Replies

[Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.]

Claiming it as a fact doesnt make it a fact. No matter how many letters you can string after your name.

So what's your explanation then? God created things in countless "waves" a few million years apart over a billion or so years? After letting dinosaurs run around for a long time, he decided to wave his hands and throw birds into the mix out of nowhwere? Funny, Genesis doesn't describe anything like that.

You'll also have to explain why He chose to "specially create" birds at a time when there were already reptiles which had an awful lot of birdlike traits on the scene (which were themselves preceded by reptiles with fewer birdlike traits, which were themselves... etc. etc.)

I'm not a YEC.

Good.

I agree that descent with change is a fact.

Then you're 98% of the way there.

But. Gradualism, which makes use of the millions of years of life, is refuted by the fossil record.

You are mistaken. There are countless examples of clasic "gradualism" in the fossil record. But just to make sure, please define "gradualism" as you mean it. Something taking place in "only" a few million years is practically instantaneously with respect to most parts of the geological record, yet it would still be immensely "gradual" by any human standard of speed.

Punctuated equilibrium doesn't describe a process, it seems more a "kluge" than anything else.

Then you don't understand it well. P.E. most certainly does "describe a process", and it's the same process as the rest of evolution. It's just a recognition of what should have been an obvious fact but that no one gave much thought to until Gould et al made an issue of it: Evolution does not proceed at the same speed at all times. Few natural processes do.

Just as erosion can take place at quite different speeds (very slowly if accomplished by wind, much faster if running water is present, extremely fast when flash-floods occur, etc.), evolution likewise can slow almost to a standstill when conditions are right (e.g., large populations that are already well suited to their environment and no heavy competition is present), or proceed very fast indeed (relatively speaking) when other conditions are present (e.g. small populations, heavy selective pressure/competition, a "breakthrough" mutation, etc.)

That's all the P.E. is -- the recognition that the forces which drive evolution change in "strength" based on current conditions, and thus the speed of change will necessarily vary and not always proceed at the same speed either.

This has been verified time and time again both mathematically, and experimentally. A good example of the latter is contained in the February 2003 issue of Scientific American. While harnessing evolution to meet requirements in electronic circuits, the authors found that they got results considerably faster when the evolving "populations" of circuits were often split off into smaller isolated subpopulations -- just as is predicted by punctuated equilibrium.

Like, gee, these fossils stay the same, then wham, some are gone, others, radically different appear. Okay, fossil creation is the exception, not the rule.

Only if you misstate the actual fossil record by calling the observed changes "radically different". Sure, if for example a modern bird appeared out of nowhere, then yeah, you'd have a case for "fossil creation". But that's not what happens. Feel free to present an example of what you believe is the sudden appearance of something "radically different", if you think you can. And make sure your example is from a period where we actually have a decent number of fossil finds -- no fair pointing to "jumps" which are caused by the extreme rarity of fossil finds of any sort.

Still, saying that somehow evolution happens in bursts and then goes into stasis doesn't really account for how that much change occurs that quickly, it merely amends the theory of gradualism to fit the facts, after the fact.

Yeah, heaven forbid science should refine its knowledge... *cough*

As for "doesn't really account for how that much change occurs that quickly", actually, it does. Analyses of population dynamics show quite easily that some of the more "rapid" (again, that term is only relative, it's still a slow process by human standards) species changes are well within what's to be expected given the conditions that were likely present.

but, scientifically, I weary of naturalists and atheists overstating the weak science. There's not enough "there" yet.

As is the case for a lot of skeptics, your assertions about the "lack of evidence" appears to be more an artifact of your own lack of familiarity with the field than with any actual absence of evidence.

Thanks for the solid post.

So what's your explanation then? God created things in countless "waves" a few million years apart over a billion or so years? ... Funny, Genesis doesn't describe anything like that.

Its a possibility. Unlike the YEC position, it does not rely on overturning geology. And Genesis does imply it. It uses two different words for created... one means made from nothing, the other means fashioned from something else. Guess which one is used for the making of the diffent animals? Yep, fashioned. Sounds like He used existing animals as a starting point for other animals.

You'll also have to explain why He chose to "specially create" birds at a time when there were already reptiles which had an awful lot of birdlike traits on the scene (which were themselves preceded by reptiles with fewer birdlike traits, which were themselves... etc. etc.)

Fashioning.

There are countless examples of clasic "gradualism" in the fossil record. But just to make sure, please define "gradualism" as you mean it.

I could go look it up and say that's what I mean, but I'll be fair, and say that what I mean is a steady progression of accumulated changes. That getting from a dinosaur to a bird happened slowly and steadily. That, if every dead animal had left a fossil, it would show each generation in succession changing towards whatever it became.

Remember, this view was dominant for a long time, it seemed plausible. That the gaps between species were accounted for by the rarity of fossils.

The difficulty is that the fossils show that most animals remain (largely) unchanged over many many generations. In some cases, (like coelecanth) an astounding amount of time.

P.E. most certainly does "describe a process", and it's the same process as the rest of evolution. It's just a recognition of what should have been an obvious fact but that no one gave much thought to until Gould et al made an issue of it: Evolution does not proceed at the same speed at all times. Few natural processes do.

So, PE says that there periods of super-rapid gradualism. How rapid? Instant? Ok, take Darwin's finches - is that an example of PE? Or regular, slow-scale gradualism?

This has been verified time and time again both mathematically, and experimentally. A good example of the latter is contained in the February 2003 issue of Scientific American. While harnessing evolution to meet requirements in electronic circuits, the authors found that they got results considerably faster when the evolving "populations" of circuits were often split off into smaller isolated subpopulations -- just as is predicted by punctuated equilibrium.

That's fascinating. So, there might be some sort of universal laws governing this thing, probability, quantum theory, something like that, that contols it. Of course, rigorously speaking, demonstrations in electronics don't necessarily apply to the life sciences.

Sure, if for example a modern bird appeared out of nowhere, then yeah, you'd have a case for "fossil creation". But that's not what happens. Feel free to present an example of what you believe is the sudden appearance of something "radically different", if you think you can. And make sure your example is from a period where we actually have a decent number of fossil finds -- no fair pointing to "jumps" which are caused by the extreme rarity of fossil finds of any sort.

Protoavis texensis. Predates Archaeopteryx by about 75 million years. It's considerable more like a modern bird than Archaeopterx. Not sure if it meets the right number of specimens for you, though, only two individuals, and 31 other fossils of various parts.

But, lets look at the whole bird thing. Feathers are an amazing structure, and a lot of scientists think they are unlikely to have evolved twice independently. So, if Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx both have feathers, then they have to be descendants of the first feathered creature. So, are they feathered dinosaurs that resemble birds, or large flightless birds that resemble dinosaurs? Descent with change doesn't imply a single direction.

Even choosing to ignore Protoavis (after all, it is rather inconvenient), Archaeopteryx is Late Jurassic. So the first bird must have been sometime before that - Middle to early Late Jurassic. So its dinosaur ancestor must have existed by the Middle Jurassic. But, dinosaurs with many avian characteristics don't appears before Late Jurassic, and the most birdlike don't appear until much later.

Because it *is* a fact (*and* a theory).

I've read just about the whole talk origins site. Lots of good info. This particular page is underwhelming. Sure, its a Theory... because it is accepted. Because there is nothing scientific (ie, natural) that fits the evidence (facts) better. "Facts are the world's data...Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." Good so far. "Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world." So, we don't know anything for sure. And a fact is something we don't know for sure. Funny, I had a different definition in mind. Hmm, they just gave one themselves a few sentences earlier. "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." " So, what he's really saying is "agree with my interpretation or you're a stupid-head." Got it. Very convincing, that.

It's only the creationists who claim to have the final answers.

Some. You meant to same some. I don't claim to have the final answer.

I'll end with a quote from Storrs Olson in his November 1, 1999 letter to the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society:

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists 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 of their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age – the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

There are countless examples of clasic "gradualism" in the fossil record.

There are countless examples of 'gradualism' in living things TODAY so that there are similarities which an evolutionist can call evolution is not to be wondered. Men can be found in all shapes, sizes and colors - TODAY. So can dogs and other species. Yet they are all the same species as science tells us. You cannot tell from most fossils whether it is an infant or an adult, a male or a female and many other things. You cannot even tell if they are different species and the dating is dubious at best. So fossil 'gradualism' proves nothing.

However, there is strong proof against evolutionary gradualism. Two such are the Cambrian explosion and the arising of mammals. Perhaps the two most important events after the creation of life. In the Cambrian explosion, within less than 10 million years all the major phyla (the highest classfication of animal species after kingdom) arose without any gradualism and any possible precursors. The arising of mammals is completely absent from the fossil record. Here we have the greatest change in life form after the Cambrian and we cannot show how it happened from the fossils. Since this was such a great change and evolution supposedly occurs gradually, then it should have the most evidence of all. Instead, all the evolutionists are able to show is a very small skull whose top part has been pasted together from 100 million years before the next earliest fossils - when numerous species of mammals already were to be found.