Re: RM&NS and the whale (was But is it science)

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 24 2000 - 22:12:55 EDT

Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Darwinism Defeated?"

Previous message: Chris Cogan: "Re: The "Apparent" Trap"
Next in thread: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Re: RM&NS and the whale (was But is it science)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 9/24/2000 3:21:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:

<< Reflectorites

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:39:30 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:

[...]

>BV>It is possible that whales evolved from some wolf-like creature. What is
>>being questioned is whether it happened because of "chance variation and
>>natural selection".

SB>since we can watch variation (whether "chance" or not) and natural
>selection happen every day ...

SJ: Compare this with:
>>

First of all note that SB is correct. We can watch variation and NS happen
every day. Can we eliminate genetic drift?

<< --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:17:43 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote
re: Examples of natural selection generating CSI:

[...]

WE>Natural selection, though, is notoriously difficult to
>empirically isolate as a mechanism of action. The level of
>evidence needed to both implicate natural selection and to
>exclude genetic drift is high. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>

Wesley is pointing out that elimination of genetic drift and support for NS
might be hard to obtain but that does not make it impossible. Good examples
exist. Does this mean that we can eliminate specific examples ? Of course not.

Wesley continued

" Indirect evidence, such as the
presence of linkage disequilibrium in a population, serves as
an indicator of the action of natural selection, but
biologists tend to want to see a clear relation between a
cause of selection and an effect in distribution of traits in
a population.

Because of this problem in unambiguous identification of
natural selection in action, our examples of natural selection
as a causal process are also limited. Nevertheless, there do
exist examples. Various antibiotic resistant strains of
bacteria, finch beak size changes, and nylon-digesting bacteria
all show natural selection in action. "

<< So when asked to give hard evidence of random mutation and natural
selection accomplishing anything *today*, Darwinists either downplay
RM&NS and talk of other mechanisms, or they present evidence of
something *trivial* (like fluctuating colours in moths or length of finches'
beaks), and even then there is some doubt that RM&NS was responsible.
>>

There is little doubt that natural selection was responsible for the moths of
the beaks of the finches. Perhaps it's not the Darwinists who are trying to
downplay the evidence?

<< But then as soon as they need to explain a case of new design in the
*distant past*, out they trot RM&NS as the explanation, in this case
transforming a small land mammal into a whale in only 5-10 million years!
>>

Showing that RM&NS are responsible for this change is hard. First of all the
fossil record has shown how the whale likely evolved. The evidence also
supports the RM&NS hypothesis as the explanation. Perhaps there is a better
explanation (theory) to explain the observations and SJ would like to share
the evidence?

[...]

BTW neither Johnson nor I claim the Darwinists are dishonest in this. They

<< appear to *really* believe that what they are presenting is true, and it
is the
critics who are "ignorant, stupid or insane ... or wicked" (Dawkins, 1989)!
>>

Not only do they really believe what they present but they support it with a
workable theory that has shown to be quite applicable.

<< Here are some of the problems for RM&NS in the land mammal-whale
transition (which I accept probably happened BTW but not by RM&NS):
>>

Cool. At least we accept the evidence for evolution, we just disagree on the
mechanisms. Perhaps SJ can share with us his mechanisms and the supporting
evidence for such. Then we can determine if it is time to adjust the theory
of evolution.

[...]

Maybe this is an example of what Gould & Eldredge had in mind when

<< they wrote:

    "At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
    morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble,
    though it remains the "official" position of most Western
    evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost
    impossible to construct, even in thought experiments." (Gould S.J.
    & Eldredge N., "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of
    evolution reconsidered," Paleobiology, 1977, Vol. 3, pp.115-147,
    p.147) >>

Seems that the evidence contradicts this.

<<
[...] >>

<< 3. the driver in RM&NS is supposed to be competition, but competition
would be *reduced* in a vast new ecological niche like an ocean.
>>

What about the niche of coastal areas?

<< 4. it is numbers of *offspring* which is important to RM&NS, but larger
mammals have long comparatively gestation and generation times and small
numbers of offspring:

    "The presenters could not have picked any more vulnerable
    "evidences" than the whale species. The whale's capacity for natural
    process change is severely limited by ... 2) long generation spans
    (the time between birth and the ability to give birth); 3) low number
    of progeny produced per adult; ... these factors severely limit a
    species' capacity to change, or even to adapt to change, through
    mutations and natural selection." (Ross H.N., "Creation on the `Firing
    Line'", Facts & Faith, First Quarter 1998.
    http://www.reasons.org/resources/FAF/98q1faf/98q1aisi.html)
>>

And yet they managed to change.

<< 5. vast numbers of intermediates in the fossil record (not just a handful)
are needed to establish RM&NS:
>>

And quite a few exist for the evolution of the whale. But does this mean that
the fossil record accurately reflects the 'vast numbers'? That's unlikely.
See appended links

[...]

`The known fossil record fails to document a single example of

<< phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model
can be valid.' (Stanley, S.M., "Macroevolution," 1979, p.39)

(Denton, 1985, pp.177,182).
>>

A bit outdated it seems. And furthermore it seems that Stanley was arguing
for punctuated equilibrium

"> |Other scientist are even more candid. Stanley of John Hopkins writes:
|> |"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
|> |phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and
|> |hence offers no evidence that gradualistic model can be valid.
|> |(Stanley 1979 p. 39)
|>
|> This one I am familiar with. Did you read the rest of Stanley's
|> book? You know, the part where he argues that what the evidence
|> actually shows, instead, is transitions in the fossil record that are
|> accomplished in intergrading, but faster, steps between species, rather
|> than constant-rate intergradations. Species change episodically, in
|> terms of morphology, rather than at a more continuous rate all the
|> time. Even so, there are still fine intergradations observed between
|> them when the record
|> is sampled in sufficient detail. Stanley is not saying transitional
|> fossils are absent, he is saying that the transitional fossils known
|> show that the change is episodic.
|>
|You are describing Punctuated Equilibrium.

Yes, exactly. That is what Stanley was talking about when he says "phyletic
evolution" and "gradualistic model" in that quote -- in
order to contrast it with punctuated equilibrium."

<< Note that the evidence of a small number of intermediates (while it
disconfirms
YEC) actually supports what Denton calls "an external unknown directive
influence
in evolution", i.e. an Intelligent Designer, not `blind watchmaker' RM&NS!
>>

Incorrect presumptions lead to incorrect conclusions. Nor is there any
independent evidence of an intelligent designer and even worse as Wesley has
been shown RM&NS cannot be excluded as an intelligent designer.

Some additional comments

SJ quoted

"Having reached this
ÊÊÊ stage, the creature in anticipation of a time when it will give birth to
ÊÊÊ its young under water, gradually develops apparatus by means of
ÊÊÊ which the milk is forced into the mouth of the young one, and,
ÊÊÊ meanwhile a cap has to be formed round the nipple into which the
ÊÊÊ snout of the young one fits tightly, the epiglottis and laryngeal
ÊÊÊ cartilage become prolonged upwards to form a cone-shaped tube,
ÊÊÊ and the soft palate becomes prolonged downwards so as tightly to
ÊÊÊ embrace this tube, in order that the adult will be able to breathe
ÊÊÊ while taking water into the mouth and the young while taking in
ÊÊÊ milk. These changes must be effected completely before the calf can
ÊÊÊ be born under water. Be it noted that there is no stage intermediate
ÊÊÊ between being born and suckled under water and being born and
ÊÊÊ suckled in the air. "

James Acker on nursing

"

Some of these are soft tissue changes, but evolution of
baleen in the early Mysticetes and movement of the nasals from a snout
position to a "blowhole" position has been documented in
the fossils.
You missed a good one: the internalization of the
testes on the male, and the insulation of the uterus in the female, required
that a specialized vascular system develop to cool these
structures. (The structure is a countercurrent heat exchanger that gets
cooler venous blood from the fins and flukes, and it cools
arterial blood going to the uterus or testes.) The scientists
studying this structure believe that it evolved by the retention of fetal
circulation structures in the adults."

[...]

"The whale fossils
even show that some changes occurred faster than others (in particular,
auditory changes, which may have been related to prey
acquisition, occurred more rapidly than other changes). The blowhole did
not have to be in its modern position for the animals to
breathe (think of all the other mostly aquatic mammals that spend months at
sea or in the water). Manatees nurse in-water
despite not having the specialized nipple: the female rolls onto her side
and the pup nurses at a teat that is located under the front
fins. In order to accomplish nursing the teat and the pup's mouth must be
in the air, but not the whole animal.
So these changes do not have to be simultaneous. Sea
lions, seals, sea elephants, and walruses are all clearly better suited for
water than for land, but they retain a link to the
land because of reproductive requirements or insulation requirements. But
they do not appear to be endangered due to the need
for some terrestrial capability."

SJ quotes

". While this twisting
ÊÊÊ went on the hind limbs and pelvis must have diminished in size, until
ÊÊÊ the latter ceased to exist as external limbs in all, and completely
ÊÊÊ disappeared in most, whales."

James Acker again
"
All of these are seen in the fossils. In particular, the
spinal structure shows progressive changes related to the aquatic locomotion
mode. The pelvis, besides being reduced in size,
must detach from the spine. This is seen clearly in a fossil whale
from Georgia called "Georgiacetus vogtlensis".
"

http://x62.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=651912269