Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I?d like to thank Mr. Murtaugh for his reasoned response, as well as Mr. Simberg for having taking the time to focus upon my response. I fear, though that this may inadvertently raise my comments from that of the causal blog-responder, to one who might actually know something. Please don?t confuse me with the latter.

If others are reading along, I?d like to also offer a blog run my James P. Hogan (www.jamesphogan.com), a noted hard-science fiction author (fans of this site may be familiar with his work) who also raises a cautionary flag in the face of the evolutionary stampede.

For Mr. Murtaugh, thanks for the link to the paper I hope to digest it in due course. Perhaps you could also give me something to chew on regarding this tidbit:

Species of finches introduced into a bird sanctuary comprising a group of islands in the north west Pacific were found to have developed new beak forms in 20 years. The results suggest that variations qualifying in every respect as a new species could arise in a single generation, a result utterly impossible within the NDT. But there it is.

Regarding my previous post. This from Brig Klyce?s website:

The best way to establish that evolutionary progress by the Darwinian method is possible would be by closed-system biology experiments. Since 1990, closed experiments with bacteria have been under way. Pedigreed strains of bacteria have been cloned and placed into varying environments to observe how they respond. At regular intervals, samples are pulled and genes from the samples are sequenced. Genetic mutation and recombination, and phenotypic variation are observed to occur. When the diet is changed from glucose to maltose, for example, the bacteria adapt to the new diet. But to metabolize a new sugar, the bacteria adapt by calling up genes that they already possess. There is no evidence, even after 25,000 generations, that a gene with a wholly new function has been composed in this experiment. To check this understanding, in August 2000, I contacted one of the principal investigators, Richard Lenski. Nothing he told me changes this opinion.

My question, can you point me to observed evidence of new gene development?

Excluding the referenced paper, Mr. Murtaugh?s counter argument is to transfer to theology and make his point there. Granted, a possible course, but I wish not to set up a God vs. Evolution context, as doing so tends to raise people?s subjective passions. God (if of that belief) could just as easily have created evolution as his vehicle in this world just as he created gravity. A critique of Evolution should not just be seen in a God/non-God light. Many wish to simplify it as such, but I don?t believe it as necessary.

I wish to reserve the right of scientific inquiry without ridicule in questioning whether mutation and natural selection is a perfect fit within fossil and experimental timelines. In response to the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, Evolution has offered up Punctuated Equilibrium. But yet, I?m skeptical as to whether mutation and selection can work even within those timelines. On one hand Trilobyte fossils exist across many geological strata with nary a change, and yet Cambrian type explosions of sudden change occur time and again. Is mutation and selection really the best fit here? Statistically I would expect more transitional forms in the fossil record than duplicates of the same form. Yes, Evolution speculates that the conditions of fossilization may be a rare event, but that?s speculation. Can?t we theorize with the fossil record as it is?

Is it possible that the genetic information for change already exists within the DNA and is activated under environmental stress rather than via mutation? How does this idea match fossil timelines versus mutation and selection?

In the past, the bulk of science supported an Earth-centric view of the universe. It perfectly matched almost all the available evidence. It was just that pesky retro-grade motion of the planets thingee. A minor issue to be resolved in due course?

To get this back to what I thought Ms. Cornett?s issue was. Many of us don?t believe that Evolution is a proven fact with 100% correspondence with the fossil record. Yet, many people wish Evolution to be taught with such conviction. While Evolution may be true (I lean that way myself on occasion), I object to the stance that Evolution must be accepted without skepticism. That stifles scientific curiosity.

We have come far in our understanding of the universe, but given the huge amount of knowledge yet unknown, and the vastness of the cosmos within which we find ourselves, perhaps we just wish that Evolution proponents offer their theory with just a little bit of humility.

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 12, 2002 01:54 PM

Unfortunately full access to the paper referenced by Mr. Murtaugh requires paid access. I didn't infer the growth of a new gene in the provided synopsis. Can an available reference that provides evidence of information creation upon DNA be provided?

Thanks

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 12, 2002 02:41 PM

Wait a minute. Are you saying that God did it? Or are you just saying we don't understand evolution completely? If it's the latter, this is hardly a novel conclusion. The theory of evolution has...evolved since Darwin's day.

Posted by David Perron at August 13, 2002 04:53 AM

Hello David,

I'll try and answer your questions. I'm not saying either of what you suggested. Like I said, I don't want to set up a God vs. Evolution context. I can't accept your second question, because it infers that Evolution has been proven true, just not completely understood. I postulate that Evolution may not be true in the first place.

Maybe a form of life we don't understand created the Biogenesis-bound lifeform we do understand. Maybe a pre-universe that allows abiogenesis created the information in a "brane" that was inserted into this universe whereas the intersection of two "branes" created a Biogenesis only universe with the information as a vestige. Yes, this speculation can get pretty absurd, but the point is to evaluate credibility based upon the evidence at hand, not to color the evidence because we don't like the implications of the theory that covers all the evidence.

Biogenesis is currently the observed rule. Evolution speculates abiogenesis but has never demonstrated it, nor provided a reasonable explanation of its mechanism. If I go by the logic expressed by people here:

A theory that postulates that the Shroud of Turin is the result of an, as yet unexplained, natural process, can be taught in a Science Class. Yet, a theory that postulates that the Shroud is a fraud and the result of Intelligent Design can only be taught in a Theology Class.

A theory should address all the available evidence. As science evolves and new evidence is uncovered, the theory can evolve to address that evidence or it can be rejected and replaced by a new theory that addresses the new evidence. The problem with accepting that Evolution has been proven true, just not completely understood, is the fact that Evolution doesn't fit all the current evidence.

With Evolution there should be more transitional forms in the fossil record, than duplicate forms. That's not the case. Evolution rationalizes it away by saying that the conditions of fossilization are sporadic, yet offers no details on its sporadic nature nor matches this sporadic nature with the specific holes in the record. Well that's all fine and dandy, but it's the theory driving the evidence, and not the evidence driving the theory. Fermi asked, "Where are they?" Evolution rationalizes. Evolution does not cover the current evidence, it covers evidence it "hopes" to uncover someday.

Biogenesis is the observed rule.
Intelligent Design covers the rule.
Evolution speculates abiogenesis but has not determined the mechanism.

The fossil record shows sudden appearance of mature forms with little transition.
Intelligent Design covers the evidence.
Evolution speculates environmentally rare fossilization but fails to document environment and correspondence with geologic record.

Enrico Fermi offers the Fermi Paradox.
Intelligent Design covers the evidence.
Evolution rationalizes with no direct evidence supporting any of its Fermi Paradox speculations.

Something I saw here:

Science Axiom: The simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that should be preferred.

I could go on with a few more, and yes, I?ve selected just the evidence that supports my case. I'm not here to disprove Evolution, only to illustrate the softness of its credibility. The point of the above axiom is, "fits the facts."

If a theory suggests that Stonehenge was created by glaciers through an as of yet unexplained mechanism, and that the evidentiary scarring as a result of the glacier activity wasn?t left behind because of an undetermined erosion effect. That the astronomical alignment is really just an accident, which on the surface may seem implausible, but hey the probability of any poker hand is huge yet they happen anyway.

Should I really give THAT theory (because it's "scientific") ten times the credibility than the theory that Stonehenge is the result of Intelligent (human) Design?

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 13, 2002 12:37 PM

As I stated in a comment to the previous post on this topic, you haven't disproven or even cast a shadow of doubt on the theory of evolution. All you have done is, at best, pointed out some phenomenon that you don't understand.

All of the arguments you offer have been countered by numerous others, in places such as talkorigins.com. I see no reason for any of us to sift through all of the information there in answer to your questions, when you could easily do it for yourself.

Have fun.

Dave

Posted by David Perron at August 13, 2002 01:47 PM

Thanks for the discussion Dave, it was fun.

You are correct, I've identified some phenomenom I don't understand. I was hoping that someone who did understand could explain it to me. Of course, since I don't understand the phenomena, it does cast at least a bit of a shadow.

The talkorigins.com site is pretty extensive, could you help me out by pointing me to some specific articles? Unfortunately, talkorigins sets itself up in a God vs. Evolution context and as such the subjective passions appear from time to time.

And although I've had a good chuckle over some of the rationalizations there, it is also a wealth of good solid information. (Yes creationist sites give me a chuckle too sometimes).

The reason I jumped in here, was the assertion that any theory that suggest Intelligent Design shouldn't be discussed in the same class as Evolution (be it a science class or otherwise).

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 13, 2002 02:37 PM

I would start with the FAQ. The FAQ section alone has a number of subsections that would likely take you hours to wade through. Some of it is quite technical; at least it's over my head.

