Evolution Observed

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't need any more quote mines (you even managed to misspell his name, just like on the creationist websites). But thanks anyway.

That's from AZ quotes, no idea if that's a 'creationist website' - but I take all credit for the bad spelling they spelled it correctly..

But he was was a founder of punctuated equilibrium, so I think the context should be perfectly clear

I'm almost morbidly curious now how you think all these scientists are saying something entirely opposite than they appear to be

At some point putting your hands over your ears and yelling 'quote mine'! is just denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's from AZ quotes, no idea if that's a 'creationist website' - but I take all credit for the bad spelling they spelled it correctly..

But he was was a founder of punctuated equilibrium, so I think the context should be perfectly clear

I'm almost morbidly curious now how you think all these scientists are saying something entirely opposite than they appear to be

At some point putting your hands over your ears and yelling 'quote mine'! is just denial.

Right, he supported punctuated equilibrium Merely a tweak to the theory of evolution. It was not a revolutionary change, merely a refinement of the theory.

 

[sayak83]

I was quoting Raup directly, not a pro or anti-creationist website! The paper talks about many conflicts between Darwin and paleontology and you will find no conflict in context I assure you.

He was just one pioneer in what is no longer even a controversial observation these days, the fossil record turns out to be far more staccato than it appeared 150 years ago, not LESS as Darwinism explicitly predicted- no way around this




Very true

the fossil record is just one line of evidence refuting Darwinism

Both computer modelling and direct experimentation support the record quite clearly; Darwinian processes can account for only very limited adaptation where already specifically supported in the design with control genes etc

Please provide current/papers or data(last 10-15 years) supporting your claims. Evolutionary theory as it now is quite easily able to predict what is seen on the fossil record given better ability to understand how evolution should occur with increased computational power. Pick a specific fossil record and let's have a discussion. Repeating old points from a 1980 paper is pointless and useless.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's from AZ quotes, no idea if that's a 'creationist website' - but I take all credit for the bad spelling they spelled it correctly..

Uh huh.

But he was was a founder of punctuated equilibrium, so I think the context should be perfectly clear

I'm almost morbidly curious now how you think all these scientists are saying something entirely opposite than they appear to be

At some point putting your hands over your ears and yelling 'quote mine'! is just denial.

Well, when you use the words of people that accept the theory of evolution to try to say that the same people don't accept the theory of evolution, while also using the quotes in an attempt to discredit the theory, then yeah, I'd have to say you're using them incorrectly.

You seem to be under the impression that punctuated equilibrium falsifies the theory of evolution or something. It doesn't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I love it when creationists copy from dishonest creationist websites and get caught at it.

Me too.
Stuff like that is a dead giveaway.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Uh huh.


Well, when you use the words of people that accept the theory of evolution to try to say that the same people don't accept the theory of evolution, while also using the quotes in an attempt to discredit the theory, then yeah, I'd have to say you're using them incorrectly.

You seem to be under the impression that punctuated equilibrium falsifies the theory of evolution or something. It doesn't.

Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.: Niles Eldredge: biologist and paleontologist

From this, I am gleaning that in his esteemed opinion, he thinks that; Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.

Just to help us understand, what other meaning are you taking from this quote?

it speaks for itself.

Likewise if an ancient alien theorist, concedes that we have 'even fewer plausible reports of UFO sightings today than we did in the 1950's' the fact that he is an advocate of the theory only underscores how objective the observation is.

We don't see a whole lot of progressive changes actually evident in the fossil record, nothing like what was once believed and predicted, not really controversial these days

 

[shunyadragon]

Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.: Niles Eldredge: biologist and paleontologist

From this, I am gleaning that in his esteemed opinion, he thinks that; Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.

Just to help us understand, what other meaning are you taking from this quote?

it speaks for itself.

Likewise if an ancient alien theorist, concedes that we have 'even fewer plausible reports of UFO sightings today than we did in the 1950's' the fact that he is an advocate of the theory only underscores how objective the observation is.

We don't see a whole lot of progressive changes actually evident in the fossil record, nothing like what was once believed and predicted, not really controversial these days

As far as I have read about Niles Eldredge he still supports evolution without reservations despite the quote you cite. In the above quote it is part of the reason he proposed 'punctuated equilibria' as part of the science of evolution. Actually, the suddenness of the proposed 'punctuated equilibria is over rated. It remains the periods of rapid change proposed by Niles Eldredge involve millions of years.

Do you have any citations that would indicate that he does not support the science of evolution?

Also, the citation is a little old and does not recognize the fact that numerous intermediates have been found since in the ancestors of animals like whales.

