I note many public evolutionists, Prothero and Shermer and many others always stress the cases of vestigial parts in marine mammals as evidence for evolutionary biology.
Yet in reality this is a sampling error that in fact makes the opposite case against evolution.
I agree marine mamnmals once were land lovers and only later gained features to surbvve in the water. Not the impossible steps said by evolutionists, as Berlinski demonstrates, but some other mechanism.
Anyways evolutionists persusde themselves, and try to persuade others, that the real changes found in marine mammals proves creatures changed greatly and by Darwins method.
Yet the great truth is that for all the living and fossil biology that is observed at least 99%% has no vestigial features whatsoever. If all biology evolved then all biology should be crawling with remaining bits but in fact its a great missing anatomy. There are no vestigial bits save in very few special cases like marine mammals.
Therefore if evolutionists use these few cases to make the evolution case then in strict sampling disipline they actually make the opposite case. If finding a few vestigial bits is to prove evolution then the glorious ascence makes the true case that evolution didn’t happen because it should be that vestigial bits are the norm and not the exception.
So i propose its a sampling error to say vestigial bits of marine mammals prove evolution and in fact it must be proving the opposite.
I think this is a good point unless someone can show otherwise.
It does more than that. For evolution to be true, there must be an unbroken line of descent of viable individuals between all existent and extinct organisms back to the last universal common ancestor.
This is incoherent. Who is “they”?
Knew what?
Wow, just wow. Unable to follow along, eh, Alan? They are the transitional forms that were mentioned just prior to the use of “they”. Darwin knew their existence would ruin all attempts at a coherent classification. Read the quote or the book
But a moment ago you were claiming the patterns observed were because of design?
Summativity– The sum of all entities at one level of organization is equal to the sum of all entities at some other level- Knox “The use of hierarchies as organizational models of systematics” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63:1-49, page 8
For example in Linnean taxonomy*, ie a nested hierarchy, the Animal Kingdom consists of and contains all of the levels and entities below it. It is the sum of its parts.
Linnean Classification:
You know you are also currently arguing that those same patterns are the product of design? Too complex to chart, but the product of design nonetheless.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Aintelligentreasoning.blogspot.com+%22The+standard+system+of+classification+in+which+every+organism+is+assigned+a+kingdom%2C+phylum%2C+class%2C+order%2C+family%2C+genus%2C+and+species.+This+system+groups+organisms+into+ever+smaller+and+smaller+groups+(like+a+series+of+boxes+within+boxes%2C+called+a+nested+hierarchy).%22
I do plenty of reading, but I do have a very busy life outside of this place. But it really is none of your concern how much I read or post. You can be sure that I will look into any external references you give me, perhaps not immediately (as you seem to want) but in my own time.
I have already said that I believe evolution is directed towards self-consciousness. A self-consciousness which we humans display to a greater degree than any other form of life on the planet, but which we have only the most rudimentary form so far.
So if you want to stick to the tree metaphor, humans are at the tip of the central trunk and the various other lifeforms are side branches radiating from this trunk. Humans have evolved through the various stages so they have had fish-like, amphibian-like, reptile-like and mammilian ancestors.
Present day fish have remained in their fish-like existence and have evolved from there.
Present day whales have evolved to the mammal stage but still retained some fish-like characteristics. Whether their branch radiated from lower down in the tree but had a steeper evolutionary curve than fish or whether they branched off higher up at the mammalian stage makes little difference to me, the evidence will fit both scenarios.
How many animal forms do we see radiating from the possession of features which humans still retain. Think of teeth, pentadactyl, tetrapod limb, two nostrils becoming a single blowhole. And the most advanced form of the pentadactyl limb is the human arm. This is a fact, it is not just arrogant anthropomorphism. Look at what we have achieved by the use of this limb. But do not confuse “advanced” with “conscientious”. As it stands we humans more often than not do things for selfish reasons.
We know when we see a human embryo that it has the potential to become an adult form. In other words we can see that it has a direction. Can you give me an example of anything that has a known direction that is not directed?
I would say that our development is self-directed, but what I mean by “self” would take me too far off topic.
Would you say that the human upper and lower limbs converge on the same basic form?
*
I said:
“I would think that when we are trying to determine the relationship between life forms dating is relevant.”
I don’t want to get into the vast topic of bird evolution in this thread.
The oldest found fossil of a derived form gives us a marker to estimate the amount of time available for the organism to have made the transformation from the parent form. Then we can ask if the amount of change is feasable by the purported processes.
*
I said:
“the more convergence we see the more it would seem that there are other factors beside unguided, blind processes.”
You say that convergence is explained by the environment, but there are examples of convergence that are not fully explained by the environment.
Such as:
CharlieM,
Why do whales have hair and sharks don’t?
