A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest

Houston Chronical via WorldNetDaily ^ | July 26 | Jeff Farmer

[Tribune7]

Printer-friendly format July 26, 2002, 6:11PM

A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest By JEFF FARMER

It has been said that if anyone wants to see something badly enough, they can see anything, in anything. Such was the case recently, but unlike some ghostly visage of the Madonna in a coffee stain, this was a vision of our ancestral past in the form of one recently discovered prehistoric skull, dubbed Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Papers across the globe heralded the news with great fanfare. With words like "scientists hailed" and "startling find" sprinkled into the news coverage, who couldn't help but think evolutionists had finally found their holy grail of missing links?

For those of us with more than a passing interest in such topics as, "Where did we come from? And how did we get here?," this recent discovery and its subsequent coverage fall far short of its lofty claims. A healthy criticism is in order.

Practically before the fossil's discoverer, the French paleoanthropologist Michel Brunet, could come out of the heat of a Chadian desert, a number of his evolutionary colleagues had questioned his conclusions.

In spite of the obvious national pride, Brigitte Senut of the Natural History of Paris sees Brunet's skull as probably that of an ancient female gorilla and not the head of man's earliest ancestor. While looking at the same evidence, such as the skull's flattened face and shorter canine teeth, she draws a completely different conclusion.

Of course, one might be inclined to ask why such critiques never seem to get the same front-page coverage? It's also important to point out that throughout history, various species, such as cats, have had varying lengths of canine teeth. That does not make them any closer to evolving into another species.

A Washington Post article goes on to describe this latest fossil as having human-like traits, such as tooth enamel thicker than a chimpanzee's. This apparently indicates that it did not dine exclusively on the fruit diet common to apes. But apes don't dine exclusively on fruit; rather, their diet is supplemented with insects, birds, lizards and even the flesh of monkeys. The article attempted to further link this fossil to humans by stating that it probably walked upright. Never mind the fact that no bones were found below the head! For all we know, it could have had the body of a centaur, but that would hardly stop an overzealous scientist (or reporter) from trying to add a little meat to these skimpy bones. Could it not simply be a primate similar to today's Bonobo? For those not keeping track of their primates, Bonobos (sp. Pan paniscus) are chimpanzee-like creatures found only in the rain forests of Zaire. Their frame is slighter than that of a chimpanzee's and their face does not protrude as much. They also walked upright about 5 percent of the time. Sound familiar?

Whether it is tooth enamel, length of canines or the ability to walk upright, none of these factors makes this recent discovery any more our ancestral candidate than it does a modern-day Bonobo.

So why does every new fossil discovery seem to get crammed into some evolutionary scenario? Isn't it possible to simply find new, yet extinct, species? The answer, of course, is yes; but there is great pressure to prove evolution.

That leads us to perhaps the most troubling and perplexing aspect of this latest evolutionary hoopla. While on one hand sighting the evolutionary importance of this latest discovery, a preponderance of these articles leave the notion that somehow missing links are not all that important any more.

According to Harvard anthropologist Dan Lieberman, missing links are pretty much myths. That might be a convenient conclusion for those who have been unable to prove evolution via the fossil record. Unfortunately for them, links are absolutely essential to evolution. It is impossible for anything to evolve into another without a linear progression of these such links.

The prevailing evolutionary view of minute changes, over millions of years, is wholly inadequate for the explanation of such a critical piece of basic locomotion as the ball-and-socket joint. Until such questions can be resolved, superficial similarities between various species are not going to prove anything. No matter how bad someone wants to see it.

Farmer is a professional artist living in Houston. He can can be contacted via his Web site, www.theglobalzoo.com

[VadeRetro]

So one-celled stuff mutates into fungi in one spot, while some other one-celled stuff mutates into a worm in another spot, then those groups get established and mutate into something else etc.

I know I just asked you this on another thread, but do you have any arguments that aren't based on ignorance and illogic?

[Tribune7]

Actually the transition from one-celled organism to a multicelled organism like worms isn't that direct. (a good example of an intermediate would be the Volvox) . . .

Well, that's the theory. I don't think it's been demonstrated, and I'm dubious of it.

[Tribune7]

I know I just asked you this on another thread, but do you have any arguments that aren't based on ignorance and illogic?

Now, that's a rebuttal!

