Dinobird: Practically anything, no matter how false or ridiculous, is given serious attention in the science press as long as it appears to support Darwinism

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 1, 2011

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Science stunner! ‘Missing link’ for 150 years and now it isn’t?” ( World News Daily, , July 28, 2011) Bob Unruh puts his finger on the key point about an otherwise routine reclassification ofa fossil from bird to dinosaur: “Expert says Nature report highlights sands on which Darwin theory built”:

The report says the latest discovery suggests the assumption that Archaeopteryx is “the evolutionary link between the two [birds and dinosaurs]” may need reconsideration.

A legitimate debate. That said, this fossil was purchased, not found. Plus the report author admits the hypothesis that knocked the dinobird from its perch is only “weakly supported” by data. So how sure are we? Anyone remember “Feathers for T. Rex”? Oh wait, that scam fell down the memory hole, so we are not allowed to remember. Which is a problem.

Unruh grasps the central point when he asks,

But what about the century-plus that Archaeopteryx was considered “the ideal ‘missing link’ with which to demonstrate evolution from non-avian dinosaurs to birds”?

What about it? It falls into the same memory hole as T. Rex’s feathers, that’s what. We’re all supposed to dumbly worship and believe at the temples of Darwinism (museums) and pay for its sacred texts to be force on students in school. We are supposed to regard as experts Darwinists, who are routinely the marks for Holy Icon scams. And Archaeopteryx was only ever important as a Most Holy Icon of Evolution. Otherwise, it is just a beautifully preserved fossil from time out of mind.

Who knows what will become of the dinobird, real or imagined? Practically anything, no matter how false or ridiculous, is given serious attention in the science press as long as it appears to support Darwinism. No one working there considers (or is allowed to consider?) the cumulative effect of repeated frauds, failures, and offenses to common sense.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

H'mm: Let's put it in a phrase: mosaic creatures. And the debates over good old c 1861 Archeopteryx, run into the same barrier. Not to mention, the issue is to account for the FSCO/I involved in creating the new body plan. We have yet to see a cogent, solidly empirical observation anchored answer on random walks in config spaces rewarded by trial and error success leading to being in a position to do hill climbing. The only empirically sound cause of that relevant subset of CSI called FSCO/I is design, with abundant inductive empirical warrant. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
Elizabeth, It’s unimaginable that finding a mammal with avian lungs, living or fossilized, would break or blow up anything. It would either be a bird that convergently evolved mammalian features, or the other way around. The goalposts have moved too many times. Lack of gradualism in the fossil record? There’s not enough fossils. Or evolution occurs gradually but in a way that doesn’t leave a gradual transition of fossils. Find something, or a whole bunch of things, that can’t be explained by step-by-step changes? That’s called an argument from ignorance. Contradictions lead to new buzz words which show up in phrases like, ‘This mammal with avian lungs is a perfect example of [something],’ making it sound like it’s as common as grass.
I do understand that this is your perception, and that it is widespread. I think it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific methodology, and, in particular, of model-fitting. If something doesn't fit a model, you have to change the model. Every time you refit a model, you falsify the old one. But mostly what you falsify are previous parameters, not the entire model. That's why I gave the example of a correlation, because most people understand that you don't have to have every datapoint sitting bang on the regression line in order to infer a significantly linear relationship. Archy doesn't falsify the tree, it just means that the best fitting tree is a little different from the previous best-fitting tree. But if a mammal showed up with avian lungs showed up, either those "avian" lungs would have to be shown to be not, in fact, homologous with bird lungs, or the tree would collapse. But far from being a sloppy "oh, it's probably convergent" process, this is a a powerful constraint on the inferences you can draw, and if there was NO evidence that the lung was anything other than completely homologous with a bird lung, then you'd be absolutely right to object to anyone trying to say that it was. The idea that this not a rigorous process is, I suggest, a very important mistake. There is a reason why the vast majority of scientists accept common descent, and it isn't sloppy thinking.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 2, 2011
August
08
Aug
2
02
2011
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

Joseph, As to Dr. Behe's comment: 'Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?' ,,,Well, I hold that the following finding falsifies the claim that the flagellum can be produced by the purely neo-Darwinian processes (by purely reductive materialistic processes): INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state. http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf I hold this falsifies the reductive materialistic claims of neo-Darwinism, for the flagellum, simply because quantum coherence/entanglement cannot be reduced to the reductive material framework of neo-Darwinism in the first place! ============= notes: First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the complete description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ =============== further notes: i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology ends up destroying the very possibility of doing science rationally; BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ,,,Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 ========================= To dovetail into Dembski and Marks's work on Conservation of Information;,,, LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ ,,,Encoded classical information, such as what we find in computer programs, and yes as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'transcendent' quantum information by the following method:,,, This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm ,,,And here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is 'conserved';,,, Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.htmlbornagain77_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, It's unimaginable that finding a mammal with avian lungs, living or fossilized, would break or blow up anything. It would either be a bird that convergently evolved mammalian features, or the other way around. The goalposts have moved too many times. Lack of gradualism in the fossil record? There's not enough fossils. Or evolution occurs gradually but in a way that doesn't leave a gradual transition of fossils. Find something, or a whole bunch of things, that can't be explained by step-by-step changes? That's called an argument from ignorance. Contradictions lead to new buzz words which show up in phrases like, 'This mammal with avian lungs is a perfect example of [something],' making it sound like it's as common as grass.ScottAndrews_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

The tree Linne noticed wasn't based on common descent. Darwinism explains a tree but it doesn't expect one and Darwin knew it. There isn't anything in the theory that prevents diverged lines from converging. And there isn't anything in the theory that prevents multiple origins to animals. But anyway I am really interested in how to test the premise that the bacterial flagellum, for example, evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents. Or as Dr Behe said:
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
Joseph_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
I’m just a bit amazed that there is so much opposition here to the tree itself, which, after all, was first noted by Linnaeus!
Oh, lol. I missed that. Will I don't dispute a tree-like pattern. I'm not sure that many ID people would depending on the way you phrase the question.
Darwinism, however, is not the only explanation for a tree.
By Darwinism you mean descent with modification? You don't mean random genetic changes plus natural selection, right? So you now agree with me that Darwinism is a theory of common descent? GREAT! ;)
It seems to me like you all just have to disbelieve anything that could possibly be supportive of Darwinism!
We're very leery of circular arguments. If Darwinism is an explanation for the pattern, in what way is the pattern evidence for Darwinism, without being circular?Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

I'm just still left wondering where the Cambrian Explosion fits in all this 'tree thinking' that Darwinist are so enamored with?!? Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyZjQFN_DUw Response to John Wise - October 2010 "So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record." Sean Carroll developmental biologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.htmlbornagain77_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
My main point I guess, which I’ll try to make once more, is that the evidence for a tree is extremely strong.
Surely this was known long before Darwin, and by creationists, no less. Some creatures have lots of things in common, others have less in common.Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Well just "lungs" are like "wings" probably. That's why I specified bird-lungs. But look, Mung, if you've read those books on phylogenetics, you know all this. Why are you arguing? You know that phylogenetic characters arent' functional categories like "wings". That's why, in fact, we can say that in some instances a pectoral fin in one critter is homologous to a wing in another, but we can also say that the wing of a bat is not homologous to the wing of a bird, and certainly not to the wing of an insect. Ditto the bill of a platypus. Anyway, if you really want to falsfiy the ToE, look out for the fossil of an angel. Better than a precambrian rabbit, or a platypus, or even a mammal with bird-lungs.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

But “wings” is not a phylogenetic character, because the characters that in some species form wings, in other species (penguins!!!) serve as pectoral fins.

However, if a mammal fossil with bird-lungs was discovered, however, the tree itself would blow up.
Or not. Perhaps lungs are like wings. Not characters at all. If you ask me, pectoral fins are wings.Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Translation: We define what is going to be a character based on or assumptions of common descent. That way, no character can be used as evidence against common descent.
Not exactly, but of course you have a point. Where your implication is wrong is the idea that any old character can be pushed in or out of the set depending on whether it supports the conclusion, and that any evidence could be selected that would support any conclusion. It's an iterative process, and what is an observable is that a large set of characters form a clear tree - are clearly non-random if you like. Indeed, you could even argue that the distribution shows evidence of design! But here's an analogy: let's say you have a box of old jigsaw puzzle pieces: you put together some sky, and some ground, and you start to get a corner, larger pieces start to fit together, and so on. But you get stuck. Some pieces just don't seem to fit anywhere, and some pieces are clearly missing. What do you conclude? That it isn't actually a jigsaw puzzle? Or do you, rather, conclude that the bits you have are clearly part of a jigsaw puzzle (the fact that so many of them fit together cannot be chance) but that some pieces have got lost, and some pieces appear to belong to a different puzzle.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

But there is, Joseph. Although because of HGT, for single-celled organisms the tree is much bushier. And Mung: perhaps you do know something about phylogenetics, if so cool. You probably know more than I do. But most of the comments on this thread seem to be from people who don't. Certainly, anyone who thinks that the platypus is chimera is confused about phylogenetics. And Joseph, testing is possible. Oh well. My main point I guess, which I'll try to make once more, is that the evidence for a tree is extremely strong. Darwinism, however, is not the only explanation for a tree. As Joseph says, you could (and Todd Wood would) argue that common design is a viable alternative. I'm just a bit amazed that there is so much opposition here to the tree itself, which, after all, was first noted by Linnaeus! It seems to me like you all just have to disbelieve anything that could possibly be supportive of Darwinism! So, don't listen to me. Listen to Denton, or Behe, or even Todd Wood.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Phylogenetic Systematics And yet another: Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis Rubes I say! Can't be bothered to crack open a book on the subject!Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

I seem to find myself agreeing with a lot of what Nick Matzke says these days. He picked up on the fact (like I did in a previous post), that the YEC crowd quite confidently put archy in with the birds for quite some time. I personally don't see why something that looks transitional should be any sort of threat to ID, but I can see how it could be to YECs, and I suspect that many in the ID crowd sometimes forget that the ID position gives a great deal of freedom to interpret what is found, and personally I think we need to step back and just consider where the evidence leads. I'm also not afraid to say that the "predictive power" of ID is often no better than what we criticize the Darwinian crowd for. ID is more a conclusion than a prescription, and just because we infer the action a designer does not mean we are any better at discerning, a priori, how that designer would have operated. So why not just sit back, enjoy the research as it is done (as archy bounces around the tree), and not worry about the fact that it's not all settled yet? Maybe archy is sort of a "dinosaurian" platypus, or maybe it really was part of a transitional step between one form of (pre?) dinosaurs and one form of birds as part of front-loaded evolution. I'm happy to let the cards fall as they may.SCheesman_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Also there isn't any nested hierarchy nor tree to be found amongst most (if not all) single-celled organisms. Does that then refute the theory of evolution?Joseph_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

