Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I can understand perfectly well why biologists would have made those claims. I just don't agree that showing that sections of an organism's DNA previously thought to be "junk DNA" is actually functional does anything to dismantle this line of argument. If we find genuine "junk DNA" tomorrow, evolutionary theory predicts that this will show the same pattern as functional DNA, i.e., that taxa closely related in the true tree will be more likely to have sequences more similar to each other than would taxa that are more distantly related on the true tree.
The argument that "junk DNA", if found, will show this property is still, theoretically, a very strong argument in favour of evolution, as we would expect "junk DNA" to behave the same way as functional DNA, albeit perhaps at a different speed. The fact that what was previously thought to be "junk DNA" turned out to be functional mean precisely one thing: that the specific examples given of "junk DNA" conforming to the theory of evolution are not examples of "junk DNA" doing so. They do remain examples of functional DNA showing the exact same thing. The strength of the evidence does not lie in the label we attach to the data, but to the actual data. Arguing otherwise betrays only your intimate lack of knowledge of the field.
Your point would have some merit if you could show that the very same people who argued that "junk DNA" is strong evidence in favour of evolution also argued that all other forms of DNA, whether structural, coding or whatever, are not strong evidence in favour of evolution, and that this is actually the case. This is the only case in which your argument has merit, as this is the only case in which data would be moved from the "evidence basket" to the "not evidence basket". As long as the very same data shows the same pattern regardless of what we call the data, it remains as strong a piece of evidence for or against evolutionary theory as it was before. If, as I have seen you write elsewhere, you truly want to look at the data and see what the data tells you, then you should agree that the labeling of the data is irrelevant to what the data actually says.
Can you show that creationists and other non-biologists argued that similarity in a given alignment of supposed "junk DNA" sequences from different species did not indicate common descent, and that when this piece of supposed "junk DNA" was shown to be functional, it turned out that the data actually didn't indicate common descent in the group? In other words, can you show for instance a phylogeny which was based on supposed "junk DNA" sequences which, when discovering that the specific sequences used were not in fact "junk DNA", altered so that no common descent was indicated?
So this will be challenge number two, then: show me a list of these predictions ID has made with regards to a single group of animals which have been shown to be correct, and I will endeavour to do the same using scientific scenarios, and we will see which is most numerous. Pick whichever group of organisms you want, list the predictions ID has made regarding the relationships and whatever else you want for this group (as well as the basis for this prediction), show the methods used to test these predictions, and what the results are (i.e. to what extent their predictions have been supported by the data and their analyses of the data), and, after you have told me what group you will be looking at, I will do the same using evolutionary predictions and evolutionary data.
This is, of course, in addition to the first challenge, which was that if I randomly select a sample of phylogenies, you will be able to to show that it contains groupings of species that would not be predicted by the theory of evolution? I have developed a quick method for removing most of the bias with regards to what phylogenies will be selected, and could proceed with this whenever you give the signal. The proposed method of phylogeny selection:
1. Load random pages on Wikipedia.
2. Every time a page is on an animal taxon (1), I will go to Google Scholar and make a search for "[taxon name] + phylogeny".
3. Using a ten-sided die (possibly an electronic one) I will select which phylogeny is to be studied. If the die shows a four, and article number four is not available to me, I will take the next one, and continue going down the page until I reach a paper I have access to.
4. To remove some bias, I will not select the following taxa, as I am more intimately familiar with those due to my own research: Phthirapteran lice, Clitellate worms, and Charadriiform shorebirds. If requested, I will also remove the following taxa that I have not worked with, but with which I am nonetheless quite familiar: Passeriform birds, Anuran amphibians, Vespid wasps, Psocopterans, and all polychaetes. If any such taxon is generated in the Wikipedia search, I will just discard this result and do a new one.
5. I also propose to remove all studies which are on a below-species level, as these, typically being concerned with shorter time periods and smaller geographical areas, would tend to bias the study in my favour. If the die suggests a paper of this nature, I will proceed as under point 3 above.
6. I will write down all search results in Wikipedia, including all discarded searches, as well as all initial and modified search results in Google Scholar. If necessary, I will provide you (and anyone else who wants them) with all the selected phylogenies (in case you don't have access to them yourself).
7. I will then give you as much time as you require to read through the papers and detail in which of them groupings of species occur that would not be predicted by the theory of evolution. After you have presented your case, I will look through it and get back to you as soon as possible.
Please comment on this method, as I may have overlooked flaws that would bias the process in my favour. I will start this test as soon as you give the signal (although I will be away during most of the weekend, and will not therefore not have time until Monday).
You will need to detail this picture more comprehensively, as I can see no such picture forming when I look at the data. Assuming I am the one with bias, I would ask you for more detail, and also to clarify what your claim actually is. As "phylum" is a label given to groups of animals which have a very long common history, and have been separated from all other groups of animals for a long time, this by necessity means that this label will be given only to groups of animals that formed a long time ago. More recent groups have other labels attached to them.
This does in no way imply that "phylum", "family" or any other taxonomic label is anything that exists in nature; these are all within-science terms used for communication, and has no external existence. However, certainly there are groupings referred to as, e.g., families that are more recent than other groupings having the same rank label. As taxon labels are only terminology, they are not comparable between higher taxa. A bird family is not necessarily as inclusive or as old as a wasp family, as the very term is just a label we use for a certain grouping we feel is significantly closely related to warrant it. How inclusive a taxon in differs widely between higher taxa, mainly because it is comparatively rare for people to work on multiple taxa, and because different taxa offer different levels of resolution, and have different number of differently skilled people working on them.
We will (and have) certainly found groups of organisms which have evolved more recently than the "Cambrian explosion". Whether you call these "phyla" or "classes" or even "orders" is just a matter of taste, as the recent restructuring of the Platyhelminths and several other large groups should show adequately.
However, I will concede that it is unlikely that a group that diverged from a known phylum within the last 10 million years or so would be referred to as a phylum. This, however, is just because of the way taxonomy and systematics works, and has no bearing on the theory of evolution.
If they show evolution in action, they are certainly good examples of it, and should be used as such. However, it is imperative to understand the limits of using such examples.
Again, evolution does not necessitate change measurable to humans over any given period of time. It also does not oblige any given taxon to evolve into something else (2), and certainly not if the niche a given organisms occupies at a given point in time is more or less stable for extended periods of time, and the organism is already highly adapted to that niche.
This is not true. One instance of early speciation followed by a long period to time during which both sister taxa survive and evolve is sufficient for the development of differences significant enough for us to place the two sister taxa in different higher taxa, without the need for any speciation past the initial event. Granted, a widely distributed pair of sister taxa in a natural environment is likely to yield speciation within their respective lineages, but nothing in the development of higher taxa presupposed or requires speciation past the initial event. There are several phyla which contain only a handful of known species.
Of course there is a reason for that. There are, in fact, plenty, the most obvious one being that different groups of organisms reproduce in different ways, and therefore cannot be expected to divisible into smaller units in the same fashion. The animal kingdom alone exhibits more variations of reproduction than most people can comprehend. However, de Queiroz and some others are very close to establishing a combined species concept which may work on any given higher taxon, so this may not be so much of a problem in the future.
How fitting, then, that you are the first person to mention this fact. This is nothing that has ever been argued by a biologist in possession of a basic evolutionary knowledge.
However, evolutionary theory does contain a continuum, but it is temporal rather than spatial. We predict that a given extant individual of a given species would theoretically be able to breed with its direct antecedents. These, in turn, would be able to breed with theirs, that is, the first species grandparents. Let this continue backwards in time, and you will find a temporal continuum. However, evolutionary theory predicts that we will eventually reach a point at which the extant individual could no longer breed successfully with an ancestor of a given generation, provided they were given the opportunity. This ancestor could then be given the status of a different taxon, and could be the starting point of a new continuum going either backwards to the next point in time where interbreeding between taxon 2 and its direct (but not immediate) ancestor is at least theoretically impossible, or forward where another of taxon 2's descendant lines are followed.
This is a simplification, as mere chance can also be the basis of speciation, as is the case in sympatric speciation. I don't see how this is in any way a critique of evolutionary theory, however, as this is something that is well known.
No, you have not. What you have said is:
This was followed by what I refer to above as the "first challenge", which you sidestepped because you feel a greater urge to appear clever than to actually appear intellectually honest. I refer to this post:
At no point have you actually suggested a phylogeny we could inspect together. Above, you will see that I am inviting you to do so more formally. If you truly believe what you are arguing, I see no reason for you not to accept the test I outline above (or any variation you believe is more fair).
I do not see these attempts as a problem, as evolutionary theory is robust enough to handle cases where the biological species concept can be said to work (or approximated to work). As long as we know the mode of reproduction of a given taxa randman may chose to discuss, who cares if we are discussing it on "his terms"? Example taxa where the BSC is valid (or approximately valid) can be discussed on these terms, and taxa where it is not valid are simply not eligible for discussion under the assumption that the BSC is valid.
This would entail having to assume that lack of known fossil subtaxa within a given higher taxon is evidence of actual lack of these taxa. I am not prepared to make this assumption, but if you want to make a case for this, I would be willing to discuss it.
I find it amusing that you can argue this, and still argue that there is a huge qualitative difference between calling a certain section of DNA "junk DNA" or functional DNA, not to mention your parade of ignorance when it comes to taxonomy.
However, past the initial split of an ancestral taxon into two, no further speciation is actually required by the theory of evolution for it to hold true. It is certainly a very likely consequence, and we would certainly predict that it would happen in most natural populations, but it is not at all a requirement.
One is what biologists call themselves, the other is what non-biologists call biologists. I take "evo" to be short hand for "evolutionist", which is a synonym for "biologist".
---
(1) This is for practical purposes. I am more familiar with what journals on animal taxa my university has access to, and it will therefore be easier to obtain these phylogenies. If you object to this, I can easily include non-animal taxa as well.
(2) Which, in any case, is a taxonomic impossibility.
Vry nice!
