Step Functions in the Record
Next: Unguided Process Prev: New
Fossil TOC
From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 7:33 AM
To: Casey Luskin
Subject: Step Functions in the Record
Hello Casey,
You write,
I see what
you’re saying but I’ve been around this debate too long to let them off that
easy. You see, in fact they used to predict transitional forms. And when
supposed transitional forms are present they claim this is confirmed
predictions of evolution. So as I explained, this is heads I win tails you lose
type reasoning. Darwinian theory is falsifiable.
Scott 5/16/14: Casey, there
are so many fallacies in your writing it’s hard to know where to start. You use
“falsifiable” as if it was a dirty word. But it is a good word. And this
signals a flaw in your entire understanding of science. The idea that a deity
spontaneously created a new species might be true. But, it cannot be observed.
It cannot be verified. Therefore, it enters into the realm of religion.
Therefore, when steps in the fossil record are found, when one says, well it
must have been done by a deity that was creating a new species, we’re talking
religion. But if we posit that there are steps in the record because micro
populations were separated from a main population and differing selection
pressures caused them to devolve into a different species… maybe we can find
evidence that will support or refute this idea. Falsifiability is a good thing.
“Them” treats the scientists as a monolithic
group. You are limiting their science because of the history of the
conversation and your lack of trust.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: Let me get this straight: you’re upset because I used the word
“them”? And now you’re psychoanalyzing me? This is the ultimate
nitpick, and it’s not a response to my arguments. Rather, it’s an attempt on
your part to dodge my arguments. And for the record, YOU have used the word
“them” plenty of times in a similar fashion…for example:
Scott 5/16/14: It’s not a
conspiracy of evolutionists trying to rule the world. Sounds a bit like, “Have
you stopped beating your wife yet?” :^)
I think a more reliable
approach would be to evaluate an idea on its own merits.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: That’s what I’ve been doing all this time.
The idea in question here
regards evolutionary spurts occurring because of the physical separation of a
segment of the population and a divergence due to different ecological pressures.
I think you have to deal with this head on. It may be inconvenient for all of
us that this is going to show step functions in the geologic record. But, you
can’t explain this away on rhetorical grounds.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: Yes, that’s how Darwinian evolution works. The problem is that we
don’t see slow, stepwise evolution in the fossil record. This is not a
“rhetorical” argument. This is what we observe:
“We are still in the dark
about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil
record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full-blown and raring to go, in
contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual
accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”[1]
“Many species remain
virtually unchanged for millions of years, then
suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form.
Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record,
fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from
their parent group.”[1.5]
For example, one
invertebrate biology textbook states:
“Most of the animal phyla
that are represented in the fossil record first appear, “fully formed” and
identifiable as to their phylum, in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago. .
. . The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to understanding the
origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla.”[2]
So we need to ascertain what
the fossil record indicates about the time span: whether or not it was long
enough to allow the information required to build their body plans to have
accumulated by natural selection and random mutation, one small Darwinian step
at a time. And what that record tells us is that, for many of these sub-groups
of vertebrates, we again see patterns of explosions related to their origins.
For instance, regarding the
origin of major fish groups, Columbia University geoscientist Arthur Strahler wrote, “This is one count in the creationists’
charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo
contendere [no contest].”[3] And a paper in the Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics explains that the origin of land plants “is the terrestrial
equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.”[4]
Regarding the origin of
angiosperms (flowering plants), paleontologists refer to a “big bloom”
explosion event. As one paper states, “Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in
the fossil record . . . with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80–90 million
years before their appearance.”[5]
Many mammal orders appear in
a similarly explosive way. Paleontologist Niles Eldredge
explains that “there are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally
intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger
groups—between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.”[6] A
prominent ornithology textbook observes the “explosive evolution” of major
living bird groups.[7]
Of course, all these authors
believe that unguided evolutionary mechanisms can still explain the origin of
these groups. Nonetheless, a straightforward reading of the fossil record
consistently shows a pattern of abrupt explosions of new types of organisms, a
pattern that contradicts the idea of common descent and is the exact opposite
of what we would expect from a Darwinian process of small changes adding up to
larger ones. So I find many good reasons to be skeptical.
I am willing to accept this
idea.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: So am I, if the fossil evidence supports it gradual change. But
it doesn’t. The question should be: Are you willing to accept that the fossil
record doesn’t show gradual, Darwinian-style change?
There should still be lots
of samples in the geologic record, albeit more coarsely than we would desire.
