Natural
selection is
the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become
either more or less common in a population. Individuals
with certain variants of the trait survive and reproduce more than
individuals with other variants.
Not
all river dolphins are blind; in fact, Amazon dolphins (Inia
geoffrensis)
have quite good eyesight. However, most others have reduced vision.
Most of their habitats are murky waters, where eyes are of little
use. Good sonar is perfectly adequate. Why, then, do Ganges and Indus
dolphins (Platanista
gangetica and
P
minor)
have eyes at all? For their eyes lack a lens, leaving these species
unable to resolve images: the most they can do is perceive the
presence or absence of light (of which there's rather little where
they live anyway)... for which skull apertures, eyeballs, muscles,
retinas and the rest, the same design as normally-sighted dolphins
have, seems a bit excessive.
©
Oolon Colluphid
2003, 2009
Why
would evolution produce such a thing
Why
would those who have such a poor design not die off and
Why
wouldn't those with a better design be selected instead?
Isn't
that the whole point of natural selection?
And
while you're at it, you may also wish to ask yourself, "Why are
fraudulent and misleading "evidences" for evolution present
in our children's textbooks?"
For
example, “Why are the Miller / Urey experiments purporting to
produce amino acids from the components of early earth’s atmosphere
still in school science books and why are well known scientists still
referring to these failed experiments as proof for naturalistic
evolution? You know, that inanimate and inorganic chemicals and gases
evolve?"
Why
Along with the Miller / Urey fiasco, do we still find in our
children's textbooks:
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Darwin's finches are used as evidence for evolution. Even though we know that the beaks of these finches change naturally (adaptations) with the amount of rainfall. Yet this is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;.
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Darwin's finches are used as evidence for evolution. Even though we know that the beaks of these finches change naturally (adaptations) with the amount of rainfall. Yet this is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;.
.
Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since
1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our
children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.
. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.
. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.
. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.
If
there is so much new evidence for macro evolution why is fraudulent
evidence, lies really, still being used?
There is only one reason that atheist driven science is still leaning on fraud and deception to build up evolution, and that is because there is nothing more substantial to use. When confronted with the LACK of evidence, these “scientists” say, “Well, we know the theory is true even if the evidence doesn’t support it. In only one hundred years you can’t expect us to throw out what’s false and include all this great new compelling evidence.”
Right,
let’s give students our worst evidence, false evidence, deception
and outright lies. We have much better evidence but we’re not going
to let anyone know what it is.
“Students
and the public are being systematically misinformed about the
evidence for evolution" through biology textbooks (Wells 2000:
xii).
Hugo, let me save you the trouble.
ReplyDeleteIt's lies - lies I tell you. Rod is lying to you. This post is all lies. The only reason that we atheists don't give you better evidence of macro evolution - well, any evidence actually - is because it's important to have faith. We simply must believe even in the absence of evidence.
Same with when we atheists tell you that there are infinite universes and that matter has always existed. It doesn't matter that there isn't a shred of evidence. Blind faith in atheism is what's important.
Don't listen to this post. It's ALL lies!.
Good job!
ReplyDeleteActually, you lie even more in the comments unfortunately, and expose your ignorance of evolution. There is no difference between micro and macro; it's the same thing but on a longer scale.
There is no faith involved in biology...
Now regarding infinite universes, there is nothing different with saying that the Big Bang was an infinitely dense point, or that there are an infinite number of universes. It's the same. It's conceptual representation of a reality we cannot observe.
There is no faith involved in cosmology either...
On Icons of evolution, by Wells:
ReplyDeleteIn 2003, NCSE's Alan Gishlick prepared the comprehensive response below to Jonathan Wells's creationist book Icons of Evolution, (hereafter, Icons). Icons is an example of the ID creationist strategy of focusing entirely on denigrating evolution without advancing a positive argument for creationism or any other ideas. The arguments made in Icons are reworkings of well-worn creationist attacks on evolution. The book remains popular among ID creationists, and is also available in video and DVD formats. This critique from NCSE offers parents, teachers, and activists a valuable tool to use in responding to the book itself, and to arguments from the book which show up in other contexts. For example, arguments and illustrations from Icons have reappeared in Explore Evolution, an ID creationist "supplementary textbook" published in 2007.
According to Wells, the "icons" are the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin's tree of life, the homology of the vertebrate limbs, Haeckel's embryos, Archaeopteryx, the peppered moths, and "Darwin's" finches. (Although he discusses three other "icons" — four-winged fruit flies, horse evolution, and human evolution — he does not evaluate textbooks' treatments of them.) Wells is right about at least one thing: these seven examples do appear in nearly all biology textbooks. Yet no textbook presents the "icons" as a list of our "best evidence" for evolution, as Wells implies. The "icons" that Wells singles out are discussed in different parts of the textbooks for different pedagogical reasons. The Miller-Urey experiment isn't considered "evidence for evolution;" it is considered part of our experimental research about the origin of life and is discussed in chapters and sections on the "history of life." Likewise, Darwin's finches are used as examples of an evolutionary process (natural selection), not as evidence for evolution. Archaeopteryx is frequently presented in discussions of the origin of birds, not as evidence for evolution itself. Finally, textbooks do not present a single "tree of life"; rather, they present numerous topic-specific phylogenetic trees to show how relevant organisms are related. Wells's entire discussion assumes that the evidence for evolution is a list of facts stored somewhere, rather than the predictive value of the theory in explaining the patterns of the past and present biological world.
ReplyDeleteIcons of Evolution offers little in the way of suggestions for improvement of, or changes in, the standard biology curriculum. When Wells says that textbooks are in need of correction, he apparently means the removal of the subject of evolution entirely or the teaching of "evidence against" evolution, rather than the fixing of some minor errors in the presentation of the putative "icons." This makes Icons of Evolution useful at most for those with a certain political and religious agenda, but of little value to educators.
ReplyDeleteIcon 1 — The Miller-Urey Experiment
ReplyDeleteWells says that the Miller-Urey experiment should not be taught because the experiment used an atmospheric composition that is now known to be incorrect. Wells contends that textbooks don't discuss how the early atmosphere was probably different from the atmosphere hypothesized in the original experiment. Wells then claims that the actual atmosphere of the early earth makes the Miller-Urey type of chemical synthesis impossible, and asserts that the experiment does not work when an updated atmosphere is used. Therefore, textbooks should either discuss the experiment as an historically interesting yet flawed exercise or not discuss it at all. Wells concludes by saying that textbooks should replace their discussions of the Miller-Urey experiment with an "extensive discussion" of all the problems facing research into the origin of life.
These allegations might seem serious; however, Wells's knowledge of prebiotic chemistry is seriously flawed. First, Wells's claim that researchers are ignoring the new atmospheric data, and that experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment fail when the atmospheric composition reflects current theories, is simply false. The current literature shows that scientists working on the origin and early evolution of life are well aware of the current theories of the earth's early atmosphere and have found that the revisions have little effect on the results of various experiments in biochemical synthesis. Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth's early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.
...
The Miller-Urey experiment only showed one possible route by which the basic components necessary for the origin of life could have been created, not how life came to be. Other theories have been proposed to bridge the gap between the organic "building blocks" and life.
...
What the textbooks say
All of the textbooks reviewed contain a section on the Miller-Urey experiment. This is not surprising given the experiment's historic role in the understanding of the origin of life. The experiment is usually discussed over a couple of paragraphs (see Figure 2), a small proportion (roughly 20%) of the total discussion of the origin and early evolution of life. Commonly, the first paragraph discusses the Oparin-Haldane scenario, and then a second outlines the Miller-Urey test of that scenario. All textbooks contain either a drawing or a picture of the experimental apparatus and state that it was used to demonstrate that some complex organic molecules (e.g., simple sugars and amino acids, frequently called "building blocks") could have formed spontaneously in the atmosphere of the early earth. Textbooks vary in their descriptions of the atmospheric composition of the early earth. Five books present the strongly reducing atmosphere of the Miller-Urey experiment, whereas the other five mention that the current geochemical evidence points to a slightly reducing atmosphere. All textbooks state that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life arose. Four textbooks mention that the experiment has been repeated successfully under updated conditions. Three textbooks also mention the possibility of organic molecules arriving from space or forming at deep-sea hydrothermal vents (Figure 2). No textbook claims that these experiments conclusively show how life originated; and all textbooks state that the results of these experiments are tentative.
Icon 2 — Darwin's Tree of Life
ReplyDeleteWells uses phylogenetic trees to attack the very core of evolution -- common descent. Wells claims that textbooks mislead students about common descent in three ways. First, Wells claims that textbooks do not cover the "Cambrian Explosion" and fail to point out how this "top-down" evolution poses a serious challenge to common descent and evolution. Second, he asserts that the occasional disparity between morphological and molecular phylogenies disproves common descent. Finally, he demands that textbooks treat universal common ancestry as unproven and refrain from illustrating that "theory" with misleading phylogenies. Therefore, according to Wells, textbooks should state that there is no evidence for common descent and that the most recent research refutes the concept entirely. Wells is completely wrong on all counts, and his argument is entirely based on misdirection and confusion. He mixes up these various topics in order to confuse the reader into thinking that when combined, they show an endemic failure of evolutionary theory.
...
Wells mistakenly presents the Cambrian Explosion as if it were a single event. The Cambrian Explosion is, rather, the preservation of a series of faunas that occur over a 15-20 million year period starting around 535 million years ago (MA). A fauna is a group of organisms that live together and interact as an ecosystem; in paleontology, "fauna" refers to a group of organisms that are fossilized together because they lived together. The first fauna that shows extensive body plan diversity is the Sirius Passet fauna of Greenland, which is dated at around 535 MA. The organisms preserved become more diverse by around 530 MA ... Wells erroneously claims that the Chenjiang fauna predates the Sirius Passet. The diversification continues through the Burgess shale fauna of Canada at around 520 MA, when the Cambrian faunas are at their peak. Wells makes an even more important paleontological error when he does not explain that the "explosion" of the middle Cambrian is preceded by the less diverse "small shelly" metazoan faunas, which appear at the beginning of the Cambrian (545 MA). These faunas are dated to the early Cambrian, not the Precambrian as stated by Wells This enables Wells to omit the steady rise in fossil diversity between the beginning of the Cambrian and the Cambrian Explosion.
... Wells also grossly mischaracterizes the Precambrian fossil record. In order to argue that there was not enough time for the necessary evolution to occur, Wells implies that there are no fossils in the Precambrian record that suggest the coming diversity or provide evidence of more primitive multicellular animals than those seen in the Cambrian Explosion. He does this not by producing original research, but by selectively quoting paleontological literature on the fossil record and claiming that this proves that the fossil record is complete enough to show that there were no precursors for the Cambrian Explosion animals. This claim is false. His evidence for this "well documented" Precambrian fossil record is a selective quote from the final sentence in an article by Benton. While the paper's final sentence does literally say that the "early" parts of the fossil record are adequate for studying the patterns of life, Wells leaves out a critical detail: the sentence refers not to the Precambrian, but to the Cambrian and later times. Even more ironic is the fact that the conclusion of the paper directly refutes Wells's claim that the fossil record does not support the "tree of life." Benton assessed the completeness of the fossil record using both molecular and morphological analyses of phylogeny. They showed that thesequence of appearance of major taxa in the fossil record is consistent with the pattern of phylogenetic relationships of the same taxa. Thus they concluded that the fossil record is consistent with the tree of life, entirely opposite to how Wells uses their paper
Icon 4 — Haeckel's Embryos
ReplyDeleteErnst Haeckel (1834-1919) is both a hero and a villain in the biological community. He was a prominent figure in the late nineteenth-century comparative anatomy community and is famous for his phylogenetic trees, anatomical illustrations, support for evolution, and strong personality. He is perhaps as well known, and considerably misunderstood, for his studies in embryology and his dictum that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," called the Biogenetic Law. Haeckel espoused the view that evolution generally proceeds by placing each innovation on top of a previous one, like adding layers on a cake. Therefore, the embryo of an "advanced" organism should pass through ("recapitulate") the adult stages of more "primitive" forms as it develops. However, repeated observations of development by other workers (e.g., Wilhelm His, Walter Garstang, Wilhelm Roux, Adam Sedgwick, Gavin de Beer, and others; see Gilbert ed. 1991, or Gould 1977 for a detailed history) clearly showed that embryos do not go through adult stages of lower forms; rather, they share many common features in development. No biologist has accepted the biogenetic law for many decades. Much of Haeckel's developmental work is now considered invalid, and some historians of science have provided reasonable evidence to suggest that he fudged his drawings to fit his preconceived views about development and evolution. Haeckel's views about the progressive nature of evolution is no longer accepted.
...
Wells's entire chapter on embryology amounts to little more than a misreading of Darwin, Haeckel, and others, combined with a general failure to acknowledge recent work on Haeckel and his embryos by Gould, Richardson, and others. In it, he conflates ideas in history of developmental biology with ideas of contemporary developmental biology. He also fails to recognize close to 60 years of work in developmental biology and thus completely omits any discussion of the real developmental evidence for evolution. It almost seems that Wells's goal is to discredit the entire field of comparative embryology by proxy, employing a bait-and-switch between Haeckel and Darwin. Wells's ploy is reminiscent of a child's false logic proof. It goes like this: Darwin relied on Haeckel, Haeckel was a fraud, therefore Darwin is a fraud.
Icon 5 — Archaeopteryx
ReplyDeleteContrary to Wells's subtitle, Archaeopteryx is not a "missing link." The term "missing link" is an outdated term that does not accurately reflect the way biologists and paleontologists think about fossils. We prefer not to talk about "missing links" or "intermediate forms," but rather intermediate features.Archaeopteryx has features intermediate between those of living birds and ancient reptiles; along with many other fossils, it preserves ancestral features while it shows descendant novelties. Archaeopteryx retains the ancestral "reptilian" features of a long bony tail, clawed hands, teeth, and many others. It also has the derived "avian" features of feathers and powered flight. Archaeopteryx, along with other dinosaur fossils, shows the evolution of avian features and flight. These fossils show that many features thought of as unique to a certain group of animals were also shared by some of their ancestors; this helps paleontologists to reconstruct the evolutionary history of living animals. When many fossils are looked at in their genealogical context, they blur the lines between the normally recognized taxonomic groups (most of which were based originally only on living forms). Archaeopteryx is frequently used for pedagogical purposes because it is easy to recognize its mixture of "bird" and "reptile" features and because it played an historical role in helping to cement Darwin's theory (it was discovered 2 years after publication of the Origin). Textbook authors like Archaeopteryx for these reasons and often illustrate their discussions with pictures of the Berlin specimen, one of the most beautiful fossils ever discovered, and remarkably complete. Textbooks also use Archaeopteryx as an example of how fossils are important for showing transitional features of evolution, and how the fossil record is good evidence that evolution has occurred.
Wells objects to textbook treatments of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form or as an "ancestor" of birds. Wells wants textbooks to say that Archaeopteryx was not an "ancestor" because modern birds are not descended from it and that its transitional status is "controversial." Wells claims that Archaeopteryx has been "quietly shelved" by paleontologists and that the search for a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds goes hopelessly on "as though Archaeopteryx had never been found" (Wells 2000:138). Paleontologists would find this surprising. By making such claims, Wells exposes the depths of his ignorance of phylogenetic methodology, paleontology, and avian evolution.
Icon 7 — Darwin's Finches
ReplyDelete"Darwin's finches," along with Hawaiian honeycreepers and African cichlids, are frequently used as examples of adaptive radiation. In an adaptive radiation, a "founder" species enters a new environment with many unoccupied niches. This species expands (radiates) and evolves adaptations to fit these niches better. The process of becoming adapted to these different niches may lead to, and in these cases has led to, the formation of new species. All the species of finches on the Galápagos Islands appear morphologically very similar, varying mostly in terms of beak size and behavior; they all look very much like a species of finch from the mainland of South America. This suggests that all the finches on the Galápagos are descended from one original colonist species that went through an adaptive radiation. Because of the small, isolated environment of the Galápagos, the finches have become the topic of extensive study into natural selection. The studies that have been conducted on the finches show strong selection for larger beaks during droughts. These data show that climatic changes can have profound effects on the morphology of a species and potentially lead to the formation of new species. When Darwin visited the Galápagos, he observed and collected some of the finch species, believing that they represented a very diverse set of birds that were not closely related. Their significance was not recognized until later, when ornithologist John Gould pointed out that the birds were all closely related finches (Desmond and Moore 1991). But because Darwin originally collected some of the specimens and because the finches showed so much evidence for evolution and natural selection, they have been dubbed "Darwin's finches." This has led many people to conclude (mistakenly) that Darwin's theory of evolution was specificallyinspired by the finches.
Wells apparently feels the need to attack the finches largely because they are an "icon" in need of destruction; the chapter on the finches is perhaps the most poorly conceived section in the book. Wells initially focuses on the "biological urban legend" that the finches inspired Darwin to compose his theory of evolution. Of course this has nothing to do with whether or not the finches are a good example of an adaptive radiation. Therefore, his "requirement" that textbooks specifically mention that the finches "played no role" in Darwin's formulation of natural selection is irrelevant, only serving Wells's efforts to portray evolutionary biologists as people who just "make things up." This is like saying that because Betsy Ross did not really sew the U.S. flag, the flag does not actually exist. Wells even goes so far as to brand the finches a "legend" — what is he trying to imply? Finally, Wells's assertion that Darwin was not inspired by the finches is not exactly correct. Although Darwin did not realize the significance of the finches until after Gould pointed it out to him in 1837, he then noted that the different species of finches were island-specific like the other Galápagos animals and suggested that they too were descendants of a mainland ancestor. Darwin made extensive notes about the finches in his diaries (Desmond and Moore 1991). The finches, then, did play a role in the formulation of Darwin's theory and they became an important part of his evidence for the role of natural selection in evolution; they were not a "speculative afterthought" as Wells claims.
After branding the finches a "legend," Wells switches gears and discusses the finches themselves, acknowledging the strength of the evidence for an adaptive radiation, given the similarities of the different species. Wells almost seems to accept that the finches are descended from a common ancestor; at least, he does not argue explicitly against it.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution-conclusion
ReplyDeleteYet no textbook presents the "icons" as a list of our "best evidence" for evolution, as Wells implies.”
ReplyDeleteRight, because we wouldn't want to give our children the best evidence. So let's feed them crap and tell them there's better stuff out there. We just won't allow you to see it.
=====
The Miller-Urey experiment isn't considered "evidence for evolution;" it is considered part of our experimental research about the origin of life and is discussed in chapters and sections on the "history of life."
Ah yes, the accepted (among atheists) evolution of inanimate and inorganic gases.
=====
“Darwin's finches are used as examples of an evolutionary process (natural selection), not as evidence for evolution.”
What's the difference?
=====
“Archaeopteryx is frequently presented in discussions of the origin of birds, not as evidence for evolution itself.”
If going from a reptile to a bird isn't evidence of macro evolution, what is it?
=====
“rather than the fixing of some minor errors in the presentation of the putative "icons."”
Minor errors? Seriously Hugo?
=====
"Other theories have been proposed to bridge the gap between the organic "building blocks" and life.”
And do you know why that is, Hugo? For the same reason we're now running into “dozens” when enumerating Atheist Origin Of The Universe Mythologies. Because previous ones are unworkable. Life does not and has never spontaneously arisen from non-life.
=====
“the experiment has been repeated successfully under updated conditions.”
Do you know what that means, Hugo. It means under conditions requiring Intelligent Design.
=====
“Three textbooks also mention the possibility of organic molecules arriving from space”
Yes, I know – from space aliens, because that kind of life would needn't an origin from a previous cause.
=====
“and all textbooks state that the results of these experiments are tentative.”
And that is a drastic revision from what Oparin/Miller/ Urey tried to pass off.
=====
“Much of Haeckel's developmental work is now considered invalid, and some historians of science have provided reasonable evidence to suggest that he fudged his drawings to fit his preconceived views about development and evolution. Haeckel's views about the progressive nature of evolution is no longer accepted.”
And our children are told this?
=====
“It goes like this: Darwin relied on Haeckel, Haeckel was a fraud, therefore Darwin is a fraud.”
It goes like this, Hoyle made mistakes therefore I can reject what Jesus said about my eternal destiny.
=====
“finches, finches, finches”
And are they still finches?
Why do you insist on exposing your misunderstanding of biology? Your snark and sarcasm show clearly that you dont get it. You write the same lies again and again. You reject facts. You mock scientists who work in biology.
ReplyDeletePlus, I thought we agreed on 1 thing a few days ago: acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is not directly related to religion. Why do you bring up Atheism?