Evolution Is Falsified

1. Nested Hierarchy Violation Let me explain this nested hierarchy & it’s implications for evolution a little for the readers. This ‘family tree’ is one that is compiled from genetics. The closest related ones are nested together. Snakes & lizards share more DNA in common with each other than with any of the other 6 species, the same with crocodiles & birds, whales & camels and so on and so forth. That is how we build an evolutionary ‘family tree’. Take birds for example, both birds and crocodiles have a more recent common ancestor with each other than with the any of the other 6 species on the cited tree. When we compare the phylogenetic traits of the crocodiles and birds, we find that birds have feathers, and crocodiles have no trace of feathers (not even vestigial ones). Here we can conclude that a common ancestor of all birds, is one that first developed feathers, and which lived after (and was a direct descendant of) the common ancestor of both birds and crocodiles (which was a reptile). It also follows that the common ancestor of all birds, is not the common ancestor of any of the other 6 species (otherwise human’s would be descended from birds for example), therefore a prediction of the nested hierarchy is we would expect to never see feathered mammals, feathered snakes, lizards or if we trace this tree even further back, no feathered trees or fungi (with whom we share an even earlier common ancestor). So what would be a clear violation? Any trait that would require it would arise in at least 2 instances in the same way in two completely separate locations in the phylogenetic tree. Therefore, any clear violation of this tree, such as any mammal having feathers, any reptile with opposable thumbs (which developed in the common ancestor of primates) or any primate with a fatty hump (of camels) would be clear examples of this – and would therefore falsify common decent (and hence evolution). Now on to his argument: “My argument is that the method of germ-cell formation violates the Nested Hierarchy. There are 2 basic types of germ-cell formation: epigenesis & preformation. For the Nested Hierarchy to be consistent (unviolated), it must show that creatures grouped closer together (based on other characteristics) share the same type of germ-cell formation. But this is not the case. The types are distributed pretty randomly among animal clusters. This violates the Nested Hierarchy as illustrated in the following image:” First of all, I would like Pro to present the original reference for where this table was generated, unless it really was Stephen Meyer who compiled it. Now, let me start by briefly explaining the science behind this Germ Cells are those that give rise to the reproductive cells (sperm & egg cells) used to propagate the next generation, these differ from somatic cells (which are every other cell in a body – skin, blood, muscle, nerve etc) by this function. They are known to be specified by two different methods: 1.)Epigenesis – The generation of germ cells from existing pluripotent cells (i.e. other stem cells) by being triggered by external signals 2.)Preformation – The inhibition of the signals that would lead to epigenesis via a ‘Germ Plasm’ Therefore, we would have to explain why there seems to be a convergent evolution of the same function in various branches of the same lineage. It so happens to be a similar case of the multiple examples of the evolution of the eye (see my rebuttal to his example of irreducible complexity for a brief overview of this). In a recent review by Crother and co-workers [1], how these systems had evolved was discussed, one thing to note is that the mechanism for preformation evolved in populations that specified their cells via epigenesis. The reason why is quite clear in the patchwork, the external signals from somatic tissue is still sent to the pluripotent cells, but are blocked by the germ plasm (much like pulling an umbrella when it starts raining, as opposed to turning the rain off). Furthermore the mechanisms for epigenesis are highly conserved (essentially do the same function, in exatly the same way, with the same parts) wheras it has been found that the mechanisms for preformation are nowhere near as highly conserved – a clear indication that preformation is a trait that has evolved independently in multiple branches. Another example of this independent, convergent evolution is the evolution of whales, which one can see a remarkable resemblance between the hydrodynamic shapes, the positioning of the fins etc. Superficially they serve the identical function, but when upon close inspection of the anatomy one can easily see the difference on comparison from the ‘skeletons’ of sharks [2], which more closely resemble those of boneless and bony fish. An analogy of this that would work as an argument that would disprove evolution is an example of a whale with fins with the same/very similar anatomy to those of a shark. This would be an extraordinarily unlikely example of convergent evolution. 2. Fossil Record Violation “Archaeopteryx was the first bird, dated at 150 million years old in the fossil record. However,Protarchaeopteryx, whose name means “before Archaeopteryx”, appears afterArchaeopteryx in the fossil record. The finding of this creature means that Archaeopteryx is no longer the first bird. The first bird is no longer the first bird, leading to a paradox. Perhaps the invention of time-travel will help us resolve this, but at the moment, it is a fossil record violation.” You didn’t quite include the necessary information so I will do so Archaeopteryx – Lived ~ 150.8-148.5 MYa Protarchaeopteryx – Lived ~ 124.6 Mya First of all, the classification of a ‘bird’ is an arbitrary one, a more accurate description of both these species’ are probably ‘feathered dinosaurs’. The naming is indeed an amusing contradiction; allegedly the pro- was in reference to the more primitive flight features of the Protarchaeopteryx when compared with the archaeopteryx. The Protarchaeopteryx was 1 meter tall, with symmetrical feathers and much less aerodynamic than its much earlier cousin, the Archaeopteryx (it was rather akin to a modern turkey in its size). The best current explanation is that the feathered dinosaur species had branched earlier and the lineage that led to the Archaeopteryx evolved flight features much faster than the Protarchaeopteryx. The fossil record as it stands [9], shows the Archaeopteryx is descended from the Paraves branch [3] which lead to modern birds. Whereas the Protarchaeopteryx is actually descended from the now extinct Oviraptorosauria branch [4] (of which we have several specimens of several species), and consist of mostly flightless feathered dinosaurs. As for an explanation why the Oviraptorosauria branch did not evolve the ability to fly; feathers serve multiple purposes even in today’s species. Besides their use for flight, they are also used for temperature regulation in species such as the osterich and for attracting mates such as the peacocks. Indeed, especially when there is a lack of predation and a rich source of food there is a tendency for birds to become flightless (so called de-evolution, or genetic decay). We have/had examples of this today on the pacific islands [5]. Flight is very energy expensive, and therefore a population will not evolve if it’s remotely unnecessary (and evidently goes into decay after it has evolved and is no longer needed). If it could be demonstrated that the Protarchaeopteryx was a direct descendant of the Archaeopteryx, then you may have a case for falsifying evolution, as there is no known mechanism in evolution for ‘subtractive de-evolution’. That means, complex features do not disappear in evolution, they instead degenerate and become vestiges (such as the moles’ eyes, a whale or snake’s pelvis & hind limbs or our third eyelid for example). 3. Irreducible Complexity Since you didn’t present any significant evidence to support this claim, it’s tempting to dismiss this without evidence. But I won’t, remember that the evolution of the eye would have been an incremental progressive process [6]. This would have begun with no eye at all. The development of just a few light sensitive cells could have given an organism the ability to tell the difference between light & dark. An organism with this ability will, plausibly, have an advantage over its fellow species without this ability. Now if we start surrounding these light sensitive cells with walls (or the beginnings of an eye socket), objects that come in from different directions would have been detectable As we complete the socket, a layer of liquid, or something that resembles a lense allows one to make a sharp image. Alternatively, making the hole smaller still will also grant a sharp image but at the loss of sensitivity – we actually have a number of examples of this. The ability to see has proven to be such a useful feature that it has arisen at least 11 times in history, and with different ‘design’ characteristics. A squid’s eye for example is a much better ‘designed’ eye than our own [7] – and consequently much more sensitive – and without any blind spot. Check out Richard Dawkins’ video for an excellent demonstration of how this works in practice [8]. References: 1.) http://www.reproduction-online.org... 2.) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu..., http://digitallibrary.amnh.org... 3.) http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.) http://en.wikipedia.org... 5.) http://www.jstor.org... 6.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7.) http://www.d.umn.edu... 8.) 9.) http://dx.doi.org...