The Religion of Evolution

[NeilUnreal]

Helen, I agree that the notion that an embryo retraces the evolutionary path of its ancestors is invalid; this is the original meaning of "recapitulation." However, the observations that gave rise to the concept were possible because embryological development is highly conserved, and the fact that we now know this is scientifically useful.

The nature and importance of embryological conservation is a hot topic in evolution, with proponents and opponents arguing various aspects. I doubt whether anyone would deny it completely -- though some might argue that it is a minor aspect of evolution.

As you pointed out, there are numerous exceptions. These occur in part because developmental changes are not restricted to the terminus of development; it's just hypothesized they are more likely to be successful near the terminus. The same observations that gave rise to "recapitulation" seem to confirm this.

Scientifically, we are just beginning to understand how and when various regulatory mechanisms affect embryonic development. The theory of evolution will help us understand these mechanisms and the mechanisms will tell us more about evolution.

I stand by my opinion: the original notion of recapitulation was oversimplified, overblown, and misunderstood; yet there remains a kernel of truth to the observation that is even more important because it is better understood. The early conclusions about recapitulation vs. our more recent understanding are an example of the success of science, not its failure.

-Neil

p.s. And if my opinion is proved wrong, it will be because embryologists and developmental evolutionists do the the scientific heavy lifting to prove it wrong. In which case I will gladly accept their scientific conclusions.

 

[Helen]

From reptile to mammal -- 240 million years. OK, for the sake of argument, let's go with that. Reptiles generally have generation times of a year or more. Same with mammals. The larger mammals have much longer generation times, but to be generous, let's figure a two year generation time average. That's 120 million generations to get from reptile to mammal.

We have been working with E.coli for over a hundred years now. They have a 20 minute generation time. We have been working with E.coli (check the math yourself), for over 2.5 million generations. Granted, that's only about a fifth of what you say was needed to get from reptile to mammal, but don't you think we ought to have seen something by now?

But ah, it took ONE BILLION years to get from a bacteria to something else you say!

Let's be generous to evolution the other way now and give each of them a couple of hours generation time instead of E.coli's 20 minutes. I mean, after all, life might have been a little harder then!

That's 12 generations a day.
Or 4,380 generations in a year.
Or 438,000 generations in a hundred years
Or 438,000,000 in a hundred thousand years
Or 438,000,000,000 generations in a hundred million years.
Or 4,380,000,000,000 generations in a billion years.

To get from bacteria to ANYTHING else.

Yeah, I guess we couldn't expect poor little E.coli to do much in a few million generations.

But wow! That lizard to ape thing must have been quite something! Imagine, from a reptile to a mammal in only 120,000,000 generations!

That's some speedy changes!

Wonder why bacteria can't do any better? Then or now....???


Meatros: variation depends upon existing genetics. A radical change in morphology (such as lizard to ape) depends on some radical changes in the genetics.

Big difference.

 

[UTEOTW]

Arguing that something sounds too incredible for you is not exactly arguing against the facts.

No attempt to give a better explanation for the fossil sequence, just astonishment that it could happen at all.

You argue on one side about how cells are too complex to have evolved, yet you don't seem to grasp that getting from the first cells to the first eukaryotes was a long task to get all the right parts in place. Which is it? Is a eukaryote cell too complex to have evolved or is it too simple to have taken that long?

You reveal a bit too much with your calculation of 120 million generations to get from a reptile to a mammal. Really think about it. Your starting point, the synapsid reptile is already most of the way there. The eukaryote cell evolved long ago, bilateralism, brain and spinal cord, cranium, lungs, tetrapod body, most organs, and so on. To get to the mammal your talking about changes in the way the legs hang under the body, changes in the jaws and teeth, add a diaphragm, body temperature regulation changes, some skull changes. Peanuts compared to what got you there. And you have 120 million generations! And you even show many trillions of generations to get to those reptiles.

By your own calculation trillions of generations and yet you question why we don't see macro changes in the lab.

 

[Helen]

If you honestly think that getting from a prokaryote to a eukaryote is somehow more complex than getting from a lizard to an ape, there is nothing I can do. Please keep in mind a few other changes that have to be made, though, including live birth, mammary glands, rather startling changes in the circulatory and nervous systems, locomotion changes, liver and kidney function changes -- in fact, changes in EVERYTHING.

It makes getting from a prokaryote to a eukaryote peanuts.

There is nothing genetically which will allow that to happen!

But that's a whole nother thing.

No, the cell cannot have evolved. And, once created, could not have changed into a dinosaur no matter how many generations it was allowed or how many optimal circumstances.

No matter what direction I look at it from, evolution appears more and more like a fairy tale for adults, to borrow a phrase.

 

[UTEOTW]

To quickly take one of your examples...

Originally posted by Helen:
...mammary glands...

Look at monotremes. In monotremes it is easiest to see that the mammary glands are merely modified sweat glands that secrete a body fluid onto hair to be lapped off by the young. See, it is not so hard to evolve mammary glands.

But that is how evolution often works. Modification of an existing structure to get something new and useful.

You still sound as if you are arguing that it is to incredible for you to believe rather than here is the proof it could not happen.

And still no damning evidence against the proposed reptile to mammal fossil record.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:
Meatros: variation depends upon existing genetics. A radical change in morphology (such as lizard to ape) depends on some radical changes in the genetics.

That's being disingenious Helen. No one is saying that a lizard magically changed into an ape as you are suggesting. Species change slowly, very slowly in fact, and there are many intermediate steps inbetween. It takes millions of years and (probably) millions of small little changes for such transformations to occur. This magic you suggest is a mischaracterization of evolution, and further more, *you* should know better.

So again, I ask you (or anyone else), what prevents microevolution from becoming macro? You've dodged the issue quite well, but you haven't addressed it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Big talk Helen. Now would you care to explain why microevolution would not become macroevolution over enough time?

You continue to chant this mantra as though it has some sort of gravity. It doesn't. Macroevolution cannot be "falsified" therefore for the exact same reasons evolutionists condemn creation as "unscientific", evolution is unscientific.

Your asking us to "disprove" something for which no one has ever conceived a repeatable, testable, mechanism for accomplishing.... much less a mechanism that has actually made that great final leap from micro to macroevolution in a natural, unguided environment.

The observed truth is that animals do not evolve anything outside of their inherited genetic capabilities.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Meatros:
In any event, I wasn't questioning his academics, merely his honesty. As noted here. and here.

The first link you referred me to are from a “puzzled reader” as to why some of the reference links were broken on an article by Dr. Sarfati. Wow big deal, find and buy the book, he lists both the title and page number…

The second link is from an atheist named Stear who has a hard time comprehending written words (much less the Bible) and is actually adding to what he believes to be a miss quote by Dr. Sarfati. Nowhere does Dr. Sarfati take the atheist Provines’ statement out of context that I can see.

The atheist Stear believes Dr. Sarfati is adding the remarks of “dating methods” to the atheist Provines’ quote. Here’s the quote at the end chapter 8 of Dr. Sarfati Book:

"... evolutionists have had to abandon many 'proofs' for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: 'Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.' Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present process to 'prove' that the earth is billions of years old."

Dr. Sarfati rebukes atheist Stear by replying:

“That's not at all what I claimed. The previous sentence--which you even quoted--makes it clear that I was citing Provine in relation to "'proofs' of evolution" NOT dating methods, and this whole piece was basically a parenthetical insertion illustrating the tentative nature of all claims about the past.”

Since chapter 8 deals with the fossil record along with dating methods Dr. Sarfati is demonstrating from the atheist Provines comments that not all of what these scientists learned in school is accurate including dating methods.

 

[Meatros]

You continue to chant this mantra as though it has some sort of gravity. It doesn't. Macroevolution cannot be "falsified" therefore for the exact same reasons evolutionists condemn creation as "unscientific", evolution is unscientific.

Explain exactly how macroevolution is any different then an accumulation of microevolutionary 'steps'. Macroevolution, just like microevolution can be falsified. However I feel that if I present some evidence of falsification techniques you will focus on that rather then the difference between micro and macro evolution.

Your asking us to "disprove" something for which no one has ever conceived a repeatable, testable, mechanism for accomplishing.... much less a mechanism that has actually made that great final leap from micro to macroevolution in a natural, unguided environment.

I've given evidence of both macro and micro (which are essentially the *SAME* thing, unless you will pick up the gauntlet and prove otherwise) in this very thread.

So the broken record continues, what prevents micro from becoming macro, over an extended period of time?

The observed truth is that animals do not evolve anything outside of their inherited genetic capabilities.

What are these "inherited genetic capabilities"? What are the limits of them?

 

[Meatros]

The first link you referred me to are from a “puzzled reader” as to why some of the reference links were broken on an article by Dr. Sarfati. Wow big deal, find and buy the book, he lists both the title and page number…

Read the entire article John, including his Safarti's response.

Here's Safarti's actual response, John:

"Internet articles often change, especially if they [are] from News sites. That's why those links no longer work. But they did when the article was current, and none of the facts in the article need changing."

BTW-why did you drop the "qualifications" aspect of you previous post? Didn't realize that Safarti wasn't a biologist did you .

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The observed truth is that animals do not evolve anything outside of their inherited genetic capabilities.

Originally posted by Helen:
There is nothing genetically which will allow that to happen!

OK. You keep asserting this. Show the barrier that prevents organisms from evolving into something new. Show the list of orignal "kinds" and show that they are completely unrelated. Show some kind of boundary that prevents evolution.

We have observed where evolution "made that great final leap from micro to macroevolution in a natural, unguided environment." If you do not accept the fossil record of the reptile to mammal transition, please show it to be false. Otherwise, accept that we have observed those kinds of major changes, not just "microevolution" or speciation. It took about 240 million years so complaining that you cannot observe it in a few days (or decades) down at the lab is meaningless.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
OK. You keep asserting this. Show the barrier that prevents organisms from evolving into something new. Show the list of orignal "kinds" and show that they are completely unrelated. Show some kind of boundary that prevents evolution.

Has it really come to this? Are you really going to argue from a lack of positive proof? The proof is that it does not occur and cannot even be made to happen in a genetic lab through anything remotely approaching a naturally reproducible means.

We have observed where evolution "made that great final leap from micro to macroevolution in a natural, unguided environment." If you do not accept the fossil record of the reptile to mammal transition, please show it to be false.

Is that how "science" works? One person says something that they cannot positively prove then declare it true because it cannot be disproven?

Analogy- Please prove that the thunderstorm we had this morning was not due to sophisticated weather manipulation by space aliens.

The proof is that even the best models of supposed progressive evolution have huge transitional gaps requiring 1000's increases in genetic complexity. Yet this mechanism eludes evolutionists. What we observe is that animals derive their genetic characteristics from their parents and can be no more complex than they were.

Otherwise, accept that we have observed those kinds of major changes, not just "microevolution" or speciation.

So unless your argument for which you have no positive proof is proven false... you must be correct? I hope you can see how this notion of yours fails a simple test of logic.

It took about 240 million years so complaining that you cannot observe it in a few days (or decades) down at the lab is meaningless.

No it isn't. You haven't provided a viable mechanism for macroevolution to have occurred in 1 minute, 1 year, or 1 trillion years. You can breed dogs for the next 240 million years subjecting them to all kinds of environmental changes and they will either go extinct or still be dogs. Every generation will inherit its genetic makeup from its ancestors and none of them will ever acquire more genetic information so as to become a dog with a grasping thumb.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Has it really come to this? Are you really going to argue from a lack of positive proof? The proof is that it does not occur and cannot even be made to happen in a genetic lab through anything remotely approaching a naturally reproducible means.

There is no such thing as "positive proof" in science. I present evidence and the best interpretation of that evidence. If you disagree, please present a better interpretation that beter fits the data.

I am asking you to justify your claim. You, and others, have asserted repeatedly that these barriers exist. I want to see the barriers. I want to see the list of "kinds."

Is that how "science" works? One person says something that they cannot positively prove then declare it true because it cannot be disproven?

You part right at least. Things in science are not generally "proved." These are not my claims, these are the claims of many, many scientists. The data shows what it shows. Contradict it if you can.

Analogy- Please prove that the thunderstorm we had this morning was not due to sophisticated weather manipulation by space aliens.

Cannot do it and you know it. If I were a meteorologists and I had access to the weather data for your area I could show how the prevailing weather effects led to that thunderstorm. Someone else could blame aliens, and while I could not "positively" disprove them, I could rest assured in my interpretaion of the data available that I was right. And he could not offer any proof that the aliens cuased the weather no matter how much he asserted so.

Which is what is happening here. The data, in the specific case I brought up, points to the gradual evolution of mammals from reptiles over millions of years. Scientists accept the evidence as quite good and quite likely. Can they prove it? Of course not. But the evidence is considered quite convincing.

Then you run up and claim that barriers exist that would prevent that kind of evolution and that everything only varies within "kinds." I'm just asking that you back up your claims. If there are barriers, show them to us. If the reptiles to mammals transition did not occur, show where the data is misinterpreted and tell us the better explanation. (There might be a Nobel Prize in it for you.) If there are "kinds", tell us what the different kinds are and why there are not related through common descent.

So unless your argument for which you have no positive proof is proven false... you must be correct? I hope you can see how this notion of yours fails a simple test of logic.

I assert the evidence shows what it shows. They are not my ideas but I think they are right. If you disagree, show me why I am wrong. And what logic am I failing? I showed the hypothesis and some of the evidence. Granted it was on another thread, but you are free to read it. I'm just asking for you to show where the interpretation is flawed.

No it isn't. You haven't provided a viable mechanism for macroevolution to have occurred in 1 minute, 1 year, or 1 trillion years...Every generation will inherit its genetic makeup from its ancestors and none of them will ever acquire more genetic information so as to become a dog with a grasping thumb.

A dog with a grasping thumb! Cool! Where can I see this? If it doesn't exist and no one has claimed that it exists, what are you talking about?

Mutations change what is inherited from its parents.

Mechanisms? Here:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrent the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
Futuyma, D.J. in EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

There are multiple mechanisms there.