Intelligent Design Discussion

[The Barbarian]

18 minutes ago, Starman said:

From what I’ve been reading you are greatly underestimating the problem with both the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion.  Of course, I need to support this claim but need time to extract the best information.  

So let's test that belief.   Show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.   Pick several, if you'd like.

Show me what you have.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Starman said:

Also, the Cambrian explosion as recorded in the Burgess Shale and in China should also be included in the discussion since the data seems to go against  neo-Darwinian processes.  As you know the Cambrian explosion is a big topic in and of itself, requiring much detail to be intelligible  (I’ll try to address this in a future post).  In the mean time here are a few quotes.

For a long time, the "Cambrian explosion" looked like the sudden appearance of living things.  However, the subsequent discovery of the Ediacaran fauna (now definitely identified as animals because of cholesterol molecules found in some of them, clearly shows that complex animals existed long before the Cambrian.

Would you like to learn about some of it?

 

[Starman]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

So let's test that belief.   Show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.   Pick several, if you'd like.

I can cite many renowned biologist who state that the fossil record provides at best a poor demonstration of Darwin.  Are you disagreeing with them?

 

Regarding transitional forms, it’s not enough to show an organism with intermediate morphology and claim it is intermediate in a Darwinian sense.  I think we need to show why the transition is plausible at the molecular level, that is to propose a step-wise genetic process that can plausibly result in the observed morphological changes.  That includes a discussion of the available probabilistic resources, and the origin of the vast amounts of new biological information required.  

 

The assumption of a generalized  Darwinian process involves too much hand waving to call it a solid scientific conclusion.   At a minimum it involves a lack of intellectual curiosity.  

 

So let’s talk about any transitional form you like as long you supply  the math and physics. 

[The Barbarian]

Eldredge and Gould saw rapid evolution as in the 10,000 to 100,000 year range.   Since we've observed the evolution of a new digestive organ in lizards over a couple of decades, 100 t0 1,000 centuries are  not very fast in terms of human expectations.

[The Barbarian]

14 minutes ago, Starman said:

So let's test that belief.   Show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.   Pick several, if you'd like.

 

14 minutes ago, Starman said:

I can cite many renowned biologist who state that the fossil record provides at best a poor demonstration of Darwin.  Are you disagreeing with them?

You cited Eldredge and Gould.   Notice Gould's comment.   So that's why quotes aren't a very safe way to argue, unless you cite the article so it can be checked.   You're not alone in being unable to think of any case of major groups lacking a transitional form between them.   No one I've asked here or elsewhere can find any, although there are still a few gaps where a transitional has not yet been found.   That's pretty solid evidence.   

But what's even stronger evidence is, there's not any transitional forms where the theory says there shouldn't be.   No feathered mammals, no whales with gills, etc.

14 minutes ago, Starman said:

Regarding transitional forms, it’s not enough to show an organism with intermediate morphology and claim it is intermediate in a Darwinian sense.

Quite right.   We must show homologies; mere intermediate morphology won't cut it.    That's why you can't say a pterosaur is transitional to birds.    And we can check by looking at genes or even molecular biology.   For example, a bit of heme was found in a T. rex fossil.    When examined, it was found to be most like that of a bird, rather than like that of other reptiles, confirming the many transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds as indicators of descent.

It goes a lot farther than that.   For example, the genes of archosaurs (the group that includes birds, dinosaurs, crocodiles, and pterosaurs) are closer to each other than to anything else.   And we know that's valid, because we can compare the genes of organisms of known descent.

The biochemistry works out that way, too.   Scutes (scales found on dinosaurs, crocodiles, and birds) have the same chemical signature, not found on other scales.  

14 minutes ago, Starman said:

The assumption of a generalized  Darwinian process involves too much hand waving to call it a solid scientific conclusion.   At a minimum it involves a lack of intellectual curiosity.  

Hence, the importance of supporting biochemical and genetic data like that cited above.    And if you do ever think of two groups said to be evolutionarily connected,without a transitional form, let me know,and we'll take a look at the case.   Or maybe it might be instructive to find any transitional form were there shouldn't be one.    Just keep in mind the difference between analogy and homology, so you don't get into the pterosaur/bird kind of mixup.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by The Barbarian

[Starman]

Unfortunately, you haven’t addressed my issue.  The Gould quote does not nullify the voice of many other scientists (all references to the quotes are available but providing  gets too tedious) And the question is not whether evolutionists believe there are transitional forms, but whether they can posit the necessary molecular pathways and a reasonable likelihood of occurrence.  Your reference to heme in a Trex fossil is interesting but doesn’t come close to addressing the difficult issue I’m concerned about (and in no way points to a Darwinian process). 

I understand that you find the evidence convincing, but I don’t.  It is interesting and provides a window into a creative process which we have yet to really understand. one.opinion, who strongly believes in a Darwinian explanation, also freely admits that we’re dealing with a mystery here. 

As I said, supply the math and physics and I’ll listen.
 

Molecular biology is hard which is why I became an engineer.  
 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by Starman

[Starman]

Here is an article by Stephen Meyer that helps explain my perspective.  I’d be interested to hear your critique

https://intelligentdesign.org/philosophy-of-science/not-a-chance/

[one.opinion]

44 minutes ago, Starman said:

one.opinion, who strongly believes in a Darwinian explanation, also freely admits that we’re dealing with a mystery here. 

One.opinion thinks that the fossil record strongly supports universal common descent, but still has gaps and doesn't answer all good questions.

[Starman]

I infer that you felt the need to jump in because I mischaracterized your position.  However, in the prior post you seem to agree with my use of the “mystery.”  I apologize if I read more than I should not the exchange.  

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, Starman said:

I infer that you felt the need to jump in because I mischaracterized your position.  However, in the prior post you seem to agree with my use of the “mystery.”  I apologize if I read more than I should not the exchange.  

Oh, there are definitely mysteries in the fossil record, but I wouldn't characterize the overall conclusion as a mystery. No need to apologize at all, just wanted to be on record.