And perhaps someone will discover a way of finding subgroups and detecting a more fine grained sampling of evolution.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: Actually, collectors curves are a good
way of measuring the completeness of our knowledge of the fossil record. Collectors curves are well-accepted methods of assessing how
much of what's out there we have. Scientists using employing such studies have found that we have a more complete idea of the
history of life than one might expect. For example, a study
published in Nature found that among the higher
taxonomic categories (family and above), "the past 540 million years
of the fossil record provide uniformly good documentation of the life of the
past."[8] Likewise, an article in the
journal Science warned that "[e]volutionary
biologists can no longer ignore the fossil record on the ground that it is
imperfect."[9]
Another statistical paleontologist
Michael Foote asks: “We would like to know whether we have a representative
sample of morphological diversity, and therefore can rely on patterns
documented in the fossil record” and concludes: “Although we still have
much to learn about the evolution of form, in many respects our view of the
history of biological diversity is mature.” [10]
Thus, evolutionary
paleontologist Niles Eldredge admits: "The
record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we
see reflect real events in life's history -- not the artifact of a poor fossil
record."[11]
Scott 5/16/14: We can’t find
proto-chimps. They lived in forested areas that were not conducive to the
production of fossils. You seem to filibuster on this topic. I’m running out of
energy to refute your thinking. But let’s just put it into words.
There
are gaps in the record where we cannot find fossils. So, a
deity or near deity spontaneously created a new species in all of those
instances.
That’s what you want to say,
right? So just come out and say it? You can’t. Only the folks singing hail Mary’s in the pews will believe you!
Ok, now you can filibuster
through the rest of this page. You don’t dare state the laughable.
Leading paleontologists have
thus recognized that gaps between major taxonomic categories are real, and not
simply the result of an incomplete record. So OF COURSE we should keep
searching for fossils. But we shouldn't assume that they will necessarily
continue to uncover transitional forms. We need to be willing to evaluate
the data carefully. And as some have admitted, the gaps are real, not
artifacts of a poor fossil record.
I have an independent datapoint that seems to corroborate this line of reasoning
where evolution does not result in large modification in a large pool because
the genes are swamped by the rest of the genes in the pool.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: Your correct but your point hurts
evolution, and doesn’t help it. According to Darwinian evolution, forms have
radically changed over time. After all, humans are descended from fish that
lived hundreds of millions of years ago. So a lot of modification has
supposedly happened to gene pools. If evolution doesn’t “result in large
modification in a gene pool” then how do you account
for the fact that radically new forms have arisen in the history of life? I
don’t see how this observation helps your case.
In fact, you are correct
that “evolution does not result in large modification in a large pool because
the genes are swamped by the rest of the genes in the pool” but that
observation doesn’t help an evolutionary viewpoint. You have just stated one of
the longstanding enigmas of population genetics: How can new traits become
dominant in a population unless they have an EXTREMELY high selection
coefficient. Weakly adaptive traits simply don’t spread easily in large
populations, and tend to get swamped by drift and other factors. Strongly
adaptive traits don’t have those problems, but they’re so rare that they can’t
be the normal mode of evolution. So yes, you’ve stated a well-known problem of
population genetics—one that evolutionary theorists have yet to resolve.
It was pointed out by one
writer that discussed exceptional people having children. The children
typically go back toward the typical. So, progeny of extremely attractive
people typically are not as attractive as their parents. Similarly, progeny of
notably intelligent people are not as intelligent as their folks. This was not
from a scientific study. However, it was not from an individual that had an ax
to grind regarding evolution, either.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: This comment has nothing to do with population genetics or how
species evolve. I don’t see your point. It certainly doesn’t bolster any of
your arguments.
Scott 5/17/14: I think you
need to listen more and talk less. If you do, you might recognize that you
should be the student rather than the teacher. You write of certain things not
bolstering my arguments… I’ve reconstructed the threads of conversation so that
you can actually tell what the original email looked like. First, this may be
impossible. But you need to realize that I don’t care what the answer is. If
our genesis is by evolution, cool. If our genesis is through the loins of the
god Athena, fine! I just want to know the truth. You put me in a box that has
me on the other side, so you cannot understand when I bring up thoughts that
score points for the other side. I’m not on the other side. You and I are
cousins on this tiny spec of a blue ball. If Martians came and stared firing on
us, you can bet that you and I would not be firing at each other. We’d be
firing at the Martians… together. We’re on the same side!
