Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Gaps are Real!

Expand Messages
  • gluadys
    ... Neither. It is an example of natural selection adapting different animals in similar ways for similar lifestyles. Generally referred to as convergent
    Message 1 of 40 , Dec 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      > Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/30343 We
      > know that animal echolocation is common to shrews, most bats, most
      > cetaceans, and two unrelated bird groups.
      >
      > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echolocation_(animal) (last
      > modified on 9 December 2012 at 21:21.) The word "evolution" appears 17
      > times in this article. The old Theory of Evolution (including natural
      > selection) have not been largely substantiated by observation nor
      > experiment. How would you answer these questions?
      >
      > 1 Is animal echolocation an example of common ancestry or is animal
      > echolocation an example of common design?
      >


      Neither. It is an example of natural selection adapting different animals in similar ways for similar lifestyles. Generally referred to as "convergent evolution".


      > Charles P: Natural selection is self evident.

      No, it is not. It would not have taken scientists who generally supported the concept of evolution to agree on natural selection if it were self-evident.


      > Natural selection = not
      > random selection.


      True.


      > Charles P: Common ancestry is self-evident within each animal group.
      >
      >

      No, common ancestry is not self-evident within each animal group. The evidence for common ancestry has to be found through research. And research sometimes has surprising results.




      > Without experimentation and verification, we can logically assume that all
      > shrews with echolocation abilities had a common ancestor.


      No we cannot. Especially since not all shrews have echolocation abilities. It has to be determined what the relationships of the various shrew species are to each other, then find how the capacity for echolocation maps onto this. It could well be that some shrew species acquired echolocation independently of each other, not from their common ancestor.


      >We can also
      > logically assume common ancestry and echolocation abilities among most
      > bats.


      Again, no. We can assume nothing. I believe the evidence indicates that most bats did inherit echolocation from a common ancestor, but that is a conclusion from the evidence, not an a priori logical assumption.


      > We can assume the same among most cetaceans and among the unrelated
      > bird groups with echolocation abilities. Common ancestry is not
      > self-evident between non-related groups.
      >

      Ditto. We make no assumptions about the relation of echolocation to common ancestry.




      > 2 Without empirical and verifiable evidence, why do science writers
      > conclude that the animal echolocation that is common to each of these four
      > unrelated groups is the result of convergent evolution?
      >


      They don't. They do have empirical and verifiable evidence that the groups are not descendants to any common ancestor from whom they could have jointly inherited it. In each case the ability was acquired independently after each lineage separated from each other. That is the definition of convergent evolution.


      > 3 How do narratives about homologies and analogies help science writers to
      > conclude that animal echolocation is the result of common ancestry (or
      > common descent)?
      >

      It helps them distinguish between homologies and analogies and identifies echolocation as an analogy rather than as a homology. (It may be a homology within each group--but even that is not certain until the evolutionary relationships have been worked out.)




      >
      > Charles P: Common design is self-evident withing each animal group.
      >
      >

      You were going to substantiate this claim. You haven't yet.




      >The
      > DNA digital code information ensures the survival, growth, and
      > proliferation of each living thing.
      >

      What has that to do with common design? Most biologists take it as evidence of common descent.




      >
      > 4 Why should animal echolocation not be considered only as an example of
      > common design?
      >


      How does it provide evidence for common design? Why would this be a logically necessary way for common design to be expressed?

      When these questions have substantive replies, common design might be given consideration.



      > 5 Without empirical and verifiable evidence to support the evolution of
      > animal echolocation, why should we not exclude common ancestry of
      > non-related groups from evolution theories?
      >

      Who claims there is no empirical and verifiable evidence? Have the necessary genomic and phylogenetic studies on bats, shrews, cetaceans and birds been done? Have they shown any reason to claim that animal echolocation did not evolve?


      Most of your questions seem to include questionable assumptions for which there is no empirical and verifiable evidence.
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: Actually, the concepts of homology and analogy pre-date the theory of evolution. Once evolution was understood, the biological basis of homology and
      Message 40 of 40 , Jan 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Gluadys: Actually, the concepts of homology and analogy pre-date the
        theory of evolution. Once evolution was understood, the biological basis of
        homology and analogy was better understood. As the page you linked to
        explains, some similarities are due to inheritance from a common ancestor.
        Some have a different cause. Evolution is involved in both (in particular
        natural selection) but in different ways. It is blatant nonsense to call
        this "invented" or outdated. Neither is the case. What is the case is that
        analogies due to convergent evolution tell us nothing useful about common
        descent.

        Charles P: Homologous and analogous mean the same thing. Both words mean
        that body parts are "alike" in different living things.

        1 The body parts of a male human and a female human are "alike" but it is
        self evident that there are some important dissimilarities.

        2 The body parts of animals with the ability of echolocation are "alike"
        but it is self evident that there are some important dissimilarities.

        Homologous: http://thesaurus.com/browse/homologous?s=t homologous
        features are those that were originally the same in
        evolutionary development but have adapted differently (arms of humans,
        forelegs of cats, etc.); analogous features are those that resemble one
        another in function but are traceable back to completely different origins.

        Analogous: http://thesaurus.com/browse/analogous?s=t homologous features
        are those that were originally the same in evolutionary development but
        have adapted differently (arms of humans, forelegs ofcats, etc.); analogous
        features are those that resemble one another in function but are traceable
        back to completely different origins.

        1 The body parts of a male human and a female human are "alike" but it is
        self evident that there are some important dissimilarities. The definition
        of homologous requires a science writer to says that those dissimilarities
        are "homologous" and those dissimilarities are not "analogous". How do we
        know for sure? Because the reasoning is circular. We believe that human
        males and human females have a common ancestor, therefore the body parts
        that are alike are "homologous".

        2 The body parts of animals with the ability of echolocation are "alike"
        but it is self evident that there are some important dissimilarities. The
        definition of homologous requires a science writer to says that those
        dissimilarities are "not homologous" and those dissimilarities are
        "analogous". How do we know for sure? Because the reasoning is circular.
        We believe that the animals of different groups with the ability of
        echolocation do not have a common ancestor, therefore the body parts that
        are alike are "analogous".

        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_01 It works
        the same way in biology.

        1 The science writer believes that body parts of a male human and a female
        human are "alike" and the science writer believes that those features are
        those that were originally the same in evolutionary development but have
        adapted differently. The science writer is required to describe those body
        parts as "homologous".

        2 The science writer believes that body parts of animal echolocation are
        "alike" and the science writer believes that those features are those that
        resemble one another in function but are traceable back to completely
        different origins. The science writer is required to describe those body
        parts as "analogous".

        Charles P: Please verify this for yourselves. There is only belief in
        common ancestry and belief in convergent evolution. The only reliable
        evidence for ancestry is DNA evidence. There is no reliable evidence for
        convergent evolution.

        1 The science writers are required, by definition and because of their
        beliefs, to say that homologous body parts are evidence for common ancestry.

        2 The science writers are required, by definition and because of their
        beliefs, to say that analogous body parts are evidence for convergent
        evolution.

        Charles P: Many science writers do not understand this circular reasoning.
        We went through the same kind of circular reasoning when we discussed
        transition forms as evidence for the old Theory of Evolution. The problems
        of the circular reasoning come from not having empirical and verifiable
        evidence that can be verified by others. Common design is the best
        description for animal echolocation.

        **********************************************

        James A Shapiro: What Is the Best Way to Deal With Supernaturalists in
        Science and Evolution?

        1 Rather than accept that evolution science is always a tentative work in
        progress, conventional evolutionists make absolutist statements like "all
        the facts are on my side." Making obviously inflated and unrealistic
        assertions is hardly likely to convince anyone who has serious questions.

        2 We need to emphasize that science operates strictly within the natural
        world and treats all theories as subject to criticism, revision and
        (ultimately) replacement. Think of Newtonian ideas of space, time and
        gravity as compared to Einsteinian general relativity. There is no reason
        to believe that evolution science is in any way special in this regard.

        3 In summary, pro-evolution debaters will enjoy far more success by active
        engagement with evolution doubters. We need to demonstrate that evolution
        science is alive and well, as well as show how it is making remarkable
        progress through the application of molecular technologies -- even though
        it does not have all the answers.

        4 To the thoughtful scientist whose job is to uncover natural processes,
        this is surely a better way of advocating the scientific method than
        dogmatically asserting that we found all the scientific principles we need
        in centuries past.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.