28. Trying to Prove the Theory Instead of Going Where the Evidence Takes You
The page begins below.
Anything is evidence for evolution. If the evidence doesn’t fit, make new evidence! Because of this absurd research, the digit conundrum for birds and theropods has been declared solved. This article used crocodiles to prove that bird digits are REALLY the same as theropod digits because they show “HoxD-11 expression in crocodilians, the closest living relatives of birds”.
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 2 Department of Anatomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 3 Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
Comparative morphology identifies the digits of the wing of birds as 1,2 and 3, but they develop at embryological positions that become digits 2, 3 and 4 in other amniotes. A hypothesis to explain this is that a homeotic frame shift of digital identity occurred in the evolution of the bird wing, such that digits 1,2 and 3 are developing from embryological positions 2, 3 and 4. Digit 1 of the mouse is the only digit that shows no late expression of HoxD-11. This is also true for the anterior digit of the bird wing, suggesting this digit is actually a digit 1. If this is the case, we can expect closer relatives of birds to show no HoxD-11 expression only in digit 1. To test this prediction we investigate HoxD-11 expression in crocodilians, the closest living relatives of birds.
Using degenerate primers we cloned a 606 nucleotide fragment of exon 1 of the alligator HoxD-11 gene and used it for whole-mount in-situ detection in alligator embryos. We found that in the pentadactyl forelimbs of alligator, as in the mouse, late expression of HoxD-11 is absent only in digit 1.
The ancestral condition for amniotes is that late-phase HoxD-11 expression is absent only in digit 1. The biphalangeal morphology and lack of HoxD-11 expression of the anterior digit of the wing is like digit 1 of alligator and mouse, but its embryological position as digit 2 is derived. HoxD-11 expression in alligator is consistent with the hypothesis that both digit morphology as well as HoxD-11 expression are shifted towards posterior in the bird wing.
Check out this vid:
In this video Richard Dawkins cites his clade painting, a sort of branching timeline of animals, as evidence that these species, because they look so much alike, are for certain common ancestors. One evolved into the next which evolved into the next. Dawkins claims that these are the “transitional species” that skeptics say there are none of. So, where does that take us with woodpeckers, hummingbirds, and crocodiles? These have a common ancestor because they couldn’t possibly look any different? Isn’t it sweet to see that evidence against evolution and evidence for evolution are both evidence FOR evolution. Heads I win, tails I win! I would sure like to see evolution of the human and ape arm from a quadruped paw or hoof. Forget these silly fins that Richard shows so proudly. Let’s see fingers form from species that formerly used the forepaws and forelegs to run. Or the foreleg of that quadruped at the bottom of the clade: let’s see that foreleg evolve into a fin. Or how about the transitional species that shows the evolution of the eyeball. Evolutionauts say soft tissues don’t show up in fossils. But, actually, they sure do.
The fossil record shows nothing like evolution would expect, if evolution were true. There should be a gradual transition from one species to the next. I emphasize GRADUAL. We should definitely see one species morphing into another, and that scenario should be all over the place in the fossil record. There should be millions of examples. But ev-illusionists have to make constant excuses for why their theory is not evidenced. The fossil record shows the rather sudden appearance of species, and the sudden extinction of most. In fact 99% of all species who have ever inhabited the earth have disappeared. This model doesn’t fit evolution’s model at all. Nor does it fit any scientific imaginable model. No model in existence today can account for what the fossil record shows. Massive extinctions are in evidence, and for the most part we don’t know why. We search for a cause. And that, of course, is good. We look for meteor strikes and other catastrophic events that eliminated 100% of massive numbers of species. When you think about it, why 100%? Why so perfect? One would think that some pockets of dinosaurs would be left over from their extinction. We are not lucky enough for that to have occurred. They are ALL gone. So, why doesn’t biological science face the evidence that is before them and deal with what is there? Why not reload? Why not be honest and say the model doesn’t fit any scenario we now have and can currently come up with? We should just admit that humans are not intelligent enough at this juncture to put together a scientific model that fits what the record shows. That would be real science. Real science on the origin of species is not done today. “Real science” wants to prove an outdated impossible theory put forth by a 19th century “scientist” who knew less about biology than our average sixth grader.
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University) at least admitted that failure. He said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology….to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” (3) At least at that point Stephen was honest about evolutions failures. Unfortunately, that is not how Stephen later dealt with the conundrum. And how most ev-illusionists deal with evidence problems. A perfect example of the failure of evolution is how it deals with a fossil record that doesn’t back the theory at all. The sudden appearance and extinction of so many species is handled with the most absurd of explanations. Ev-illusionists continue the illusion with the explanation that change occurred in short spurts, with long periods of stasis…..no change. Of course this does not fit what the evolutionary forces of mutations and natural selection should actually do to populations of species. Virtually no gradual change is observed, which is rather astounding. Even an anti-evolutionist like me would think that more change would be noticed. It would be certainly plausible to find that environmental factors, mutations, and natural selection did produce noticeable change, but it just doesn’t seem to on the massive scale that evolution would predict. To combat this failure of evidence, Niles Eldredge (now curator of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City) and Stephen Gould did a great job of Monday morning quarterbacking. They know what did happen, what the score was. It didn’t fit the theory that they so deeply believe in, so they coined an explanation and the term punctuated equilibrium. And, disappointingly, Stephen went back on his admission of failure. Using a nonsensical explanation to explain why evidence doesn’t fit a scientific theory should quickly fall on it’s face. Other scientists in that field should attack and destroy bad explanations. But in this science, evolution scientists grabbed on to Eldredge and Gould’s explanation like it was a life boat, and they were drowning in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. You see, these other evo-scientists were stark bare naked as far as explaining why the fossil record didn’t match what their theory said it should. And how could they deal with inquisitive students who questioned the complete lack of gradualness in the fossil record that they teach? By giving this horrible explanation a scientific name, punctuated equilibrium (1), Gould and Eldridge’s excuse got wheels. I should say oars. The technical description punctuated equilibrium seemed to give weight to the idea. The term itself became evidence for the idea, and made it much more palatable for their evo-peers and new indoctrinates. Much like the term natural selection gives credence to the act of animals selectively killing, eating, and reproducing with other animals. If Darwin named his book Origin of Species Through Animals Selectively Killing and Consuming Other Animals, and Selectively Procreating with Other Animals, his theory would have collapsed quickly. Natural selection has such a scientific tone, the term itself becomes “evidence” for the “science”. The other evo-scientists grabbed the punctuated equilibrium oars, and started rapid-rowing to shore. They now had an explanation for such immense failures demonstrated by the fossil record. They were still in business.
Eldridge in particular worked very hard in trying to prove that species evolved slowly over time. The more he and his fellow paleontologists dug, the worse things looked. There just weren’t the fossils that prove the theory. Punctuated equilibrium just kept looking more and more solid. They added an additional caveat in that small isolated groups of larger populations mutated and “selected”. These smaller groups were the ones that went through the morphing, and that is why fossils were not found. Of course that would mean that all evolution had to have happened in these small groups, since no morphing appeared in large group fossils. They said, “Since speciation occurs rapidly in small populations occupying small areas far form the center of ancestral abundance, we will rarely discover the actual event in the fossil record.” Big words make bad excuses look good. They defined rapidly as, “in a short period of time relative to the total duration of a species.”
Of course, a secondary line of defense for evolution is the notion that ALL fossils are transitional. All fossils are formed from some other common ancestors in the past, and are in a stage of morphing into a new species in the future. ANY fossil will be a common ancestor for some future generation of species. Ergo, all fossils are transitional, and by saying that, complaints that the fossil record doesn’t show the changes that would be predicted can be completely neutralized…….for people who accept that explanation.
(1-3) Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972. ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism’. Models in Paleobiology, T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Freeman, Cooper and Co., San Francisco, Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972. ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism’, Time Frames: the Rethinking of Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, N. Eldredge, Heinernann, London, 1986
The examples just keep pouring in:
Evolution of Ear Is Noted in Fossil
Transitional Stage of Organ May Have Helped Ancient Fish Breathe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006 Question: What do you do with half an ear?
Answer: You breathe through it.
That’s the conclusion reached by a pair of researchers who say they have found a fossil “snapshot” of the ear partway through its evolution to its current form.
The structure that became the sound-conducting middle ear of land animals began as a tube that permitted ancient shallow-water fish to take an occasional breath of air out of the top of their heads — at least according to Martin D. Brazeau and Per E. Ahlberg of Uppsala University, in Sweden.