My point… my point was that
the evidence can be misleading. We can look at the australopithecines and see
how they hardly changed for a million years and say, “See, they weren’t a
transitional form!” But we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of
evolution. My point was that you cannot expect to see big changes in a large
population. I would add that you need to have an unstable environment where the
population members are dying. There have to be “selective pressures” that
reward those with genetic advantages and it has to occur in a microcosm where
the advantageous genes aren’t immediately swamped out by the greater
population. So it could be that the exact conditions leading to changes in the
gene pool are perfect for hiding incremental changes from us because they have
to happen in a limited scope that is almost impossible for the scientists to
find samples. And then if they live in an area that is not conducive to
fossilization, of course it’s going to seem like there’s a conspiracy of the
evolutionists against you. But maybe it’s mother nature
playing a trick on all of us! :^)
So we really need to
understand the mechanisms behind what we are looking at. If nature is going to
conspire against us and make it look as though a god is creating new species at
a whim, then we need to be able to accept that and perhaps find ways to get the
evidence we need despite the difficult odds.
Maybe we did come
from the loins of Athena. But we cannot make that proposition our starting
point.
Best regards,
Scott
From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 7:45 AM
To: Casey Luskin
Subject: Step Functions in the Record
Hello Casey,
Ok, now I’ve got my labels
down correctly. Please disregard the other email sent today with this same
subject heading.
You write,
What’s more
interesting is the fact that the overall pattern in the fossil record is one of
abrupt appearance where new biological forms appear abruptly, without clear
evolutionary precursors.
I asked you about this
before. Maybe this is a good place to look at this question again. I’ll put it
a different way this time. Is our objective to determine a methodology used by
nature to promote change? If so, we only need a few examples with a stream of
fossils illustrating the methodology. Or, is the idea to perform some sort of
“holding action” where we attempt to discredit evolutionary discovery by
demanding an ever increasing number of finer and finer grained fossils,
illustrating a stem to stern lineage from the earliest pre-single celled life
to the most modern organism of the present day? What would be the purpose for
the latter approach other than to give hope for the “faithful” that the whole
thing will just go away?
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: Wow, you’re really overthinking this—for the purpose of
dismissing my arguments. My purpose is simple: to figure out what the evidence
says. Above, I’ve cited many examples from MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC SOURCES
explaining how we often see “explosions” or abrupt appearance of forms in the
fossil record. You can pretend this has something to do with giving hope to the
faithful or something else; I’m just looking at what the evidence says.
I have shown you examples in
Wikipedia of many transitional forms, and all you did was attack Wikipedia.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: Actually, no, “all I did” was NOT attack Wikipedia. While I agree
that Wikipedia is a notoriously inaccurate and biased source of information, I
ALSO directed you lengthy substantive discussions of the supposed transitional
forms you mentioned. You obviously aren’t responding to my arguments, but I’ll repaste them here once again so your friends can see that
you’re (a) refusing to answer my arguments, and (b) understanding what I did.
Here’s what I wrote:
Regarding the Wikipedia page
you listed, most of the examples given there are pretty weak ones. Even evolutionary
biologists wouldn’t call Archaeopteryx as relevant to a “transition” (see: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/the_demise_of_another_evolutio027271.html).
The australopithecines make
for a poor transitional form. (See my attached article.)
Whales also appear too
quickly in the fossil for neo-Darwinian evolution to be responsible. See:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/fact-checking_wikipedia_on_com_1051951.html
In any case, to answer your
question in another way, I think many of the examples of the “transitional” fossils
within horses could be arguably called “transitional.” But given that the
starting point and the endpoint of that transition represent highly similar
animals, we’re not talking about significant morphological change. Thanks.
And I later wrote regarding
some of those same fossils:
I’m not demanding such a
perfectly unbroken chain. Rather, I’m looking for any transitional forms
whatsoever. Instead, we see paleoanthropologists admitting that we haven’t
found transitions between humanlike creatures and apelike creatures in the
fossil record. For example, a study of the pelvic bones of
australopithecines and Homo proposed “a period of very rapid evolution
corresponding to the emergence of the genus Homo.”[11.5] In fact, a paper in
the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution found that Homo and
Australopithecus differ significantly in brain size, dental function, increased
cranial buttressing, expanded body height, visual, and respiratory changes and
stated: ‘We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that
early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from...
australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant
of its behavior.”[12]
Scott 5/16/14: In Cherry Picking, I talk about you taking
things out of context and misleading the reader with your quotations. For these
professional practitioners, which ones are saying that evolution is false? That
seems to be what you are implying.
I posit that, their editorial
comments notwithstanding, not one of them are actually telling us that
evolution is false. If that’s true, then just what are you saying,
Casey?
Noting these many changes,
the study called the origin of humans, “a real acceleration of evolutionary
change from the more slowly changing pace of australopithecine evolution” and
stated that such a transformation would have included radical changes: “The
anatomy of the earliest H. sapiens sample indicates significant modifications
of the ancestral genome and is not simply an extension of evolutionary trends
in an earlier australopithecine lineage throughout the Pliocene. In fact, its
combination of features never appears earlier.”[12]
Scott 5/17/14: It seems that
we are destined to find only uncles, aunts, and cousins. It seems as though
there are a lot more of them than grandmas and grandpas. And wouldn’t it be sad
if we were dissing our own ancestors just because they looked funny? Such
arrogance and ignorance would be shameful.
These rapid, unique, and
genetically significant changes are termed “a genetic revolution" where
"no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.”[12] For anyone
who considers the evidence unconstrained by an evolutionary paradigm, what is
also not obvious is that this transition took place at all. The lack of fossil
evidence for the hypothesized transition is confirmed by Harvard
paleoanthropologists Daniel E. Lieberman, David R. Pilbeam,
and Richard W. Wrangham, who provide a stark analysis
of the lack of evidence for a transition from Australopithecus to Homo:
Of the various transitions
that occurred during human evolution, the transition from Australopithecus to
Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and
consequences. As with many key evolutionary events, there is both good and bad
news. First, the bad news is that many details of this transition are obscure
because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records.[13]
As for the “good news,” they
still admit: “[A]lthough we lack many details about
exactly how, when, and where the transition occurred from Australopithecus to
Homo, we have sufficient data from before and after the transition to make some
inferences about the overall nature of key changes that did occur.”[13]
In other words, the fossil
record provides ape-like australopithecines, and human-like Homo, but not
fossils documenting a transition between them. In the absence of fossil
evidence, evolutionary claims about the transition to Homo are said to be mere
“inferences” made by studying the non-transitional fossils we do have, and then
assuming that a transition must have occurred somehow, sometime, and someplace.
Scott 5/17/14: Maybe we were
not created by a deity. Maybe we were created by a near-deity that was actually
learning. At Boeing, we didn’t marry a 757 and a 767 and get a baby 777. We
designed the 757 and the 767 at nearly the same time. Groups shared data when
they could. Groups designed the 7J7, but it was never produced due to falling
fuel prices. We then designed the 747-400. We took information from the
development of the ’57, ’67, probably the ‘J7. When the 777 came out, I was
personally involved in using the 757 as a platform to test B2 Bomber C*U
control laws before applying them to the 777 in its first ever flight test. I
also personally transitioned my 747-400 model of the Primary Flight Display to
the responsible 777 engineer. I remember—I was obsessed. I could not live with
myself if I didn’t fix the holding pattern that was consistently flopped 90
degrees out of kilter. My lead was angry that I departed from his priorities,
but I delivered with a properly positioned holding pattern. Later, the company
came out with the 787. My role with that plane was on Engine Start logic and
Flight-Controls verification. But by that time, I was working for
subcontractors.
So maybe a near-deity, like
us at Boeing, was learning and creating new species. That seems more likely
than the idea of an omnipotent deity. Such an all knowing entity would not need
to learn. So if evolution is false, then I would look for the near-deity. But
if that’s the case, one has to immediately ask, “Where did the near-deity come
from?” Unless you want to get into religion, which is not what this
conversation is about, you have to have a causal chain from first beginnings to
every point along the way.
Again, this does not make
for a compelling evolutionary account of human origins. Ian Tattersal
also acknowledges the lack of evidence for a transition to humans:
“Our biological history has
been one of sporadic events rather than gradual accretions. Over the past five
million years, new hominid species have regularly emerged, competed, coexisted,
colonized new environments and succeeded--or failed. We have only the dimmest
of perceptions of how this dramatic history of innovation and interaction
unfolded…”[14]
Scott 5/17/14: The guy’s a
scientist who wants to know more. So what? I don’t know why gravity works. That
doesn’t mean I don’t put planes in the air. That doesn’t mean that I put
prayers into our hazard analyses. Imagine: Hazard, prayers fail to keep plane
up in the air. Effect: hull loss, complete loss of life. Likelihood: Completely
unknown because we don’t know what God’s gonna’ do.
