By David Gee[i]
The modern bird is believed by the evolutionary scientists of our modern age to have evolved from reptilian ancestors, arising from the dinosaurs in a similar fashion to the mammals and modern reptiles. The believed driving force of this is natural selection pushing mutations in the direction of an arboreal and then flight based life-style.
Among many other problematic steps in the proposed evolutionary tree (e.g. life from non-life and evolution of insects to name two) is the step from reptiles to birds. This evolutionary step would better be described as a cliff than a step so great are the differences between the groups.
There has been much debate over the process involved in the evolution of birds even among evolutionists:
Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote an encyclopaedic book on living and fossil birds[ii]. He pointed out much evidence against the dinosaur-to-bird theory, including the huge differences in lung and embryonic thumb structure. With regard to evolution of flight in dinosaurs he commented: 'It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails.'
His colleague, University of Kansas palaeontologist Larry Martin, commented on the wishful thinking and bias of another 'feathered dinosaur' claim: 'You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.'[iii].
While there is honest science being done by some, the popular media on the other hand have acted in an entirely biased fashion. This is shown in a National Geographic article run on dinosaur-bird evolution[iv].
Dr Storrs Olson (Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC), wrote in response to the NG article: 'The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age-the palaeontological equivalent of cold fusion.'[v].
Many people view the evolution of birds as a given and assume there is solid science in support of the fanciful drawings and theories. This is a blatant fabrication and in this article I will seek to point to some of the major problem points in the theory of evolution with regard to birds.
Firstly a brief look at several supposed dinosaur/bird intermediaries that have been brought forward by the popular media and evolutionary scientists:
Archaeopteryx: For a long time thought to be a transitional form but in the words of Dr A Feduccia an evolutionist and ornithologist 'Palaeontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.'[vi].
Sinosauropteryx prima: Many creationist were sceptical of this "feathered dinosaur" find and they were vindicated when four leading palaeontologists, including Yale University's John Ostrom, later found that the 'feathers' were just a parallel array of fibres, probably collagen[vii]. This conclusion was supported by later research by Dr A Feduccia[viii].
Mononykus: The cover of Time magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found[ix]. Later evidence indicated that 'Mononykus was clearly not a bird ... it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial [digging] theropod.'[x].
Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui: are claimed to be 'the immediate ancestors of the first birds.'[xi] but these two fossils are 'dated' 120-36 myo, while Archaeopteryx, a true bird, is 'dated' 140-150 myo, making these 'bird ancestors' far younger than their descendants! Dr Feduccia was not convinced, and neither was his colleague, University of Kansas palaeontologist Larry Martin saying: 'You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.'[xii]
Many of the design features in birds that mean they are impressively suited to a life in the skies. But there are two features in particular that are amazing in their complexity, efficiency and ingenuity: the avian lung and the flight feather.
Feathers
Feathers are amazing things, and if mankind could produce a material similarly suited to flight it would revolutionise the flight industry. Even the evolutionists point to their unique nature, Feduccia says 'Feathers are a near-perfect adaptation for flight'. They are lightweight, strong, aerodynamically shaped, and have an intricate structure of barbs and hooks. This structure makes them waterproof, and a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. [xiii]
|
||||
While there is no clear scientific rational for the gradual production feathers it is theorised: 'Feathers are modified reptilian scales,'[xiv] this is a widely held view among evolutionists. Scales are derived from embriologic folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules, and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair.
To change from scale to feather the required increase in DNA information (complexity not quantity of DNA) would be huge to say the least. The structure would need be internalised in the skin and also produce the complex arrangement of the feather, all while providing an increase in fitness with each subsequent mutation. Again this is a point glossed over by evolutionists.
It has also been suggested that flight feathers began as insulation and progressed to flight feathers as time passed. The flight feather is an extremely poor insulator, whereas the fluffy down feather is an excellent insulator. Even if it was given that as some have suggested dinosaurs began with downy feathers. The selection towards insulation would select away from the development of hooks and barbs, as the loss of insulation would outweigh benefit in the movement towards flight feathers.
Also feather proteins (Φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins). One researcher concluded:
At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis [shape/form generation], gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different[xv].
Lungs
The bird lung and associated systems are dumbfounding in both their efficiency and intricacy. A one way system of air sacs and a small light weight lung that maximises oxygen uptake. As described in creation magazine:
As a bird breathes, air moves into its rear air sacs (1). These then expel the air into the lung (2) and the air flows through the lung into the front air sacs (3). The air is expelled by the front air sacs as the bird breathes out. The lung does not expand and contract as does a reptile's or mammal's. The blood which picks up oxygen from the lung flows in the opposite direction to the air so that blood with the lowest oxygen (blue in the diagram always means lower oxygen, red means high oxygen) is exposed to air with the lowest oxygen. The blood with the highest oxygen is exposed to air with an even higher oxygen concentration. This ensures that, in every region of the circulation, the concentration of oxygen in the air is more than that of the blood with which it is in contact. This maximises the efficiency of oxygen transfer from the air to the blood. This is known as counter-current exchange.[xvi]
The lungs of most other vertebrates are far less complicated and are variations on the theme of billows style lungs. The non-avian vertebrate lung is in essence a complex sack and the breathing is driven with either a diaphragm or similar muscular structure to propel air in and out. This system of respiration is efficient enough for low altitude living and flying (in the case of bats) but it is not suited to high altitude activity (just talk to any mountain climber).
The next obvious question is given these two systems are so disparate is it theoretically possible for the reptilian lung to evolve into an avian lung? Evolutionary theory demands that each subsequent change provide a greater advantage at every stage. In this scenario the lungs of hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. So natural selection would work to preserve the existing arrangement, by eliminating any misfit intermediates.[xvii]
To illustrate this point I will refer to my work in the veterinary field. To progress towards an avian lung there would need to be air sacs formed which participate in breathing, a close parallel to this would be a diaphragmatic hernia/tear. Injured animals with tears to the diaphragm present with depression, breathing difficulties, inappetance and in the long term weakness and weight loss. It defies rationality that someone could suggest that animals in this condition are more able to compete than others.[xviii]
Evolutionists propose that birds evolved to better take advantage of the niche in the air, 'chasing the beetle' as such. Regardless of the other obstacles to this theory it is ridiculous to claim that birds would evolve such complex respiration to aid in flight. Bats with a standard mammalian lung are able to forage up to a height of 3km, thus only at very high altitude does the avian lung become an advantage. Natural selection does not drive evolution even in theory when there is no advantage in the changes.[xix]
Recent fossil evidence has been found which some believe point to certain dinosaurs possibly having avian style lungs. Majungatholus atopusi[xx], a theropod dinosaur has been found to have evidence of pneumatic invasion of the cervical, thoracic and abdominal vertebrae strikingly similar to modern birds. There are several points that must be noted in reference to this, as discussed in the Journal of Creation[xxi]:
- The bony pneumatizations in this theropod dinosaur are remarkably similar to those in birds, but according to several lines of evidence it can be assumed theropod dinosaurs are more similar to birds than to reptiles.
- It cannot be known for certain that theropod dinosaurs had any air sacs at all as modern birds do, although it is not an unreasonable inference that they had at least some, including an abdominal air sac. If on the other hand they did not have air sacs, then the pneumatizations discovered in the vertebrae presumably only served the function of lightening the bones for running.
- If they did have air sacs as birds do, there is no way of knowing whether they also had a flow-through lung like birds.An abdominal (caudal) air sac is necessary for a flow-through lung, but it does not therefore follow that having such a sac means one has a flow-through lung. The Nature authors believe theropods likely did have a flow-through lung, and cite certain features of the skeleton in support.But there have been other detailed studies suggesting theropods had a crocodile-like liver-pumping mechanism for ventilation.[xxii]
- Those evolutionists in the faction that believes dinosaurs (specifically theropods) gave rise to birds would be understandably encouraged by this paper, but it has not even begun to address the huge difficulties (including embryonic development paradoxes) pointed out by the opposing evolutionary faction.
- If it turned out that theropods did indeed have the same type of flow-through lung as birds, that would be an even bigger encouragement for the dino-bird faction, but it also fits perfectly comfortably within a creation framework; it would be a very reasonable design feature applied by a common Designer for fast-running small dinosaurs. However: Evolutionists would still be stuck with exactly the same massive problem of explaining the seemingly impossible transition from bellows to flow-through ventilation.
Conclusion
Someone I am sure will say at this point "So what? Evolution is still true". But these issues are unavoidable and their implications huge, for in the words of evolutionist Dr Michael Denton (in reference to evolution of the bird lung):
'I think it doesn't require a great deal of profound knowledge of biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we can't throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said, if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown. [xxiii]
Scientific theories claim to have power to explain some observed system, if an exception to a theory is found then the theory is modified. This is standard approach in the scientific community when practising honest science. Likewise the following should also happen: multiple contradictions are found and the theory fails to not only explain the systems/specimens found but the there is no way the systems/specimens could occur if the theory is truth. Logical conclusion - the theory is false and does not need to be revised but scrapped.
