Genetic Changes In Mice 'Question Evolution Speed'

Ananova ^ | 5-21-2003

[Aric2000]

Did I call that or what? LOL

[js1138]

The devil can quote to his purpose.

[Aric2000]

ROFL

[Stultis]

I trust you to keep to the true intent of what he said, like I trust my dog not to eat the steaks I left on the floor.

LOL! I have to agree with the sentiment given Dataman's performance and dependable regurgitation of antievo canards thus far; but I also have to credit Dataman in this specific instance. I think one can make the argument that the quote was representative of Colin Patterson's views, at least at the time it was made.

Colin Patterson was a radical exponent of a view called "transformed cladism". Without going into detail, this view held that there is "a one true method" for the evolutionary analysis of characters (which is why I call it "radical"). It was a consequence of the formalism of this cladistic method that it could only identify "sister groups" (basically cousin-like relationships) and not direct ancestor-descendent relationships. Actually, the very logic of the cladistic method -- especially if taken as seriously, literally and exclusively as Patterson did -- implies that it should only be applied to living organisms or, if to fossil organisms at all, only to those occupying a single given slice of time.

In any case, because of this artifact of his preferred method (which he clearly considered exclusively valid) Patterson seemed to believe that it was impossible in principle to identify ancestor-descendent relationships. IOW, his views represent a rigid and dogmatic attitude, but they are consistent with his views about classification. (Or consistent expect for the fact that, if applied as strictly has he seemed to, they should have precluded him from comparing living and fossil organisms at all!)

Note, however, that even Patterson was not saying that transitionals do not exist, he was only saying that we can't identify them. Of course virtually no one else agrees with him, nor did at the time. Even the most dedicated cladists are not as radical about the method, or as glib in mistaking it's formalisms for reality, as Colin seems to have been.

[Stultis]

Details of the fossil's supplementary tail fin are insufficiently known to allow restoration.

So what? There are plenty of differences around the eye (as I noted) and in the rostrum, the lower jaw, etc. And there is the difference in size, and in habitat (all fossil coelacanths are shallow water species, and many are fresh water; the living genus is a deep ocean species) and adaption thereto.

[Dataman]

I will ask you in a civil tone. Check the link in post #133 and explain why you posted a misleading, out of context quotation that does not support your position at all?

From your link:

I personally have a low opinion of Dr. Patterson's objection. A claim about history most certainly can be scientific. There are fossil series where a "watertight argument" can be made.

It wasn't misleading, it was a quote and yes, it was from Sunderland's book. The original challenge was this:

Can you provide even one example of a "professional evolutionist" (which we can take to mean an evolutionist who has published original research regarding evolution in the professional scientific literature) who hs said this in, say, the last hundred years?

I met the challenge and produced the example. But "NO!" shout the evolutionists, "That's not what he really meant."

Well then, how about if I provide 2 examples? How about 3? Four? Will it make any difference? I doubt it because no matter how many quotes I produce, evos will either say it was out of context or not what the author meant. Let's see if I'm right. Here's another quote (taken from a book so Aric, that means there won't be a link):

Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of teh fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of "missing links." The fossil record is replete with evidence favoring organic evolution provided by short sequences of species with overlapping morphologies arranged in a clinal manner with time; the same is true for many sequences of genera and even for a fairish number of families. However, once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence for morphological intergrades between one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the "missing links" has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.
--Arthur J. Boucot, Ph.D., Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls

[laredo44]

Note, however, that even Patterson was not saying that transitionals do not exist, he was only saying that we can't identify them.

According to the quote, he said, "I will lay it on the line-- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." That seems to be pretty loosey-goosey. He seems to be saying there may be some compelling evidence, but it's not 100% certain.

[Stultis]

He's shown before that he won't provide references because doing so might allow us to actually research the context of his quotes and find out that he's completely distorting the original statements.

Agreed on history, but I think Dataman did O.K. in this instance, as far as the quote being reasonably representative. See my 144 however for some missing context (which, however, Dataman would not be expected to know about).

Of course I knew about Patterson, and about this quote, which is why I told Dataman that claims of problems with identifying transitionals was not the same as denying their existence. As I noted in 144, Patterson's views are pretty unusual and extreme. His quote is as close as Dataman can get (without lying or distorting).

