What kind of evidence is acceptable?
- David Williams: You like to quote the above a lot. I put the stuff earlier
about endosymbiosis because it is an example of cell mergers. You may also
have read in Dr. Shapiro's book about horizontal gene transfer. One example
of this is the transfer of antibiotic resistance between unrelated
bacteria. Another example is the transfer of genes from mitochondria to the
cell nucleus. Mitochondria cannot make all of its proteins anymore even
though it has a nucleus. It can make some, but the cell makes the rest.
One can read about sentient bacteria that can band together in a biofilm
and show intelligent cooperation and then one can watch it try to kill. It
was scary. Dr. Shapiro calls his hypothesis, natural genetic engineering.
I think it might also be referred to as evolution through intelligent
design, with the intelligent agents being the cells themselves. Some
people seem to me to think of an intelligent agent as some kind of project
engineer who designs life forms in some kind of office in another
dimension. There is no way a present to scientifically detect such
activity. But the work of cellular intelligent agents can be scientifically
David Williams: I found out about the intelligent behavior or red ants in
Oklahoma one 4th of July. I put a fire cracker in an ant hill and lit it.
Immediately, a platoon of red ants marched up the fire cracker and put out
the fuse with their abdomens. While I was watching this with fascination, 2
other platoons marched up my legs and bit me. I never tried to blow up ant
David Williams: Intelligent behavior does not necessarily have to be
directed by a marionette. An animal does not need a brain to see.
Charles P: Thank you, David. I am glad that you have read Dr. Shapiro's
book. Now I don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I keep repeating the quotes
in hopes that someone else would read the book and share their
interpretations of the evidence.
Charles P: I have been trying to draw attention to animal echolocation
under the subject of The Gaps Are Real, but that subject has changed its
content to discussion of Bible scripture.
Charles P: Common ancestry within a group is self-evident. Common
ancestry between non-related groups is not self-evident. Animal
echolocation is an example of common design between non-related groups.
Without empirical and verifiable evidence to support the evolution
of animal echolocation in non-related groups, why should science writers
not exclude common ancestry of non-related groups from evolution theories?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- D R Lindberg (To Jim in Missouri): You agreed that intermediate fossils
can be identified independently of of theory. That eliminates any
Charles P: The old idea of *transitional fossils* from the old Theory of
Evolution is not acceptable as empirical and verifiable evidence. Naming
them *intermediate* or some other name is a distinction without a
difference. Arguing *circularity* draws attention away from the central
issue. Look at this unscientific collection of intermediate fossils that
does not even meet the standards of Wikipedia. This page was last modified
on 14 January 2013 at 03:13.
List of transitional fossils:
1 This article needs additional citations for verification.
2 This documentation needs attention from an expert in Palaeontology.
Introduction to cladistics:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html There are three basic
assumptions in cladistics: (1) Any group of
organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. Please read (2)
and (3) for additional information.
Charles P: Everyone understands human genealogy and the concept of *common
ancestor* for humans. Everyone understands dog genealogy and the concept
of *common ancestor* for dogs. Why should anyone consider the concept of a
*common ancestor* between living things that are self-evident as being very
1 Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or
genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they
have important limitations.
2 When extinct species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as
it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.
3 Scepticism must apply when extinct species are included in trees that
are wholly or partly based on DNA sequence data, due to the fact that
little useful "ancient DNA" is preserved for longer than 100,000 years, and
except in the most unusual circumstances no DNA sequences long enough for
use in phylogenetic analyses have yet been recovered from material over 1
million years old.
Understanding homology and analogy:
There is no empirical and verifiable method for determining *common
ancestry* between non-related living things.
Charles P: Common ancestry is assumed in the science of cladistics.
Transitional fossils are assumed to be intermediate between other fossils.
Transitional fossils are extinct species. Transitional fossils are
terminal nodes. Transitional fossils are unlikely to be direct ancestors
of any extant species.
Charles P: The skeptic does not have to qualify as a *creationist*. The
skeptic does not have to qualify as an *Intelligent Design Theorist*. The
skeptic does not have to qualify as *anti-science*. All a skeptic needs is
to do their homework to verify for themselves what is scientific and what
is not scientific.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]