You are also adding your editorial negative comments that Niles Eldredge did not make such as the search for fossil intermediates is (largely in vain), which is a dishonest misrepresentation of his view. If you believe this please cite Niles Eldredge, where he says the search is (largely in vain).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As far as I have read about Niles Eldredge he still supports evolution without reservations despite the quote you cite. In the above quote it is part of the reason he proposed 'punctuated equilibria' as part of the science of evolution. Actually, the suddenness of the proposed 'punctuated equilibria is over rated. It remains the periods of rapid change proposed by Niles Eldredge involve millions of years.

Do you have any citations that would indicate that he does not support the science of evolution?

Also, the citation is a little old and does not recognize the fact that numerous intermediates have been found since in the ancestors of animals like whales.

You are also adding your editorial negative comments that Niles Eldredge did not make such as the search for fossil intermediates is (largely in vain), which is a dishonest misrepresentation of his view. If you believe this please cite Niles Eldredge, where he says the search is (largely in vain).

"dishonest misrepresentation"

ad hominem again, what a surprise:

(largely in vain) was part of the original quote from Niles Eldredge

"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)

The fact that so many Darwinists here even question these observations.. it's a real eye-opener how out of touch they are with the actual science, they tend to avoid mentioning this stuff in pop science media and many people have no idea what scientists are actually saying

 

[sayak83]

"dishonest misrepresentation"

ad hominem again, what a surprise:

(largely in vain) was part of the original quote from Niles Eldredge

"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)

More pre-computer stuff.
Choose a fossil record and let's discuss shall we?

 

[shunyadragon]

"dishonest misrepresentation"

ad hominem again, what a surprise:

(largely in vain) was part of the original quote from Niles Eldredge

"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)

OK Do you have any citation by Niles Eldredge that he does not accept the science of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"dishonest misrepresentation"

ad hominem again, what a surprise:

(largely in vain) was part of the original quote from Niles Eldredge

"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55)

The fact that so many Darwinists here even question these observations.. it's a real eye-opener how out of touch they are with the actual science, they tend to avoid mentioning this stuff in pop science media and many people have no idea what scientists are actually saying

Once again you refer to punctuated equilibrium. It is not a denial of evolution at all, it is merely a refinement of Darwin's theory. We have a very clear picture of our personal line of descent. This is the first video in a so far 19 video series that tracks our evolution and it is only about half way done at this point:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.: Niles Eldredge: biologist and paleontologist

From this, I am gleaning that in his esteemed opinion, he thinks that; Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.

Just to help us understand, what other meaning are you taking from this quote?

it speaks for itself.

Likewise if an ancient alien theorist, concedes that we have 'even fewer plausible reports of UFO sightings today than we did in the 1950's' the fact that he is an advocate of the theory only underscores how objective the observation is.

We don't see a whole lot of progressive changes actually evident in the fossil record, nothing like what was once believed and predicted, not really controversial these days

Does Niles Eldredge accept the theory of evolution? Do you? Do you think punctuated equilibrium falsifies the theory of evolution? Do you think the evidence for evolution rests on the fossil record alone?

You post these quote mines as some sort of evidence of .... what, exactly? You seem to be saying that evolution doesn't happen, and then go on to quote people that you think agree with that point of view (when they actually do not). What is your actual position?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So when Raup said "We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”

In 'proper context' he really meant "We have lots more examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” ?!


when he said "“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” "

he meant "the fossil record reflects Darwinian predictions beautifully?"


how about: "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” "

and from this you somehow glean that he thinks the evidence for Darwinism is extremely compelling?

who is taking the quotes out of context here?

First of all, I haven't said you were quote mining him. Not now anyway. To start you sort of were, but you have fleshed it out a bit.

What does Raup mean by fewer? Darwin hardly had any fossils by comparison to what we have now. We have greater detail from those fossils. The point is that Raup was speaking to a part of the theory of evolution involving the mechanism, natural selection. He wasn't refuting the theory. At best he was lamenting his opinion that we haven't seen clear evidence for natural selection in the fossil record. This could be the nature of the fossil record. It shows us what went on, not how it happened. This is not a complete black box and here is where I think Raup is sitting. We can compare older fossils with more recent fossils in a lineage and see the changes that occurred and come to a conclusion on what is driving those changes. Raup, like many scientists may have been hoping for much clearer evidence from a prime source of evidence.

What you and the less savory creationists that started this off by quote mining Raup are trying to do is turn his opinions about the nature of the evidence and a reasonable scientific debate into the fall of the theory. That is what you are getting out of it all, but that isn't what is there. You should ask yourself if your opinion is driven by the evidence or by your desire that your belief win out. From the evidence, it is clear to me which.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There you go again, I'm wrong because I'm 'not capable of critical thought like you are'... and any alternative theory is 'religious' and so should be dismissed? That's not a substantive scientific argument, it's just conceding an ideological bias, which is the exact opposite.


Similarly, atheists like Hoyle mocked and rejected the primeval atom as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang' because of what THEY perceived as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event... they overwhelmingly preferred static models for the opposite rationale: no creation = no creator

So by their own rationale, science would have progressed a lot faster if scientists had all assumed a theistic conclusion as it turned out... But I don't think we should judge on any preconceived conclusions either way

So if evidence of predetermined design in biology happens to have theistic implications for some, I have no problem with that, do you?

Putting preferred implications over scientific method is what gave us Phrenology, Piltdown man, canals on Mars, Steady state, Big Crunch .... to name just a few

Don't be so defensive. You're wrong because you're letting your desire for the outcome you want to obfuscate what is really being discussed by Raup. It isn't a lack of capability. It is bias from desire.

You're falling into the same rut as any creationist I've talked to. You avoid recent work and go to quoting old work of prominent scientists as if it were revealed truth that has absolute value. I can't think of one area of science that is actively under investigation where there isn't new information coming in and dissent among scientists over what that means. You could take your method and apply it to any one of those areas and claim that means the science is falling apart. It just isn't so. Even if a long held understanding is turned over, doesn't mean science is failing. It means that science is succeeding. What failed, fails based on the evidence in a narrative track that can be traced back through all the scientists that have studied the particular phenomenon.

A scientist would recognize earlier work, new findings may take them back to it, but they aren't going to start with a quote from older work or the oldest work and claim that means everything is refuted. Literal creationists do that. I say it is out of fear and ignorance. Fear that it means their belief is under fire and ignorance to the idea that it is their belief that maintains the religion and not the validity of an ancient story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was quoting Raup directly, not a pro or anti-creationist website! The paper talks about many conflicts between Darwin and paleontology and you will find no conflict in context I assure you.

He was just one pioneer in what is no longer even a controversial observation these days, the fossil record turns out to be far more staccato than it appeared 150 years ago, not LESS as Darwinism explicitly predicted- no way around this




Very true

the fossil record is just one line of evidence refuting Darwinism

Both computer modelling and direct experimentation support the record quite clearly; Darwinian processes can account for only very limited adaptation where already specifically supported in the design with control genes etc

I just went back and reread some of Raup and I can't get away from the fact that you are taking his discussion of evolution and using it to conclude that the theory is failed. This is what the quote miners did and you are doing it too.

The theory of evolution isn't going to fall apart because of this.

Your claims about design go too far. That isn't seen in the evidence. There exist some well worked out lineages that show a progression and evolution. Raup recognized this if you actually read everything he wrote and not just the pieces that support your bias. He also recognized that we have discovered detail that shows that evolution is more complex than implied by gradual change. This isn't going to throw the theory over. It should make us look closer and come to new information and understanding.

Studies of the ice-nucleating protein in nototheniod fish have determined the origin of the protein from the digestive pathways. A chimeric form of the protein has even been discovered with the older digestive features and the derived features as an antifreeze. In this example, we have solid evidence for evolution. Resolving it further may make it more or less clean, but it won't change the fact that the theory would predict this or explain the changes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I just went back and reread some of Raup and I can't get away from the fact that you are taking his discussion of evolution and using it to conclude that the theory is failed. This is what the quote miners did and you are doing it too.

No, I'd say there are lots of other reasons the theory failed! This was specifically about the failure of the fossil record to live up to Darwinian predictions, I'm aware that there are hypothetical work arounds for this to keep the theory alive with the prefix 'Neo'. But I think when all lines of evidence are considered together, the theory worked extremely well within the Victorian model of reality it was conceived in, but we have come a long way, and 21st C science has strained the theory to breaking point yes

Your claims about design go too far. That isn't seen in the evidence. There exist some well worked out lineages that show a progression and evolution. Raup recognized this if you actually read everything he wrote and not just the pieces that support your bias. He also recognized that we have discovered detail that shows that evolution is more complex than implied by gradual change. This isn't going to throw the theory over. It should make us look closer and come to new information and understanding.

Studies of the ice-nucleating protein in nototheniod fish have determined the origin of the protein from the digestive pathways. A chimeric form of the protein has even been discovered with the older digestive features and the derived features as an antifreeze. In this example, we have solid evidence for evolution. Resolving it further may make it more or less clean, but it won't change the fact that the theory would predict this or explain the changes.

