

---

Your actions are my evidence.

quote:

---

Lastly, enlighten me as to what indeed am I attempting to deny that I don't have the "barest understanding" of what I am talking about.

---

It's what we have been talking about all along. You thinking that a transitional trilobite should have "half jointed legs" or that PE predicts that a bird will emerge from a reptile egg. These are such elementary mistakes as to suggest that you have never read anything at all on evolution.

quote:

---

Apparently, you haven't because you do not seem to have an understanding of Evolutionary Theory, nor of the nature of scientific inquiry.

---

quote:

---

Well, my biology Professor (evolutionist) didn't have that impression about me when I got an A+ for elaborating the ToE in my science papers

---

Bad teaching or poor retention. One or the other.

quote:

---

As it should be. I suggest you take a college-level bioligy course.

---

quote:

---

As a final year student, I have done numerous reports and conducted group researches concerning evolutionary theory and its basis.

---

Then why do you misrepresent it so?

quote:

---

But you spout decades-old, long-refuted Creationist arguments at every turn!

---

quote:

---

Thats one way of looking at it.

---

LOL!

quote:

---

Another way would be the consistent counter-responses and counter-rebuttals given by creationists to their critics. Look both ways. The argument is progressive and that is exactly why specially designated forums like this one have been built.

---

No, the arguments are NOT progressive I am afraid. Today's Creationist arguments are the SAME as their arguments from 50 years ago.

quote:

---

Only people who have a profound ignorance of Evolutionary theory, and worse, a profound ignorance of the history of the Creationist movement, would ever make the arguments you have repeatedly made, or use the debate tactics and logical fallacies you have.

---

quote:

---

Really? So you tell me... what kind of "debate tactics" should I use?

---

They are all in the forum guidelines. Mostly they consist of stuff you should avoid.So far, you have used misquotation of scientists, misrepresentation of the 2nd LoT, and misrepresentation of several aspects of the ToE inluding PE. Repeating claims instead of providing evidence to back up the claims is another one.

quote:

---

What "logical fllacies" have I made? Correct me.

---

God of the Gaps is a big one.

quote:

---

I am willing to accept correction.

---

mmmm, so far I haven't really seen that to be the case. The only one I recall is your misquote of Gould, but you had to be prodded several times to admit that one.

quote:

---

But it seems that you're only good at pointing faults (although I do appreciate that) that correcting and providing your evidence.

---

Well, debate consists of pointing out errors in one's opponent's arguments, no?What evidence are my claims lacking? Please let me know what further information you need.

quote:

---

I suggest you re-think your allegations about me and before pointing one finger at me, do take in consideration the four fingers that point at YOU.

---

Look, the way to counter my arguments concerning anything is with evidence.I have been at these debates for a long time, and I have learned to be careful about what I claim. I am sure to know what I am talking about, and to be able to back up what I say with good, solid research from reliable scientific sources rather than anti-science sources.All we ask is that you do the same.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"{Fixed quote structure and unbolded text - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-24-2002]

From CNN:WHERE IN THE WORLD
Among 18- to 24-year-old Americans given maps:87 percent cannot find Iraq83 percent cannot find Afghanistan76 percent cannot find Saudi Arabia70 percent cannot find New Jersey49 percent cannot find New York11 percent cannot find the United StatesAnd one wonders why creationism is being taught in science classrooms?...if 70% of Americans between 18 and 24 can't even find New Jersey on a map it is not so hard to imagine that they don't know anything about science versus pseudoscience either....and what about that 11% that can't find the U.S. on a map?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
and what about that 11% that can't find the U.S. on a map?

---

hmmm... since the US is by far the largest part of one continent you ought to have about a one in five chance of finding it just by picking a large land mass. I guess that if one considers subcontinents, and includes the possibility that one may pick Mexico or Canada you get somewhere in the range of 1 in 9 or 1 in 10. Hey, whadaya know, just about 11%.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-20-2002]

Oddly enough, Wise's article specifically contradicts your characterization of punctuated equilibrium. While you characterize it as "a bird popping out of a reptile egg", Wise at least understands that the "sudden" changes of P.E. apply only to species-to-species transitions, not transitions between higher taxa (such as birds from reptiles - or, more in tune with current scientific opinion, birds from dinosaurs.) Wise also specifically distinguishes between Goldschmidt's "Hopeful monster" ideas and P.E. You, like many other creationists, conflate them.
Now, I'm curious about what you want to continue discussing. If you want to discuss Wise's ideas on reinterpreting the fossil evidence from a catastrophic point of view, I suggest starting a new thread in another forum with an appropriate topic. If you want to discuss what P.E. itself actually claims, and if you've accurately represented it, let's just end that conversation now by going to the source:From S.J. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Chapter 9, Appendix A"Since punctuated equilibrium provides an even easier target for this form of intellectual dishonesty (or crass stupidity if a charge of dishonesty grants [creationists] too much acumen), no one should be surprised that our views have become grist for their mills and skills of distortion...
Standard creationist literature on punctuated equilibrium rarely goes beyond the continuous recycling of two false characterizations: the conflation of punctuated equilibrium with the true saltationism of Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters, and the misscaling of punctuated equilibrium's genuine breaks between species to the claim that no intermediates exist for the largest morphological transitions between classes and phyla. I regard the latter distortion as particularly egregious because we formulated punctuated equilibrium as a positive theory about the nature of intermediacy in such large-scale structural trends...Moreover, I have written numerous essays in my popular series, spanning ten printed volumes, on the documentation of this style of intermediacy in a variety of lineages, including the transition to terrestriality in vertebrates, the origin of birds, and the evolution of mammals, whales and humans - the very cases that the usual creationist literature has proclaimed impossible."

All, (& Ahmad, if you’re still here),In summary, I think Ahmads arguments are flawed thusly:Irreducible Complexity:Ahmad seems to think IC is by definition un-evolvable. It isn’t. IC is a system that fails to function when a single component is removed. Given that Doolittle HAS provided a plausible evolutionary pathway to the so-called IC blood clotting cascade, it is incumbent on Ahmad to provide positive evidence for his claim rather than just reasserting it.Cambrian Explosion:It is creationists, & Ahmads contention (when he arrived at EvC, at least) that ALL animal phyla appeared during the Cambrian explosion, if you have followed this thread, you will know this is false. There are phyla appearing before & after the explosion. The remaining problems IMHO as far as creationism is concerned, is that there is a relative paucity of fossils in the Precambrian, & that there is a rapid period of diversification of, & dare I say, increase in abundance, of life (if the fossil record is to be believed). The question is; are these problems fatal to the ToE? The answer is clearly no. Neither of these two factors contradict evolution.Mark.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-21-2002]

My apologies for the late response. I was extremely busy with my work. Here is my response:

quote:

---

Ahmad, this is an argument from definition. No one has shown that IC systems cannot evolve. You have been asked multiple times to produce positive evidence of IC non-evolvability (as creationists define it), & have repeatedly failed to produce any. IC is simply a system that fails if you remove one part.

