Creationist Question I Don't Know How To Answer

[tommygdawg]

Hey all,

 

I recently came across this article by a creationist, and I can't find alternative answers to what he provides. I firmly believe evolution happened, but I'd be interested to know what the answer is to some of these questions. This is the article: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12162

 

This person is saying that basically Gansus yumenensis was found much earlier in the fossil record than it should have been, therefore evolution is false. The author also goes on to state that some amber was found in a layer that was much too old for amber to have appeared. This is the exact quote:

 

"I discussed some amber that was found in Carboniferous rock that is supposed to be 320 million years old. This amber has all the chemical indications of being produced by a tree that belongs to the group of plants we call angiosperms (flower-making plants). The problem, of course, is that angiosperms weren’t supposed to have evolved until about 180 million years ago. Thus, the amber was found in rock that was 140 million years too old. Did that give evolutionists pause? Not at all. They simply said that there must have been some kind of gymnosperm (a tree that produces uncovered seeds, like an evergreen) that just happened to produce amber that is chemically indistinguishable from the amber made by angiosperms. Gymnosperms were supposed to be around 320 million years ago, so if this amber came from a gymnosperm, there is no problem."

 

Any thoughts you all have on how to answer these issues would be great Thanks!

 

- Tommy

[chadn737]

Traits evolve at different points and times. There is no reason that biochemical pathways involved in one process had to arise simultaneously to or after another trait like flowering. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable or unconventional about the explanation given by the researchers. This is just another argument from incredulity from creationists.

[tommygdawg]

Thanks, Baryon! I appreciate it. I figured as much. It's just so frustrating dealing with issues like this; I guess I just wondered if there was more specific research into these areas I could look into.

[iNow]

It's hard to use evidence and reason to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither.

Creationists don't tend to objectively look at the evidence and objectively see where it leads. They tend to make up their mind up front then look for evidence which supports their viewpoint, all while ignoring the countless many counter examples that show their position to be flawed.

[Ringer]

Always remember that species is the only 'real' category (and even that is pretty fuzzy), every other category is one of convenience. So just because what we would label as angiosperms didn't exist before a certain point doesn't mean that species with angiosperm like qualities wouldn't be around before that. Indeed, if there weren't gymnosperms with some angiosperm like qualities then there would have been nothing to give rise to the group angiosperm.

[Arete]

There is also the possibility for fossils to be incorrectly dated, or wind up in sedimentary layers they were not formed in. This appears to be the case for Tikiguania which was thought to be the oldest squamate reptile, but is probably a modern lizard that became incorporated in Triassic sediments at a later stage. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/01/24/rsbl.2011.1216.full

 

However, reading the cited article, there's bigger problems.

 

Dr. Wile seriously misrepresents what the authors actually claim in their paper. They suggest that The bio-synthetic pathway to produce the type of amber found existed before the gymnosperm/angiosperm split occurred. No mention of convergence whatsoever. Additionally, the existence of this pathway in the carboniferous had been speculated based on genomic data, and this is simply physical proof backing up the genetic data. There is no inconsistency with evolutionary theory here at all, and it requires some serious misinterpretation or dishonest misrepresentation to even make the argument that it does. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5949/132.full

 

He also presents an exceptionally misleading straw-man version of the concept of convergent evolution -

 

"He just waves the magic wand of “convergent evolution.” Remember, similarities between species are strong evidence for evolution, except when the hypothesis of evolution cannot accommodate them. When that happens, the similarities are a result of “convergent evolution,” a process by which species have similarities based on sheer coincidence alone."

 

a) Convergence isn't a "magic wand" - it's an observable evolutionary process. e.g. here: http://www.genetics.org/content/147/4/1497.short. As we can watch this phenomenon in real time, extrapolating it to other biological systems is hardly waving a magic wand. It's also laughably ironic that his alternative explanation is that an all powerful supernatural being simply willed it into existence.

 

b) No model of convergent evolution states that convergence occurs through "sheer coincidence alone". Convergence is generally thought to occur when selection favors a particular phenotype in independent lineages of organisms, as the experiment above shows. Selection is not random, therefore evolution does not occur through "sheer coincidence" despite it being a common misrepresentation used by creationists.

 

To provide an example birds and bats both have wings - so according to Wile, evolutionary biology would assume they are related. Only genetics shows us they are independent lineages, they have a number of other traits which suggest they are more closely related to other species than each other, and despite functional and phentoypic similarities between their wings, they are physiologically very different. So, by examining the evidence, we can fairly confidently come to the conclusion that the two, seemingly similar traits arose in these two organisms via distinct evolutionary pathways. Similar selection pressures acting on these creatures has resulted in phenotypic structures which while having similar function and appearance, arose through different evolutionary pathways.

 

But according to Wile, I "just waved the magic want of convergent evolution". I would disagree and claim that I provided an observationally and mechanistically validated explanation for observing similar traits in distantly related organisms, and suggest that his argument boils down to simple argument from incredulity leveled at a study which never makes a claim about convergence in the first place.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Arete

[chadn737]

We really don't even need convergent evolution to explain this. The simplest explanation is that these biochemical pathways arose before the angiosperm/gymnosperm split in lineages that were the ancestors of the angiosperms. It really is that simple.

[John Cuthber]

So, this is an example of how, faced with new evidence, science changes what it believes happened.

That seems rather better than the creationists' point of view.

[Ringer]

So, this is an example of how, faced with new evidence, science changes what it believes happened.

That seems rather better than the creationists' point of view.

You may have a fundamental misunderstanding of the creationist mindset