Thursday, May 19, 2016

Local Fitness Landscape Mapped Out For Green Fluorescent Protein

It’s Just Getting Worse

As we have discussed many times, proteins are a show-stopper for evolution. Proteins consist of dozens, hundreds and even thousands of amino acids and, like most machines, they don’t work very well until most of the parts (amino acids in this case) are in place. Half of the amino acids don’t give you half the function of a protein. You can read more about this here and here. Now, a new paper reinforces the problem of protein evolution.

One approach to studying how evolution could create new protein designs is to start with some sort of random sequence of amino acids, see how well it works, and try to evolve it to obtain a protein. This is difficult because the protein design space is astronomically huge and proteins are sparse within that space. Any random sequence of amino acids will merely give you junk. Furthermore, the fitness landscape is flat and doesn’t provide the guidance evolution needs to move toward functional proteins.

Another approach is to start at the end and work backwards. In other words, start with the finished product—a functional protein—and see what the fitness landscape looks like as you swap in different amino acids. This is difficult because, unfortunately for evolution, the fitness landscape drops off precipitously as you move away from the native protein design. Modifying only a few percent of the amino acids leads to a rapid loss of function.

The new paper takes this second approach. It uses a bioluminescent protein known as the green fluorescent protein, taken from the jellyfish, Aequorea victoria. It is a wonderful study that systematically mapped out the protein’s function (as measured by the protein’s fluorescence) for a total of 51,715 different protein sequences that are nearby the native sequence.

The results confirmed what earlier studies had indicated: the protein function drops off dramatically with only a relatively small number of substitutions. But the study also explored the effect of multiple substitutions. It is well known that the effect of two substitutions, for example, are not always simply the sum of their individual effects. They can interact with each other in either positive or negative ways. This is referred to as epistasis.

The new study found that negative epistasis was strong and prevalent. As one of the researchers explained:

We were really surprised when we finally had a chance to look at exactly how the interactions between mutations occur. We also did not expect that almost all the mutations that are only slightly damaging on their own can destroy fluorescence completely when combined together.

It was well understood that evolving a protein is an astronomically unlikely event, and these results indicate it is even more difficult. Those negative results, however, were not reported in the paper. Instead, the paper discussed possible ways that one green fluorescent protein, found in one particular species, may have evolved into other green fluorescent proteins, found in other species. The implications for the initial evolution of a protein were ignored.

221 comments:

  1. I am looking forward to see what comes out of the upcoming "evolution rethink," where desperate Darwinists will converge in an attempt to save their dying secular religion. Will they be successful? Of course not, but the entertainment value will be priceless. This is getting really good!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the funniest guy on this blog. By far. I'm just wondering how long can you keep up with this excitement of yours.

      Delete
  2. Cornelius:

    One approach to studying how evolution could create new protein designs is to start with some sort of random sequence of amino acids, see how well it works, and try to evolve it to obtain a protein. This is difficult because the protein design space is astronomically huge and proteins are sparse within that space. Any random sequence of amino acids will merely give you junk. Furthermore, the fitness landscape is flat and doesn’t provide the guidance evolution needs to move toward functional proteins.

    Yes. It would take an huge amount of time to arrive a a solution and the organism would perish eons before anything is found.

    This is why we should never use the word "improbable" when speaking about evolution. The right word is "impossible". The evotards always have a field day with improbability, what with "God of the gaps" and all that other nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It must take an exorbitant amount of time, scanning the professional literature looking for scientific research to misrepresent and quote-mine. Of course there has to be the obligatory "evolution says proteins had to fall together all at once to form" strawman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It must take an exorbitant amount of time, scanning the blogs, looking for posts to misrepresent and quote-mine. Of course there has to be the obligatory "OP says proteins had to fall together all at once to form" strawman.

      Do as I say, not as I do.

      Delete
    2. The pathological sophistry of dirt worshippers never ceases to amaze me. It must be some form of psychosis related to malignant narcissism. Darwinism attracts psychopaths the same way the Catholic Church attracts pedophiles and homosexuals.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Ghost, "Of course there has to be the obligatory "evolution says proteins had to fall together all at once to form""

      Um, it is the protein data, not "evolution" that says that the think has to fall together all at once. The data is clear, you are see-through.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "It must take an exorbitant amount of time, scanning the professional literature looking for scientific research to misrepresent and quote-mine. Of course there has to be the obligatory "evolution says proteins had to fall together all at once to form" strawman."

      How did I know you were going to provide this rote response? I'm only surprised two comments got in ahead of you. :)

      Delete
    5. bFast

      Um, it is the protein data, not "evolution" that says that the think has to fall together all at once.


      No. Evolution posits extant proteins evolved slowly from earlier, simpler proteins which themselves evolved from even earlier simpler ones.

      Only the Creationist ignoranti think evolution had to search the whole of the "astronomically huge protein design space". All evolution has to search each generation is the design space immediately around an already functioning protein. Even if an improvement is rare it will be found and through selection added to the gene pool.

      Delete
    6. All evolution has to search each generation is the design space immediately around an already functioning protein. Even if an improvement is rare it will be found and through selection added to the gene pool.

      There is no "already functioning protein". You skipped over the problem.

      Delete
    7. There have been functioning proteins for several billion years. See the work of Dr. Joe Thornton in resurrecting ancient proteins.

      Evolution of complexity reconstructed using 'molecular time travel'

      Delete
    8. There is no "already functioning protein". You skipped over the problem.

      LOL!

      It's definitely a neurological disorder. It must be. There is no other explanation other than demonic possession or just plain stupidity.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    9. There have been functioning proteins for several billion years.

      Non sequiter.

      Delete
    10. Ghostrider,

      "It must take an exorbitant amount of time, scanning the professional literature looking for scientific research to misrepresent and quote-mine. Of course there has to be the obligatory "evolution says proteins had to fall together all at once to form" strawman."

      I agree entirely. It's funny to watch Cornelius Hunter and the other slanderers at Discovery just pick articles seemingly at random using little more than keyword hunts for words like 'protein' to make claims that have little or nothing to do with the content of the paper. Of course they know their readers are idiots, and also likely don't have full access to the paper to dispute or further investigate the claims made by Discovery's pyramid scheme employees.

      Delete
    11. ""There have been functioning proteins for several billion years.

      Non sequiter.""

      Cornelius, if maybe you'd read the paper you misrepresented......

      Delete
    12. Creationists don't need to read science papers. Just look at the Discovery Institute's new book written by their paid shill Douglas Axe. If your intuition tells you God designed life then gosh darn it God designed life! Who needs that bothersome evidence stuff? :)

      Delete
    13. David:

      Actually I did read the paper. Did you?

      I agree entirely. It's funny to watch Cornelius Hunter and the other slanderers at Discovery just pick articles seemingly at random using little more than keyword hunts for words like 'protein' to make claims that have little or nothing to do with the content of the paper.

      Please indicate what claims the OP makes that have little or nothing to do with the content of the paper, and indicate the slander you referred to.

      Delete
    14. ""It was well understood that evolving a protein is an astronomically unlikely event, and these results indicate it is even more difficult. Those negative results, however, are not reported in the paper. ""

      Lies like this 'Mr.' Hunter.

      I guess what's fascinating is just who you think amongst the non-ID crowd actually buy the spins that you and your friends at DI put on the content of these papers. Borders on defamation really. But I know you have to be careful about that lest DI get sued for what little its worth.

      Delete
    15. David:

      I don't see it. Please indicate what it is that you think is a lie, and I'll be happy to retract it. There certainly have been plenty of papers on the unlikelihood of evolving a protein, and there is no good explanation for how they could have arisen. In fact, some evolutionists have admitted protein synthesis is highly unlikely to have evolved, thus indicating we need a multiverse. So I'm unclear what you mean David.

      Delete
    16. Ghost..

      Yeah, It's amazing that books like the one by Axe are even going to print. Sometimes I wonder if DI has actually just given up on Intelligent Design and just reverting back to creationism. They seem willing to entertain anything as long as somewhere along the line there's an attack on evolutionary theory in the pages.

      Delete
    17. Mr. Hunter, I'm curious what you mean by 'no good explanation'....are these your standards, set to what limit? Is this an old Behe trick where you look at the mountains of research and say its not good enough?

      Delete
    18. David:

      The mountains of research do not help. They are what indicate there is no good explanation. I've blogged on this many times, and I'd be happy to explain this. But first, I need to to answer my question. You need to explain clearly the lie accusation that you made.

      Delete
    19. LOL, Wow.

      I think you're well aware of the statements you've made. You don't need me to explain how your mischaracterization of research amounts to 'no good explanation' or how that also translates into special creation or whatever pet theory you hold.

      Delete
    20. I think you're well aware of the statements you've made. You don't need me to explain how your mischaracterization of research amounts to 'no good explanation' or how that also translates into special creation or whatever pet theory you hold.

      Non response noted.

      Delete
  4. Here's more excellent work by Dr. Joe Thornton, published just this last January. The evolutionary history and mechanisms of an ancient protein key to the development of multicellular life

    Molecular "time travel" experiments reveal a simple genetic basis for the evolution of a protein necessary for multicellularity, one billion years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/03/prehoda-and-thornton-find-new-levels-of.html

      Delete
  5. GR:

    See, it's like this. The study posted shows that the proposed mechanism for evolution of one protein to another will not work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a blatant lie about this article Mr Hunter. Can't be bothered to represent the science fairly?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh and then there's the overt lies about the fitness landscape while ignoring what the paper says about this entirely...oh, and the very first sentence...can't forget that one. Not very scientific here Mr. Hunter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ""Instead, the paper discusses possible ways that one green fluorescent protein, found in one particular species, may have evolved into other green fluorescent proteins, found in other species. The implications for the initial evolution of a protein are ignored.""

    When its not the intention of such a paper, how is that 'ignoring' it? And what implications? Yours?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, that was not the intention. But this is a significant implication about evolution. Papers routinely discuss implications of the results.

      Delete
    2. They speak to the implications of their findings in the paper. Maybe you should read them, and not suggest to them what you think they should have said instead. They are after all, not interested in making propaganda out of their research, so I'm sure you can agree that their motivations or interests are not yours.

      Perhaps if you conducted your own research. A novel concept for Discovery Institute to be sure.

      Delete
    3. So far you have made accusations of lying that you still have not explained. Commenters need to be able to back up their claims. We all make mistakes, and I'll retract the lie. But you need to explain the accusation.

      Delete
    4. Fitness landscapes? Accusations of the researchers ignoring your imagined implications?

      Delete
  9. And for a fair take on what the researchers were actually trying to do, versus what Mr. Hunter is claiming they did...see

    http://phys.org/news/2016-05-fluorescent-jellyfish-gene-landscape.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a review of protein engineering work, which starts with a protein. An interesting topic, but it does not make the point which I suspect you are trying to make.

      Delete
    2. Well it did, but I removed it anyway just to not fill up the record with links.

      Delete
    3. No problem, but why remove if it makes your point? If you have a genuine example from protein engineering I would love to see it.

      Delete
    4. It was to simply inform you that research exists, which you imply isn't 'good enough'. I would think that given your access, you can find this for yourself. As well you know, our knowledge here is limited more by funding and technology than a lack of answers to be found. It's shameful that you take advantage of it rather than credit this research or the current body of work for what it has achieved so far. I guess nothing will eve r be good enough until a time machine is invented.

      Delete
    5. It was to simply inform you that research exists, which you imply isn't 'good enough'.

      From the OP: "It is a wonderful study that systematically mapped out the protein’s function (as measured by the protein’s fluorescence) for a total of 51,715 different protein sequences that are nearby the native sequence."

      Delete
    6. What, you think a single compliment about the fact that they did this research means that the rest of your statements are valid?

      Delete
    7. Perhaps you deleted the link to try to erase your own goal. As I explained, it does not make your point. Instead, it states:

      Extending lessons learned from directed evolution to natural evolution, however, requires caution because these search processes operate under different time scales, population sizes, mutation rates, strength of selection, etc. Furthermore, natural evolution works on a different fitness landscape, and it is unclear how the protein fitness assayed during directed evolution is related to the organismal fitness that natural evolution optimizes. Differences reflect the consequences of interactions between the protein and the cellular environment, and might include constraints related to metabolic burden, regulation, nonspecific interactions, or other factors.

      Delete
  11. In the end your piece attempts to use this benign article as an opportunity to make sweeping claims about the status of research, and make a god of the gaps argument on the basis of a complex research area (evolution cannot be true because we haven't solved X). There's no such conclusions to be drawn from this paper or anything related to it. Certainly the authors did not.

    I suppose it's also too much to ask to have 'Evolution News & Views' actually ever provide an article positively arguing the case for evolution, such as what this paper actually does. That would be too 'Orwellian', no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David:

      In the end your piece attempts to use this benign article as an opportunity to make sweeping claims about the status of research, and make a god of the gaps argument on the basis of a complex research area (evolution cannot be true because we haven't solved X).

      Nothing to correct--the OP made no such claim.

      I suppose it's also too much to ask to have 'Evolution News & Views' actually ever provide an article positively arguing the case for evolution, such as what this paper actually does. That would be too 'Orwellian', no?

      And should equal time also be given to geocentrism?

      Delete
    2. Why, because your dig at evolution in the opening sentence isn't a claim? Or your declarations about fitness landscapes? Or the ignoring of their research almost entirely in order to just share your opinion on protein evolution? Or your ignoring of their conclusions/implications?

      Mr. Hunter, I would think someone intelligent enough to acknowledge the title of the web site ENV which is not represented as an ironic one, would realize that the lack of content relevant to said title indicates an overt propaganda intent.

      Equal time indeed. I wonder if you would then agree that Intelligent Design deserves none given the lack of evidence for it, empirically or otherwise. Whatever your standards are. I'm certain that insinuation isn't sufficient.

      Delete
    3. Till next time...I'm sure you'll post another hit piece in the coming weeks.

      Delete
    4. Or the ignoring of their research almost entirely in order to just share your opinion on protein evolution?

      This is incoherent. Of course the OP discussed the research.

      Delete
    5. Oh did it? You have an interesting habit of trying to avoid owning your claims regarding the paper and attacking your critics. All while ignoring the competency of those whose work you attack. I'm sure that as active scientists unlike yourself, they know what you do and don't see the same problems you've imagined from your clearly religious perspective which absolutely requires attacks on evolution.

      I think we can rule your views here defunct.

      Delete
    6. David
      "Equal time indeed. I wonder if you would then agree that Intelligent Design deserves none given the lack of evidence for it, empirically or otherwise. Whatever your standards are. I'm certain that insinuation isn't sufficient."
      small list of evidence:
      transcription
      translation
      protein folding
      ATP synthase
      photosynthesis
      citric acid cycle
      nuclear pore complex
      chromatin
      spliceosome
      hox genes
      vitamin d synthesis
      Your evidence how these things arrived?

      Delete
    7. Bill,

      "small list of evidence:
      transcription
      translation
      protein folding
      ATP synthase
      photosynthesis
      citric acid cycle
      nuclear pore complex
      chromatin
      spliceosome
      hox genes
      vitamin d synthesis"

      Come on Bill, everybody knows that everything is all evolution all the way down. Don't forget, evolution has even evolved ways for evolution to occur.

      Remember, all you need is a simple protein and the rest will all nicely fall into place over billions of years. Nothing to it. :)

      Delete
    8. Bill, while I'm no geologist, I shouldn't have to point out that gaps in scientific exploration are not defacto arguments against a scientific theory, nor are they arguments for Intelligent Design.

      I could easily just turn the tables here and ask ID to produce 'any' evidence on how the universe was created, life arose, etc? Something beyond 'god did it'? Because I'm sure that's the 'answer all the way down'.

      Delete
  12. David Butler,

    "Till next time...,"

    Hopefully you will actually have something to offer the next time. I've never seen anybody make so many posts and say absolutely nothing at all. Really amazing. Useless and pointless, but amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Butler, another dirt worshipper heard from. Those freaks must grow on trees, I swear.

    ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dirt worship? Is that like how you idolize a man made from dirt?

      Spare me the assassination attempt

      Delete
    2. David Butler,

      "Spare me the assassination attempt."

      Just ignore him. He won't go away if you do, but it is still the best course of action when it comes to Louis.

      This will probably result in further nasty comments towards me, but, cest' la vie.

      Delete
  14. I agree with Nic. I also thought it was amazing that so much was said with no content. David sure is an expert on negative critiques of papers on evolution, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All one has to do is read ENV to become familiar with such attacks. There is no other content

      Delete
    2. David Butler,

      "All one has to do is read ENV to become familiar with such attacks. There is no other content."

      Now that's really rich coming from a guy who has posted over 20 comments and said absolutely nothing of any significance.

      "You have an interesting habit of trying to avoid owning your claims regarding the paper and attacking your critics."

      You just keep coming up with them. You're the one who called Dr. Hunter a liar and despite his requests for you to point out where he was lying you just blissfully continue to rant. Arrogance is never becoming.

      Delete
    3. Well he did post a pretty good paper:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997618/

      Delete
  15. Dr. Hunter,

    "Well he did post a pretty good paper:"

    But, as you said, he then deleted the post in what appears to be an attempt to cover up the fact he put the puck in his own net.

    Even as a layman I can see the usefulness of these types of studies but I do not see them as being convincing evidence for the process of unguided evolutionary change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic...that wasn't my intent of posting the paper. It was simple benign research and I was using it to point out that there IS research. But, Hunter thinks nothing is good enough.

      Delete
  16. Nikk
    "But, as you said, he then deleted the post in what appears to be an attempt to cover up the fact he put the puck in his own net."

    Yes, that is one major problem with Cut N Paste Theology when one runs strictly on emotion as opposed to rational thought. But at least he did provide his academic degree credential initials after his name in one post up above in the middle of the comments section. I believe he provided "LOL" which are interestingly the very academic credentials provided by your other friend 'Sleazy Rider'

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dr Hunter

    How could it be a pretty good paper when they start with a bold face lie in the first paragraph?

    "Directed evolution studies have demonstrated how rapidly at least some proteins can evolve under strong selection pressures, and, because the entire ‘fossil record’ of evolutionary intermediates is available for detailed study,.."

    There are no intermediate fossils as attested to by Stephen J. Gould and Collin Patterson.
    If they have outright lies in their "science " when can we trust their findings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well this is not what you think. As I mentioned earlier, this paper is about protein engineering. They are using the terms "evolve," "selection," "fossil," etc., in ways completely different than how you are interpreting them. It's actually a very fine review paper. Then, at the end, they do discuss how the results they are talking about relate to the kind of evolution you are thinking of, and they make it clear there isn't much of a relation, thus rather dramatically undercutting David's point.

      David quickly deleted his comment, stating that he didn't want to "fill up the record with links." While we appreciate his concern for maintaining a tidy comment section, and not overloading it, that was a good paper. Here is what they say at the end:


      ===============
      Extending lessons learned from directed evolution to natural evolution, however, requires caution because these search processes operate under different time scales, population sizes, mutation rates, strength of selection, etc. Furthermore, natural evolution works on a different fitness landscape, and it is unclear how the protein fitness assayed during directed evolution is related to the organismal fitness that natural evolution optimizes. Differences reflect the consequences of interactions between the protein and the cellular environment, and might include constraints related to metabolic burden, regulation, nonspecific interactions, or other factors.
      ===============

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter
      "David quickly deleted his comment, stating that he didn't want to "fill up the record with links."

      He followed your post here from a Facebook page post from here:

      Center for Science & Culture and David Butler

      The sick thing is this guy is obsessed over there with about 70 plus debate groups dealing with evolutionism, creationism and any other 'ism' that isn't to his worldview liking. But it now explains why he is here and offering only trollish behaviour with no point other than he hates people outside of his worldview. He really doesn't have any other life than internet anger. Sad really.

      Delete
    3. Kevin, I neither 'quickly deleted my comment' or anything of the sort. I simply did remove it to clear up the comment thread.

      It's very interesting that you guys, including Hunter, are attempting to use it as an attack on me and lying about the reason I put it here. I simply felt like it didn't belong, and iirc, its because I didn't feel like writing up a long explanation of it that would possibly distract from the subject we were discussing. There is nothign to 'cover up' about it. It's fine if you want to discuss it now, as I am not afraid of its content in any way.

      But don't think I didn't notice you already attacking the content of it as lying. LOL

      Delete
    4. ""The sick thing is this guy is obsessed over there with about 70 plus debate groups dealing with evolutionism, creationism and any other 'ism' that isn't to his worldview liking. ""

      Quite honestly Kevin, if you are familiar with FB groups, many of them aren't terribly active, and while I might have membership in many, it's simply to counter the bullshit from Intelligent Design Creationists. I feel a political duty to do this, as you people influence legislation and attempt to subvert education, as Kitzmiller clearly laid bare.

      I first truly learned about Intelligent Design only a few years ago, (it's not something you commonly hear about), and I was simply amazed at the stupidity of their arguments, being nothing more than god of the gaps and incredulity arguments. As we see with Hunter.

      So there is nothing 'sick' about refuting your bullshit. I'm simply astonished that grown adults perpetrate these frauds.

      Case in point, and this is entirely another topic, is the quote mines I see by Discovery on scientific issues, like say, paleontology.

      For example, the quote mine of Bowring et al 1993 cited by the Discovery paper here as saying that the Cambrian explosion was 'unlikely to have exceeded 10 million years', whereas the ACTUAL STATEMENT is dealing with a 'stage' of the cambrian.

      http://www.discovery.org/f/119

      And here is the actual paper's statement in context:

      ""In contrast, if we accept the age of 525 Ma for the Atdabanian-Botoamian boundary, then the Tommotian-Atdabanian period of exponential increase of diversification lasted only 5 to 6 m.y. In any event it is unlikely to have exceeded 10 m.y."

      You see, this is how I first ran across Intelligent Design advocates....via quote mines. I got interested in paleontology a few years back, and when i started visited groups on FB about it, I ran into quote mines by creationists who were disputing evolution.

      This is but ONE example of many thousands of deliberate lies put forward by Discovery Institute, as Cornelius Hunter well knows takes place. I take ALL of you for deliberate frauds, so don't tell me what's 'sick', when you are all here to perpetrate a lie.

      Delete
    5. David Butler,

      "I simply did remove it to clear up the comment thread."

      Keep telling yourself that, self delusion is the most effective.

      "It's very interesting that you guys, including Hunter, are attempting to use it as an attack on me and lying about the reason I put it here."

      Us guys, just know how these things work. You executed a stunning 'own goal' and you're desperately trying to reverse the damage.

      "I was simply amazed at the stupidity of their arguments, being nothing more than god of the gaps,..."

      This comments betrays a great lack of intellect as it is only the truly naive who resort to the childish 'god of the gaps' nonsense.

      "So there is nothing 'sick' about refuting your bullshit. I'm simply astonished that grown adults perpetrate these frauds."

      Seriously, David, you have refuted nothing, not even close. As for grown adults perpetrating frauds, nothing better describes the nonsense spewed by evolutionists. 'The entire universe and all we see in it arose spontaneously from nothing' is the epitome of fraudulent drivel.

      "This is but ONE example of many thousands of deliberate lies put forward by Discovery Institute, as Cornelius Hunter well knows takes place. I take ALL of you for deliberate frauds, so don't tell me what's 'sick', when you are all here to perpetrate a lie."

      You like to toss about accusations of lies, yet you never back it up with evidence. Why is that, David? If you have 'thousands' of examples of lies why can you not present 'one'? Maybe it's because you don't want to clutter up the comment thread. So thoughtful of you. I know we all appreciate your efforts.

      If you have the overwhelming evidence which supports evolution and destroys creationism and/or intelligent design why not simply present it and quit accusing others of lying? Or is rhetoric all you've got?

      Delete
    6. David:

      Isn't an exponential increase in diversity the same thing as an explosion? And I don't see where the section you posted contradicts anything the ID people said. I don't understand the problem.

      Delete
    7. Seriously?

      Natschuster,

      the point is their quote out of context. It's pretty plain what they did. I find such disingenuous replies to avoid discussing the quote mine pretty sorry. but this is typical. Change the subject....

      Delete
    8. I very certainly backed up my claim with evidence. And, if you want to make me a liar, go and show me where in this copy of the 1993 Bowring paper where the quote was correctly cited and not out of context by the Discovery paper.

      Here is a direct link to my dropbox save of the 1993 paper by Bowring.

      I double dog dare you.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/v7hydimssh7sr5u/out%20%284%29.pdf?dl=0

      Delete
    9. David:

      They said the very same thing the paper you posted said

      Delete
    10. Not in the slightest. But It's good to see you are just doubling down on the quote mine instead of admitting to it. You guys are all the same. Throw it in your face even in a courtroom and you'll deny it. Your refusal to read the paper isn't my problem.

      Delete
    11. They both said that the exponential increase in diversity occured within a ten million year time span didn't they?

      Delete
  18. Phillymike

    "There are no intermediate fossils as attested to by Stephen J. Gould "

    Please don't tell me you bought the old creationist quote mining of Stephen Jay Gould. I suppose it should be noted, that Gould is famous for berating creationists for having quote mined him about this statement. I find it laughable that you guys simply don't read anything but the spoon fed propaganda of Discovery and Answers in Genesis.

    "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - Stephen Jay Gould

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David:

      Just a few quick points;

      1. Why is it called quote mining when people you disagree with site date and facts from sources? Why isn't it a good thing? And why are you allowed to site evidence without being called a quote miner?

      2. The lack of transitionals at the species level is a problem for evolution. How about actually addressing that?

      3. Actually, transitions between larger groups are not all that abundant. And it turns out that most of the transition aren't the actual transitional species, they just have a transitional condition.
      The real transitionals are still missing. That's a problem for evolution.

      Delete
    2. It's called quote mining when specific statements are taken out of context to imply they meant or were talking about something else.

      This isn't grade school. Defending the quote mine isn't a task for adults.

      As far as 'at the species level', well it's really not, because you don't NEED them at the species level anyway, but you do find some examples. Burials of animals at the same time sometimes show transitional features in a population that are carried onto later genuses. Pliohippus Pernix is one, up in Utah or Idaho iirc, where the toe/hoof transition was apparent in several horse ancestors buried there. This 'problem' only exists per se simply because of the nature of fossilization itself and its frequency, not that such animals didn't exist. A point that seems to escape you.

      Delete
    3. David Butler,

      "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - Stephen Jay Gould"

      So, David, where and what exactly are these abundant transitional fossils between larger groups? There should be multiple hundreds of millions of them if evolution from a common ancestor is true, so it should be easy for you to come up with several dozen irrefutable examples at least. Here's your chance to really provide some solid evidence for evolution, don't shy away now. I await your response.

      Delete
    4. As for 'transitions between larger groups'...well, yes, they are very abundant. By default, as you progress through the geologic column in any location you can see these transitions, as fossils from an ancient riverbed spanning several million years show changes in various developments, with the ancestral lineages no longer appearing.

      I know that ID doesn't argue for just things popping into existence, so this seems more like a creationist objection, but I guess I am starting to learn that on ID friendly blog sites and groups, there is no solid mark separating ID and Creationism, like is often claimed in exasperation on the public stage. Funny, that.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      "So, David, where and what exactly are these abundant transitional fossils between larger groups? There should be multiple hundreds of millions of them if evolution from a common ancestor is true, so it should be easy for you to come up with several dozen irrefutable examples at least. Here's your chance to really provide some solid evidence for evolution, don't shy away now. I await your response."

      Simple. The fossils we have. It's not for nothing that entire phylogenys exist for say, theropods and Sauropods where comparative anatomy, biogeography and of course, time have been used to see their relationships and make predictions with them, such as was the famous Tiktaalik case. Or say, in reverse with Birds, by using molecular data calibrated against fossils to reconstruct the origin of birds some 95mya out of the South American continent. (The Avian Phylogenomics project site is truly amazing in its depth, you ought to go check it out).

      This is just a random example of what I'm talking about...all constructed from fossil finds by location, time, etc. The relationships become pretty clear and predictive.

      http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/554images/Avian_flight_size2.jpg

      Delete
    6. David Butler,

      "As for 'transitions between larger groups'...well, yes, they are very abundant. By default, as you progress through the geologic column in any location you can see these transitions, as fossils from an ancient riverbed spanning several million years show changes in various developments, with the ancestral lineages no longer appearing."

      That's not what I asked you, David. I asked you to identify these transitional forms. As I said, if evolution is true there should be several hundreds of millions of these transitional forms in the fossil record. As such, you should be able to make a list naming dozens upon dozens of those transitional forms.

      What do I get? A simpleton reference to the geological column. And you wonder why people who think laugh at evolution.

      "I know that ID doesn't argue for just things popping into existence,..."

      No, that would be evolution which promotes that idea. That would be your argument, David. Becoming confused are we?

      Delete
    7. The molecular data conflict with the fossil data. Regarding Tiktaalik, see:

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/helping_a_stude101511.html

      You still have not owned your "lie" accusation. Also this:

      In the end your piece attempts to use this benign article as an opportunity to make sweeping claims about the status of research, and make a god of the gaps argument

      Please explain where the god of the gaps argument is.

      Delete
    8. David Butler,

      "Simple. The fossils we have."

      You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking. I ask you to name a few of the multiple hundreds of millions of transitional fossils which should exist if descent from a common ancestor via evolutionary forces is true and you reply, "Simple. The fossils we have." That is the best you can do and you expect to be taken seriously? What a joke!

      "the famous Tiktaalik case."

      Yeah, the famous Tiktaalik case, the ancestor which is 20 million years younger than its supposed descendants. Brilliant example.

      Delete
    9. David
      I for think you do need transitions at the species level because if species evolbef into other species I would expect to see that captured in the fossil record.
      What you described vis pliphippus is just different species living at different times. That looks like proofing to me

      Delete
    10. Cornelius...are you serious? Backlinking to another evonews article that just initiates another attack? Tell you what, you want to discuss this with Dr. Shubin? I'm friends which him, I can set it up.

      Yeah, that's what I thought Mr. Hunter.

      Delete
    11. Nic,

      I'm not joking. Museums and storehouses packed full of fossils. All of them in some way will describe the major transitions.

      I know how you guys play this game too. I'd say, point to the 11 described specimens of Archaeopteryx, and you just attack that and say "That's not transitional". I'd describe the species level transitions of Pliohippus Pernix, and you'd say "That's not evolution".

      I'll wait for you to maybe first tell me what you think a transitional fossil is, I'll then correct you, and then maybe I will provide another example.

      Ancestor what? Can you NOT resort to clear cut cases of quote mines and misrepresentations? I mean, shit dude, at least go by the fucking paper that describes it instead of playing games with distortions.

      If Intelligent Design has a valid argument, it shouldn't need you clowning around to be on solid footing.

      Delete
    12. Backlinking to another evonews article that just initiates another attack?

      Why is explaining the science an "attack"?

      Delete
    13. Natschuster,

      No, with Pliohippus in this case, the animals were all buried at the same time, along with some early Rhinos (yes, here in North America). Some sort of volcanic ash event that killed them.

      Anyway, no, even if they were separate species, the point of it is, the transition was underway at this point in time (10mya if I recall correctly) and its a nice snapshot of where equine evolution was at that point, or rather, for your sake, the Designer had started screwing around with their toes again. I'm sorry, God. Shoot, what IS the designer's name? :)

      Delete
    14. Cornelius,

      Surely you jest that anything on Evolution New & Views, which has no news about evolution or other views, is NOT attack?

      Come on, don't be a child here. You may be a fanatic, but you don't get more Orwellian than having a site like this.

      Unless you're willing to make the call and let me suggest a few pro-evolution articles to host there? Since it's a site dedicated to evolution, surely there are eager fans of evolution that would like to see such content...

      Or is it really just an attack site, as I surmise?

      I'll await your affirmation that you'll accept some articles.

      Delete
    15. Surely you jest that anything on Evolution New & Views, which has no news about evolution or other views, is NOT attack?

      I asked "Why is explaining the science an 'attack'?" And you responded with a rant.

      You also have yet to own your "lie" accusation, and your god of the gaps accusation. Please quote from the OP and specifically explain your claim.

      You believe the species arose spontaneously, and make irrational comments. Your comments here are a good example of evolutionary thought in action.

      Delete
    16. Such a strange approach, hyper focusing on the wrist issue, as if that somehow is a distraction from the predictive nature of evolution that I was describing, and the strange use of Discovery's lawyer shark, Luskin, to initiate said attack, while then laughably suggesting that Tiktaalik was a precursor to lungfish.

      I'm curious, does Intelligent Design have alternatives? I'm all 'wrists' in anticipation for their answer.

      Oh, right, 'God did it'.

      Delete
    17. No, that wasn't a 'rant'. Here you are again deflecting.

      I owned your lie, you've failed to respond to it. Here you are again attempting to change the subject.

      Oh, look again, another change in subject!

      I'll wait again for your affirmation that you'd accept a pro-evolution article on the site Mr. Hunter. Yes or No. Simple as that.

      Delete
    18. "predictive nature of evolution" ?? Evolution predicted that the molecules and fossils would align. It predicted the DNA code is mundane. It predicted that functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved. It predicted ... the list goes on and on. Every major prediction of evolution has turned out to be false. It is the ultimate contra indicator. Science is not kind to Epicureanism.

      Delete
    19. I'll wait again for your affirmation that you'd accept a pro-evolution article on the site Mr. Hunter.

      I discuss pro-evolution article commonly on this blog.

      Question for you: Did the species spontaneously arise?

      Delete
    20. David Butler,

      "I'm not joking. Museums and storehouses packed full of fossils. All of them in some way will describe the major transitions."

      Then you should be able to name them as I have now asked you to do three times.

      "I'll wait for you to maybe first tell me what you think a transitional fossil is, I'll then correct you,..."

      My,aren't we arrogant.

      "Ancestor what?"

      This is why it helps to keep up, David.

      Tiktaalik was presented with great fanfare as the predicted transitional species from sea to land, the origin of tetrapods. However, it turns out tetrapods were around for 20 million years before Tik got himself fossilized.

      Delete
    21. I discuss pro-evolution article commonly on this blog.

      You spelled "butcher" wrong.

      Delete
    22. "I discuss pro-evolution article commonly on this blog."

      Seriously? You know what I mean. I'm talking about hosting articles that are pro-evolution.

      It's like pulling teeth with you guys to admit that you just do hit pieces on the subject.

      Delete
    23. Nic,

      "Then you should be able to name them as I have now asked you to do three times."

      I did. You seem to have ignored the two I slipped in.

      It is not the 'beginning of tetrapods' that Tiktaalik is exemplifying.

      Care to misrepresent it again?

      Delete
    24. Cornelius:

      "Did the species spontaneously arise?"

      No. Nor have I argued that. Intelligent Design seems to imply that this happens however.

      It's interesting to me the blend of evolution denial but also fossil record denial that is happening here. It's like you're invoking either creationist or ID arguments, whenever it suits your fancy.

      But anyway, do go on.

      Delete
    25. No. Nor have I argued that.

      By "spontaneous" I am referring to the absence of external inputs (as in a chemical reaction occurring spontaneously). Evolution states that the species arose spontaneously. Not quickly, but spontaneously. If it was not spontaneous, then something, or someone, did something to the system. The problem is the spontaneous origin of millions of species is unlikely, on any halfway realistic reckoning with the problem.

      Delete
    26. Are you sure you took biology courses? I've never seen anyone so fundamentally misrepresent chemical abiogenesis in this way. Who said it was 'spontaneous'? The process probably occurred in fits and starts all over the globe and spanning some 1.5billion years, with successes and failures. I wouldn't even say 'quickly' is a proper characterization. The various stages probably spanned millions of years. Was there a spillover event? Oh, most likely, but that's what we tend to see as things like the atmospheric composition, the cooling of the crust and other things reached certain critical points. You'd arguably have a hard time saying which thing was the spillover event per se. You'd have to step back and attempt to categorize things differently.

      As far as 'unlikely'? I'd be VERY interested to see your time machine.



      Delete
    27. Are you sure you took biology courses? I've never seen anyone so fundamentally misrepresent chemical abiogenesis in this way. Who said it was 'spontaneous'? The process probably occurred in fits and starts all over the globe and spanning some 1.5billion years, with successes and failures.

      Pathetic non response noted.

      Delete
    28. Pathetic?

      Now I'm really sure you must be a dropout, if that's your answer.

      Delete
  19. And I'm going to leave you guys with this:

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/786-cornelius-hunter.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      "And I'm going to leave you guys with this

      :http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/786-cornelius-hunter.html"

      I must say this is very indicative of your intellect. You leave with a reference to a blog site which only functions to hurl insults an ad hominems towards individuals with which it does not agree. Really mature, David. Well done.

      Delete
    2. David "evotard" Butler:

      And I'm going to leave you guys with this:

      http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/786-cornelius-hunter.html


      LOL!

      Aren't you the brain-dead evotard who was whining about assassination earlier? What a hypocrite and a jackass you are, Butler. Not to mention stupid. You are just like all Darwinists. No surprise here.

      BTW, I, too, I am a proud laureate of americanloons:
      http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/07/1112-louis-savain.html

      I would not have it any other way.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      PS. Congratulations to Cornelius Hunter. Be happy and break out the champagne when butt-kissing dirt worshippers call you a loon.

      Delete
    3. Guess David wasn't so worried about posting links after all ...

      Delete
  20. Dr. Hunter,

    "Guess David wasn't so worried about posting links after all ..."

    No kidding. He claims to have removed a two line link to avoid clutter on the thread and proceeds to post several hundred lines in which he, for the most part, says nothing at all other than to call everyone who disagrees with him a liar. Simply typical, all bluster and no substance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. David
    Evolution doors not predict that we find different species buried together. It predicts that we find gradual incremental change from one species to another in succeeding layers. That's exactly what we don't see why not if yhst is what happened

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh just one more thing. Arvheaopteryx is no longer considered s transitionsl species by dome experts Dr to the details of its anatomy. This keeps on happening to all the trsnditional species o

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster,

      Yes, it is. Believe me. I know more about this species than anything else. I have two full binders of papers on it, Wellnhofer's book, and I am up on the latest research.

      the reality is, that Archaeopteryx is not considered a direct ancestral lineage to modern birds, but simply an offshoot. It is simply at this point, one of the earliest known bird relatives, but certainly not the only one. It's dated at around 150mya, so it preceeds the rise of modern birds by about 60million years.

      It's transitional features however, are beyond doubt. Interdental plates, bony tail, teeth (no beak), cartilaginous sternum, poor flying ability, other aspects. It's a true mix of theropod/modern bird features. We have 11 specimens to date, with several of them almost fully intact, and another specimen recently discovered but still in private hands.

      Delete
  23. natschuster: Evolution doors not predict that we find different species buried together.

    That is incorrect. Darwin posited a branching process, meaning that a species and its relatives may coexist.

    natschuster: Oh just one more thing. Arvheaopteryx is no longer considered s transitionsl species

    Archaeopteryx is a transitional because it exhibits both primitive and derived traits. It is may not be a direct ancestor of birds, though, if that is what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I meant is that evolution does not reuire that different species be buried together though it can happen. What it does require is that small incremental changes appear in succession in the fossil record, since that is what happened.

      And if archaeopteryx is not the real ancestor, then where is the real ancestor?














      Delete
    2. 'The real ancestor' is probably several groups that rose out of the Avialae, beginning some 90 million years ago, and that which survived the KPG extinction (which surely nobody here questions?). Archaeopteryx is 150 million years ago, and it doesn't appear to have any connecting descent in the fossil record. This is possibly due to geologic changes that reshaped its habitat, but it's been a while since I read up on that part. "

      Very problematic with birds is that fossils are tough to find. Most of the reason we even have specimens of Archaeopteryx is because these had fallen into lagoon waters after death or because of a storm or something, and were quickly buried in the oxygen poor sediment there. Their taphonomy was interesting to learn about.

      Delete
  24. natschuster: What it does require is that small incremental changes appear in succession in the fossil record, since that is what happened.

    Fossilization is rare, and depends on many factors. What is expected is a nested hierarchy pattern.

    With a little more work, statistics would help reveal if the fossil record is consistent with gradual transitions. What we have is clear evidence of branching descent, but with adaptations often being geologically rapid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If evolution came about through small incremental changes, I, for one would expect to find a smooth continuum.

      Delete
    2. natschuster: If evolution came about through small incremental changes, I, for one would expect to find a smooth continuum.

      Darwin posited that periods of change would be short compared to periods of stasis, and not a smooth continuum.

      Even if evolution were smooth and continuous, the fossil record would still be characterized by discontinuity, as fossilization is a happenstance process.

      Delete
    3. And I don't like the incompleteness of the fossil record apologetic since fossils aren't all that rare. What is rare is actual transitions. Know the actual evidence for evolution. I am beginning to see a pattern.

      Delete
    4. Fossils aren't rare, no, but think of the sheer biodiversity of life you see today. It pales to what existed prior to when mankind was around killing everything of. Much of that biodiversity lived in tropical areas where fossilization almost never happens. So many birds and other terrestrial animals have little or no record to speak of. What fossils we do find come from riverbed/lake sediments, coastal sediments, and marine sediments.

      There's simply going to be a lot of life that we'll never find fossils of. But that doesn't mean that the ones we do find aren't examples of what other life likely existed. That's why we don't need the 'species level' transitions, we need the larger group transitions. And fortunately, we have plenty of those fossils (although never enough) to give us a picture of how the others descended.

      It would probably be helpful in some sort, to see a phylogenetic tree by region/time for fossils found, but I'm not sure how you would graphically depict that. that would be quite a project though!

      Delete
    5. natschuster

      I am beginning to see a pattern.


      The only pattern I see is natschuster being a willfully ignorant putz. You've had the rarity of fossils per generation in any given lineage explained to you a dozen times in the last few years yet you always come back with the same Creationist stupidity.

      Delete
    6. But but but fossils are not rare

      Delete
    7. I didn't say all fossils are rare you willfully ignorant putz. I said fossils per generation in any given lineage are rare which makes recreating a smooth highly detailed transitional sequence as you stupidly demand extremely unlikely.

      Delete
  25. natschuster: And if archaeopteryx is not the real ancestor, then where is the real ancestor?

    Take a look at this branching diagram from Darwin:
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1872_Origin_F391/1872_Origin_F391_figdiagram.jpg

    From the perspective of history, we note the transition from m1 to m2 to m3, and so on. However, look closely at the branching pattern at m2. Notice how it fans out. There is no particular reason for any particular branch to be preserved over any other. We may find m1, i3 (or any of the unmarked branches), and m3, but not m2. Nonetheless, when we look at the related traits, we can discern the family resemblance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But how come we never seem to be able to find the real ancestors? If they really existed, where are they?

      Delete
    2. natschuster: But how come we never seem to be able to find the real ancestors?

      It's not that direct lineages aren't known, it's that you can never be sure a specimen isn't just a close cousin.

      Delete
    3. I keep on reading that whenever they find something that they think is ancestor, eg tiltaalik, that monkey lemur from a few years ago, archaeopterux, they turn out to be side branches. Why can,t they ever find the actual ancestors? Could it be because they never actually existed? I"M seeing a pattern here

      Delete
    4. Natschuster,

      Bird fossilization is pretty rare to begin with. It's fun to find Trexes and stuff because their bones are nice and huge and lend themselves to preservation, but tiny animals require extraordinary preservation events, not as typical. The bones of a bird will simply not survive burial as well as a larger bone does.

      We do have lots of fossil birds, but not a ton, and reconstructing their phylogeny is difficult. But thankfully genomics has helped us look back a great deal. We know 'where' they came from geographically now, and so we can start looking more closely there (south america) but it may take some 30-50 years before enough finds are made to get a great picture of that. I'm as yet uncertain of the status of any such investigations. The paper about the South America thing just came out late last year.

      Delete
  26. Z
    From the perspective of history, we note the transition from m1 to m2 to m3, and so on. However, look closely at the branching pattern at m2. Notice how it fans out. There is no particular reason for any particular branch to be preserved over any other. We may find m1, i3 (or any of the unmarked branches), and m3, but not m2. Nonetheless, when we look at the related traits, we can discern the family resemblance. "
    What is the mechanism that caused the branching events?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bill Cole

    What is the mechanism that caused the branching events?


    Changes in the environment that cause slightly different selection pressures on different subsets of a formerly homogeneous population. This could be a geographical event like a mount range rising and dividing a population into two subgroups. It could be different predators affecting only one end of a population's geographic range causing the population in that end to evolve a new defense the other parts of the population don't have. Once you get the two populations with different pressures, no matter how slight, each will branch onto its own separate evolutionary path.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ghostrider,

    "predators affecting only one end of a population's geographic range causing the population in that end to evolve a new defense,..."

    Exactly how would this 'cause' a population to 'evolve' a new defense?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Natural selection, Nic. While not a true 'cause', it's what he meant.

    Selection pressures like the new predator will kill off those who don't have a certain feature in the population, (and it's usually slight, like a color change), and so the ones who do have the adaptive feature will be able to avoid or evade the predator.

    It really helps if you look at this scenario as how it would actually happen, versus imagining that Ghostrider is arguing that the species would somehow go buy Ar15s to fight off an invader that broke down a wall. The reality is, the predator's gradual appearance or extension into the territory would be met by the gradual adoption of features that help the other one deal with the threat. Via mutation and natural selection over time.

    ReplyDelete
  30. natschuster: And I don't like the incompleteness of the fossil record apologetic since fossils aren't all that rare.

    If the fossil record were complete, then we wouldn't be able to discover new fossil species.

    natschuster: I keep on reading that whenever they find something that they think is ancestor, eg tiltaalik, that monkey lemur from a few years ago, archaeopterux, they turn out to be side branches.

    Common descent means it is difficult to distinguish between closely related species. In other words, from morphology, we often can't tell if a particular fossil is in the position of i3 or m2 or some other closely related branch on Darwin's diagram.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are rock strata made entirely of fossils. Lots of fossils everywhere. We are constantly discovering new extant species too. And extant organisms are not rare.
      We studied archaeopteryx and discovered it can't be an ancestor of birds. So where is the real ancestor?same thing with the lemur monkey tiktaalik and the whales. Maybe we can never find the real ancestors because they never existed? Just follow the evidence.

      Delete
    2. Nat,

      Yeah, most are marine fossils, piles and piles of them, because the Earth has been covered by the oceans almost from the beginning.

      Archaeopteryx IS an ancestor of birds, it's just not a direct ancestor. The line that gave rise to Archaeopteryx gave rise to modern birds. But Archaeopteryx itself is not part of the line that later led to birds. It's just like an uncle that never had kids. It's still an ancestor, just not your direct ancestor.

      We have only just begun to scratch the surface of the fossil record. Many locations are hard to get to for political reasons, finding fossils requires areas you can go and dig, and you may turn up nothing for years, as was the case with Tiktaalk before it was found. Most fossils also are just mere fragments of bone, and entire skeletons are rare.

      Delete
    3. There are piles and piles of dinosaur bones too. And where did the firevt ancestor of birds. How come we never find the direct ancestor? Maybe they never existed. Oh we don't find direct ancestors of marine life either even though we have so many fossils

      Delete
    4. natschuster: We are constantly discovering new extant species too. And extant organisms are not rare.

      Which makes the point. Even though there are plenty of extant species, there are still many unknown. How much more true for fossil species, which rely upon the happenstance of fossilization and geological processes for preservation and discovery. Entire ecosystems have come and gone, leaving little evidence.

      Delete
    5. You have to understand, while fossilization is rare, the progression of millions of years has allowed for a vast accumulation of fossils, but even out of that, terrestrials animals still won't fossilize unless there's a unique event that will capture their bones in sediment. Anything that dies in a tropical marsh is going to be eaten quickly, bones and all. Anything that dies in the desert, its bones will bleach and disintegrate from weathering and surface organisms. We have to benefit from things like landslides, collapsed sand dunes, floods (yeah, floods), storms, volcanism, etc etc.

      Even with all of that, the fossil record will only capture a tiny percentage of life that existed at any one time.

      Delete
  31. Ghostrider
    "Changes in the environment that cause slightly different selection pressures on different subsets of a formerly homogeneous population."

    So selection pressure is your hypothesis how the genome of specie A turned into the genome of specie B?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bill Cole

    So selection pressure is your hypothesis how the genome of specie A turned into the genome of specie B?


    Don't be an ass with your usual childish semantic games. You asked a question and were answered. Selection pressure is part of the process that leads to speciation. It's not the whole process.

    ReplyDelete
  33. David Butler,

    "Selection pressures like the new predator will kill off those who don't have a certain feature in the population, (and it's usually slight, like a color change), and so the ones who do have the adaptive feature will be able to avoid or evade the predator."

    I know the scenario, David and have no problem with the concept of natural selection. The problems arise when you try to make a case for this process creating all life we see to day from a single common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      I know the scenario, David and have no problem with the concept of natural selection. The problems arise when you try to make a case for this process creating all life we see to day from a single common ancestor


      What problems would those be Nic? It's estimated there are up to 50 million species on the Earth today, as many as 5 billion total on the planet over its history. Life has been on the planet for at least 3.5 billion years. Starting with a LCA and with exponential growth that would require one species diverging into two every 100 million years. That means time is not an issue. The random mutations in every generation supply plenty of "new information" raw material for selection to act on so that's not an issue. The "new information" that gets kept in a population's gene pool comes from its interaction with the environment so that's not an issue. Even Creationist hand waves like IC aren't an issue since we know evolutionary processes can produce IC systems by change of function and scaffolding.

      So where's the problems?

      Delete
    2. I think not. The problems arise when theists try to make a case for special creation (by an imaginary Creator) of all life we see today.

      Aside from skepticism and Scripture, what is their case?

      Delete
    3. The problems arise when theists try to make a case for evolution (by an imaginary Creator) of all life we see today.

      Delete
    4. Gr:
      It looked like it might take longer than that for evolution to create s need species. Heck if the research mentioned in the paper in the op is correct it might take longer than that to create a new protein. And it looked like random mitstins can only get you only so far. Big problems

      Delete
    5. The more I think about it the more confused I get. The nested hierarchy of life is evidence for evolution been though evolution will not produce a nested hierarchy. Then the nested hierarchy is evidence against evolution.

      Delete
    6. So the Creationist can't identify any problems either, just the usual personal incredulity.

      Delete
    7. Nic, why? Is DNA not a clue itself? Or shared biological makeups?

      If a Designer or Creator exists, they can do as Galileo said...

      ""Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle." - Galileo"

      Delete
    8. ghostrider,

      "What problems would those be Nc?"

      One of the biggest problems is the fact that genomes are deteriorating which is hardly consistent with the onwards and upwards demands of evolution. Another would be the general deleterious nature of mutations. A third would be the lack of available time to accomplish what we see from a single common ancestor. There is also the observable limits to change known to every animal breeder.

      There is more but that will be more than sufficient. I have provided you with ample reasons to mock me, so feel free to commence. :)

      Delete
    9. David Butler,

      "If a Designer or Creator exists, they can do as Galileo said..."

      Claiming to know what God should or should not do is surely the height of arrogance. It certainly is no argument in favour of evolution. It is, at best, nothing more than an argument founded on supreme ignorance.

      I think if you read Galileo's comment again you will find it does not support your case in the way you believe it does.

      Delete
  34. Nic

    One of the biggest problems is the fact that genomes are deteriorating which is hardly consistent with the onwards and upwards demands of evolution.


    Genomes aren't deteriorating Nic. Sanford's YEC motivated "genetic entropy" claim have made him a laughingstock in scientific circles. Evolution also doesn't require an "onward and upward" trend. Simpler less complex forms will be selected for if they survive better.

    Another would be the general deleterious nature of mutations.

    Fail again Nic. Most mutations are neutral WRT reproductive fitness. Selection weeds out the detrimental ones and keeps the good ones. You know that.

    A third would be the lack of available time to accomplish what we see from a single common ancestor.

    I already did the math for you Nic. 100 million years per speciation event is plenty enough time.

    There is also the observable limits to change known to every animal breeder.

    Breeders only run into limits because of their very small population sizes, limited number of generations, and tight selection looking to produce specific results. Evolution has vastly larger populations, vastly more time, and a much less stringent requirement for success.

    Sorry Buddy but you toe picked four times there plus your bonus fail in #1. :)

    BTW this new format sucks. It's too hard to hold a real conversation or exchange timely banter. I guess Creationists can't resist the urge to control every conversation they can. Why not try The Panda's Thumb blog ATBC or even CARM's evo/ID page? At least they let you post real-time with no Creationist net nanny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ghostrider,

      "Genomes aren't deteriorating Nic. Sanford's YEC motivated "genetic entropy"...,"

      Yes, they are. Being the 'laughingstock' of the scientific community, which I highly doubt, does nothing to dispel the facts.

      "Most mutations are neutral,..."

      The end result is the same, no advancement. As for the need for 'upwards and onwards' it certainly is necessary if you're going to turn a pine cone into ghostrider. :)

      "Breeders only run into limits because of their very small population sizes, limited number of generations, and tight selection looking to produce specific results."

      That's is your speculative interpretation of the facts. The empirical observations say there is a limit that cannot be crossed. Any argument to the contrary is based on the evolutionary narrative and speculation, not empirical evidence.

      "BTW this new format sucks. It's too hard to hold a real conversation or exchange timely banter."

      I think we have Louis to blame for it.

      Delete
    2. Nic

      Yes, they are.


      LOL! No, they aren't. We have complete genomic sequence for humans 45,000 year old.

      Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia

      Extant human genomes aren't "deteriorated" from that one.

      The end result is the same, no advancement.

      (facepalm) evolution doesn't require advancement. Increased complexity can happen through known genetic mechanisms but it doesn't have to.

      That's is your speculative interpretation of the facts.

      No Nic, it's Biology 101. Go take a course at your local Community College.

      Delete
    3. ghostrider,

      "evolution doesn't require advancement."

      Really, only an evolutionist could argue pond scum becoming, via common descent, the variety of life we see today does not qualify as advancement. Simply amazing.

      As for the genome, mutations build up with every generation and no amount of semantics can alter that fact. A continual build up of mutations, whether neutral or not, will inevitably lead to a degradation of the genome. Those are simply the facts. I know they are tremendously inconvenient to evolutionary dogma, but, cest' la vie.

      Delete
    4. We have dna from a pleistocene horse that is 700,000 years old. Intact.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider,

      "Extant human genomes aren't "deteriorated" from that one."

      Really? So your argument is Vladimir circa 2016 AD is carrying the same mutation load as Vladimir circa 42,984 BC?

      If you're going to argue the present human genome has not deteriorated from the human genome of 45,000 years ago that is what you are expecting us to believe.

      So, do you wish to rethink your claim the genome of today is the same genome of 45,000 years ago?

      "No Nic, it's Biology 101. Go take a course at your local Community College."

      No, ghostrider, it is pure speculation whether it comes from you or from a Biology 101 class. You simply cannot demonstrate larger breeding populations and longer periods of time are going to produce anything other than a variant of the creature the breeder stared with as we now observe on an everyday basis. Any attempt to make such a claim is based purely on speculation.

      "evolution doesn't require advancement."

      It most certainly does if you want to argue evolution can turn a single common ancestor into the variety of life we witness today. Coming to that realization does not require any knowledge beyond what is given to you in the form of common sense.

      Delete
    6. David Butler,

      "We have dna from a pleistocene horse that is 700,000 years old. Intact."

      And your point is,....?

      Delete
    7. Nic

      Really? So your argument is Vladimir circa 2016 AD is carrying the same mutation load as Vladimir circa 42,984 BC?

      If you're going to argue the present human genome has not deteriorated from the human genome of 45,000 years ago that is what you are expecting us to believe.


      (facepalm) Nic are you really that clueless? Of course human genomes are slightly different that those of 45,000 years ago but they have not degraded, only changed. The concept of mutational load only applies in a constant, non-changing environment. Our environment has changed drastically from 45,000 years ago. Our extant genome works perfectly well in our current, technologically heavy environment. The average human lifespan is almost triple what it was 45,000 years ago. The population has risen by four orders of magnitude. That's not degradation.

      Sanford's idiocy was based on his nutter idea the human genome was created "perfect" (whatever that means) 6000 years ago and that any change is a degradation from "perfect". Even you should be able to see the stupidity in that claim.

      You were referenced to the horse genome we've sequenced that's 700,000 years old. Why haven't horses died out since their genome is suppose to be deteriorating so badly each generation?

      No, ghostrider, it is pure speculation whether it comes from you or from a Biology 101 class

      i can't help your willful ignorance Nic. If you want to hand-wave away 150+ years of solid science accepted by virtually every science professional on the planet that's your loss.

      It most certainly does if you want to argue evolution can turn a single common ancestor into the variety of life we witness today

      Can produce additional complexity doesn't mean has to Nic. Otherwise we wouldn't see flightless birds and blind cave fish.

      Delete
  35. Ghostrider
    "Selection pressure is part of the process that leads to speciation. It's not the whole process."
    What is the whole process?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill Cole: What is the whole process?

      There are many mechanisms involved in speciation, including geographic separation, drift, selection, and genomic processes such chromosome rearrangements. Many taxa speciate much more quickly, such as through birdsong.

      Delete
  36. Nic
    "There is also the observable limits to change known to every animal breeder. "
    I think this is an interesting point. It appears that genomes have a limit to their inter specie variation. Why do you think this is the case?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ghostrider thanks for the link
    "Biological barriers to interbreeding undoubtedly arise during the process of speciation because such blocks have selective value. Behavioral isolation can be the strongest form of reproductive isolation. The clearest examples of biological species concept in action are provided when two species which have overlapping geographic ranges do not interbreed owing to differences in pre-mating behaviors. One species or both species refuse to engage in the mating rituals because the stereotyped mating rituals are to different. Species might simultaneously possess both premating and post-mating isolating mechanisms in which case the probability of interbreeding is even more remote."
    Nic from G's link. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Birds are especially noted for behavioral speciation, such as birdsong.

      Delete
  38. natschuster: We are constantly discovering new extant species too. And extant organisms are not rare.

    You answer your own question. There are plentiful numbers of extant species, but even then, we continue to discover new species. How much more so for extinct species, which are only found due to the happenstance of fossilization and geological processes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But we can't use that fact that we are alwayus discovering new fossil species to prove that fossils are rare. Fossils are all over the place, yet we can't find the actual ancestors. Could it be because they never existed? I'm saying we should just follow the evidence.

      Delete
    2. natschuster: But we can't use that fact that we are alwayus discovering new fossil species to prove that fossils are rare.

      Just because you can walk into a town and find thousands of people doesn't mean you can find and identify every beetle in the jungle. Just because you can find a cliff made up of fossils (https://asequibles.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/n1nyw.jpg) doesn't mean you can find and identify every dinosaur that ever lived.

      It's a sampling problem. Ecosystems of the past were probably just as rich as the modern ecosystem. However, the samples we have of those ecosystems are necessarily less complete that the samples we have of the modern ecosystem. Furthermore, we can't necessarily know whether we have found a direct ancestor or a close cousin, but due to the branching process involved, it's much more likely that if it looks like an ancestor, it's probably a close cousin.

      As we don't expect a complete record, what do we expect? We expect that we will find transitional species. We expect a nested hierarchy through time.

      Delete
    3. I would expect to find at least more than a dozen or so, since there must have been a whole lot of transitions between species if evolution took was the result of incremental changes. And if the nested hierarchy is just the opposite of what happened, why would we expect to see it? Hey, follow the evidence.

      Delete
  39. natschuster: The nested hierarchy of life is evidence for evolution been though evolution will not produce a nested hierarchy. Then the nested hierarchy is evidence against evolution.

    Not sure your point here. Branching descent creates a nested hierarchy. Evolution is posited to produce a nested hierarchy, though not a perfect nested hierarchy due to various factors, including convergence and hybridization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the mechanism of branching the accumulation of small incremental changes, I would expect to see a smooth continuum of small incremental changes between groups. It's like this. We have dogs, we have cats. They decended from a common ancestor that was neither. That common ancestor had a descendant that was just a slightly dog like, and a descendant that was just slightly cat like. Then they had descendants that were only slightly more, that is incrementally more dog or cat like. The cycle continues. The result is a smooth continuum of incremental changes going from completely dog like to completely cat like.

      Delete
  40. Y'know the evolutionists claim that there rally is a smooth continuum of fossils going from reptiles to mammals. Same thing with the whales. That's what small incremental changes should show.

    ReplyDelete
  41. natschuster: If the mechanism of branching the accumulation of small incremental changes, I would expect to see a smooth continuum of small incremental changes between groups.

    That's what we would expect to have happened, but the fossil record is incomplete, so we won't normally expect a complete record as you suggest.

    natschuster: Y'know the evolutionists claim that there rally is a smooth continuum of fossils going from reptiles to mammals.

    There are lots of intermediate forms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the nested hierarchy is not evidence for evolution. It's really evidence against evolution. It can only be explained by the fact that the fossil record is missing exactly the fossils we need to prove evolution for. That's worse than epicycles. Why can't we just follow the evidence?

      And it looks like there are not a whole lot of intermediate forms. Just a dozen or so. I would expect to see a lot more. And it looks like most of the forms are not the real ancestral species. IF the ancestors actually existed, why can't we ever find them? I suggest we follow the evidence.

      Delete
  42. Zachriel,

    "There are lots of intermediate forms."

    Name them and demonstrate precisely how and why they are transitional forms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Synapsid_.28.22mammal-like_reptiles.22.29_to_mammals

      Delete
    2. Zachriel,

      "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Synapsid_.28.22mammal-like_reptiles.22.29_to_mammals"

      That's it, that is all you've got, a wikipedia page which consists almost exclusively of an artists fanciful idea of what these creatures may have looked like? I hope you realize this is way beyond inadequate, except for an evolutionist like yourself.

      Where is the demonstrable evidence these creatures are transitional? The claim on the heading of the page does not qualify in case you were wondering. There is nothing in the description of these creatures which demands one accept their existence as transitional from reptile to mammal without the strict adherence to the presupposition of the fact of evolution as a starting point, nothing at all.

      So, you're still where you were when you made your claim of the existence of "lots of intermediate forms.' You have yet to produce any transitional forms or explain how and why they are transitional.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      So, you're still where you were when you made your claim of the existence of "lots of intermediate forms.' You have yet to produce any transitional forms or explain how and why they are transitional.


      Nic the Wiki article is just a summary of the large amount of data. Every one of those specimens has at least one and often many published scientific papers with the details. A transitional fossil is defined as any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both a hypothesized ancestral group and its derived descendant group. Those fossils are members of a transitional sequence because they fit the definition. They show a clear pattern of morphological change over time. It wouldn't matter if evolution did it or the devil planted them in time order, they're still transitional.

      They are supporting evidence for evolution because evolution both predicts and requires such intermediate forms exist. They are not considered transitional because evolution is presumed true. Evolution is the hypothesis that is supported by the evidence.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "A transitional fossil is defined as any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both a hypothesized ancestral group and its derived descendant group."

      I know what the definition of a transitional fossil is, but a definition does not a fact make.

      "they're still transitional."

      Only if one actually led to another, otherwise they are nothing more than creatures.

      "They are supporting evidence for evolution because evolution both predicts and requires such intermediate forms exist."

      They are only supporting evidence if they are actually transitional. They cannot be empirically demonstrated to be transitional and therefore are transitional only by definition. As such, they are evidence for evolution only to those who presuppose evolution to be true.:)

      Delete
  43. Nic: Only if one actually led to another, otherwise they are nothing more than creatures.

    Each newly discovered organism which shows primitive traits as well as derived traits is a confirmed observation of an entailment from common descent.

    Nic: As such, they are evidence for evolution only to those who presuppose evolution to be true.:)

    You don't seem to understand the scientific method.

    alt-N: The appearance of Halley's Comet in 1758 is only supporting evidence for Newton's gravity if it is the same comet as the one seen in 1682. It cannot be empirically demonstrated to be the same comet and therefore is the same comet only by definition. As such, it is evidence for Newton's gravity only to those who presuppose Newton's gravity to be true.:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel,

      "Each newly discovered organism which shows primitive traits as well as derived traits is a confirmed observation of an entailment from common descent."

      Only if you presume common descent to be a fact. This is simply an assertion of what you believe to be true, it is not a reasoned and well supported evidential statement.

      "You don't seem to understand the scientific method."

      The evolutionists default statement, when you can't answer the challenge just accuse the other person of not understanding the subject. Really pathetic.

      "The appearance of Halley's Comet,..."

      If Halley's Comet was all you had as evidence for gravity you might have a point. However, gravity can be empirically tested and observed on a repeatable basis. 'Transitional species' claims cannot meet this criteria, so your analogy, as usual, falls flat.:)

      Delete
  44. Nic: Only if you presume common descent to be a fact.

    No. When a scientist mounts an expedition and finds fossil organisms exhibiting the predicted pattern of primitive and derived characteristics, that's support for the theory. It's hypothetico-deduction.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Zachriel,

    "No. When a scientist mounts an expedition and finds fossil organisms exhibiting the predicted pattern of primitive and derived characteristics, that's support for the theory. It's hypothetico-deduction."

    It never sinks in with you, does it.

    As an example, take the case of Tiktaalik. Did such a creature exist? Yes, that is empirically verifiable by the fossil. What is not empirically verifiable is that Tik is a transitional creature. In order for it to be considered transitional one must first presume transitions were, in fact, occurring.

    In other words, Tik is not an example of a transitional creature unless transitions are assumed to have occurred from the start. Such occurrences can only be presumed they cannot be empirically tested and as they cannot be empirically tested Tik is not empirical evidence for anything other than its own existence.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nic: As an example, take the case of Tiktaalik. Did such a creature exist?

    The question is how did Shubin know such a creature existed before spending years in the Arctic wasteland looking for it? And why didn't you (IDers) know?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Zachriel,

    The question is how did Shubin know such a creature existed before spending years in the Arctic wasteland looking for it? And why didn't you (IDers) know?

    Really, Zachriel, your reasoning is atrocious.

    First, Shubin did not KNOW such a creature existed. As with all evolutionists he simply assumed such creatures existed because the are necessitated by the narrative and he was simply looking for ANY creature which would fit his criteria and allow him to interpret that creature as transitional.

    Second. Because Shubin was looking for such a creature and found one which fit his criteria; allowing him to declare it as transitional; is not empirical evidence that the creature actually is transitional. Why do you find that simple fact so hard to understand?

    Tik is nothing more than a recent inductee to the Evolutionary Hall of Flops joining a long list of transitional failures featuring such classics as Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Coelacanth, Archaeopteryx, Ida, Ardi, Lucy, etc., etc., etc., etc.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Nic: As with all evolutionists he simply assumed such creatures existed because the are necessitated by the narrative and he was simply looking for ANY creature which would fit his criteria and allow him to interpret that creature as transitional.

    The assumption is called a hypothesis. The prediction was of an organism with primitive and derived characteristics.

    Nic: Because Shubin was looking for such a creature and found one which fit his criteria;

    Amazing how science works. He predicted an organism with primitive and derived traits between fish and tetrapods, he mounted an expedition to one of the few geological formations associated with the age of the posited transition, then lo and behold.

    Nic: Shubin did not KNOW such a creature existed.

    Lucky guess?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Zachriel,

    "Amazing how science works. He predicted an organism with primitive and derived traits between fish and tetrapods, he mounted an expedition to one of the few geological formations associated with the age of the posited transition, then lo and behold."

    Yeah, it is amazing how evolution works. Shubin found the transitional creature between fish and tetrapods, 20 million years after the appearance of tetrapods. Truly an earth shaking accomplishment. So, tell me, is Shubin able to explain how Tik, who is supposed to be the ancestor of tetrapods, is 20 million years younger than his supposed descendants?

    Also, how do you know Tik 'derived' certain characteristics? Can you demonstrate empirically they are derived and simply not part of his basic nature?

    "Lucky guess?"

    I'm sure he would have made a case for whatever he found. That's the advantage of doing science with a rubber ruler.

    And, for the umpteenth time, the existence of Tik is not empirical evidence it was transitional. It is only empirical evidence of its own existence, all else is pure speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Even if the evolutionists got it right with tiktaalik they got it wtomg with pretty much the rest of the fossil record. That's not a very impressive record.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Nic: Shubin found the transitional creature between fish and tetrapods, 20 million years after the appearance of tetrapods.

    Transitionals, that is, one that exhibits both the posited primitive and derived characteristics of a branching, can be found at any time from the point of branching.

    Nic: how do you know Tik 'derived' certain characteristics? Can you demonstrate empirically they are derived and simply not part of his basic nature?

    They are part of its basic nature, and also posited primitive and derived traits. Consider that Tiktaalik has gills, scales, and fins like a fish; but a functional wrist, mobile neck, and lungs like a tetrapod.

    The question is how did Shubin know such a creature existed before spending years in the Arctic wasteland looking for it? And why didn't you (IDers) know?

    natschuster: Even if the evolutionists got it right with tiktaalik they got it wtomg with pretty much the rest of the fossil record.

    So you're going with lucky guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel,

      "They are part of its basic nature, and also posited primitive and derived traits. Consider that Tiktaalik has gills, scales, and fins like a fish; but a functional wrist, mobile neck, and lungs like a tetrapod."

      You have yet to answer the question. You're simply continuing to assert common descent is the reason for similar structures. You must be able to demonstrate the claim empirically for it to carry any weight as evidence. That you cannot do. As such, it is nothing more than your opinion similar traits are evidence of common descent.

      Delete
  52. Well if s person gets one guess out of a thousand right, it isn't very impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nic: You're simply continuing to assert common descent is the reason for similar structures.

    Branching descent predicts a nested hierarchy, and that is what we observe. You never answered. How did Shubin know such a creature existed before spending years in the Arctic wasteland looking for it? And why didn't you (IDers) know?

    natschuster: Well if s person gets one guess out of a thousand right, it isn't very impressive.

    So you are going with a lucky guess. He just happened to be taking a (very long) walk in the Canadian arctic, and stumbled on a fishapod.

    How about transitional fossils of land mammals and whales? Did you think Gingerich was just taking a (very long) walk in the Sahara and stumbled on whales with hind limbs? How did he know where to look? And why didn't you (IDers) know?
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Transitional fossils and nested hierarchy do not corroborate Darwinist evolution. We observe the exact same pattern in human intelligent designs over time. What we don't observe in human design is fine incremental transitions over time. We see class inheritance of past designs but accompanied with sudden jumps in functionality. This is what is observed in the fossil record.

      Zachriel, like all the other Darwinist dirt worshippers all over the world, is preaching his little chicken feather voodoo religion, as always. Problem is, nobody believes his lies other than the usual boring and brain-dead Darwinist choir.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel,


      "Branching descent predicts a nested hierarchy, and that is what we observe. You never answered. How did Shubin know such a creature existed before spending years in the Arctic wasteland looking for it? And why didn't you (IDers) know?"

      A branching hierarchy is what you observe because you buy into common descent. I did answer the question, several times. Shubin did not know such a creature existed and would have used any creature he could have fit into his scenario.

      "How about transitional fossils of land mammals and whales?"

      They fare no better than Tiktaalik. Their transitional nature is all in the eye of those who assume common descent. You cannot demonstrate they are transitional any more than you can demonstrate Tiktaalik is transitional. You can only assert they are transitional.

      Delete
  54. Evolutionists have been looking for all those thousands of ttsnsitional that evolution predicts and they keep on not finding them. Two out of thousands isn't impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Louis Savain: We observe the exact same pattern in human intelligent designs over time.

    Human artifacts generally do not fall into a single nested hierarchy, but can be grouped in any of a number of different manners. Take library classification schemes as an example.

    Nic: A branching hierarchy is what you observe because you buy into common descent.

    What we observe is the nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is an entailment of branching descent, and is also supported by the fossil succession.

    Nic: Shubin did not know such a creature existed ...

    He knew well enough to spend years searching a particular geological formation, and then found an organism with the predicted traits.

    Nic: ... and would have used any creature he could have fit into his scenario.

    The prediction is of an organism that has both the posited primitive and derived traits of fish and tetrapods. That's what he found.

    Nic: Their transitional nature is all in the eye of those who assume common descent.

    They have both the posited primitive and derived traits of land vertebrates and whales. You can wave your hands, but when someone says he is going to find a whale with hindlimbs, then walks out into the desert and finds fossil whales with hindlimbs, then it is more than a mere guess.

    natschuster: Two out of thousands isn't impressive.

    That's funny.
    http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/images/SIA3672.jpg

    Should we continue along the same vein?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel,

      "What we observe is the nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is an entailment of branching descent, and is also supported by the fossil succession."

      That is what you observe because you believe in common descent. What about mice and rats? Do they fall into a nice little nested hierarchy?

      "The prediction is of an organism that has both the posited primitive and derived traits of fish and tetrapods."

      You have still to empirically demonstrate 'derived traits.' When you can do that, you can start to build a case. Until then you have nothing but assumption, extrapolation and speculation.

      "They have both the posited primitive and derived traits of land vertebrates and whales."

      Really? Would you mind demonstrating those facts?

      Delete
  56. Nic: That is what you observe because you believe in common descent.

    No. The observation of the nested hierarchy is independent of any explanatory framework.

    Nic: What about mice and rats? Do they fall into a nice little nested hierarchy?

    Two organisms can't form a nested hierarchy, by definition. However, rodents are nested within mammals, which are nested within amniotes, which are nested within vertebrates, which are nested within metazoa.

    Nic: You have still to empirically demonstrate 'derived traits.'

    A derived trait is *defined* as one which is not found in the posited ancestor.

    ReplyDelete