Again- You, I, Raup, Eldredge, Dawkins and Genesis all agree that the appearance of life on Earth changed over time- and we all agree that the most successful changes succeed more! how those changes are driven is the question

So we dig up the past, and we see change, progression, shared traits- right? also some sudden appearances, long periods of stasis, sudden disappearances, - a few dead ends, vestigial features and even regressions, but a general tendency towards increased sophistication.. Out of curiosity- what is it exactly that these characteristics suggest to you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I'd say there are lots of other reasons the theory failed! This was specifically about the failure of the fossil record to live up to Darwinian predictions, I'm aware that there are hypothetical work arounds for this to keep the theory alive with the prefix 'Neo'. But I think when all lines of evidence are considered together, the theory worked extremely well within the Victorian model of reality it was conceived in, but we have come a long way, and 21st C science has strained the theory to breaking point yes




Again- You, I, Raup, Eldredge, Dawkins and Genesis all agree that the appearance of life on Earth changed over time- and we all agree that the most successful changes succeed more! how those changes are driven is the question

So we dig up the past, and we see change, progression, shared traits- right? also some sudden appearances, long periods of stasis, sudden disappearances, - a few dead ends, vestigial features and even regressions, but a general tendency towards increased sophistication.. Out of curiosity- what is it exactly that these characteristics suggest to you?

There is no failure in the fossil record. There is no creationist explanation for the fossil record. Nothing about it is explained by the Bible. Let's not forget that.

I agree that the most fit will reproduce at a greater rate and given stable conditions may replace the ancestral population. They can also coexist with the ancestral population or themselves be replaced.

The fossil record supports evolution. It doesn't support creation of all living things as we see them today. It doesn't show that there was nothing and suddenly there were horses that all look just like they did when they were created. We see in that lineage, changes over time. Going from a small ancestor through varies evolutionary stages into the group of animals we see today.

I agree that how those changes are driven is the question posed by Raup. I also agree that he has been taken out of context by creationists to demonstrate that evolution is a failed theory. Dickering over details does not a failure make.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's from AZ quotes, no idea if that's a 'creationist website' - but I take all credit for the bad spelling they spelled it correctly..

But he was was a founder of punctuated equilibrium, so I think the context should be perfectly clear

I'm almost morbidly curious now how you think all these scientists are saying something entirely opposite than they appear to be

At some point putting your hands over your ears and yelling 'quote mine'! is just denial.

What I have gotten out of this is that evolution can progress just as Darwin described it and it can progress in the form described as punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't occur instantaneously. It takes a great deal of human time as well. It is just much more compressed in geological time than the slow changes.

Evolution remains in both accounts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no failure in the fossil record.

I'll let Raup and Eldredge take that once again!

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.:Raup

Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages.
Niles Eldredge

There is no creationist explanation for the fossil record. Nothing about it is explained by the Bible. Let's not forget that.

The Bible explained how the universe came to be, a specific creation event rather than eternal as atheists preferred, lower dimensions unfolding into larger ones, that the planet was once entirely water, and once one large land mass and one large ocean, that life began in the ocean, and culminated with humanity.

All lucky guesses perhaps, but regardless, it does offer an explanation for the unsolved mysteries we see in the record, direct experimentation and the math: creative intelligence

The fossil record supports evolution. It doesn't support creation of all living things as we see them today. It doesn't show that there was nothing and suddenly there were horses that all look just like they did when they were created. We see in that lineage, changes over time. Going from a small ancestor through varies evolutionary stages into the group of animals we see today.

I didn't mention the fossil record. I was describing an automobile junkyard

"So we dig up the past, and we see change, progression, shared traits- right? also some sudden appearances, long periods of stasis, sudden disappearances, - a few dead ends, vestigial features and even regressions, but a general tendency towards increased sophistication.. Out of curiosity- what is it exactly that these characteristics suggest to you?"

None of these characteristics even hint at, far less prove an unguided accident driven process. Arguably they infer the opposite, intelligent design, but to be generous- it's a wash

I agree that how those changes are driven is the question posed by Raup. I also agree that he has been taken out of context by creationists to demonstrate that evolution is a failed theory. Dickering over details does not a failure make.

Right, he repeatedly defines evolution as 'merely change' by which definition, you, me , Raup and Genesis are in agreement. Genesis talks of a specific order for the appearance of different life forms at different times

"It is as though they [Cambrian explosion fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What I have gotten out of this is that evolution can progress just as Darwin described it and it can progress in the form described as punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't occur instantaneously. It takes a great deal of human time as well. It is just much more compressed in geological time than the slow changes.

Evolution remains in both accounts.

Punctuated equilibrium concedes what skeptics said all along- the gaps, jumps, are real, not artifacts of an incomplete record as explicitly predicted by Darwin.

AS Raup and others noted, the number of transitional examples actually decreased as many Victorian age assumptions were debunked - so the scientific evidence pointed in the exact opposite direction, a MORE staccato record than the one Darwin started with, not LESS- that's not an insignificant detail. Certainly Darwin didn't think so..