---

Mark, I asked you many a times: "How can IC systems evolve, in the first place?" I just don't see any way it can. Have you read Behe's book? Do you consider the example of the non-evolvability of a mouse-trap, that Behe exemplified to prove his point?Now you exemplify it. Show me how IC systems evolve? Provide POSITIVE, TESTABLE, EMPIRICAL evidence that IC systems can evolve, and I will respond.

quote:

---

The clotting cascades HAVE been shown to have a plausible evolutionary pathway. If you remove a single molecule from the cascade, clotting will not occur, it is IC. So why can a plausible pathway be presented? Such a thing is impossible according to you.

---

Since no valid "plausible evolutionary pathway" was shown in blood-clotting, it still stands as irreducibly comple. Read chapter 4 of Behe's book where he discusses the very complex details of the cascade required for blood to clot and not kill the human organism. This involves a variety of complex controls built into the process to prevent the death of the organism. On page 96, Dr. Behe states,"The bottom line is that clusters of proteins have to be inserted all at once into the cascade. This can be done only by postulating a 'hopeful monster' who luckily gets all of the proteins at once, or by the guidance of an intelligent agent." Here, he is clearly showing that extreme luck or intelligent design is required for the cascade to accidentally occur because of the described complexity of the process. At the end of the chapter on page 97, Dr. Behe surmises, "The fact is, no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be."

quote:

---

IC is NOT unevolvable by definition, as you seem to think.

---

Prove me otherwise. Show me how can an IC system evolve? (using an example would be helpful).

quote:

---

Like what? Does it POSITIVELY show that IC couldn’t have of evolved? I guess not.

---

Mark, something can be impossible only after the qiestion of its possiblity arises. How is it possible for IC systems to evolve, is something I cannot understand. How could the intricate irreducibly complex bacterial flagella have evolved? How could the cilium have evolved? Determine the possibilities of the evolution of these IC systems, and then I can show you the impossibility.

quote:

---

Nope. YOU provide positive evidence that they CAN’T. It is your claim, not mine.

---

How can they CAN, in the first place?

quote:

---

Yes I do deny that turtle cytochrome c is more closely related to birds than reptiles. The sequence may be more SIMILAR, however.

---

So similarity does not constitute for close relativity? And this is not me saying... but decades of reasearch in genome which shows this close relativity between turtles and birds rather than turtles and reptiles.

quote:

---

You didn’t answer the question. I maintain that the similarities of cytochrome c are MORE similar within classes than of sequences outside it, & that is the rule, not the exception. I explained both the how & why of the exceptions, & I asked you to give examples where cytochrome c (you knew very well what I was talking about) amino acid sequence are incredibly different in living beings of the same class, & that is the rule, not the exception, relative to other classes.You haven’t done this. I ask you to accept what I say, or provide an example that contradicts me. Now, it was a rhetorical question, where you were supposed to see the obvious error in your argument; that you are claiming exceptions are the rule. Since I cannot prove a negative, the only way to demonstrate my argument to be incorrect is to provide an example of what I assert doesn’t exist, does. I now have to ask you to either:

​

1/ Provide a class in which over 50% of the organisms contained therein have cytochrome c amino acid sequences that are more similar to organisms in other classes than organisms of the same class. Or;

​

2/ Accept that the premise that cytochrome c similarities do not closely correlate to class, is wrong.

---

Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C DifferencesBacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates
to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%
to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%
to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%
to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%
to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%
to horse . . . . . . . 64%Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin DifferencesCarp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%
to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%
to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%
to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%
to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%If you know the organisms in various classes, I think the table is self-explanatory. This table is the result of the experiments conducted by Dr. Michael Denton (Evolution: A theory in Crisis) with Cytochrome-C and haemoglobin. I included Haemoglobin differences too, to prove my point.Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish."He also states, "Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intemediates so long sought by evolutionary biology At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted."[Source: Michael Denton. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, pp. 290-91.]

quote:

---

Either, this is a misquote, or just plain wrong.

---

Link: hereYou put it in context, if I misquoted Dr. Woese.

quote:

---

Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with the points raised.

---

You raised the possibility. You said: "Why are the phylogenies not 100% congruent at all times? Because point mutations occur randomly, & it is entirely possible that two distantly related molecules can become similar enough for a phylogenetic program to place a bird in the reptile clade, for example."Has such a phenomenon, as the possibility you raised, observed?

quote:

---

Actually, the genotypes. A mutation may be expressed in the phenotype. You seem to think you have stumbled on to something by pointing out that somatic mutations aren’t inherited. Of course they’re not!! Only mutations that end up in the gametes can affect evolution. No one is saying anything to the contrary. Phylogenetic analyses can only work with these mutations, what's the problem?

---

The problem is this: If mutations take place in the reproductive cells of the organism, the probability of getting five mutations ("good" or bad) in the same nucleus has been estimated to be 1 in 10 to the 22 power! If there was a population of 100 million organisms with a reproductive cycle of 1 day, such an event (5 mutations in one nucleus) would be expected to occur ONCE in 274 BILLION YEARS!

quote:

---

Seriously flawed logic, Ahmad.

​

Hypothetical argument; you have a computer that randomly picks a 20 figure number. If the computer picks another 20 figure number, what are the odds that;

​

1/ It will pick a 20 figure number? (Answer- Evens 1:1)

​

2/ It will pick the SAME 20 figure number? (Answer- 99,999,999,999,999,999,999:1)

​

See the difference?

​

It’s the same thing with organisms. You may not end up with the SAME organism if you rerun evolution, but you WOULD end up with AN organism. The chance ofd getting the same genome would be astronomically against.

​

Perhaps a better example would be; what are the chances of your parents getting an EXACT copy of Ahmad with their next child? Almost zero. But they GOT YOU, didn’t they? They WILL get a child, but the chances of getting EXACTLY the same as the last one is so small as to not even consider. So, statistically speaking, by your logic, you can’t exist, because the odds of having everything exactly the way you are is astronomically against!

​

These odds you present are a strawman.

---

But what are the odds that the organism so produced by random mutation will be "productive" or "viable" or "complex"?? "Chance" does not cause anything. Things that are caused by processes that we observe to be "random" we associate with increasing disorder, not more complex design (as we see in organisms).

quote:

---

"The Phylogeny of the Hominoid Primates: A Statistical
Analysis of the DNA-DNA Hybridization Data"

---

You might want to read this article by J.L Gibson, "DO DNA DISTANCES REVEAL AVIAN PHYLOGENY?Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...An interesting article that highlights the various techniques used in DNA-DNA hybridization rate.

quote:

---

Excerpt from the site: Although taxonomic groupings determined by DNA distances are often congruent with those determined by morphology, the number of inconsistencies is substantial. Unless some independent evidence can be found to support the relationships proposed from DNA distances, it seems reasonable to suggest that a point is reached beyond which the DNA/DNA hybridization method is not useful in determining relationships. On the other hand, if morphology is truly subject to convergence as much as is suggested by the DNA/DNA hybridization technique, classifications based on morphology need to be reevaluated. The usefulness of fossils in tracing ancestry would also be seriously challenged, since morphology is the basis for comparing fossils.

