Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No Precambrian Rabbits: Evolution Must Be True

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Last week’s review of Richard Dawkins’ new book in the Economist hit all the usual chords. Dawkins’ purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is a fact–as incontrovertible a fact as any in science, and the Economist is only too happy to propagate the absurdity. First, there are the usual silly evidential arguments that only work with the uninformed, of which there are apparently many. True, species appear abruptly in the fossil record but, explains the Economist, “That any traces at all remain from so long ago is astounding, and anyway it is not the completeness of the fossil record but its consistency that matters.” After all, there are no fossil rabbits in the ancient strata. That’s right, no rabbits before the Cambrian era. Astonishing, evolution must be true.   Read more

Comments
SpitfireIXA, #94
You are hoping beyond reasonable hope that traumatic genetic damage and degredation will result in evolutionary progress. Cam, that’s not only illogical, it’s irrational.
And I find it illogical that you think single-nucleotide changes, insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements are barriers to evolution when they are commonly observed in viable, fertile organisms.camanintx
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
SpitfireIXA, #94
Cam, the bottom line is this, and it is exemplified in your last post: You are hoping beyond reasonable hope that traumatic genetic damage and degredation will result in evolutionary progress. Cam, that’s not only illogical, it’s irrational. If you actually lived out that belief, you would be searching through tornado-stricken towns for the next great generation of household appliances.
Why do you think I would ever confuse household appliances with living organisms?
And since it is now understood that the vast majority of necessary events for evolution could not be influenced by natural selection, you’re reduced to hoping in the power of random luck.
Understood by who? What necessary events? You certainly have a knack for being ambiguous.camanintx
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
BTW, your link in your previous post is broken.SpitfireIXA
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
I'm s stickler for spelling: "degradation" above.SpitfireIXA
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Cam, the bottom line is this, and it is exemplified in your last post: You are hoping beyond reasonable hope that traumatic genetic damage and degredation will result in evolutionary progress. Cam, that's not only illogical, it's irrational. If you actually lived out that belief, you would be searching through tornado-stricken towns for the next great generation of household appliances. And since it is now understood that the vast majority of necessary events for evolution could not be influenced by natural selection, you're reduced to hoping in the power of random luck. The Darwinian devils are not in the details. They are in the fundamentals, which Darwinists can't seem to see. This thread is passing soon, so this will be my last post. You happen to be one of the better pro-evolution posters I've seen here, and I enjoyed the dialog...SpitfireIXA
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
SpitfireIXA, #92
Whether any particular genetic imperfection is overtly damaging is difficult to tell. Whether they result in evolutionary progress is empirically demonstrated to be false — no newer, better species have resulted from them in any lab or observed in nature to date.
Since biologist agree that new species have been observed in both the lab and in nature, I would like to know how this has been empirically demonstrated to be false. Since every difference between the human and chimp genome can be explained by mechanisms observed in viable, fertile organisms, exactly where is the barrier between the evolution of species?camanintx
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Cam, I am aware of Britten's work. Your assessment of his work is not entirely accurate: 1. He uses a sample, not a complete review. 2. He first lines up the section of the human chromosome which he believes most closely matches the chimp. So it is not a direct comparison. He matches before he matches. 3. The results of the ongoing ENCODE project are making many of the previous assumptions about variance obsolete. As far as DNA sequencing and interaction are concerned, much more is going on inside the cell than previously believed. 4. Junk DNA can no longer be ignored.
Do you agree that chromosomal rearrangements events such as deletions, duplications, inversions; and translocations occur frequently in populations and many have little or no effect on viability or fertility?
Whether any particular genetic imperfection is overtly damaging is difficult to tell. Whether they result in evolutionary progress is empirically demonstrated to be false -- no newer, better species have resulted from them in any lab or observed in nature to date.SpitfireIXA
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
SpitfireIXA, #89
You continue to be fixated on fusion. You have an empiricially insurmountable problem across all of the chromosomes. Combined with the empiric reality that misaligned chromosomes nearly always produce death or infertility, and your just-so story hangs by a very thin thread.
Nearly does not mean always. As long as there are mechanisms which allows each mutation that isn't fatal or infertile to be fixed within a population, then the Theory of Evolution can easily explain how one species becomes two. SpitfireIXA, #90
So, no, I don’t agree with your numbers. Line up each chromosome, in full, and give a failing grade to each area that does not precisely align. The percentage gets small.
Roy Britten at CalTech did just such a comparison in 2002 and arrived at a value of 95%. Would you consider that accurate? Do you agree that chromosomal rearrangements events such as deletions, duplications, inversions; and translocations occur frequently in populations and many have little or no effect on viability or fertility?camanintx
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Cam @87
It all depends on how you measure differences as explained here.
Yes, it certainly does, and it is quite apparent that it is hard to do so. So, no, I don't agree with your numbers. Line up each chromosome, in full, and give a failing grade to each area that does not precisely align. The percentage gets small. It is the height of scientific buffoonery to carefully go through the human and chimp genes, find places that match, then count how many of those matches match. That is how we gained the entirely felonious "99%" of which our schoolchildren read about as fact. Thanks for the reference. That is the best short version of the percentage differences that I have seen. Notwithstanding the bald guy in boxers lunching with his piggy bank...SpitfireIXA
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Cam @87
If you agree that these types of mutations can happen without killing the organism or rendering it infertile, then do you also agree that it doesn’t require simultaneous in two organisms?
You continue to be fixated on fusion. You have an empiricially insurmountable problem across all of the chromosomes. Combined with the empiric reality that misaligned chromosomes nearly always produce death or infertility, and your just-so story hangs by a very thin thread. (Please don't strip my "nearly" out the next time you quote me, as you did before.)SpitfireIXA
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Joseph, #86 camanintx,
Where are all the organisms with 47 chromosomes? Did they just happen to conveniently die out? 47 is the number we would get by having an organism with 46 successfully mate with one with 48- is it not?
If chromosome recombination in meiosis is a function of homology, why wouldn't the two chromosomes from one parent recombine with the single homological chromosome from the other, leaving the offspring with only 46 chromosomes? After all, recombination with multiple chromosomes is not unheard of.camanintx
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
SpitfireIXA, #81
There are clearly examples of both duplication and fusion not causing fatality or infertility (though this is rare, infertility is the norm). Life’s flexible capacity for survival is very impressive. There are, however, no empiric evidences of these phenomena causing evolutionary progress.
If you agree that these types of mutations can happen without killing the organism or rendering it infertile, then do you also agree that it doesn't require simultaneous in two organisms? SpitfireIXA, #83
I am very familiar with human-chimp genome mapping. You post articles without much comment, which is unhelpful to a discussion. Is your contention that human and chimp genomes are actually 99% identical?
It all depends on how you measure differences as explained here. Would you agree that all of the differences between humans and chimps can be explained by approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements?camanintx
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
camanintx, Where are all the organisms with 47 chromosomes? Did they just happen to conveniently die out? 47 is the number we would get by having an organism with 46 successfully mate with one with 48- is it not? But anyway there still uisn't any genetic evidence that can be linked to the changes required. Nothing for the loss of the opposible big toe. Nothing for all the changes requires for upright bipedal motion. Nothing but wishful thinking.Joseph
September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Mr Lim (71):
so I’m not surprised to see biologists using “design language”. The issue here is whether an intelligent cause was involved in creating these designs or not, and I don’t see how analyzing the language used by writers helps us answer that question.
If you study nature you see many examples of obvious design. Everything from the carbon cycle to the human brain manifest profound design. Sure, we can ascribe it all to random motions like the Epicureans, to the improbable events of evolution, to a multiverse, etc. These are all explanations that are not motivated by the empirical scientific evidence, but by metaphysics. I think of science as not trying to impose metaphysical viewpoints, but rather as following the data, letting the data speak for itself, and so forth. An as I mentioned above, I think the empirical data clearly point to design. I don't think it is something that needs a lot of head scratching. And if you look as successful scientific work, it rarely incorporates or hinges on evolutionary thought. Rather, such research treats nature as designed. Sometimes such design assumptions are erroneously labeled as evolutionary. I suspect the teleological and Lamarckian language that always seems to creep in reflects the ubiquitousness of design in nature. But I'm not saying this is proof, and I know many people would not be swayed by this. If you really want powerful evidence, look at the science, such as biology. The only way around it, AFAIK, is the religious and philosophical arguments that evolutionists rely on.Cornelius Hunter
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Khan (65) and Cam (67): Khan,
In your definition of ID you include references to evolutionary theory. since, by your thinking, evolution is religious, doesn’t the incorporation of evolutionary ideas make ID religious as well?
No, keep in mind that there is the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. Evolutionists explain that the theory is how we think evolution occurs (the mechanisms, etc). The fact, OTH, refers to evolutionist's certainty that evolution is as sure as gravity. The former is not religious, the latter is. In the def'n of ID I gave, the former is referenced. Cam,
Evolutionists claim evolution is as much a fact as is gravity.
That’s because genetic change in a population inherited over generations, just like gravity, is an observed fact. The point you keep missing is that “evolution” and the “Theory of Evolution” are two separate things. Your continued attempts to conflate the two are getting quite tiresome.
No, I am not the one conflating things. Please read my response to Khan above. Evolutionists do not claim evolution is as sure as gravity merely because there is genetic change in populations. This is a long-standing fallacious equivocation that, yes, is quite tiresome.Cornelius Hunter
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Cam @78 I am very familiar with human-chimp genome mapping. You post articles without much comment, which is unhelpful to a discussion. Is your contention that human and chimp genomes are actually 99% identical?SpitfireIXA
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
"Nonesense" No, absolute truth. "Anyone who thinks Haldane would have had any trouble providing evidence for evolution obviously knows nothing about the man." Haldane had nothing to support naturalistic macro evolution. Otherwise where is it? Did he hide it from everyone and keep it secret. He certainly never presented it. He had nothing just as no one today has anything. Otherwise they would present it. No there is nothing to support it. All the anit ID people are living proof in support for ID by their silence on anything substantive.jerry
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Cam @78 At this point, I must admit some confusion.
We’re talking about the feasibility of two hominids, one with two fused chromosomes, producing offspring.
This is not really what we're talking about. You continue to bring this up, hence your "one card" analogy. I have been trying to explain the difficulty that you have in all of the gene differences -- my "refinish and reprint" analogy.
I would love to see references to these empiric facts of equine homology.
Yes, so would I. I asked you for them. Your previous attempt at documenting it was not successful, as centromere variance does not compare to gene variance.
just provide some references to back up your claim that telomere-telomere fusion always results in infertility.
Again... it is a fascinating subject, and not one that I am contending. There are clearly examples of both duplication and fusion not causing fatality or infertility (though this is rare, infertility is the norm). Life's flexible capacity for survival is very impressive. There are, however, no empiric evidences of these phenomena causing evolutionary progress. Because in the end, empirically, species remain fixed. The now-millions of generations of lab populations attest to this. ...SpitfireIXA
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Seversky, both ID proponents and materialists have found far more challenging data than the comical rabbit: Symbol systems Cellular information Hierarchical information processing Genetic algorithms Polyfunctionality -in short, Design. The ID response is to push for recognition of the obvious. The materialist's response is the same in biology that its been in cosmology, that is, attack the motives of the opposition and insist on the legitamacy of special pleading.Upright BiPed
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
jerry 77
Haldane, when he made his “rabbits in the Cambrian or pre Cambrian” remark was essentially admitting that they had no evidence for evolution. If he had serious evidence, he would have presented it and not resorted to this flip statement. So anyone using this comment essentially is admitting that they have no serious evidence and are distracting from the issue with an absurd example. Otherwise they too would preset their evidence.
Nonsense. The story goes that Haldane was challenged specifically to name something that could falsify evolution not prove it. The famous Cambrian rabbits were his answer. Anyone who thinks Haldane would have had any trouble providing evidence for evolution obviously knows nothing about the man.
Let’s hear it for those rabbits.
Never mind hearing it for them. If ID proponents are really serious about unseating the theory of evolution an replacing it with Intelligent Design, they need to be out there looking for them. Just huddling together and jeering at biologists from the sidelines is not going to cut it.Seversky
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
SpitfireIXA, #76
The empiric evidence is that humans and chimps cannot cross breed.
We're not talking about cross breeding humans and chimps. We're talking about the feasibility of two hominids, one with two fused chromosomes, producing offspring. There is ample evidence of this occurring, so presenting it is a barrier to evolution is specious. Here are some more references for you to peruse. The non-random occurrence of Robertsonian fusion in the house mouse. The Chromosome Shuffle
There are many reasons for this, but lack of homology is the bedrock reason — the “99%” statistic is not accurate. Therefore, your argument that human-chimp homology is closer than equine homology seems both unproven by your previous post, and shattered by the empiric facts.
I would love to see references to these empiric facts of equine homology. In the mean time, may I present another paper documenting the high degree of homology in human and chimp genomes. Structural divergence between the human and chimpanzee genomes
Leaving that off, there’s something far more interesting in your last post.
I will need more than your word that this would prevent an individual with this mutation from breeding.
After coming up with a hypothetical — this fusion — you seem to be saying that, unless someone empirically disproves it, it is true. Is that what you are saying?
I'm not asking you to empirically disprove anything, just provide some references to back up your claim that telomere-telomere fusion always results in infertility. The word of SpitfireIXA may be good enough in your world, but not in mine.camanintx
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Haldane, when he made his "rabbits in the Cambrian or pre Cambrian" remark was essentially admitting that they had no evidence for evolution. If he had serious evidence, he would have presented it and not resorted to this flip statement. So anyone using this comment essentially is admitting that they have no serious evidence and are distracting from the issue with an absurd example. Otherwise they too would preset their evidence. So when people repeat Haldane's facetious remark they are trying to hide the inadequacy of their position. Of course the people at the Economist probably do not have a clue about the debate any way. So they like many other anti ID people who keep on using the rabbits in the pre Cambrian comment show everyone once again that the pro Darwin supporters have nothing to back up their beliefs. Let's hear it for those rabbits.jerry
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
My, how we've drifted from rabbits... Cam @75 Your references do not assist your argument. Centromeres are chromosomal joining points, not gene sequences. They are not well understood and difficult to map, which makes them interesting. But they hardly make a useful correlation to chimp/human homology. The empiric evidence is that humans and chimps cannot cross breed. There are many reasons for this, but lack of homology is the bedrock reason -- the "99%" statistic is not accurate. Therefore, your argument that human-chimp homology is closer than equine homology seems both unproven by your previous post, and shattered by the empiric facts. Leaving that off, there's something far more interesting in your last post.
I will need more than your word that this would prevent an individual with this mutation from breeding.
After coming up with a hypothetical -- this fusion -- you seem to be saying that, unless someone empirically disproves it, it is true. Is that what you are saying?SpitfireIXA
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
SpitfireIXA, 68 There is far mor homology between Human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosomes 2 & 3 than between horses, donkeys and zebras. Since hybrids with far more chromosomal difference than a simple fusion are able to produce fertile offspring, I will need more than your word that this would prevent an individual with this mutation from breeding.camanintx
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Hi Clive,
You can’t use any other language other than design language because that is what explains and describes the mechanisms. To use any other language wouldn’t relate what is being meant. That means that the idea that it is not designed is wishful thinking.
I'm not proposing that things like flagella are not "designed" in some sense (e.g., perhaps by evolution itself). I'm just saying that the mere fact that people use "design language" does not support the existence of an intelligent cause for these designs.Mr. Lim
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Mr Lim,
so I’m not surprised to see biologists using “design language”. The issue here is whether an intelligent cause was involved in creating these designs or not, and I don’t see how analyzing the language used by writers helps us answer that question.
You can't use any other language other than design language because that is what explains and describes the mechanisms. To use any other language wouldn't relate what is being meant. That means that the idea that it is not designed is wishful thinking.Clive Hayden
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
ETA to #71: Thanks for responding to my OT question, Cornelius.Mr. Lim
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Cornelius,
Such design language is ubiquitous in the literature. The fact that so many writers use design language is good evidence that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause.
As Richard Dawkins wrote,
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose
so I'm not surprised to see biologists using "design language". The issue here is whether an intelligent cause was involved in creating these designs or not, and I don't see how analyzing the language used by writers helps us answer that question.Mr. Lim
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
camanintx,
The fact that horses (64 chromosomes), donkeys (62 chromosomes) and zebras (44 chromosomes) can breed would suggest that your assumption is wrong.
Are they now classified as the same species because they can breed? Usually not being able or making the personal choice of not breeding is what classifies animals into different species, so is the reverse (ability to breed) used to make classifications of the same species?Clive Hayden
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
By the way, I hope you are not holding up the nearly-always sterile offspring of forced interbreeding as the crowning proof of random, progressive evolution.SpitfireIXA
September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply