Donald Prothero’s Imaginary Evidence for Evolution (yet another evo hoax!)

That’s the lesson of Donald Prothero’s book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero is a professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles. On November 30, he teamed up with atheist Michael Shermer (founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine) to debate Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg of the Discovery Institute.

Shermer wrote the foreword to Prothero’s book, calling it “the best book ever written on the subject.” In fact, “Don’s visual presentation of the fossil and genetic evidence for evolution is so unmistakably powerful that I venture to say that no one could read this book and still deny the reality of evolution.”

Of course, “evolution” can mean many things, most of which nobody would deny even without Prothero’s book. For example, evolution can mean simply change over time, or minor changes in existing species (“microevolution”), neither of which any sane person doubts. Both Shermer and Prothero, however, make it clear that by “evolution” they mean Darwin’s theory that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified principally by natural selection acting on unguided variations (“macroevolution”).

The modern version of the theory asserts that new variations originate in genetic mutations. Some of the most dramatic mutations occur in “Hox genes,” which can determine which appendages develop in various parts of the body. On page 101 of his book, Prothero shows pictures of two Hox gene mutations: “antennapedia,” which causes a fruit fly to sprout legs instead of antennae from its head, and “ultrabithorax,” which causes a fruit fly to develop a second pair of wings from it midsection. But both of these are harmful: A fruit fly with legs sticking out of its head is at an obvious disadvantage, and a four-winged fruit fly has no flight muscles in its extra pair of wings, so it has trouble flying and mating. Both mutants can survive only in the laboratory; in the wild they would quickly be eliminated by natural selection.

Some Darwinists have suggested that ancestral four-winged fruit flies could have evolved by mutation into modern two-winged fruit flies. But this explanation doesn’t work, because a two-winged fly hasn’t simply lost a pair of wings; it has acquired a large and complex gene (ultrabithorax) that enables it to develop “halteres,” or balancers. The halteres are located behind the fly’s normal pair of wings and vibrate rapidly to stabilize the insect in flight. So the two-winged fly represents the gain—not loss—of an important structure. (See Chapter 9 of my book Icons of Evolution).

Prothero ignores the evidence and suggests that ancestral four-winged flies simply mutated into modern two-winged flies. Modern four-winged mutants, he writes on page 101, “have apparently changed their regulatory genes so that ancestral wings appeared instead of halteres.”

Not only does Prothero ignore the evidence from developmental genetics, but he also invents an imaginary animal to complete the story he wants us to believe. Page 195 of his book carries an illustration of an eighteen-winged dragonfly next to a normal four-winged dragonfly, with the following caption: “The evolutionary mechanism by which Hox genes allow arthropods to make drastic changes in their number and arrangement of segments and appendages, producing macroevolutionary changes with a few simple mutations.”

Yet there is no evidence that eighteen-winged dragonflies ever existed. There are lots of dragonflies in the fossil record, but none of them remotely resemble this fictitious creature.

No matter. In what Michael Shermer calls “the best book ever written on the subject,” Donald Prothero simply makes up whatever evidence he wants.

It's simply beyond their comprehension that someone could consider the ToE and decide against it.

And dissent is NOT allowed.

Dissent is the essence of science. The problem creationists have is that on a scientific level the dissent has to be on the same level.

It's always hard to engage a well established theory. Best way to do it is to offer some better results for observations.

Next problem is for several not so scientifically skilled people to understand even though one theory might be wrong (By the way, that can't be true for a scientific theory!) that another theory therefore is true. There are endless ways to describe nature.

Why a scientific theory can't be wrong at all is quite simple. To reach status of a theory a hypothesis has to fulfill several logical requirements.
- Comply within it's range to observations
- Prohibit possible observations
- and therefore has to be refutable

Therefore Beheism or is it called IDism is not scientific. Until now a DESIGNER(TM) is allowed to do everything therefore it is not limited by any prohibitions.

Newton “laws” are still usable although they are not correct in all ways. You have to keep in mind the limitations. So there is still truth within these “laws” but limited.

Until now I'm not aware of any limitation of the theory of evolution except the limitations implied within the theory.

Yeah....making an illustration of what tweaking a Hox gene will do......soooooo “stupid”.....kick the strawman around some more.

There was a real example....fruit flies that grew wings instead of haltares when the gene was tweaked.....telling what the gene does.

Only those ignorant of modern genetics must rely on calling into question someone’s grammar or reading comprehension.....it’s an old tactic.

I “comprehend” quite well that you have no clue what was being illustrated and feel like using your ignorance and that of others in your echo chamber of dinosaurs to kick around a strawman of the point of the illustration, the point of which went right over your uneducated-in-the-matter head.

Can you explain how a “random” process doesn’t produce at least as many failures as successes? And that would be if the odds were 50/50. I’d say the odds of “randomly” developing a biological electric motor is pretty slim, wouldn’t you?

Let’s say mutation A is a viable mutation and is represented by heads.

Mutation B is a non-viable mutation and is represented by tails.

Is it then your contention that “evolution” always comes up heads?

Let’s say that you could fit enough scrabble game pieces into your hand to represent “a mutation,” in code.

Is it your contention that every time you threw these pieces against the wall, they would produce a viable mutation, such as an electric motor, an airfoil, or visual processing devices with far more horsepower than even the best cameras we can currently produce?

Where are the fossils of the failures? Produce one. Or please explain how “evolution” never regresses. Doesn’t science say that all of creation is trending towards chaos? How exactly then is our little planet trending towards order?

I never said I expected anything to survive. In fact, I said the opposite. But feel free to believe in your miraculous unknown force that never fails, only succeeds. If only we could tap into it so that we could make it our leader.

Where do you get the bizarre notion that “random” means always succeeding?

How did “evolution” discover, mathematically, the concept and application of a straight line? How about a parabolic curve? How many times did “evolution” cause a plant to grow in a completely erratic fashion, because it hadn’t yet discovered the engineering concept of a straight line? Oh, a straight line is nothing, you say? Then lets see you produce one...from nothing, with no knowledge. Lets see you build a biological machine capable of using math during its growth.

Ignoring all that...what came first? The hardware or the software?

Did “evolution” create the genome before the first life? Or did life spring into existence without the benefit of an operating system? If so...how did it pass its non-existent genes on? While we’re on that...why isn’t the genome itself evolving? Why does all life use the same basic operating system that it has for billions of years? Can you point out DNA version 2.1? No? Well, that truly is a miraculous, mysterious force.

Pick wisely, it has to be one or the other.

Great tactic.....understand little, but ask a lot of asinine questions.

The pressures exerted on the organism are what then? Planned? Designed? Controlled?

The pressures are.....environmental. If you want the environment to be controlled, designed, or planned....exit the science world.

And explain how that process is not due to random influences.

....explain how it IS due to random influences. The process is what it is. The stimulus is random and not random. As in, once in a while a big freakin' meteor hits Earth randomly or a caldera erupts randomly.....random environmental stimulus. Generally it is non-random stimulus....as in, not much changes in the short-term.

It doesn't read that way

It reads EXACTLY that way....the guy's looking for fossils for a pterodactyl with bricks for wings as proof of evolution.....like there should be fossils all over the place of monstrocities and failed mutations.

But there appear to be no examples of failed mutations, monstrosities, as it were, in the fossil record.

....and why would there necessarily be fossils of failed mutations or monstrocities? First, there has to be the failed mutation/monstrocity....then the liklihood that the conditions were right for fossilization.....then a scientists 50 million years later stumbling upon it. The lack of monstrocity or failed mutation fossils says nothing about monstrocities existing or not. There are monstrocities and failed mutations RIGHT NOW....and they will never fossilize for future scientists to discover because the conditions are not right for them to fossilize.

Could you explain how all the fossils that are found are found in their complete and fully functional form?

....because they were completely functional animals when they died and conditions were right for fossilization. If transitional fossils are presented but you broad-brush claim they are bogus because they are fully functional, that does not mean they do not exist.....it means you will not believe they do and must stick to "everything that is fully functional must've always been exactly that way from the beginning" mentality. There are numerous transitional fossils in multiple layers of taxonomy....all fully functional...some with very clear gradual changes.

Whether you believe they are transitional or not is as irrelevant as them being fully functional.

OK...you’re an expert.

False claim #1. Nope...I'm an expert in the immunology of infectious diseases. I'm "educated" in genetics...though much of the specifics have been replaced with immunology.

So you’re completely right about the unknowable and we’re completely wrong about the unknowable

Ya just don't mix science and theology.....especially if that theology puts Man living with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs. Gimme a time machine and I'll get you all the data you want. You wanna claim that "God did it"....have at it...more power to you. Ends the discussion right there. Just don't pervert multiple fields of science to claim it all shows God did it....and most certainly don't claim that ANY science proves that Man lived with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs 4,352 yers ago.

The real question is...what did they teach you in your graduate level “global warming” classes?

Irrelevant red herring #1. BUT, they taught me, in my 6 climatology-related classes needed to get a minor in climatology.....to look at the raw data and to look for trends based ON the raw data taking into account any one of 16 major and uncounted thousands of minor factors for a specific piece of data.

You know, the level that actually discusses global warming as if it were a proven fact.

Never took a class that claimed global warming was a proven fact.....and I took my 6 classes from '97-'00 I took real classes on the real science that ManBearPig twists to suit his wallet, not poli-sci classes.

Because science is infallible, right?

Wrong question to ask. Real "science" actually is only infallible in the same vein as "If you make a proper logical argument, you are never technically 'wrong.'" is true. Doesn't mean that science cannot be wrong, twisted, manipulated, politicized, a farce, or any other thing you can come up with. BUT, if the science follows the proper methods, it self-corrects, bends to fit new data, adapts to new understandings.

This is exactly why science and rigid theology doesn't mix well......and why attempts to pervert entire fields of science in an attempt to prove that Man walked the Earth with dinosaurs 4,352 years ago are met with resistance from those IN the sciences.

Yes, thank you! Bookmarked for after Christmas. I found a couple of the books on my list for $1.99 at "my" fav used book search engine/db. Behe wrote one, too, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism".

A word about the dragonfly. I kind of skimmed over that, but it's not impossible. The problem would be rewiring the brain to coordinate that many wings at the same time, and a lot more. I'm always on the lookout for anomalies in nature and my garden. I'll just cite a couple examples, and there must have been a recessive gene to have caused it, not necessarily a whole new genome. On my garden group, we were talking about various Asian lilies. They have six petals. One person posted a photo, and I'm sure it was genuine, of a perfect, symmetrical, 8-petalled, beautiful lily. I told her to let it go to seed and save the seeds, but she had deadheaded it! That might have been worth some bucks if she could have gotten it to breed true for a few generations, takes time and patience.

You should see some of the amazing crosses passionate-but-amateur hybridizers do. I've watched some on a daylilies forum, also one who did zinnias. This all has to do with hybridizing which is cross pollinating, but it's related. From one batch of seeds where there has been something unusual, only a few come true with a lot of others with different attributes from the same seed pod.

I'd better quit talking about that. Will just say that a seed company had introduced a new rudbeckia which caused a stir because people weren't getting ones like the picture and were disappointed; only one had some pretty ones like the promo photo. It takes several generations to select out for the traits you want and even then, some will exhibit regressive forms. I ordered the same flower as a plant, and it was supposed to be single like those who had grown theirs from seed, think there was just one source for those seeds last year. Got 3 plants. Two were single, and one turned out double/triple/multiple. So it's fun when it happens. That one rudbeckia of mine (I saved a lot of seed) with all the extra petals make me believe that a dragonfly they're bickering about is possible, just more complex.

Now rudbeckias don't have brains, but something has to be triggered to tell them how many petals to make. I'm guessing that my odd one got open pollinated by some different variety of doubles growing in the same field.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.