---

quote:

---

"A molecular phylogeny of the hominoid primates as indicated by two-dimensional protein electrophoresis."

---

I don't have subscription to BioMedNet. So can you please provide an alternative site for that?

quote:

---

Molecular Evolution of Cytochrome c Oxidase Subunit IV: Evidence for
Positive Selection in Simian Primates"

---

Unfortunately for them, they haven't provided any evidence for the molecular evolution... let alone positive selection. They can't even explain the high improbability coincidental formation of the Cytochrome C, in the first place!!

quote:

---

"Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Primate
Mitochondrial DNA"

---

Molecular phylogeny has not helped evolution in any way. Molecular biologist W. Ford Doolittle writes, "molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Doolittle, W. F. Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree. Science, Vol 284:2124-2128 [June 25, 1999].)Cao (one of the authors in Journal of molecular evolution) found that "molecular-based phylogenies conflicted sharply with previously established phylogenies of major mammal groups, such as ferungulates, rhodents, and primates."(Cao Y, Janke A, Waddell P, Westerman M, Takenaka O, Murata S, Okada N, Paabo S, Hasegawa M. Conflict Among Individual Mitochondrial Proteins in Resolving the Phylogeny of Eutherian Orders. J. Mol Evol 1998;47:307-22.)

quote:

---

That’s six, six organism phylogenies that are congruent in all but one divergence. For a six sequence tree there are 945 possible trees, for a 5 sequence tree, 105 (to account for the one incongruence). So, (945^5) * 105 = 79,131,307,483,265,625 : 1 of the phylogenies being as congruent as they are by chance. 79 THOUSAND TRILLION to one !!!!! I would call this an excellent congruence, wouldn’t you?

---

I wouldn't because your picture of the "tree" is not tree at all but more like a "bush" (aka, Ford Dooloittle). The three major "domains" of life--Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya have a distribution of characteristics which does not allow a tree to be constructed to describe their alleged ancestral relationships. This is due to a character distribution which is not what one would predict if they inherited their genes through common ancestry:1. Ribosomal genes in archaea are similar to those found in eukaryotes2. Morphology of archea is much more similar to bacteria.3. Eukaryote "operational" genes (those involved with amino acid synthesis and metabolism) seem to be most similar to those found in bacteria.(Doolittle, W. F. Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree. Science, Vol 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).)4. Eukaryote "informational" genes (those involved with cell replication) seem to be most similar to those found in Archaea.(Ibid)Here's a rough view of the bush courtesy of the IDEA center:

quote:

---

BUT, the point surely was; THERE ARE FOSSILS THERE!!!

---

WHERE??

quote:

---

The major publication was 1912 field work in Alberta and British Columbia published Cambrian Brachiopoda (USGS Monograph 51). Unless you know of other Cambrian lagerstatten that Walcott kept hidden up his sleeve in British Colombia, your claim is falsified.

---

What about the 65000 fossil specimens, Walcott removed to Washington D.C? In which Journal did he make those fossil dioscovery known to the public and when?

quote:

---

Er, you don’t accept molecular data, do you? Typical creationist double standards. Accept ANY evidence that supports your position, & reject the same when it doesn’t. You cant have it both ways, mate.

---

Let me rephrase to better put it: Accept any claim that is backed up by valid evidence and reject any that fails to meet the evidential criterias.

quote:

---

Nor do they say they have lost hope of constructing family trees. You’re as guilty of misquotes as the rest of the creationists. Shame on you! What they DO say is; A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages"

---

Exactly. They have "lost hope" in reconstructing the tree that deals with the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor". They even point out that this "losing hope" is quite common in older evolutionary reasoning. So why have they lost hope is reconstructing the tree? Surely because there does not exist any "intermediates" between coelomates to suggest an evolutionary change.

quote:

---

There was NOTHING that refuted evolution in the paragraphs in question, or the article in question, why did you think there was? What was in question was the actual nature of relationships of the major metazoan phyla. In fact, you’ve rather shot yourself in the foot with this;

---

The new rRNA-based phylogeny proves nothing. Carl Woese, reputed biologist from the University of Illinois (also one of the authors in PNAS) has this to say:"A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well."(Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854.)

quote:

---

In truth, the transitional taxa exist, the team themselves don’t deny it, yet they limit their conclusions to the resolution of the data set. That is to say, the data doesn’t show a clear enough definition to reliably determine branching order, so they don’t pretend to show one that cannot be reliably inferred with this rRNA phylogeny.

---

Read the abstract of the PNAS site."DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary "intermediates" and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity."NO EVOLUTIONARY INTERMEDIATES >> NO TRANSITIONAL TAXA.As I said before, the taxonomic diversity seen in the Cambrian Explosion may be simply the result of preservation of various communities of marine organisms living on or near the floor of the sea. The basis for the association of the fossils is ecological rather than genealogical. This what the PNAS been saying recently(as you quoted), in the same article:"An observation repeatedly made when using rRNA data is of the extreme difficulty in resolving the branching order of phyla within the lophotrochozoans and the ecdysozoans. This is so much the case that even groups that are strongly believed to be monophyletic on the basis of morphological data, such as molluscs, emerge as polyphyletic in these trees. We have argued elsewhere that, within both branches, the phyla have emerged in a relatively rapid historical succession, thus leading to a case in which rRNA reaches its limits of resolution. We would like to stress that, if this view is correct, it leads to a profound reappraisal of the Cambrian explosion: Instead of corresponding to the rapid diversification of all of the bilaterian phyla, the explosion would have occurred simultaneously in three already well separated and poorly diversified lineages (the lophotrochozoan stem line, the ecdysozoan one, and the deuterostome one), implying that such an explosion would have been caused not by a single "internal" genetic innovation but, more likely, by an "external" (i.e., ecological) set of events."

quote:

---

So? Why then do they go on to propose other methods of getting to the Urbilitaria? What’s your point? Read what they are saying in context.

---

Did I mention anything about methods of not getting to Urbilitaria? NO! My point is to point out the case where they "lost hope of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" and the "disappearance" of the intermediate taxa "between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria" "Scientists have become so acutely aware of anomalies in molecular phylogenies that they have even considered abandoning attempts to reconstruct the root of the evolutionary tree, with the explanation that lateral gene transfer has confused the situation beyond recognition.(Doolittle WE. 1999. Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284:2124-2128.)

quote:

---

Secondly, no one is saying that chordates evolved from an echinoderm, but that they evolved from a common ancestor. Both trees support this contention.

