Genetic Barriers Don't Exist

[Administrator2]

DAVID PLAISTED

I found information about the talk by Kurt Wise at UNC in October, 2000. This is taken from the TASC Newsletter:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Kurt Wise in the Lion’s Den

Dr. Kurt Wise, a paleontologist and professor at Bryan University, gave a super lecture at UNC-Chapel Hill, which was well attended, including several professors and staff members. The lecture was well received, and a spirited discussion followed.

Dr. Wise gave a powerful presentation and major predictions of what the fossil record should look like if evolution were true versus if there was a totally randomized process of fossil deposition. Dr. Wise limited his discussion to fossils of marine invertebrate organisms (having no spinal chord), which make up 95% of all fossils ever found.

In virtually every case, the predictions of the randomization model were born out by the fossil record, while the evolution model’s predictions were the exact opposite of what is actually observed. Of particular interest was a discussion of the “order of appearance” of fossil organisms in comparison to their “evolutionary order of appearance” expected on the basis of hypothetical “trees of life”. Not only were virtually all fossils out of the expected order of appearance, the order of appearance was statistically random.

As expected, the professors all opposed what Dr. Wise said, but what they complained about mostly amounted to picky details. No one even attempted to refute any of Dr. Wise’s major theses. One heckler tried to embarrass him by quoting from a Creation Ex Nihilo magazine article where Dr. Wise had stated that all theories must conform to the Bible. Dr. Wise’s opponents tried to claim that science must never seek explanations that invoke any kind of divine intervention. However, many in the audience (including your editor) argued that to categorically eliminate divine intervention as an explanation for certain phenomena comes from a biased position that can be plainly seen by all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Administrator2]

RUFUSATTICUS

David,
You would happen to have a link to a text of Kurt Wise's actual argument?

I just attended a lecture by Dr. Jeremy Jackson who works on marine
invertebrates. The talk was actually on the fossil record of marine
invertebrates in Panama. The data he presented was by far not random. In
fact, it was very much orderly and supported punctuated equilibrium. If you
are interested, try a looking up his papers, since I believe that every
thing he presented has been published. He has a recent article in Science

( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u
ids=11577222&dopt=Abstract).

I suspect that some of his data is there, but
I am currently unable to retrieve it to check.

-RvFvS

 

[Administrator2]

SCOTT PAGE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
DAVID PLAISTED
Scott gives a number of cases where known phylogenies are well
reconstructed by molecular phylogenies. The implication is that these
molecular techniques are reliable in general. However, the known
phylogenies all involved relatively small amounts of evolution. Such
techniques may not be as reliable for larger amounts of evolution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the stand-by criticism. Helen used this the first time I presented this information. Do you have any data to support your crtiticism? Helen never could present any.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


Furthermore, in the creationist view, certain organisms do not have
common ancestors at all, so such phylogenies would be meaningless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you could provide an example or two of such ancestor-less organisms? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

* * *

second email:

Scott says that most mutations are neutral. I find this statement
interesting and wonder what his justification for it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My justification for that statement is nearly any genetics or evolutionary biology text on the subject. We must also consider the fact hat the overwhelming bulk of the genome is non-genic and non-regulatory, so logic dictates that mutations will occur preferentially in these areas and by definition will be neutral.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for transitional forms, the web site
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/

has an article

Exposing the Evolutionists Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record

which asserts that 95 percent of the fossil record consists of
complex invertebrates and among these there are no transitional forms.
There are small changes, such as different kinds of trilobites, but
no major transitional sequences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another reference to an electrical engineer creationist, who calls his website ‘saterical’[sic] . His article was soundly refuted here:
http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3c5ab72417f4ffff;act=SF;f=26;st=15

[/quote]

I also saw an outline of a talk in which a creationist said that
among marine invertebrates, the distribution in the fossil record is
basically random, with no recognizable pattern at all.

Maybe someone here could comment on the accuracy of these statements.

Dave Plaisted
[/quote]

I’m no paleontologist, but if that were so, why doesn’t the randomness continue to be seen in vertebrates?

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN

Scott says that most mutations are neutral. I find this statement
interesting and wonder what his justification for it is.

Most humans have at least one or two of them. That's pretty much how it
is with all organisms. Few of these have any observable effects
whatsoever. Over a very long period of time, they might accumulate and
amount to a net benefit (which would tend to preserve them) or disability
(which would tend to remove them).

As for transitional forms, the web site
&lt; http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/&gt;
has an article
Exposing the Evolutionists Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
which asserts that 95 percent of the fossil record consists of
complex invertebrates and among these there are no transitional forms.
There are small changes, such as different kinds of trilobites, but
no major transitional sequences.

It woud be much more than that. The famed White Cliffs of Dover, for
example, are made of invertebrates, which are astronomically more common
than vertebrates. Much of the Earth's upper crust is made of the fossilized
bodies of invertebrates. This does not mean that there aren't many
millions of vertebrate fossils, of course. This argument essentially says
that we can't study the people living in a small town in Ohio, because they
represent such a small portion of the human race. See my other post for an
example of transitional forms in forams. They also exist among ammonites,
insects, annelids, and so on. Not long ago, the long-expected transitional
between ants and other hymenopterans was found in amber. The list grows
almost daily.

I also saw an outline of a talk in which a creationist said that
among marine invertebrates, the distribution in the fossil record is
basically random, with no recognizable pattern at all.
Maybe someone here could comment on the accuracy of these statements.

They are simply wrong. The site I linked on forms, for example shows a
very long period of gradual evolution from one form to another. You might
take a little time to browse the site you linked. It does, among other
things, represent that scientists think that whales evolved from wolves that
wanted to find Atlantis. And that's one of the more restrained claims.
My first visit there, I was convinced that it was a satire, making fun of
creationists. Apparently, it is not, and the author is serious. But
sincerity means only that one is sincere.

[ March 02, 2002, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

DAVID PLAISTED

I looked up the article by Jeremy Jackson. There was an article on
biodiversity but it didn't seem related to our discussion.
Someone asked why there should be transitional forms among the
vertebrates but not the invertebrates. One reason is that the
vertebrates are sparser in the fossil record so it is more difficult
to detect whether a sequence is transitional. Another reason is
that the environment on land changes more than in the sea so that
one can have changing ecosystems and this leads to changing patterns
of land fossils that may not be present in the ocean.

It is interesting that the t.o. list of transitional forms appears to
consist entirely of vertebrates. The list of transitions given
by Patrick Parsons includes foraminafera, ammonites, insects,
annelids, and ants - wasps. I think the question is how far these
transitions go. Small changes would not surprise a creationist.

In the "evolution fairy tale" site the author mentions that the book
Evolutionary Biology (3rd Ed. 1998) by Douglas Futuyma. He says that

All his transitional examples spanning orders or classes are vertebrates.

He also gives an article about the Cambrian explosion:
http://unityinchrist.com/print/pre_evangelism/BostonGlobeArticleTUESDAY_MAY%2030_2000.htm

Also, I just want to reemphasize that Kurt Wise asserted that the
order of appearance of marine invertebrates was almost always random and
not in accordance with the evolutionary order of appearance expected on
the basis of assumed trees of life.

David Plaisted

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN

I looked up the article by Jeremy Jackson. There was an article on
biodiversity but it didn't seem related to our discussion.
Someone asked why there should be transitional forms among the
vertebrates but not the invertebrates. One reason is that the
vertebrates are sparser in the fossil record so it is more difficult
to detect whether a sequence is transitional. Another reason is
that the environment on land changes more than in the sea so that
one can have changing ecosystems and this leads to changing patterns
of land fossils that may not be present in the ocean.

Keep in mind that horses, for example, have transitions so gradual that we
can actually document transitions between species in some cases. In many of
the changes between genera, the differences are so slight as to be within
normal variation in some species. Yet, over the entire assemblage, very
great changes took place.

The notion that there are no transitions among vertebrates is completely
erroneous. Would you like some more examples?

It is interesting that the t.o. list of transitional forms appears to
consist entirely of vertebrates. The list of transitions given
by Patrick Parsons includes foraminafera, ammonites, insects,
annelids, and ants - wasps. I think the question is how far these
transitions go. Small changes would not surprise a creationist.

The ant/wasp transition would be between orders. That would be
equivalent to the difference between a shrew and a bobcat. What's more
damaging to creationism, is that such a creature was predicted by
evolutionary theory, and it turned out to be precisely the kind of insect
predicted.

Of course, there are many transitional forms between families and orders.
But finding a fossil record so detailed that it records all species is
somewhat more difficult. But it's not impossible. Such things exist.

In the "evolution fairy tale" site the author mentions that the book
Evolutionary Biology (3rd Ed. 1998) by Douglas Futuyma. He says that
All his transitional examples spanning orders or classes are vertebrates.

Vertebrates are most interesting. But as you just noted, the wasp/ant
does exactly that.

Also, I just want to reemphasize that Kurt Wise asserted that the
order of appearance of marine invertebrates was almost always random and
not in accordance with the evolutionary order of appearance expected on
the basis of assumed trees of life.

That's wrong, too. Forams and ammonites clearly contradict that. We
see a progression in the echinoderms, with the class Eocrinoidae evolving
into the crinoids, a different class entirely. We find a host of animals in
the Vendian and early Cambrian that have some, but not all the diagnostic
features of modern echinoderms. There are numerous papers on the evolution
of arthropods:
http://tolweb.org/tree/eukaryotes/animals/arthropoda/arthropoda.html

[ March 02, 2002, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

DAVID PLAISTED

Kurt Wise is aware of the foraminifera transitions and other claimed
transitions. A 1989 article of his discussing known transitions is
available at

http://www.grisda.org/origins/16011.htm

Just because the ant-wasp transition (if it is genuine) is between orders
does not make it equivalent to a shrew-bobcat transition -- there is no
law that the difference between orders of insects has to be the same
magnitude as the difference between orders of mammals.

Unless there have been many new transitions discovered since 1989 one
would expect Kurt Wise's paper to reflect the state of the field.

Dave Plaisted

 

[Administrator2]

THE BARBARIAN

A small misunderstanding:

Helen:
The fact that we were able to work with some bacteria so they would
digest nylon is because intelligent designers were involved in this.
Are you trying to tell me this would have happened naturally?

It did happen naturally. There are now two genera of bacteria able to
digest nylon oligomers (not long polymers, but short ones) There are
several types of nylon, and so far as I know, there is only one type of
oligomer presently digestable by these bacteria. They happened to be found
in waste ponds of nylon factories, living on nylon oligomers.

Because the specific bonds in nylon are not found in nature, it was thought
that natural selection would take hundreds of thousands of years to produce
a biological system able to digest them. Turns out we were wrong. BTW,
there is a genus of "Polyester bees" Colletes sp.,which secrete a
substance very much like polyester to line the nests they make in soil.
Apparently, these are not metabolized by bacteria. Yet.