The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve - makes no sense when one assumes Intelligent Design.

[Towlie]

I recently came across this fascinating video, narrated by Richard Dawkins.

Warning: It shows the vivisection of a giraffe's neck, which may be disturbing to some. You might not want to watch it if you're squeamish about such things.

cO1a1Ek-HD0

The recurrent laryngeal nerve connects the larynx to the brain, which in mammals and many other types of animals is a very short direct path, yet the nerve takes an extremely roundabout route to get there, traveling down through the neck, around the heart, and back up through the neck again to the larnyx. (The giraffe seems to have been chosen because it represents an extreme case.) In terms of "intelligent design" this makes no sense, but in terms of the evolution of more advanced animals from primitive fish that had no actual necks, it makes perfect sense. As Dawkins explains, the process of evolution doesn't completely scrap an obsolete design to "go back to the drawing board."

This seems to be such a threatening bit of evidence that creationists were motivated to dig up someone with letters after his name to attempt to debunk the argument:

http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/

The author is a certain Dr. Jerry Bergman. A search for his name (http://www.google.com/search?q=Jerry+Bergman%2C+Ph.D) produces hits from such sites as Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp), Creation Wiki (http://creationwiki.org/Jerry_Bergman), Creation Ministries (http://creation.com/dr-jerry-bergman), and so on.

At any rate, the video provides an interesting insight into the mechanism of evolution. Please watch it if you haven't already.

[AvalonXQ]

Dawkins covers this in The Greatest Show on Earth. In the creationist response book, it's mentioned that this nerve actually includes a bunch of branching nerves along its path. So the entire length of the long nerve has value to the animal.

[Towlie]

What is "the creationist response book"?

[AvalonXQ]

The Greatest Hoax on Earth. (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Earth-Refuting-Dawkins-Evolution/dp/1921643064) I read Dawkins cover to cover, and then I started working my way through this book. It brings up some interesting points which I might raise here whenever I feel like braving the inevitable personal abuse.

[Towlie]

Oh. I was thinking it might have been just an expression, like "Republican talking points."

Today is $5 day at the Miami Zoo (http://www.miamimetrozoo.com/articles.asp?Id=533&categoryId=1) and I'm going. Maybe I'll bring you guys back a picture of a giraffe.

[CurtC]

The DiscoTute has also responded to the laryngeal nerve:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/medical_considerations_for_the039221.html

[dlorde]

The Greatest Hoax on Earth. (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Earth-Refuting-Dawkins-Evolution/dp/1921643064) I read Dawkins cover to cover, and then I started working my way through this book. It brings up some interesting points which I might raise here whenever I feel like braving the inevitable personal abuse.

I haven't read the book, but I read some very interesting (and occasionally amusing) critiques of it in the Amazon comments :)

[Halfcentaur]

The Greatest Hoax on Earth. (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Earth-Refuting-Dawkins-Evolution/dp/1921643064) I read Dawkins cover to cover, and then I started working my way through this book. It brings up some interesting points which I might raise here whenever I feel like braving the inevitable personal abuse.

I'd really like to know how the creationist view explains why we find select collections of species that have been evenly sorted out and distributed in the layers of the Earth's crust so consistently and on a global scale.

Why do we only find certain animals and plants at certain specific depths/mineral layers that end up in the same organized layer on the other side of the plant?

Do they claim that during the flood only certain collections of species arranged themselves in vast layers and deposited themselves just so? Or do they maintain that animals are not actually found to be organized by the layers of the crust and it's simply a mistake to say it is so?

[catsmate1]

What about the human prostate? Intelligent Design????

[AvalonXQ]

I'd really like to know how the creationist view explains why we find select collections of species that have been evenly sorted out and distributed in the layers of the Earth's crust so consistently and on a global scale.

Why do we only find certain animals and plants at certain specific depths/mineral layers that end up in the same organized layer on the other side of the plant?

Do they claim that during the flood only certain collections of species arranged themselves in vast layers and deposited themselves just so? Or do they maintain that animals are not actually found to be organized by the layers of the crust and it's simply a mistake to say it is so?

I haven't read this specific discussion in the book yet. It may be there later or it may not be addressed head-on in exactly this way.
The main discussions of the fossil record thus far have focused on the lack of transitional forms found therein.

[TraneWreck]

The main discussions of the fossil record thus far have focused on the lack of transitional forms found therein.

Well, if there's something interesting, go ahead and post it, but from that description there's little chance I'm going to read the whole thing. I've been down that road many a time.

Of course, if we didn't have any fossils, evolution would be fairly easy to prove through biodiversity and genetics (not that you don't already know this--my comment was for the peanut gallery).

And I promise to make all of my insults of your person amusing.

[Halfcentaur]

Does Dawkins allude to the rabbit in the Precambrian in the book this is in response to? I am interested to know how the distribution of fossils can be explained by those in opposition. I am not certain Avalon, but am I mistaken in thinking you believe the Earth is possibly less than ten thousand years old? If you have doubts about evolution, what is your personal opinion on the ordered distribution of fossils across sedimentary layers?

[AvalonXQ]

Of course, if we didn't have any fossils, evolution would be fairly easy to prove through biodiversity and genetics (not that you don't already know this--my comment was for the peanut gallery).
Eh, the arguments in Hoax against this are pretty convincing. I'm getting to the point where I just don't think I'm going to be able to come to a reasonable conclusion without a whole lot more study of the actual evidence.

And I promise to make all of my insults of your person amusing.
I appreciate that. At least I can laugh while getting butthurt. :p

[AvalonXQ]

As an aside, I thought I'd share the fact that I found Show to be a great read, and very convincing. I flew through the book pretty quickly and greatly enjoyed it. In contrast, Hoax, while just as convincing (it took the wind out of what I believed to be Dawkins' best arguments very quickly), is not nearly as good of a read and I've barely managed to slog through the first half of it.

[TubbaBlubba]

Dawkins covers this in The Greatest Show on Earth. In the creationist response book, it's mentioned that this nerve actually includes a bunch of branching nerves along its path. So the entire length of the long nerve has value to the animal.

And this would somehow be impossible to achieve, let alone more economical in every sense, with branches from the main vagus nerve?

[ben m]

The DiscoTute has also responded to the laryngeal nerve:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/medical_considerations_for_the039221.html

In which they say "The designer obviously wanted the nerve to do that". (Believe it or not, the ICR statement is much better, saying that the adult form of the nerve may be a leftover of something the Designer needed this nerve to accomplish in the embryo.)

This is one of the things that confuses me* about the Discovery Institute. I thought they were supposed to agree with common descent and sort of gradual morphological changes. I thought they were staking out the narrow claim that a subset of structures (the flagellum, and ... the flagellum, and a bunch of other things we'll get around to listing after everyone agrees about the flagellum) were intelligently designed, while others could have evolved step by step.

In other words, I'd have thought they would say "The giraffe neck? Well, the differences between the giraffe's neck and the paleo-gazelle's and the eocene-mouse's neck are not irreducibly complex. It's a single (intelligently-designed) pattern that appears at a variety of sizes. Size can change gradually over generations, micro-evolution-style. The designer wasn't specifying every detail of the length of the neck, He stepped in only for the irreducibly complex steps. Come back when you want to talk about one of those steps, like say the flagellum."

*if I momentarily pretend that they're trying to come up with an internally-consistent scientific theory. If you assume that they're fabulists whose only goal is getting Jesus into public schools, they're not confusing at all.

[TraneWreck]

As an aside, I thought I'd share the fact that I found Show to be a great read, and very convincing. I flew through the book pretty quickly and greatly enjoyed it. In contrast, Hoax, while just as convincing (it took the wind out of what I believed to be Dawkins' best arguments very quickly), is not nearly as good of a read and I've barely managed to slog through the first half of it.

Well, I'm happy to consider new arguments. I do see a lot of these arguments dealt with on a fairly consistent basis by PZ Myers, who does a good job of keeping up to speed with those developments.

I've yet to see one offer anything new or even provide a modicum of vexation for actual biologists, but I might check out that book to see what's there.

The last time I went all in for a study of the creationist position I was doing a research project in law school about the ID crowd. It was before the Kitzmiller ruling came down. From a legal perspective it was just a way at sneaking around past legal decisions that barred creationism from the schools, but I also spent a lot of time dealing with the philosophical arguments (they weren't really scientific).

Fundamental irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, and the fine-tuned universe were the "new" positions advanced by ID, and they were pretty sad and there was absolutely no research to back them up.

In other words, I spent a lot of time trying to turn a mishmash of sloppy philosophy into the strongest possible argument and ended up with very little to show for it. It felt like taking assault rifles to the quail-tards Dick Cheney likes to shoot.

[TraneWreck]

Here's what I mean about Sarfati. I'm just offering this as an example, if we want to discuss the specific arguments I'll make a new thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html

Here we have a dispute between a guy with a chemistry degree (Sarfati) and a well-respected highly published biologist who links to the work of two other highly respected biologists and the topic is biology.

When the biologists get worried about a competing theory to evolution, I'll start paying attention.

[AvalonXQ]

When the biologists get worried about a competing theory to evolution, I'll start paying attention.

So all the evolution proponents have to do for you to not pay attention to competing theories is ignore the competing theories? That line of reasoning has some unfortunate implications, doesn't it?

[TraneWreck]

So all the evolution proponents have to do for you to not pay attention to competing theories is ignore the competing theories? That line of reasoning has some unfortunate implications, doesn't it?

I think you know what I mean. Look at the argument between Myers and Safarti that I linked. It wasn't two professionals squaring off, dealing with the implications of new discoveries.

It was one guy who knew what the fossil record said, and one guy who was either distorting the record or didn't know much about it.

This is what happened to Behe and the other ID folks.

When Myers and other biologists are publishing papers trying to make sense of some potent new development by the ID/creationist crowd, rather than correcting their mistakes, I'll pay attention. Until then, as I learned when I tried to take the ID crowd as seriously as possible, it's mostly wasted time.

[AvalonXQ]

I think you know what I mean. Look at the argument between Myers and Safarti that I linked. It wasn't two professionals squaring off, dealing with the implications of new discoveries.

It was one guy who knew what the fossil record said, and one guy who was either distorting the record or didn't know much about it.

This is what happened to Behe and the other ID folks.

I guess my concern is, is it possible that the ID folks could have an important development or a reasonable criticism, and the experts still make dismissive remarks in the same way? In other words, are we relying on the experts' honesty to take serious claims seriously?

[TraneWreck]

I guess my concern is, is it possible that the ID folks could have an important development or a reasonable criticism, and the experts still make dismissive remarks in the same way? In other words, are we relying on the experts' honesty to take serious claims seriously?

Sure, it's possible (though very unlikely---Lot's of fame and money for the guy that comes up with a real one).

That's what's nice about these forums. I'm not going out of my way to look for them, maybe you and others are. If there's one that seems particularly potent, post it, and we can hash it out.

My sole point is that based on what I've read of the author, discussions of his arguments, and certain phrases that give hints about content ("holes in the fossil record"), I'm not optimistic that The Greatest Hoax will contain anything new.

So, if I choose to spend, say, the next few weeks reading that book and digging into the argument, will I arrive at actual strong arguments, or when I ask actual biologists will it just end up like Myers' summation of Safarti's amphibian digit claims:

What about Sarfati’s second line of evidence against evolution, that frogs and humans use completely different mechanisms to build their limbs?

Simple answer: it’s all nonsense. It’s a blatant denial of basic information you’ll find in any developmental biology textbook.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html

That doesn't sound particularly promising.

[zooterkin]

I guess my concern is, is it possible that the ID folks could have an important development or a reasonable criticism, and the experts still make dismissive remarks in the same way? In other words, are we relying on the experts' honesty to take serious claims seriously?

We're relying on the scientific process. One part of which is that if there was something to one of these competing theories, someone could make their name by falsifying the theory of natural selection and showing their theory was superior.

[CurtC]

This is one of the things that confuses me* about the Discovery Institute. I thought they were supposed to agree with common descent and sort of gradual morphological changes.

You'll never hear them say that they agree with common descent. Their only goal seems to be to tear down Darwinian, undirected evolution. In doing this, they have as big a tent as possible. They pander to young-Earth creationists as well as Behe-like limited irreducible complexity types.

If I ever attend a talk by a DI person, I'd like to ask a question about whether the speaker thinks the Earth is billions of years old. Whatever is answer, it should alienate about half of his supporters in the audience. I'd follow that up with whether they think that wolves and tigers share a common ancestor. What about humans and the other apes?

[Towlie]

I had a great time at the zoo. At the chimpanzee exhibit, I even overheard a woman say "they have 98% of our generic." I smiled to myself and thought "That's close enough!"

Oh, and I just remembered, I promised you guys a picture of a giraffe.

[Soapy Sam]

Avalon- If you find something interesting in "Hoax", do post it. You can always cover your ass by saying you're looking for a good refutation. Or maybe the JREF store sells kevlar underpants.:) But seriously, if you really think there's stuff in the book worth discussing, by all means discuss.


This I guess my concern is, is it possible that the ID folks could have an important development or a reasonable criticism, and the experts still make dismissive remarks in the same way? In other words, are we relying on the experts' honesty to take serious claims seriously? is a perfectly valid question.

[LarianLeQuella]

As an aside, I thought I'd share the fact that I found Show to be a great read, and very convincing. I flew through the book pretty quickly and greatly enjoyed it. In contrast, Hoax, while just as convincing (it took the wind out of what I believed to be Dawkins' best arguments very quickly), is not nearly as good of a read and I've barely managed to slog through the first half of it.

So basically you believe the last thing you were told, and can't hold a series of data sets in your mind longer than the arrival of the next data set?

[AvalonXQ]

So basically you believe the last thing you were told, and can't hold a series of data sets in your mind longer than the arrival of the next data set?

So basically you're incapable of civil discussion and feel the need to lob attacks at the intelligence of others?

[LarianLeQuella]

Sorry, your aside seemed to indicate that. The Hoax book is rubbish, and a convincing argument isn't based on prose, but data and facts. Hoax has precious little, yet you find yourself having "the wind taken out of" evolution as a viable explanation for the diversity of life. What other conclusion could I draw from your statement?

[AvalonXQ]

Because I apparently didn't make this point clear enough before, I'll make it again -- based on my most recent set of reads, the thought that's forming is that this isn't an issue that's decided by an elegant argument or a single set of persuasive summaries. The discussion is complicated. It requires evaluation of a large body of data, of understanding the evidence and the research that goes into it at a level that's beyond my expertise.
Claims about baramins and information loss can't be refuted without more knowledge of fossils, genetics, and animal groupings than I have. Neither can claims about clades and beneficial mutations.
When I feel I have a very good handle on some of the main arguments in Hoax, I may try to present them here to see if I can get some leads on what to read next. But I expect I won't ever get to a conclusive answer without some significant self-education. Which for me will be a long-term, not short-term project.

[AvalonXQ]

Sorry, your aside seemed to indicate that. The Hoax book is rubbish, and a convincing argument isn't based on prose, but data and facts. Hoax has precious little,

Hoax presents the same level of data and facts that Show does. Yes, it's precious little. All Show can be is a convincing argument based on prose. Hence, my determination that neither is sufficient to form a conclusion.
Dawkins says that we have convincing examples of species adaptation -- that new beneficial features can be shown in various species. Sarfati responds that all these examples can be attributed to specialization through mechanisms of information loss -- that connections between various larger-order groups are unproven. Okay, opposing claims. No real evidence given on either side; just a few anecdotes.
Hence my assertion -- there are no slam dunk arguments here. Nothing that can be really convincing until we see the evidence underlying the claims.

[Deetee]

This thread reminds me of one of my old entries on this forum - "Dear God." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58122)

It ends with a plea:

PS. When you get round to Humanoid version 2.0, I’d be grateful if You could you accede to the following requests:

Give us a tail. It would be fun to wag, and we already have the muscle from version 1.0 which can do this – Extensor coccygis.
Similarly, It would be nice to have moveable ears, like lesser mammals do (and we have the auricularis muscle already).
Put our retinas in front of the optic nerve fibres in the eye, and get rid of our blind spots.
Make some of those genes function properly, please. Like LGGLO for synthesising vitamin C. Its there, in our bodies. Make it work!
Don’t make vital nerves like the ones controlling the larynx go on complicated detours around the body.
And give us a break from auto-immune diseases (I mean, what is the point?)
And Hayfever.
And make the metatarsals less fracture-prone.
Especially in Englishmen.

Last bit about metatarsals was Rooney in the World cup I recall.

[I Ratant]

Experienced biologists can make a long list of design blunders in the human body.
And some of its afflictions.
MS, Diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimer's... WTF with these, if there is anything like a deliberate intent to the structure and purpose?

[Towlie]

And like Neil deGrasse Tyson says, don't put the entertainment center in the middle of the sewage system.

[ThunderChunky]

Dawkins says that we have convincing examples of species adaptation -- that new beneficial features can be shown in various species. Sarfati responds that all these examples can be attributed to specialization through mechanisms of information loss -- that connections between various larger-order groups are unproven. Okay, opposing claims. No real evidence given on either side; just a few anecdotes.

I don't even need to read Sarfati's now book to know that it's rubbish. If he is making arguments based on information loss, I can rest assured that he's not bringing anything worthwhile to the table. I was refuting that argument 10 years ago when I was in high school.

[drkitten]

I guess my concern is, is it possible that the ID folks could have an important development or a reasonable criticism, and the experts still make dismissive remarks in the same way?

Not really, no.

That's the beauty of science. If there's actual evidence, then claims will be taken seriously, irrespective of who makes them and of what their theoretical basis is. (Most good conferences, in fact, demand anonymous submissions for precisely this reason, so that your claims can't be dismissed merely because you're a Discovery Institute Fellow, because the reviewers don't know that.)

And there are several good historical examples of this process at work, as any good book on the history of scientific controversy will show.

In other words, are we relying on the experts' honesty to take serious claims seriously?

Nope.

[drkitten]

I don't even need to read Sarfati's now book to know that it's rubbish. If he is making arguments based on information loss, I can rest assured that he's not bringing anything worthwhile to the table. I was refuting that argument 10 years ago when I was in high school.

Hell, you can refute that argument yourself with ten minutes and a copy of any decent file compression program.

Make a text file that consists of 50,000 copies of the word "abracadabra."

Now compress that file and look at the resulting file size. That file size is the information contained in that file. Seriously. Ask any information theorist about it. What you've technically done is estimated an upper bound for the Kolomogorov-Chaitin complexity of the string defined by the file. In more colloquial language, you've measured the information in it.

Now, "mutate" the original file. Go in and change just ONE of the instances of "abracadabra." It doesn't matter how. Make it into "hocus pocus" if you like. Or move some of the letters around. "abarcadabra." Use sTuDLyCaPS if you like : "abraCADabra." Whatever.

Now compress the 'mutated' file.

Notice that there's more information in the mutated file than in the old one?

Mutations can add information. In fact, they usually do.

[NobbyNobbs]

I haven't read this specific discussion in the book yet. It may be there later or it may not be addressed head-on in exactly this way.
The main discussions of the fossil record thus far have focused on the lack of transitional forms found therein.

I'm not a biologist but I do know just enough about evolution to be tired and annoyed by this argument. Every fossil is a transitional form, with the exception of those species that subsequently went extinct. Every "transitional" fossil found just creates another "gap" on either side of it anyway, thus ensuring that the ID crowd will never be satisfied. There is no need to set up a movie camera and record all of history to prove evolution. A person should, given photographs of an acorn, a sprout, a sapling, a small tree, a huge oak, and a rotting log, plus a few samples of leaves and bark, be able to infer the progression from one to the other. Why do they keep trotting this one out when it's so easy to shoot down?

[theprestige]

Hell, you can refute that argument yourself with ten minutes and a copy of any decent file compression program.

Make a text file that consists of 50,000 copies of the word "abracadabra."

Now compress that file and look at the resulting file size. That file size is the information contained in that file. Seriously. Ask any information theorist about it. What you've technically done is estimated an upper bound for the Kolomogorov-Chaitin complexity of the string defined by the file. In more colloquial language, you've measured the information in it.

Now, "mutate" the original file. Go in and change just ONE of the instances of "abracadabra." It doesn't matter how. Make it into "hocus pocus" if you like. Or move some of the letters around. "abarcadabra." Use sTuDLyCaPS if you like : "abraCADabra." Whatever.

Now compress the 'mutated' file.

Notice that there's more information in the mutated file than in the old one?

Mutations can add information. In fact, they usually do.

Since most organisms represent an extensive system of elements forming complex relationships, I'm not sure your analogy is very helpful--or very meaningful.

Maybe if the original file is a 50,000-word dissertation on information theory, and every time you compress or decompress it, one of the words is replaced by an arbitrary character string?

If we allow white space and deletions to be counted as character strings, enough iterations could eventually replace the 50,000-word dissertation with the succinct phrase, "Jesus wept". But along the way I'd imagine you'd spend a lot of time wandering in an information-less wilderness, where you had a lot of characters, but none of the complex relationships formed by the original 50,000-word arrangement.

In related news, a program I work with every day depends on a configuration file that sometimes reaches 2,000 kilobytes in size. Occasionally, this file "mutates". It becomes corrupted, gets truncated, or has all its non-whitespace characters deleted. These mutations never result in "more information" for the program. Instead, they result in abject failure of the program to even initialize, never mind serve as the the controlling function for several other programs that depend on it for their own successful operation.

Ironically, it is sometimes useful to make changes to this configuration file, and these useful changes are always the result of careful planning, thorough understanding of the file's structure and purpose, and informed well-defined intent to achieve a specific goal in keeping with the nature of the program that uses the file. In short, only "intelligent design" will serve.

[ben m]

Since most organisms represent an extensive system of elements forming complex relationships, I'm not sure your analogy is very helpful--or very meaningful.

Yes it is. The ID claim is mutations do not create information. If pressed to define "information" they usually come up with something like Shannon information or Kolmogorov complexity. The ID claim is false, and the example explicitly shows that mutations DO create Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity.

If we allow white space and deletions to be counted as character strings, enough iterations could eventually replace the 50,000-word dissertation with the succinct phrase, "Jesus wept".


That has nothing to do with the ID claim that mutations cannot create Shannon information.


In related news, a program I work with every day depends on a configuration file that sometimes reaches 2,000 kilobytes in size. Occasionally, this file "mutates". It becomes corrupted, gets truncated, or has all its non-whitespace characters deleted. These mutations never result in "more information" for the program. Instead, they result in abject failure of the program to even initialize, never mind serve as the the controlling function for several other programs that depend on it for their own successful operation.

That has nothing to do with the ID claim that mutations cannot create Shannon information.

(As it so happens, your file "mutations" ARE creating new Shannon information. "contains more Shannon information" is not the same thing as "is an improved Microsoft Auto-Widget 3 input file"; why did you think it was?)

[PixyMisa]

Yes it is. The ID claim is mutations do not create information. If pressed to define "information" they usually come up with something like Shannon information or Kolmogorov complexity. The ID claim is false, and the example explicitly shows that mutations DO create Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity.
Right. Which is why Dembski invented, and deliberately failed to define, "specified complexity". It's not an argument, it's just obfuscation to hide the circularity of the whole thing:

Sure, mutations happen, but they cannot increase specified complexity.
What's specified complexity?
It's what mutations cannot increase.

[Mr. Scott]

It's important to not take this one example of bad design as "proof" of evolution, but to look at the many, many examples just like this that together constitute irrefutable evidence of common ancestory (e.g. the descent of the testes and the fusion of ancestral ape chromosomes into our chromosome #2).

The God and creation hypotheses are in principle impossible to disprove because one call always say God made it that way for His own reasons which we may never divine. But, the only rational conclusion to this would be that God intended to deceive us, which makes no sense to someone who believes in a God who loves us and demands our love in return and will burn us for eternity for not believing in Him.

What distinguishes "creation science" from real science is it seems to gather no evidence for creation, but only evidence against the competing hypothesis, evolution. It seems if creation were true, scientists could ignore evolution altogether and compile their evidence for creation and make and test predictions. This they've never done with any success AFAIK. They also provide no evidence that evolution is a hoax or conspiracy. Not a single evolutionary biologist has come forward to confess participation in such a gigantic conspiracy. On the other hand, creationists are caught lying again and again in support of their views (eg Kitzmiller vs. Dover).

The idea that the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve took on some additional jobs after it's ridiculous lengthening is completely consistent with the theory of evolution and lends no support at all to the creation hypothesis IMO.

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not a biologist but I do know just enough about evolution to be tired and annoyed by this argument. Every fossil is a transitional form, with the exception of those species that subsequently went extinct. Every "transitional" fossil found just creates another "gap" on either side of it anyway, thus ensuring that the ID crowd will never be satisfied.

This is addressed head-on in Hoax -- pointing out that we're not talking about small gaps between two clearly related forms, but whole kinds that have no connecting ancestors at all. A complete lack of transitional ancestors between the different basic dinosaur types. A complete lack of transitional ancestors for each of the phyla body plans first found fully-formed in the Cambrian layer.
These are not small problems; they're well-recognized. The difference appears to be in the appropriate interpretation of the gaps.

[TubbaBlubba]

This is addressed head-on in Hoax -- pointing out that we're not talking about small gaps between two clearly related forms, but whole kinds that have no connecting ancestors at all. A complete lack of transitional ancestors between the different basic dinosaur types. A complete lack of transitional ancestors for each of the phyla body plans first found fully-formed in the Cambrian layer.
These are not small problems; they're well-recognized. The difference appears to be in the appropriate interpretation of the gaps.

Fossilization is rare and evolution can demonstrably be very fast, we have other ways to determine ancestry.

[Towlie]

These are not small problems; they're well-recognized.If that was part of a Wikipedia article, it would be followed with [by whom?] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words).

[TraneWreck]

This is addressed head-on in Hoax -- pointing out that we're not talking about small gaps between two clearly related forms, but whole kinds that have no connecting ancestors at all. A complete lack of transitional ancestors between the different basic dinosaur types. A complete lack of transitional ancestors for each of the phyla body plans first found fully-formed in the Cambrian layer.
These are not small problems; they're well-recognized. The difference appears to be in the appropriate interpretation of the gaps.

Originally Darwin based his theory on fossils and biodiversity---mostly biodiversity.

Throughout the 20th century we discovered more and more fossils, bringing in amazing amounts of evidence for evolution. But it could still be independently proved through biodiversity.

Then in the late 20th century something amazing happened: we learned about genetics.

Now there are three independent branches of evidence each sufficient to prove evolutionary theory on their own.

So, there are no "gaps" in the fossil records in terms of something missing that could potentially falsify the theory, but it's a moot point, anyway. We don't need to rely on fossils to prove the theory. There could be exactly zero fossils on planet Earth and Evolutionary Theory would be easily proven.

Thus, bitching about the record gets you nowhere. And, of course, those sorts of complaints are nothing new. This is not a well recognized "problem," the Cambrian "explosion" is a well recognized phenomenon largely based on the finicky nature of fossil formation.

Once again, you're relying on the work of a chemist who made basic, fundamental errors in his evaluation of the existing fossil record. Why should we pay attention to anything he says?

[Aepervius]

If that was part of a Wikipedia article, it would be followed with [by whom?] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words).

If it was Slashdot I would say "citation needed".

[Aepervius]

Originally Darwin based his theory on fossils and biodiversity---mostly biodiversity.

Throughout the 20th century we discovered more and more fossils, bringing in amazing amounts of evidence for evolution. But it could still be independently proved through biodiversity.

Then in the late 20th century something amazing happened: we learned about genetics.

Now there are three independent branches of evidence each sufficient to prove evolutionary theory on their own.

So, there are no "gaps" in the fossil records in terms of something missing that could potentially falsify the theory, but it's a moot point, anyway. We don't need to rely on fossils to prove the theory. There could be exactly zero fossils on planet Earth and Evolutionary Theory would be easily proven.

Thus, bitching about the record gets you nowhere. And, of course, those sorts of complaints are nothing new. This is not a well recognized "problem," the Cambrian "explosion" is a well recognized phenomenon largely based on the finicky nature of fossil formation.

Once again, you're relying on the work of a chemist who made basic, fundamental errors in his evaluation of the existing fossil record. Why should we pay attention to anything he says?


What I find interesting, is that the more Avalon speak about this book, thoe more it feels like a book written by creationist 40 years ago and never revised, with old tired already debunked argument.

naturally I might be biased agaisnt creationist as Avalon said, but up to now I don#t see anything cited by him which sound even remotely *NEW*.

[Wowbagger]

There are a few ways to tell who is really doing the science, and who is not.

Progression vs. Reaction
Intelligent Design seems to be almost entirely reactionary. They never seem to be the ones making new, innovative discoveries; nor are they capable of predicting what might be found in a particular study: At least not in any detail.

What often happens is that evolutionary biologists will make a new discovery, of some sort: Perhaps a new fossil or a new way in which genes can vary, or a new way in which genes are expressed. And, all I.D. can do is react: "Yeah, but this can also be explained in this way..." And, that "way" would be very creative and convincing to a great many people. Except: They were not the ones who could ever come up with that discovery. It would be an entirely post-hoc analysis.

For example: As evolutionary development scientists (evo/devo) discover more facts about epigenetics, ID can react by calling them all examples of "front loading". ID is not capable of making the discoveries, nor are they capable of predicting what would be "frontloaded" or not, using their own hypothesis.

Another example is in the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN). One would not expect a nerve to take a path like that, if it were designed. But, since we discovered it, all ID can say is "yeah, there is a reason for it". Of course, this is not even an argument against evolution: The nerve could still be the result of evolutionary heritage, and not contradict claims of how it is used. But, at least evolutionary biologists can still map how the nerve got to be that way, over time. ID cannot present evidence of a Creator's desires.

A third example, in the finding of fossils: The careful study of evolution can help us predict where new fossils can be found, such as the Tiktaalik. ID could make all the claims it wants about it "not being a transitional fossil". But, they did not predict its discovery. All they can do is react.

Utility as a Framework
The end result of all this is that Evolution continues to make headway as a framework for solving problems in the field of biology. Its findings, though not perfect nor complete, yet, are still far more reliable than anything Creationists have come up with.

Examples aplenty can be found here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

ID seems to be entirely superfluous: It does not add anything that a scientist, charged with the responsibility of solving a problem in biology, would ever want to incorporate.

Quality of Evidence at the Core
Every claim made by evolutionary biologists (but, not necessarily the strawman claims that creationists claim evolutionists make) is backed by empirical evidence: We can isolate and measure each property at the core of our claims, and then some.
The same cannot be said for ID: There is no testable hypothesis that can isolate and measure the properties of the Designer. Not even in principle, it seems.

ID proponents are content with having the core of their claims be unknowable. But, the nature of the empirical beast that is science demands that claims should strive to be otherwise.

If evolution were all a hoax, then why does it continue to be productive in the fields of biological sciences? If ID was a superior science, then how come it is almost entirely reactionary?

Ask yourself: Who is really conducting science in biology?

[Pure Argent]

This is addressed head-on in Hoax -- pointing out that we're not talking about small gaps between two clearly related forms, but whole kinds that have no connecting ancestors at all. A complete lack of transitional ancestors between the different basic dinosaur types. A complete lack of transitional ancestors for each of the phyla body plans first found fully-formed in the Cambrian layer.

Even taking this as true (and it's not; for example, we found the crocoduck), fossils aren't the only way to determine which animals are related to each other and how.

[SonOfLaertes]

This is addressed head-on in Hoax -- pointing out that we're not talking about small gaps between two clearly related forms, but whole kinds that have no connecting ancestors at all. A complete lack of transitional ancestors between the different basic dinosaur types. A complete lack of transitional ancestors for each of the phyla body plans first found fully-formed in the Cambrian layer.
These are not small problems; they're well-recognized. The difference appears to be in the appropriate interpretation of the gaps.

Are you aware that there are lineages with relatively complete fossil evidence? The evolution of whales is a good example. [/sarcasm] Surprisingly, [sarcasm] those lineages which lived mostly in a habitat where a deceased animal would quickly be covered in sedimentation tend to leave behind very complete fossil records.

Given that fact, it is dishonest for "Hoax" to focus on those lineages with incomplete evidence. The fact that they even try is suspect. If they were to basically admit that common sense dictates that many lineages will leave behind an incomplete record, and scientifically address the many lineages which do leave behind an extensive record, then I would have more respect for their approach.

[TraneWreck]

If evolution were all a hoax, then why does it continue to be productive in the fields of biological sciences? If ID was a superior science, then how come it is almost entirely reactionary

What are the odds that we could, right now, develop some scientific "hoax" that will be 100% confirmed by an entire branch of science that we currently know nothing about?

Evolutionary Theory didn't need it, but the nail in the coffin was genetics. How could Darwin come up with a hoax in the 19th century that was confirmed by something he literally couldn't imagine? He had no idea what DNA was, much less any hope that it would confirm his theory. The odds of than happening are incomprehensible.

Seriously, let's try it. Let's develop a hoax theory sustainable with our current knowledge that will be verified by a radical new discovery in 100 years.

It's impossible.

[SonOfLaertes]

Avalon, read up on "molecular sequence" evidence. If I were the folks from ICR/Disco Tute, I would be very afraid of this line of evidence, and the way it can increasingly prove common descent with mathematical precision, thus independently confirming the fossil record/tree of life.

Very afraid.

[tsig]

Because I apparently didn't make this point clear enough before, I'll make it again -- based on my most recent set of reads, the thought that's forming is that this isn't an issue that's decided by an elegant argument or a single set of persuasive summaries. The discussion is complicated. It requires evaluation of a large body of data, of understanding the evidence and the research that goes into it at a level that's beyond my expertise.
Claims about baramins and information loss can't be refuted without more knowledge of fossils, genetics, and animal groupings than I have. Neither can claims about clades and beneficial mutations.
When I feel I have a very good handle on some of the main arguments in Hoax, I may try to present them here to see if I can get some leads on what to read next. But I expect I won't ever get to a conclusive answer without some significant self-education. Which for me will be a long-term, not short-term project.

If you're willing to argue about it shouldn't you have done your self-education before now?

[LarianLeQuella]

THIS is why the Hoax book is a sham. Again, it seems that anyone who takes the hoax book seriously just has no understanding, or is unwilling to understand.
There are a few ways to tell who is really doing the science, and who is not.

Progression vs. Reaction
Intelligent Design seems to be almost entirely reactionary. They never seem to be the ones making new, innovative discoveries; nor are they capable of predicting what might be found in a particular study: At least not in any detail.

What often happens is that evolutionary biologists will make a new discovery, of some sort: Perhaps a new fossil or a new way in which genes can vary, or a new way in which genes are expressed. And, all I.D. can do is react: "Yeah, but this can also be explained in this way..." And, that "way" would be very creative and convincing to a great many people. Except: They were not the ones who could ever come up with that discovery. It would be an entirely post-hoc analysis.

For example: As evolutionary development scientists (evo/devo) discover more facts about epigenetics, ID can react by calling them all examples of "front loading". ID is not capable of making the discoveries, nor are they capable of predicting what would be "frontloaded" or not, using their own hypothesis.

Another example is in the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN). One would not expect a nerve to take a path like that, if it were designed. But, since we discovered it, all ID can say is "yeah, there is a reason for it". Of course, this is not even an argument against evolution: The nerve could still be the result of evolutionary heritage, and not contradict claims of how it is used. But, at least evolutionary biologists can still map how the nerve got to be that way, over time. ID cannot present evidence of a Creator's desires.

A third example, in the finding of fossils: The careful study of evolution can help us predict where new fossils can be found, such as the Tiktaalik. ID could make all the claims it wants about it "not being a transitional fossil". But, they did not predict its discovery. All they can do is react.

Utility as a Framework
The end result of all this is that Evolution continues to make headway as a framework for solving problems in the field of biology. Its findings, though not perfect nor complete, yet, are still far more reliable than anything Creationists have come up with.

Examples aplenty can be found here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

ID seems to be entirely superfluous: It does not add anything that a scientist, charged with the responsibility of solving a problem in biology, would ever want to incorporate.

Quality of Evidence at the Core
Every claim made by evolutionary biologists (but, not necessarily the strawman claims that creationists claim evolutionists make) is backed by empirical evidence: We can isolate and measure each property at the core of our claims, and then some.
The same cannot be said for ID: There is no testable hypothesis that can isolate and measure the properties of the Designer. Not even in principle, it seems.

ID proponents are content with having the core of their claims be unknowable. But, the nature of the empirical beast that is science demands that claims should strive to be otherwise.

If evolution were all a hoax, then why does it continue to be productive in the fields of biological sciences? If ID was a superior science, then how come it is almost entirely reactionary?

Ask yourself: Who is really conducting science in biology?

[ben m]

The "missing transitional species" argument is equivalent to the following:

"We don't have a complete history of England from paleolithic times through the Norman invasion. We dig up a hoard, megalithic grave, or bog body here and there; Britannia gets mentioned ten or twelve times in surviving Roman documents; that's it. From this we conclude:

a) that Britain was populated more or less continuously by people who lived, died, and reproduced, but with a variable probability of leaving artifacts behind. We take our fragments of data and use them as clues to this continuous history.

OR

b) Megalith A from 1000BC is evidence for clan A. Hoard B from 800BC is evidence for clan B. Where are the missing clans A1 in between? You have no evidence that clan A is related to clan B at all, or that anyone is related to anyone. Clan A presumably went extinct and clan B was created anew by God.

[tsig]

I guess my concern is, is it possible that the ID folks could have an important development or a reasonable criticism, and the experts still make dismissive remarks in the same way? In other words, are we relying on the experts' honesty to take serious claims seriously?

I'm not. I studied the subject and came to my own conclusion.

[TubbaBlubba]

Avalon, read up on "molecular sequence" evidence. If I were the folks from ICR/Disco Tute, I would be very afraid of this line of evidence, and the way it can increasingly prove common descent with mathematical precision, thus independently confirming the fossil record/tree of life.

Very afraid.

I love how a taxonomic tree based on genetics matches almost perfectly with a taxonomic tree based on similarity.

[tsig]

If evolution were all a hoax, then why does it continue to be productive in the fields of biological sciences? If ID was a superior science, then how come it is almost entirely reactionary?

Ask yourself: Who is really conducting science in biology?

Nomed

[TraneWreck]

I love how a taxonomic tree based on genetics matches almost perfectly with a taxonomic tree based on similarity.

At risk of beating this point to death, I find that occurrence to be astonishing.

I'm trying to think of another such example in the history of science. Usually radical new developments, or entire new branches of science, greatly modify what came before. Here we have almost a 100% confirmation of Darwin's thesis with additional explanation of how it happened (mutations and such).

Again, what are the odds that a hoax could be concocted that anticipated the discovery of an entire branch of science a century later?

Either Darwin made an accurate discovery of the way things are or he developed the greatest hoax in the history of the world by a rather large margin.

[Towlie]

There are a few ways to tell who is really doing the science, and who is not.

Progression vs. Reaction
Intelligent Design seems to be almost entirely reactionary...That's such an impressive essay that at first I thought it might have been copied from a more prominent site somewhere else on the web, but it apparently wasn't. I think we should feel flattered that it was composed just for us, but it really needs to be spread around to places where it might do some real good, such as to the more conservative-dominated boards of education.

[Wowbagger]

Evolutionary Theory didn't need it, but the nail in the coffin was genetics. How could Darwin come up with a hoax in the 19th century that was confirmed by something he literally couldn't imagine?I hate to burst your bubble, but from the point of view of ID, genetics does not confirm evolution. It only serves to confirm Design (from their point of view).

Part of the reason is that they choose to model genetics as a literal code or language. And, according to them, only an intelligence can create a code or language.

Of course, there is an approach to demonstrate how that is false: Show how the "code" is ONLY an analogy: That the origins of DNA could be explained if you move away from that analogy, and use a different one: "DNA is like a snowflake", for example.

But, don't assume any evidence we discover is automatically going to vindicate evolution in the minds of creationists.

[TraneWreck]

I hate to burst your bubble, but from the point of view of ID, genetics does not confirm evolution. It only serves to confirm Design (from their point of view).

Part of the reason is that they choose to model genetics as a literal code or language. And, according to them, only an intelligence can create a code or language.

Of course, there is an approach to demonstrate how that is false: Show how the "code" is ONLY an analogy: That the origins of DNA could be explained if you move away from that analogy, and use a different one: "DNA is like a snowflake", for example.

But, don't assume any evidence we discover is automatically going to vindicate evolution in the minds of creationists.

Look, I don't think anything discovered by science is going to change the mind of creationists. They will always be able to retain their central notion of a creator by altering auxiliary hypotheses. Hell, they mostly don't even do that, they just blissfully ignore the evidence.

Perhaps the better way to phrase my point is, what are the odds that Darwin could develop a hoax that was perfectly supported, and not in the least contradicted by an entire branch of science developed a century after his death?

[Wowbagger]

THIS is why the Hoax book is a sham.

Nomed

That's such an impressive essay that at first I thought it might have been copied from a more prominent site somewhere else on the web, but it apparently wasn't. I think we should feel flattered that it was composed just for us, but it really needs to be spread around to places where it might do some real good, such as to the more conservative-dominated boards of education.

Thanks to everyone who liked that post. Yes, it is original. But, I don't think it was much different from all the other evolution-related posts I have made in this thread. If you look at my posting history, you will find it sprinkled with similar points.

It was actually written rather quickly - with more time I can render its prose more elegantly.

But, I've been repeating these points about scientific productivity for sooo many years, I can effortlessly ramble this stuff off the top of my head, now.

Freaky.

[Towlie]

Part of the reason is that they choose to model genetics as a literal code or language. And, according to them, only an intelligence can create a code or language.

Of course, there is an approach to demonstrate how that is false: Show how the "code" is ONLY an analogy: That the origins of DNA could be explained if you move away from that analogy, and use a different one...It's a weakness of language caused by redefining an existing word instead of creating a new one. The same principle applies to scientific "laws". Fundamentalists often conflate them with laws made and enforced by government, and then demand to know "who made these laws of the Universe."

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps the better way to phrase my point is, what are the odds that Darwin could develop a hoax that was perfectly supported, and not in the least contradicted by an entire branch of science developed a century after his death?That is, indeed, an interesting approach to think about these things.

[JoeyDonuts]

Sure, mutations happen, but they cannot increase specified complexity.
What's specified complexity?
It's what mutations cannot increase.

"What are electrolytes? Do you even know?"

"They're what plants crave."

"*snort* Yeah. You know, for the smartest guy on earth, you're pretty dumb sometimes."

[sphenisc]

This is addressed head-on in Hoax -- pointing out that we're not talking about small gaps between two clearly related forms, but whole kinds that have no connecting ancestors at all. A complete lack of transitional ancestors between the different basic dinosaur types. A complete lack of transitional ancestors for each of the phyla body plans first found fully-formed in the Cambrian layer.
These are not small problems; they're well-recognized. The difference appears to be in the appropriate interpretation of the gaps.

If you'd like to start a thread with the exact quote about dinosaur types and a request for fossil evidence of common ancestry, you may be in a better position to evaluate the evidence for yourself.

Likewise for bauplan diversity.

[Wowbagger]

It's a weakness of language caused by redefining an existing word instead of creating a new one. The same principle applies to scientific "laws". Fundamentalists often conflate them with laws made and enforced by government, and then demand to know "who made these laws of the Universe."There is also the assumption that Laws can never be broken.

Recently, there was a thread where someone cited Mendel's Laws (which have been broken for a loooong time) and the so-called Laws of Biogenesis (which were never properly scientific laws to begin with).

Since both can be talked about, in the context of Law, the mentality is that any arguments against them are automatically nullified and void. (Since, we are talking about Laws here, and Laws cannot ever be broken!!!)

But, one only need to point out that the greatest discoveries are those that can reliably break such laws. Science has a rich history of doing just that.

[ThunderChunky]

Perhaps the better way to phrase my point is, what are the odds that Darwin could develop a hoax that was perfectly supported, and not in the least contradicted by an entire branch of science developed a century after his death?

Interestingly, Lamarck's views of evolution turned out to be wrong (inheritance of acquired traits is not a driving force for evolution) and largely dismissed. However, studies of epigenetic mechanisms have shown that acquired traits can be inherited. The genes that program these processes were, of course, evolved in the Darwinian fashion. What are the odds of that?

[Kotatsu]

I love how a taxonomic tree based on genetics matches almost perfectly with a taxonomic tree based on similarity.

Do they really, though (1)? Perhaps I am biased because of the organism groups I've worked with and studied more intensely (birds, lice and clitellates), but in general, new phylogenetic (2) trees almost always are at odds with the pre-existing (morphological) taxonomy, often vastly so. We then re-evaluate morphological, behavioural, developmental, and other characters to see if a different weighing of these data will better explain the genetic data, but I would say that it is more a rule than an exception that there are large portions of any given super-generic tree that are substantially different from a previous one based on morphology.

My own field of bird louse systematics is an excellent example of this. Roughly, bird lice can be divided into three morphological groups:
- Head lice, which are stocky insects, usually with broad, sub-triangular heads and relatively short legs;
- Body lice, which are rotund insects, unsually with bell-shaped heads;
- Wing lice, which are long, slender insects, with narrow, often ovoid or oval heads and relatively long legs.

In a very thorough phylogeny (Smith, 2001) based entirely on morphology, these three main body types come out as four main clades: two wing louse clades, one body louse clade, and one head louse clade (3). This is quite typical of the few morphological systematisations of lice. Head lice and wing lice of the same group of birds are typically placed well apart, as they are generally very different, and the adaptations to a certain part of the bird's plumage are quite similar in different genera of lice.

However, when we look at (partially) the same taxa genetically, you get a much more complex picture. Cruickshank et al. (2001), for instance, has many instances where head lice and wing lice on the same group of birds are grouped together. For instance, the duck head louse genus Anatoecus is grouped with the duck wing louse genus Anaticola and the grebe louse genus Aquanirmus, despite them being of different morphological groups. Quadraceps, the body and wing louse genus (4) of shorebirds is grouped with the head louse genus of the same group, Saemundssonia, and so on (5).

Of course, even before these trees were constructed, it was know that many aspects of morphology are so convergent and diverse that they are probably useless for phylogenetics. Cruikshank's (2001) tree did, however, find many of the super-generic groups that Eichler (1963) established on purely morphological grounds, but we don't really know what criteria he used to build this systematics.

The same goes with bird systematics. There have been a lot of rearrangement and surprising developments during the last decade or so, including the sister-group relationship between grebes (Podicipediformes) and flamingoes (Phoenicopteriformes), the inclusion of Button-quails (Turnix spp) in shorebirds (Charadriiformes) rather than cranes and allies (Gruiformes) where they have traditionally been placed, and so on. In one tree only (Hackett et al., 2008), I find lots of genetic groupings that I have never seen suggested in morphological systems before (6).

Of course many of these groupings may find themselves overturned in the future, when more genetic data and perhaps more refined morphological data can be used, but the point is that more often than not, on higher taxonomic levels, the old morphological trees and the new genetic ones are as night and day. The extreme example would be Dunn et al. (2008) whose genetic analysis resulted in Ctenophores being sister-group to the rest of the Metazoa, including the Porifera, implying that the bilateral bauplan either evolved twice independently, or that it has been secondarily lost in Porifera -- both of which are more or less equally implausible (and newer trees, using more data, have given more traditional phylogenies).

Add to this the fact that there are a huge number of "rogue taxa" which cannot be placed morphologically, and which end up all over the place when you use sequence data or other molecular methods. I was at a seminar yesterday where it was suggested that Xenoturbella, which has been placed as a sister group to more or less every larger phyla in the Lophotrochozoans and Ecdysozoans, may actually be an odd Deuterostome. Several bird taxa cannot be placed at all, such as the Hoazin and many small groups that were formerly placed in Gruiformes.

It is a different story on sub-generic level (or maybe even on sub-familial level), but even there, there are plenty of cases where old genera established entirely on morphological basis are found to be non-monophyletic -- and what is that if not a disagreement between morphological data and genetic data? We may often feel more certain about morphological relationships on this level, as species grouped together in a genus are typically quite recently diversified (or they are likely to be dissimilar enough to have been placed in different genera based on morphology), but this is not at all always justified. Again, in a single paper on lice (Johnson et al., 2002), I find four (Degeeriella, Picicola, Austrophilopterus, Cuculicola) of the eight ingroup taxa studied are paraphyletic.

Naturally, in many higher taxa a vast variety of systems have been proposed during the last 200 years, particularly in popular groups such as birds, and undoubtedly for every given surprise in a genetic tree, there will be at least one overlooked taxonomist in the 19th century who proposed exactly that grouping based on minute details of the inner ear structure, song patterns, preantennal setal arrangements or something. Nevertheless, genetic trees differ from conventional consensus trees or systems based on morphology all the time, and it happens at virtually all taxonomic levels, and if challenged, I could probably find it in more or less any group of organisms with not very much effort.

Digression:
It then comes down to what we chose to trust. Should we always trust genetics over morphology? Well, that certainly seems to be the trend these days (I am doing it myself in my work!). But what if we find something particularly egregious? What is all swans are in one group, except the Black Swan which is placed among the crows? I would still go for morphology...

---
References cited:

Cruickshank et al., 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of partial sequences of Elongation Factor 1a identifies major groups of lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 19, 202-215.

Dunn et al., 2008. Broad phylogenetic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452, 745-749.

Eichler, 1963. Phthiraptera. I. Mallophaga. IX. System (Klassifikation). In: Bronns (Ed), Klassen und Ordnungen der Tierreichs. III. Insecta. Verlagsgesellschaft Goets & Portig K. G., Leipzig

Johnson et al., 2002. The perils of using host relationships in parasite taxonomy: phylogeny of the Degeeriella complex. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 23, 150-157.

Smith, 2001. Avian louse phylogeny (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera): a cladistic study based on morphology. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 132, 81-144.

---
(1) Note: unlike the disclaimers of many other posters in this thread, I actually am a biologist, specifically a systematist and taxonomist specialising in lice on shorebirds and (hopefully soon) also their hosts. I am in no way doubting evolutionary theory as the single greatest explanatory tool we have in my discipline, but I do feel that TubbaBlubba's characterisation of what my discipline is actually like is at fault.

(2) Not taxonomic! There is no such thing as a taxonomic tree!

(3) Note that the upper of Smith's body louse clades contains almost only typical head lice, though some (like Quadraceps coenocoryphae) is probably more of a body louse type. The reason there are two wing louse clades has to do with whether or not they have sexually dimorphic antennae or not, I think. I am not familiar with most of the included genera to be able to generalise.

(4) The Quadraceps-complex is quite involved, and includes species that look like head lice, wing lice and body lice in a godawful mess. This is the group I am working on, and if you think this should be sorted out -- please fund me!

(5) Note, however, that there is no general trend that lice on the same group of birds all group together. The over-all pattern is much more complex than that. Austrophilopterus and Paragonicotes, both parasitic on parrots, come at in very different parts of the tree, and it is likely that most large groups of birds have been colonised independently several times.

(6) Apart from those mentioned, the following may be interesting for those who know birds:
- Inclusion of Ciconiiformes in Pelecaniformes, bjut exclusion of Phaethontidae from the same
- Cuckoos included in traditional Gruiformes (excluding Turnix, Eurypyga, Cariama, Rhynochetos and the Mesitornithidae.
- Piciformes included in Coraciiformes
- Parrots sister-group to Passerines, and Falconidae sistergroup to those two.

[Wowbagger]

Digression:
It then comes down to what we chose to trust. Should we always trust genetics over morphology? Well, that certainly seems to be the trend these days (I am doing it myself in my work!). But what if we find something particularly egregious? What is all swans are in one group, except the Black Swan which is placed among the crows? I would still go for morphology...
It depends on what your purposes are.

Assuming your example is true, for this thought experiment: The genetic tree can probably help us make better predictions about how the black swans will be related to crows and other birds, in other ways: Immunology and diet, for example. It would also make a fascinating study to find out how far convergent evolution could go!

I imagine certain factors pertaining to parasite/host relationships between the birds and other species could be impacted by this discovery. But, some of that might be dependent on the convergent appearance, depending on how old the relationship is.

Of course, if you were designing a children's picture book, perhaps the morphology tree might be good enough.

ETA: I should emphasize that this egregious example of black swans being more closely related to crows than other swans, seems extremely unlikely to happen, to say the least.

[Towlie]

Perhaps the better way to phrase my point is, what are the odds that Darwin could develop a hoax that was perfectly supported, and not in the least contradicted by an entire branch of science developed a century after his death?I don't like that argument for two reasons:

It commits the fallacy of begging the question. Evolution deniers don't accept that evolution is "perfectly supported, and not in the least contradicted", so you're treating as granted the very thing being argued.

It commits the fallacy of argument from authority. You're arguing that you're right because many authorities believe as you do. A religious person can easily trump that by pointing out that a creator must exist because the vast majority of the human race believes as he does.


I'm not saying that I don't believe in evolution, of course. I'm only saying that I don't like your argument and wouldn't use it myself.

[TraneWreck]

I don't like that argument for two reasons:

It commits the fallacy of begging the question. Evolution deniers don't accept that evolution is "perfectly supported, and not in the least contradicted", so you're treating as granted the very thing being argued.

Which is why I added, "and not contradicted by."



It commits the fallacy of argument from authority. You're arguing that you're right because many authorities believe as you do. A religious person can easily trump that by pointing out that a creator must exist because the vast majority of the human race believes as he does.

What? I am most certainly not arguing from authority. What was discovered through genetics that contradicts Evolutionary Theory?

At most, some peripheral issues about the exact way evolution happens.


I'm not saying that I don't believe in evolution, of course. I'm only saying that I don't like your argument and wouldn't use it myself.

It was less an argument for evolution than an evaluation of the claim that it was a hoax.

Were I making an argument for evolution, I likely wouldn't bring up that point at all.