---

The dipleuroid theory has no evidence.

quote:

---

See your own cite for evidence that such evolution happened. I don’t pretend to know how it happened, but that doesn’t invalidate the evidence that points to it having happened.

---

Firstly, What cite are you talking about? Secondly, there is no "evidence" that the exoskeleton of the arthropods (trilobites) evolve from the annelids (spriggina).

quote:

---

It’s a common misconception that something must be halfway for it to be a transitional. Does Archaeopteryx have half a wing?

---

Archaeoptryx does not have half a wing 'cause its not a "dino-bird", in the first place. I would say using Archaeopteryx as a transition example is a bigger misconception since it has been disproved otherwise long ago.

quote:

---

Good grief! What are you talking about? How can you possibly criticise evolution with such a poor understanding of it?

---

Evolution, itself, does not make sense; let alone having a "poor understanding" of it.

quote:

---

Firstly, the evidence suggests that the majority of mutations are neutral, a significant minority are harmful, & a small minority beneficial.

---

What? The majority of mutations are dastardly harmful!! Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the 2LoT). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned)."The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur." -- Pierre-Paul Grass'in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press. New York, 1977, p. 103.

quote:

---

Harmful mutations are removed from the genome (of the population) by natural selection, the frequency of beneficial mutations is increased by the same process.

---

Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. How the "frequency of beneficial mutations" getting increased by NS is uncomprehensible by me.

quote:

---

Hence multiple good adaptive mutations accumulate, resulting in a gradual change over time.

---

Why does that "gradual change" has to be from simple to complex but not vice versa? Which one do you think is more plausible and why?

quote:

---

This is becoming tedious. There is strong evidence of major phyla appearing in the Precambrian. I’ve been here before, if you’re not going to read what I write, I see no reason in repeating myself.

---

You don't seem to understand. I'll Richard Fortey (an evolutionist) put it, so maybe you will undersatand what I am trying to say:"This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record. Furthermore, cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. .....Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian."So why have they? Thats the challenge that still remains.

quote:

---

You mean long periods of time meaning anything over 10 million years, evolution makes no such stipulation. Secondly, there’s those irritating Precambrian animal fossils found in 900 million year old rocks.

---

The 900 million is the date as indicated by molecular clocks. I do really doubt its accuracy. In the book by Erwin, Douglas H., 1989, "Molecular clocks, molecular phylogenies and the origin of phyla," Erwin explains that the molecular clock model can only be applied when certain assumptions are met: 1) Constancy of substitution rate for the genes under investigation within lineages, and 2) Dependence of substitution on absolute rather than generation time. Both assumptions are refuted by the discovery of highly variable substitution rates. Statistical studies have revealed deviations from rate constancy and recent studies suggest that the deviations are significant. The implication is that the clock should be rejected [Erwin, p. 252]. He concludes his paper by saying that these two fundamental assumptions are invalid and that molecular evidence does not presently allow us to discriminate between a lengthy Precambrian divergence and the rapid burst of divergence close to the Cambrian explosion when these fossils actually appeared.Consider Erwin’s observations as he responds to Runnegar’s calculated date and that you use to indicate precambrian fossils for the origin of phyla:"There are several reasons for questioning the 1000-900 million years date. First, the annelid, mollusc, and vertebrate divergence dates the actual divergence of the phyla only if molluscs, annelids and vertebrates are each others closest relatives, or if all three diverged simultaneously (perhaps along with other taxa) from a common ancestor. Otherwise, the date, if correct, may simply reflect the divergence of pre-annelid, pre-mollusc and pre-vertebrate lineages during the evolution of metazoa. In this case the date is for an earlier event in metazoan phylogeny and may not reflect the radiation of existing animal phyla. More importantly, this application of the molecular clock requires extrapolation of evolutionary rates beyond calibrations points rather than interpolation between known points (W. M. Fitch, pers. comm., 1988). Since there are no methods to test the accuracy of such extrapolation, the results of such studies are unreliable. Third, as discussed above, substitution rates appear to be highly episodic, a feature which will be masked by the sort of long-term analysis used by Runnegar. As noted, increased substitution rates are particularly common during gene duplications events. If substitution rates have varied widely, the true substitution rate is likely to have been greater than the calculated rate, and the divergence time less."[Erwin, p. 234]So unless a valid conclusion is drawn about the "900 mya" and the accuracy of molecular clocks, your assertion is moot.

quote:

---

Thirdly, evolution does not state that an organism HAS to evolve from simple to complex.

---

But which one is more plausible, in naturalistic conditions (considering the 2Lot) without divine intervention?

quote:

---

Fourthly, there's the divergences of the various clades shown by your own molecular data cite, which by definition occur before the cambrian explosion.

---

Which cite? So what do these "divergences" prove?

quote:

---

Precambrian origins aside. Provide POSITIVE evidence that this cannot happen. Tell me where evolution contradicts itself with actual measurable specifics. This is YOUR claim, not mine. Back up your own hypothesis, attacking other hypotheses doesn't make your own favoured one any more true without positive, evidence in its support.

---

Oh you mean the creation hypothesis? Actually, it should be called the "Creation theory". But anyways.... evolution claims organisms evolved from simple to complex and thats why you see all the myriad organisms all around the world some very distinct from each other. some quite similar and they all carry out their processes effectively. What evolution contradicts is the "rapid" and "abrupt" appearance of living organisms, during cambrian explosion, in a very short time having no evolutionary, transitional or ancestral links to each other. And the organisms that emerged were very dictinct from each other, highly complex, and fully-formed. How can evolutionists fit this scenario in their theory? Together with that, the 2Lot also poses a considerable problem for evolution since it states the all systems (open or closed) gets more disordered and deteriorated with time. Thats why sometimes its called the "time's arrow". While evolution explains that life evolved from "simple" to complex >> the very opposite of 2LoT. Thats where evolution loses the toll.Now if creation theory was applied to it, everything makes perfect sense. Each organism in their respective phylas were all created. With conscious mechanism only can a system sustain its order. And that is exactly what creation theory states... the presense of divine intervention.

quote:

---

This time please answer the question. I know what a belief system is, & I know what creation science is. In order to answer this question you will have to state how you believe life got here, &, if in more than one event, in what order? Please give as much relevant information as possible.

---

There's so many things to be discussed to give you "as much relevant data as possible". I'll just discuss things that are the top of my head , now. To begin with, creation science is rather a very mute and recessive subject, today. Much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. I just wonder ow much further we might have been in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis? But lately, it has been gaining grounds.To explain "how" and in "what order" is quite lengthy and is out of the scope of this forum and for which I need to make an entirely new forum. However, here are some interesting sites that can give you the explanation of creation:Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...LIFE: AN EVIDENCE FOR CREATION
George T. Javor
Professor of Biochemistry
Loma Linda UniversityGeoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...ORGANIZATION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
John C. Walton
Lecturer in Chemistry
University of St. Andrews, Fife, ScotlandIts quite hard to outline the entire creation thoery but tell you what; you tell me one thing creation can't explain and evolution can and I'll respond

quote:

---

Hey, YOU said there were no plant intermediates, not me.