In the respects I have covered above and in several others avian species remain a group that roundly refutes evolutionary theory. The shear irrationality of claiming that birds arose by a series of small changes is astounding. Even the evolutionist camp when honest are uncertain this group could evolve. This is clear from Dr s Feduccia, Olson, and Denton. There is much disagreement over, no rational for, and a paucity of evidence to support the evolution of birds. If evolutionist's were honest, they like Dr Denton would admit that the problems with the evolution of birds are a death blow to the theory they hold as a quasi-religious world view.
Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution discount the evidence against their theory by saying, 'The proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal.'[xxiv] Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal. As opposed to the biblical creation model which dictates the bird kind were made this way by a creator, thus needing no precursor from another animal.
The bird is an amazing combination of design features that would be sufficient to make any engineer green with envy. The creation model is the only theory that will account for the features of extant and extinct birds but evolutionists will not accept it, why is made clear by Sir Arthur Keith:
"Evolution is unproven and unprovable, but we believe it because the alternative is unthinkable."
So evolutionists commit themselves to a theory which is unworkable in the face of all they know and all that logical scientific thought tells them. I among others hope that they will change their minds before they choke to death on the chicken bone in their scientific throat.
[i] I am deeply indebted to Creation Ministries for large portions of this article and give my grateful thanks to Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland for their articles on this subject. Most of the scholarship is theirs, I would like that made clear from the beginning.
[ii] Feduccia, A., The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2nd Ed.,1999
[iii] Cited on the CNN website <http://www.cnn.com/>, June 24, 1998
[iv] Sloan, C.P., Feathers for T. Rex?, National Geographic 196(5):98-107
[v] Olsen, S.L., Open letter to: Dr Peter Raven, Secretary, Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, emphases added
[vi] Cited in V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764-65, 5 February 1993.
[vii] New Scientist 154(2077):13, 12 April 1997; Creation 19(3):6, June-August 1997
[viii] 'Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist?: Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence', by Alan Feduccia, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, and J. Richard Hinchliffe, Journal of Morphology 266:125-166, 2005
[ix] Time (Australia), 26 April 1993
[x] D.P. Prothero and R.M. Schoch, editors, Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution, On the Origin of Birds and of Avian Flight, by J.H. Ostrom (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1994), p. 160-177
[xi] Ji Qiang, P.J. Currie, M.A. Norell, and Ji Shu-An, Two Feathered Dinosaurs from Northeastern China, Nature 393(6687):753-761, 25 June 1998. Perspective by K. Padian, same issue, p. 729-730
[xii] Cited 24 June 1998, CNN website <www.cnn.com>
[xiii] A. Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 130.
[xiv] R. Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1996), p. 113.
[xv] A.H. Brush, On the Origin of Feathers, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131142, 1996.
[xvi] Blown Away By Design, Creation 21(4):14-15 September 1999
[xvii] Refuting Evolution: A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.; Creation 21(4):14-15; September 1999
[xviii] Michael Denton, Blown Away By Design, Creation 21(4):14-15
[xix] Ibid
[xx] O'Connor, P. and Claessens, L., Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs, Nature 436:253-256, 14 July 2005
[xxi] Carl Wieland, Dinos breathed like birds?, Journal of Creation 19(3):11-12, December 2005
[xxii] Forster, C.A., Sampson, S.D., Chiappe, L.M. & Krause, D.W., The theropod ancestry of birds: new evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar, Science 279, pp. 1915-1919, 1998. Also Sereno, P.C., The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284, pp. 2137-2147, 1999.
[xxiii] The quotations in this article were extracted (with permission) from a video interview available on cassette (NTSC) from Access Research Network, PO Box 38069, Colorado Springs CO 80937-8069, USA. It was then re-checked with Dr Denton to ensure it fairly represented his current views. Emphasis added. Quoted in xvii
[xxiv] K. Padian and L.M. Chiappe, The Origin of Birds and Their Flight, Scientific American 278(2):38-47, February 1998, p. 43.
Alex I am suprised at you, normally this would produce a storm of responses. If you have not responded in the next 2 months I will assume you agree with the content of this post.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to your response, be prompt.
the step from reptiles to birds.
ReplyDeleteThis evolutionary step would better be described as a cliff than a step so great are the differences between the groups.
If we accept the description of ‘step’ people unwittingly accept it as relatively easy – A ‘step’ is by its nature achievable with little fuss. But to do so is to accept the premises of the evolutionist before looking at the facts. Whether it is a ‘step’ or a ‘cliff’ is the question at hand which must be established by the evidence – not determined a priori.
Question:
Since Feduccia’s book was called: The Origin and Evolution of Birds, presumably he did believe the birds have evolved; but from where then?
Evolutionary theory demands that each subsequent change provide a greater advantage at every stage.
This seems to me to be the key flaw in evolutionary theory. It’s easy enough to see the advantage of one species or feature over another. But evolutionary theory demands (no less forceful a word will do) that each individual (and tiny) development is advantageous.
It is not enough to say that the wing gives advantage over a limb. There must be advantage at each stage of putative ‘development’. This is the great stumbling block to the theory’s credibility. But it is no stumbling block to those predisposed to believe...
Scientific theories claim to have power to explain some observed system, if an exception to a theory is found then the theory is modified. This is standard approach in the scientific community when practising honest science. Likewise the following should also happen: multiple contradictions are found and the theory fails to not only explain the systems/specimens found but the there is no way the systems/specimens could occur if the theory is truth. Logical conclusion - the theory is false and does not need to be revised but scrapped.
There are two ways of looking at evidence that doesn’t appear to fit the theory. One is through Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift model. He makes clear that many seeming anomalies can be incorporated (‘modified’ as you put it) into a theory. Geocentrism is a classic example that looked at much of the same data as Heliocentrism and could ‘explain’ it. But there came a point when there was a straw that broke the camel’s back. Whenever this happens, says Kuhn, a paradigm shift, a Copernican revolution is needed that is a better fit for all the data. Evolution seems to be a camel that, for some, and perhaps an increasing number, has one too many straws on its back.
A second mode of analysis is Karl Popper’s falsification thesis. Darwin submitted a condition (or more?) that constituted the theoretical falsifiability of the theory as a whole. He must be applauded for this honesty and, at this point, scholarly integrity. What, I wonder, would have to be turned up for an evolutionist to give up belief in the theory?
If the evolutionist evades this question or is too vague then we can only conclude that he or she holds his or her belief in evolution by faith – despite the evidence. The other way of describing that state of affairs is ‘blind faith’.
At the very least, as Dawkins admits, the world appears to be designed. Could it be that that which talks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... whooah – we don’t want to go there! That “alternative is unthinkable".
BTW - thanks for the article Dave!
ReplyDelete"Evolutionary theory demands that each subsequent change provide a greater advantage at every stage."
ReplyDeleteThis is not necessarily true. If the change does not confer a disadvantage it can proliferate just as easily as the original. Even if it does show a disadvantage, it could still survive if linked to an advantageous trait.
An example of this is sickle cell anaemia. This trait is prevalent in african communities where malaria is present, as having one copy of the sickle cell anaemia gene confers malaria resistance.
As far as the avian example is concerned, there is evolutionary advantages to the start of a wing in surviving falls (like a glider), and I see no reason why the avian lung could not have evolved gradually, by becoming larger and gradually permeating the diaphragm (hey, the thing already has one hole in it).
Ultimately, just because we don't know the steps surrounding a change doesn't mean there wasn't one. Evolution does have some things that aren't explained yet, sure, every theory does. But there is nothing as yet that says it could not happen, or a theory (besides the supernatural) that explains it.
As the only objections to evolution theory as a whole (the 'it cant work' type objection)
I've ever heard come from creationists, I sense a competing agenda which comprimises their objectivity. If you have some from non-creationists I would love to hear them.
As the only objections to evolution theory as a whole (the 'it cant work' type objection)
ReplyDeleteI've ever heard come from creationists, I sense a competing agenda which comprimises their objectivity. If you have some from non-creationists I would love to hear them.
Read the article marty, that there are evolutionists arguing that the bird could not have evolved is the point. See following:
in the words of evolutionist Dr Michael Denton (in reference to evolution of the bird lung):
'I think it doesn't require a great deal of profound knowledge of biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we can't throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said, if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.'
For more information see his book:
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
by Michael Denton
He is an evolutionist and he can see that there is major (fatal in my opinion) flaws in the theory in the light of current scientific knowledge. So I would have to question if your quip applies to you then marty....
I sense a competing agenda which comprimises their objectivity....
I see no reason why the avian lung could not have evolved gradually, by becoming larger and gradually permeating the diaphragm (hey, the thing already has one hole in it).
ReplyDeleteTwo holes accually and both of them effectively sealed from the chest cavity by the organs that occupy them, but that is beside the point. The point is that the avian lung is a communicating series of sacs with the lung. The cases of diaphragmatic herniation that I referred to show what happens when you have a communicating sac or cavity in association with a billows style lung. The mechanical advantage of inward and outward breathing is lessened or in some cases stopped (read death)- this reduces the animal's ability to breath which is never an advantage as opposed to sickle cell anaemia which confers some advantage.
Even if it does show a disadvantage, it could still survive if linked to an advantageous trait.
There is no such thing as an advantage that comes with not being able to breath.
Fair enough point David, I'll have to find this Denton book.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree the theory has issues, I cannot help but see the evidence of it around me anyway. We can see evolution happening in organisms with faster generation rates (bacteria etc) continually.
Also, if an alternative theory that explains evidence is put forward, I would gladly consider its merits and throw away conventional evolution. We dont still teach Le-Markian evolution, do we? However, until such a theory comes to light, modifications and research should be done into the current one.
Also, on a little cursory googling, I have come across a quite interesting study about this topic I think you should have a look at - http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
ReplyDeleteSorry for the disrupted commenting, I'm fiddling around a bit and picking up bits here and there -
ReplyDelete"The earliest birds (Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines) also possessed unmodified septate lungs but lacked a hepatic-piston diaphragm mechanism. These data are consistent with an ectothermic status for theropod dinosaurs and early birds." from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5341/1267
I can't get the whole article (bane of my existence the need for subscription), but this tends to suggest that the diaphragm as it exists today was not present in the early therapods, and developed after the transition of the lungs to a follow through system.
Hmm, had a look at that abstract and like you I would appreciate further detail on the evidence they have of this. Especially in the light of Dr Alan Feduccia's comment that Archaeopteryx is a bird. I tend to think that the opinion of a world leader in ornothology has a lot of weight behind it.
ReplyDeleteWe can see evolution happening in organisms with faster generation rates (bacteria etc) continually.
I and others in the past have argued that the change seen thus far in bacteria is more consistent with adaptation than with evolution(ie Lenski's study on E.coli aerobically digesting citrate). As that is a point of some discussion still and neither side of the discussion have absolute confirmation of their assertion it has to remain as a 'could be' for both until further evidence comes to light.
On the other hand the laws of scientific theory as I said in the article raise a real problem for evolution with regard to birds. It is not me saying that evolution could not be true from this but rather this is an easily seen conclusion based on the evidence we have - production of the bird from 'prior' species is a physiological irrationality.
By the way I applaud your even-handed thought that research should be modified until further evidence comes to light. If only the don's of the universities could see that also. I haven't had time to read that article yet but will do thanks for the reference.
"I and others in the past have argued that the change seen thus far in bacteria is more consistent with adaptation than with evolution(ie Lenski's study on E.coli aerobically digesting citrate)"
ReplyDeleteWhile I am aware of such studies on bacterial metabolism and evolution/adapation I am not familiar with I have not read the primary sources, so please forgive me if I am way off the mark. However it appears to me that such "adaption" must in fact be caused by the accumulation of benefical mutations and under both creationist and evolutionist persceptives, makes this observed change an evolutionary change.
My reasoning is as follows, in order for such a change to occur through "adaption" (i.e no accumulation of benefical mutations)the E.coli population would have to already possess recessive genes encoding which were encoding for this beneficial adapation(e.g temperature resistance or antibiotic resistance). As the complete genome of E.coli has been mapped and the fact that these experiment utilise bacteria cloned from a single colony, such latent adaptitive genes shouldn't spontaneously arise ,especially in colonies incapable of transfering genetic infomation via conjugation
E.coli population would have to already possess recessive genes encoding which were encoding for this beneficial adapation
ReplyDeleteFirstly this is not a discussion re E.coli but rather a discussion about birds. In light of that I will be brief. As I said in the posts regarding citrate transport, the genetic material for the transport of citrate is already present in E.coli otherwise they would be unable to utilize it anaerobically. As the current model of evolution is the addition of genetic information (or complexity if you will) it is entirely possible that the change seen is merely modification of currently available genetic material.
Thus meaning E.coli have not evolved as is currently understood by science but rather adapted which is a distinct process. As there is no documented evidence linking the two processes and evolution even in the theory has huge issues (which is the topic of discussion), I would be tending to discount a possible evolutionary change (E.coli) due to an evolutionary impossibility (birds).
Rereading my previous post, I concede that I was not particularly articulate in my previous post so I will clarify my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that E.coli could of without the aid of a mutation. Granted a citrate metabolism mechanism was not suddenly created out stray dna, but was rather
mutation infomational.
Now how this relates to birds and evolution. This experimental observation of a gain of infomational mutations allows evolutionists a solid model for the how such large scale could of taken place. Now granted, it is true that far too many scientists are to ocavilier in pointing out supposed evolutionary lineages with little supporting data. I also believe that that fossil record is highly unreliable due to the fact that 99.99% of the Earth's prehistoric life was not fossilised. Taking this into account any proported links between fossiles remain is tenious at best, however so is refutation of the evolutionary theory based on fossil evidence. Much like in religion, evolutionist can pull out the unfalsible trump card claiming that "missing link" one of those millions of unfossilised creatures. While this is not particularly convincing or scientific, it may in fact be true.
However the model of infomational mutational gains that power evolution is shown in the Lenski E.coli experiments. Essentially attempting to discredit the various tenious links made been bird and reptile is without refuting the underlying mechanism of evolution ultimately fruitless as only the most rabid propents of evolution or those with an underlying agenda would even question that they can catergorically prove the evolutionary lineage of birds.
"I would be tending to discount a possible evolutionary change (E.coli) due to an evolutionary impossibility (birds)."
As the fossil record is such a weak proof , and simultaneously almost unfalsible, of evolution to discount a solid proof of the generation of infomational mutations due to gaps in an unfalsible argue is in my belief, illogical. I do realise that mutation in E.coli doesn't prove the entire theory of evolution, nor should it, but this evidence should not be ignore soley on the basis that evolutionist use it to propose tenoius relationships
Just quickly (for josh's sake).
ReplyDeleteDavid, I am suprised you brought up denton, however, that is fitting with your general ignorance for reality. If you are not aware, Denton has now moved away from his original thesis in 1985 which you quote. In his later book Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe in particular "[T]he second argument, developed in Part 2, that the cosmos is fit also for the evolutionary development of life". He is the Anthony Flew of creationism if you will, talk origins makes the interesting note in relation to his beliefs that:-
"Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the tree of life."
Of course, it is difficult for your side to be consistent given they project themselves from the point of faith and not evidence.
Nonetheless, I will quickly deal with the two rather weak and pointless objections which you hold to the current best theory of descent of dinosaurs to birds (which I note you would replace with just having a creator god for which you have no evidence, who created these beings in a manner for which you have no evidence, on the basis of a book that itself has no evidence - are you beginning to see the pattern).
Feathers
Let me begin by noting that lizards are not dinosaurs and vice versa. So far as I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong), but the scales shown are from cold blooded lizards. You have misrepresented some of the evolutionary theory behind transition from lizards through dinosaur and to bird in this way. What you haven't noted is that lizard scales, beaks and claws and bird feathers and beaks all consist of β-keratins as opposed to the chemical nature of mammalian keratin, being α-keratins. So from the beginning we have identical chemical composition. However, you misrepresent the chemical composition by making references to phi-keratins and displacing all mention of beta-keratins in feathers (Here is where the National Library of Medicine (US) disagrees with your thesis:- http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2008/MB_cgi?mode=&term=beta-Keratins).
The second thing to note regarding the arguments raised by Feduccia and which have not been adequately relayed by you in relation to the development of certain structures in feathers from scales, we must note that Feduccia's thesis is that birds evolved from earlier dinosaurs, archaosaurs, his conclusions are not that such changes preclude the descent from dinosaurs at all.
But is there anything wrong with a little debate as to whether morphology results from archaosaurs or theropods, no. The resounding opinion of the scientific community remains with theropods, but that is only from a fossil record that does not provide us with a specimen of every single animal that walked the planet.
However, the truly objectionable part of your concern over feather morphology is that you are saying it could not have happened. In fact, the follicle and blood vessels of a scale are perfectly suitable for transition to a feather, the webbing from the follicle is something that we can easily account for if the selection pressure was in favour of either insulation or drag (ground and tree based organism theories of feather evolution - Albeit, Brush and Prum would suppose that aerodynamic origins are not likely although insulation, etc remain plausible The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 2002, vol. 77, no. 3).
None of the sources you put forward discount evolution from dinosaurs, only debate the dinosaurs from which birds evolved. You have also misrepresented facts in favour of your side of the argument. I do not know whether you have been mislead by creationists or whether the misleading is your own intention - nonetheless, this type of deception is plain wrong.
In fact, we can put your claims down to being an untestable gestalt impression laden with assumptions about how evolution must work and very little understanding of how it could work. You seem to be jumping off the cliff of mount improbable and not seeing the gradations available on the other side. Why though? to support your belief in God? Interesting that you have become contaminated with this noxious poison and still think you are telling the truth.
Lungs
I feel privileged to bring you up to date with modern information, including these sources:-
O'Connor, P.M. and Claessens, L.P.A.M. (2005). Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Nature 436:253.
Paul C. Sereno, Ricardo N. Martinez, Jeffrey A. Wilson, David J. Varricchio, Oscar A. Alcober, Hans C. E. Larsson (2008). "Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina". PLoS ONE 3 (9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003303.
As you will see, there is now significant evidence that the lungs of theropod dinosaurs (carnivores that walked on two legs and had birdlike feet) likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds. "What was once formally considered unique to birds was present in some form in the ancestors of birds" per O'Connor (above).
"Ventilatory air sacs, unfortunately, are the least likely to leave evidence of their presence in skeletal bone. Paleontologists and comparative anatomists, as a result, have focused on axial pneumaticity, and opinion has split as to the meaning of observed patterns. In extant birds, pneumatic invasion by cervical air sacs is usually restricted to the cervical and anterior thoracic vertebrae and their respective ribs [1], [16]–[22]. The posterior thoracic, synsacral, and caudal vertebrae, in contrast, are pneumatized by diverticulae extending directly from the lung or from abdominal air sacs [1], [16], [19], [21], [22]. Some authors have concluded, therefore, that the lung and abdominal air sacs must also be responsible for pneumaticity in the posterior half of the axial column in nonavian dinosaurs and, on this basis, have packed the thoracic cavity of theropods with a full complement of avian ventilatory air sacs [33]. An opposing view is that the continuous series of pleurocoels observed in many nonavian dinosaurs suggests that the nonventilatory, paraxial cervical air sacs extended posteriorly along the column."
IE, late dinosaurs have same lung morphology as modern birds. There are pictures in that article too, if you need to see them.
Conclusion
You have falsely appealed to academic authority, misrepresented those academic views and misstated relevant facts to this debate. You have tried to baffle us with scientific bullshit which has no actual value. I strongly suggest that you take your mistaken beliefs and show them to a real scientist, who will I am sure, have even less trouble showing your academic dishonesty (or deception, I am truly not sure whether you understand the nature of these charges and I strongly suspect that you have been mislead, but you ought to know better).
Another poor effort.
The end of the quote you made from "Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina" by Paul C. Sereno, et al
ReplyDeleteAn opposing view is that the continuous series of pleurocoels observed in many nonavian dinosaurs suggests that the nonventilatory, paraxial cervical air sacs extended posteriorly along the column.
We are inclined to support the latter...
IE you are lying Alex - the paper points to evidence of non-respiratory invation of the bone of these dinosaurs. Not as you are trying to say an abdominal repiratory set of air sacs.
Tut Tut that was very dishonest!
However, the truly objectionable part of your concern over feather morphology... The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 2002, vol. 77, no. 3).
ReplyDeleteI've had a brief read of the above article and there are a few points that I want to bring out from their research that do not address my concerns.
Firstly the evidence used by Brush and Prum to support the thought that feathers could come from scales is that avian scales can be induced to produce feather like structures embrionically. Circular reasoning - of course a bird will be able to produce feathers! To assume that this points to dinosaurs producing feathers from scales is tenuous at best.
Secondly the list of fossil finds that Brush and Prum refer to as supporting their scale to feather theory I have already refered to in the article as being largely discredited.
Lastly the evolution of flight feathers from downy feathers cannot be taken away by assuming that it happened. If as these men suggest the feather began as down the point regarding selection presure away from flight and towards insulation stands. Flight feathers never would have gotten off the ground as such.
So this article does not help you Alex but the issues I raised remain.
So far as I can tell, but the scales shown are from cold blooded lizards. You have misrepresented some of the evolutionary theory behind transition from lizards through dinosaur and to bird in this way.
Just for the record there is no misrepresentation. I pictured the scales of a cold blooded lizard to illustrate a point and unless you can come up with a scanning micrograph of extinct dinosaurian scales it will have to do.
If you are not aware, Denton has now moved away from his original thesis in 1985 which you quote. In his later book Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe
ReplyDeleteHeh heh, do you always go to wikipedia as your source of information? The writers of that web page are commited evolutionists and their comments reflect that. Denton has moved away from creationism and towards a "anthropocentric faith" that is true but at the same time he in the second book slams the idea that the natural world is caused by random darwian evolution. His prior points are not retracted by his second book but rather confirmed. A quote for you from his conclusion:
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology – that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact. Four centuries after the scientific revolution apparently destroyed irretrievably man’s special place in the universe, banished Aristotle, and rendered teleological speculation obsolete, the relentless stream of discovery has turned dramatically in favor of teleology and design, and the doctrine of the microcosm is reborn. As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millennium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished, - the ‘defender of the anthropocentric faith.’"
None of the sources you put forward discount evolution from dinosaurs, only debate the dinosaurs from which birds evolved.
ReplyDeleteThe good doctors I put forward argue regarding the way that evolution of the bird happened very true. My point wasn't that they say it is impossible for evolution of the bird to happen but rather that each group points to the other's theory and says it is impossible for some of the reasons I have listed and some I have not. The issue is that no evolutionary theory propounded removes the issues in the article yet the creative design paradim does so Okham's razor applies - why go for the convoluted and disputed when there is a plain direct explanation? Reason: you choose not to because of the implications for your worldview.
So Alex my two "weak and pointless objections" still stand despite your dishonesty, ad hominem and vitriol.
David:
ReplyDeleteIE you are lying Alex - the paper points to evidence of non-respiratory invation of the bone of these dinosaurs. Not as you are trying to say an abdominal repiratory set of air sacs.
Tut Tut that was very dishonest!
I suspect you should then read the rest of their article where they describe Aerosteon as having lung and pulmonary systems similar to birds. Again, I read the article and not just the abstract (albeit, I do note that you have covered yourself in that regard).
Regarding the feathers, most of those points are simply your own incredulity, not an actual difficulty with evolution. But I do note:-
If as these men suggest the feather began as down the point regarding selection presure away from flight and towards insulation stands. Flight feathers never would have gotten off the ground as such.
Misses out on the larger picture supposed by modern scientists. Down and lung development both were in aid of a large animal evolving towards a thermoregulatory role which decreased their size and may have lead to an arboreal existence (as you are aware, alternative theories abound on this point). Xu X, Zhou Z-H, Prum RO (2001) Branched integumentary structures in Sinornithosaurus and the origin of feathers. Nature 410: 200–204.
Just for the record there is no misrepresentation. I pictured the scales of a cold blooded lizard to illustrate a point and unless you can come up with a scanning micrograph of extinct dinosaurian scales it will have to do.
Replacing 100 million years of evolution with scales which diverged at least 400 million years ago - you can see my point. At least you can point out that any suggestion based on how the skin samples appear will not relate to dinosaur-bird evolution.
Okham's razor applies - why go for the convoluted and disputed when there is a plain direct explanation
ReplyDeleteLaughable. You think ockham's razor will favour an infinitely complex god that creates the universe without any distinguishable method over considering the possibility that the exact ancestors of birds were not fossilised (or that those fossils are yet to be discovered).
The reason why science does not turn to god is because it is the most complex answer to the questions - thus, it always loses on ockham's razor. Or were you unaware of that on your worldview?
I suspect you should then read the rest of their article where they describe Aerosteon as having lung and pulmonary systems similar to birds.
ReplyDeleteHmm, even if that opinion is given (ie that certain dinosaurs had respiration like birds, and that is far from proven) you still have the same issue that I raised only further back in the line of changes. Moving things further back in the past don't remove the paucity of explanatory power in evolution for the existance of bird lungs.
Regarding the feathers, most of those points are simply your own incredulity, not an actual difficulty with evolution
It is not incredulity to disagree with circular reasoning or poor evidence used as argumentation. You may dislike this but it changes little and refutes nothing I have said.
Misses out on the larger picture supposed by modern scientists. Down and lung development both were in aid of a large animal evolving towards a thermoregulatory role which decreased their size and may have lead to an arboreal existence
Where they climb trees and float back down to the ground on the wings they got from the magical evolutionary fairy? Sorry, theory. Theory is one thing but as I said there are more issues than theory. Again even if that thought is given you still have the negative selection away from the loss of insulation flight feathers represents.
Laughable. You think ockham's razor will favour an infinitely complex god that creates the universe
As A. Plantiga sucessfully argued in one of our recent posts, God is not complex but rather simple in the same way mind is. Thus an infinite simple God is infinitely more preferable to an unsupported increasingly complex and contradictory theory.
Marty said... Also, on a little cursory googling, I have come across a quite interesting study about this topic I think you should have a look at - http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
ReplyDeleteCASE said... Regarding the feathers, most of those points are simply your own incredulity, not an actual difficulty with evolution.
You both have raised the point of personal incredulity being Dr Carl Weiland and my argument. I made clear in the article that my objections are due to know medical conditions. The objective evidence we have available that confirms that forming a stoma (hole) in the diaphragm is not advantageous. There is little point in arguing about "flow-through" mechanisms when it is plain from current field studies that a communicating sac with the pleural space is problematic (causing sickness or death).
And I will add this is not the half of it, if you then procede to open the lung also (as would be suggested by evolutionists in the above article as the first step towards bird respiration) you have a dead animal rather than a sick one. Diaphragmatic herniation and Lung rupture form the basis of my objection to weather the bird lung could happen via evolution.
Alex a few quotes from your article quoted re Aerosteon...
ReplyDelete"Tracking pneumatic patterns in the fossil record is complicated by the one-sided nature of outgroup comparison, which is restricted to birds among extant vertebrates, and the ambiguous meaning of the absence of a soft structure that only sometimes leaves an osteological imprint. What we can sketch is the most probable minimal distribution of these soft structures and how they might have changed."
"Aerosteon currently provides the best evidence for intra- and extrathoracic air sacs... As discussed above, we and others regard the relatively continuous pneumatic sculpting in the posterior axial column of nonavian dinosaurs as ambiguous evidence for abdominal air sacs. We anticipate that evidence from appendicular bones for these additional air sacs will be discovered in other species, and that this distribution may eventually encompass most theropods."
"Two general models have been proposed for lung ventilation in nonavian dinosaurs. The first infers the presence of compliant lungs with crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation, based in part on stained areas in two theropod skeletons purported to represent a diaphragm separating thoracic and abdominal cavities. The stains and their interpretations have been contested... A second model infers avianlike flow-through lung ventilation with a rigid dorsally-attached lung and compliant air sacs. This hypothesis is based mainly on the morphology of the ribcage and on pneumatic sculpting in the axial column attributable to air sacs."
"Based on the osteological correlates we have assembled (Table 4), we would argue, first, that until we can show evidence of the presence of at least one avian ventilatory air sac (besides the non-ventilatory cervical air sac), it is problematic to infer the presence of flow-through ventilation or a rigid, dorsally-attached lung. Second, we know of no osteological correlates in the gastral cuirass that would justify the inference of abdominal air sacs."
So your quoted research that "refutes" what I am putting forward is no-where near as certain as you claim. We have a "complicated" system and "ambiguous evidence" at best and at worst you have a paper say that until more evidence arrives it is problematic and unjustified to infer abdominal air sacs in this dinosaur let alone avian respiration!
So as the evidence is as yet ambiguous it isn't relevant? This is a case where anything that suggests how it might have happened is close enough. For it to be unevolvable, they have to have no idea how it happened. There is no possibility of finding fossil evidence that will be conclusive, as the frail lung tissue will not fossilise.
ReplyDeleteAs to what appears to be your main argument regarding diaphramattic tearing or a similar phenomenon, there is no reason that the diaphragm had to exist as it does now, it could have changed significantly (and one of my earlier posts did in fact site a transition where there was a change diaphragm).
My main purpose for this post however is that even if it can't be shown exactly how it came about, even a theory as to how it might have kinda makes your point in this article irrelevant.
So as the evidence is as yet ambiguous it isn't relevant? This is a case where anything that suggests how it might have happened is close enough.
ReplyDeleteNot quite marty, as I outlined in the article the fact that these changes are found in theropods does not mean that avian evolution is proved by any means. One explanation is that this could represent lightening of a bipedal dinosaur the other is that this represents flow through respiration (as opposed to Alex's this is definitely flow through resp). Even if the latter is the case evolutionary theory is still very much lacking on this evidence, because there is still no explanation how these dinosaurs developed the flow through respiration. As to your latter point on respiration and the diaphragm...
there is no reason that the diaphragm had to exist as it does now, it could have changed significantly
I in no way think that all groups of vertebrates other than aves breath with a diaphragm - snakes and lizards and turtles use all sorts of variable methods. My point in the article is that they all use a bellows style respiration. The issue with formation of lung sacs communicating with the lung and plueral space is that if they are able to expand also they destroy the mechanical advantage of the "bellows" (ask an engineer if a bellows will work with a hole in it). The whole point of refering to herias/tears is that it illustrates the point.
BTW saying something could happen and thus must be is very poor reasoning, especially when there is significant evidence that lets the theory down.
Just a further note:
ReplyDeleteone of my earlier posts did in fact site a transition where there was a change diaphragm
The animal you refered to was Archaeopteryx and in the words of Dr A Feduccia an evolutionist and ornithologist
'Palaeontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.'
So no that does not stack up as a viable example of transition.
Sorry for the string of responses, I'm limited by the time I can put into each.
ReplyDeleteFor it to be unevolvable, they have to have no idea how it happened.
No, for as system to be unevolvable there must be evidence that it is not possible for incrimental change to produce the system. There is evidence of this in both feathers and the bird lung. That is the point of this article.
My main purpose for this post however is that even if it can't be shown exactly how it came about, even a theory as to how it might have kinda makes your point in this article irrelevant.
Yes evolutionary theory does come up with some interesting pictures and progressions. The issue you have missed is that these theories are contradicted internally by what objective science tells us about the bird. The whole point of scientific exploration of a subject is to compare hypothoses and select the most viable. My point is that the evolutionary theory is fatally flawed with regard to the bird and the creative design scheme more than sufficiently explains the bird.
Rather than tackle all of the on-going posts, due to their number, I think I will simple make a few dot points to re-invigorate the discussion:-
ReplyDelete1. The body of scientific knowledge derived from the fossil record does point to avian evolution from theropods, the arguments in this field relate solely to the exact manner in which this evolution took place.
This is accepted by you where you state:-
My point wasn't that they say it is impossible for evolution of the bird to happen but rather that each group points to the other's theory and says it is impossible for some of the reasons I have listed and some I have not.
2. We do not have a complete fossil record. That is, we only have brief glimpses into the relevant period (which probably spanned a hundred million years). Furthermore, the fossils that we do have do not, generally, show soft tissue such as lungs and feathers (is there any wonder why these are the things argued about?).
Clearly, without such fossil records, we are working on inferences and theories. Things which do not have the same level of certainty as having a time machine with which to capture actual specimens.
3. There is an assumption here that unless a theorpod can be shown to have flow-through lungs then it could not have evolved into a bird. Obviously, without every single fossil of theropods in the relevant time, that objection cannot stand.
In fact, I would be more suprised to see a theropod with a complete working avian lung system anywhere close in chronological terms to other theropods with standard pulminory systems.
4. In a related point, the Aerosteon example has been raised to show that there are theropods with similar lungs to birds. The problem is that we are comparing a rib cage in a fossil and trying to determine how its lungs worked. Aerosteon is clearly different to other theropod pulmonary systems and the only thing that it appears to be moving towards is avian lung structure. That is, they have one air sac at the base which can be found, but they cannot infer from skeletal structure, the presence of the second to allow for avian "flow through" lungs:-
we know of no osteological correlates in the gastral cuirass that would justify the inference of abdominal air sacs
Thus, the problem is that they do not have the neccesary soft tissue to state that this was an avian lung in a theropod. They cannot say definitively, one way or another.
5. The argument that forming a hole in the diaphragm will cause death does not account for the actual operation of evolution. Sure, put a hole in the diaphragm of an animal that breathes with a respiratory system like ours and it will die. But that does not mean that thousands of generations of variations and mutations will not result in one. In order for that argument to work, then you would have to show that every single possible transition (over thousands of generations) between one respritory system to the other will be fatal. We know that both are workable. Again, you are incredulous that there could be any transition which would suffice. My point regarding incredulity actually stands.
6. As A. Plantiga sucessfully argued in one of our recent posts, God is not complex but rather simple in the same way mind is. Thus an infinite simple God is infinitely more preferable to an unsupported increasingly complex and contradictory theory.
The most simple thing is nothingness (infinitely simple? Huh?). If you believe the mind of God is nothingness then I agree. (Of course, I don't believe in God because your very definition is something more than nothing - which you seem to be abandoning). On the other hand, if you consider the mind of God is anything greater than nothing then ockhams razor will slice it away.
Firstly Alex your initial two points are contradictory, firstly you begin by appealing to the certainty of scientists that evolution was responsible for birds. Then amusingly you appeal to the uncertainty of the fossil record: 'Clearly, without such fossil records, we are working on inferences and theories.'.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these supposedly mean that we cannot question that it is evolution that produced birds because 'scientists say so' and cannot get rid of uncertainty about what they say because the fossil record is in complete. Bravo that is your best dance step yet!
There is an assumption here that unless a theorpod can be shown to have flow-through lungs then it could not have evolved into a bird.....In a related point, the Aerosteon example has been raised to show that there are theropods with similar lungs to birds.
You have missed the point entirely Alex, I raised the problems with assuming Aerosteon had avian lungs to show that there is uncertainty regarding the evidence your theories rest on. You brought this and the other reference to a fossilised 'dino-bird' forward as definite evidence of evolution, which it definitely is not. Secondly the primary issue I raised with fossilised forms with pnuematic invation is that even if they had flow through lungs it in no way confirms your assertion that they were a mid-point on the way to birds. You stil have the theoretical issue of how they could have evolved you've just put it back a couple of years.
In order for that argument to work, then you would have to show that every single possible transition... between one respritory system to the other will be fatal. We know that both are workable....My point regarding incredulity actually stands.
Wrong again Alex, for my arguement to work I only need to prove that the first step need be fatal (really I only need to proove that it is a disadvantage). The process of evolution of bird lungs never would have even theoretically started because the first offspring with the first mutation in your fairy tale progression would have died. End of story.
On the other hand, if you consider the mind of God is anything greater than nothing then ockhams razor will slice it away.
Let me get this straight Alex... are you telling me that the theory of and mechanism of evolution is equivalent with nothing? :)
Incidentally you miss quoted (bad habit you have I've found), I said that God who is infinite and simple (just like mind see Plantiga discussion) is preferable to evolution.
When your theory is contradictory (the existance of an impossible form - birds) ockham's razor works the other way. God is rational as an explanation for how the world is, when confronted with birds evolution is not rational but revealed as it is - fantasy.
On the topic of feathers, this is another one for all readers:
ReplyDeleteThe Peacock eye patterned tail feather is another evolutionary anomoly. Comprised of millions of microscopic squares of intricate design to produce the necessary colours of the eye, this feather is an amazing piece of art.
Each square is irridecent due to micrometer thick clear keratin layers and colour is closely related to thickness of the layers. The eye design is an exact geometric shape that is produced with micrometer exactness.
Most evolutionists are baffled by the peacock tail feather and usually mutter something vague regarding sexual selection (a theory rife with difficulties). On the other hand the creation model explains this feather easily, ie that God brought this beautiful thing into the world by deliberate planned and orchestrated design and uses it for both the enjoyment of man and the glory of His name.
hi
ReplyDeletejust skim reading and thought i should correct this mis-understanding of evolution by david gee
"Wrong again Alex, for my argument to work I only need to prove that the first step need be fatal (really I only need to prove that it is a disadvantage)."
No, you have to prove it would be fatal because even if the the first step is disadvantageous, if the genes that cause the disadvantageous step are linked to genes that are a bigger advantage then it may be passed on. Which of course, allows the evolutionary process to happen to the disadvantageous genes which may over time make the disadvantage into something that is an advantage.
As for
"The process of evolution of bird lungs never would have even theoretically started because the first offspring with the first mutation in your fairy tale progression would have died. End of story."
Saying this is just silly, We don't know what the first step is, it may be something almost unrelated to the lung, for example a body shape modification that allowed more room in chest cavity, which allow the lung room to evove a secondary sac which allow the lung to etc (i know the above pure speculation but i hope it shows my point)
i hope i've been helpful
gothicbob
Perhaps I need to clarify what I was refering to...
ReplyDeleteI am refering to the central/essential components of respiration. IE the movement away from a billows lung to a birdlike respiration. The reason your objection fails Gothibob is twofold. First you seem to think (like many evolutionary faithful) that becuase it is possible to enlarge the chest (make the system bigger) then the rest of the changes needed for your proposition follow, this is faulty reasoning, rather you need to show the progression happening to the essential components not the peripheral. Secondly you fail to grasp the severity of the disadvantage this change would entail.
As I have made clear several times, the creation of a sac from the pleural cavity (the "space" around the lung) is a major problem for animals medically speaking. In the wild these animals are so unwell that they would be killed by predators at an extremely young age, thus not pass on their genes and thus the evolutionary line stops before it has started. On the other hand if the lung and the plueral cavity communicated with your theoretical sac then you have instantaneous death due to the animal never being able to inflate it's lungs at all. Needless to say they would not breed!
Your arguement that these animals could continue to live well and "fitly" if there is a sufficient advantage is likewise flawed. These animals are lacking one of the two essentials of vertebrate life (oxygen and fuel to burn) - a major disadvantage! If you can find some evidence of an animal symultaneously evolving a change in lung structure and massive reduction in requirement for oxygen then get back to me, otherwise all the evidence contradicts your thought.
Really your comments are reflected in your own admition below.
i know the above pure speculation but i hope it shows my point
This is to continue from CASE's comments on the Heaven and Hell article.
ReplyDeleteThese thoughts are far from complete but I've no more time right now and I wont be online again until after Christmas, family commitments, I'm sure you understand that Alex.
Rhyniognatha hirsti - Devonian species
Ha! I don’t know why you raise this one, it is a flying insect (pterygota means “winged” in laymans terms, apterygota means “wingless”) and in fact is believed to be one of the oldest fossilised insects on record. This specimen raise huge problems for evolution of insects, as Perkins put it:
‘A diverse assemblage of winged insects appears suddenly in the fossil record about 330 million years ago, and there are few clues about their evolutionary lineage…. If Rhyniognatha had wings, the evolutionary origin of those features probably occurred at least 20 million years earlier, says Conrad C. Labandeira of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.’
Perkins, S., Early flight? Science News 165: 100, 2004.
Now if what Perkins is saying is correct then we can extrapolate certain facts back in evolutionary time. If flight evolved at least 20myr earlier (Silurian/Early Devonian), then the evolution of insecst likewise is pushed back further into the past. Lets be kind to you and say 100myr for such a complex creature, thus making it the Ordovian when they arrose. Now if that is the case you have plant dependent animals colonising land at a time when there was supposed to be only basic algae on land and worse still there is few clues and no fossils about to support this hypothosis.
I assume you are referring to Phthirapter Amblycera and Ischnocera
Yes Alex to them, and by the look of your response you have pulled your old and largely useless trick of lots of big words and wind and not much said. Aside from saying there is an exception to the rule (supposedly proving your case???) and that evolutionists think they must have parasitised dino’s with feathers. Seeing your case for dino’s with feathers is largely conjecture I will again say. What about lice then?
PS – Re: cambrian lice - I misread the article I was looking at, appologies everyone those comments were in error. Thank you for pointing out that one.
There is no pre-supposition behind evolution that there is no God. Rather, like all science, it simply leaves the matter silent and continues with its study
Whatever its beginings as a theory, evolution has now become a system that claims to explain all spheres of life. Its presuppositions are made clear by the comments of Richard Dawkins (your current high priest and most zealous evangelist) in the blind watchmaker to the effect that to do evolutionary science you must actively ignore the appearance of design in the world. There is also this damning comment by Michael Ruse:
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ Michael Ruse
So yes you are following a religion and yes evolution taught in schools is deceptively bringing in the faith of atheism with it. Science is part of it but not all of it, at least be honest and admit your presupossions.
I suggest that you get down to your local library and read some of these materials.
Alex I was reading the university level books above these in my zoology/ecology degree when you probably were getting drunk with your law buddies. The pat answers and big childish pictures with no solid science to back the big equally childish claims are as lacking now as they were then.
And BTW what is reflected in you with regard to your desperate attempts to disprove God is clearly described by Him in Romans chapter 1-3, have a read some time.
While it may be a 'ideology' etc to some scientists, there are still many christians who believe it, and many people such as myself who consider it a theory, nothing more, and would be swayed by evidence to the contrary. However I have extreme trouble with the evidence being purely fossil in nature, as this record has flaws inherent to it (the organism must be fossilised in the 1st place, then found by the right ppl).
ReplyDeleteI have not yet come across a situation in lab or theory genetically or by population dynamics, that is problematic to evolution and helpful to ID.
In fact, the point I have the most problem with, is that there is no viable opposing theory. The best way to displace a theory that is wrong is to put forward the correct one, but as yet no-one has expounded a theory that explains the evidence as well.
(I'd like to reiterate on this thread my distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, I'm fine with ID that only starts there.)
David
ReplyDelete1. Your presupposition is hanging out (lol - I love that) Rhyniognatha hirsti fossils do not show wings - rather, Rhyniognatha hirsti have very similar mandible and thorax of pterygota, however, Michael Engels who wrote the initial paper on the fossil does confirm there is no evidence for wings in the fossil and the similar anatomical features is what we would expect from the transitional form (or missing link) to later pterygota.
Engels also noted in his paper that Archaeognath and Zygentoma are also good candidates for transition into pterygota.
Furthermore, I see no problem for evolution of pterygota or any other basal insect forms during the Silurian.
2. Regarding the lice - I am fully satisfied with the dinosaur feather and lice interaction hypothesis at present. The fossil evidence would appear to support the hypothesis given the evolution of the feathers and lice are said to appear at the same time (being millions of years ago). To this extent, I do not see you presenting any actual challenge.
On the other hand, there is something that I have been mulling over for some time. You speak of Silurian, Devonian, Jurrasic and Cretacious as though you accept those time frames, being in the millions of years, and yet your own bible (if taken literally) would indicate a passage of less than 10,000 years between "creation" and today - how is that possible? Do you accept that fossil evidence proves the old age of the earth and accordingly not accept the literal statements in the Bible? or are you simply feigning belief that the earth is old? in which case, there is no point discussing the science with you. For, if you will not accept a relatively simple fact from the fossil record, then how can we accept any evidence from you with respect to any matters in the fossil record?
Im sure it must have been painful to you while you were looking through all those biology textbooks and taking all those uni-level tests to have lied about evolution, etc. Did you express the truth of your views in those tests or are there some sins that you can arbitrarily wipe away?
3. Evolution is not a religion. In Commissioner of Pay-Roll taxation v Church of the New Faith, the High Court set out the exhaustive definition of religion used in this country - being 1. belief in the supernatural and 2. customs or tradition based on those beliefs. Evolution (and atheism consequently) actively dismisses belief in the supernatural and accordingly is not a religion (albeit, if you can prove that they are religions then we can get some of the same tax-exempt status, which wouldn't be a bad thing for us anyway).