Many of the questions you have posed have also been posed by others; Kent Hovind for example. Here's a link to a page that links other pages and also contains pointed answers to questions "Dr." Hovind should have known better than to ask in the first place:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html

Also interesting is http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

Or just do a google search. Talkorigins.com is a good start, though.

Good luck. It's very interesting once you get into the meat of it.

Dave

Posted by David Perron at August 13, 2002 06:26 PM

Thanks Dave,

Unfortunately the first two sites weren't very helpful. Many links are down on the first one, and for the links that remain, the arguement is: "Evolution is true because a lot of scientific journals say that it is." Nice, but not what I'm looking for.

The 2nd link is better, but it splits definitions spending alot of time talking about Evolution versus the Theory of Evolution. Some might say the explaination given for Evolution at this site is really Adaptation, but I can accept the site's definition for as far as it goes. The rest of the site confirms that evolution is a theory that isn't completely understood, but again it's probably true because alot of famous people think it's true.

Talkorigins is good. I thought the paper on abiogenesis was cool, but it confirms that it hasn't been demonstrated yet. Neat new stuff to be sure, but I hope you'll excuse me if I withhold judgement. By the way, are "protobionts" found in nature? Maybe I should ask that at the talkorigins site.

I did a search for the Fermi Paradox at talkorigins and came up empty. There was a small reference to the Drake equation, but nothing in the way of disucssion.

There is however, a lot of stuff on the lack of transitional fossils. This will take some time to wade through. Unfortunately a lot of it appears to argue for Evolution's take on the fossil record by poking holes in Creationists view of the fossil record. Again, I don't want a God vs. Evolution debate. However, it appears likely that there's some good info there. If I find something convincing I'll let you know.

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 13, 2002 07:23 PM

Frederick:

I think the lack of transitional fossils is covered by a discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium, if I haven't misunderstood both your question and talkorigin's discussion of the topic.

Much of the discussion on evolution vs. creation (which is really a false dichotomy) is intended to address the young-earth creationists. Understandably, then, the discussion devotes as much or more time to cosmology and geology than it does to evolutionary theory. If you have specific questions, I think there's a myriad of discussion forums around the internet. These forums are manned by much smarter people than I, and can devote some serious attention to your specific questions.

When engaging these people, please remember to search whatever archives the discussion forum has for any references to the topic. Frequently what you have to ask has been asked and answered many, many times already and people can get a bit grumpy with the newbie on the board.

As for the links, they could be maintained a bit better. Here's one in particular that you ought to read before you do anything else:
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html. Another link that also addresses the concerns of young-earth creationists in general and Hovind in particular is http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/hovind_questions.html.

You're likely to find some degree of antipathy on the part of some of these writers toward religion. Some are atheists with an axe to grind, while others are just tired of addressing the exact same points ad nauseam to one person right after another who thinks they have the wooden stake for the heart of evolution. It's best to discard this and read what they have to say on its merit.

One thing I have to say on this general issue is relates back to what we discussed on not understanding a phenomenon. You have to be careful when you find some phenomenon that isn't supported by theory. First, the theory may not address that specific phenomenon. Second, your interpretation of what's occurring might be in error (for instance, what you might interpret to be rapid mutation might actually be recessive genes coming into play). Third, even if theory must be expanded or revised to encompass the observed phenomenon, this doesn't invalidate the theory (unless, of course, you had to invert the theory to get a fit). Fourth, any currently observed phenomenon not yet accounted for by theory is not necessarily support for another, quite different theory. If you want to make a case for ID, you really have to put more work into it than finding apparent exceptions to evolutionary theory and/or cosmological theory.

Good hunting.

Dave

Posted by David Perron at August 14, 2002 02:50 AM

Perhaps the reason the questions keep being asked, is because the answers are unconvincing.

I'm not entirely new in this quest for information, and I've reviewed many Evolution defense sites in the past. These are much like the others, and they don't really address the issues at hand. They most often slide into an anti-creationist argument. Not to be a slight against Mr. Murtaugh, but he assumed I was referring to adaptive mutation. I wasn't. I was concerned about the timelines (notice the point concedes mutation occurs, it questions the speed). IMO convincing answers to these questions are in short supply.

The number of transitional fossils should be staggering! Not a small percentage. Considering the length of geological epochs, I find Evolution's stratification argument unconvincing.

I believe the regressive gene issue to be one of the points ID is getting at. Where did the regressive gene come from, and why is not the development of that regressive gene in the record?

Granted making the case for ID requires more work, but some Evolutionists make that work difficult by the shameful way they attempt to ostracize it. In answer to a specific evidentiary point, the response of many Evolutionists is:

1) Say it's all been answered before.
2) Make an assumption about the implications and jump to a theological argument.
3) Once arguing theology, claim theology arguments shouldn't be discussed as Science.

IMO Evolution and ID are akin to Archeology or Anthropology not to be blurred with the physical sciences. When Evolutionists dismiss ID as non-scientific and not worth their time, how does that create a learning environment?

One of the sites you referenced to me goes on at great length about how Scientists are always ready for new ideas. A bunch of pretty assumptions, but do check out the book "Disciplined Minds" for an alternative view.

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 14, 2002 02:09 PM

The fact that you even talk about transitional fossils betrays your fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. *Every* fossil is a transitional fossil, because every species is a transitional species (in the sense that they had ancestors that were different species, and will have descendants that are as well, assuming they don't go extinct.

And considering what a unique confluence of circumstances must occur for a fossil to form and survive to present, we are luck to have as many as we do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 14, 2002 02:29 PM

Thanks for the reply.

In those terms, then yes, I'm guilty of a little short-hand. Under Evolution all fossils are transitional fossils since everthing is in "transition" during the evolutionary process.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that I "don't understand" evolution, since in the "evolution debate" I feel it is generally recognized that the term "transitional fossils" refers to sequence of fossils between specicies. I assumed that the short-hand would be recognized so that I wouldn't spend lengthy time describing the statistical expectation of the intermediaries.

Fossilization is rare, but not THAT rare considering the timelines and population sizes. The Missisipian period runs some 40 million years with huge crinoid populations. The Cretaceous runs 80 million. I find it convienent that the punctuation portion of the equllibrium never gets fossilized.

Just how fast is evolution now saying that the equilibrium is being punctuated? Now I'm not asking about the old recessive gene thing. Or where a single mutation turns "off and on" a couple of genes so that an animal that once grew six legs only now grows four.

I'm asking about the mutation and selection process that develops the leg in the first place. The one that creates the genes in the first place, and not just re-arranges or throws a switch. Via mutation and selection, how long does it take for a new set of genes that develop that leg to be produced? Understanding that making such a call on a random process is difficult, what is the statistical expectation?

In the lab, what's the shortest amount of time that it has taken? I'll take a sample size of one. Point me to a single instance gene creation, and how long it took.

I apologize since by the written word here, it looks like I'm pounding away with questions and not being to civil. Trust me, I'm just trying to get information that evolution sites appear to have hidden somewhere. First I was mistaken for supporting adaptive mutation, then I was mistaken for supporting the Shroud as real, then I was mistaken as a Young Earth Creationist. I'm either being sterotyped alot, or my sentences aren't constructed properly. All the questions are just an attempt to be very clear.

Thanks,

P.S. What about the Fermi Paradox?

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 14, 2002 06:09 PM

Frederick:

Unless you're familiar with Punctuated Equilibrium, the lack of transitional fossils must seem problematic for you. It is in fact the punctuated parts that get fossilized, because there aren't any in-between parts. And regarding your argument about the development of an extra pair of legs or the leg in the first place, you need to realize that the fossil record doesn't show that to be the case. No animal, totally legless one day, has its offspring equipped with full-size, fully functional and articulated legs the next. And even if such a thing did happen on occasion, the liklihood that it'd be in the fossil record is small.

Not to be critical, but you are complaining about the dearth of good material on the web without cause. Every single one of the questions you have raised has been addressed ad nauseam in public forums and private websites. If you think the arguments are weak, let's talk specific examples instead of dismissing them out of hand.

As for the "gene creation" in laboratories, you know well that it hasn't been done. Given a laboratory the size, shape composition and climate of the Earth a few billion years ago, maybe we could get something going within a few million years.

You really need to be asking these questions in another forum. Is there some reason you aren't? Your nonacceptance of arguments for evolution don't invalidate evolution. Unless you can produce specific errors in the science/logic behind evolution, you might want to consider that you are indulging in the very thing you accuse scientists of indulging in. And the only way you can produce such errors/fallacies is by going out and learning current theory. Why have us do your research for you?

Best,

Dave

Posted by David Perron at August 15, 2002 03:38 AM

David:

I agree that the appropriateness of this discussion in this forum has run its course. I would have transferred the discussion to Mr. Murtaugh's blog immediately following his response except that his site does not offer such a forum. As you may know, the TalkOrigins site can take up to a month to respond to feedback. In other forums, the discussion digressed quickly into theology. With you, I agree that we've drawn ourselves into a detailed area best left to another venue.

I do not take offense at your critique of my assessment of the quality of response to particular questions at many of the Evolution defense sites. The size of the web that it is, no one could ever be sure of an exhaustive survey, but for this point we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps for any lurkers to this discussion we can borrow a FoxNews slogan, "We Report, You Decide."

I am familiar with Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) though at my own admission no "expert." Transferring a technical issue into lay terms is always fraught with risk of misinterpretation. As it seems I have been misread a few times, I discuss PE at my own peril.

PE addresses at least two issues of "Gradualism." One is homeostasis and the lack of transitional fossils that Gradualism would predict. (I understand I use the term "transitional fossils" with risk). Since populations trend to homeostasis, mutation and selection must take place in geographic isolation from the majority population. While the majority (and fossilizing) population is in homeostasis, the isolated population follows gradualism's mutation and selection for advancement. Due to it's small size, and geographic isolation, the isolated population doesn't get recorded in the fossil record. At some point, the isolated population evolves to a "break-out" point. The point in which it's superior advancement allows a rapid overrun of the majority population. This occurs when some change allows and end to the geographic isolation. This "break-out" results in a seeming "sudden" appearance of the form in the fossil record.

If my understanding isn't totally off-base, then on the surface this would indicate that PE requires a significantly longer Evolutionary timeline than that of pure Gradualism. Since populations trend to homeostasis, the isolated population must be small enough to remain beneath the homeostasis threshold. A smaller population has less reproductive capacity than a larger population. So while mutations have a greater chance to take hold in the isolated population, the production rate of these mutations is lower, and so the appearance of environmentally advantageous mutations is much slower. Since PE requires a much longer timeline that pure Gradualism, I've heightened concern that PE can meet the timelines required by the appearance of new forms in the fossil record. Considering that the isolated population evolves slower than Gradualism originally suggested, there is now more time for the transitions of the isolated population to become fossilized. In the case of highly reproductive organisms like Trilobites, I would expect more transitional fossilization of the Trilobite line considering the numbers of homeostasis Trilobites in the record.

I'm also concerned about the tenuousness of the isolated population. Consider that the population must be small enough to resist it's own homeostasis, but still large enough to produce mutations in a meaningful timeframe. The geographic isolation must be large enough to provide sufficient environmental diversity to drive selection, but not large enough to allow population growth to reach homeostasis. But the timeline issue is the thing, and a primary issue in the ID theory.

It was never my attempt to disprove Evolution. I?ve stated this before. I jumped into this issue over two items. The denial of the right of ID to be discussed alongside Evolution, and the sanctimonious scorn with which some Evolutionists (yourself excepted) exclaim that Evolution has been "proven," and no alternate theories need apply. While you deem it a red herring, I've attempted to make a point against the first, and while time has run out, I believe we've agreed that genetic creation has not been "proven." We, of course, will differ on whether that has any significance to Evolution's "proven" status. No one here has been sanctimonious towards me; however, and so I may have been a little pre-emptive in this regard.

I thank Mr. Simberg for having allowed this to proceed this far. I thank you for responding to my comments. It was fun for me, though I suspect less fun for you.

To borrow from another person on FoxNews?

?I'll give you the last word.?

Posted by Fredrick Irving at August 15, 2002 05:09 PM

No, fun for me too.

Sorry you find talkorigins to be less than prompt. I've never used that forum myself.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not claiming this is not the proper forum in order
to avoid annoying Rand; I claim it so because none who have chimed in here has anything
resembling expert ability to discuss this material with you.

I don't scorn ID, I just don't think anyone has shown anywhere near the logical foundation
for ID that evolutionary theory has. But, as I've demonstrated in Rand's comments
sections in the past, I can be proven wrong. And even admit to it. If you're really committed
to understanding this better, I can possibly hook you up with some folks that have a much
greater understanding than I. Feel free to email me.

Regards,

Dave

Posted by David Perron at August 15, 2002 09:44 PM

please send me information on geologic time, in the missisipian period. I need to do a reserach on that and I cant find any information.
If you had any please send it I would really appreciate it.
Thankyou........!

Posted by lucette at May 28, 2003 04:23 PM

Post a comment