---

Yes and I maintain my position. There are no plant intermediates. Whats that got to do with the argument from carboniferous age?

quote:

---

Imaginary-ancestors-no-evidence-they-even-existed, indeed!

---

Hmm.. I do stand corrected. But tell me: How are progymnosprems considered transitionals? And between what species is this plant a transition?

quote:

---

You are wrong. I am talking about basic increases of complexity seen in the Precambrian.

---

But the organisms in the precambrian were already complex. The Ediacaran fauna were highly complex as the organisms in the cambrian era.

quote:

---

I HAVE shown you valid Precambrian intermediates. You don’t accept them, what can I do? I don’t pretend to show you DEFINATE transitionals, but they are valid!

---

Wow.. indefinite but valid? You haven't shown me any intermediates or transitionals.... yet.

quote:

---

Like I said, unbacked assertions. There is no POSITIVE, TESTABLE, FALSIFIABLE evidence of creation.

---

But IC and CE are both testable and falsifiable. If it can be shown that systems can be reducibly complex or that IC does not exist in any system, then you have the theory falsified!If it can be shown, with valid fossil evidence, that Cambrian explosion was not really and explosion but an evolutionary change which occurred step-by-step and transitionals exist between different species, then you the explosion falsified.Until then.... they are strong, positive, testable evidence for creation

quote:

---

Bryozoans don’t appear in the Cambrian, they appear in the Ordovician. Ergo not all Phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. Simple. Was I not clear on this?

---

Except the bryozoans, name me one another animal phyla that doesn't appear in the cambrian explosion. Surely the exception of one phyla does not falsify cambrian explosion, now does it?

quote:

---

Yup. Pararenicola, Protoarenicola were found in 900 million year old rocks (for the second time of telling). They have been allied with annelids (themselves Cnidarians) (Sun 1986, Sun 1994, Cloud 1986)

---

I did a search on XRefer regarding Pararenicola and Protoarenicola but the results yielded null.

quote:

---

Because the ancestors lived deep in the Precambrian, were generally small, soft bodied, & not numerous? What a crazy whacked out explanation that was!

---

The Ediacarans were highly complex, I should say. And very weird. What did Ediacarans evolve from?

quote:

---

Excellent. You agree that Spriggina is a potential intermediate annelid-arthropod, then? By your own definition, you should do.

---

So spriggina is a cross between annelids and arthropods? Does it have half of everything?

quote:

---

If an intermediate proto-echinoderm/chordate intermediate fossil is discovered before it got a notochord, it doesn’t invalidate the fossil as a potential intermediate. It doesn't have to have half of everything. Creationist strawman.

---

So, in evolutionist criterias, what should a potential intermediate have? Provide the criterias first. As far as I know, an intermediate species itself mean "half-way" >> intermediate or [/i]transitional[/i]. How do you explain it? Evolutionist strawman!!

quote:

---

My bet is that the creationists assertion is wrong BECAUSE bryozoans appeared when creationists say they didn’t. Also, see cnidarians, above.

---

Maybe you didn't read what I asked... save the bryozoans, what other animal phyla had their go AFTER the cambrian

quote:

---

None. So what? Bryozoans appear after the Ce. Period. Creationist assertion 2/ blown out of the water.

---

I did stand corrected, didn't I? Thats why I rephrased my question. I admit that the only phyla that appear after the cambrian era, i.e, the Ordovician era, is Bryozoa. Thats the ONLY phyla appearing after the cambrian era. I am asking for any other? If not, then surely the appearance of one phyla after the cambrian era does not dispute the abrupt appearance of the rest of the phylas at cambrian era and precambrian.

quote:

---

Cnidarians (annelids), see above. The Ediacarans too, if you don’t want them to be ancestors of the Cambrian phyla, you choose.

---

But the Ediacarans are very much different from the organisms appearing at the cambrian era. It does not depend on my choice, as I can be wrong many times. Show me valid evidence linking ancestry or transitionals with organisms at the cambrian era... as well as that appeared in the Precambrian. Ediacarans are strange organisms and quite complex and quite intelligent, according to BBC Sci/Tech News. And I agree with you. Many of the very best cnidarian fossils date back to the time when animals first appear in the fossil record, the Vendian. But most of them, especially the corals, made their appearcane at the cambrian era during the cambrian explosion.

quote:

---

Regardless, even if the metazoans in the Precambrian didn’t belong to an extant phyla, they’d belong to an as yet un-named one by definition, unless you know of any metazoans that DON’T belong to a phylum? I know you don’t WANT them to exist, but they do. Creationist assertion 3/ blown out of the water.

---

It doesn't matter whether I want them to exist or not... the truth remains clear. The early metazoans were weird and hardly resembled, if ever, to the organisms that existed at the same age. Some had five eyes (Opabinia), some had circular mouth with eyes at the sides(Anomalocaris), some had their spines as teeth (Ottoia) etc. How do you think a taxonomic classification is possible with organisms that appeared at the cambrian era?

quote:

---

Except Spriggina, of course, see above

---

Spriggina did not have any half endo/exoskeleton.

quote:

---

Present in dinosaurs, but not in birds; pubic peduncle, long bony tail, & abdominal ribs. Present in birds but not dinosaurs; pygostyle, a bony sternum, a furcula,, a hypotarsus, & feathers. What do you think Archeopteryx possessed? Yup, all of them. By your own definition, a transitional.

---

According to my definition, it should have half of from each species its transitional of. You're saying that Archaeopteryx had all the characteristics of dinosaurs abd birds (which I seriously doubt)... which sort-of makes it an ancestor of reptiles and birds. But this surely is not the case. Archaeopteryx was a true flying bird. Not half-way between a bird and a reptile. It's a perching bird with real flight feathers.Regarding your first features of characteristics found in dinosaurs but not in birds:1. According to recent findings, Ostrom's interpretation (which you cited) is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position. (A.D. Walker, Geological Magazine 117:595)2. While it is generally true that reptiles have tails, and birds appear not to, the detailed position is more complex. In embryo, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archaeopteryx does, which later fuse to become an upstanding pygostyle. The bone and feather arrangement on a present day swan shows striking similarities to Archaeopteryx. According to Professor Michael Pitman, there is no difference in principle between the ancient and modern forms: 'the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.'3. Archaeopteryx didn't have any gastralia (abdominal ribs). It is generally assumed that since archaeopteryx was a "missing link", is must have also had a gastralia like reptiles. But it didn't, there is no fossil evidence to support this claim.What's worse is that Archy cannot be the ancestor of birds either since the discovery of bird species like Protoavis texensis predates Archaeopteryx by about 75 million years and, as described by Chatterjee, is more like modern birds than is Archaeopteryx. It has a V-shaped furcula, a keeled sternum, quill knobs in the hand for attachment of flight feathers, birdlike cervical vertebrae, and a birdlike skull, pelvis and pectoral apparatus. So the idea of using Archaeopteryx as a transitional or ancestral bird is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis and unless it can be proven for it to be a transitional(let alone ancestral), you claim is moot.

quote:

---

I stand by the seven points I made, & when we can agree on them, we can move forward. You didn’t provide a single refutation of the points, so I’ll state them again:

---

You make good points but baseless claims. I'll try to summarize some of them,Evolutionist claims shown to be baseless1. IC systems can evolve.2. Molecular and Morphological phylogenies are highly congruent.3. There are possible intermediates fossils of metazoans in the Precambrian. (when none has been shown)4. Cambrian explosion coincides with the Theory of Evolution.5. Archaeopteryx is a transitional dino-bird.Regards,
Ahmad[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 11-24-2002]{Replace a very long URL with "here" - It was causing the page to be excessivly wide - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-24-2002]

Ahmad,That was an impressively long post. Apologies if I pick on just one part of it, as I don't have a paleontology background.I wanted to focus in on the form of the argument that ICers use. Consider the following statements:1) it is demonstrably impossible for X to produce Y
2) I cannot see how X could produce Y
3) it is conceivable that X has produced Y, but the process has not been determined yet.
4) X has been conclusively shown to produce YNow I would paraphrase your position as being (2), wheras your standard biologist would argue (3) (or (4)!) when it comes to irreducibly complex systems.To overturn a pardigm, you generally have to do more than insist upon (2), you have to show that (1) must be the case. Do you have any examples of this? Personally, I don't see how you (or Behe) can show that complex machanisms could not have come about through gradual evolution, especially as he's already been proved wrong about the Bombardier beetle.In any event, how would you say that your argument differs substantively from the standard God of the Gaps" (in this case, Intelligent Designer of the Gaps) fallacy?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Its quite hard to outline the entire creation thoery but tell you what; you tell me one thing creation can't explain and evolution can and I'll respond

---

Who designed the intelligent designer?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

Sorry to jump in here, but it is a quiet, snowy day and I don't care to go out and brave the element.

quote:

---

Firstly, What cite are you talking about? Secondly, there is no "evidence" that the exoskeleton of the arthropods (trilobites) evolve from the annelids (spriggina).

---

You mean other than the fact that it has morphologic similarities and occurs earlier than trilobites? Okay, perhaps to an absolutist, you are correct. However, most scientists would agree that the presence of a possible precursor to trilobites supports the idea of evolution.

quote:

---

"It’s a common misconception that something must be halfway for it to be a transitional. Does Archaeopteryx have half a wing?"

​

A: Archaeoptryx does not have half a wing 'cause its not a "dino-bird", in the first place. I would say using Archaeopteryx as a transition example is a bigger misconception since it has been disproved otherwise long ago.

---

Oh, really? By whom and when? Pehaps, then, you could tell us exactly what archeopteryx is.

quote:

---

"Good grief! What are you talking about? How can you possibly criticise evolution with such a poor understanding of it?

​

A: Evolution, itself, does not make sense; let alone having a "poor understanding" of it.

---

Cop out...

quote:

---

"Hence multiple good adaptive mutations accumulate, resulting in a gradual change over time."

​

A: Why does that "gradual change" has to be from simple to complex but not vice versa? Which one do you think is more plausible and why?

---

You are dancing here. No one brought up the 'simple to complex' scenario but you. In fact, evolution does not require this ordering, there are plenty of bacteria around to show this. [quote]"This is becoming tedious. There is strong evidence of major phyla appearing in the Precambrian. I’ve been here before, if you’re not going to read what I write, I see no reason in repeating myself.A: You don't seem to understand. I'll Richard Fortey (an evolutionist) put it, so maybe you will undersatand what I am trying to say: [i]"This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record. Furthermore, cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. .....Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian."[/quote][/i]So, what do you expect? I suppose as an absolutist, you would like to have every lineage lined up in exacting detail. Sorry, but the fossil record is imperfect, the nature of the beast. Now, we could be like you and ignore the fossil record since it isn't perfect, but most scientists recognize the record as meaningful data. They also recognize temporal patterns and are willing to interpolate between them.

quote:

---

So why have they? Thats the challenge that still remains.

---

I suppose for you there are no challenges left, eh? Due to the imperfections of the fossil record (for which there are very valid reasons) there will always be challenges. I thought that was the nature of science. In fact, we have come a long way in explaining the fossil record in light of evolution. Without evolution the fossil record is an impossibly complex set of random data. If you have a better explanation, we'd be glad to hear it. But you'd better expect some questions that you can't answer.

quote:

---

"You mean long periods of time meaning anything over 10 million years, evolution makes no such stipulation. Secondly, there’s those irritating Precambrian animal fossils found in 900 million year old rocks."

​

A: The 900 million is the date as indicated by molecular clocks. I do really doubt its accuracy.

---

Well, then, that makes it easy for you to ignore information, doesn't it? Besides the date, as far as I can tell is not based solely on molecular clocks. There is stratigraphic and radiometric data in support.

quote:

---

So unless a valid conclusion is drawn about the "900 mya" and the accuracy of molecular clocks, your assertion is moot.

---

Nonsense. This is a strawman.

quote:

---

"Thirdly, evolution does not state that an organism HAS to evolve from simple to complex. "

​

A: But which one is more plausible, in naturalistic conditions (considering the 2Lot) without divine intervention?

---

A non sequitur. However, to answer you question, the alternative with more evidence. And the SLOT has nothing to do with it. We are not going over that ground again are we?

quote:

---

"Precambrian origins aside. Provide POSITIVE evidence that this cannot happen. Tell me where evolution contradicts itself with actual measurable specifics. This is YOUR claim, not mine. Back up your own hypothesis, attacking other hypotheses doesn't make your own favoured one any more true without positive, evidence in its support."

​

A: Oh you mean the creation hypothesis? Actually, it should be called the "Creation theory".

---

Ah, good. There is a creation theory. Can you spell it out for us?

quote:

---

But anyways.... evolution claims organisms evolved from simple to complex and thats why you see all the myriad organisms all around the world some very distinct from each other. some quite similar and they all carry out their processes effectively. What evolution contradicts is the "rapid" and "abrupt" appearance of living organisms, during cambrian explosion, in a very short time having no evolutionary, transitional or ancestral links to each other.

---

Once again, nonsense. Have you been reading our posts at all? There is no 'abrupt' appearance unless you consider tens of millions of years to be abrupt. THere is only the APPEARANCE if abruptness brought about by imperfections of the fossil record. Fruthermore, there are very likely precursors in older rocks. I am really beginning to resent your disrespect on this issue. You are faced with data that you simply dismiss and plunge headlong without any explanation.

quote:

---

And the organisms that emerged were very dictinct from each other, highly complex, and fully-formed.

---

But not as highly complex as even later forms, and yet more complex than the older forms.... Why is that?

quote:

---

How can evolutionists fit this scenario in their theory?

---

I gather that you have not been reading our posts.

quote:

---

Together with that, the 2Lot also poses a considerable problem for evolution since it states the all systems (open or closed) gets more disordered and deteriorated with time.

---

Utter, unmitigated BS. The SLOT does not say that parts of a system cannot undergo a decrease in entropy at the expense of other parts of the system. If your understanding of thermodynamics is correct, we have a very dismal future.

quote:

---

Thats why sometimes its called the "time's arrow". While evolution explains that life evolved from "simple" to complex >> the very opposite of 2LoT. Thats where evolution loses the toll.

---

A very simplistic understanding of the second law. I can see that you get most of your scientific information from creaionist websites.

quote:

---

Now if creation theory was applied to it, everything makes perfect sense. Each organism in their respective phylas were all created. With conscious mechanism only can a system sustain its order. And that is exactly what creation theory states... the presense of divine intervention.

---

Who defies the second law that you revere so much.

quote:

---

You are wrong. I am talking about basic increases of complexity seen in the Precambrian.

---

A: But the organisms in the precambrian were already complex. The Ediacaran fauna were highly complex as the organisms in the cambrian era. [/quote]This is pretty interesting coming from someone who actually denied that there was life in the Precambrian a couple of weeks ago. Now you are saying that Ediacaran life forms were highly complex! Well, complex compared to what? Trilobites? Just what does this do to your Cambrian explosion? Doesn't sound so explosive any more!What a riot! Stop it Ahmad! You are cracking me up! By the way, just to be technical it is not the Cambrian Era, but the Cambrian Period. [quote]"I HAVE shown you valid Precambrian intermediates. You don’t accept them, what can I do? I don’t pretend to show you DEFINATE transitionals, but they are valid!"

quote:

---

Wow.. indefinite but valid? You haven't shown me any intermediates or transitionals.... yet.

---

Wrong, you have simply not accepted them. Perhaps you could clarify things by telling us what you would accept as a transitional.

quote:

---

"Like I said, unbacked assertions. There is no POSITIVE, TESTABLE, FALSIFIABLE evidence of creation."

​

A: But IC and CE are both testable and falsifiable. If it can be shown that systems can be reducibly complex or that IC does not exist in any system, then you have the theory falsified!

​

If it can be shown, with valid fossil evidence, that Cambrian explosion was not really and explosion...

---

(actually, you have done this yourself, Ahmad)

quote:

---

... but an evolutionary change which occurred step-by-step and transitionals exist between different species, then you the explosion falsified.

---

I understand you don't.

quote:

---

Until then.... they are strong, positive, testable evidence for creation

---

At the risk of repeating the question... such as?

quote:

---

"Bryozoans don’t appear in the Cambrian, they appear in the Ordovician. Ergo not all Phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. Simple. Was I not clear on this?"

​

Except the bryozoans, name me one another animal phyla that doesn't appear in the cambrian explosion. Surely the exception of one phyla does not falsify cambrian explosion, now does it?

---

But it is a challenge to your story is it not? YOu are willing to reject evolution based on the fact that it is challenged to explain certain phenomena. Why not hold your own 'theory' to the same standards?

quote:

---

"Because the ancestors lived deep in the Precambrian, were generally small, soft bodied, & not numerous? What a crazy whacked out explanation that was!"

​

A: The Ediacarans were highly complex, I should say. And very weird. What did Ediacarans evolve from?

---

There you go again! Ediacaran life that didn't exist before, is now 'highly complex' Oh, and 'weird' too. Now perhaps you can tell us how complex these organisms are and how weird they are. Please quantify this weirdness. Are they more weird than Cambrian fauna?

quote:

---

"Excellent. You agree that Spriggina is a potential intermediate annelid-arthropod, then? By your own definition, you should do."

​

So spriggina is a cross between annelids and arthropods? Does it have half of everything?

---

Oh, is that one of your requirements for a transitional? Sounds to me like something gleaned from a thorough study of creationist websites. Not very scientific but good propaganda.

quote:

---

"If an intermediate proto-echinoderm/chordate intermediate fossil is discovered before it got a notochord, it doesn’t invalidate the fossil as a potential intermediate. It doesn't have to have half of everything. Creationist strawman."

​

So, in evolutionist criterias, what should a potential intermediate have? Provide the criterias first. As far as I know, an intermediate species itself mean "half-way" >> intermediate or transitional. How do you explain it? Evolutionist strawman!!

---

No, that would not be the evolutionist position. Of course I wouldn't expect you to know that position because you fail to comprehend any of our posts.

quote:

---

My bet is that the creationists assertion is wrong BECAUSE bryozoans appeared when creationists say they didn’t. Also, see cnidarians, above.

​

A: Maybe you didn't read what I asked... save the bryozoans, what other animal phyla had their go AFTER the cambrian

---

On this I cannot say, but why not ask about some orders or classes? Seems like they should have been around at the Cambrian slow burn according to you. You have been asked this before. Why have you avoided the question?So, are you going to avoid the 'challenge' of the bryozoans?

quote:

---

"None. So what? Bryozoans appear after the Ce. Period. Creationist assertion 2/ blown out of the water."

​

A: I did stand corrected, didn't I? Thats why I rephrased my question. I admit that the only phyla that appear after the cambrian era, i.e, the Ordovician era, is Bryozoa. Thats the ONLY phyla appearing after the cambrian era. I am asking for any other? If not, then surely the appearance of one phyla after the cambrian era does not dispute the abrupt appearance of the rest of the phylas at cambrian era and precambrian.

---

No, but it does dispute your version of how the Cambrian slow burn occurred.

quote:

---

"Cnidarians (annelids), see above. The Ediacarans too, if you don’t want them to be ancestors of the Cambrian phyla, you choose."

​

A: But the Ediacarans are very much different from the organisms appearing at the cambrian era.

---

Of course. They probably evolved.

quote:

---

It does not depend on my choice, as I can be wrong many times. Show me valid evidence linking ancestry or transitionals with organisms at the cambrian era... as well as that appeared in the Precambrian. Ediacarans are strange organisms and quite complex and quite intelligent,...

---

Egad! Now they are intelligent! What have we been doing for the last billion years! All we've got is some splindly little excuse of a space station. This is certan evidence of degradation!

quote:

---

... And I agree with you. Many of the very best cnidarian fossils date back to the time when animals first appear in the fossil record, the Vendian. But most of them, especially the corals, made their appearcane at the cambrian era during the cambrian explosion.