Mitigation: contract with a hundred grandmas across the bible belt to pray 5
hours a day, right after watching “Let’s Make a Deal”, 6 days a week with a
rest on Sunday…
What, am I supposed to
believe your theory of ID is correct because this guy doesn’t have all the
evidence he wants? That answer may go great on a Wednesday evening after the
bible study at the church down the street. But it carries no weight in this
conversation. It just makes me smile and shake my head.
Likewise, evolutionary
biologist Ernst Mayr recognized our abrupt appearance
when he wrote in 2004:
The earliest fossils of
Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are
separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged
gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can
serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of
historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.[15]
As another commentator
proposed, the evidence implies a “big bang theory” of the appearance of our
genus Homo.[16]
So what I’m asking for isn’t
a perfect unbroken chain of transitional forms, just some good evidence that a
transition took place. Unfortunately, that’s not what I find.
You didn’t respond to any of
these arguments—and you misrepresent my responses to you.
Wikipedia did not dig up,
curate and analyze those fossils. Wikipedia is simply reporting.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: I wish Wikipedia would simply report. Instead, they often report
a pro-evolution view and refuse to report problems with the evidence for an
evolutionary view.
As a note, in an entirely
separate wing of scholarly thought, Berkeley professor, Geoffrey Numberg in his History of
Information class
raved about Wikipedia. This is no small deal because of his attention to
accuracy. Personally, I compare items in Wikipedia with items coming out of
academia and, though some disagreements can be found (for example it does not
contain Finkelestein’s advances in knowledge of Judea
and Israel), I do find a great deal of agreement.
I think the attack on the
Wikipedia example I gave you should really go to the transitional forms
contained, rather than Wikipedia itself. An attack on Wikipedia is side
stepping the actual data.
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: But I didn’t just attack Wikipedia. You’re badly misrepresenting
what I did. I gave you lengthy substantive answers to Wikipedia’s claims that
those fossils are transitional. This isn’t an “attack” on Wikipedia. It’s
an answer to Wikipedia—and one that you haven’t responded to.
But the problem is, the volume of transitional forms is absolutely
overwhelming!
Casey Tuesday, January 14,
2014 4:13 PM: Then why haven’t you told me what they are?
Scott 5/1714: There was a
huge list on the Wikipedia page. You address a couple… not very well, but you
tried. This is covered in the first chapter of this conversation in Transitional Forms.
And this is important. It’s
crucial. All it takes is a single transitional form… one. That will
simultaneously refute ID and support evolution. So you gotta’
deal with each and every single one, Baby. You can leave one out… not a single
one.
But you can’t do this. It’s
too late. You’re busting your b@#&$ to show that there is no transitional
character between the Australopithecines and the Homo. Just pan out your
camera, Buddy. The Australopithecine is the transitional character
between the proto-chimp (CHLCA) and the Homo. Pan again. The proto-chimp is the
transitional character between the monkey and the Homo. Do it again. The fish
is the transitional character between the tuber and the Homo. We can play this
game all day long. Great Great Grandpa was a tuber.
Sorry to damage your ego. I’m thankful to Great Great
Grandpa Tuber.
In Quest For the Unbroken Chain, I do a survey on
descriptions of different hominid species and invite you to do your own
comparisons. And in Observations
on the ID Brain,
I discuss why you can’t get this.
Section moved to, GodAndEvolution.
Casey
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: And
while we’re at it, consider that angiosperms (flowering plants) appear abruptly
in the fossil record, and thus represent an “abominable mystery” that is a
FAILED prediction of Darwinism: “Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the
fossil record...with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80-90 million years
before their appearance.” (Stefanie De Bodt, Steven Maere and Yves Van de Peer, “Genome duplication and the
origin of angiosperms," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol.
20(11):591-597 (November, 2005).)
Scott
5/17/14:
Beware of Google. They will
make you and inadequate expert.
In
Searle 16, at 45:15 in a discussion of
false beliefs, Philosopher John Searle describes how when he was in Paris, he
contracted some malady. It’s a cute little two minute story. He got onto Google
and searched around. He convinced himself, “Oh my God, I got walking pneumonia!
When he arrived at the doctor he thought he had walking pneumonia. The doctor
immediately dismissed this idea, “No, you don’t have walking pneumonia”. He
couldn’t have. He had had a pneumonia shot! So, he shut up.
So
that’s what I think you are, Casey, an “inadequate expert” :^)
Next: Unguided Process Prev: New Fossil TOC