[gore3000]

Obviously, there are still primitive micro-organisms. There are still primitive multi-cellulars. There are still primitive vertebrates. This chain of increasing complexity in extant creatures suggested evolution to various people even before Darwin.

And those primitive microorganisms are very good evidence that evolution does not happen. If species were mutating all the time, after over 3 billion years one would expect to see big changes in a species - any species, yet we do not. Here is a fantastic example that evolution don't happen:

Bacteria : Fossil Record

It may seem surprising that bacteria can leave fossils at all. However, one particular group of bacteria, the cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae," have left a fossil record that extends far back into the Precambrian - the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known. Cyanobacteria are larger than most bacteria, and may secrete a thick cell wall. More importantly, cyanobacteria may form large layered structures, called stromatolites (if more or less dome-shaped) or oncolites (if round). These structures form as a mat of cyanobacteria grows in an aquatic environment, trapping sediment and sometimes secreting calcium carbonate. When sectioned very thinly, fossil stromatolites may be found to contain exquisitely preserved fossil cyanobacteria and algae.

The picture above is a short chain of cyanobacterial cells, from the Bitter Springs Chert of northern Australia (about 1 billion years old). Very similar cyanobacteria are alive today; in fact, most fossil cyanobacteria can almost be referred to living genera. Compare this fossil cyanobacterium with this picture of the living cyanobacterium Oscillatoria:

The group shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms. From: Fossil Record of the Bacteria

[gore3000]

Do you see the absurdities in blue being posted to me now?

No, all I see is you indulging in insults and semantic arguments while avoiding very specific evidence refuting evolution.

BTW - that's some black eye Patrick gave you for daring to post to me after you had been warned numeroust times not to.

[gore3000]

These occurrences may be random but they can happen in every individual independently. And since there are many individuals their occurrence isn't that unlikely. Note that the probability for one particular beneficial mutation may be low but in general there are several possible beneficial mutations that can occur to one of those many individuals.

The problem with that is that bad mutations far outstrip the number of beneficial ones. What this means is that the individuals carrying a neutral mutation 'in progress' are highly likely to die as attempts are made to get a beneficial mutation. This destroys the genetic base of mutant genes long before it can accomplish the necessary transformation. Also note that with gradual evolution you have to 'build up' the mutation. In addition to the above problem, it is most likely that a 3rd or 4th mutation will be harmful while the 5 th change would be beneficial but you will never get there because the 3rd or 4th killed off all those that had gotten that far.

So as you can see there are lots of problems with gradual evolution. Sudden transformations do not just 'happen'.

[BMCDA]

Bad mutations are usually eliminated before the individual procreates. Neutral mutations however, may remain in the gene pool or they can disappear but they don't have to. Endogenous retroviruses are a good counter example.
You can often find the same retrogenes at the same position in a chromosome in the populations of different species. So it is very likely that this retrovirus inserted itself in the gamete from which the common ancestor of these populations originated. Of course there is also the possibility that the same retrovirus inserted itself at the same position in the DNA of more than one species independently but the possibility for this to happen is really very small so I think it can be ruled out.

Now the critical time for a neutral and even a beneficial mutation is the start i.e. when very few individuals carry it but once again, this doesn't mean they have to disappear.

In addition to the above problem, it is most likely that a 3rd or 4th mutation will be harmful while the 5 th change would be beneficial but you will never get there because the 3rd or 4th killed off all those that had gotten that far.

That is true but this 2nd, 3rd, etc. mutation will not happen to the original animal but eventually to one of its offspring. So if the 4th mutation is harmful you usually still have some other copies (i.e. siblings) who don't have this detrimental mutation.
In general the copy process is accurate. However, if the error rate is too high, so the selection process lags behind, then this population is likely to disappear.

[gore3000]

Now the critical time for a neutral and even a beneficial mutation is the start i.e. when very few individuals carry it but once again, this doesn't mean they have to disappear.

No, it does not have to dissappear, but the chances of its survival are very low because a neutral mutation will remain in a stable population in just one individual. This also makes the chances of its acquiring additional mutations which will turn it into a favorable one very unlikely.

In addition to the above problem, it is most likely that a 3rd or 4th mutation will be harmful while the 5 th change would be beneficial but you will never get there because the 3rd or 4th killed off all those that had gotten that far.-me-

That is true but this 2nd, 3rd, etc. mutation will not happen to the original animal but eventually to one of its offspring. So if the 4th mutation is harmful you usually still have some other copies (i.e. siblings) who don't have this detrimental mutation. In general the copy process is accurate. However, if the error rate is too high, so the selection process lags behind, then this population is likely to disappear.

Yes, it would happen to an offspring. However, see above, a neutral mutation is highly unlikely to spread. My point though is that because you essentially would need all 5 mutations in this case, and the 3rd or 4th would kill the individual, you would never get to the 5th. Think about it.

[VadeRetro]

Now the critical time for a neutral and even a beneficial mutation is the start i.e. when very few individuals carry it but once again, this doesn't mean they have to disappear.

While computer models show that the average neutral mutation dies out according to a certain formula, the usual bell curve applies. About half the cases do better than average, and some cases do two standard deviations better. You're right, pass a certain threshold of success and you don't die out unless perhaps your whole species takes a big hit. Meanwhile, new neutral mutations are always occurring.

So what you see when you sample a sexual species is a swarm of alleles for most genes being combined and recombined in unique individuals. Because of all the variation to select from, it's a situation ripe for evolution.

[BMCDA]

...a neutral mutation will remain in a stable population in just one individual.

Why? I don't think this needs to be the case as is shown here. Especially in small populations this can happen quite often.
Also, a beneficial mutation can occur directly and it doesn't necessarily need a neutral intermediary.

Yes, it would happen to an offspring. However, see above, a neutral mutation is highly unlikely to spread. My point though is that because you essentially would need all 5 mutations in this case, and the 3rd or 4th would kill the individual, you would never get to the 5th. Think about it.

But it doesn't happen that way. There is no planing ahead - if a mutation is detrimental, that's it. So all "modifications" have to work at least as good as the status quo.

[BMCDA]

While computer models show that the average neutral mutation dies out according to a certain formula, the usual bell curve applies.

The blind drunkard in a corridor ;)
Will he return to the wall he just lost contact with or will he stagger around until he hits the opposite one?

[gore3000]

Why? I don't think this needs to be the case as is shown here. Especially in small populations this can happen quite often.

Hate to tell you, but it's wrong. Neutral mutations will almost certainly dissappear as shown below. And note that this is from an educational site, not from any kind of biased against evolution place:

1.

The graph below summarizes the relationship between population size and probability of fixation of a favorable allele. In small populations the favorable allele has higher probability of fixation than in large populations (this is surprising!), whereas larger population size sees the probability of fixation approach a constant value about equal to . The effect in small populations is like that for a neutral mutation, but as population size increases the chance of the neutral mutation reaching fixation diminishes. As a consequence, larger populations favor fixation of advantageous mutations compared to neutral mutations, as shown by the ratio of the fixation probability of advantageous to neutral mutations. Note that this does not include any information on the rate at which neutral or advantageous mutations occur.

From: WSU Population Genetics

You can also check the same question in the 'bible' of evolution - TalkOrigins:

Neutral alleles Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear. The average time (in generations) until loss of a neutral allele is 2(Ne/N) ln(2N) where N is the effective population size (the number of individuals contributing to the next generation's gene pool) and N is the total population size. Only a small percentage of alleles fix. Fixation is the process of an allele increasing to a frequency at or near one. The probability of a neutral allele fixing in a population is equal to its frequency. For a new mutant in a diploid population, this frequency is 1/2N.
From: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

[gore3000]

However, see above, a neutral mutation is highly unlikely to spread. My point though is that because you essentially would need all 5 mutations in this case, and the 3rd or 4th would kill the individual, you would never get to the 5th. Think about it. -me-

But it doesn't happen that way. There is no planing ahead - if a mutation is detrimental, that's it. So all "modifications" have to work at least as good as the status quo.

I am not talking about planning. What I am talking about is a series of mutations. Not only all modifications have to work as well as the status quo, but none of the mutations in the series can be killing mutations. Otherwise the mutation will be lost. If you go around changing a gene DNA base pair by DNA base pair to try to get an advantageous mutation which perhaps might take five such changes, if any of the other four base changes necessary to achieve that are deleterious the original neutral mutation(s) will be completely lost and you will never get to the 5th one. So the 'additive' method will not work in numerous cases either. Also note that the mutation would also be lost by making incorrect attempts at getting a favorable mutation because the organism carrying it would die and the mutation would be gone with it.

[BMCDA]

A neutral mutation doesn't have to get fixed in a population, it's enough if there are individuals who carry it and if a second mutation that turns this neutral mutation into a beneficial one happens to them. The probability for this might be lower as if it were fixed in that population but the chances for it to happen are still not zero.

Your other point is that for a beneficial trait you need a certain amount of mutations but you need them all at once since if one is missing that individual is less fit as an other one that lacks these mutations. To be honest, I doubt that this scenario is neccessary for evolution to happen. Also I don't think that there can't be an other way to solve this problem. So why can't just all mutations be somewhat beneficial or at least neutral?
However, since I'm not a biologist, I can't give you a definite answer to this question. "exDemMom" seems to be more competent in this field, so maybe she can give you a more informed answer to your problem with the five mutations.

[RightWingNilla]

No. After the mutation the gene works less well on other nutrients.

No. The enzymes for the other metabolic pathways exist. The only physiological effect of the mutations is to impart the ability to utilize lactose.

[RightWingNilla]

We do not know how the mutation arose.

LOL. The valine at position 6 of the beta chain was intelligently designed (of course). No evidence that it arose via random mutation!

[RightWingNilla]

Thanks for your honest response. These points are far more valid than the "no examples of beneficial mutation/duplicated gene" ridiculousness.

Single-celled life is arguably the most resiliant life on earth. Some say it can survive in outer space.

Multicellular organisms can fill “higher” level niches unreachable by bacteria. For starters, the first multicellular organisms could eat the unicellular guys.

Why would sexual reproduction develop?

Gene transfer is common among all organisms. Bacteria transfer plasmids on a regular basis. Sex in higher organisms is more costly but has definite advantages over asexual reproduction. It seems to be a powerful mechanism to stay one step ahead of infectious microbes.

I've heard better reasoning from a football fan saying how his 0-7 team can still be expected to make the playoffs.

So you’re a Detroit Lions fan? ;)

Then there is the lack of evidence. I can perfectly accept that tigers and housecats share a common descendent. I can't accept that housecats and horses do.

The genetic evidence alone shows a tremendous interrelatedness between all known life forms (humans share a number of genes with bacteria). Even the same genetic mistakes are found within related species.

And then there is irreducible complexity.

IR turns out to be a flimsy house of cards. Gene manipulation experiments have been a disaster for Behe’s argument – most parts do not appear to be absolutely essential for function. Also there are a number of excellent models for how various seemingly irreducibly complex systems could have evolved step by step. The evolution of the eye is thought to have occurred independently a number of times.

Then there is a religious aspect. No offense meant to anyone on this thread, but there are those who use evolution as an excuse to deny God's existence.

I very much stand with you here, but so far I haven’t seen too much of this attitude on these threads (it certainly isn’t the majority opinion held by people who accept evolution.)

Correct me if I am wrong but I see it the other way,

Creationist: If one can somehow disprove evolution, then God MUST exist.

It seems to me the position taken by those of weaker faith.

[gore3000]

The valine at position 6 of the beta chain was intelligently designed (of course). No evidence that it arose via random mutation!

Showing your ignorance again. The causes of mutations are many. Anything from radiation, to the sun, to viruses. Just because you cannot give proof of how something happened you insult and make stupid comments. Why does anybody without the mutation survive malaria? Only a small part of the population in these malaria infested areas has the mutation. How come others without it survive? Answer that one wise guy.

[gore3000]

A neutral mutation doesn't have to get fixed in a population, it's enough if there are individuals who carry it and if a second mutation that turns this neutral mutation into a beneficial one happens to them. The probability for this might be lower as if it were fixed in that population but the chances for it to happen are still not zero.

Yup, a 2nd mutation a generation or two apart in just the right place necessary is possible. However, it is so utterly improbable that it makes evolution in such a way utterly impossible. It would constitute a miracle. And to posit miracle is okay, to posit hundreds of millions of such miracles - necessary to have created the vast diversity of species from the bacteria to man, is utterly ridiculous.

BTW - don't wait for demmom to come to the rescue, she is avoiding the exact same question in another thread and resorting to insults.

[gore3000]

The genetic evidence alone shows a tremendous interrelatedness between all known life forms (humans share a number of genes with bacteria). Even the same genetic mistakes are found within related species.

Care to back it up? I bet you do not. You only find that garbage in TalkOrigins.