On Wed, 3 Jan 1996 19:48:33 -0700 (MST) Denis wrote:
SJ>As I understand it, what you are saying is that, once upon a time:
>1. A bird similar to Archaeopteryx had a genetic mutation in its
>sex-cells that caused one of its offspring to be born with less teeth
>by weight. Barring a macro-mutation, this would be a very small loss,
>say 0.001% of total teeth by weight. This would be probably 0.0001%
>of the total bird's weight. In grams it would probably amount to say
>0.001% of a gram. Perhaps Denis can give realistic figures for teeth
>weight?
SJ>Before we go any further, I would like our resident dentist, Denis,
>to estimate: 1. the total weight of Archaeopteryx's teeth; 2. its
>total body weight (it was pigeon- sized, see below) and 3. the weight
>of its first incipient teeth:
DL>I would love to give you an answer, and maybe even an educated
>guess, but it would not be fair to you, me or the debate. I really
>don't know. Suffice to say, when I saw the bird in September, the
>teeth were consistent to that of any "average" reptile. That is to
>say that the size of these teeth relative to the body weight was not
>significant. Stephen is correct with regard to the overall size of
>the bird--I thought it was the size of a crow.
Without this crucial teeth weight data, I cannot proceed with this
test of whether Darwininst mutation + natural selection mechnanism
were sufficient to account for Archaeopteryx: a) losing its teeth;
and b) gaining a beak; all through a continuous line of ascending
advantageous functional intermediate stages.
I plan to visit the Berlin Museum in April-May, so I will make an
assessment then. Does anyone else know what is the weight of
(a) Archaeopteryx's teeth; and b) its body weight?
Indeed, I wonder if Darwinists have ever subjected their proposed
mechanisms to rigorous quantitative testing?
The problem I have with it is that it is not rigorously tested. Look
at the Archaopteryx loss of teeth argument. For example, Darwinism
argues that a miniscule loss of weight would be a selective advantage,
right down to zero weight (complete loss of teeth). Where has this
ever been tested rigorously? Why not weight a colony of birds about
Archaeopteryx's size and similar habits, with a tiny weight equivalent
to an incipient tooth, while leaving a small number unweighted? Then
compare that with a control group that are not weighted at all. Then
evaluate that over a number of generations by double-blind methods.
If there is to be any selective advantage, in the unweighted birds, it
would need to show up right away, or it would be lost in the very
first generation.
I wonder if Darwinists have ever listened to other disciplines like
Communications, with its well-established experience of signal to
noise ratios:
"Darwin's own words highlight the mathematical problem with
variations, the great majority of which are small in their effect. If
he had confined himself to large-scale variations he would have been
correct, whereas for slight variations Darwin's statement is open to a
serious question. A human child born a 100,000 years ago with a hole
in-the heart defect would not have survived to maturity, but a child
born 100,000 years ago with a variation of the heart that conveyed
only an 0.1 percent disadvantage in the struggle for survival would
scarcely have been affected in its chance of attaining maturity. The
disability of running one hundred yards slower than the norm by a mere
six inches would hardly have been noticeable, and would have been of
less consequence than chance events like spraining an ankle, or some
other comparatively minor injury producing a slight lack of pace. As
a physicist would put it, the "signal" carried by small variations is
so insignificant that it is almost certain to become swallowed in the
"noise" of everyday events." (Hoyle F., "The Intelligent Universe",
Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp38-39)
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------