Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear
| May 19, 2009 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:
Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.
That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.
The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.
Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”
Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?
Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.
Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.
No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.
360 Responses to Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Art Hunt,
If you want to demonstrate macro-evolution it would be best if you stayed with animals.
Even YECs understand that plants act differently than animals.
In a YEC scenario plants do not “reproduce after their own Kind”. That only pertains to animals.
So while your point about plants is interesting it does NOT do anything to support your case.
Mr Joseph,
Are we having a scientific discussion or a religious discussion? What does a Bible quote mean to macro-evolution? If there was a line in the Qur’an saying “Allah told me macro-volution is true.” would that settle things?
Or is it now your position that macro-evolution can happen in plants, but not in animals?
Got a reference?
Joseph,
The origin of the genetic code is based purely on speculation that it arose via stochastic processes
Actually, Joseph, it does have some experimental support (as the second reference specifically mentions), so to call it purely speculation is incorrect.
Plants are sophisticated eukaryotic organisms, and to leave them out of any discussion of macroevolution is ridiculous.
Nakishima,
The point is that Art is using an example that no one is debating.
IOW Art is being deceptive.
Ya see in order to refute an argument one has to address THAT argument.
If one instead presents an example that is not being debated then that is just plain dishonesty.
Now if the Bible said that “God Created the first populations of single-celled organisms and Commanded them to evolve into the rich diversity we observe today”, then Creationists would accept macro-evolution.
However as it stands today there isn’t any scientific data which supports that premise.
Dave Wisker,
There isn’t any support for an unguided path to the genetic code.
There isn’t any support for the nucleotides forming and then linking up to get the intial strand that would be translated.
And there definitely isn’t any data which demonstrates a ribosome can form via unguided processes.
But I hope the work continues as those failures should, sooner or later, demonstrate that the attempts are futile.
As I said geologists will find a geological explanation for Stonehenge before anyone finds a non-telic explanation for the genetic code.
Then you say:
To include plants in a discussion about animals is dishonest.
To then link what we see in plants to animals is ridiculous.
Adel,
The Bible is the reference- That and all the Creation websites.
Really all you have to do is to write to AiG (for example) and they will explain it to you.
jospeh,
I think you need to justify why this discussion of macroevolution has to be restricted to animals.
Is there any data which demonstrates any amount of mutational accumulation can take a knuckle-walker and from that get an upright biped?
No
Do we know what gene, gene or DNA sequences are involved in such a transformation?
No
If we don’t then how can we scientifically test the premise?
We can’t but we are comfortable in the fact that it happened so therefor it is science.
Dave Wisker:
I did.
1- Plants are very different than animals.
2- Plant genetics is much different than animals
Even YECs understand that plants act differently than animals.
In a YEC scenario plants do not “reproduce after their own Kind”. That only pertains to animals.
So while your point about plants is interesting it does NOT do anything to support your case.
So what part of all that don’t you understand?
joseph,
1- Plants are very different than animals.
In what qualitative way that justifies excluding them from a discussion of macroevolution?
2- Plant genetics is much different than animals
In what qualitative way that would exclude them from a discussion of macroevolution?
Joseph [344], about plants:
From the AiG website:
The reference is to Gen 1:11, which reads “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”
David Kellogg,
That’s what I found in both places, but I hoped that Joseph could back up his interesting claim.
Mr Joseph,
Bold type, like all caps, does not make an assertion more true.
Biped @ 215:
(Emphasis in the original.)
This beautifully captures what is misguided in your predicted “observation,” and what renders it unretrievably gauzy and scientifically useless in its current form: you confuse theoretical conjecture with observation. Simply put, one doesn’t observe concepts. Observation consists in counting, measuring, weighing, noting the positions of indicators, recording velocities and locations, noting operationally defined features, developing photographic plates, and on and on, sometimes with the aid of instrumentation. One cannot “observe” conceptually abstract and operationally undefined notions such as “physically inert meaning.” Such a notion belongs at the level of theory, which is constructed to both predict and confer meaning upon specific observations.
It is because theory is conceptual rather than observational that entailments are required that arise necessarily from one’s theory, in turn giving rise to predictions of specific observable phenomena that can be counted, weighed, measured, and so forth, a process above illustrated by BB theory and the CBR. In your case, what you want to say is that your theory of design necessarily gives rise to physically inert meaning (you don’t say why this is a necessary entailment – can’t the designer design otherwise? – but that is another problem), AND that physically inert meaning gives rise to particular entailments that CAN be observed (counted, weighed, measured, detected, etc.) in particular contexts. Those predicted observations include _____________, which indeed must be observed or your theory is placed at risk of disconfirmation. This is what I have been requesting throughout, and what you have yet to supply. I notice that Abel does no better. At the end of his article he punts: rather than suggesting empirical findings that flow from his theoretical prose he challenges evolutionary biology to support its theory instead.
More generally, the complexity of living organisms, including to whatever degree biological phenomena can be an analogized to the human use of symbols, is the phenomena that calls for explanation, and is not itself, alone, evidence for a particular explanatory theory. Simply stating “design entails physically inert meaning” then pointing to “the function of life” and making the bare assertion that it displays “physically inert meaning” (including the further bare assertions that it is an entailment of design AND can only have arisen from design) does nothing more than restate your hypothesis. That is rather like developing a theory of a murder, then citing the fact that the victim is dead in support of your theory. All theories of the crime culminate in a person being dead.
Until ID takes the risk of offering a theory that includes “moving parts” – necessary entailments concerning design, the designer, etc., as well as the unique observational consequences of those entailments – it will remain stillborn as well.
re #333
Hi Dave, you said: “A basic grounding in coral reef ecology, especially how communities there are structured would at least prevent you from asking the questions, which, when I attempted to help you, are now so distracting.”
I see that you have another long post so I will read that before responding, but I think somehow we are talking past each other and not engaging. Because the questions I am asking seem eminently sensible to me, no matter what the structure of coral reef communities look like. I cannot get traction, whether because of my inadequate communication skills or my lack of Ph.D. credentials in science (or anything else – I’m an M.S. guy) but if the difference between life and non-life is information, and who doesn’t think that is true, then information is the key. Information MUST be explainable in a coherent and rational way or else nothing has been explained. Let me read your next post and I’ll get back to you.
JayM, Dave Wisker,
Natural selection is a figment of the imagination.
1. All animals produce healthy and weak offspring at each generation.
2. Healthy and weak offspring all reproduce. ‘Strong’ genes and ‘weak’ genes are both required for the stability of the organism.
3. All animal types survive on the basis of cooperation, not competition. Competitive activity within a group scrambles the gene pool in order keep the reproductive ratio stable; never too many strong, never too many weak.
It is the consistent reproduction of both healthy AND weak offspring that allows the animal kingdom the possibility of mutual survival.
I.E. the rabbit produces several to keep a couple. The snake produces hundreds to keep several. The insect produces thousands to keep hundreds.
In essence, it is the weak that are the pillars of life.
Hi Oramus,
Natural selection is simply differential reproductive success. Consider any heritable trait. A variant of that trait which enables individuals possessing it to have more offspring who live to adulthood than those which possess other variants will become more common in the population.
That is not a figment of the imagination. It is a simple, observable, predictable (indeed inevitable) demographic fact.
Dave Wisker,
Thanks for your comment.
It seems from your comment below that you miss the point. There are always offspring that live to adulthood and reproduce regardless of any inherited trait. Both offspring with advantageous traits and without both make it to the finish line. In your words, traits will become common then not common, common, then not common.
Nature is not selecting anything. Nature is not preserving, eliminating or building anything. Rather, organisms express and suppress traits according to need in an algorithmic fashion; a big difference IMB.
Organisms exhibit (as described above)genomic plasticity. Yet they cannot build upon mutations as Neo-Darwinism claims in order to break environmental risk thresholds.
Adaptability is not evolution. Evolution, defined in its original sense as an unfolding of life, happened and the past and is finished.
What biological activity we witness now is basically the running of a maintenance program; peaks and valleys, peaks and valleys, with no new plateaus reached.
Mr Oramus,
If I understand you correctly, if I trace the life history of all zygotes from conception to death, there is no difference in reproductive success based on their phenotype? The weak and the strong produce, on average, the same number of offspring that themselves live to reproductive age? The runt of the litter does as well as the alpha male?
Hi Oramus,
It seems from your comment below that you miss the point. There are always offspring that live to adulthood and reproduce regardless of any inherited trait. Both offspring with advantageous traits and without both make it to the finish line.
I’m afraid it’s you that missed my point entirely. It is not that individuals with both make it to the finish line, its the differential proportions of those with the respective traits that make it that is important.If more with the advantageous trait make it, the trait will become more and more common, sometimes even replaving the less advantageous variant. This is simple, observable, and well-recorded population genetics.
Oramus,
Nature is not selecting anything. Nature is not preserving, eliminating or building anything. Rather,
organisms express and suppress traits according to need in an algorithmic fashion; a big difference IMB.
It is important to not confuse the metaphor with the object of interest.
Joseph, I defer to your expertise on nested hierarchies. Nevertheless, you seem to be out to lunch here [347]:
I understand it, it’s just wrong.