4. A lawyer does not get drunk - he reasonably assess the amount that he has consumed, determines his likely exposure to liability of a hangover and acts accordingly.
Rhyniognatha hirsti fossils do not show wings - rather, Rhyniognatha hirsti have very similar mandible and thorax of pterygota
ReplyDeleteNow here is a classic case of inductive reasoning! We have an insect that has marks of a flying winged insect but the fossil itself lacks the actual wings. So what does the evolutionist do? Rather than say what is the simplest explanation for this (ie that it is actually a winged insect) they claim because it is found lower in the geological column it must therefore be a precursor to winged insects. Well done Alex, that is almost as willfully blind as Richard Dawkin's comment in the blind watchmaker.
Please tell us why this must be a transitional form or at very least why it cannot be a fully formed winged insect. Asside from the conjectural geological column.
I am fully satisfied with the dinosaur feather and lice interaction hypothesis at present
Of course you are! That doesn't prove any thing for your case and infact in light of your obvious blindness I insist that you bring up something solid to support your certainty. Something you consistently refuse to do Alex, the list of unresolved issues I have with you is getting quite long.
1. belief in the supernatural and 2. customs or tradition based on those beliefs
It would be better said that religions hold to a belief regarding the supernatural. The atheistic faith certainly has beliefs regarding the supernatural and has customs and traditions based on those beliefs. Like empirical science is the measure of all truth for example. Try again Alex, dictionary logic is very poor.
Do you accept that fossil evidence proves the old age of the earth and accordingly not accept the literal statements in the Bible?
Don't play dumb Alex, I quote your perspective to highlight the errors in the theory of evolution. If you think this is a valid objection, do you then hold that therefore the bible is true? Seeing you love to quote it out of context. No, of course not. Like I said don't play dumb.
As for the geological column and dating methods, the geological column is reliant on radiometric dating. Firstly there is large amounts of C14 that has been found in diamonds (and don't bother with the contamination arguement - you cannot contaminate a diamond). This would put an absolute upper limit on these "ancient" rocks at 50-60 thousand years. As they are much more "ancient" than any fossil you would need to move their ages accordingly (if you want to be honest). Secondly there is evidence that radiometric decay is not consistent over time. Also as there is significantly more helium found in "pre-cambrian" zircons than the available time and defusion rates would dictate then there needs to be a re-assessment of dating methods. The available data (done in the RATE project) points to "precambrian" rock being approximately 6-10 thousand years old. As there has been no science to refute this it currently stands as a condemnation of the blindness of old earthers like yourself.
Until support for evolutionary scoffing comes to light there is a major set of problems for the dating of the "geological timescale".
Did you express the truth of your views in those tests or are there some sins that you can arbitrarily wipe away?
In my first year I didn't have much scope for expressing my views. Multiple choice exams are just like that I'm afraid. As for my second year, that is when the problems arrose. I clashed with my tutors and fellow students and was increasingly finding that my view was automatically discounted, before any examination of what science supported/contradicted it. It was durring this time that I transfered to veterinary science.
A lawyer does not get drunk
Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify it.
The best way to displace a theory that is wrong is to put forward the correct one, but as yet no-one has expounded a theory that explains the evidence as well.
ReplyDeleteMarty, as is all too clear from folks like Alex and Richard Dawkins. There is a vested interest to ensure evolution and not ID remains the dominant theory in many major and minor power holders in the evolutionary scientific community. That is why I encourage people to examine the science behind the conclusions and see if they stack up. I point to problems in the evolutionary worldview because they are largely swept under the carpet by evolutionists.
As for ID theory having proof, I would argue that from almost any set of data that the evolutionist points to there is a valid explanation within ID theory. This includes the plethora of fossils and the genetic code. For example do you know that the so called endogenous retrovirus' in human DNA and junk DNA are increasingly being recognised as components actively involved in the internal regulation of DNA expression. ID theory would point to a designer, evolution on the otherhand has little scope to explain internal regulation in this highly complex molecule.
Likewise there is many practical outworkings of evolution that don't stack up. For example what evoutionary explanation is there for african shrikes singing antiphonally (one note per singer sequentially) in quartets? ID theory would point to deliberate design to produce these effects. Likewise there is the question of how does randome mutation produce the peacock's tail - not just the vagueries of "it happened to attract a mate" - how?
If you are genuinely interested to know more message me and I will forward to you further information to chew on.
I am interested in this, and would like to hear the ID stance on genetics. Your point about transposons (the retroviral DNA etc) is all very well, but you seem to leap straight to the complex without dealing with the simple issues within your own theory 1st.
ReplyDelete1) How do you get the rapid speciation from the biblical kinds?
2) How do you get multiple alleles (up to 19 at a single locus in humans) within a biblical timeframe?
I'm trying to get my head around the big stuff in ID before I start nitpicking. You seem like a smart, reasonable and logical guy, I'm sure these questions have occured to you. Feel free to go into decent scientific detail if you have the time, I'm starting 3rd year science this year so have a decent grounding.
Marty, as is all too clear from folks like Alex and Richard Dawkins. There is a vested interest to ensure evolution and not ID remains the dominant theory in many major and minor power holders in the evolutionary scientific community.
ReplyDeleteThis is just blatant paranoia. I have come to the conclusions that I have from observing the evidence without presuppositions. I have arrived at the point that there is no God evidenced in the universe or required for the universe to exist and operate. Further, I have concluded that the nature of time and the universe generally is not conducive to an initiating intelligent agent. However, I do not argue the science because of those beliefs, rather, I hold those beliefs because of the science.
I am sick of having to deal with your paranoia - Darwinism is not the atheist attempt to replace your religion. You can keep your silly beliefs if you choose to, no-one is taking that away from you. Its just that we want to study science in science class and leave the religion at the door. Your faith is no longer relevant to the majority of people in Australia or around the world - get over it.
Marty:
ReplyDelete1) How do you get the rapid speciation from the biblical kinds?
I think if you look at the different studies out there when it comes to modification of what we currently view as a species you will find your answer for this one. E.coli for example showed in the recent "Cit+" study that the population would rapidly modify various types of gene expression and coding (without addition of information we would argue), likewise you can see over a relatively short period of time the dog species has become emensely modified. This type of modification of a kind has been evidenced in the time scale of recorded history and so I would argue that likewise modification of a "kind" without addition of genetic information (note re kind: a theological term rather than a distinct scientific one - people smarter than me are trying to define it further)
2) How do you get multiple alleles (up to 19 at a single locus in humans) within a biblical timeframe?
My genetic biochemistry knowledge is somewhat rusty so feel free to correct if ness. What is wrong with the human species begining with all these alleles rather than them developing over time?
I think if you look at the different studies out there when it comes to modification of what we currently view as a species you will find your answer for this one. E.coli for example showed in the recent "Cit+" study that the population would rapidly modify various types of gene expression and coding (without addition of information we would argue), likewise you can see over a relatively short period of time the dog species has become emensely modified.
ReplyDeleteWait a second, the speciation for Cit+ e.coli took 35000 generations which is only 20 years for e.coli, but for speciation from a wolf to a dog that would be around 100,000 years - something longer than the suggested geneaologies from the Bible. (In any event, variation within the dog genome, once mutation to the dog genome occured, is not the same as the Cit+ type genetic change).
Wait a second, the speciation for Cit+ e.coli took 35000 generations which is only 20 years for e.coli
ReplyDeleteYou've missed the point - again. I was refering to the rapid adaptive change that occured in the E.coli populations durring the study and not the Cit+ change. Incidentally the inference that the Cit+ change is information additive is conjecture only.
This is just blatant paranoia. I have come to the conclusions that I have from observing the evidence without presuppositions
Only the wildly arrogant or delusional claim that they come to their possition free of any presuppositions Alex. How sad for you if you cannot see that your upbringing, genetics and education have had an effect on what you hold true (and thus how you do science).
You can keep your silly beliefs if you choose to, no-one is taking that away from you. Its just that we want to study science in science class and leave the religion at the door.
People in glass houses.... I'm not the one crying "Argh!" in the streets and handing out fliers for the church of the spagetti monster. As for science without religion, going from your website and your comments to me and others I would completely disagree. It appears you currently want to be free to preach your religion without any other players in the field (I suspect due to the inherent weakness of your faith's central tenents).
Thanks for the answer David, but neither of your answers are quite adequate on these points -
ReplyDelete1) I'm not sure on the E.coli point, and as they are bacteria and not limited in the no. created in genesis or limited by the flood they are a poor model organism to talk about ID. As to dogs, they have not speciated much, but been split into breeds, a division lower than species (they can still all interbreed).
Also, I'm glad your willing to approach this with a steady hand. Dealing with people like Alex must infuriate you sometimes. Alex, please dont use such blatant overgeneralisations and obviously prejudiced remarks. It hurts your claim to be operating from a point of rationality. It is just the kind of absolutist behaviour that you claim to abhor.
Also, how can you, rationally, justify that there is no god? You may be sure that the christian God doesn't exist as it is logically inconsistent (I'd probably go with you there), but as far as the supernatural is concerned, we have no evidence and should withhold judgement until it becomes available. If you are operating under the null hypothesis wrt God, then that is all well and good, but in believing there is NO god, you are inputting a presupposition which limits your thinking.
2) The creationist theory says that we came from 2 people, giving us a maximum of 4 alleles (one for each chromosome, 2 per person). In order to have more, Adam and Eve would have had to have increased copies of chromosomes - We are diploid organisms, and there is no sign that we've ever had more than 2 as a uniformity. In fact, the only common cases of polyploidy in humans(more chromosomes) results in down syndrome, klinefelter syndrome, and other detrimental trisomies.
Thank you likewise marty, it is good to respect each other.
ReplyDeleteRe alleles:
Tah for the corrective, I Will do some looking into this but on a quick initial look: Are you referring to the differing forms of haemoglobin or similar. One "thing" as such and many forms of the code that produces it? If so then the creation paradigm would explain this as follows: the differing alleles are copies of the original with modification of the genetic material without the addition of new information.
A page with a response to this question by Carl Weiland : creationontheweb.com/content/view/2152/31/
Good book : Not By Chance! by Dr Lee Spetner
Re Creation and diversity of kinds:
Hmm, prehaps not the best example re the dogs but the evidence of spread of genetic expression possible even within one species was my point rather than a example of speciation. Perhaps a better one would be the "darwin" finches where the species present would arrise in approximately 200yrs if the drought induced selection model is to be favoured. Similarly if the same model is applied to other populations, we could easily see great variation within a kind. I would make the inference that the greatest variation would occur within groups with a rapid generation time (weather this bears out in practice I don't know).
The perspective we hold is not the simplistic creationist "lawn" effect but rather a limited amount of speciation within a kind.
As for the question of how, the workings of natural selection and adaptation are well enough documented for me to just refer to it in passing. Creationists I believe do not disagree with this theory but rather disagree with the inference made from it with regard to evolution.
A page with more complete explanation : creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/
I think what it comes down to is this -
ReplyDeleteThere is no scientific reason that the addition of a base pair should result in a more detrimental change than deletion, and no reason it cannot result in an advantageous change (although it is less likely to result in advantageous change due to frameshift).
I'm trying to deal in the theoretical here because from what I have heard and been told, creationism has many theoretical issues before you even get to the semantics of fossil record.
What I'd like to ask is, why there is such an unwillingness to accept the creation of new genetic material? Is it unbiblical to say, hey, maybe God created us to be able to generate new genetic material to be more adaptable?
I'm not being snide (or not trying to be) in the above statement, I just see any greater being as being a lot more flexible than He is often given credit for.
What I'd like to ask is, why there is such an unwillingness to accept the creation of new genetic material?
ReplyDeleteBecause it is nowhere near as simple as advantageous vs neutral vs deleterious mutations as you have yourself alluded to. I think the monkey on the typewriter attempting to write illustrates what I mean well:
For a monkey to write "the origin of species" on a typewriter by random strokes it would take 1.45386241863 x 1032 keystrokes or over 2.3 million billion billion years (at 2 keystrokes per second).
The issue that I and other creationists take with the idea of increase of information is that even very basic increases are statistical loch ness monsters. They look "possible" but only in the realms of theory, in practice they are impossible.
Also the required increase in information for even simple traits like creation of a new enzyme cascade to digest protien is more like a book than a sentence if you want to take the monkey example.
So from a purely practical statistical perspective information additive mutation is far more like the magic Alex loves to reference to. Thus creationists refer back to Ockham and say - hmm not likely in the least. As opposed to mutation producing adaptive modification of created genetic information which there is plenty of evidence for!
Fair enough, although I would put forward there are also observed instances of a mutation resulting in coding for a new protein (I believe there was one in malaria that made it immune to drugs).
ReplyDeleteI think what it must come down to, for me at least, is evidence. We have never seen anything created from nothing. Our own physical law does not allow it. Thus the main presupposition of creation is not only scientifically unprovable, or improbable, it is scientifically impossible. Science functions on what we see and what we observe through other methods. Maybe it cannot work in this case, but who are we to say this is where we should ignore it?
Also your monkey example leaves out selection (if every time the monkey types something wrong, it is deleted). Not saying that would make it possible, but it would help a lot, wouldn't it?
"As opposed to mutation producing adaptive modification of created genetic information which there is plenty of evidence for!"
Also, this is what you would expect to see with evolution! The genetic information changing, occassionally a new allele is formed (like a mutant phenotype) that is more effective (increase in production of melanin for example), and that becomes the new norm. I'm not quite sure where you a drawing the line at with mutation causing new information.
Also your monkey example leaves out selection (if every time the monkey types something wrong, it is deleted). Not saying that would make it possible, but it would help a lot, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteIn that example all that selection would acchieve is to remove the reams of paper coming from the typewriter. Removing incorrect "sentences" doesn't speed up the process required to get the correct one. So natural selection doesn't help evolution in it's statistical problem with new information.
As for the malaria, as far as I am aware there is plenty of evidence for modification of malarial mode of operation but none for production of new information. If you have any links for the new protein developement you are refering to that would be interesting to read.
Thus the main presupposition of creation is not only scientifically unprovable, or improbable, it is scientifically impossible. Science functions on what we see and what we observe through other methods.
The existence of God (the supposition of creation) is not scientifically impossible but rather naturalistically impossible. Direct observation of many things is impossible, but at the same time we can see indirect evidence of their existence/opperation and make sound scientific judgements regarding them. God's existance and operation is evidenced in many places and through these indirect measures we can know of Him. It is by informed faith though that one comes to know Him, to communicate and have relationship with Him.
It is not science that excludes God but rather the naturalistic assumption that matter is all that there is. This is the reason that I insist that evolution has become a religion, at its heart there are philosophical (regarding the way thought and reality interact) and religeous (regarding diety) presuppostions that it begins with. Both you and I practice science, hopefully to good ends in both cases. But the interpretation of your scientific perspective and mine are based in ideologies not just evidence.
Inicidentally what do you make of the comments I made to Alex re biblical timescale and dating methods? This is another sticking point for evolution. If diamonds have radiocarbon in them and thus are less old than 50 000 years and the basal layers of the fossil record are far younger than naturallistic palenetology would allow.... what age do you evolutionists put to these mutations that are so commonly referred to? This is not fossil somatics - if there is no time for the millions of mutations in the evolutionary scheme then they should be swept from consideration.
Hi David, sorry for the slow reply but my computer broke, I've just got onto my brother's to check stuff and reply.
ReplyDeleteOK, the monkey thing - I'm not saying its a good analogy for evolution, I'm saying its a bad one all round and should be abandoned. Natural selection (and micro DNA repair) come in at the base pair level (each letter), so would result in an aberrant letter being removed. Thus all the monkey has to do is find the right letter then continue.
As to the radiocarbon dating etc, I don't know enough about it to make judgement, but would say that peer reviewed and valid theories currently state the world is 4 billion (I think) years old, and life has been around for millions of years. For something to be affirmed like this, there is a rigorous process of scientific inquiry and rebuttal, so I will remain fairly skeptical. I would however like to check your sources, skepticism is not blind.
Ok, to God. Now, I totally agree with you that naturalistic observation excludes God, but that that doesn't mean that He couldn't exist. However, I am of the opinion that without such evidence of any sort, no conclusions regarding the existence or non-existence of a deity can be drawn, for or against. To be honest, I find atheism quite hypocritical, it's meant to be based on believing only what you have grounds for, and we ultimately have no grounds for disbelieving in a higher power. Atheism with regard to a certain deity if deemed illogical is fair enough though, I just wish ppl would be specific.
And to summarise the point of that long rambling paragraph - creationism is not scientific, as it is not naturalistically observable.
Natural selection (and micro DNA repair) come in at the base pair level (each letter), so would result in an aberrant letter being removed. Thus all the monkey has to do is find the right letter then continue.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the above observation but your conclusion does not follow. If every aberrant letter is removed then if anything the monkey illustration is far less rigourous than it should be. If what you say is true, then every single base pair change would need to be neutral or advantageous. Given 90% or more of point mutations are deleterious or at very least problematic you have a problem.
This is more like the poor monkey trying to type out "origin of species" while someone beats him for every mistake in typing. I think a reasonable evolution monkey would give up the whole deal and go eat some banannas! But jokes aside - this makes evolution by mutation even more unlikely really. The genetic repair mechanisms you mentioned are going to make the genome more stable and less prone to change, not able to produce information positive change.
So you have a genome with a negative tendency to change and a statistical/time problem even if that change could be driven to an evolutionary conclusion.
Re the dating of various fossils and the age of the earth, Ryan has kindly put up an article with loads of references for you to check out.
creationism is not scientific, as it is not naturalistically observable
Let me get this straight. You are saying that your presupposition that all there is is the natural/matterial therefore means that creationism is unscientific. That position is indefensable! There is no reason to suppose that naturalism/materialism is correct. In fact the tendency of the vast majority towards there being something greater than the purely material points to the opposite. That is the point of many of our other posts.
Marty is your computer still playing up or are you wanting to let the discussion lapse?
ReplyDeleteEither way God Bless and have a good week.