Evolution

[tholden]

The main point, which I quoted and you have not addressed, is that the number of beneficial mutations required is not the enormous amount claimed. .

My original post did not mention any sort of number of "beneficial mutations(TM)", only the genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee or between a human and the one hominid for which we have DNA i.e. the Neanderthal, and the fact that even given a totally outrageous rate of substitution which is millions of times what is possible in the real world, you could not come remotely close to bridging that gap in the 10M years which supposedly separates us from our also supposed "ape-like-ancestor(TM)".

In real life there is no such thing as a "beneficial mutation". In real life, mutations all have names and the normal English term for "mutation" is 'Birth Defect':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

[tholden]

I listened a while ago to your Red Ice radio interview, and my recollection is you didn't have any substantial or compelling evidence for how this transfer happened.

That's right and we admit that. You'd need a time machine to describe precisely how the transfer occurred and nobody has one. What we DO claim to have achieved is:

• To have demonstrated the impossibility of a hominid==>human evolutionary process.
• To have demonstrated the adaptations which creatures living on this planet 60,000 years ago had and the fact that humans have no such adaptations and could not have originated on this planet. Both Cro Magnon man 40K years ago and modern humans today survive on this planet only by dint of technology.
• Described the requirements for an original human home world, i.e. a world on which humans could plausibly thrive without benefit of technology. Three basic requirements for such a world, wet, bright, and safe, both from cosmic radiation (intrinsic magnetosphere) and from aquatic predators, since humans are basically an aquatic species.
• Demonstrated the fact that Ganymede would have been a perfect human home world some 60K years ago.
• Demonstrated the reason for the separation in time between the two basic human saltations, Cro Magnon man and the people of Genesis.

I also don't see where you address the substantial similarities between humans and other primates.

That seemed sufficiently obvious that we didn't bother with it. Similarity of design with adaptations for the home planets in question: hominids with their huge eyes, primate musculature and fur were adapted for this planet, cold, dark, and rocky, while humans were adapted for the world described in Cosmos in Collision.

Why would two independent species from separate astronomical bodies be so similar? You claim your theory is a "statistical certainty"...

By that is meant that for us to be wrong about Ganymede, humans would have to have come from either some other star or from some other planet in orbit around either the sun or Jupiter in prehistoric times, which had since been destroyed or otherwise disappeared. Both of those possibilities are basically zero-probability events which Occam's principle demands be rejected when you have a perfect candidate for a human home world sitting right here in our system.

[chrimony]

My original post did not mention any sort of number of "beneficial mutations(TM)", only the genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee or between a human and the one hominid for which we have DNA

From the post I originally replied to: "Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations."

That's right and we admit that. You'd need a time machine to describe precisely how the transfer occurred and nobody has one.

So you need a fantastic deus ex machina explanation for which you have none, yet your theory is somehow the rational and Occam's Razor point of view, while evolution is irrational. Meanwhile, the evidence for evolution and common descent on this planet (not some imagined homeworld that is currently any icy body) is overwhelming. If anybody wants scientific evidence, and not armchair speculation by a hobbyist trying to sell a book with a fantastic theory, check out Cassiopeia's "Facts of Evolution" video.

[tholden]

Meanwhile, the evidence for evolution and common descent on this planet (not some imagined homeworld that is currently any icy body) is overwhelming....

You seem to have misspelled the word "nonexistent"...

The Fossils In General

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing'
evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the
most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does
not provide them ..."

David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum
Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps;
the fossils are missing in all the important places."

Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line,
there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be
claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil
record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and
generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental
structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history
and has been conservative in habitat."

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with
gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?" (p. 206)

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979

The Abundance of Fossils

"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about
120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been
greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the
situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still
surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of
Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse
in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more
detailed information."

David M. Raup, Curator of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology"
Field Museum of Natural History
Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological
exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely
more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been
discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are
filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The
availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit
objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What
is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major
groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They
can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection
of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more
than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so
complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack
of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of
material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51

Evidence for Creation ?

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that
it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Dr.. Tom Kemp, Curator
University Museum of Oxford University
" A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"
New Scientist, Dec 5, 1985, p. 66

"Much evidence can be advanced in favour of the theory of evolution -- from
biology, biogeography and paleontology, but I still think that to the
unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from
the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The
evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would
break down before an inquisition."

E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany,
Cambridge University, England
Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought,
Quadrangle Books, 1971, p. 97

"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there
is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of
conservative creationists, that God created each species separately,
presumably from the dust of the earth."

Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose
Emeritus Prof of Cell Biology, University of London
The Nature and Origin of the Biological World
John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164

[chrimony]

Meanwhile, the evidence for evolution and common descent on this planet (not some imagined homeworld that is currently any icy body) is overwhelming....

You seem to have misspelled the word "nonexistent"...

Then you clearly did not watch the video I linked to. Ample evidence was demonstrated, including transitional forms. All the quote mining you do amounts to not having found a perfectly smooth record. Stephen Jay Gould, who you quote more than once, advocated for punctuated equilibrium. The idea of ignoring all the positive evidence for evolution is absurd.

I again encourage anybody that wants to see the evidence to watch the video instead of depending on quote mines put forth by creationists.

[tholden]

Meanwhile, the evidence for evolution and common descent on this planet (not some imagined homeworld that is currently any icy body) is overwhelming....

You seem to have misspelled the word "nonexistent"...

Then you clearly did not watch the video I linked to. Ample evidence was demonstrated, including transitional forms.....

Sorry, that's BS, there ARE NO transitional forms. Steve Gould, Niles Eldredge, Ernst Mayr et. al. would not have gone to the trouble to devise an entire new variant of a theory of evolution (Punc Eek) to explain the lack of transitionals if there WERE transitionals, think about it.

[chrimony]

Then you clearly did not watch the video I linked to. Ample evidence was demonstrated, including transitional forms.....

Sorry, that's BS, there ARE NO transitional forms. Steve Gould, Niles Eldredge, Ernst Mayr et. al. would not have gone to the trouble to devise an entire new variant of a theory of evolution (Punc Eek) to explain the lack of transitionals if there WERE transitionals, think about it.

Why don't you watch the video instead of relying entirely on creationist quote mines? This is like Galileo's critics refusing to look through his telescope. I said it covers transitional forms and it does. Gould is being misrepresented -- he did not say there are NO transitional fossils, only that they were rare. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory":

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

[..]

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

[tholden]

Why don't you watch the video instead of relying entirely on creationist quote mines?

More than a few of the accusations of "Quote Mining(TM)" which you hear from evolosers involve Stephen Gould. The basic reality is that Gould was always playing a double game in this regard and the idea that anybody trying to quote him might be engaging in anything nefarious or dishonest is completely laughable.

Uncle Don Carney was the most popular childrens show on the radio waves in and around NY in the heyday of radio until the day when, having finished his goodbye song and thinking the mike was off, he uttered the famous

"Well, I guess that takes care of the little bastards for another day".

I know, somebody is going to say that Snopes claims the entire story is an urban legend... My father heard the broadcast on the air and he tells me that he didn't normally listen to it but that his sister did and he'd gone to ask her some sort of a question and caught the thing as it happened; I.e. Snopes is not infallable.

Likewise, Steve Gould was a paleontologist and not an evolutionary biologist or anything of the sort. Starting from a point somewhere back in the 60s and 70s, evolutionary biology had become a dead hand over the entire field of paleontology; paleontologists simply were not being allowed to publish legitimate findings because they contradicted the dogmas of Darwinism as they pertained to the question of "intermediate fossils". And so, in order to make paleontology something which somebody could actually practice in the world, Gould, Eldredge, and a couple of others came up with what they apparently viewed as an appropriate concoction to "hold the little bastards" (how they viewed evolutionists) not just for another night, but for all time, while they went about their profession unmolested.

Now, in the automative profession, there are a certain number of unscrupulous salesmen who have devised a variant of Adolf Hitler's "big lie" principle adapted to the requirements of salesmanship, which goes thus: If I tell some potential buyer a lie so overwhelmingly preposterous that nobody with any brains or talent or even the IQ you normally associate with dogs and cats could possibly buy off on it, then my conscience is clear; I don't have to feel sorry for the guy.

This is undoubtedly the way in which Gould and Eldredge managed to construct their theory without having to worry about losing sleep feeling sorry for anybody. The fact that PE is basically idiotic didn't even bother them since they viewed the intended audience as idiots.

Punctuated equilibria amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change has occurred amongst very small groups of animals living in isolated or closed-in areas; these creatures supposedly develop some genetic advantage and then spread out and overwhelm the larger herds of the older animals. The theory claims to resolve two gigantic problems with classical Darwinism: the total lack of intermediate fossils, and the problems of population genetics particularly the Haldane Dilemma and the gigantic spans of time it would take to substitute ANY genetic change through any large herd of animals.

Nonetheless there are a number of huge problems with PE and requiring ALL animal species to have arisen in such a way is the same proposition as requiring Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for billions of years.

Real scientific theories (as opposed to evolution) do not require being reinvented every ten or twelve years.

But back to Gould, he was insisting on having his cake while eating it, in other words, he said what he had to to get rid of the evoloser yoke which was stifling palaeontology, and then cursed the creationists for quoting that material. That's a double game and a dishonest one.

Aside from that, to my knowledge at least, he never claimed that meaningful intermediates were all over the place; he claimed that intermediates were to be found between "higher taxonomic groups"... That means, you can sort of look at a fish, a frog, and a cat, and assume that the frog is a sort of an intermediate between fish and cats.

Walter Remine notes that there is no version of a TOE which is logically consistent so that evolutionites are now serving up what amounts to a "smörgåsbord" of bits and pieces of classical Darwinism, Punc Eek, and whatever else.

Again, Gould and Eldredge et. all would not have gone to the trouble if they didn't have a problem. I've taken as hard a look into this stuff as it's possible to do and that look has convinced me beyond any doubt whatsoever that evolution is pure BS and junk science with no redeeming features whatsoever and, more, it is a spectacularly dangerous and evil flavor of junk science with some 200,000,000 human bodies lying around to its credit (it was the philosophical cornerstone of Nazism, Communism, the various eugenics programs and the out of control arms races which led to WW-I). There actually are flavors of junk science which are relatively benign and harmless; evolution is not one of those.

And, I'm afraid this conversation is going to have to be pretty much over, I'm starting to lose interest and one or more of the mods hare are going to get unhappy with us if it continues.

Спокойной ночи.....

[chrimony]

Punctuated equilibria amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change has occurred amongst very small groups of animals living in isolated or closed-in areas; these creatures supposedly develop some genetic advantage and then spread out and overwhelm the larger herds of the older animals. The theory claims to resolve two gigantic problems with classical Darwinism: the total lack of intermediate fossils, and the problems of population genetics particularly the Haldane Dilemma and the gigantic spans of time it would take to substitute ANY genetic change through any large herd of animals.

You again assert that there are no intermediate forms, but you are replying to a post in which two explicit examples were provided. As per the Haldane Dilemma, it's funny that you bring that up again, because where we last left off you claimed it wasn't about beneficial mutations, and then I explicitly quoted from your post that included that exact term. No reply to that one.

Real scientific theories (as opposed to evolution) do not require being reinvented every ten or twelve years.

Too bad for you that the basic principles of evolution still hold true, even under punctuated equilibrium. And as science has accumulated more evidence, it points in favor of evolution and not against. As more fossils are recovered, more gaps are found. We don't find humans mixed with dinosaurs. DNA was only discovered in the last century, and it produces what we would expect to find in evolution. In particular, there are marker mutations that allow us to trace the relationships among species. This and many other lines of evidence are covered in the video I linked to, which you refuse to watch and address the arguments it contains.

Again, Gould and Eldredge et. all would not have gone to the trouble if they didn't have a problem.

Their problem was the lack of gradual change. Ideally you'd like to see a smooth film of evolution in progress in the fossil record. Instead it is jerky. But to say there are no transitional forms is a lie, because you have been presented with transitional forms and ignored it.

I've taken as hard a look into this stuff as it's possible to do and that look has convinced me beyond any doubt whatsoever that evolution is pure BS and junk science with no redeeming features whatsoever

Uh huh, and does that "hard look" involve watching a 1 hour video with a synopsis of the strong evidence in favor of evolution and responding to it? Nope, just hand-waving and reliance on quote mining.

And while you accuse evolution as being "pure BS and junk science", you're the one asserting that an Indian depiction of a mythical creature is Stegosaurus, and assert without evidence that the horns have been drawn in later, but can't address that no human fossils are found in the same layer as Stegosaurus. You're peddling a book for a fantastic theory of human origins, but you ignore the huge gaping hole of how humans managed to be transferred between planetary bodies. You offer no explanation for the layering that we find in the fossil record, instead fixating on gaps. You offer no explanation for the DNA markers that show evolution and common descent, instead fixating on disputed statistics. You offer no explanation for vestigial traits, which again show evolution.

And, I'm afraid this conversation is going to have to be pretty much over, I'm starting to lose interest and one or more of the mods hare are going to get unhappy with us if it continues.

Yes, it's over because you can't argue (or even look at) the evidence. Willful ignorance is not an argument.

[tholden]

.....Yes, it's over because you can't argue (or even look at) the evidence. Willful ignorance is not an argument.

I posted a great deal of testimony from real experts including museum curators, department heads and senior palaeontologists all claiming that there are no intermediate fossils and, further, that the fossil record was so sufficiently complete that there was no way to think that any intermediates ever would be found, and you are claiming I should ignore all of that and take your word and the word of some guy who has made a video claiming that the problem doesn't exist. Sorry, that's a pretty easy choice.

I'm aware of the fact that evolutionites come up with new claims of finding intermediates every other year or so but, so far at least, all such claims have turned out to be bogus.

There is the further problem that Darwinism demands that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediate forms...

[tholden]

I am aware of the fact that nobody ever gets the last word in arguments with evolutionites. If someboey ELSE needs my opinion on some aspect of evolution, let me know; otherwise I'm through with this thread.

[chrimony]

I posted a great deal of testimony from real experts including museum curators, department heads and senior palaeontologists all claiming that there are no intermediate fossils and, further, that the fossil record was so sufficiently complete that there was no way to think that any intermediates ever would be found

One of the experts you quoted, Gould, never said no intermediary fossils have been found. That was a misrepresentation on your part. He explicitly gave examples of such fossils, as I quoted, and you ignored. It was the rarity that was the issue.

and you are claiming I should ignore all of that and take your word and the word of some guy who has made a video claiming that the problem doesn't exist. Sorry, that's a pretty easy choice.

The video isn't by just "some guy", it was a sponsored project put together by a team of scientists. But if you want to claim the "some guy" defense, why should I listen to what ReMine or other creationists say, or what you say? The fact is you can't argue the evidence so you ignore it. That's the fingers in ears, hands over eyes approach. The video also covers more than just fossils, as I've already described in my last post, and which you also have no answers for.

I'm aware of the fact that evolutionites come up with new claims of finding intermediates every other year or so but, so far at least, all such claims have turned out to be bogus.

Another claim without evidence, just like you asserted that the horns of Indian art were added after the fact without any evidence, and have ignored that Stegosaurus (or any dinosaurs for that matter) aren't found with humans in the fossil record.

There is the further problem that Darwinism demands that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediate forms...

No, the basic principles of evolution still hold true, as I've already said. You keep on repeating baseless assertions. Punctuated equilibrium is still evolution: common descent, variation, and natural selection. This model fits the evidence of the fossil record, DNA, and biology.

If someboey ELSE needs my opinion on some aspect of evolution, let me know; otherwise I'm through with this thread.

Or they could just watch the video and get informed opinions elsewhere, since you argue out of willful ignorance and baseless assertions.

[Sparky]

I have some concerns about evolution, the biggest is the dna. Does it not appear that life began and proceeded in one line.? What are the odds of that? How come we don't see multiple lines from multiple Abiogenesis around the world?

This, to me. seems to be an important area to examine. Has anyone heard of a good explanation for this?

thanks.........

[tholden]

I have some concerns about evolution, the biggest is the dna. Does it not appear that life began and proceeded in one line.? What are the odds of that? How come we don't see multiple lines from multiple Abiogenesis around the world?

This, to me. seems to be an important area to examine. Has anyone heard of a good explanation for this?

thanks.........

DNA/RNA is an information code like XML only vastly more complex. Information codes don't just sort of happen for no reason.

[Sparky]

Information codes don't just sort of happen for no reason.

I agree. Every effect has a cause....

I'm looking for observations or strong inference that suggest or disprove a "single line" of evolution.