It is certainly clear that few people if any on this thread know anything about phylogenetic analysis.
Right, most of us have never even cracked a book on the topic. Certainly nothing like: Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? Or this one: Phylogenetic Systematics Nor this classic: Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics We're just a bunch of rubes.Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Eliizabeth:
If you want my advice, which is worth no more than what you paid for it, if you want to falsify Darwinism, concentrate your fire-power on the mechanisms of variance
How can one falsify something that cannot be tested? Pull down Darwinism? Evidence that supports it? I am waiting for evidence that supports it. But anyway for now I will settle for the reference that says mammals cannot evolve bird-lungs. Evidence for common descent? Seen it and I can take that evidence and use it to support a common design, for example. You do realize that the "tree" is based on shared characteristics, ie a common design. And natural selection is hosed alright: Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.
The point being, that IF it were left to direct scientific observations, evolutionism fails miserably and all that is left is wishful thinking supported by speculation. All that is left for Nick, Elizabeth or any other evolutionist to do is to assert that Dr Sermonti is mistaken. But one will quickly notice that total lack of evidentiary support for such a premise.Joseph_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
(a) despite regular protestations that ID isn’t against common ancestry, the rank-and-file of UD *hates* common ancestry and doesn’t know a thing about the field of phylogenetics. I.e., they’re straight-up creationists.
Actually what we hate are lousy and circular arguments and questionable evidence stated as fact. Which version of phylogenetics did you have in mind, and why do you think each of them thinks the other is wrong? Oh, and can you show us how to fit "so what's your theory to explain it" into a syllogism? I really am not clear on that argument. And why do you think the lack of a competing theory is your best evidence?Mung_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
Do you know that Doug Theobald wrote that an organism with a mix of charcteristics would ruin the nested hierarchy. A transitional form, by definition, is an organism with a mix of characteristics.
OK, you are confused. Not to worry, it is confusing. First: Theobald is correct, but "a mix of characteristics" is a somewhat imprecise expression of what he is saying. The characteristics in question are not any old feature, like, say "wings". They are specifically what are called "phylogenetic characters" which are heritable features that vary along some dimension. And what phylogeneticists find is these features - have a very characteristic distribution - they can be used to place organisms on a deeply nested hierarchical tree. Moreover, these characters are called "primary" when they are found in an organism that appears to be the earliest to bear it, and "derived" in populations that descend from that organism. And if you were to find a fossil in which a set of derived characters from one lineage were found in an organism that also had derived characters from a quite different lineage (as with fur and bird-lungs), then that would break the tree - falsify common descent. Secondly: A transitional form is not an organism with derived features from more than one lineage. In fact, "transitional form" is a very misleading term. All organisms, in some sense, are "transitional forms" in an evolutionary framework. A better concept is "transitional series", used to denote a series of fossils in which derived characters can place them into a chronologically ordered lineage. I think it's important to understand these things, whether or not you think that common descent is true (and many IDists think it is). You won't pull down Darwinism unless you know what the theory actually is, and what the evidence is that supports it! And I do think you are backing the wrong horse if you attack Darwinism by attacking the evidence for common descent. It is far more rigorous and extensive than you seem to give it credit for. If you want my advice, which is worth no more than what you paid for it, if you want to falsify Darwinism, concentrate your fire-power on the mechanisms of variance :) Because common descent and natural selection are home and hosed.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
However, if a mammal fossil with bird-lungs was discovered, however, the tree itself would blow up.
Why? Where is it written in the theory of evolution that a mammal can never evolve a bird lung? What if evolution never found a mammalian lung and bird lungs were it? How about a fish with wrists? That should blow up the tree then also. Do you know that Doug Theobald wrote that an organism with a mix of charcteristics would ruin the nested hierarchy. A transitional form, by definition, is an organism with a mix of characteristics. Even Darwin understood that if all the (alleged) transitional forms that had to have existed were still alive today we would not be able to construct the tree he did. *shrug, sigh*Joseph_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

It is certainly clear that few people if any on this thread know anything about phylogenetic analysis. Or even, I suggest, about model fitting. An analogy might help: nobody rejects a correlation just because hardly any of the dots actually sit on the best-fit line. The model - a linear fit - is supported if the gradient of the best fit line is simply significantly different from zero. Phylogenetics is just a fancier version of that. The model - a tree - is parameterised against the data. Not all the data will be a perfect fit even to the best fitting tree, and new data will result in re-parameterising of the tree. The important thing is whether a tree is supported, not the precise details of the tree parameters, which will always tend to move about a bit in response to fresh data. However, if a mammal fossil with bird-lungs was discovered, however, the tree itself would blow up. It wouldn't be a case of tweaking the odd parameter - we'd have to conclude: this is not a tree. And my point is: people here seem to think that if the tree doesn't fit perfectly, and if it isn't completely populated with data, it is just "unsupported" "lines on a page". As though anything other than a perfect model is no better than a randomly selected one, and that therefore all models are unfalsifiable. Whereas in fact, the whole reason we use statistics in science is to determine whether our fitted models are indeed better than a randomly selected one!Elizabeth Liddle_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
(a) despite regular protestations that ID isn’t against common ancestry, the rank-and-file of UD *hates* common ancestry and doesn’t know a thing about the field of phylogenetics. I.e., they’re straight-up creationists.
No one hates it Nick. It is just that the "evidnce" that supports it is all circumstantial, at best, and can be used to support alternative positions. I used to be all for it until I started looking at the evidence a little more objectively. Science Nick, not speculation and imagination, should rule the day. Nick:
(b) Whoever does actually support common ancestry amongst the ID people isn’t man enough to tell the creos what’s what, even when they are engaging in the crudest kinds of know-nothingism.
Well Nick you could just start pointing at the genes that DETERMINE what type of organism will develop. But you won't because no one knows if such genes exist. Nick:
A question for you guys: is Archy a bird or a dinosaur?
It's a fossil Nick. A question for you- how do you know our definitions/ classifications of organisms is correct? How do you know Archy isn't a bird/ dino hybrid escaped from the Island of Dr Moreau? The Island of Dr Moreau- that is basically a documentary for you evolutionists, isn't it Nick. I bet you sit there watching it saying "If only they would let me alter the DNA in all those lab embryos, I would show them transitionals" (cue maniacal laugh) Sorry Nick, I saw the movie, it is only a movie, Nick, and it made me laugh- comedy gold.Joseph_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Nick, you state this with disdain (and I imagine spittle flying from your lips), 'I.e., they’re straight-up creationists.' I don't know about anyone else's take on Common Descent Nick, but from the scientific evidence alone; Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html Short summary of previous paper: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 ,,,I find atheistic materialism, and neo-darwinism in particular, to be a complete and utter joke as far as as rigorous science is concerned!!! EVERY SINGLE THING, presented as evidence for neo-Darwinism, falls completely apart upon scrutiny!!! So if that makes me a 'creationist' so be it. It is certainly better than living in a lie as you are currently doing!!! ,,, Moreover,,, I find that there is evidence for 'quantum non-locality' in life, on a massive scale, that gives strong indication that the 'transcendent' Creator, and Sustainer, of this universe also had a direct hand in the formation of all life on this earth,,, and for even greater shock, Nick, to your pure as driven snow atheistic sensibilities, from the scientific evidence I firmly believe that a very strong case can be made that the transcendent Creator of this universe inhabited the body of Jesus Christ and literally ripped a hole in the entropic space-time of this universe, when He rose from the dead;,,, The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 ,,, So Nick, I guess you can now call me a 'Christian Creationist' with disdain, and spittle flying from your lips, for that I certainly am. :) Hillsong United - Lord of Lords - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFkY5-Xp710bornagain77_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Creos. That's...nice. Do you have pet names for other religious or racial groups? You're a classy fellow, Nick, a proper gentleman. Do you attribute that to genetics or upbringing?material.infantacy_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Well, this thread is exhibit A for these propositions: (a) despite regular protestations that ID isn't against common ancestry, the rank-and-file of UD *hates* common ancestry and doesn't know a thing about the field of phylogenetics. I.e., they're straight-up creationists. (b) Whoever does actually support common ancestry amongst the ID people isn't man enough to tell the creos what's what, even when they are engaging in the crudest kinds of know-nothingism. A question for you guys: is Archy a bird or a dinosaur? You seem very certain that it's not transitional, you should then easily be able to tell me which category it is in.NickMatzke_UD_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Hey BA77, that looks like machinima! Thanks for the vid, mimaterial.infantacy_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Mung: "Translation: We define what is going to be a character based on or assumptions of common descent. That way, no character can be used as evidence against common descent. Brilliant. But wrong." Similarly with homology and dis-homology. For instance, some DarwinDefenders will point to the fact that all mammalian species have exactly seven neck vertebrae as being very strong evidence for Darwinism – and only for Darwinism. Yet, if someone else happens to point out to the DD different bird species have different number of neck vertebrae, and that by the reasoning he has just asserted, this can *only* mean that bird species do not share a common ancestor, and are thus absolute evidence against Darwinism, suddenly that fact about birds doesn’t matter.Ilion_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, This is the reason why the platypus does not fit into a nested heirarchy. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-sound-of-a-nested-heirarchy-shattering/Collin_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

material.infantacy, if Nick is a 'proper slayer, he may enjoy this song: Creed - Bullets (Video 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPzhUp8mWgsbornagain77_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Be careful Bantay, I'm told Nick is a proper Slayer, complete with armor, broadsword, and a helmet made from the skull of a creationist! Holy ground, Highlander! Happy halloween, ladies.material.infantacy_{August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply