Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Three Fallacies of Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We routinely hear that the biological evidence proves evolution, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Recently PZ Myers made this claim for the fossil evidence and Sean Carroll for the molecular evidence. These evidences are often debated and discussed, but what is often missed is that this evolutionary reasoning is illogical to begin with. Philosophical failure is not a good starting point for discussion. Any debate needs to start with a clear understanding of the evidence and what it means. Unfortunately, such a starting point is difficult to come by. In fact, three different fallacies are routinely at work in the evolution genre. Here are quotes from Myers and Carroll, and an explanation of the fallacies.

Read more here.

Comments
As for Tiktaalik, there are air-breathing fish alive and well in the Amazon River today. And they ain't on their way to becoming land animals. IOW Tiktaalik is a transitional only because the theory requires it to be. There isn't any genetic data to support the transition.Joseph
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
How can one tell the difference between a transitional fossil and phenotypic plasticity? You can't. Transitional fossils are ASSUMED based on the overlying assumption that (universal) common descent has occurred. What the theory of evolution needs is genetic data which links to form. That way we could test the premise that such changes are even possible.Joseph
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Mr Frost122585, I have always asked for many transnationals showing connection across several significantly different complex taxa. Assuming the example given of ants and wasps was not sufficiently different, would you be convinced if someone could show that all the different kinds of mammals, bats, whales, horses, humans, etc., were all related in some branching tree of gradual change?Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
Mr Oramus, Mosquitoes, like all other animals are confined to a specific adaptive range. Do you have some science to back this up, or is it just wishful thinking?Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
Further to my last post, the fact that there are 3000 species of mosquitoes seems to show that mosquitoes' adaptive capability is sufficient to stabalize its genome over time. It therefore has no pressure to transform itself into some non-mosquito form in order to continue on.Oramus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
The fact there are over 3000 species of them today suggests that quite a few mutations occurred in the lineage over that 300 million years
Darwinism continues to conflate evolution with adaptability. They are not the same. 3,000 species suggests the adaptability of mosquitos, not the evolution of the mosquito. As other posters have pointed out (using other animal examples), mosquitos are still mosquitos. The evolutionary rollout of the mosquito is finished. It is now exhibiting the specified plasticity of its genome (its adaptability). It's like that basic screensaver where you see the ball bounce from all sides of the screen. Mosquitoes, like all other animals are confined to a specific adaptive range. They can bounce around but they can never breakout from the adaptive room they are confined to.Oramus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
Hmm..link doesn't work. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1r804782707/?sortorder=asc&v=expandedDave Wisker
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
For those interested, the Journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has an issue devoted to transitional fossils (and its available free online!!!): http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1r804782707/?p=3d45207ea6724d2e9211a5a2df89e527&pi=0Dave Wisker
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Plant evolution is more like variation among species - and plants are a little easier to change than full fledged complex animals that die very easily if they inherit a mutation that can have bad consequences. Yet we have mosquitoes that are 300 million years old- from the time of the dinosaurs but have refused to yield to those pesky random mutations.
That's your big beef? Quite literally "don't fix what ain't broke".RDK
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Dave those small mutations have nothing to do with what we are discussing about marco change. You know as well as I that no one id debating variation among kinds or species- The theory of universal common ancestry makes a gigantic claim and gigantic claims require gigantic evidence. :)Frost122585
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
Good point in bringing up the insects. Because they are small they can reproduce in massive quantities because there is a large relative landscape for them to evolve. Plants are less complex than most animal life forms. When a mammal begins to evolve it is so complex that there are many problems that have to be adjusted for a morphological trait to be carried on. Plants are not only more numerous and therefore have a greater population to evolve such traits but they also don't have as many features and hence they don't have as many problems to circumvent in order for a marco change to proliferate. You can debate genetics for ever- it is much like debating mathematical formulas- of which there are many that are not in use. DE needs major fossil evidence showing a continuous linage between vastly different taxa and the logical step by step process that the various morphological changes evolved through. Sketches and models count for nothing outside of a firm fossil record. This is the obvious truth that has encouraged devout materialist evolutionists to fake several transitional fossils.Frost122585
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Yet we have mosquitoes that are 300 million years old- from the time of the dinosaurs but have refused to yield to those pesky random mutations. The fact there are over 3000 species of them today suggests that quite a few mutations occurred in the lineage over that 300 million years ;)Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
Hi Frost, You write: I do not know that much about genetics but I suspect you are wrong about the plants. My intuition tells me they can evolve more easily than complex mammals- Suspect they are more numerous for one and secondly since they are less complex it would take a shorter time for the diversity of their speciation Plant genetics are the same as animals, Frost. A moment's reflection that the basic laws of inheritance were derived from studies of plants, not animals, should tell you that. Or were you thinking of the prevalence of polyploidy (multiple chromosome sets)? I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve more easily"-- by that do you mean adapt? And why did you switch from animals in general to mammals in particular? Do you think highly specialized orchids can adapt to changes in pollinators any more easily than mammals can adapt to changes in their environments? Are plant extinction rates lower than those of animals (I’m not sure myself). Plant evolution is more like variation among species - and plants are a little easier to change than full fledged complex animals that die very easily if they inherit a mutation that can have bad consequences Then why are there far more insect species than all plant species combined?Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
and I remind all at this post who still dare to question Macro evolution or universal common ancestry - that there are many Darwinian evolutionists looking for evidence of their theory day and night. The search for transitions, data and explanations for life's origin is for them the search for the Holly Grail. So if you are unconvinced by the evidence know that the evidence they do have is the absolute best that they can muster. Make no mistake they have worked day and night to prove this theory. Now with all of that said universal common ancestry is a logical possibility with some evidence but there is no reason why a person cant desire more evidence to be convinced. Questioning the theory even if it was true only opens up the discussion resulting in making people think, disseminating scientific information and literacy and promoting the pursuit of new questions and ideas. All of which is very important as we can do science for eternity but the motivations which guides our science are limited to the specific desires of man to peruse the enterprise.Frost122585
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Dave writes,
Frost, the request was for transitional fossils, and the complaint was that there was only one example given. Now the main complaint is they aren’t dramatically different enough in complexity. I think Tiktaalik – an example of a transition between radically different lifestyles mor ethan addresses your concern, though since Tiktaalik wasn’t comnpletely terrestrial, Avonwatch’s problem with it is moot. My Runcaria example addresses exactly what you are asking for as well –an example of the transition to seed plants, one of the key innovations in evolutionary history.
I have always asked for many transnationals showing connection across several significantly different complex taxa. I do not know that much about genetics but I suspect you are wrong about the plants. My intuition tells me they can evolve more easily than complex mammals- Suspect they are more numerous for one and secondly since they are less complex it would take a shorter time for the diversity of their speciation. Tiktaalik is some kind of an ancient fish- hardly a great example of a long evolutionary tree of life.Frost122585
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Frost, plants are complex eukaryotic organisms that are subject to the same evolutionary processes as animals are, and are presented with just as critical adaptive problems to solve.Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Frost, the request was for transitional fossils, and the complaint was that there was only one example given. Now the main complaint is they aren't dramatically different enough in complexity. I think Tiktaalik -- an example of a transition between radically different lifestyles mor ethan addresses your concern, though since Tiktaalik wasn't comnpletely terrestrial, Avonwatch's problem with it is moot. My Runcaria example addresses exactly what you are asking for as well --an example of the transition to seed plants, one of the key innovations in evolutionary history.Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Dave, Plant evolution is more like variation among species - and plants are a little easier to change than full fledged complex animals that die very easily if they inherit a mutation that can have bad consequences. Yet we have mosquitoes that are 300 million years old- from the time of the dinosaurs but have refused to yield to those pesky random mutations.Frost122585
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Dave, SO far you have listed bears turning into bear, animals predicted to be found in a continent probably based on the indisputable concept of Pangaea (which there are different explanations for the causes thereof) and then you list animals that went from land dwelling creatures to sea creatures but did not change massvily. And interesting how most of evolutionary theory is about things evolvig from sea creatures to land creatures- the simple to the complex and yet the most predominant fossils are those that went from the land to the sea... A change in complexity is not an increase in complexity and even a small increase in complexity in one species cannot be extrapolated to every species that ever lived.Frost122585
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Let’s not leave plants out of the transitional fossil picture (for joseph’s benefit): Gerrienne P, M Meyer-Berthaud, M Fairon-Demaret, M Streel & P Steemans (2004). Runcaria , a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856 - 858 From the abstract:
The emergence of the seed habit in the Middle Paleozoic was a decisive evolutionary breakthrough. Today, seed plants are the most successful plant lineage, with more than 250,000 living species. We have identified a middle Givetian (385 million years ago) seed precursor from Belgium predating the earliest seeds by about 20 million years. Runcaria is a small, radially symmetrical, integumented megasporangium surrounded by a cupule. The megasporangium bears an unopened distal extension protruding above the multilobed integument. This extension is assumed to be involved in anemophilous pollination. Runcaria sheds new light on the sequence of character acquisition leading to the seed.
Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Modern seacows (manatees and dugongs) are predicted to be descendants from terrestrial mammals. Here is fossil confirmation: Domning DP (2001). The earliest known fully quadrupedal sirenian. Nature 413 625-627 From the abstract:
Modern seacows (manatees and dugongs; Mammalia, Sirenia) are completely aquatic, with flipperlike forelimbs and no hindlimbs1, 2. Here I describe Eocene fossils from Jamaica that represent nearly the entire skeleton of a new genus and species of sirenian—the most primitive for which extensive postcranial remains are known. This animal was fully capable of locomotion on land, with four well-developed legs, a multivertebral sacrum, and a strong sacroiliac articulation that could support the weight of the body out of water as in land mammals. Aquatic adaptations show, however, that it probably spent most of its time in the water. Its intermediate form thus illustrates the evolutionary transition between terrestrial and aquatic life. Similar to contemporary primitive cetaceans3, it probably swam by spinal extension with simultaneous pelvic paddling, unlike later sirenians and cetaceans, which lost the hindlimbs and enlarged the tail to serve as the main propulsive organ. Together with fossils of later sirenians elsewhere in the world1, 4, 5, 6, 7, these new specimens document one of the most marked examples of morphological evolution in the vertebrate fossil record.
Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
How about transitionals in the Cave Bear? :
From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record
Kurten B (1976) . The Cave Bear Story. Columbia University Press, New YorkDave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
How about the prediction that marsupial mammal fossils would be found in strata approximately 30-40 million years old in Antarctica? Barton NH, DEG Briggs, JA Eisen , DB Goldstein & NH Patel (2007). Evolution p. 74Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Or this: Or this: The ‘Ur-Ant”, or transitional between wasps and ants, was not only found in the strata predicted, but also possessed the mosaic of characters expected between the two groups as well. Can be found in EO Wilson’s Journey to the AntsDave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Avonwatch: Between these two responses I have been cited ONE “transitional fossil” (Tiktaalik is not a good example. Among other things, the “limbs” don’t have a proper bony structure to support body weight on land.) Grats guys. Very demonstrative of the so-called ‘predictive power’. How about this? Malllat J & JY Chen (2003). Fossil sister group of craniates: predicted and found. J Morphol 258(1):1-31. Abstract:
This study investigates whether the recently described Cambrian fossil Haikouella (and the very similar Yunnanozoon) throws light on the longstanding problem of the origin of craniates. In the first rigorous cladistic analysis of the relations of this animal, we took 40 anatomical characters from Haikouella and other taxa (hemichordates, tunicates, cephalochordates, conodont craniates and other craniates, plus protostomes as the outgroup) and subjected these characters to parsimony analysis. The characters included several previously unrecognized traits of Haikouella, such as upper lips resembling those of larval lampreys, the thick nature of the branchial bars, a mandibular branchial artery but no mandibular branchial bar, muscle fibers defining the myomeres, a dark fibrous sheath that defines the notochord, conclusive evidence for paired eyes, and a large hindbrain and diencephalon in the same positions as in the craniate brain. The cladistic analysis produced this tree: (protostomes, hemichordates (tunicates, (cephalochordates, (Haikouella, (conodonts + other craniates))))), with the "Haikouella + craniate" clade supported by bootstrap values that ranged from 81-96%, depending on how the analysis was structured. Thus, Haikouella is concluded to be the sister group of the craniates. Alternate hypotheses that unite Haikouella with hemichordates or cephalochordates, or consider it a basal deuterostome, received little or no support. Although it is the sister group of craniates, Haikouella is skull-less and lacks an ear, but it does have neural-crest derivatives in its branchial bars. Its craniate characters occur mostly in the head and pharynx; its widely spaced, robust branchial bars indicate it ventilated with branchiomeric muscles, not cilia. Despite its craniate mode of ventilation, Haikouella was not a predator but a suspension feeder, as shown by its cephalochordate-like endostyle, and tentacles forming a screen across the mouth. Haikouella was compared to pre-craniates predicted by recent models of craniate evolution and was found to fit these predictions closely. Specifically, it fits Northcutt and Gans' prediction that the change from ciliary to muscular ventilation preceded the change from suspension feeding to predatory feeding; it fits Butler's claim that vision was the first craniate sense to start elaborating; it is consistent with the ideas of Donoghue and others about the ancestor of conodont craniates; and, most strikingly, it resembles Mallatt's prediction of the external appearance of the ancestral craniate head. By contrast, Haikouella does not fit the widespread belief that ancestral craniates resembled hagfishes, because it has no special hagfish characters. Overall, Haikouella agrees so closely with recent predictions about pre-craniates that we conclude that the difficult problem of craniate origins is nearly solved
Dave Wisker
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Woah. lots of talking in this thread. I have not read posts 10+, but just going quickly back to responses #7 & #9. Between these two responses I have been cited ONE "transitional fossil" (Tiktaalik is not a good example. Among other things, the "limbs" don't have a proper bony structure to support body weight on land.) Grats guys. Very demonstrative of the so-called 'predictive power'. Citing a journal does not constitute providing examples. I'm not going to read through the entire journal. Since you are in the know, can you provide me examples from within? Saves me a bit of time, and you are the one that knows where the good examples are anyway, so it is not so much trouble on your part. And you do not seem to understand that 50Million years IS a brief time in the context we are speaking in. Why, I am even referred the book "your inner fish - the 3.5 BILLION year development of the human body". So, for entirely new species to appear in 50mil year spurts is brief. But all of this really misses the point of the post. ID's main beef with darwinian evolution is the mechanism. Id reckons species change can't happen by random, accumulated mutations. Evo looks at the present and the past and infers their own mechanism without testing it. (Why is it nobody talks about Lenski's experiment anymore?)Avonwatches
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Correction above (my spell check has not been working at all), "Two cars* can be created from the same parts and metals but with variation within the design."Frost122585
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Ardeekay wrote,
"What mechanism is there in nature that actively limits microevolution from changing into macroevolution?"