Why do whales suckle their young and sharks don’t?
Why are whales placental and sharks aren’t?
Glen Davidson
Because whales are mammals and sharks are fish. Your point?
You just restated the facts. You certainly didn’t explain anything with your vague ideas about whales still having some “fish characteristics.” What fish characteristics do you suppose that they have, other than functional facts like being hydrodynamic? Why do whales propel themselves with up and down tail motions, rather than side to side like fish?
What you didn’t do was explain any reason why whales should have the differences from fish that they do. You evince no curiosity about these matters, in fact, nor do you deal with these matters with any intellectual rigor.
Why do whales have what eutherian mammals have, and fish do not? Why are they only superficially like fish and not developmentally? Do you ever try to answer things like scientists do, or is it all just vague disagreements that you think mean something, yet without you being able to show that they mean anything at all?
Whales are like you’d expect of mammals that evolved to fit an aquatic existence. Ichthyosaurs are like you’d expect of reptiles that evolved to fit an aquatic existence.
Evolution explains that. You don’t.
Glen Davidson
Exactly. You’re just parroting what somebody said. You pick creationist biologists to believe, even though you don’t yourself understand what they say, because they’re creationists. You don’t believe me because I’m not a creationist. But I am a biologist, and I can back up everything I say. Don’t equate us. You can’t defend your position because you don’t know anything about the evidence or the literature that contains it. I do. I study the evidence and read the literature. I’ve produced some of the evidence and written some of the literature. I have explained some of it to you in simple terms, and what you really have to do is seriously entertain the possibility that your creationist biologists might be wrong, and that means you will have to start paying actual attention to the arguments being made.
Don’t you think that’s a remarkably arrogant judgment to make? You are the pinnacle of all creation? Anyway, if evolution is directed toward self-consciousness, why is there only one species at the tip? Shouldn’t all the lineages have been moving in the same direction rather than in millions of different directions?
But thanks for finally presenting something like a hypothesis.
I suggest that the evidence doesn’t fit both scenarios, and it’s only your lack of familiarity with the evidence that lets you think so. We know what the tree looks like. And we know that the fishy characteristics of whales are both superficial and fairly recent, and that their ancestors were land mammals. Since you think they’re a side branch, why should this even matter to you?
Yes, that’s entirely arrogant anthropomorphism. A bat’s front limb is much better at flying, a horse’s better at running, a cat’s better at snagging prey. You are not the measure of all things.
It isn’t clear what “directed” means. Would you say that the course of a drop of water in a river is directed? Is evolution directed in the same sense that human development is? Not to me. If evolution has a direction, it comes from natural selection, i.e. immediate reproductive advantage, while the development of a human embryo is directed by evolved control mechanisms, at base genetic.
No, I’d say that if anything they diverge. They start out identical.
True, though the estimate has huge errors. We don’t have the parent form, and the earliest fossil of a morphotype is almost certainly later than the origin of that morphotype, just because the fossil record has lots of holes in it. More importantly, this has nothing to do with determining phylogeny, which is what we were talking about.
I don’t think your example is any such thing. The convergence between golden moles (which by the way are not moles and are more closely related to elephants) and marsupial moles is entirely related to their adopting similar lifestyles; where exactly they each started digging isn’t that relevant.
As i see it iT only supports cHANGE took place.
Not the mechanism.
The lack of vestigial bits in the rest of biology dictates the fe bits were from special mechanisms. otherwise the rest of biology, so immense in numbers and so much evolving having taken place, should be full or almost full or very common examples of vestigial bits.
tHe very few indicate the very special cases.
Marine mammals clearly were land creatures and thats why they have vestigial bits remaining. yet not from a evolutionaru mechanism affecting all biology of which they alone, almost, have samples of the changed bodies.
CharlieM,
Off thread but I liked the marsupial stuff.
I insist marsupials are just placventals that adapted a common marsupial mode of reproduction upon migration to far ends of the earth relative to the ark landing. Other traits too.
Its unlikely moles evolved so alike and the obvious conclusion is that they are the same moles. cousins. the marsupial moles are not cousins to koalas. its a myth.
Strange one too when so many marsupials were perfect matches with other creatures on earth.
Its poor sampling of traits to draw the relationships on minor details and avoid the big ones.
so my thread was first about sampling.
Though no one understands this point. a C for everyone.
The other points get a B. For trying.
monkey see, monkey do.
My thread, you flunked me on,. was based on what evolutionist ‘biologists:” say about evolution being proved by a sampling of creaturres, marine mammals, who show in their bodies they changed greatly.
I say its inaccurate sampling and so the sample does not prove creatures changed their bodies BECAUSE of evolution.
99% of critters do not have vestigial bits and therefore a sample from them is what should be picked if picking a sample of creatures to see wHETHER they have bits leftover from previous body types.
Follow the math here.
So no one showed me I was wrong and so my thread was a good point for truth and creationism.
Another point is aboput why there is no vestigial bits in 99% of creatures.
Because they evolved and the few who rEALLY did change do have leftovers because the mechanisms are not that good or rather purpose driven.
I think its a good thread.
I would call it objective, not arrogant. Nowhere did I say that I was “pinnacle of all creation”. But I would say that humans are the most advanced form of physical life on earth.
I do not believe that there is only one species at the tip. I believe that each human being is more like a complete species concentrated in an individual form. I do not think that the species concept is helpful when examining all the various forms of life. We should not equate a mammal with a bacterium in that way.
By your logic if there was a NASA team involved in the moon landing project, why weren’t all those involved heading for the moon?
We know what the tips of the tree look like. We can only speculate on its overall shape. I would not call the characteristic of having an aquatic existence superficial.
The tip of a tree could not exist without the branches.
Robert Byers,
No. I’ve already explained why the widespread occurrence of vestigial versions of adaptive features is not an expectation of evolutionary theory.
Humans can fly at multiple times the speed of sound, they can fly non-stop from London to New York. Can bats do this? I can travel to a town which is 100 miles away in a couple of hours. Can a horse do this? Humans can catch hundreds of fish in one go. Can cats do this? Whales can communicate over vast distances but this does not compare with the distance over which humans can communicate.
Animals can outcompete humans in a narrow, one-sided ways and they are experts at what they do. But what they can do is limited compared to what humans can do. And don’t confuse our abilities with anything that helps the planet. Life in general is very good at maintaining a balance, until, that is we get to humans, we are very good at disrupting the balance of nature. Our ability to influence the planet far exceeds our wisdom.
A drop of water is an inanimate object that is directed by external forces. Living beings are directed from within. I would say that evolution is directed in the same way that human development is in the sense that they are both an unfolding of consciousness. I don’t accept that evolution stumbled upon consciousness as an aid to survival. Living things do not need to have a high level of conscious to be successful, plants demonstrate that this is the case. I do not agree that human development is directed by genetics. Genetic processes are a necessary mechanism but they are not the source. Have you read any of Denis Noble’s works?
That is a good point. I accept that.
Shame the designer did not think to +1 our wisdom then.
Well I am talking about relationships between living forms and how they can be accounted for.
Some skeletal features of certain marsupials are practically indistinguishable from their placental equivalents. You say this is due to convergent evolution. But when some skeletal features of fossil animals resemble those of whales, you say this is due to their close relationship. How do you tell the difference between convergence and relatedness?
CharlieM,
First, you have to establish what those relationships are. The data clearly show that whales evolved from the same land-dwelling clade as pigs, deer, hippos, not that they are descendants of fish whose ancestors never left the sea despite acquiring similar non-fishy morphologies to those that did. I don’t know why you think that either conclusion is equally lilkely.
I don’t see how this could possibly be true. In fact I am not even sure if makes any sense.
I am perfectly happy to say that human beings have unique cognitive powers, although it is not easy to give a precise characterization of what exactly those powers are. I would say that our capacity for incorporating the embodied-embedded perspectives of other animals into our own models of the environment is salient. This is important for imitation (which other primates are actually quite bad at!) and for cooperation. It lies at the basis of our ability to construct social institutions that persist over generations and our ability to design implements that can be used to disclose increasingly fine-grained descriptions of objective reality. Whereas some other animals can imagine a different way of using a tool, human beings can imagine different realities.
However, I don’t see any way of talking about these unique cognitive powers as being more “advanced” than those of crows or crocodiles unless we had some non-anthropocentric criterion as to what counts as “advanced”, and I don’t see that we have any such criterion.
Oh my, I was just explaining the Creationist position. And yes I understand they could be wrong You could be wrong also. And phylogeny assumes common descent and uses the degree of similarity to establish how close of a relationship exists. I study the evidence, too. And there isn’t any that demonstrates a land mammal could evolve into a whale. You don’t know what genes were involved. You don’t know how many generations it took nor how many genetic changes it took.
And then there are the voles which have been evolving faster than most vertebrates over millions of years and they are still voles. You cannot have it both ways, ie that genetic changes will lead to vast morphological change or it won ‘t. That isn’t much of a theory, John
Wrong- the data in biased minds shows that whales evolved from land mammals. Unfortunately there isn’t any way to objectively test the claim
Something has gone terribly wrong with the formatting of this thread.
Biology’s First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems
Perhaps humans are special.
There’s a very long URL in this message which “blows the margins”. It isn’t actually causing a problem for me (using “konqueror”). There is a horizonal scroll bar. However all but that one message can be read without it. Maybe I should try with firefox. (Hmm, it looks okay in firefox, too).
I thought about “fixing” that. But the URL itself looks broken (there’s a”%22″ hanging off the end which possibly should have been part of the URL). So I’m unsure of how best to fix. (A “fix” would mean to hide the url and just show a word that one could click on).
If that was supposed to be a clickable link, then you messed up. You failed to provide the URL.
Yes, humans are special. That’s because humans decide what “special” means. So, using our extreme pro-human bias, we have appointed ourselves special.
Neil,
It also looks fine in Safari. What do you think about replacing it with a TinyURL (with the commenter’s permission)?
That would be okay. I would have replaced with maybe the work “LINK” (but as an active link). However, the question remains on what do with that hanging “%22” at the end. (Should, perhaps, these side-issue comments be moved to moderation?)
And what makes you think he, she or it is capable of increasing our wisdom just like that?
The data can certainly be interpreted to point to whales as having evolved those animals which may have been land dwellers but I wouldn’t say that it “clearly shows” this.
I don’t know what you mean by, “descendants of fish whose ancestors never left the sea despite acquiring similar non-fishy morphologies to those that did”.
I think we can agree that we are all descended from water-dwelling, fish-like ancestors, can’t we?
What’s unclear?
What specifically don’t you understand or know what it means?
But cetaceans descend from land dwelling animals most closely related to hippos, all of which descended from fish.
No one is really very interested in your incredulity, unless you come up with a better supported scenario.
But whales look just like penguins.
How could you know that whales evolved from mammals and penguins from birds?
It’s just a crap-shoot, when it comes right down to it.
Glen Davidson
Of all life on earth humans have the most advanced form of communication. Do you agree?
Human brains are the most complex structures in the known universe. Do you agree?
Humans are the most creative constructors on earth. Do you agree?
No other organisms come close to human awareness. Do you agree?
When it comes to manipulating matter and forces such as electricity and magnetism, humans far outstrip other lifeforms. Do you agree?
No other organism has explored the universe beyond the earth to any degree like humans have. Do you agree?
For resourcefulness in producing, storing and distributing food humans lead the field. Do you agree?
Which organism controls the lives of most other organisms for its own advantage. I would say it is the human. Do you agree?
The very fact that you are able to argue about what is anthropocentric and what is not is an advance on the useof the mind that can be made by any other animal.
Frankie,
The data is not merely in ‘biased minds’, it is in annotated genomes that can be investigated by anyone. I’ve had a chuckle watching you trying to take John Harshman on. You should bet him $10,000 you know more about it than he.
It is evident that you don’t know what any of those words mean.
You think they evolved from fish without ever being land dwelling? Can you seriously not think of any way to objectively test that claim either? What persuades you to make it, then?
And no one’s really very interested in your ad hominem comments, yet they still continue appear.
At least I watched the whale video.
CharlieM,
I don’t think you’ve spent much time investigating the matter, then.
Yes, we can. But you doubt that whales can definitely be stated to have descended from the intervening land-dwelling descendants of those fish. The only alternative is that they never left the water at any stage, evolving all the way from fish via amphibian and reptile and mammal to whale in a perennially aquatic lineage. It’s difficult to see how land-based fish-amphibian-mammal evolution could take place in parallel with this change. There are fossil land animals representing those various types going waaaaay back, so it would have to.
I really don’t know why you would wish to think that whale ancestors never left the water, since no data beyond a certain superficial fishiness supports it.
CharlieM,
I completely disagree with all of those claims, because we have no criteria for objectively measuring what is more or less “advanced” than anything else.
Well that sentence can mean:
1. descendants (of fish) whose ancestors never left the sea despite acquiring similar non-fishy morphologies to those that did.
2. (descendants of) fish whose ancestors never left the sea despite acquiring similar non-fishy morphologies to those that did.
I now realise that you meant No.1.
So how about this for a scenario? They could be descendents of animals who never fully left the water but remained in the shallows.
Simple, really. “Evidence” has been defined as anything that supports creationist doctrine (even if fabricated). Facts that refute creationist doctrine cannot be evidence. At the margin, such facts cannot even be known.
If fact are allowed to mean things, they tend to gang up in consiliant uncongenial mobs.
And there’s not much I can do about closed minds.
CharlieM,
I don’t think you remove the problems by placing ancestors in an intermediate environment from which their descendants then go one way or the other. Nor do I know why you’d want to, or rather what has persuaded you that this is worth pursuing as a hypothesis. You only seem to wish the current paradigm to be wrong, regardless of the thickets of special pleading that this brings you into.
🙂
Could it be because whales are mammals and penguins are birds?