One Question for Evo-Bashers

By evolutionst's own standard, the New Scientist is NOT a peer reviewed journal. Please refer to peer reviewed journals.
On the other hand one of the molecular biologists, Dr Peakall, working on the Wollemi's DNA said in an interview with J. Woodford -- a renowned Australian science journalist-- that evolutionary theory did not sit comfortably. And: 'its all-purpose genome has allowed it to do as well as it can' (for references see my thread: Molecular genetic proof for a multipurpose genome)Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Shilo,S: What about the notion that every fosssil that is not another of the same thing is, in fact, an intermediate species?
I heard that stated recently by a paleobotanist. It has a certain intriguing ring to it.PB: Intruiging? Just more of the same storytelling to keep the hype alive! The issue is that these socalled missing fossils have never been observed by anybody. All you evo-guys do is infer the missing of these fossils, because evolution is right. Dear guys, you will never know anything about this planet since your initial paradigm is wrong!If I recall properly it was Gould who pointed this out decades ago, and lead to PE hypothesis. Most likely these organism never existed. Why would erosion discriminate? Stick to the facts please and keep it scientific.Best wishes,
Peter"It is a dangerous thing to infer things that never existed"

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
The issue is that these socalled missing fossils have never been observed by anybody. All you evo-guys do is infer the missing of these fossils, because evolution is right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Not everything that dies fossilizes. This is easily demonstrated. Thus the fossil record is going to have gaps. Period.PB: Agree. What puzzles me every time I have a look at the fossil record is why erosion discriminates. It would be good for your believe system that the fossil record provides us the real transitions between phyla and classes. It would be pretty convincing. Unfortunately erosion seems to discriminate between fossils. Maybe you have a rational explanation, I don't. O I see, live evolved more than once from scratch. I am reluctant to believe that, unless it is subject to a natural law. Such law would implicate a creating force.J: Unless you, dear PB, can demonstrate that EVERYTHING FOSSILIZES you have no ground on which to stand. Some fossils simply never formed. It is a straightforward and very simple inference. Now we don't know what those fossils look like, so....PB: Fossils of the gaps? I thought evolutionist are always objecting to arguments of God of the gaps. But here you do the same. However, still I am very suspicious about the observation that erosion and/or fossilisation is discriminatory.J: 2) Every baby is born to a parent or parents. This also is easily demonstrated. It happens all around us every day. Another straightforward conclusion is that this has been going on a very long time. We have eggs that are hundreds of million years old, for example.PB: Inference, my friend. Inference and extrapolation. I hope you know the differnce between inferences, extrapolations and conclusions.J: 3) Put #1 and #2 together and you realize that the fossils we do have are most likely connected via parent/child relationships.PB: In brief, you claim that since all children have parents, and parents also have parents, fossils must be transitions forms and evolution is true. Quite some performance of logic! It is a non-sequitur, a fallacy that has nothing in common with logics. You may as well postulate Godidit.4) Study the morphology of the fossils and you can work out the rough relationships between them.PB: What has morphology to do with evolution? Nothing.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I recall properly it was Gould who pointed this out decades ago, and lead to PE hypothesis. Most likely these organism never existed. Why would erosion discriminate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Misrepresenting Gould now?PB: Gould did the same observation as you and I do with respect to the fossil record and infered PE from it. Yes, John, conclusions from data is highly dependent on the paradigm. You infer non existing fossils to fill in the gaps. Others infer creation. What's the point?J: Erosion doesn't distriminate but shorter time frames as PE postulates, mean fewer fossil remains of the creatures who live during the rapid phases of change.PB: So now the data fit in the hype, isn't it. The upside down world again. Importantly, Gould wasn't a biologist. He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.
It seems like you are a proponent of PE and gradualism? How do you do that?Best wishes,
Peter

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Agree. What puzzles me every time I have a look at the fossil record is why erosion discriminates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Why do you think erosion discriminates?PB: I like to see the transition forms between phyla and between classes. Other transitions are irrelevant, it can be explained differently. Apparently they are not in the fossil record, and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.Maybe paleontologists/geologist could make a law out of it. The law of discrimination of transitional fossilisation (or something like that) quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be good for your believe system that the fossil record provides us the real transitions between phyla and classes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: You mean, "It would be great if we had a better fossil record?" Of course it would be better, but we don't have a better record.PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately erosion seems to discriminate between fossils. Maybe you have a rational explanation, I don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I can't figure out how you can rationally say that erosion discriminates.PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O I see, live evolved more than once from scratch. I am reluctant to believe that, unless it is subject to a natural law. Such law would implicate a creating force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Life may have evolved more than once. I tend to think it did, but that it occurred long before we have any record of it. What you propose here isn't a terribly common idea in evolutionary biology, as far as I can tell. So I don't see the point of attacking it.PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once? If so, it is pointing in the direction of a natural law and that implicates a creative force.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Fossils of the gaps? I thought evolutionist are always objecting to arguments of God of the gaps. But here you do the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: PB, one paragraph above you agreed with me that not everything that dies fossilizes. Why are you contradicting yourself just one breath later?PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, still I am very suspicious about the observation that erosion and/or fossilisation is discriminatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: ummm... I am suspicious about that too. But it is, after all, you who keeps saying that such is a fact.PB: As explained above.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Inference, my friend. Inference and extrapolation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Yeah, no kidding. It's called science.PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however. [quote][b]I hope you know the differnce between inferences, extrapolations and conclusions.J: inference: the act of passing from one proposition, statement or judgement considered true to another whose truth is believed to follow from the formerextrapolation: to infer from values within an observed interval; to project, extend, or expand known data into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of an unknown area.conclusion: a reasoned judgement, an inference; the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises.ummmm..... yeah, I see the differences ?????????????Come on, 'fess up, you were just trying to bluff your way into sounding smart. The words are very nearly synonymous.PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart. However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: In brief, you claim that since all children have parents, and parents also have parents, fossils must be transitions forms and evolution is true. Quite some performance of logic!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: It must suck to get it and then loose it again so quickly.PB: To get what? That firebrigade cars in the USA are red?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a non-sequitur, a fallacy that has nothing in common with logics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Which part do you deny?That children have parents, and parents have parents, and so on and so forth?PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.J: That this has been the case for a long time?PB: Yes, according to science approx 50-150 Kya.J: Or that, given the other two, we are going to find, in the fossil record, things that are related to other things?PB: We haven't found them and it is disputable whether they will be found. I guess they won't.J: See, given that we observe this parent/child connection and we see it in every extant species on the planet, and given that this has been the case for as long as anyone has been paying attention, it follows that everything in the record is connected by a parent/child chain; even if we don't know what that chain is.PB: Sometimes it is not as rational as you would like to have it. Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.J: This is the rational inference from data. It could be wrong, but over a hundred years has not shown it to be so. This is the inference that you must refute.PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.
Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not. It may be able describe the universe, but that's a different story.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may as well postulate Godidit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: That seems to be what you are doing.PB: I do not a priori exclude a possibility. That is bad science.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: What has morphology to do with evolution? Nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Are you joking? You must be joking? Seriously, this is a joke?PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.J: 1) Fossils are identified how? By looking at them and measuring them. IE, the morphology of the bones is examined.PB: So what?J: 2) How something stands, or moves, or flies, is not subject to selective pressure? Come on, PB....PB: It could indeed be subject to selection. Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool. See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Gould did the same observation as you and I do with respect to the fossil record and infered PE from it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is not what you said.PB: Actually I didn't say a lot about Gould.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, John, conclusions from data is highly dependent on the paradigm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: But actually having data brings the whole thing out of the land 'o makebelieve.PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid. Probably your interpretation of the fossil record. Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis. The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You infer non existing fossils to fill in the gaps. Others infer creation. What's the point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Ok. I can't figure out which part it is you object to.1) Not all things that die fossilize. You agreed earlier, and then you didn't.PB: see above.2) Children have parents.3) #1 and #2 are likely to have been the case in the distant past.PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.J: Thus, the fossil record is incomplete. Ie, there are gaps.PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: So now the data fit in the hype, isn't it. The upside down world again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: ummm.... the theory was designed to fit the data. Damned unethical!!!!PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, Gould wasn't a biologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: ???????????????????PB: He's a paleontologist.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Reminds me of you.PB: Where?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems like you are a proponent of PE and gradualism? How do you do that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Yeah, and I drive my car FAST and also SLOW, but not at the same time and not on the same roads. I am very talented.PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 12-21-2002]

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
PB: I like to see the transition forms between phyla and between classes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------American Scientific AffiliationJ: It doesn't take much effort to find this stuff on the web.PB: I checked it out. It only shows a trilobite. Transitionform of what phyla is a trilobite exactly?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and thus erosion discriminates, or the process of fossilisation disciminates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Well, PB, the latter is certainly true but not in the way you seem to think. Different animals have different chances of becoming fossils, depending upon where they live and how they are made. No one will debate this. Erosion even discriminates in a sense, I guess, as little tiny bits are more vulnerable to it than are larger fossils. Still, this isn't what you seem to mean. You have a catch phrase and you sticking to it.PB: Are you going to claim that all transitionforms were softbodied? Nothing left over?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Yes, it would be great that for once evolutionists came forward with mono-interpretable data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: That is a devastating criticism, PB. "The evolutionists can't produce a better fossil record THAN THE ONE WE HAVE." LOL....... Do you listen to yourself?PB: I am here to obliterate evolutionism. Didn't get it yet? Talking about producing fossils. Maybe it is time for another hoax.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Because of the lack of transtions between the phyla. As mentioned above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: And as mentioned above, the lack is in your data.PB: Your data only show a trilobite.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: So, now you are going to tell me that the same biochemistry including the genetic code evolved from scratch more than once?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Nope. I am thinking about very early forms of replicating molecules, not about complex life like bacteria. It is silly to think that one replicating molecule evolved.PB: Silly? How silly? As silly as the guys (alchemists) in the lab trying to make replicators and than try to make me believe the are on their way to making life? It is clear that these guys don't know what life is.J:The same processes that create one would likely create hundreds or thousands. Eventually, some group of these molecules get the upper hand and kill the process of genesis.PB: Talking about creation here? What do you mean by a creating process? Besides, how you sescribe it still is only one time. More importantly, what you describe is selection of the best replicator (=evolution). Now, Mammuthus, Schrafinator, et al, will have to severely object to your proposal.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Yes, John, of about 1000 T. rexes only 1 (likely much less) fossilised. Same holds for the other species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: But you didn't explain why you contradicted yourself?PB: I don't see a contradiction.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: According to me 'science' means 'knowledge', not 'inference' or 'extrapolation'. I could be wrong however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I hate to break it to you, PB, but knowledge is all inference and extrapolation. There is no way around it.PB: This is a phylisophical one. However, if we don't have knowledge but only inference and extrapolation how can we KNOW about evolution? It is your inference isn't it?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Not only sounding smart, I am smart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Perhaps, but you also have some serious tunnel vision.PB: I am a skeptic. I mean a real one. I used to be agnostic and sceptic. Now I am only a skeptic. I don't believe anything I didn't experience myself.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the terms are not equal, and certainly not interchangable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: That is a nice reassertion of the assertion I addressed in the last post. Perchance you would tell us what the difference is?PB: You already gave the subtle differences.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: This can easily be checked at the genomic level. It has been demonstrated that all males have a common ancestor, and all females have a common ancestor. Around 50-150 Kya. There it ends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I followed this debate on the forum. You have no case. This has been adequately explained to you.PB: It is not my vision. It is an accepted vision of science that all man have a common ancestor around 50Kya and mtDNA Eve should also sound familiar. I gave all necessary publications. It is a huge evolutinary problem that can be solved only by infering non-random mutations. I actually pointed out where these non-random mutaions are in the ZFY region. Maybe Dr Page has an evolutionary solution. I am still waiting for his reply, though.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molecular biology demonstrates that the current ideas of paleontology and geology could be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Molecular BIOLOGY demonstrates that GEOLOGY is wrong? LOL
Molecular biology is a good tool for analyzing relationships among organisms. Despite your assertions, this does not destroy paleontology.PB: The first thing that had to be revised in paleontology was the alleged multiregion origin of Homo sapiens after genetic analysis of 'all' human subpopulations. Not knowing that is not having knowledge on the topic you discuss.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't be surprised, since it has become clear that hypothesis/theories are usually 'wrong'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: So YOURS is wrong too then? Come on PB, this is childish.PB: Probably it is not complete. Childish? Why?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: No, you infer it from your data. My data show otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: You don't have data, PB. At least, you have none that you have revealed here.PB: The usual denial. I have revealed at least 10 examples, and discussed them in detail. I also provided the references. Actually, I recently mailed them to you. No response though.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the ratio explain the universe? I guess not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: What???? What ratio explaining what about the universe?PB: Rephrase: Can your ratio explain the universe?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: You know what I mean. I take this as a non-answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: No, I don't. I take this as an admission that you have no argument.PB: I meant that I was still waiting for the first transition form between phyla to occur in the fossil record.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: So what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Hello? We are talking about the fossil record!!!!PB: And how it is related to evolutionism. Your statement didn't do that. It was about measuring bones or something like that. My butcher around the corner sometimes measures bones too. Also phycicians measure bones. They infer size/growth patterns from it, not evolution.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: It could indeed be subject to selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Then you admit that morphology indeed does have something to do with evolution. You contradict yourself again.PB: You did a course selective reading/copying, I presume. If you really had read my mailings you would have recognised the GUToB in my response.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection against to prevent degeneration of the gene pool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Then you must assume a 'perfect' gene pool at the start of a species' existence. Where is your evidence for this 'perfect' gene pool? There isn't any such evidence. You assume a phantasm. What evidence we have is for a whole bunch of screwy gene pools.PB: I assume a multipurpose genome. It is still present in the wollemi pine. And probably in other -not yet studied- organisms too. The stone corals comprise one DNA exchanging species.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the GUToB at least is explanatory in such matters. (see what it holds with respect to selection in my thread mol gen proof for the MPG).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: I followed that thread as well. You are profoundly unconvincing.PB: Maybe you should read my mails unbiased. Free from your a priori 'knowledge'.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: What data are in accord with evolutionism? Not the contemporary biology data, I'm afraid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Sorry, but conventional biologists weigh in against you at about 10,000 to 1.PB: You mean orthodox evolutionary biologists. As mailed to you before, there is something going on in biology land (see my refernces to you in the mail you didn't respond to).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably your interpretation of the fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: See above.PB: Biologist concerned with fossils? Since when are fossils life? I presume you mean paleontologists?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossils are not very informative with respect to biological evolution, since they are extinct and can not be subjected to genetic analysis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Sadly, most cannot be subjected to genetic analysis, but the claim that fossils are not informative is silly.PB: They do not give information with respect to evolution. Although you will 'conclude' it, I guess.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ancient DNA sequences that could be isolated and have been studies defy evolutionary dogma's (As discussed in other threads).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: You really shouldn't reference threads in which your ideas were shown to be wrong.PB: Not 'shown wrong', it was attempted to give it an evolutionary interpretation. Listen, John, I am not stupid. I know what I see and I know where evolutionism cannot hold.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Till approx 50-150 Kya for humans. Other organisms unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Your interpretation of the data is wrong.PB: Get familiar with the topic. It is accepted science.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Where exactly do we observe the gaps? All major transition forms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Nope. Not really. For one, an incomplete fossil record will give this illusion. Secondly, rapid change -- over millions of years instead of hundreds of million-- will further skew this illusion.PB: You still don't get the point. I am the first to admit that the record is incomplete. What puzzles me is the absence of ALL major transition forms. So, rapid change will do the trick? How rapid is rapid? 10, 100, 1000, 10000 generation? Less? More?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: A theory also has to predict. With respect to biological observations evolutionism is usually wrong. (For instance in the case of genetic redundancies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: With respect, only in your head. If this were the case, the ToE would be discarded.PB: Plenty of scientist already did that. As an irrelevant non-explaining hypothesis. I am one of them.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: He's a paleontologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And a Prof. of Zoology. Not to mention that there is a considerable amount of biology in paleontology. I call you on your unethical attempt to discredit an opponent.PB: These guys have been educated without mol biol in these disciplines. As demonstrated before in my thread about Dawkins, who is also a zoologist. He didn't even know --provable-- the most elementary stuff about DNA.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Where?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: This part:He never gave me the impression that he was aware of the underlying molecular biology of the hypothesis of evolution.PB: And that's true. However, I like you to refer to a quote of mine that you makes me remind of him.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Everything is possible, I see. Tell me, you fill the tank every now and than? And you decide to drive slow or fast, or the road?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------J: Again, you miss the point. PE and gradual evolution are not diametrically opposed. You can't drive fast and slow at the same time in the same car on the same road. But you can drive either fast or slow, and you can change speed.PB: What determines fast or slow? What is the driver in evolutionism?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 12-22-2002]