creationism and creation science

The Skeptic's Dictionary ^ | 2002-01-14 | Robert Todd Carroll

[VadeRetro]

The persistence of well-adapted forms does not disprove evolution. There are still cyanobacteria unchanged so far as we can tell from their fossil counterparts 3.5 billion years ago. This does not help you that I can see.

Yes, in highly favorable conditions, soft parts can be fossilized. As mentioned above, there are fossils of unicelluars. Occasionally with vertebrates we can see skin folds, organs, feathers, and other things that far more usually leave no trace. In fact, most animals that die leave no fossils at all. The very well preserved ones are rare, exceptional cases. So what?

[Junior]

Can you come up with one peer-rewiewed article in a scientific journal that refers to evolution as fact rather than theory? I am still under the impression that the term "Theory of Evolution" means what it says, and that Scientific writers whose reputations hinge on the accuracy of their words hold fast to keeping that term "Theory" in there, regardless of their beliefs.

You obviously have little idea of what the term "theory" means in science. It has little relation to the term as it is used in every day speech. In science a theory is as close to an absolute as one is likely to get; it is a system supported by observation and experimentation upon which scientists can rely to make predictions. For this reason, Relativity is "only a theory" even though its basic tenets have been confirmed through observation and experimentation. The closest scientific term to the layman's "theory" is "hypothesis." Evolution is a theory and not a hypothesis.

[ventana]

no argument there, and I may not be as ill-educated/informed as you say, but the statement you were disputing was specific to the word fact.

[ventana]

Well then we both seem to agree that the page you sent me to does not offer evidence of transitional change between forms, which is what you were trying to establish. Instead it is a lovely example of the persistence of a distinct form for half a billion years-one that clearly was under no environmental pressures that would have given some changed population within its ranks higher survivability. Further I will happily agree with your contention that the article was incorrect in its hypothesis explaining the sudden appearance of many diverse forms in the Cretaceous not proceeded by a fossil record, something I quite frankly was not aware of until you sent me the link.

[VadeRetro]

He talks about forms evolving from one distinct type to another. As his primary example he offers a fossil of a long animal with lobopods (lumpy feet for people like me)

Despite Morton's patient explanation, you miss the point that a lobopod is not an arthropod leg at all. The animal it appears on predates all that. And what about Anomalocaris, that wormy critter with arthropod parts?

A gene-level evo-devo scenario for arthropods starting from Aysheaia is presented beginning here, although I'd recommend starting at the beginning of the slideshow here.

How does looking up a modern velvet worm and going "Tah-dah" answer all this? Oh, wait! You did say something else:

2.(the other point that was disputable) He claimed the apparent big explosion of life in the Cambrian was misleading in that it just indicated this is when all the disparate forms all evolved shells, and their shell-less precursers did not leave fossils. There are two quick points on this. Firstly a LOT of different forms suddenly appeared. To surmise that they all evolved shells in parallel strains credulity but its certainly not an adequate refutal of the claim. The more convincing refutation, to me, occurs farther back on his own page and is the first image posted on this reply: It is a fossil from an earlier age that is soft.

I touched on this already. Yes, there are some "soft" fossils from before the Cambrian explosion, but they're harder to find. This is not suprising and does not help your case. It's far easier to fossilize chitin or bone than soft cellular tissue. It's unclear how many times hard parts were developed. I doubt if you need more than three: one each for mollusks, arthropods, and (rather later) vertebrates.

You've been given all sorts of evidence for the mechanisms involved and evidence that what obviously happens has happened.

What's your story?

[VadeRetro]

Well then we both seem to agree that the page you sent me to does not offer evidence of transitional change between forms, which is what you were trying to establish.

I entirely disagree and have to wonder if you are honestly trying to understand me correctly. Your argument is the same as people citing the discovery of the modern coelacanth--a "primitive" lobe-finned fish--as discrediting fossil lobe-fins (Eusthenopteron et. al.) as transitionals toward amphibians. Or, you might as well ask, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Or, you could cite the continued existance of those cyanobacteria, or primitive Amphioxus-type vertebrates. You cannot possibly be familiar with the models of speciation you claim to distrust and make this kind of argument. Period.

Instead it is a lovely example of the persistence of a distinct form for half a billion years-one that clearly was under no environmental pressures that would have given some changed population within its ranks higher survivability.

Your velvet worm is not the same species as Aysheaia. I'm unclear on the exact relationship.

Further I will happily agree with your contention that the article was incorrect in its hypothesis explaining the sudden appearance of many diverse forms in the Cretaceous not proceeded by a fossil record, something I quite frankly was not aware of until you sent me the link.

I'm unaware of being in serious disagreement with Morton. What I'm mostly disagreeing with are your characterizations of my posts.

[ventana]

I am still working my way through the links you sent, but I noticed this post.

I am very much trying to understand you. Are you trying to misunderstand me? I asked for a demonstration of transition, you provide a link to a page which does not do that. I do not claim to win a point against transition by this, only that a point for it cannot be based on the information on that page, as the fossils represented there did not show change, only proposed it. There was no earlier form there, although it was discussed. Likewise the later form shown seemed hypothetical as it was an illustration and did not seem to be an identified actual species.

I am not adverse to proof of anything. My initial question which started our discussion still has not been addressed. Where is the record of the evolution of kidneys, gills, and wings.

I am still working my way through your latest offerings, and it is a wonderful thing how different segments in arthropods can have their genes activated or surpressed by UBX to determine its function as a thoracic or abdominal unit. But (I have not finished the site yet) even that site's transitional evidence seems to be a drawing morphing our first lobopod fossil with a fruitfly. I don't see the evidence of how we got from that soft skinned simple thing to an exoskeletal, sophisticated, compound eyed, flying creature. Stating "this scale here next to the leg eventually became a wing" just is not evidence of evolution, particularly Darwin's Natural Selection., it is merely conjecture, an hypothesis.

[ventana]

Well my story is I don't have one. As I said in the beginning evolution was stated to be a fact. I said this was the first time I had heard that and had problems with the huge gaps in the fossil record where all the real changes seemed to be happening, and how when we see forms they are complete. I then pondered how very complex, multi-mutationed, components which are essential to the existence of the organism could be explained by this method.

If I have a case, its that the theory seems to be proof of itself, its true and the evidence shows it, because of the truth of the theory. Well it may well be true, but I wish someone would show me where I can find answers to the questions I asked when I first posted to the thread.

Vade, I do not want to upset you, but your standard of proof is different than mine, you're seeing things as conclusive that I am not. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I am missing your point.

Thank you for your time.
v.

[Aric2000]

Excuse me!! That is why it is CALLED A THEORY!!! If you do not know what the definition of a theory is then that is your own problem not mine.

The THEORY of evolution has NEVER pretended to be fact, it is a theory that fits the known scientific data that we have at hand. It puts that data together in a logical form and makes sense.

This article called it exactly right, creationists have nothing but the bible to back thier claims, and therefore will go after the THEORY of evolution because it MAY harm thier faith. Well, go after the theory all you want, because it is JUST THAT a THEORY, it happens to fit all the facts at hand, but it is still a theory and changes every day as new scientific findings help put the puzzle together.

When you can PROVE creationism, then come talk to me, but until then, I will believe in the THEORY of evolution, because it makes the most sense at this time, and when you prove INTELLIGENT design, come see me as well. In the meantime, I will look at the THEORY of evolution as the closest explanation of what happened and how we got here. But, if and when the THEORY of evolution is disproved and a new scientific theory takes it's place, I will look at the new theory, see what a MAJORITY of scientists think, and I will move to that new theory if I feel the FACTS are there to back it up. The THEORY of evolution is NOT a sacred cow, THAT IS WHY IT IS A THEORY!!!

[Aric2000]

See my above post!!

[VadeRetro]

. . . the fossils represented there did not show change, only proposed it.

That page is about how several major phyla of the famous Cambrian Explosion arose. Every one of the many species cited on that page show features in some way intermediate between phyla and suggest the evolutionary origin of same.

What are you looking for, movie frames? Try here, Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

If I have a case, its that the theory seems to be proof of itself, its true and the evidence shows it, because of the truth of the theory. Well it may well be true, but I wish someone would show me where I can find answers to the questions I asked when I first posted to the thread.

Theories in the physical sciences are never proven the way it happens in geometry. The best you can have is a preponderance of evidence. This is the case for evolution. It has a massive enough preponderance of evidence that the only questions concern precise mechanisms. See Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

[VadeRetro]

Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!

Just noticed what I believe is your source for this. From the main article of this thread:

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould, “but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).

Are you aware of the difference between what Gould says and what you say he says? Gould is saying every evolutionary theory he knows of can potentially be falsified--say, by finding a radio in Cretaceous sediments. You're saying Gould is already aware of and admitting falsifying data for every case.

I didn't pay too much attention to this on the first pass because Gould has given the Luddites a fair amount of quote material, hyping his Punk-Eek by running down "Neo-Darwinism" (gradualistic scenarios). Thus I'm used to seeing his quotes taken out of context and distorted to make it appear he's not a Darwinist at all. However, on closer examination, you've taken a unique license here.

[ventana]

:-) I always wanted to be unique.

But I think he said what I said, and meant what I think he meant, he just said it better.

He is saying (to me) that there are holes in the theory (gaps in the record), and while he believes in the theory, owing to (as you and he see) "a preponderance of the evidence", he is at least willing to imagine observations or experiments that rely on those holes to potentially disprove the theory. I firmly do not believe he in any way meant to suggest that those observations or experiments would be falsified. If I get it right, his very Punk Eek theory uses those very holes as a sort of dis-evidence of the potential validity of his thesis.

(Didn't von Daniken find a radio in the Cretaceous? Or was it a Battery in Babylon?)

[VadeRetro]

He is saying (to me) that there are holes in the theory (gaps in the record) . . .

Not here he isn't.

He's simply talking about which theory has real information content and is subject to disproof by evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The actual information content of "Well, God could have done it that way" is very low. The statement works equally well against any conceivable "that way." It isn't testable, falsifiable, or scientific. That's what Gould is talking about.

[ventana]

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,”

I think he is saying exactly what he is saying, why make his words jump through hoops?

[VadeRetro]

I think he is saying exactly what he is saying, why make his words jump through hoops?

Let facts be submitted to a candid world!

The Gould quote:

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould, “but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).

The ventana paraphrase (1):

Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!

(Bah!)

The ventana paraphrase (2):

He is saying (to me) that there are holes in the theory (gaps in the record), and while he believes in the theory, owing to (as you and he see) "a preponderance of the evidence", he is at least willing to imagine observations or experiments that rely on those holes to potentially disprove the theory.

Are you allowed your own definition of "is?"

The VadeRetro paraphrase:

He's simply talking about which theory has real information content and is subject to disproof by evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The actual information content of "Well, God could have done it that way" is very low. The statement works equally well against any conceivable "that way." It isn't testable, falsifiable, or scientific. That's what Gould is talking about.

Why is this right? Let's go back to the original.

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould . . .

"Can envision" does not mean "am already aware of." Gould is not aware of data that actually falsifies evolution or he would not be the evolutionary theorist he is.

“. . . but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).

This addendum looks rather odd in light of your interpretation of the first part. The only sense you could make of it is he's rather enviously sniping at creationism for not having been falsified already as you say he thinks evolution has. (Creationism being totally immune to falsification).

It makes perfect sense my way. He said in the first part that evolution tells you enough about the real world that real-world observations could falsify it. Now it's time to compare and contrast. Creationism does not and can never tell you anything about what to expect in the future. God might have left it any way you could ever possibly find it.

[ventana]

I am sure we are both getting tired of this. I am going to stand fast on the premise that one of our most popular and broadly published scientific popularlists is capable of constructing a simple sentence in simple words that in fact means precisely what it says and nothing more. He does not require you to speak for him. Is it so hard for you to accept that a scientist will dare to question? How would science progress under your dogmatic refusal to test accepted theories? Or to imagine a noted scientist doing same.

I submit that it is you, sir, who is trying to redefine "is"

And now, if we are both comfortable with our own closing statements, I suggest we call a truce.

[VadeRetro]

And now, if we are both comfortable with our own closing statements, I suggest we call a truce.

Done.

[marbren]

So you exist in theory.

[Aric2000]

EXACTLY!! LOL