Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

I can't wait, where shall we go?

You are right in that we don't see design like humans do. That is the point our "design" is exactly the other kind of design.See this thread: Message 1Our "design" shows that we are produced by evolutionary processes when we compare it to things we know are designed (cars) and things that we know are not (output of evolutionary algorithms).Your approach of looking at our intricate details is one powerful way to prove that we are not designed. We have shown a mechanism for macroevolutionary change. This is about biological evolution so the origin of the genetic code has nothing to do with macroevolutionary change issues. False. Your own "evidence" shows that intelligence is not likely to have been involved at all.

This is moving OT. We should start a new thread for this.

you are right. The design argument can be taken to the thread I supplied.(blush)

Hi Beretta,Please also see Message 80 concerning selection of traits in foxes occurring naturally by comparison to starlings adaptation to humanity. Some does, some doesn't. Foraminifera don't. There are lots of other examples of gradual trends. Pelycodus shows a branching where one species evolves into two species. There are other examples of branching species. The often quoted out of context basis for punctuated equilibrium. Yet the degree of difference Gould and Eldredge were talking about does not exceed the variation we see in dogs.In addition, Gould looked at the evidence of the foraminifera and agreed that it demonstrated classical Darwinian gradualism and not punkeek. Not every speciation has to occur the same way you know. Phillip Johnson is a lawyer and a professional liar. He is NOT concerned with truth. And yet it also matches location and chronology? Please. If you want we can also review this "arrangement" as we go from one set of fossils to another ... using dog variation as the bridge. So we can look at what the evidence really shows. Using old (1951?) complaints about arrangements and applying them to ones that have been revised (1992?) based on more complete information doesn't make the evolution of horses false.Science progresses by new evidence and discarding invalid concepts.What we have today is obviously NOT a single linear pattern, but one that, due to the additional evidence noted in those articles (if you read the originals instead of the creationist quote-mined excerpts?), shows the branches:

quote:

---

Florida Museum of Natural History - Fossil Horse Gallery:

​

(click link to access site, image is mirrored to save bandwidth)

---

That is what the evidence shows and it resolves the issues of old. Wrong. We have a metric that we can use - the variation in dogs is a MINIMUM that we KNOW mutation and selection are capable of producing. As long as the step by step changes in the fossil record are equal or less than the differences in dogs we KNOW it is possible. Again, all we need to show is that it is possible, for there is no "conclusive proof" in any science. If you doubt this then please supply one theory in one other science that has been conclusively proven.Science tells you what is possible if the theory is true.Science tells you that it is possible to get from eohippus to mesohippus by the same variation\mutation and selection as we see in dogs, thus it absolutely is possible for one to have evolved from the other.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

The ones which are certainly related remain one kind with variations of a limited kind.The kind invariably arises suddenly and without provable precursors because they are fossils. But they start out as pelycodus and remain pelycodus much like bacteria show variation but only faith says they change into something that is not bacteria.The fossil record cannot be tested for interfertility and so relationship has to be assumed based on morphology. If you believe that one kind of creature can turn into a completely different kind given time and the selection of mutations, then you can imagine the links but it is a philisophical thing not science. But dog breeding requires intelligence to allow for that degree of variation. The kind of variation seen in dogs cannot be necessarily compared to that which occurs in the wild.Saying anything definate about relationships in the fossil record cannot really be science if no testing of assumed relationships can be done.Relationships can only be guessed at based on morphological and philisophical considerations.In general variation within a species in the fossil record is far less than that seen in dog breeding and any further connections between kinds can only be surmised. But punkeek is the rule and not the exception in the fossil record -if punkeek can be considered to have any credibility at all since it is really an excuse for lack of evidence of gradualism. As far as I can make out and having read practically everything he has written, Phillip Johnson is an extremely logical man that is questioning the gap between what is believed by evolutionists and their ability to prove scientifically that any such thing as large scale evolution has occurred.He is questioning their assumption that a creative intelligence had nothing to do with it and that natural law alone can account for what we see. He specialized in the logic of argument and shows how far science has stepped from the realm of true science and into the philisophical realm. He makes perfect sense to me and your assumption that he is a liar just shows what you prefer to believe and has no necessary connection to the man's true intentions at all. Is a lawyer always considered to be a liar? Do only people with no scruples go into law? I know that that is not true but it is clear that you have a prejudice. Unfortunately science tends to overstep the bounds of science and make pronouncements about what they 'believe is real and true and only later when it is proven to be false says well let's fix it up a bit and now this is true for sure. This usually happens when they make pronouncements that cannot be proven by repeatable experimentation and are in reality based on philisophical considerations.It's those pronouncements which make people less inclined to believe them when they come with their revised conclusions. But it still involves dead bones and morphological similarities and a good degree of guesswork with no prospect of ever being proven to be true -it may be possible but that doesn't mean that it is true. Nor does it make it provably true -it depends whether you 'believe' that it is possible or not.You're still outside the bounds of experimentally provable science since those 'horses' are all dead. By invalid concepts you mean old evidence that was not evidence after all? Which nonetheless doesn't make it provably true, only possible theoretically. Those are the things that 'science' should not be allowed to make fact pronouncements about. Well there is certainly a vast difference between the pronouncments that are possible about something like gravity and those that are historical and therefore not even vaguely testable. We know for a fact that plants require water and light for growth and that is something we can prove - on the other hand horse evolution belongs to the 'maybe, possibly, we believe so' type of science which is what makes it soooo questionable and so philisophically based. And thus should not be considered to be fact as evolutionists pronounce and should not be taught as truth in school rooms until such time as it is a proven fact.In the meantime lets just be honest with the younger generation and just say that this is what some scientists believe based on these facts and these are the objections other scientists have based on these facts, and this is what other scientists believe based on these facts and open the entire subject up to debate and open enquiry instead of the stifling of opposition which is happening in education at the moment. Instead of asking children to rehash certain beliefs as fact, they should be exposed to all the objections.

We can't prove they are precursors because they are fossils, this is certainly true. So in the absence of a time machine neither the fossil record alone proves neither the idea of the gradual evolution nor of the sudden de novo appearance of created kinds.We do however have considerable evidence for morphological change coming about as a result of genetic mutation and none to suggest there are any identifiable limits to what this can encompass. We also have no evidence suggesting that new 'kinds' of life suddenly appear de novo.Your standard of proof seems useless as a scientific concept.TTFN,WK

Unfortunately for evolution the appearance of the fossil record is far more supportive of de novo appearance. The complexity of what exists is also far more indicative of an outside intelligence than of random changes and selection without a plan.You only have to look at how nerve impulses work or at the complexity of the eye or the anatomical detail in the ear and the necessity to be able to convert wave stimuli into something elctrical which then proceeds to be understood in the brain and acted apon in an integrated manner, to logically conclude that random change and lack of planning,as well as selection of the best errors, are unlikely to have brought about such complexity and interconnectedness of all the bodily functions.The body is such a masterpiece of engineering that to me and all ID proponents it seems ludicrous to suggest that no intelligence and no plan was behind its obvious design, and the presence of the genetic code that makes it all possible.
The point is that 'science' should limit itself to suggestions in the absence of proof and should be less frightened of exposing the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.All philisophical pronouncements should be clearly stated and should not be relegated to the realm of fact as evolutionists insist on doing until such time as it becomes proven or disproven.
Children everywhere are being educated into the concept that they are here for no purpose with no plan and that would be fine if it were provably true but look at the relativism that is has produced and it's attendant lawlessness and purposelessness and the big picture is a disaster.Right and wrong no longer exists because who's to say what's right or wrong or whether there is such a thing? It's all about 'your truth' and 'my truth' -it's a destructive philosophy and it's not science. -nor to suggest that there are no limits. That's the more likely interpretation based on what the fossil record actually shows.Things appear fully formed and disappear just as suddenly or continue pretty much unchanged for hundreds of millions of hypothetical years.That looks pretty much de novo to a lot of people. The fossil record appears in part most everywhere and all the hypothetical ages appear nowhere in one place unless you refer to the textbooks which simplify the issue and create an impression that is unfounded. So why is so much 'time' missing in so many places? Evolution's standard of proof is not scientific either.So in the absence of proof, lets just go with what we can actually prove and stop 'science' from overextending itself.

Fish. Amphibian-like fish. Fish-like amphibians. Amphibians. Reptile like amphibians. Amphibian-like reptiles. Reptiles. Mammal-like reptiles. Reptile like mammals. Mammals. Especially if they desire it to be so, and they haven't looked very hard. It doesn't look pretty much "de novo" to paleontologists.

Well it wouldn't -they are the most brain washed of all, I suspect and Gould and Eldredge must have been trying to explain away something (like a lack of gradualisitic evidence) when they dreamed up their punkeek story.Who desires to believe what is convenient, is what I ask?

Your opinion does not make it a fact. Perhaps you could help us understand the concept outside intelligence by contributing to the "Spotting Beretta's designer" thread? Eye development presents no problems for evolution.Eye evolution AEye evolution BEdited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Who desires a father figure, we might ask? Who desires reassurance of an eternal existence for himself? Do you think thousands of paleontologists world-wide are telling themselves comfort lies?Perhaps they've been brainwashed by an intelligent designer who chose to design so many creatures that can easily be seen as transitions between others?Beretta, people like me don't believe that we descended from other animals because we have some great desire for it to be that way. On an emotional level, I don't care whether or not the chimps are my close relatives, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if some astonishing new discovery demonstrates that they're not. I'd be intellectually fascinated, of course, to know what the true story is, but that's all.What we are interested in is the truth, and I know how to read evidence. No-one, excepting those with objections based on superstition and desire, can look at the existing evidence without coming to the conclusion that it's at least 99.9% sure that we descend from common ancestry with the chimps, and that could be said from the evidence in the respective genomes alone.This doesn't rule out your father figure of a God, as there's nothing that tells us this universe wasn't created by a god or gods, but it does mean that reality clashes with many ancient creation mythologies, and speaking of brainwashing, we witness many people arriving on EvC to argue against evolutionary theory because they have blind faith in one such mythology, almost invariably the one which prevails in their country or culture.So, enough of the indirectly relevant off-topic stuff. Back to fossils.Why do you think that the intelligent designer designed amphibian-like fish before doing the full blown amphibians? Or mammal-like reptiles before the mammals? Or, for that matter, hominids with skulls half-way in size between the apes and ours?Why is it that, every year, I read papers and articles describing new transitionals? Did the designer design to fool us into thinking that evolution is the story?Maybe these questions are best answered on the new thread that Rick has set up for you.

No I think they've been brainwashed into seeing what they have to see to be a paleontologist -it's very human,you just look hard enough and you too can see what isn't there.
If we assume that Darwinism is basically true then its perfectly reasonable to adjust the theory as necessary to make it conform to the observed facts.
In Darwin's day all the most prominent paleontologists and geologists maintained the immutability of the species as a result of what they saw.Due to the shape of the fossil record, Darwin was also concerned that it failed to show gradualism to any significant extent but he had faith that time would solve that problem as the fossils that bridged those gaps were found. Darwin never lost faith in the theory, the only puzzle was how to account for the plainly misleading aspects of the fossil record.Species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants and the fossil record does not convincingly document one single transition from one species to another. Species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of more than a million years before disappearing from the record.The fossils are unfortunately in every bit as bad a state today despite Darwin's hopes.Perhaps the comfort isn't in a father figure and eternal life -perhaps the comfort is total materialism, no plan, no big boss, nobody to tell you what's right and wrong, no guilt, choose whatever you prefer... The discontinuities between the major groups -phyla,classes, orders - are not only pervasive, but in many cases, immense.If you're a biologist, you point to the plaeontologist as having the best evidence for evolution; if you're a botanist, well you'll just have to point to human evolution as the best evidence available. How many specialists in any field actually choose the field they know the most about as having the best evidence available? - or we could have a common designer accounting for the genetic code present in all creatures.It would be a bit dumb not to design us all based on a pattern otherwise what would we eat? So don't worry for now about any ancient mythologies just concentrate on design alone and the chance of what we see falling into place all on its own due to random change in the genome that came from nowhere in particular and got more and more complex purely by chance and selection of the best copying errors. Science cannot tell you who God is, but it can give an indication whether the design hypothesis should be considered as an alternative to material processes as a potential causation of what exists. Well quite obviously I believe no such thing and nor is the 'evidence' as tidy as you suggest -in fact far from it. Well good question -and every new find is the one that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is true -it's to remind the people that it's not just hot air and wishful thinking. Funny that the people are not convinced.The debate is heating up not slowing down and it's due to the gaps between what is apparently proven and the actual evidence.

Have you considered the possibility that you want to see them to be brainwashed? Or that you've been brainwashed yourself? Isn't lying against your religious beliefs? The only hominid found in Darwin's lifetime, for example, was Neanderthal. Around 99% of the fossils pointed to by experts as transitionals were found after Darwin's death. Don't you consider lying to be wrong? Why are you making this up? I think most biologists would say that the best evidence is in the genes and the anatomy of living creatures. Beretta, we share a distinct pattern of common viral damage with our nearest animal relatives. That has nothing to do with any designer. You're either ignorant, or your lying to yourself. What do you think of the research results just published by Lenski? The scars we share with the great apes were certainly not designed.The design hypothesis held sway for centuries, and is now dying out due to a complete absence of evidence. Would you like to defend Michael Behe on my blood clotting thread? Follow the literature closely, and you can watch the evidence roll in. Never "proof". Just overwhelming evidence.Intelligent and honest people are convinced.

Let's keep things civil, please. Speculating on the reasons why people might hold a purportedly false belief is not the thread's topic, and the vast majority of people do not knowingly make false statements.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director