What is the mechaism that gives rise to evolution? That is that is the machism capoable of prodcing front loading on the cosmic to mico scale? It is irrational no allow a miracle in one place but not another unless there is sufficient evidence to support the theory. That is what is being criticized with maco-evolution- one, lack of evidence and two, if it is probabilistically reasonable given naturalistic resourced and chance/time.
"it is irrational to say that only one of them exists."
We may hold different views reach the same conundrum if only at different points. It is only rational to accept both if there is ample evidence that both are true. Evolutionists themselves create demarcations of when one species begins from another. Thus whether one believes those two species to be totally separate or connected via an evolutionary chain of mutation is up for the observer and ample evidence to decide. As far as how me scientifically demarcate between species, this is an issue of shape and form. Two card can be created from the same parts and metals but with variation within the design. This does not mean one evolved from the other or that they have common ancestors but that they share a common creator or designer. Most people use literal interpretation of scripture to support their belief in special creation- the bible said Adam was made out of dust or sand. After Einstein we now know that man could come from sand given that forms of matter are actually made out of the same primary substance which is energy. So if there wa sa surime God that wanted to perform special creation at the species level or at the big bang one can infer he would be able -like a great alchemist- to change sand into DNA and breath life into it. This is not possible form mortals to do but it is scientifically possible- just like how one can invent a series of steps required for evolutionary change from one species to another- one can also imagine energy and matter changing form into anyhting else as well. In fact that is what happen at the big bang- matter went out and turned into all the elements, and life eventually in some way, either through special creation or descent with modification- interconnected ancestrally or not. We appeal to the authority of reason to decide which story is true and why. TO appeal to the authority of imagination- or the authority of scientists is a categorical fallacy. This is why some people like Stephen Meyer seek ample evidence.Frost122585
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Frost:
When I say evolution is a fact i mean everything changes or can change over time- mutations do occur- people do reproduce and all races of humans probably all have common ancestors - the bible called them Adam and Eve. But this is limited to change within species. Universal commons ancestry makes a huge claim and needs to be continually questioned not just for the sake or making sure it is true but to get the actually tree of life right. I just take the position that the macro fossils probably build a weaker case for it being true than people think and are lead to believe by and large.
What mechanism is there in nature that actively limits microevolution from changing into macroevolution? This is decidedly the center of the debate, and it’s something the ID camp needs to answer. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process on different scales; it is irrational to say that only one of them exists. When you seek to “refute” macroevolution, all you’re doing is reducing micro to a minimum effect and pushing macro to a maximum effect, when in fact there is a spectrum in between. And since creationist terms are perpetually undefined, it’s remarkably easy to employ a smokescreen and impossible to objectively determine what evidence would be required to support it. So now we’re asking you. When do two recently diverged species descendants become sufficiently distinctive that macroevolution has occurred? What is the minimal requirement?Ardeekay
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
When I say evolution is a fact i mean everything changes or can change over time- mutations do occur- people do reproduce and all races of humans probably all have common ancestors - the bible called them Adam and Eve. But this is limited to change within species. Universal commons ancestry makes a huge claim and needs to be continually questioned not just for the sake or making sure it is true but to get the actually tree of life right. I just take the position that the macro fossils probably build a weaker case for it being true than people think and are lead to believe by and large.Frost122585
June 5, 2009
June
06
Jun
5
05
2009
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply