On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:40:20 -0500 (CDT), NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE wrote:
[continued]
NM>This is evolution 101, but it is often missed. Denton's book
>(which you like to quote so much - he does make some valid points)
>makes this mistake by saying that because molecular evidence shows
>that, say, monotremes and placentals are equally different from
>reptiles, this means that placentals cannot have evolved from
>monotremes, as theory states. He thinks monotremes should be
>intermediate between reptiles and placentals for the theory to be
>correct. His mistake is in thinking that TODAY'S monotremes should
>be intermediate, while actually the theory says that reptile-like
>mammals existing in the Triassic are the ones that should be
>intermediate. Today's monotremes have had just as much time as
>everyone else to diverge from their reptile ancestors.
Actually, I cannot find this in Denton, ie that "He thinks monotremes
should be intermediate between reptiles and placentals for the
theory to be correct.". Can you please post a quote and page
reference to that efffect?
>"NM>That said, I agreed with much of the rest of what Jones said: the
>story about the creature's death seems far fetched, and convergent
>evolution is a problem (though not an unsolvable one, as the current
>example shows).
SJ>Thanks for agreeing that the story about the dinosaur's death
>seems "far fetched"."
NM>No problem; I don't think that telling that little story hurts
>much as long as everyone realizes it is a story and not a theory.
>It is a likely explanation, but it is just as possible that the
>little guy fell, broke his leg, but died from a disease a day or two
>later.
Agreed.
SJ>"But I cannot see how "the current example shows" that "convergent
>evolution is a problem (though not an unsolvable one...). Without
>access to the soft anatomy or molecular biology of dinosaurs, I
>cannot see how Darwinists can be sure that the similarities between
>reptiles and birds are not just convergence. Denton:
>
>"...ninety-nine per cent of the biology of any organism resides in
>its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil. Supposing, for
>example, that all marsupials were extinct and the whole group was
>known only by skeletal remains would anyone guess that their
>reproductive biology was so utterly different from that of placental
>mammals and in some ways even more complex?" (Denton M.,
>"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", ..., 1985, p177)
SJ>Indeed, as to "the problem of convergence", Denton points out:
>
>"Nature abounds in examples of convergence...In all the above cases
>the similarities, although very striking, do not imply any close
>biological relationship." (Denton M., ..., p178) "
NM>I agree that working simply from bones is harder than from whole
>organisms, but we can acheive some certainty, at least, because
>there are skeletal traits not linked or not strongly linked to
>adaptation that will exist whether or not the creature walks, flies,
>or swims. While a paleontologist could not divine the marsupial's
>reproductive system from it's fossils, I'm sure they could tell you
>that what they were looking at was not any common mammal. If no
>marsupials were alive today, we would still know that an ancient,
>extinct branch of mammals existed - based soley on fossil evidence.
Agreed, but Denton's point is that if the soft biology was available,
many examples of supposed transitional forms, based on fossil
morphology alone, would be found to be analogical, not homological.
Denton gives Latimeria as an example:
"A particularly interesting case which illustrates both the problem
of convergence and the danger of judging overall biology on skeletal
grounds is that of the rhipidistian fishes. For nearly a century
these ancient lobe finned fishes, as they are often known, have been
generally considered to be ideal amphibian ancestors and have been
classed as intermediate between fish and the terrestrial vertebrates
This judgment was based on a number of skeletal features including
the pattern of their skull bones, the structure of their teeth and
vertebral columns and even the pattern of bones in their fins, in all
of which they closely resembled the earliest known amphibians. It
was assumed that their soft biology would be also transitional
between that of typical fish and amphibia.
But in 1938 fishermen in the Indian Ocean, off Cape Province in South
Africa, hauled to the surface a living relative of the ancient
Rhipidistia - the coelacanth. It was an astonishing discovery, as the
Coelacanth had been thought to be extinct for a hundred million years.
Because the coelacanth is a close relative of the Rhipidistia, here at
last was the opportunity to examine first hand the biology of one of the
classic evolutionary links. Its discovery provoked considerable
excitement...But examination of the living coelacanth proved very
disappointing. Much of its soft anatomy, particularly that of the
heart, intestine and brain, was not what was expected of a tetrapod
ancestor. As Barbara Stahl writes:
`the modern coelacanth shows no evidence of having internal organs
preadapted for use in a terrestrial environment. The outpocketing of
the gut that serves as a lung in land animals is present but vestigial in
Latimeria. The vein that drains its wall returns blood not to the left
side of the heart as it does in all tetrapods but to the sinus venosus at
the back of the heart as it does directly or indirectly in all osteichthyans
except lungfishes. The heart is characteristically fish-like in showing
no sign of division into left and right sides, and the gut, with its spiral-
valved intestine, is of a type common to all fishes except the most
advanced ray-fins.' (Stahl B.J., "Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution",
1974, McGraw Hill, New York, p146)
Clearly, if the soft biology of the rhipidistian fish resembled to
any extent their coelacanth cousins then, however great their
similarity to the earliest amphibia in certain skeletal features, in
terms of their overall biology they must have been far removed....If
the case of the coelacanth illustrates anything, it shows how
difficult it is to draw conclusions about the overall biology of
organisms from their skeletal remains alone. Because soft biology of
extinct groups can never be known with any certainty then obviously
the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be
insecure. The coelacanth represents yet another instance where a
newly discovered species, which might have provided the elusive
evidence of intermediacy so long sought by evolutionary biology,
ultimately proved to be only another peripheral twig on the presumed
tree of life." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett
Books: London, 1985, pp178-180)
SJ>"The bottom line is that animals are more like each other than
>plants, and birds are clearly like reptiles in some respects and
>markedly different in others. Indeed, even if reptiles and birds
>have a common genetic ancestry, that is not necessarily conclusive
>evidence of fully naturalistic evolution. One would still have to
>show:
>
>1. *how* a bird evolved by 100% naturalistic mechanisms from a
>reptile, as Darwin clearly saw:
>
>"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a
>naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
>their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
>geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
>conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
>descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
>conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
>could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have
>been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
>coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin C., "The
>Origin of Species", 6th edition 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent
>& Sons Ltd: London, 1967, p18).
>
>2. fossil evidence of the numerous transitional steps required by
>Neo-Darwinian theory to transform step-by-step by tiny increments a
>reptile into a bird:
>
>"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. The essence of life
>is statistical improbability on a colossal scale. Whatever is the
>explanation for life, therefore, it cannot be chance....Cumulative
>selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only
>workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence
>of life's complex design....To 'tame' chance means to break down the
>very improbable into less improbable small components arranged in
>series. No matter how improbable it is that an X could have arisen
>from a Y in a single step, it is always possible to conceive of a
>series of infinitesimally graded intermediates between them. However
>improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less
>improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of
>sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive
>anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical
>improbabilities." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin:
>London, 1991, p317-318)"
NM>I agree that with birds, we need a lot more evidence, but, as this
>entire post shows, we have a good guess (can't ask for much more
>than that with science).
As I have pointed out, if the "guess" was that birds are descended
from dinosaurs, it was not a "good guess".
NM>Denton assumes that all we have is:
>
>reptiles--->birds
>
>while what the theory is (as supported by fossils so far - there are many gaps)
>is:
>
>reptiles--->Eoraptor or similar primitive "lizard-hipped dinosaur"
>--->theropods--->
>Archeopteryx or similar dino-like bird ---> Sinoris (early bird from Cretaceous)
>or similar bird ---> Cenozoic birds.
See above. There is no conclusive evidence that birds descended from
"Eoraptor or similar primitive `lizard-hipped dinosaur'".
NM>Other evidence that supports this are more distant offshoots of
>the bird line: Ornithiscians, Cretaceous toothed waterbirds, dinos
>with bird-like breastbones. It is still very sketchy, but it is a
>little closer to the standards of proof you want. Since the world
>isn't perfect, we're never going to completely "proove" anything -
>but the evidence is piling up in one direction, and imagining
>another theory will become more difficult if the trend continues.
See above. As "the evidence is piling up" things are getting
worse. There are too many incompatible candidates now. That's why
all Norman can say is "Take your pick".
Besides, you have ignored the really hard question:
"1. *how* a bird evolved by 100% naturalistic mechanisms from a
reptile..."
NM>"Neo-Darwinian evolution may be the best naturalistic theory that
>explains the similarity of birds and reptiles, but that does not
>means it is correct:
>
>"The same situation looks quite different to people who accept the
>possibility of a creator outside the natural order. To such people,
>the peppered-moth observations and similar evidence seem absurdly
>inadequate to prove that natural selection can make a wing, an eye,
>or a brain. From their more skeptical perspective, the consistent
>pattern in the fossil record of sudden appearance followed by stasis
>tends to prove that there is something wrong with Darwinism, not that
>there is something wrong with the fossil record. The absence of
>proof "when measured on an absolute scale" is unimportant to a
>thoroughgoing naturalist, who feels that science is doing well enough
>if it has a plausible explanation that maintains the naturalistic
>worldview. The same absence of proof is highly significant to any
>person who thinks it possible that there are more things in heaven
>and earth than are dreamt of in naturalistic philosophy. Victory in
>the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the party with
>the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that govern the
>discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious possibility,
>Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot
>lose." (Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of
>Naturalism", Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1990, p8)
[...]
NM>I'm too exhausted to respond to this in full (I might rouse myself
>in the future), but I would like to point out the similarity between
>this view of Johnson's (a good-ol' upstanding conservative) and that
>of cultural relativists who are so far left that...well, I don't
>know what. According to them, reality is nothing more than what is
>dictated by the people in charge. Johnson uses this weapon against
>science, saying that it is simply the prevailing authority, no more
>correct than anyone else.
No. "Johnson uses this weapon against" *Darwinism* and its
claimed Blind Watchmaker mechanism.
NM>However, cultural relativism will tell you that this applies to
>ANY prevailing authority, and that any group's view is true within
>that group. Of course, this applies to the religion believed by
>everyone on this listserv, and to basically any belief in anything.
>Basically, reality is someone agreeing with you. If anyone believes
>Johnson's quote, then you believe this, too. See ya, Nick
The difference is that Darwinism claims its culturally relativistic
"view" is *science and can be compulsorily taught as fact using all
the resources of the State. All that Johnson and I are saying is
"prove it"! :-)
God bless
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------