---

So, as I see it, you are saying that most animals appeared on earth during the early Cambrian. So where are the mammal fossils in the Cambrian System?

quote:

---

"Except Spriggina, of course, see above."

​

A: Spriggina did not have any half endo/exoskeleton.

---

Heh, heh. Funny one, Ahmad. Now who is it that requires half wings and half skeletons? WEll, creationists, of course! Just define away your problem with transitionals!

quote:

---

"Present in dinosaurs, but not in birds; pubic peduncle, long bony tail, & abdominal ribs. Present in birds but not dinosaurs; pygostyle, a bony sternum, a furcula,, a hypotarsus, & feathers. What do you think Archeopteryx possessed? Yup, all of them. By your own definition, a transitional. "

​

A: According to my definition, it should have half of from each species its transitional of.

---

Yes, by your definition. Now you explain why archeopteryx has some dinosaurian features and some avian features. And what if archie is a 10% transitional? Your argument really does not make sense.

quote:

---

"You're saying that Archaeopteryx had all the characteristics of dinosaurs abd birds (which I seriously doubt)...

---

Where did you get this from? I really question whether you take the time to read our posts. Or is this just a strawman artifact or yours?

quote:

---

What's worse is that Archy cannot be the ancestor of birds either since the discovery of bird species like Protoavis texensis predates Archaeopteryx by about 75 million years and, as described by Chatterjee, is more like modern birds than is Archaeopteryx.

---

However, the presence of a bird/reptile creature at this time is an interesting coincidence isn't it. By the way where are these birds in the Cambrian?

quote:

---

It has a V-shaped furcula, a keeled sternum, quill knobs in the hand for attachment of flight feathers, birdlike cervical vertebrae, and a birdlike skull, pelvis and pectoral apparatus. So the idea of using Archaeopteryx as a transitional or ancestral bird is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis and unless it can be proven for it to be a transitional(let alone ancestral), you claim is moot.

---

No, it only means that the transition occurred earlier and that archie simply retained some of the older features for a long time into the Jurassic. I think that modern thinking is that the divergence actually occurred quite early in the evolution of dinosaurs.

quote:

---

Evolutionist claims shown to be baseless

​

1. IC systems can evolve.

---

Actually, you are saying that we don't understand how they evolved so they must be supernatural. This is still primitive thinking.

quote:

---

2. Molecular and Morphological phylogenies are highly congruent.

​

3. There are possible intermediates fossils of metazoans in the Precambrian. (when none has been shown)

---

Actually, they have been shown. You have simply ignored the data because it is not absolute.

quote:

---

4. Cambrian explosion coincides with the Theory of Evolution.

---

Actually, it does. You are still debating Darwin. The modern synthesis of evolution explains the Cambrian slow burn. I am wondering how many times we have to tell you this.

quote:

---

5. Archaeopteryx is a transitional dino-bird.

---

Archeopteryx is an intermediate form that probably diverged from the main dinosaur line early. It is not just a coincidence that it precedes modern birds.

.....[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

quote:

---

Mark, I asked you many a times: "How can IC systems evolve, in the first place?" I just don't see any way it can.

---

IC roughly means "if any single component is removed, then the system doesn't work". Agreed? Anything important missing from the definition?Given this point, and the ASSUMPTION that evolution can only progress by addition of components, you'd be right.However, your assumption is flawed. Since you're fond of the persuasiveness of Behe's mousetrap analogy, I feel free to respond with another non-biological analogy.An arch of stones is irreducibly complex. If you remove any single component, the arch collapses. But, can we assume that the archway therefore CAN'T be built? Of course not. If you first build a supporting scaffolding, it can support the arch. When the arch is complete, it can be free-standing on its own even when the scaffolding is removed.Behe's argument collapses, because evolution as simple linear addition of components is crucial to the idea that IC systems can't evolve through gradual evolution.Behe wants to argue that,[i][b]in principle [/i][/b], IC systems can't evolve because there are no pathways, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], for simple addition of components to reach the required state.All that is necessary to refute Behe is to demonstrate that, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], other paths are possible. One possible path is that a more complex system with different components can simplify to an IC system. Therefore, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], another path is possible.Conclusion:
Behe is well aware that simply not knowing specifically how something evolved is not sufficient to say it did NOT evolve. Therefore, his argument can't rest on absence of evidence for evolution; instead he has to show that a system couldn't evolve [i][b]in principle [/i][/b]. However, his argument carries a trivially obvious flaw: Evolution is not required to work in the manner of simple linear addition of components.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-25-2002]

quote:

---

To overturn a pardigm, you generally have to do more than insist upon (2), you have to show that (1) must be the case. Do you have any examples of this? Personally, I don't see how you (or Behe) can show that complex machanisms could not have come about through gradual evolution, especially as he's already been proved wrong about the Bombardier beetle.

---

Firstly, the design argument from bombardier beetle still stands. Isaak tried to explain how the mechanism of the bombardier beetle could have come by evolution but he was wrong in many aspects.Secondly, (1) is exactly the case here. According to ToE, systems have evolved from simple to complex by natural selection and random mutations gradually but sometimes in irregular leaps (punctuated equilibria). If that is the case with a system, it is not irreducibly complex; in fact, it CANNOT be irreducibly complex since it evolved according to Behe's defintion. An IC system needs all its parts to effectively function such as if, even, one of the parts is missing, the system will cease to function. Therefore, an IC system, by definition, is unevolvable... unless proven otherwise. Surely, if a system is IC, it must have had ALL its parts from the very beginning of its existence (aka creation).So unless it is demonstrated otherwise, an IC system is unevolvable. You are making the positive claim that IC systems do evolve, I didn't. So the burden of proof is on the deniers to prove that no system is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. Then itself, will you triumph.

quote:

---

In any event, how would you say that your argument differs substantively from the standard God of the Gaps" (in this case, Intelligent Designer of the Gaps) fallacy?

---

There is a difference between explaining ongoing natural processes and the origins of natural processes. To use an analogy, just because a software program runs without the creator being present doesn't mean we should say there was no personal creator. Also, evolutionary theory has its own gaps that are assumed to occur without support by direct evidence. This is not to say that a broad theory of science has to explain every detail before being accepted. However, when it comes to evolutionary theory, far more gaps are accepted than are typical for other scientific theories.There is another reason why Dr. Behe's ideas should not be equated to the God of the gaps idea. In the past, the gaps were generally due to lack of information about certain natural processes. In contrast, Dr. Behe's ideas involve processes where we do have information. That information, though not complete, is sufficient to indicate problems with postulating completely naturalistic explanations.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Who designed the intelligent designer?

---

Ever heard of the word [i][b]Eternal[/i][/b]?Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:

quote:

---

Who designed the intelligent designer?

---

​

Ever heard of the word [i][b]Eternal[/i][/b]?

​

Regards,
Ahmad

---

Ever heard of the word spacetime?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell