Another Evolution Question

[Mikel]

I'm still debating with the same guy and tearing apart his arguments, but I have a second question. He posted this Sure, scientists created a few proteins from amino acids in a lab under extremely impossible conditions for what the first cell would have undergone. However, take into account that life must have water to survive, yet amino acids are destroyed instantly in water. So the cell would have to overcome extreme odds of left hand amino acids matching up perfectly with right hand amino acids (also virtually impossible) in completely waterless conditions and then IMEDIATELY be taken to water to survive, despite the fact that the cell would have to create, from nothing, a protective covering and energy processing abilities to survive for more than a couple of milliseconds. Are you seeing any sort of gap here now? Yet evolutionists who believe there is not intelligent force that helped out argue that the answers are out there to be found eventually...sounds a lot like a religion to me. Again, can you guys help me out?

[apathy]

This quote is pure doo doo.

If the conditions were "extremely impossible" how did they create them in the lab.

Also, if something is impossible, how can it be "extremely" so?

Amino acids are NOT destroyed instantly in water! what the hey? We wouldn't be here if they did. Every free amino acid in every living thing is in intimate contact with water ( the ones on the interior sections of a protein aren't.)

I don't know what he is trying to say about left-handed aa's "matching up" with right handed aa's. If he means that there were both enantiomers hanging around and that they had to form a peptide with only aa's of the same handedness, then that is just cookoo. I don't have time or energy to explain it here, but tell him to look up how the handedness in life came about. All amino acids that we use are L (except glycine) and all the sugars we use are D. But these are a direct consequence of each other. (google time).

This guy is arguing from the ID perspective. It's tough to get these folks to see straight but maybe go here:

www.4forums.com

there is a whole panel devoted to this very topic
you will find many helpful "evolutionists"

[apathy]

oh, by the way, you must inform your friend that the theory of evolution, at least from a biological perspective does not address the ORIGIN of life, merely the way it changes over time

[Mikel]

Thanks. I can't wait to see what other wild arguments he comes up with next.

[Sayonara³]

Tell him to figure it out from first principles and scientific research instead of mindlessly parroting the largely incorrect bullshit that people think the web needs to be filled with.

[admiral_ju00]

Tell him to figure it out from first principles and scientific research instead of mindlessly parroting the largely incorrect bullshit that people think the web needs to be filled with.

Ditto!

[Mikel]

If I told him that I would get warning type thing for flaming. Our forums have mods. After my last reply and sucessfully refuteing all his arguments he just kinda disapeared. ;)

[Sayonara³]

He'll probably wait a couple of weeks, then bump the thread with more of the same.

[Mikel]

I doubt it. I think I shamed him. :D

[Sayonara³]

Linkage?

:D

[Mikel]

http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59895&pagenumber=2 That's the page where we kinda get off topic of "under god" in the pledge to biology. Keep in mind while reading my posts i'm only 14 and i'm not even in high school yet (point being I haven't been in biology and i'm not exactly the master debater ;) as my title says) and I was argueing with an adult redneck.

[Mikel]

Well, once again I'm debating with a creationist. He said there was a gap between reptiles and birds so I gave him this this (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html) link to show the origin of birds for him. Anyway, about 2 weeks later he replies saying this I will tell you the truth about Archaeopteryx. Let's start out with a quote from Michael Denton, "[T]he universal experience of paleontology... [is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life... what they have never yielded is any of Darwin's myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."
So how could Denton get away with saying that in his famous book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis? He got away with saying that because it was the truth. Here are the problems with Archaeopteryx:
1) Assuming archaeopteryx was an intermediate, it doesn't show evolution just as in my prior Corvette analogy. To show evolution we would need to know how you got from reptile to archaeopteryx to bird. The archaeopteryx doesn't show us whether it evolved or was simply created.
2) Look at the duck-billed platypus. It is a strange looking animal (just like archaeopteryx) that possesses characteristics of different classes, but practically nobody considers it transitional.
3) A common misconception is that the archaeopteryx is half-bird and half-reptile, but it isn't even close. Scientists can see now days that archaeopteryx was completely a bird. That means that it wasn't even an intermediate.

So, in essence, the link you provided me based its evidence off of archaeopteryx which was thought of as transitional a century ago, but now is clearly nothing more than a bird. Did you notice their other argument? "In fact, recent expeditions in China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and elsewhere may uncover dinosaurs that usurp the "urvogel" status of Archaeopteryx." (emphasis mine) In other words, "We haven't found anything yet after thousands of expeditionary digs for over a century, but we are still optimistic that we might just find something".

I would appreciate it if you guys can help me out again. Thanks.

[Sayonara³]

Anyone who puts an "s" on the end of the word myriad is not to be trusted academically under any circumstance.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's not an explanation.

[Sayonara³]

That's not an explanation.
What, destroying the credibiity of that guy's source isn't going to help?

Think before you post.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Just because he isn't an english major/expert doesn't mean he is an absolute idiot at science.

[Sayonara³]

No, but it does mean he hasn't bothered to proof-read, get anything typeset, or pass it through peer-review.

The bottom line is that someone who tries to use words like myriad (which has more complex rules than the average collective noun) without bothering to find out how probably ain't that smart.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If he's not an english expert, he's not going to find it in the proof read, and microsoft Word thinks myriads is a word, and his peers aren't all going to be english majors, are they?

[Mikel]

How should I reply to him (not to the myriads guy but the guy with the 3 "problems")?

[Sayonara³]

Jesus.

Considering I was only being glib to begin with anyway, you've certainly chosen an interestng route to go down. An ability to use Microsoft word is usually acquired after one learns English, and if it does affect knowledge of that language in any way I'd expect it's only in that it makes people lazier.
Patterns of peer review are not governed by geography, by the way.

ANYWAY, he is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry (http://www.iscid.org/michael-denton.php) at the University of Otago, New Zealand.

The book the quote is taken from is nearly twenty years old and based on, and he's no paleantologist - he's a biochemist. Information on "X has never been found" may well be out of date by now, if it wasn't then.

It's a bad source that was googled by someone specifically trying to prove a pre-determined conclusion. There are probably good sources out there for evidencing either side, but that post Mikel quoted hasn't been near any.

[Sayonara³]

How should I reply to him (not to the myriads guy but the guy with the 3 "problems")?
1) Find out as much as you can about paleantology, the fossil record, and why the gaps exist. There are (believe it or not, constructive) discussions all over the place about this.
It's most likely he's using a flawed idea of how the fossil record is composed. He's definitely using a flawed idea of what transitionals are.

Challenge him to define for you exactly what he will accept as being a transitional.
In his view, what would be different enough to be a different species but similar enough to be related?
How does he know from looking at one fossil and then at another identical fossil from 500,000 years later that one does not have a crucially advantageous difference in its internal biology that we would consider to have caused speciation? We know that happens, why would anyone randomly decide it could not happen in Archaeopteryx, or any other extinct species?

That should screw him up a bit. He'll try and tell you that it's your job as the proponent of evolution to provide that information - don't let him, because he has to demonstrate he understands what he is arguing.


2) ALL INDIVIDUALS OF ALL SPECIES EVER are or were transitional. His misunderstanding of simple evolutionary principles don't make evolution "wrong". If he disagrees, again ask him what makes a transitional species (other than relatively applied hindsight), and what makes a non-transitional species.


3) Firstly, he needs to cite sources for that. Don't accept anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed or accepted by the paleantological community.
Secondly, "That means that it wasn't even an intermediate" is wrong, because of (2) above.

[swansont]

To the creationist, every new fossil just means there are two new gaps to fill. "Reptile -> bird" filled by archie just demands that you come up with a new transitional. But you're letting them set the rules if the argument becomes "you can't show it wasn't created" and you haven't defined what a transitional fossil is - chances are they will say it's a "half-formed" specimen - something that couldn't possibly have existed. Something with half a lung, or half a wing. A self-fulfilling prediction: if the creatre couldn't possibly exist, transitions are impossible. (BTW- The whale lineage is a much better example to use as an example. More steps present.)

Science is inductive. Let the creationist make some predictions, and see how well that turns out. Why is there a pattern to the strata in which we find the fossils? Chances are you'll get "geological sorting" (which would be an even worse violation of the second law of thermodynamics than evolution could possibly be, which it isn't)

It's a strawman argument to say that the platypus isn't transitional, because it's an extant species - there's no "after" to which it could transition.

The bottom line is that creationists aren't playing by the rules of science and logical debate. The arguments are based on a misunderstanding of how science works (proof vs. evidence) and are chock full of logical fallacies. Point those fallacies out, and make them do some science.

[apathy]

Look up Michael Denton and all you get are creationist websites

he's not a real paleontologist

[Sayonara³]

Look up Michael Denton and all you get are creationist websites

he's not a real paleontologist
Does this mean that there is a creationist with the same name as the Senior Research Fellow in biochemistry who comes up first on google? Because that's the guy who wrote the book that was being referenced.

[Skye]

A couple of things,

As far as I'm aware Archaeopteryx is not considered an ancestor to modern birds, but one of several radiations of lines from bird-like dinosaurs that went extinct.

The distinction we draw between reptiles and birds doesn't follow their evolutionary histories. As an example, crocodiles share a more recent ancestor with birds than with the other reptiles. The line between birds and reptiles is going to be debatable, because the line is an artificial human construction, not based on evolutionary histories, which is the normal principle most of life is classified by.

Stating there is an 'infinitude' of transitionals indicates some knowledge of the fact that everything is an intermediate. Asking for an infinitude though, is idiocy.

[Mikel]

I asked him in his view, exactly what he will accept as being a transitional and he said "It isn't about my view. Read the definition of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc. and see what you think are similar." I also told him all individuals of all species ever are or were transitional and he doesn't agree. He says "It's kind of like me saying that practically everybody agrees that 8 x 9 = 72 and you getting defensive and questioning the fact that I'm speaking for practically everybody. This is not destoying evolutionary theory (yeah, it still is a theory which many scientists are finding to be more intriguing than accurate) it is just stating a known fact."

[blike]

I asked him in his view, exactly what he will accept as being a transitional and he said "It isn't about my view. Read the definition of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc. and see what you think are similar."

Reference sayonara (props for predicting it sayo).

He'll try and tell you that it's your job as the proponent of evolution to provide that information - don't let him, because he has to demonstrate he understands what he is arguing.

[blike]

Mikel, invite him to the forum :)

[Mikel]

That dumbass creationist is pissing me off. With every statement now, he's basically implying i'm a dumbass about evolution. The last thing I want to do now is show him the questions I've been having to ask about evolution. I mean check out his latest post: http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59146&perpage=20&pagenumber=5. His name is comanderofchaos so you can identify his post. At first in his latest post he is saying i'm on a roll and that starts saying shit like "Until you can show that you have any knowledge of the subject I cannot have a level conversation with you. It turns into me giving you a lesson on evolution."

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then he's insulting the people who gave you the advice!


Off with his head!

[Sayonara³]

That dumbass creationist is pissing me off. With every statement now, he's basically implying i'm a dumbass about evolution. The last thing I want to do now is show him the questions I've been having to ask about evolution.
Seems to me that going off to find out about the subject from the people who know is nothing to be ashamed of when you're arguing with someone who doesn't even know how rocks work.

[blike]

Hey, no using those tags outside the general discussion area.

You should not use the bubble tag in the science threads.

[Sayonara³]

I've created a MONSTER.

/me goes to find a picture of Richard Dawkins for legitimate bubbling in the evo forum...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hey, no using those tags outside the general discussion area.
I'm thinking Albert would be a good person to tell people about relativity, and so on.

Open to over-use and abuse though if people aren't careful with it in the sciencey forums.
Ahem.

[jordan]

Well it wasn't a good use of the tags...

And the link isn't working right now. I get an error. Is that happening for everyone?

[atinymonkey]

That dumbass creationist is pissing me off. With every statement now, he's basically implying i'm a dumbass about evolution. The last thing I want to do now is show him the questions I've been having to ask about evolution. I mean check out his latest post: http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59146&perpage=20&pagenumber=5

The site won't load, so I'll reply here.

I'd skip joyfully past Darwin. The book was published in 1859, and your opponent is still trotting out the same phrases Thomas Henry Huxley did all those years back. To be involved in a discussion based around the merits of 'Theories of Evolution' is to find youself faced with the same blank denial Darwin was unable to overcome. Don’t get dragged further in. The one thing that ‘saved’ evolution, or rather put it beyond reasonable dispute, was Genetics. That wondrous double helix molecule contains the code that explains life, and its predecessors. Get him to explain away the genetic evidence of evolution, the information is only a google away.

BTW, let ‘comanderofchaos’ know the plural of Legion is Legion. Legions is only a valid word if used when your talking about many groups of 5000 > 6000 Roman solders. Myriad is both singular and plural (as in Sheep, the plural is Sheep) putting the ‘s’ on the end is inane (i.e. look at those sheeps). Just for info, there was no roman legion of sheep. :-p

P.S. Webster’s 'dictionary' is the devil.

[Sayonara³]

Myriad is kind of used as if it were stuck in the plural, without a preceding "a".

So where you might say "there was a swarm of soldier ants", using myriad you would say "there were myriad soldier ants".

It is a bizarre word.

[Mikel]

I told him, atinymonkey. I just made a reply. Oh yeah, genetics. I forgot to put that in my post. Is it my imagination or did I see your name browzing the forums? Assuming it wasn't my imagination and since you obviously can argue genetics better than me, you should make a post about it.

[admiral_ju00]

Mikel, invite him to the forum :)

That still is a good idea.
Bring him here, so that we can rip him appart.

[atinymonkey]

I told him, atinymonkey. I just made a reply. Oh yeah, genetics. I forgot to put that in my post. Is it my imagination or did I see your name browzing the forums? Assuming it wasn't my imagination and since you obviously can argue genetics better than me, you should make a post about it.

Yeh, I registered and browsed the forums. The massive sig's made the threads difficult to follow, and there was far too much flaming going on (in politics mostly) tbh. It made my sanity cry. I will pop on at some point, but not at the moment.

[Mikel]

Awsome, atinymonkey. Here's the latest in the debate from him.I've stated (after study) that there is a gap in the fossil record between birds and reptiles (much more than this, but we will stay on this specific point for now). Do you want me to give you a bunch of quotes about this? "When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, he conceded that 'the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory' was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis." Then there's the one by Michael Denton I pointed out earlier. (Sidenote: it seems as though you didn't read my reply to the "myriads" statement. I drew the parallel with legion because they both refer to a specific number. Myriad refers to ten thousand, so myriads would refer to tens of thousands.) (in reply to the question, "...archaeopteryx is a half-bird, half-reptile, right?" Jonathan Wells stated, "No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways - their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear - not part bird and part reptile." Wells goes on to talk about how a branch of evolutionary theory, which is called "cladistics", had to move on to other fossils because the archaeopteryx argument just doesn't work high level scientific debates anymore. In 1985, paleontologist, Larry Martin, said clearly that archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds. Here's a quote that you should find especially fascinating, not so much just what was said, but a combination of what was said and who said it:
"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." - Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, ardent evolutionist.
Then there is Phillip Johnson who said, "If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation."
Now that I have given you some quotes will you please provide some evidence that fills the evolutionary gap between birds and reptiles? That was the point of this entire conversation.

What do you guys think?

[Sayonara³]

Some corrections for his bizarre lecturing:

Myriad comes from the Ancient Greek murias, meaning "ten thousand". It lost its specificity during its transition through Latin. In modern English it means "inumerable", and there is no such word as "myriads".

What Darwin admitted observed about the fossil record in 1859 has no bearing whatsoever on the current state of play as regards the current fossil record.

Cladistics is a classification system based on the order of evolutionary branching rather than on present similarities and differences. It is not part of evolutionary theory - it is a part of the classification schema which makes use of evolutionary histories.
Saying that cladistics had to "move on to other fossils because the archaeopteryx argument just doesn't work" sounds very impressive but essentially it makes no odds whatsoever because cladistics does not particularly aim to "solve" the great mysteries of evolution, and when you're talking about reptiles turning into birds no one species is that important.


in reply to the question, "...archaeopteryx is a half-bird, half-reptile, right?" Jonathan Wells stated, "No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways - their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear - not part bird and part reptile."
Nobody in their right mind would claim that it was literally "half bird half reptile", so it's hardly surprising he would give the response he did.

This comes back to your opponent having no ****ing clue what a transitional species is - he's either setting you up to argue against a deliberately incorrect construct (which would be a fairly obvious strawman, and you could devastate his argument by calling him out on that), or he's really really ignorant.
In the case of Archaeopteryx, if it were indeed a transitional, describing it as "half bird half reptile" is layman's shorthand.
What it should be described as is a species that displays the significant attributes associated with avians, while also demonstrating evidence of a past connection to a non-avian lineage.


In 1985, paleontologist, Larry Martin, said clearly that archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds
Not relevant.

"Species X went extinct before Class Y radiated" is not the same as "Species X would never have led to species in Class Y".


"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."
All that shows is that du Nouy had a good grasp of scientific theory - it does not in any way falsify the concept of transitionals.

You might want to point out that Pierre Lecomte du Nouy died in 1947, was a biophysicist, and was known mainly for his criticism of evolutionary biology. Also his reputation as a scientist was tarnished badly due to his woefully wrong estimate of the chances of randomly forming a two-thousand atom protein molecule (an argument creationists still use today, despite the fact that it is so very wrong.) Du Nouy was no "ardent evolutionist".

Of course, that is all just gravy. Fact is that he had no access to the ever-more advanced genetic and taxanomic tools that we have been developing for the past six decades since he died.

By the way, your guy appears to be ripping off his material from here (or possibly a similar site that has not gone under; these places all seem to feed off each other):
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:IORngdQUcsMJ:www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm+Pierre+Lecomte+du+Nouy
That may explain why it's mostly out of date and lacks any sign of independent thought or logical rounding.


If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation.

Looks like that was ripped off from here: http://www.princeton.edu/~ccc/outline.html
I doubt the protagonist in this little drama knows what the significance or relevance is to be honest.


Now that I have given you some quotes will you please provide some evidence that fills the evolutionary gap between birds and reptiles? That was the point of this entire conversation.
Quotes? Quotes? Wtf good are quotes?
He hasn't shown any evidence he knows what he is arguing, that he has read the sources those quotes are taken from, that he understands their academic relevance, that he understands how evolutionary biology has adapted as a response to those conditions almost a hundred years ago, or that he even has any clue as to how taxanomic and evolutionary research works in the current era.

If he wants to refute the existence of transitionals he's going to have to do a lot better than quote people to whom he incorrectly ascribes authority or beliefs.

[Mikel]

That was awsome. Thank you so much. You are by far more educated in this subject and a better speaker than I.

[admiral_ju00]

Damn, I'm neglecting this thread for some reason.

On a side note, I simply love it how creationists take quotes as a statement of fact from a book that was published over a century ago.

[Mikel]

Yeah, they don't seem to want to get up to date. They would rather blindly follow creationism.
I can't wait to hear your argument on genetics, atinymonkey.

[NavajoEverclear]

Sayanara^3 said bullshit. Does that mean i can say asshole? some people are assholes.

[JaKiri]

Those Creationist arguments are the same ones they use EVERY TIME.

Pick any such thread at random from here and you'll probably get replies to the queries.

[Mikel]

Okay, i'm back. I found a great source for what I thought would answer all my unanswered questions but It didn't with absolutely everything, so I have another question. I'm debating a new guy in some different forums who said that children were being taught outdated info on evolution in schools. I asked for an example and he gave me a paragraph on things i'm not too familiar with and what are most likely lies fed to him by the erronious icr which may be why i'm not familiar with them. Anyway, here's what he said:
I say they are outdated in schools because they still include false stuff like the horse trasitionals (due to randomness in the chest cavity they threw out the fact that they are transitionals and are now seen as subspecies) and they still teach coaclanth (spelling) (This was thrown out because in recent years it was found to be a deep sea fish and not anything like a trasitional form between amphibians and fish.) and they even teach the hoax neanderthals with the regular ones (I'm refering to the ape/man transitionals, not the stupid kids).
Are any of you familiar with anything he's talking about?

[admiral_ju00]

I say they are outdated in schools because they still include false stuff

He's partly right here. Most public schools avoid talking about that stuff in general or provide flawed and out of date info. My experience of introduction to evolution in High School Biology was a roughly 3 minute crash course.

due to randomness in the chest cavity they threw out the fact that they are transitionals and are now seen as subspecies

I don't think that the current horses are considered transitional. But there is fossil evidence of transitional horses.

the hoax neanderthals with the regular ones
What the crap is he talking about???

what are most likely lies fed to him by the erronious icr which may be why i'm not familiar with them.

You're talking about these guys: http://www.icr.org/ ??

[Mikel]

He's partly right here. Most public schools avoid talking about that stuff in general or provide flawed and out of date info. My experience of introduction to evolution in High School Biology was a roughly 3 minute crash course.
I am aware they have had things like the "Nebraska Man" in textbooks in the past but I'm not aware of anything current.


I don't think that the current horses are considered transitional. But there is fossil evidence of transitional horses.
I think he's saying what were considered to be transitional fossils were found to be a subspecies because of "randomness in the chest cavity". I have no idea what he's talking about.

What the crap is he talking about???
He even said 3 of the Archaeopteryx's were hoaxes. This is just his way of dealing with knowledge of fossils I guess. He just calls them hoaxes.

You're talking about these guys: http://www.icr.org/ ??
Yeah, i've scanned through a couple of their articles. Not much valid info.

[Sayonara³]

Call him a hoax.

Claim he doesn't exist and demand evidence that changes every time you ask.

[Radical Edward]

I've stated (after study) that there is a gap in the fossil record between birds and reptiles (much more than this, but we will stay on this specific point for now). Do you want me to give you a bunch of quotes about this?

where is the gap in the theropod bird lineage?
Specimen #1 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=681)
Specimen #2 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=469)
Specimen #3 (http://dinosauricon.com/images/sinornithosaurus-ma.jpg)
Specimen #4 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=470)
Specimen #5 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=468)
Specimen #6 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=689)
Specimen #7 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=819)
Specimen #8 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=472)
Specimen #9 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=476)
Specimen #10 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=684)
Specimen #11 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=690)
Specimen #12 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=1075)
Specimen #13 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=701)
Specimen #14 (http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=732)

"When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, he conceded that 'the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory' was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis."

(1) immediately after that, he said this is because of the extremely fractional nature of the fossil record because fossilisation is rare
(2) we have discovered many many more fossils since Darwin. you might as well quote newton's comments on light.


nevertheless darwin is more often than not misquoted:

"The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.
should really be:

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872, Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.

it looks totally different in context doesn't it?

[badchad]

Just to jump in with a brief comment on the subject matter being taught in schools. In the strict sense, "YES" it probably is outdated. Thats because the time it takes to publish a textbook is on the order of years if I'm not mistaken. That is, a lot can happen in research in the 4 eyars or so it takes to publish and put together a school textbook. This is why we have journals which allow results to be published relatively quickly. Academic journals are generally considered to be most current....

[Mikel]

Thanks guys. What do you think of this argument from another guy. I can't find anything on it. "The chances of a universe like ours forming have been calculated to be 1 in 10 raised to the 400 millionth power. When something has less that a chance of 1 in 10 raised to the 110 millionth power, it is classified as having 0 probability." Big bang probability is something that hasn't crossed my path in debating.

[john5746]

What is the probability of today happening just as it did? What is the most probable universe? Statements like this mean nothing to me.

Ask the creationists to provide alternatives. If birds, mammals and reptiles did not evolve from a common ancestor, when were each created? Was everything created at the same time? If not, has anything been created recently? Why are species wiped out and then replaced? Is the creator experimenting?

[LucidDreamer]

First of all that calculation is a total joke. The way he got it was taking the places of all of the stars and all of the planets and all of the other material of the universe and calling each location an event. And then he took the location of each star and considered the distance to every other star and called that an event as well. And then he multiplies each of these events and gets a fantastically large number because there is an almost infinite number of possible places of placing each star. You can even make it more complex by including the locations of the atoms but the number is already impossibly large so there is no point.

But the size of the number is irrelevant because the placing of each star or atom doesn’t require a design by a divine hand and its not random. The universe is self-organizing with every star, every planet, every asteroid, and every spec of space dust governed by the four forces of nature. Every planet is held to a star in a particular orbit because of the force of gravity exerted by its star. Every bit of matter is expanding outward from a central point and it has reached its particular location because of the forces that expelled it from the big bang.

Every wave in the ocean contains billions of water molecules all located on a specific spot on the earth. If you took all of these atoms compared each ones location in respect to all of the others you would get a number just as large as the other one. The number would be so large that the possibility of that wave occurring based on probability would preclude it from happening. It would make its existence impossible. Yet it occurs time after time without any intelligent creator. The waves are created by the force of the moon’s gravity and the water molecules are held together by the polar forces of the water molecules and the subatomic particles are governed by the nuclear forces. It’s a self-organizing system with an infinite amount of probable waves created by the forces of nature. If you give an answer like that I’m sure he will ask you who created those forces, but that’s ill leave that to you.

[Mikel]

Thanks. That's a detailed explanation.

[SurfSciGuy]

Just thought I'd like to point out that archaeopteryx is a fraud (or at least the original fossil that was named archaeopteryx). It was faked from impressions of lizard skeletons and bird feathers made in a slip mixture and sandwiched between two plates of rock. When the slip dried it formed an invisible seal (this explains why the fossil was so flat, a fact which has puzzled many paleantologists for a long time). However this is mute because fossil records have a complete reptile-bird lineage now anyway.

[Sayonara³]

Can you source that?

[SurfSciGuy]

Sorry, my bad! Getting Archaeopteryx and Archaeoraptor confused (oops!)

Here's the archaeoraptor stuff if you're interested:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-321.htm

[Sayonara³]

Oh yes, that thing.

[Mikel]

Have the Miller-Urey experiments ever been duplicated? I'm debating with a creationist who says they have never been able to.

[LucidDreamer]

Yes. http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/miller_urey_experiment.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~lestera/2_24notes.html

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Miller-Urey+repeated&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=.edu&safe=images

I had trouble finding information about this at first, but then I went to google advanced search and limited my query to sites that ended in .edu. Otherwise you get a lot of creationist sites. You may notice that there are certain creationist "hot spots", certain scientific experiments or theories that creationist tend to revolve around when making their arguments. These are usually experiments or theories that stirred up the Christian communities when they were announced and creationist felt like they needed to respond to them. Not all of these subjects they talk about are particularly important to the theory of evolution.

Creationist tend to concentrate on these particular experiments because there is lots of creationist information on it and it gives them a pre-made argument. Most of creationism revolves around pointing out the flaws in the theory of evolution and there are plenty to pick on. The thing is science is messy; its filled with hoaxes, mistakes, miscalculations, contaminates, and errors because scientist are human. However, it’s still a good theory because even taking into account the mistakes the evidence is overwhelming. If you ask a creationist to come up with theories to explain the way the world is you will get one of two things, very bad science or because that’s the way God made it. It's easy to pick apart the bad science but it’s hard to argue with God's prerogative.

When it comes down to it there are only two theories, creationism or Evolution-there are of course lots of modifications on both like aliens and different kinds of evolution. But, if your in a room and look around to take stock of what’s in the room either it was there when you got there or someone brought it in. Something was either created outright all at once or it evolved. When we take account all of the evidence it clearly indicates that it evolved.

[Mikel]

Thanks.

[Mikel]

I just heard something from a creationist I have never heard before. He said:
Special Evolution: The process by which new species generate from other species due to genetically beneficial mutations.
Darwinian Evolution: or Natural Selection the process whereby animals with genetically beneficial characteristics survive and breed more often than those without the given characteristic thereby reinforcing the characteristic in future generations.
I would think by special evolution, he means macroevolution but he says "Due to mutations." On Darwinian evolution, it includes both micro and macro and isn't just natural selection. I'm not exactly sure if he's right and I'm just an idiot or i'm right and he's really messed up on both terms but I've never heard special evolution and I doubt he just made it up because I could really debunk his post and he'd know that. I doubt he'd be stupid enough to just make crap up. What's going on here?

[Sayonara³]

By "special evolution" I am guessing he means "evolution of a species", which would be a fairly pointless term as it is suggestive of a need to distinguish from a scenario where evolution is occuring without a species being present.

We qualified biologists call the splitting-off of a new species "speciation". He can call it what he likes; chances are he is copying what some other creationist told him.

[Mikel]

Speciation was the word I was thinking of (although it still isn't consistant with his special evolution definition). Thanks. I'll ask him where he got those definitions, too.

[admiral_ju00]

I'll ask him where he got those definitions, too.

Why?

[AL]

Thanks guys. What do you think of this argument from another guy. I can't find anything on it. "The chances of a universe like ours forming have been calculated to be 1 in 10 raised to the 400 millionth power. When something has less that a chance of 1 in 10 raised to the 110 millionth power, it is classified as having 0 probability." Big bang probability is something that hasn't crossed my path in debating.
First of all, any calculation of the odds of our universe forming the way it did is entirely speculative because we have no other different universes with which to compare. It could be entirely possible that our universe is completely deterministic (bound by fixed equations that govern it), with fixed parameters that cannot be modified, and thus the odds of it turning out the way it did were 100%. But without other universes to contrast ours with, this is all speculative.

Second of all, there is no rule in probability theory that states that 1/10^110 million is equal to zero. Even if it did, one should be aware that zero probability does not imply no chance of occuring, specifically in the case where the probability distribution is continuous (such as the Normal distribution, where any singular event has 0 probability of occuring), or if the distribution is discrete but infinite.

These Creationists are merely grasping at straws to find holes in evolution. Notice how they spend more time doing that than actually finding support for their beliefs with evidence. They're assuming the false dichotomy that if evolution is falsified, biologists will default to Creationism.

[Mikel]

I already have another question. I started a thread for creationists to try to disprove evolution and abiogenesis. Here was the post that I do not know how to answer.
I have a few questions to ask those who support abiogenesis.

During abiogenesis there is an absence of enzymes which means there is no chemical reaction to make ribose, which is vital to RNA and DNA, how does this work?

Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). Explain this.
He got this info from here (http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html). I tried to find something about it on the talk origins site because I didn't know the answers but I couldn't find anything.

[fuhrerkeebs]

This link describes the flaws (they aren't really flaws, just comments morons who don't really understand the theory make). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[Mikel]

Omg. I just realized the problem with the first argument. At the end of the first week of the Miller-Urey experiments, two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make protein enzymes. My problem wasn't the argument but a damn definition. I'm a total idiot. I couldn't find anything about the second argument in that site.

[fuhrerkeebs]

What's the second question?

[Mikel]

His second argument was Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). Explain this.

[Sayonara³]

Ask him to explain the second law of thermodynamics. After all, it's part of his argument so he ought to know it inside out.

[LucidDreamer]

Almost all of the energy of life comes from the sun. This energy originates in plants where the energy in light is transformed to chemical energy. The reason this occurs is because light photons excite the electrons of certain molecules in the plants. The plants then pass the electron through various carriers until it creates an electrical potential where ATP is made.

So all the energy of life ultimately comes from a simple physical phenomenon where light excites the electrons of atoms into higher energy orbitals. It occurs all the time and not just in life. It occurs in many metals where if a light is shined on them some of the electrons of the individual metal atoms become excited. To see a common example of this just look at your fluorescent light bulb. In this case the electricity is the stimulator instead of the sun. The electricity stimulates the electrons of the atoms in the light bulb and the electrons are excited into a higher energy orbital. Instead of just releasing this energy in the form of heat they release some energy in the form of light. Another example is a meteor. When you see the flash of a meteor its because some of the electrons in the air molecules have become excited and they are releasing energy in the form of light. If the energy that life uses somehow violated the second law of thermodynamics then many other natural physical occurrences must be thrown out as well.

The energy that sustains life ultimately results from photoexcitation that occurs all the time in life and in inorganic molecules. The second law of thermodynamics does not state that all forms of energy must immediately go to heat but that it will end up as heat eventually. In fact physics predicts that some energy can and will be transformed into other forms of energy before ending up as heat. One of these forms is the chemical energy of life.

That's the first part. The second part of this argument deals with the complex molecules of life being formed. The molecules of life are high energy. This is easy to see when you light a log on fire. All of the heat and light result from the combustion of the log because the log is full of high-energy molecules that release a lot of heat when burned. So why don’t these high-energy molecules violate the second law of thermodynamics? First, when these molecules were created from light energy not all of the energy was turned into the chemical energy of the plant; some was lost as heat. If the plant would have somehow ended up with more energy than the sun gave it then it would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Now, in order to determine whether a reaction is favorable we have an equation called Gibbs free energy. The equation is:G=H-TS or deltaG=delta H-deltaTS. H is energy, S is entropy (second law), T is temperature and not relevant to the discussion and G determines whether the reaction will occur. So whether any given reaction occurs depends upon both energy and entropy. The reactions that produce the complex molecules of life reduce the amount of entropy, which is unfavorable but they make it up by putting in lots of energy. You can produce an endless amount of complex, high-energy molecules in the lab by simply putting in energy in the form of heat or light, etc. These molecules that you make are going against the increase in entropy like the molecules of life but they are still favorable because you put in energy. If the complex molecules of life must somehow violate the laws of entropy then the many reactions that chemist do every day in their laboratory must be declared impossible by the second law of entropy.

The ability to produce the molecules of life by combining the atoms that make them up and introducing energy has been demonstrated countless times. Amino acids, urea, and RNA have all been produces with this method. To say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics is the same as saying that you don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics. The simple analogy that entropy is like your room that tends to get messy and unorganized is just a simple way to describe something very complex for early students or laymen. The reaction that is actually used by biochemist and has been proven to be accurate by many experiments is Gibes free energy, which is G= H-TS. By claiming that the high-energy molecules of life should not occur because the entropy is reduced is just simply ignoring one-half of the equation. You cannot just pretend that H is not there and claim that life violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[LucidDreamer]

His second argument was Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). Explain this.

I took a second look at your question and I'm afraid I gave you a very long-winded answer that didn't even answer your question. This particular question is a bit more complicated. In all honesty if you have to defend the pre-biotic soup by explaining how it occurred you’re going to have a very tough time because no one knows. We only know what early life was like from fossil records and fossil records of the pre-biotic soup area are nonexistent so we have to make a lot of assumptions based on what life is like today. Any thoughts about how homochirality or why DNA was chosen or how RNA reproduction started is all speculation. There are no overwhelming arguments for the creation of life on Earth from pre-biotic soup. There is no evidence. For this reason s creationist will try to get you to defend the pre-biotic soup theory and can make very convincing arguments. Your strength lies in the evidence, which starts with from the earliest fossils. You will slaughter someone on argument about the age of the earth. You will most likely win a big-band argument. You can definitely win an evolution argument, starting from the fossil records. You will most likely loose an argument about the pre-biotic soup theory. They will reduce to trying to defend a bunch of baseless theories.

First of all, the fact that every living creature has DNA with the same bases, RNA with the same bases, amino acids that are all left-handed, and sugar molecules that are all right-handed is as much an argument for evolution as against it. After all, if a creator made things outright he would not be limited to building on what came before and could use any combination of right and left-handed molecules. However, an organism that has evolved from another would be likely to inherit its predecessor’s characteristics, especially the very basic chemistry. The reason you don't find deviations on the fundamental chemistry like DNA or left-handed amino acids is because so many enzymes, structures, functions, and chemistry depend on them that you would have to change numerous things all at once. Evolution doesn't work this way. It relies upon single mutations. The building blocks are now set in stone for complex organisms and can't be changed.

When you test the stability of amino acids you find that the L-handed molecules are more stable, due to weak forces, than the right-handed. In all likelihood this is original reason that all of our amino acids are left-handed now. This explains why they are all left-handed and not right-handed but it doesn't explain why there is homochirality. We don't fully understand this yet but there are several good reasons for homochirality. Several are listed here:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409777a0_fs.html

I have my own theory for homochirality. During early life, before even the earliest photobacteria, proteins were probably made from only a few amino acids. Perhaps at one time early proto-life only catalyzed the formation of a peptide bond between a few particular amino acids that were formed naturally. Eventually the proto-life developed the ability to synthesize its own amino acids. If this first enzyme that catalyzed the formation of a particular amino-acid formed the L-amino acid than in all likelihood all subsequent enzymes that are formed afterwards by mutations would be forms L-amino acids because enzymes are usually steriospecific (they make only left or right-handed molecules). After all, while there would be a lot of benefit for early life to synthesize three amino acids instead of two there would be disastrous consequences to producing right-handed forms of a particular amino acid because the introduction of right-handed amino acids can cause the protein to be dysfunctional.

Another probable cause of homochirality is the machinery that makes the proteins. The units in the cells that make protein are ribosomes. They are RNA and protein conglomerates. The core of the ribosome is a section of RNA that is essential to making proteins. While present RNA molecules are not steriospecific towards making left-handed proteins the early version of RNA that constructed proteins was probably steriospecific towards making L-handed proteins. After much evolution the proteins composed of left-handed amino acids becomes an essential part of the organism. Once the proto-life has reached a certain stage it becomes very difficult to change because so much of the life functions are built around it, sort of like Legos that are built around a certain size of peg. However the RNA molecules are in fact steriospecific towards left-handed molecules when constrained on a monolayer, which is a likely condition of early proto-life. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/12/6/503

[LucidDreamer]

And another thing, the second law of thermodynamics has little to do with chirality. Whether a left-handed or right-handed molecule is formed depends upon the particular reaction that forms them in a particular environment. Left-handed amino acids are formed in life because their enzymes control their formation. Racemic mixtures (mixture of right and left-handed) are formed in vitro because the methods used to produce the amino acids have an equal or somewhat equal chance of producing them. Pressures to have an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules would only occur in the absence of any selective pressures of formation. If there is any advantage to life having homochirality or in the continuation of homochirality then that pressure will determine the likelihood of left-handed or right-handed molecules. Any violation of entropy in the formation of complex, high-energy molecules is overcome by the input of energy.

[Mikel]

Wow, thanks.

[john5746]

Does creationism obey any laws? If the laws aren't important for that theory, why must they be obeyed for any other theory anyway?

[fuhrerkeebs]

Hahahahaha it depends on what type of creationism your talking about. But in General, creationism involves God, and since God is soooo almighty ::cough cough::, there generally aren't too many rules. Hell, there are still people who think God created the earth in 7 days. :rolleyes:

[Mikel]

What were the conditions of earth's early atmosphere and why do you think so? Could abiogenesis operate in these conditions? I am wandering because I've been seeing alot of source saying it wasn't after I recieved this post on the Miller-Urey experiments:

It's really an outdated experiment because Miller used a hydrogen rich atmosphere composed of methane, water vapor, and ammonia. It got some immediate publicity because many scientists back then thought that that was what early earth's atmosphere was really composed of. Scientists have rejected it for decades though. Now, early earth's atmosphere is thought to have been composed of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide (very little hydrogen involved). The only reason there are still people that come out of college believing it was a legitimate experiment is because many textbooks will still put it in there and treat it very neutrally so as not to support it, but not to convince you it was flawed either.

[Mikel]

He also said this in another post and since I do not know much about nucleotide building blocks I was wandering if one of you could help.
Of the nine general naturalistic predictions for the beginning of life, one states that life gradually appeared on Earth over a long period of time. This prediction is contradicted by the fact that nucleotide building blocks (which are necessary) fall apart quickly in warm (19 days to 12 years) and cold (under 17,000 years) temperatures; destroying both warm and cold origin-of-life models.
Since creationists misrepresent and lie about science often (from what I have seen in the past) what is the truth?

[LucidDreamer]

I would first ask him why he has made it past the age of twelve. If this really did preclude life then he would have died long ago when his nucleotide building blocks fell apart in the warm environment of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality he has really made a point for the natural formation of life. This is demonstrated by La Chatleirs rule, which states that a reaction will reach equilibrium in the form of a ratio. So here is reaction 1: unbroken nucleotide block <--->Broken nucleotide block. In reaction 1 the reaction in going both ways and there is an equilibrium that is reached in the amount of unbroken blocks to broken blocks, lets say its broken/unbroken=10/1. Now since we know that nucleotide blocks can form more stable molecules in the form of DNA or RNA (I'm not sure how long DNA or RNA will last in an invitro environment, I think this principle will hold regardless) then we have another equation to add. Here is reaction 2:
Unbroken Nucleotide blocks<---->DNA. This too will form an equilibrium ratio; lets pretend UNB/DNA = 10/1.

So since both reaction 1 and 2 establish a ratio and because both reactions share one reactant in the form of unbroken nucleotide blocks then every time a nucleotide is added to a DNA Molecule the first reaction must make another one to replace the one lost and keep a 10/1 ratio. So basically the nucleotides are being remade as they are being destroyed. Also, the first material of replication is believed to be RNA, which is made of Nucleosides not Nucleotides.

[Mikel]

Thanks Lucid. Anyone have a reply to my other post?

[Mikel]

Lucid, he replied when I talked about the 98.6 degree thing. He said
You're kidding right? By the warm prediction, I'm refering to over 200 degrees (F).
Again, I don't know much about this subject.

[LucidDreamer]

Tell him regardless of the temperature the crucial issue is how many nucleotides are being made compared to the amount of nucleotides that are being broken down. Many experiments have shown that organic compounds can be formed from inorganic material. So as nucleotides are broken down they are also formed. It's not like each planet has a select amount of nucleotides given to it and the amount just gets smaller as they break down. Also, remind him that most modern evolutionary biologist believe in punctuated evolution that can occur rapidly. Also Nucleosides of RNA are considered to be the first building blocks of replication. Also there are extremophiles that manage to survive and replicate in very hot temperatures.