[Dataman]

I think one can make the argument that the quote was representative of Colin Patterson's views, at least at the time it was made.

Thank you for that admission. I noticed that the other participants on the evo side are still in denial. Patterson's quote doesn't disprove evolution or even damage the theory so I'm not sure what the big defensive reaction is.

[Stultis]

Well then, if the validity of the evolutionary theory depends on taxonomy of evolutionists, then you wouldn't mind too much if the validity of creation depended on the taxonomy of creationists, would you? Oh? You don't agree? Then we're back to postmodern (double) standards.

Pardon? I'm unaware of any fundamental or significant disagreement between evolutionists and creationists about the identification of species. Or of any disagreement whatsoever, for that matter.

This is not surprising since, as I noted, the species is the one objective taxon.

[Aric2000]

Because you took it out of context again.

You claimed that it meant what it clearly did not.

If ALL other statements that you have made had turned out to be true and above reproach, the big stink would not be nearly as stinky.

You have a history Datamn, that is why we get upset.

Otherwise you might have gotten away with it. But I doubt it.

[Dimensio]

It might just be a natural reaction to the fact that you have misrepresented quotes in the past and you never provide adequate references, insisting that we track down the source of your quotes if we want context. Also, your quote is at best marginally in tune with your position, as Patterson is not stating that there are no transitional fossils. As his view seems to be that transitionals cannot be identified, it's impossible for him to say that none have been found.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I met the challenge and produced the example. But "NO!" shout the evolutionists, "That's not what he really meant."

The challenge was to find one professional evolutionist who said there are "no transitional forms" (your words). Boucot says the fossil record is "replete with" transitional forms at the species, genus and family levels, just not at the "suprafamilial" level. How does that support your position?

[Dataman]

I'm unaware of any fundamental or significant disagreement between evolutionists and creationists about the identification of species. Or of any disagreement whatsoever, for that matter.

My comment was in referenced to your statement:

"[Macro]Evolution doesn't happen because the boundaries of [the creationist] taxonomy [of 'created kinds'] are adjusted."

My point was only that reality cannot be brought into existence simply by playing with definitions. For example, I could say that Minnesota is the best state to live in and proceed to define "best" as spending the most tax $ per capita. Or I could say that Minnesota is the most compassionate state because it spends the most money on education and health care per capita. Minnesota is neither the best state nor the most compassionate and playing with definitions won't make it so.

[Stultis]

Here's another quote (taken from a book so Aric, that means there won't be a link):

[ALARM Bells Ringing!!!]

Yes, Dataman, but what book did YOU take it from? Are you saying that you have "Arthur J. Boucot, Ph.D., Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls" siting open in front of your keyboard, or are you taking this from some other book that quotes Boucot?

You are obligated to provide YOUR source. E.g. "Arthur J. Boucot (etc) as quoted in Henry H. Morris (etc) page (so and so)."

[Aric2000]

The defense will now begin.

We will be wrong in his eyes and are attacking him for no reason but that he is a creationist.

We gave him a specific challenge, he did his best to meet it, and now everyone is attacking him, see how abused I get by Evolutionists? SEE, see how prosecutorial they are?

See, see.......


Ad hominem hominem.......

[js1138]

I met the challenge and produced the example. But "NO!" shout the evolutionists, "That's not what he really meant."

Yes, because it isn't what he meant. Not at all.

[Aric2000]

[ALARM Bells Ringing!!!]

Yep, about busted my eardrums too....;)

[js1138]

But he did distort, and continues to. First of all because the quote was concerning a very narrow problem, finding and identifying transitionals in a very narrow lineage.

[Dataman]

Ah, baloney. You seem to be bitter because I wouldn't do your homework for you. I provided the quotes you requested, not one, but four. You found feeble excuses to reject all of them like it somehow proved that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. That is a recent mantra and it exists solely for the purpose of not having to answer another one of the unexplained problems with the theory. You even pick apart your own when they say things you don't quite like.

Stultis, OTOH, has been polite and, although he doesn't agree with the creationist position, hasn't devolved into the rabid foaming flailing which we have come to expect. Some of you pretend you're calm rational scientists and then proceed to whirl like a dervish at the drop of a hat.