Denial of Evolution VI.

[garbonzo]

The beat goes on...

Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax Persists
June 15, 2012 By James F. McGrath 28 Comments

Wing Nut Daily recently featured a brand new article about a very old hoax, centered on the claim that chariot wheels have been found in the Red Sea.

That anyone could see the photos of relatively new and shiny metal wheels and not be skeptical astonishes me. That anyone could simply take the word of a sensationalist news source that these objects are solid gold (and hence not covered by coral) and that no one has found and removed them suggests that some people have yet to learn the difference between faith and gullibility.

One looks like it might be a ferry steering wheel, which makes me think this has less to say about the historical accuracy of the Exodus account, and more to say about whether it is a good idea to take a ferry trip on the Red Sea.

The hoax is at least as old as the charlatan Ron Wyatt. There are a wide array of sites, some explicitly by Christians, focused on exposing the lies and deceptions perpetrated by this individual.

That others have come along to try to profit from similar claims is unsurprising. That frauds can be exposed and have no effect on people’s willingness to believe is, however, disturbing.​

That's your "evidence of Christianity"?

Why would atheist archaeologists make fake evidence of the Bible? Also, yeah, I know Ron Wyatt is a phony.

 

[Rav]

I completely agree. Look at what he has us doing; we are arguing the details of what people meant or what they exactly said on a conference that is not even relevent anymore!

I think it's at least somewhat relevant in the sense even back in the 1980's, evolutionary theory was still robust enough to stand proudly. Although we can certainly say that the body of knowledge we have today dwarfs what existed back then, I think it's an insult to some of those great contributors to make any significant concessions. In other words, I think it's perfectly possible to demolish typical creationist bullshit using only 1980's knowledge. In fact as Aqueous Id has been pointing out, you can do it with pure 1850's Darwin.

Oh, and just for completeness, the one letter I didn't cut and paste into this thread yet:

Lewin portrays the Darwinian and "Modern Synthetic" view of evolution as one in which evolution "moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages. . . ." This is a serious, but unfortunately commonplace, distortion of Darwin and the Modern Synthesis.

Darwin claimed that adaptive changes induced by natural selection are gradual, but he clearly pointed out that this does not preclude sudden transitions appearing in the fossil record due both to the effect of time scale (for example, the classic example of gradual adaptive change- industrial melanism -would appear as a sudden transition if we observed the population only at intervals of 200 years, corresponding to an extraordinarily complete "fossil" record) and due to the fact that new adaptations initially evolve in a local population and then spread rapidly throughout the rest of the species so that "they appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species" ( 1 , p. 357).

Consequently, Darwin's meaning of the term "gradualism" was certainly compatible with the sudden appearance of forms in the fossil record-even for a very complete fossil record. Hence, the issue is not adaptive gradualism, but rather whether adaptive gradualism occurs continuously and slowly over long periods of geological time as the quote of Lewin given above implies. Darwin clearly pointed out that natural selection more often than not is a force preventing evolution and that only under relatively rare circumstances would it lead to episodes of adaptive change. He certainly did not embrace the view that adaptive changes are continuous over long periods of geological time. To illustrate this, juxtapose the following quotes from Darwin ( I , pp. 357, 373) with the quote from Lewin given above:

Many species when once formed never under go any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form. . .

A number of species, however, keeping in a body might remain for a long period unchanged, whilst within the same period several of these species by migrating into new countries and coming into competition with foreign associates, might become modified; so that we must not overrate the accuracy of organic change as a measure of time.

Similarly, the Modern Synthesis is often treated as if it were a single, unified view of evolution, yet as is evident to anyone who has read and contrasted the works of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright (three of the principal contributors to the Modern Synthesis from the population genetics viewpoint), there never was a single evolutionary theory. Moreover, Fisher (2) discussed why many speciation events and morphological transitions follow a pattern of stasis punctuated with "sudden spurts of change"; Haldane (3) explicitly stated that the gradual, continuous changes in population genetics would occur "on a geological time scale, almost explosively"; and Wright (4), in his shifting balance theory of the 1920's and 1930's, explicitly stated that natural selection was an insufficient explanation for adaptive evolution and predicted that adaptive evolution would be characterized by periods of stasis interspersed with episodes of rapid adaptive transition. He also explicitly discussed the macroevolutionary implications of his theories, which are quite incompatible with the stereotyped "Modern Synthesis" presented by Lewin and others.

In summary, the macroevolution meeting at Chicago was not so much an historic challenge to evolutionary theory as it was a challenge to the history of evolutionary theory.

ALAN R. TEMPLETON
L. VAL GIDDINGS
Department of Biology, Washington
University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130

References
1. C. Darwin, The Origin of the Species (Modern Library-Random House, N e w York, 1936).
2. R. A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Dover, N e w York, 1958). p. 153.
3. J. 9. S. Haldane, Am. Nut. 71, 337 (1937).
4. S. Wright, Proc. Am. Philos .Soc. 93, 471 (1949).

 

[quinnsong]

This thread has been like a short summer course in evolution and I want to thank all of those who wrote so knowledgeably on this subject. My ancestors also appreciate the shout out.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

My ancestors also appreciate the shout out.

Homo ergaster and Ardipithecus?

 

[Aqueous Id]

show the post where i said molecular evolution is the basis for throwing out the text books or retract this statement.

...

post #462
if evolution is environment based then it's IMPOSSIBLE to predict the outcome.
if it's solely molecular based with no influence from the environment then it could possibly be predicted.
:
but what if molecular evolution just happened to produce such an organism?
you know, the entire theory could be wrong, not in the sense of unnatural but more along the lines of chemical limits.

post #407
molecular evolution DOES NOT fill these gaps, it explains them.
these gaps are where the transitional fossils are supposed to be.

post #265
in my opinion evolution could be driven by molecular structure, not the environment.

post #278
the species deviates around the "norm" until a certan molecular strucure is reached.
when this happens a "domino" effect takes places that transforms the species into something else.
a molecular structure driven evolution model will explain ALL of evolutions anomalies, in my opinion.

#161
our current understanding is wrong. period.
current in this context is what is being taught to our students.

 

[Aqueous Id]

. . that a conspiracy is afoot and our children are being lied to.

by leading our children to believe we have the transitional fossils that explain evolution.

I think the opposite is true. Books today must go out of their way to rebut creationism, since it has mislead so many children about the scientific truths that underpin evolution. Here is an sample illustration from a text currently in use:

 

[Aqueous Id]

where have i said science is a lie?

they simply do not want to admit that WE HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN LIED TO, and any scientist with integrity should be thoroughly pissed off about it.

...

yet again, where have i said the theory is broken or not true?
where aqueous?

#161
our current understanding is wrong. period.
current in this context is what is being taught to our students.

 

[leopold]

...

frankly i don't see how this denies evolution.
does anybody else see how it does?

 

[Aqueous Id]

The application of micro to macro evolution is not a discussion that turns on evidence, but on a particular kind of absence of evidence: . . .

well, i wonder what evidence was missing?
the transitional fossils perhaps?

Since we are talking about lying to school kids, I thought the classroom explanation to this would be appropriate. This goes with the illustration above.

Argument: There are no transitional forms.
Rebuttal: Continuous transitions can be seen only in the most favorable cases (e.g.,
Fig. 3.13). However, there are many striking examples of intermediate forms, which
carry ancestral combinations of characters that had been predicted to exist from reconstructed
phylogenies. Among the most striking examples are feathered dinosaurs,
discovered in China in 1996 (Fig. 3.17), and the series of intermediates between whales
and hippos that show how mammals adapted to life in the sea (Fig. 3.18). Fossils show
clearly that different characters evolve independently, rather than appearing together
all at once or accumulating as a linear, progressive sequence. For example, we will see
in Chapter 25 that hominid fossils show this pattern of mosaic evolution—increased
brain size, sexual dimorphism, changes in dentition, and adaptations for walking upright
all change more or less independently.

http://www.cshlpress.com/pdf/EvoPubKit.pdf​

 

[Trippy]

Look at what he has us doing; we are arguing the details of what people meant or what they exactly said on a conference that is not even relevent anymore!

At least we're all in agreement with this.

 

[Trippy]

The discussion here, as you are driving it, involves perhaps a dozen claims against the Theory of Evolution. Nowhere in this discussion has there been a citation about the content of that theory, other than the posts I made 4 or 5 times now giving the summary of Darwin's Origin of Species found in the typical classroom textbook. Without stating what that content is, and where it is disputed by the conference, the argument remains unplugged from science. There is no logical connection for any reader here to arrive at your conclusion that the theory is broken, that science is broken, that a conspiracy is afoot and our children are being lied to. So far we are just not really talking about science. This has broken down into a discussion of opinion about what Lewin said about what the conferees said, while dismissing the caveats I am referring to, and without ever answering the mail about the existence of Darwin's finches and the ethical responsibility of educators to keep Darwin's discovery of them in constant focus in the science classrooms. It's a discussion about speciation, whether or not gradualism or punctuated gradualism, or any other synthesis bears fruit; as I mentioned before, with or without the fossil record, evolution of the finches by adaptive radiation, through genetic isolation and natural selection, into 13 or 14 individual species, is correctly explained by the theory and serves as the necessary example for any discussion involving Darwin's work, which is why even Gould himself (to my knowledge) never advocated against the content of classroom texts. I should also point out that it seems you are assuming that current books have not been updated, which is simply not true. Wherever the instructional level is appropriate for exploring the details (say, beyond 6th grade) you will find generous discussion of modern synthesis in its various incarnations.

To be fair. You're (at least) the second person to mention Darwins finches. I've also mentioned the evolution of pencillin resistant bacteria - which is perhaps a better example of microevolution as they're strains rather than species.

All of this has been done, or attempted before in at least two other threads with leopold, but he always comes back to Lewins news editorial.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Discovery of a Missing Link

As a zoologist I have discovered many phenomena that can be rationally explained only as products of evolution, but none so striking as the ancestor of the ants. Prior to 1967 the fossil record had yielded no specimens of wasps or other Hymenopterous insects that might be interpreted as the ancestors of the ants. This hypothetical form was a missing link of major importance in the study of evolution. We did have many fossils of ants dating back 50 million years. These were different species from those existing today, but their bodies still possessed the basic body form of modern ants. The missing link of ant evolution was often cited by creationists as evidence against evolution. Other ant specialists and I were convinced that the linking fossils would be found, and that most likely they would be associated with the late Mesozoic era, a time when many dinosaur and other vertebrate bones were fossilized but few insects. And that is exactly what happened. In 1967 I had the pleasure of studying two specimens collected in amber (fossilized resin) from New Jersey, and dating to the late Mesozoic about 90 million years ago. They were nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants, and so I gave them the scientific name Sphecomyrma, meaning ''wasp ant." Since that time many more Sphecomyrma specimens of similar age have been found in the United States, Canada, and Siberia, but none belonging to the modern type. With each passing year, such fossils and other kinds of evidence tighten our conception of the evolutionary origin of this important group of insects.

—Edward O. Wilson, cited in National Academies Press:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=15
​

 

[leopold]

. . . but he always comes back to Lewins news editorial.

that's because NO ONE has given a valid reason why the conclusion was a clear no other than lewin lied or the scientists involved were blind.

 

[Trippy]

that's because NO ONE has given a valid reason why the conclusion was a clear no other than lewin lied or the scientists involved were blind.

Give it a rest. These are your mischaracterizations of the reasons offered, nothing more.

 

[AlexG]

that's because NO ONE has given a valid reason why the conclusion was a clear no other than lewin lied or the scientists involved were blind.

The sources Lewin quoted DENIED saying what Lewin claims. So did Lewin lie? Apparently so.

 

[Trippy]

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.​

-Stephen J Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

 

[leopold]

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.​

-Stephen J Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

the problem with this is the scientists involved were not creationist, the publication isn't creationist, and it STILL doesn't answer to the topic of the thread which is the conclusion of the conference and how/ why it was reached.

 

[billvon]

and it STILL doesn't answer to the topic of the thread which is the conclusion of the conference and how/ why it was reached.

So you think the statement of someone WHO WAS AT THE CONFERENCE doesn't shed any light on what was said at the conference?

 

[AlexG]

It's apparent that unless there's something published in the same magazine, Science, directly retracting the Lewin article, leopold will continue to deny the validity of anything anyone posts.

658 posts saying basically the same things, and no end in sight.

 

[Trippy]

the problem with this is the scientists involved were not creationist, the publication isn't creationist, and it STILL doesn't answer to the topic of the thread which is the conclusion of the conference and how/ why it was reached.

Somehow I was >99% confident you would miss the point.

Gould is one of the two people who first developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Do you understand that?

The opinion piece that you're so find of citing claims that this group of 50 scientists came to the conclusion that punctuated equilibrium was more likely than gradualism. One of their reasons for doing this was the generally perceived lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. You interpret this as meaning there are none. Stephen Gould, one of two people credited with developing the theory of punctuated equilibrium, has explicitly acknowledged the existence of transitional fossils and their importance to evolutionary theory.