Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Hidden LightThe Fibonacci post has generated a longer comment thread than anything else I’ve written. I was just digging a little dirt and must have hit a power line. The question I tried to address, was “is there any physics in Fibonacci, or is it just a mathematician’s curiosity?

Here’s the physics that came back:

a) AJ Meyer has looked at the galactic rotation curves, and pointed out that “rigid-body” rotation which is observed, can be obtained by having a mass which increases with radius. Now since we can look at galaxies from the side, and they don’t get thicker with radius,  it would seem that this increase in mass must be due to something else. Gallo argues that it could be dust, or non-glowing “dark” matter. Meyer argues that a logarithmic spiral distribution, like the arms of spiral galaxies, would contribute more mass at larger radii, exactly as required to match the rotation curves. In other words, there is no “missing matter” in spiral galaxies, but precisely the rotation curve for being a spiral galaxy. Of course, Meyer has no explanation for why the stars are arranged in Fibonacci spirals.

Read More…

Comments
BA: The transitionals I am falling back on are published in books and research articles widely available to anyone who wants to have a look. You know this, you've heard it many times before. There are pre-Cambrian fossils which do show a lead up to the 'explosion'. And those can be found in Prothero's book which draws upon hundreds of research papers discussing evidence. I can't possibly summarise it all here but you can go and read about it and see what researchers in the field are saying outside of a limited debate. Science isn't built on sound bites after all. Or the ability of any one person performing in a public forum. My winning or losing here proves nothing. The accumulation of years and years and years of data, documented in hundreds of research papers does matter. And when someone knowledgeable and experienced in the field summarises that information, fully referenced, in an accessible book written for the public then I tend to give them a lot of benefit of the doubt.ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Ellazimm #98:
[...] Do common solutions arise due to some direction or because the solution space is limited by the environment? Is the environment directing the outcomes? Limiting the ‘solutions’??
These are exactly the kinds of question which I find so fascinating. Yes, I believe that the environment is directing the outcomes. (This differs slightly to the front-loading principle, in which functionality resides in the genome in a "latent" form, to be expressed at a later time.) However, if the environment is directing the outcomes, then it suggests that it embodies a description of all those organisms that can survive well in it. It has been repeatedly shown that this is no mere "intuition", but actually a statement about the nature of how information is communicated from one place to another. (For example: a gloomy liquid environment with a certain pH might "code for" a certain type of eye.) Now suppose I were to write a book called "The Blind Schoolteacher", in which I posited that children don't really learn anything meaningful at school. They have randomly shifting beliefs, and the school environment simply tends to "select" those which are better suited to academic success. I could give countless examples of how most children are develop various strategies to succeed, some learn stacks by rote, others blag, others cheat, get clever girlfriends, etc. All these anecdotes would make terrifically enjoyable reading. It could lead its readers to conclude that children don't really learn - a now outdated belief. They simply modify their ideas at random, accumulate lots of ideas that are useful to survive in school, and exit with them. Wouldn't you suspect something was up? We can all be talking about the same things, using words like "teacher", "lesson", "classroom", etc. Suppose you are happy with all these structures, but aren't happy with the idea that the schooling process creates knowledge in childrens' heads de novo. You asserted that it was transmitted from somewhere. Further, if there was a perceived-as-crackpot outfit in the US, called "Young People Learnists" who taught that ideas appear magically in childrens minds, put their directly by God, then the issue could get very muddled. Channel 4 and Horizon would run special issues on the new "YPL threat". You would find yourself being accused of all sorts if you even breathed a word of scepticism about the "evolutionary" origin of the curriculum. This is how I perceive the situation, in analogical terms. Environments actively shape the creatures that appear in them. And the formation of these environments are themselves governed by the wider (e.g., astronomical) environment, and so forth. Pursuing this line of reasoning leads to the astounding conclusion that the universe from its very beginning (if not in terms of a temporal sequence, then in terms of sequences of causes) actually contains in itself, instructions concerning how to build something which is alive. What is this ultimate source? Is it "intelligent" or a "designer"? Or God? This is where ID operates by analogy, and perhaps I am a little more uncomfortable. But it is more intellectually satisfying than the "mistakes accumulate in environments that happen by chance to weed them out" solution which is so prevalent nowadays - and, I might add, seems to demand the exclusive loyalty of its adherents to a degree which borders on the religious.equinoxe
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Thanks ellazimm. I can definitely respect the point of view that a radical hypothesis should have very strong support. I wonder though, would you place such a high burden on the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence? (SETI). It is essentially intelligence detection. Michael Crichton even called it a religion because there is no evidence that there actually is intelligent life out there. Yet it is funded by the US gov. What about stonehenge that you mentioned earlier? What methods did scientists use to tell if it was designed rather than a chance geological happenstance? Hasn't earth been around long enough that some stonehenge type things were bound to happen? Aren't there enough multiverses to make it practically inevitable that some planet like earth would have a stonehenge that was not built by people?Collin
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
In some sense I am asking the same question of ID that ID asks of evolution: give me an example in the genetic code of how a step was made. That seems appropriate and fair. And, I'd still like to see someone attempt to answer some of the questions I raised earlier about how design modifications were implemented. Just a guess .. . just someone's opinion ... I've offered mine, let me hear yours. Yeah?ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Collin: really, the heart of your question is: what discoveries about the molecular evidence would force me to give up, or at least doubt, the naturalistic view of the development of life on this planet. Yeah? There's always a real signature in the cell. :-) I mean a section of DNA that spelled out the designer's name and goal and point. A copyright notice would be very nice. But to get to the trickier case . . . what sort of evidence, what kind of genetic leap would I find so improbable that I was forced to abandon a naturalistic view? How about this . .. An example of a long sequence of DNA, present in a large portion of a species population, which had absolutely no precursor in the ancestors or closely related species. A chunk of functional DNA which appeared out of no where, at some verifiable time. An example: suppose some person or animal's genome was sequenced and that individual's DNA exhibited a substantial chunk of genetic material that was clearly not a duplication or a repetition of existing DNA code. A specific example of one creature's genome which had no analogy in it's ancestors or related species. And was not introduced by humans in some genetic experiment. THAT would make me doubt a lot of what I had been told. Because that is what some of the ID paradigm is saying isn't it? That at some time, a designer significantly altered the DNA sequence of existing creatures so that some new coding, not existent before was present. I think I can live with that falsification.ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Clear and unambiguous physical evidence of a designer operating on earth with a technical capacity well in advance of what life was capable on this planet at that time would open the door to the possibility of there being some being around that was capable of creating and implementing a genome design. I'm talking about artefacts here, not the complex and specified information in DNA which we already disagree on. What else ...ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Collin: Okay, I'm going to have a try. I may regret this. I may get it completely wrong. I'm just a dopey human being after all. :-) I'll start with the basic falsification you've all heard before: if a fossil turned up in the record that was clearly and unambiguously way out of place then I would have to question the basic premise of evolution. I'm taking about a fossil that was found in the completely wrong place at the wrong time. That would be a major if not a fatal blow. What else . . ..ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Collin: I am struggling to answer your excellent question. My first reaction is to say: an event, recorded and widely observed, which clearly violates one of the basis, undisputed laws of physics, would make me question my whole view. But to narrow it down to just the design hypothesis . . . that is worthy but tricky.ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
equinoxe: Or is the need not to search the entire solution space just an indication that evolution works with what it has and that we, as the 'end' result think of ourselves as being the target? Tricky stuff. Do common solutions arise due to some direction or because the solution space is limited by the environment? Is the environment directing the outcomes? Limiting the 'solutions'??ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Mark: You know I have some problems with that specific paper by Dembski. But you should also know that all the ID theory is based more on previous works by Dembski, and especailly on the explanatory filter. In the explanatory filter, it is clearly stated that necessity mechanisms must be ruled out to recognize CSI. So, your example is definitely not an example of CSI. dFSCI is a subset of CSI. In biological structures (genomes, proteomes) CSI is in the form of dFSCI. Therefore, unless you are more interested in debating binary strings than real biological structures, dFSCI is the right tool. And your example is neither CSI nor the more specific subset of dFSCI. Moreover, most of the relevant work in biological ID (Axe, Durston, Abel and Trevors), has always used concepts absolutely equivalent to my definition of dFSCI.gpuccio
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Hi Ellazimm,
I’m just getting dinner ready for my family (it’s 6pm in England)
I'm in the UK and getting dinner ready for my family too. (We have some things in common then!)
Besides, I’m more interested in some of the questions I’ve brought up.
I'll try and stay within the parameters you have set. I can't remark on the palaeontology (e.g.), because I don't know much about it. This point took my interest (and seems to be an implicit response to something I wrote):
Dawkins is very careful to state that only the mutation part of RM + NS is random. And that selection is a cummulative process. It’s not necessary to search the whole ‘solution space’. Evolution takes an existing form and modifications are ‘tested’ by natural, sexual and sometimes artificial selection.
You are right; Dawkins is, to his credit, very careful in this regard. But it is exactly this "testing process" which imparts information to the genome. (Indeed, in the biomorph examples he gives, he himself is the tester.) I agree that NS does not search the entire solution space, but it is exactly the fact that it doesn't need to which reveals that it is being actively guided.
Is there a goal in mind when new species are introduced?
This is the real question - of interest to all parties. If the answer is "no", we have to account for why certain traits arise again and again in independent hereditary lines.equinoxe
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, I'll certainly wait your response. Have a nice dinner.Collin
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Collin: Excellent question!! I'm just getting dinner ready for my family (it's 6pm in England). Would you mind terribly if I deferred my response until later in my evening? I've got some ideas of responses but I'd rather take some time to think about it and give you a proper response because I think that really is a very, very good point. And, I have to say, aside from coming to UD to find out about ID, I also find it important to challenge myself, ask difficult questions. I will respond. And I shall try and do so with some thought and depth because I think the question deserves a serious and well thought out answer. Later then . . .ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
But Ellazimm, Prothero must submit to empirical evidence as must all 'authorities' of science! You cannot simply appeal to his authority! Here is some more empirical evidence for you and Prothero to ignore,,, The suddenness of the Cambrian explosion has now been made even more dramatic since the scant 'track' evidence, that evolutionists had claimed were the tracks of worms in the pre-Cambrian strata, has now been brought into severe question: Discovery Of Giant Roaming Deep Sea Protist Provides New Perspective On Animal Evolution: Excerpt: This is the first time a single-celled organism has been shown to make such animal-like traces. The finding is significant, because similar fossil grooves and furrows found from the Precambrian era, as early as 1.8 billion years ago, have always been attributed to early evolving multicellular animals. "If our giant protists were alive 600 million years ago and the track was fossilized, a paleontologist unearthing it today would without a shade of doubt attribute it to a kind of large, multicellular, bilaterally symmetrical animal," says Matz, an assistant professor of integrative biology. "We now have to rethink the fossil record." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081120130531.htm Even sponge embryos are found in the immediate pre-Cambrian strata: Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm This following quote sums up the implications of these findings: "Without gradualism, we are back to a miracle." Richard Dawkins As well, as is often overlooked, the Ediacaran biota themselves were soft bodied, but well preserved, fossils that add even more evidence testifying to the suddenness of the Cambrian Explosion. Because to state the obvious one more time, "if there were any transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion then they certainly should have been found": Macroscopic life in the Palaeoproterozoic - July 2010 Excerpt: The Ediacaran fauna shows that soft-bodied animals were preserved in the Precambrian, even in coarse sandstone beds, suggesting that (the hypothetical transitional) fossils are not found because they were not there. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/02/macroscopic_life_in_the_palaeoproterozoi The 'real work' of the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion may in actuality be as short as a two to three million year time frame (Ross: Creation as Science 2006) which is well within what is termed the 'geologic resolution time'. 'Geologic resolution time' simply means the time frame for the main part of the Cambrian Explosion apparently can't be shortened any further due to limitations of our accurately dating this ancient time period more precisely. "The Cambrian Explosion was so short that it is below the resolution of the fossil record. It could have happened overnight. So we don't know the duration of the Cambrian Explosion. We just know that it was very, very, fast." Jonathan Wells - Darwin's Dilemma Quote Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009 Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved." http://www.discovery.org/a/12471 Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263 Recent experimental work has not been very cooperative to evolutionists in elucidating plausible evolutionary routes to multicellular organisms from single celled organisms: Brown Algae and The Serendipity of Multicellularity - Cornelius Hunter - June 2010 Excerpt: Instead of the expectation that multicellularity arose once and then proliferated, evolutionists now must say it arose independently several times. And instead of a sort of primitive multicellularity emerging and then undergoing evolutionary refinement, we must believe evolution first produced profoundly unlikely molecular machines, which then in turn enabled multicellularity. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brown-algae-and-the-serendipity-of-multicellularity/ It is amazing the level of denial that evolutionists will display when confronted with this evidence for a complete lack of transitional fossils to the Cambrian explosion, yet Dr. Wells points out that, even if we grant the most generous assumptions for time to evolutionists, we still run into insurmountable problems: Storming the Beaches of Norman - Jonathan Wells Excerpt: Even if the Cambrian explosion had lasted 40 million years, as Westrop had claimed, there would not have been enough time for unguided processes to produce the enormous amount of specified complexity in the DNA of the animal phyla. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/storming_the_beaches_of_norman.html I don't know Ellazim, here you sit saying you got evidence for transitionals to the Cambrian explosion somewhere in some book by some author that was completely embarrassed in a debate with Meyer's and Sternberg, and yet I'm showing you first hand the crushing problems being brought to bear on Darwinism. Does not this bother you? Why don't you show me the transitionals that you are so sure are there?bornagain77
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, So what would convince you that some aspects of life or the universe were probably designed?Collin
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Besides, I'm more interested in some of the questions I've brought up. You know what I'm going to say about the fossil record and what you are going to say in response so there seems little point in going through the motions. I think some of my questions are a bit newer though and I think worthy of discussion. I'd like to know how the ID community puts all the pieces together. You can help me with this and that I would be grateful for.ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
BA: my refutation is contain in Prothero's book and other sources which I'm sure you can find if you so choose. This forum is not the soul source of information and there is no need for me to restate that which has already been stated better by others who are more knowledgeable than I am. You post references for your arguments; I'm doing the same thing. I think that's fair. The truth is not won based on how well you or I present our cases. The truth arises from years and years of work and scrutiny of new thoughts by others who have the best perspective for criticising. I am not qualified to pick some ideas apart which is why I do my best to reference those who have experience, knowledge and are good at communicating the concepts to the general public. I'm sorry if you find that inadequate. I suppose you will say I was unable to refute your arguments. I accept that which is why I refer you to someone who does.ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, please concede the points on the fossil record or refute them i.e. please show me how the Cambrian explosion has been growing 'less explosive' with empirical evidence instead of wishful daydreaming!bornagain77
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Ellazimm,, do you mean the Donald Prothero that was completely dismantled in this debate with Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg? Stephen Meyer & Richard Sternberg impressively defeat Michael Shermer & Don Prothero (1 of 12) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ThFiBLxtU This statement of yours,,,
"I’d also like to point out that no working paleontologist that I know of claims that there is a problem with the fossil record or that it brings the basic evolution paradigm into question. It is unrealistic to expect the fossil record to be a compete record of all life. Few creatures or plants are fossilised so there will always be gaps. The fossil record is consistent with RM + NS and more and more intermediate forms are being discovered, the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. Stasis is not unexpected; if a creature is well adapted to its niche the selective pressure is against change."
,,, is simply making gargantuan excuses for the disparity of the fossil record as well as begging the question as to why evolution should be given such unbiased and preferential treatment???,,, I certainly can see no reason for science to be so biased!!! As for your claim 'The fossil record is consistent with RM + NS' The fact is NO it is not consistent in the least,,, as well as this statement,,, and more and more intermediate forms are being discovered, the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. NO once again,, only in the imaginations of evolutionists,, In fact the Cambrian Explosion has been growing MORE explosive not less! And, despite what many evolutionists believe, recent discoveries are only amplifying this problem for them: More Pow in the Cambrian Explosion - May 2010 Excerpt: Scientists have found more fossil evidence for sudden emergence of animal body plans in the Cambrian strata. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201005.htm#20100511a Fossil Finds Show Cambrian Explosion Getting More Explosive - May 2010 Excerpt: Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/fossil_finds_show_cambrian_exp.html The Cambrian Explosion Just Got More Explosive - August 2010 - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-08-11T10_49_02-07_00 If this abrupt appearance for all these completely different and unique phyla in the Cambrian was not bad enough for materialists, the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there are today due to extinction. Of Note: "Phyla are broad categories of classification. All fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are in the same phylum. Squid, octopi, oysters, clams and snails are in another phylum. Lobsters, crayfish, insects, and millipedes are in still another." Ray Bohlin PhD “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=52 I like this following article for it highlights the principle of Genetic Entropy, i.e. loss of variety: Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish "In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm The evolutionary theory would have us believe we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. These following timeline graphs highlight the loss of phyla through time: Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph http://lutheranscience.org/images/GraphC2.gif http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en Besides the fossil record, recent DNA analysis testifies against any transitional scenario between Cambrian phyla: The new animal phylogeny: Reliability and implications: Excerpt: "The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...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." From Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 - http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4453.full.pdf?ijkey=USJfrrxyih/gM "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 now 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 wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 So ellazimm here you, once again, sit saying one thing, but the truth of the matter, when borne out, in fact is exactly the opposite of what you said. At what point do you realize that you've been sold a bill of goods with Darwinism?bornagain77
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Is there a goal in mind when new species are introduced? With small changes new species will be able to exploit the same niche as the old one only more effectively but if the changes are more sweeping then the new species will have to have the right 'support' species in place to provide food, etc. When a new species is introduced are new parasites also created? Are viruses just allowed to propagate as they will or are they also created to match and exploit their hosts? If viruses are just allowed to propagate then how do they 'learn' to exploit the new genomes? If they are also introduced then what aspects of the new genome are targeted? What is the purpose of ERVs?ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
If the 'parent' species has its genome degraded to the point of being unviable then can the new genome be incubated in an existing creature? As new species tend to closely resemble preceding species then exactly what degradations is the new genome 'fixing'? Why are chromosomal differences introduced? Is there a correlation between the genome size and the structure of the creature? In the case of an inheritance line splitting are two new genomes introduced?ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
BA: I believe most, if not all, of your points about the fossil record are addressed in Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. I can't possibly say it better than he does. He has been a working Paleontologist and has an excellent background and knowledge base. I'd also like to point out that no working paleontologist that I know of claims that there is a problem with the fossil record or that it brings the basic evolution paradigm into question. It is unrealistic to expect the fossil record to be a compete record of all life. Few creatures or plants are fossilised so there will always be gaps. The fossil record is consistent with RM + NS and more and more intermediate forms are being discovered, the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. Stasis is not unexpected; if a creature is well adapted to its niche the selective pressure is against change. I'm glad I got at least part of the front-loading scenario correct. I'd still like to see a particular application of that approach to a particular fossil line. I think it would make it clearer exactly what is being proposed. How often is a new design implemented? How are they introduced? (That is, is a new genome inserted into the egg of an existing creature or . . .) If the creation of a new genome introduces a new species, which may not be able to breed with the preceding design, then how many new creatures are introduced to make a viable population? Is this done over a wide area or a single location?ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
To reiterate Ellazimm, the fossil record looks nothing like evolutionists make it out to be: One persistent misrepresentation, that evolutionists continually portray of the fossil record, is that +99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct because of 'necessary evolutionary transitions'. Yet the fact is that 40 to 80% of all current living species found on the earth are represented fairly deeply in the fossil record. In fact, some estimates put the number around 230,000 species living today, whereas, we only have about a quarter of a million different species collected in our museums. Moreover, Darwin predicts we should have millions of transitional fossil forms. These following videos, quotes, and articles clearly point this fact out: The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028115 "Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented in the fossil record, despite being told in many text books that only about 0.1% are in this category. The rocks testify that no macro-evolutionary change has ever occurred. With the Cambrian Explosion complex fish, trilobites and other creatures appear suddenly without any precursors. Evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record is highly contentious." Paul James-Griffiths via Dr. Arthur Jones http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/studentpaper1.php "The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:. Statis. 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…. 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'. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, - Evolution's Erratic Pace - 1977 "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species This following video gives a very small taste of the confusion we would expect to see for life on earth if evolution were true: What Would The World Look Like If Darwinism Were True - video http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=9223906b3ae70c6fe1ee Marine Species Census - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The researchers have found about 5,600 new species on top of the 230,000 known. They hope to add several thousand more by October 2010, when the census will be done. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/us_marine_census What Lives in the Sea? Census of Marine Life Publishes Historic Roll Call - August 2010 Excerpt: In October, the Census will release its latest estimate of all marine species known to science, including those still to be added to WoRMS and OBIS. This is likely to exceed 230,000. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802173704.htmbornagain77
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
and indeed why should we expect such dramatic jumps in the fossil record since everything we know about mutations to DNA, and even Darwin's theory itself tells us that we should not expect them? Thus Ellazim, once questionable intermediates are removed from ones thinking, then the puzzle falls into place: Besides the fossil record lacking clear transitional forms (billions should be there if Darwinism was true), there is actually ample evidence in the fossil record to infer that the principle of Genetic Entropy has been rigidly obeyed over the course of the history of life on this earth. The following article, which I've listed previously, is important in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth (Note: Trilobites are one of the most prolific 'kinds' found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the 'simple' creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record). The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html Evolution vs. Trilobites - Prof. Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032589 In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a 'scientific law': Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html A general rule of thumb for the 'Deterioration/Genetic Entropy' of Dollo's Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here: Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints; http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html Dollo's Law was further verified to the molecular level here: Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo's law: ,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, "The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future,". http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.htmlbornagain77
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Ellazimm you are tantalizingly close to realizing how the overall puzzle fits together with this statement of yours:
I would like to see the pre-loading idea more fleshed out. IF all mutations are detrimental then there would have to be preloading moments and that needs to be spelled out and made coherent in order for it to be properly scrutinized. IF each new species is designed then there would be a time when the designer created a whole new genome base and then . . . .let it run ’til the code is so degraded that the species ceases to be viable? Something like that? And how would that apply to say the fossil evidence for the development of the whale? Which of the intermediate forms are new genomes are which are degraded versions of the original?
First all let me dispel the notion you have of the supposed whale sequence being a 'conclusive' piece of evidence for common ancestry: Perhaps one of the most egregious violations to common sense, by the evolutionists, is the evolutionists claim that whales evolved from a terrestrial (land dwelling) mammal in a mere 10 million years. These following videos and articles expose a few of their violations of logic: Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568 This following study provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson's critique in the preceding video: How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010 Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on. https://uncommondescent.com/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170 This following sites is a bit more detailed in their dismantling of the whale evolution myth: Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm This following video is very good, for it uses the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists themselves, for population genetics, to show that the evolution of whales is impossible even by their own methods of predicting change: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 "Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned: Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have This following video takes a honest look at just what evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain whale evolution: What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgMbornagain77
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
I suppose, when it comes down to it, I just find the current evolutionary model more parsimonious than ID. I think it has fewer assumptions and appeals to unknown (and possibly unknowable) influences. I know one of the basic ID arguments is that intelligence is a known cause of complex and specified information but without some outside evidence (or even notions) about the proposed intelligence at the pertinent time I think there are fewer assumptions in sticking with natural forces. And natural forces can be tested and experimented upon. And such experiments, as done by Lenski, are revealing what kind of information those forces are capable of creating and I'm not about to stop seeing if any supposed boundaries really exist. Artificial selection, using the same molecular engine, has created dramatic physiological differences from the root stock. I think the "we haven't seen it' argument is weak. No one living saw the comet strike that wiped out the dinosaurs, Boeddica burning London, Stonehenge being built or any of the events in the Bible. But some of us believe some of those things happened. And in each case the argument has to be made from secondary evidence. Sometimes in archaeology the identification of natural vs intelligent design is very tricky. Interesting that archaeology has not turned up any material evidence of intelligent beings before the development of hominids. I would like to see the pre-loading idea more fleshed out. IF all mutations are detrimental then there would have to be preloading moments and that needs to be spelled out and made coherent in order for it to be properly scrutenized. IF each new species is designed then there would be a time when the designer created a whole new genome base and then . . . .let it run 'til the code is so degraded that the species ceases to be viable? Something like that? And how would that apply to say the fossil evidence for the development of the whale? Which of the intermediate forms are new genomes are which are degraded versions of the original? You all have given me lots to think about and I appreciate that very much. And, as I've said, I have respect for your views even though I see things differently. I'm not surprised you find my arguments the same old thing; I'm not a researcher and I don't think I've got anything new to add. But at least I can be honest and I hope you feel I have been that. Even if you find my arguments incoherent.ellazimm
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
#79 Gpuccio The request was for an example of natural processes creating CSI - not dFSCI. It seems reasonable to take Dembski's definition of CSI for this. It says nothing about the pattern having a function or a meaning. He defines it simply in terms of simplicity - which turns out to mean high compressability! He is quite clear about this - look at pp 15-16. If a number of people on this forum fundamentally disagree with Dembski about what CSI is then surely that is a big issue for ID and needs addressing? It also makes it very difficult to criticise ID if there is no clear guidance on what the supposed signature of design actually is.markf
September 27, 2010
September
09
Sep
27
27
2010
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Mark (#62): Your example is only an example of a necessity cause (eletyromagnetic field) acting on random variables to create a pattern. That has nothing to do with CSI. CSI is about random events taking a pseudo-random pattern which conveys a function or a meaning. And the complexity is the probability that those random events may convey that function or meaning exclusively for random causes. Take the example of a protein sequence and my definition of dFSCI (which I believe you should know after all this time). The sequence is pseudorandom. It is vastly non compressible, and there is no biochemical law which can explain that particular sequence in favour of others. And yet, that sequence is the basis for the folding and function of the protein. That is CSI. Nor a magnet which works out of laws of necessity. CSI ius about meaning and function, two things which are the product of intelligent consciousness and, if the complexity is enough, only of it. There is no example of dFSCI generated by unguided systems.gpuccio
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
ellazimm: sorry to have been away today. I would like to specify some small points to further the discussion (for tomorrow, I believe: here too it is late). 1) Most, if not all, of the arguments you point to are at best evidence for common descent. They have nothing to do with the causal mechanism. I personally accept cpommon descent, lile many others in ID, and anyway ID is not directly related to the problem of common descent, but only to the problem of causal mechanism. You yourself say: "For me, it’s not a matter extrapolating from observed small molecular changes; rather it’s a case of many convergent lines of evidence that all point to common descent with modification." Well, point concede. And so? The problem is the model for the modification. 2) You say: "I think that multiple lines of physical evidence point to common descent with modification AND explain the presence of complex specified information in the genome." Yes to the first. Absolutely no to the second. What lines of evidence? There is absolutely none. 3) You say: "But I never have completely understood why there should be a molecular edge to evolution? " Because there are both theoretical and empirical arguments, very sound arguments indeed, for the existence of theta "edge". And we can discuss all of them, one by one, in detail. 4) You sak for specifics about when the implementation of design took place. I can give you some very obvious answers: a) At OOL. b) At each appearance of a new protein domain family in the course of natural history. c) At the ediacara explosion. d) At the Cambrian explosion. These are only the mpost evident events which scream design. But probably, each new species is designed. e) You say: "Our DNA is pretty messy and it seems clear that, not only are better designs preferred over current designs by the environment, but also that there is lots of genetic material to work with especially since we have two copies of all of our genes." I am not sure what you mean. Our DNA could be messy, or not. I don't believe it is so messy, after all. And the problem is: who, or what "works" with it? The problem is simple: each protein gene is CSI. Unguided process never create CSI. There is no exception. All conter-examples are false. I have recently answered warehuff who presented ApoA1 Milano as an example oof CSI generated by darwinian processes, while it is a single aminoacid mutation! And Mark Frank, who is certainly a sincere person, comes with the example of the magnet! (I am going to answer that in my next post). It's strange that a concept quite simple and intuhitive like that of CSI may be so misinterpreted by intelligent people. I have given precise definitions and precise examples lots of times, and still the same gross equivocations come out. Just to be clear: a single aminoacid mutation can never be CSI, whatever its results: it is not complex enough. A necessity output is never CSI. Any doubts on these points?gpuccio
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
RE 75 ella, You have yet to give one empircal scientific confirmation of your assertions other than spouting off the standard talking points. You are long on long winded meaningless information and short on any scientific evidence. Obviously you are a radicl askeptic except when it comes to your own position. I mean really when one points to artificala selection , that by its very nature contradicts your claims,as evidence , and do so with a straight face, tells me all I need to know about your sincerity and incerdible gullibility. Vividvividbleau
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply