October 11, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Recently I cited the “tree of life” diagrams of Talking Squid in discussing assumptions of evolution. There they have done a good job of explaining past and current tree metaphors from an evolutionist point of view. I’d like to add a few comments to round out the value of the concept.
To begin, Talking Squid does not say, but one could take from the wording, that Darwin invented the tree concept for representing a common origin of all life. In fact we have a tree drawn by Porphyry (234-305 AD) in his introduction to Aristotle’s Categories. It was his graphic representation of what he had developed from Aristotle’s words, and it has been reworked by many over the centuries, including evolutionists seeking a pattern for life’s diversity. More likely Darwin’s drawing was his attempt to flesh out the concept he had been given with organisms he knew. What was new, as Talking Squid points out, is that Darwin included dead ends, a fundamental part of his natural selection concept.
But the tree concept is quite natural (no pun intended) when one begins categorizing anything. Take for example the rocks in my back yard. I can categorize them by type of material of which they are made, resulting in purer constancies being arranged around the edge (farther apart) and less distinct ones being toward the middle (and closer together). If I categorize them by shape, the same will happen, with round in the middle and all manner of shapes branching off at the edges. Whenever there are a variety of features to be considered (whether they be among organisms, sports equipment, or casseroles), distinct features become branches and commonalities become trunks. If you add the assumption that whatever-they-are evolved from each other, then a tree of origins can be easily had, at least at a tersery glance. Here is another difference between Darwin and many other uses of the Tree of Porphyry. Darwin was not seeking a metaphor. He was seeking real origins. Here I part with Talking Squid: the Tree of Life is not a metaphor to an evolutionist, if they in fact are seeking and believing in real, common origins.
If the categories of whatever didn’t actually evolve from each other, then the devil will be in the details. A closer look at the featureless (impure) rocks in my backyard will reveal that the ones with least distinct features actually have more variety in internal elements.
Interestingly enough, the same thing happens when one attempts to categorize life, except that the devil is not only complexity, but also differentiation. This is easily seen in at least three ways:
First, we have learned that small does not always mean less complex, as Aristotle had supposed when he first posited spontaneous generation. Single-celled organisms are still cells, complete with DNA, cell walls, etc., except they are often capable of more functions than cells of “higher” life forms, such as across-species transfer of DNA components.
Second, features can be found in common when common ancestry is impossible. One well-known example is the octopus, which is a mollusk with an eye quite similar to that of a human’s, except it works better than ours in filtered light. This is why Doolittle’s “tree of life” looks more like a banyan tree, which by the way, has multiple trunks only because it drops them DOWN from branches, not the other way around.
Third, on the most fundamental levels organisms are not more similar. They are more different. Archeans (archi-bacteria) are not just simple bacteria, they have an entirely different DNA language for reproduction than do bacteria. Biologically speaking, archeans are more different from bacteria than are you, the reader, from yeast.
The implications are pretty clear that where life is concerned common origin is an imposed concept on a natural phenomenon. The difficulty in accepting this would seem to stem from the requirement that there be no designer. It is too suggestive that it could be not just a designer but the Designer, even though ID never goes there.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

October 3, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Have you met Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), your “newest oldest ancestor?” Friday’s Wall Street Journal has a full article and slide show online about this fossil find from Ethiopia.
I never cease to be amazed at how every few years a new fossil ancestor is found for humans. Each time it is older, and every time it is closer to our split-off from other primates. Hence, Ardi is our “newest oldest.” I would encourage any reader to carefully decide if they are being led to conclusions by “experts,” when their personal logic might conclude otherwise.
First, do the scientists have any reason to want these fossils to be our ancestors? Yes, they are more likely to get grants, publicity, promotion, and status among peers if they find our newest oldest ancestor. This of course does not in itself say the information is less than accurate, but I suggest it does make me want to review the claims less credulously. Now let’s review:
The slideshow provides excellent images of the fossils and their reconstructions. Slide 1 shows the bone structure of the foot. No, not the hand, the foot. It is obviously prehensile. Remember, the claim is that these bones represent the closest relative to both humans and monkeys. Move on to Slide 3 for a look at the hand. The caption says, “Ardi, unlike apes and chimps, had supple writs, strong thumbs, flexible fingers and power-grip palms shaped to grasp objects like sticks and stones firmly.” Note that the bones of Ardi’s fingers are curved and combine to form a major curve, as is true for all climbing monkeys. Don’t take my word for it. Compare the fingers of a human hand with those of various climbing monkeys in these pictures. Ardi’s fingers are indeed designed for grasping objects like sticks.. in particular, tree branches.
Moving along to Slide 4: “Ardi and her relatives, the researchers say, made their home in the woods, not on Africa’s open savannah grasslands long considered the main area of human development. Their distinctive pelvis suggests they walked easily enough.” Notice how easily enough Ardi is pictured walking on a tree branch, which accommodates the foot thumb more readily than flat ground. Note also that the pelvis of tree monkeys in general is designed to allow movement of the legs straight forward for climbing, yes, unlike gorillas and chimps, which are primarily ground dwellers.
Now consider Slide 7 where you will find a rendering of how these scientists picture Ardi. Notice that the most human features are the upper arms, shoulders, and torso. Slide 9 tells us how fragmented the bones of the skill and pelvis were without comment on how likely the scientists are to have gotten the assembly right; and in Slide 10 we are finally shown just how many bones were used to construct our “ancestor.” Notice which bones are present and more to the point, which are missing. Let us not forget that the most human part of Lucy was her feet, which were never found. It seems that the less data we have, the more human the parts must be.
Thinking for myself, I have not come to the same conclusions as the experts about Ardi’s place in human ancestry. What do you think? What you think really is more important than what you are told.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ~ Galileo Galilei

Posted in Notable Quotes, Science and faith | No Comments »