Darwin's Illusion

[metis]

The fossil record does support the predictions of the theory of evolution. Just because fossilization is a random, rare process and finding those fossils that do exist is difficult is not evidence of a failed theory of evolution based on a lack of fossils. This is such a superficial denial with a long history of abuse and, equally, repudiation.

To go along with what you've posted above, with my anthro students I used the terminology "mosaic evolution", namely that evolution is not a smooth flow from one species to another but instead a series of different gene pools, all evolving in their own way, only some of which may form new species.

 

[danieldemol]

No. It is not at "Evolution" if Gould is wrong and it's not "short periods of abrupt change" but "sudden change" as I suggest. That this change has nothing to do with survival of the fittest makes Darwin wrong. He is utterly wrong about the nature and cause of change in species.

Species change but they do not evolve.

That's a pretty big *if*. But can you show any evidence that Gould was wrong? Have you examined the evidence that led Gould to his conclusion?

In my opinion.

 

[cladking]

What makes science, science, is that one must have a way to test one's ideas and there has to be a possibility of failure.

So of course you had somebody observing whales to be sure they changed gradually instead of suddenly in a series of several steps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So of course you had somebody observing whales to be sure they changed gradually instead of suddenly in a series of several steps.

You forgot that they left a record behind. And no. we do not need to check the evolution of every single species. Do you have to count every minute of every hour to know that there are 60 minutes in an hour? Do you have to watch a child 24/7 to know that it is the same child? Heck, most people could confirm that by seeing a child once a year. Or less.

 

[cladking]

That's a pretty big *if*. But can you show any evidence that Gould was wrong? Have you examined the evidence that led Gould to his conclusion?

In my opinion.

You might misunderstand.

I'm suggesting that Gould is the ONLY biologist who was almost right about change in species. But he was still wrong that species arose in a short time because they arise in an even shorter time. The cause of change in species is different as well and does not involve "natural selection". This is in the minds of observers and caused by circular reasoning.

 

[cladking]

You forgot that they left a record behind.

And they are each fossilized with a calendar and wrist watch and a note from their mother averring they are almost exactly the same species as mom and dad!!!!

You are imagining a smooth transition where none exists and then imagining you can not be wrong.

 

[cladking]

But can you show any evidence that Gould was wrong?

All observed change in all life is sudden. All life is conscious and consciousness decides life and death when species change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And they are each fossilized with a calendar and wrist watch and a note from their mother averring they are almost exactly the same species as mom and dad!!!!

You are imagining a smooth transition where none exists and then imagining you can not be wrong.

We don't need that sort of date. Why do you paint yourself as being so uneducated about this in such a way that it makes it look as if every opinion that you have is worthless? You should know how dates are determined by now.

And no, smooth transitions have been observed repeatedly. There is no need for imagination. What has never been observed are the sorts of changes that you think existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All observed change in all life is sudden. All life is conscious and consciousness decides life and death when species change.

Yet you can't find any evidence for that. All you can ever do is to cherry pick quotes out of long outdated Gould articles that you did not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might misunderstand.

I'm suggesting that Gould is the ONLY biologist who was almost right about change in species. But he was still wrong that species arose in a short time because they arise in an even shorter time. The cause of change in species is different as well and does not involve "natural selection". This is in the minds of observers and caused by circular reasoning.

What makes you think that Gould supports you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is how it works in evolutionary biology, First a single hypothesis is put alone on the table, Second all interpretations of observations have to be made exclusively in light of the only hypothesis and hence used to justify all observations as evidence, Third the very evidence are used to prove the hypothesis. It’s a fallacious circular reasoning.

I notice you are not offering evidence to support this claim.

I do know that is not how it works in any part of biology.

You call it DNA evidence but the fact is, it’s DNA observations. Interpretations are what cause the observations to be taken as evidence. But with only one unfalsifiable hypothesis on the table, the interpretations are not credible. All interpretations can be only understood in light of this only (false) hypothesis.

Again this reference to some un-evidenced hypothesis. No other interpretation of the evidence has generated any alternative that makes sense of the evidence, answers questions or makes useful predictions.

DNA evidence show that a human cell with average diameter of 0.00001 meter includes 2 meter length of human DNA. With enough DNA length in the human body to go from Earth to the Sun and back more than 300 times, or around Earth's equator 2.5 million times!
DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)

Thanks for that bit of trivia.

The DNA sequence is only the beginning of the story; the real story unfolds in the gene expression. The trillions of cells of different types that compose the human body contain exact same DNA but expressed differently through the controlled flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein in a precise process that regulates all functions by adjusting the amount and type of proteins it manufactures to end up with very different and specific functional cells such as nerve cell, heart cell, skin cell, immune cells, etc.

That is correct based on the conclusions of the science you claim doesn't look at the evidence correctly.

It’s not only the information encoded in the DNA but more importantly how the info is executed to build variety of complex functions through gene expression. A lot of the human genome that was previously considered as junk DNA (does not code for anything) was found to be regulatory genes.

Yeah. Regulatory genes still don't code for anything. Go on.

Developmental regulatory genes control the identity of body parts setting up how an animal's body is organized by activating the genes responsible for putting the body parts together, simply were an eye, mouth, leg or tail would be placed.

Sounds like you are getting it straight from the textbooks or Google, but still a reasonable summary.

Regulatory genes start working early in embryonic development to control the identity of body parts; the homeobox (Hox) genes don't give instructions how to create an organ but rather when and where (like the role of a head architect giving instruction for the construction of a building). They just send instructions down the chain of command in a rigid hierarchy. Under this top tier of regulatory genes there are scads of other genes, second tier genes and third tier and fourth tier and on down the line. Aside from that very first one at the top, genes don’t do anything until it's told when how much to do it. It’s not known what activates that first regulatory gene in the top tier to lead all other genes to precisely build a specific functional organism.

Are you going anywhere with this?

Hox genes specify regions of the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis of animals. Hox proteins encode and specify the characteristics of 'position', ensuring that the correct structures form in the correct places of the body. Now lets take a general external look at the end product of this process. External morphological features of most multicellular organisms exhibit symmetry that can be seen in the balanced distribution of duplicate body parts or shapes within the body of an organism. The duplicate parts exhibit reflectional symmetry along the axis/plane of symmetry. These external body parts appear almost identical, but are reversed in the direction. Almost a perfect mirror image of the opposite side in a harmonious beautiful proportion and balance.

External vital organs necessary for live such as the nose, mouth, the head itself and reproductive organs are always aligned with the body on the axis of symmetry (centerline). Other less vital organs (the creature may continue to live without it) such as limbs, ears, and eyes are organized in a reflectional symmetry along each side of the axis.

All parts/organs are organized logically, proportionally sized; symmetrical parts are always a perfect mirror image of the same size. We don’t see limbs longer or one side, displaced or not following the rigid rule of reflectional symmetry. We don’t see multiple eyes on the legs or tail on the head. All species are perfectly designed for survival in its niche. No exception.

Finally. What logic? Whose logic? Symmetry is not perfect. Now you are claiming it is a rule, which doesn't have to imply some intelligent logician at play. Do you have evidence for this belief?

You find symmetry in living things to be amazing. Great. I do too. Our amazement is not evidence that valid theory is suddenly false.

Order is the norm not randomness. We’re so used to it to the point that we cannot recognize it or appreciate it. We appreciate light because of our experience with darkness. But we don’t appreciate or even recognize order simply because we never experienced randomness and what it would truly entail.

Selection is not random. You seem to miss that repeatedly.

The order that we see has not been established to exist for any reason outside of natural laws of nature. Gravity, chemistry, space, motion, biological need, etc.

All living organisms exhibit perfection as manifested in its body plan balanced morphological features and developmental characteristics with the necessary functions to allow the organism to successfully survive and reproduce with its niche.

That is your belief, but is not supported by any evidence. There is a vast amount of variation between members of the same species, so perfection cannot exist as you claim. Which variation is the perfection? Though, I do note that historically, this idea of perfection has gotten us into a lot of trouble in cases where it was egregiously applied.

The ability of a living organism to successfully survive/reproduce is an absolute prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. The emergence of live is not dependent on any evolutionary process; on the contrary no evolutionary process is possible without life as a necessary prerequisite.

You may be the first anti-evolution proponent I have seen admit this fact. The usual tactic is to conflate the origins with the theory of evolution, since so much has been lost by those rejecting science on belief and feeling rather than fact. Conflating something we have a lot of confidence in and evidence for support is apparently easier in their minds if that is connected to something we do not know.

The alleged random evolutionary process is always working on the transformation of one already perfect living organism (as explained above) into another.

That is the problem. No one knows what a perfect organism is. No one has demonstrated that they exist, have existed or will exist. So your claim, logically, falls apart.

You really haven't explained or demonstrated that living organisms are perfect, but I do want to be the first to welcome you to the 21 Century. In these modern we do not follow the chain of being that has been falsified.

Logical errors:

A) If the process is random, then selection as a purifying force should not only be involved in the transforming one perfect living organism into another but rather the vast majority of the purification process should be mainly involved in constant correction/elimination of millions of all kind of random errors in a tedious and extremely slow process as entailed by the hypothesis of random gradual change. We don’t see that in nature.

I'm guessing that you don't have any training or experience in biology or science. We don't see what you are claiming in nature. That is demonstrated. If you take a broader look at the fossil record, these perfect beings you allege simply are not there. What is there shows us that species that exist on this planet today did not exist here millions of years ago. And those were preceded by more other species too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

B) If speciation happens mainly due geographic isolation (the new species can no longer interbreed with original species), then the new species will coexist independently along side with original species. Speciation is not a reason for original species to go extinct. This gradual sequencing necessarily predicts enormous number of species and transitional forms, both alive and in the fossil record. We don’t see that in nature.

Speciation is the process where new species arise. Extinction could happen for many reasons. It could be that derived species do out compete the ancestral species to the point of extinction. If they are geographically isolated, by definition allopatric species are not likely to be in physical proximity to each other. Show me how gradual change and speciation would lead to the co-existence of all ancestral and derived species. Saying it does not make it a fact. Can you demonstrate that in just a few paragraphs instead of this overwhelmingly (possibly intentional) huge volume of words?

A team of researchers in Switzerland took a hox gene from a mouse embryo (one that controls the location of an eye) and inserted it into the DNA of developing fruit fly embryo in a region of the fly that would become the back leg
It grew a fruit fly eye next to it’s back leg the instruction of the hox gene from the mouse was not how to make an eye but simply but an eye here. If the alleged evolutionary process is random (not intelligently guided) then we should see all sorts of similar errors such as limbs longer on one side, or body parts in the wrong locations, multiple repeated parts or at least the rigid reflectional symmetry would be broken. We don’t see that in nature.

Hox genes are highly conserved. We would expect that changes to them would always be lethal and that is what the evidence indicates. The mutations you mention would not survive in nature or to be born and is the reason we do not see them.

However, when mutagens are present in the environment, we do se many physical anomalies in sensitive populations. Do you know anything at all about frogs and other amphibians?

Largely, what I see is that your reasoning is based on a faulty interpretation of theory and a biased desire to see it fall.

How the process unfolds is nothing but a clear manifestation of extreme intelligence. It’s impossible to be a product of randomness, because if it was then we have to see evidence of all sorts of random errors (as explained above) that are being constantly corrected through selection. We don’t see that in nature.

This is just your opinion. I can't even say that it is based on what you write here. Mostly, because I think what you write is based on your belief and not the other way round. In other words, you are doing what you can to force the evidence to fit your personal position and ignoring valid explanations for the evidence.

Mutations are not random. Genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for the “intelligently guided process”. All careful studies of mutagenesis confirmed that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

That's fantastic. You Tube is always the place to go to get valid information. Not saying they don't have it, but isn't there some publications you could list? You do like to load up your posts. A bibliography would sure do that. You go on and on about the literature, why the paucity now?

Directed mutations is still a controversial subject and to date, I know of no research that supports it. But if it were the case, that does not make your belief the cause by default. It doesn't make my beliefs the cause by default. You said that my previous mention of this was my false dichotomy. And here you go and do the demonstration supporting my previous statement for me. Thanks for that.

Previous studies do not confirm that all or any mutations are directed and non-random. The evidence indicates that proteins evolved through change over time.

Neither genetic evidence support the alleged random change nor the fossil record supports the alleged gradual random transformation via natural selection. The theory is false.

Not hardly. The theory explains what is observed in the fossil record and it provides a mechanism that is not random. Mutation is random in that that they do not occur in response to some anticipated need for a living organism. There is no mechanism that would explain directed mutations. Natural selection is not random. This is supported by the evidence. Random mutations acted on by selection of the environment drives change in living populations. This change is reflected in the fossil record, in genomes, and in nature.

One more thing about posting so much material that I have noticed. Detailed responses are more likely to go over the character limit to the forum. Did you know that? I did. It is an annoyance, but not a barrier.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s not hypothetical, it’s confirmed by paleontologist. See #352.

Incompleteness is not the word paleontologist use. The correct description of the fossil record is “no support for gradual change”.

Stephen Jay Gould said “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR GRADUAL CHANGE. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Natural History, pp. 22, 24.)



The 375 mya Tiktaalik cannot be the missing transitional form between fish and the first four-legged creature because the 395 mya footprints of four-legged creatures found in poland (18 million years older than Tiktaalik) disproves Tiktaalik as the transitional link.

2010, Nature wrote “Some prints, showing individual digits, were found in limestone slabs unearthed in a quarry near Zachełmie, Poland, dated to about 395 million years ago — more than 18 million years before tetrapods were thought to have evolved.”
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal - Nature

2010, NewSientist.
Oldest footprints of a four-legged vertebrate discovered | New Scientist

What is Tiktaalik?

Tiktaalik is a fossil of an animal with features like fish and four-legged vertebrates. It has crocodile-like flathead with a neck that allows the head to move independently from the body, scales on its back like a fish, ribcage that suggest lungs, some sort of fins which believed to provide some support to the body on land. But as stated in an article by the gardian “The scientists have yet to find a Tiktaalik hind fin bone”.

Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals | Fossils | The Guardian

So what is the big deal about Tiktaalik?

Tiktaalik has a mix of characteristics that appears to give it the ability of alternating between aquatic and terrestrial habitats and was considered as the missing link between fish and tetrapods.

Amphibians/semiaquatic animals (such as newts and Axolotl) are present species with a mix of characteristics between fish and tetrapods. They can breathe with both gills and lungs and alternate between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. They are no missing link.

When most amphibians are young, they live in water, and they use gills to breathe in the water. When they become adults, they go through a process called metamorphosis, in which it experiences a number of physiological changes that help the species adapt to life on land. They lose their gills, their lungs gets developed, muscle tone in limbs gets increased, eyelids developed, the skin's permeability to water gets reduced, etc. all of that happen during the transition to adulthood not gradually through random mutations and natural selection in millions of years. No speciation, No transitional forms. No missing links. The offspring of an amphibian just continue to repeat the same life cycle. The mix of characteristics of the 375 mya Tiktaalik simply suggest an extinct amphibian.

Mixed characteristics of an amphibian specially if it dies at a specific age can be interpreted as a transitional form between fish and tetrapods but it’s simply nothing but an amphibian in a certain stage of its live.

The mix of characteristics of the 375 mya Tiktaalik as an aquatic animal with lungs, independently moving head and potentially four limbs, suggest an extinct amphibian similar to the present example of Axolotl (amphibian), which breathes with gills (external) and also has functional lungs. See Axolotl in the link below.

Tiktaalik flathead with eyes on top could be an extinct bottom-dwelling species similar to the Crocodilefish and it also bears a strong resemblance to the Gar fish (Alligator Gar) that also exist today. But if Tiktaalik did have lungs and possibly some sort of four limbs, with the ability to live both on land and under water then it’s as close as it can be to some present amphibians such as the South China giant salamander which is just an amphibian, not a missing link.

 Giant Chinese Salamander can reach 1.8 meters and weigh around 64 kilos and is an endemic species of the streams of the forested and mountainous areas of eastern China. : NatureIs****ingLit (reddit.com)

Many explanations are possible but regardless; evidence has already proven that four-legged creatures existed 18 MILLION years before Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is not the transitional form between fish and the four-legged creature, Tiktaalik is an extinct amphibian/semiaquatic animal. It’s an example of how a false prior leads to a false interpretation of observations.

The theory entails the existence enormous number of transitional fossils, if hardly any is found and with major problems, it discredits the theory.



It didn’t other than inaccurate interpretations of few questionable fossils in light of a one unfalsifiable hypothesis. The fact is organisms do appear fully formed (without intermediates) in the fossil record.

Stephen J. Gould said “Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species DOES NOT ARISE GRADUALLY BY THE STEADY TRANSFORMATION of its ancestors; it APPEARS ALL AT ONCE AND 'FULLY FORMED.'"



See#352

Darwin himself acknowledges the lack of intermediates as the most obvious and serious objection to his hypothesis of gradual transformation. Paleontologists confirmed that the fossil record doesn’t support “gradual steady transformation”.

Darwin stated in his book the Origin of Species “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, SO MUST THE NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES, WHICH HAVE FORMERLY EXISTED, BE TRULY ENORMOUS. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is THE MOST OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS OBJECTION WHICH CAN BE URGED AGAINST THE THEORY.”

Gould was arguing about the mode of evolution and not claiming it does not happen or that the changes were instantaneous or without the mechanism of natural selection. He was still arguing evolution.

And the capitalization and bolding does make it look like you are angry. If this makes you so angry, perhaps you should look into another hobby.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes you think that Gould supports you?

Gould was one of the most prominent and well-known scientists studying and discussing evolution in the last 50 years. I wonder how anyone can be against science and the theory of evolution and be so in the dark about prominent workers in the field and about significant work they carried out.

I think that grasping at the punctuated change that Gould described is a desperate attempt to equate that with the claim that all change in biology is sudden. The periods of punctuation hypothesized by Gould would not be what anyone would describe as sudden, except perhaps, on a geological scale. Even in the proposed periods of stasis, it would be expected that those populations undergoing it would continue to evolve. Just not in radical ways that would easily be observed in the fossil record. I cannot see how anyone, outside of quote mining could think that Gould supported their claims largely based on belief and misunderstanding.

What do you think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This kind of statements “all is well, we have tons of evidence, we follow the science you don’t ” are the typical evolutionists ignorant statements. It’s not an argument. Be specific and name your evidence. Recent finds with respect to the fossil records and adaptation mechanisms are against the theory especially the fossils of hominids. Scientists (such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble) acknowledge the challenges against the theory and call for the “extended evolutionary synthesis” as a new framework to address the new facts of science.

The royal society conference in 2016, Gerd B. Müller said “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike”, “but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory” , “the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.” See#160

After the finding of the 7 million years old skull in northern Chad (Toumaï), The anthropologist Bernard Wood said about the fossils of hominids ” How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.” See #326, item 4.

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News



Yeah, China is great and the finds are amazing. Again, it’s nothing but some more ignorant statements. Be specific, identify your point and name your references.

Amazing in what sense? It’s only amazing in the sense that it challenges conventional ideas about the alleged evolutionary history of humanity, proves that previous ideas about the human origin story – who we are and where we came from – were wrong and that the alleged human origin story should be rewritten. That’s how amazing it is. I mentioned the finding in Asia before. See# 326, item 7.

The earliest evidence of hominid settlement in China: Combined electron spin resonance and uranium series (ESR/U-series) dating of mammalian fossil teeth from Longgupo cave - ScienceDirect

Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity | New Scientist

Recent Discoveries Have Overhauled Our Picture of Where Humans Came From, And When (sciencealert.com)

How China Is Rewriting the Book on Human Origins - Scientific American

This "extended theory" is still evolution and not magic or evidence for a designer. Presenting arguments among scientists is not evidence that the theory is failing. It might be, but based on what I have read, the version of the extended theory they propose isn't holding up so well.

That people are seeing the need to revise a theory does not make belief-based views suddenly the default accepted view. It means that new evidence needs to be explained in light of the present theory or that the present theory be revised to include that evidence. This has happened before with the theory of evolution. If the theory is falsified, all that evidence still has to be explained based on logical, reasonable and supported explanations and not what some person wants to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gould was one of the most prominent and well-known scientists studying and discussing evolution in the last 50 years. I wonder how anyone can be against science and the theory of evolution and be so in the dark about prominent workers in the field and about significant work they carried out.

I think that grasping at the punctuated change that Gould described is a desperate attempt to equate that with the claim that all change in biology is sudden. The periods of punctuation hypothesized by Gould would not be what anyone would describe as sudden, except perhaps, on a geological scale. Even in the proposed periods of stasis, it would be expected that those populations undergoing it would continue to evolve. Just not in radical ways that would easily be observed in the fossil record. I cannot see how anyone, outside of quote mining could think that Gould supported their claims largely based on belief and misunderstanding.

What do you think?

Yes, they clearly do not understand what the idea of geologically sudden means. But he is not the only one that makes that error here. One million years is very "sudden" geologically. It is not nearly so sudden biologically. Different science different timescales.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This "extended theory" is still evolution and not magic or evidence for a designer. Presenting arguments among scientists is not evidence that the theory is failing. It might be, but based on what I have read, the version of the extended theory they propose isn't holding up so well.

That people are seeing the need to revise a theory does not make belief-based views suddenly the default accepted view. It means that new evidence needs to be explained in light of the present theory or that the present theory be revised to include that evidence. This has happened before with the theory of evolution. If the theory is falsified, all that evidence still has to be explained based on logical, reasonable and supported explanations and not what some person wants to believe.

And I have seen that before too. Darwin was wrong!! Therefore evolution is false. Incredibly poor logic. We simply learned more since Darwin's time. He was all but guaranteed to be wrong in places. What is still amazing is how much he got right on the limited information that he had.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I have seen that before too. Darwin was wrong!! Therefore evolution is false. Incredibly poor logic. We simply learned more since Darwin's time. He was all but guaranteed to be wrong in places. What is still amazing is how much he got right on the limited information that he had.

It seems to be the same canard dressed in large volumes of words. As if that will get us to dance with the idea.

I too am amazed at what he got right given the state of knowledge of his day. He had keen powers of observation and the ability to synthesize all that into a coherent, if incomplete (as access to more knowledge lets us know now), theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, they clearly do not understand what the idea of geologically sudden means. But he is not the only one that makes that error here. One million years is very "sudden" geologically. It is not nearly so sudden biologically. Different science different timescales.

This persistence with the idea that all change in biology is sudden has no basis in fact. That it keeps getting repeated is evidence to me of an intractable and closed-minded position and a lack of knowledge of the subject matter of biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to be the same canard dressed in large volumes of words. As if that will get us to dance with the idea.

I too am amazed at what he got right given the state of knowledge of his day. He had keen powers of observation and the ability to synthesize all that into a coherent, if incomplete (as access to more knowledge lets us know now), theory.

I have noticed that he is very very angry at something and refuses to discuss this rationally.