Fossil and Evolution

[Skeptic Ginger]

Generally, I think they mean that it isn't a comprehensive sample of all transitional forms.

Or all species that ever lived either, it isn't just transitions. And not all body parts are preserved in the record, nor do we always know how the fossils are exactly situated so we might think and animal should be upright like a kangaroo when it should have been more horizontal like an ostrich.

And adding to my last two explanatory posts a tad more about why there are fewer transitional fossils in most cases. I mentioned that two groups from one species become isolated from each other and begin evolving in divergent directions. Yet we have some species such as the crocodile which remain more or less stable for millions and millions of years. And we have humans who migrated over the planet remaining adapted to most of the new environments encountered.

Changing environments including climate change and migration, change in food availability and sources, diseases which cause large numbers of group members to die and other natural selection pressures can force more rapid evolutionary change. When that is the case, you have fewer numbers of animals or organisms during the period where adaptation is not matched to the environment. Only when the species changes and adapts, can the population rebuild. Thus true transitional fossils as opposed to related species would be extremely rare. The fact we only find rare specimens of many species tells you by probability, if you only recover a fraction of a percent of the population, then during transitions when populations have lost many members and have to evolve before the population can rebuild, you are unlikely to recover any specimens from that time.

So we should expect to not see transitional forms most of the time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Here's another quirk about fossils and the like. Sometimes a single point mutation can cause a very noticeable skeletal change--achondroplasia (the most common form of dwarfism) is a good example. If achondroplasia helped a species that had it survive because, say, tall organisms were killed by tree snakes or something, then the fossil record would show a dramatic change with no inbetween forms--because achondroplasia is autosomal dominant. There wouldn't be skeletal examples of organisms inbetween achondroplastics and normal.

Albinism is similar, although it's recessive. An albino doesn't pass on (light colored genes)--only the normal pigment genes they carry and a recessive copy of a gene that can't translate the genes to produce pigment. An albino that carrys "dark" genes who mates with a non-albino that has "light' genes is likely to produce an animal darker than both parents.

So intermediary forms and fossils are helpful clues from a "macroevolution persepective, but visual clues and guesses leave out some of the finer details of the story. Especially since we've learned that a lot of genes are more like "basic floorplans" that can be modified via the environment the organism finds itself in. Just as blind people recruit the vision portions of the brain to enhance other senses--so, too, do emerging organisms utilize their genomes via adaptation......

It would be interesting to know what proportion of new species came about abruptly and what proportion came about more gradually after population bottlenecks. I think the number of genetic differences between species suggests the latter.

OTOH, one discovery in genetic science is the fact we have a wealth of diversity waiting in the wings. The more diverse the DNA within a group, the better able the species will be to survive a major catastrophe. For example when Australia was overrun by rabbits, a non-native species, myxomatosis virus, another non native species, was introduced and it killed 99% of the rabbits. From there the rabbit population recovered. In this case the mutation that allowed 1% of the rabbits to survive would have already existed within the population. And the new population of rabbits would be offspring from the resistant rabbits. The fact the population still is affected by the infection tells up resistance is not complete.

We have the same thing with HIV. A small percentage of people have a mutation which makes HIV infection harder but still not impossible to get. The mutation's existence and spread to a small percent of humans had nothing to do with HIV selection pressures.

Interestingly, because bacteria and viruses multiply so rapidly, mutations which create drug resistance arise and are selected rather than existing previously. When the drug resistance genes already exist, then the organisms are resistant from the start, so I don't mean the genes never exist. But with no previous resistance, a new mutation has to occur.

The result is slowly reproducing species have an advantage if they can survive with a lot of genetic variability. It has been hypothesized that variability is actually a selection advantage so it creates itself. Rapidly reproducing organisms do well if they have high rates of genetic errors. Mutations which aren't survivable are not a problem for microorganisms. There's a million more where that came from. But when attacked by an antibiotic or antiviral drug, allowing lots of mutations makes it more likely the resistant mutation will occur.

These are two different survival mechanisms beyond the usual way we think of species with different reproduction strategies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

As recently as the early 1980s we had modern whales, and land animals that shared skeletal features. Creationists had a field day with the hypothesis of evolution being offered with no intermediate forms. But- where do you look for intermediate forms for an animal that lived in the sea? It turns out that the lowlands in Asia and North Africa had many answers. What is now the northern Sahara Desert was once a shallow sea!
....

This was similar to how Behe's claim of no precursor to the flagella was refuted. He was looking in the wrong place. In Behe's case, he was looking for a similar structure. It turns out the precursor genetic code was for a structure that didn't look anything like a flagella.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On the contrary.

The law of natural selection places strict constraints on what we can and can't see in the fossil record. Every adaptation has to be immediately useful, or perish. For example, you can't have flowering plants before you have pollinating insects, because things can't evolve just to be pretty. Nor can a structure develop in such a way that it's only useful when it's finished, because natural selection can't look ahead.

I totally agree and disagree with the conclusion the fossil record has as little information as Mijo seems to think fls said. (I don't want to interpret fls, I'll let her speak for herself.)

To elaborate about what is not being considered in that fossil record is often an entire ecosystem can be recreated. You aren't just looking at one organism in isolation. You are putting the whole picture together about what was going on and what changes occurred and what was the resulting change in the fossil record.

 

[Taffer]

This tread has turned out rather well, I think, even with the OP's insistence on not directly replying to responses to his questions...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The mummy of a dead critter doesn't directly give us evidence of the enviornmental stresses on its species. So no, we can't reach into the fossil record, grab natural selection by the neck, and hold it up for all to see....

Sometimes there is enough evidence to at least suggest what was going on. Climate changes, asteroid impacts, floods, there are many things we get out of the ground besides fossilized bones. Not to mention the diseases and injuries one finds along with stomach contents and fossilized remains of what has been eaten strewn about with matching teeth marks, and whether young and adults are together. If there are enough fossils you might see a malnourished population or a well fed one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Evolution doesn't happen on an observable timescale--and what we think of as evolved isn't necessarily the most adaptive for every organism. Evolution is only what traits enhance a species reproductive success over those of competitors. Intelligence isn't necessarily the best survival strategy. It has worked for humans...but it may be our undoing as well. Beetles have been around longer, and so many different types have evolved, continue to evolve, and die out.

We do observe evolution in real time in rapidly multiplying organisms. It's over tens of thousands of years for humans.

I think there are other ways to interpret the evidence about the survivability of intelligence. First, we haven't been here long enough to conclude we won't be here as long as other species have been. And second, greater and greater intelligence seems to have been selected over the 3.5 billion years since life started on Earth so you could just as easily conclude intelligence has been very successful.

 

[articulett]

The result is slowly reproducing species have an advantage if they can survive with a lot of genetic variability. It has been hypothesized that variability is actually a selection advantage so it creates itself. Rapidly reproducing organisms do well if they have high rates of genetic errors. Mutations which aren't survivable are not a problem for microorganisms. There's a million more where that came from. But when attacked by an antibiotic or antiviral drug, allowing lots of mutations makes it more likely the resistant mutation will occur.

These are two different survival mechanisms beyond the usual way we think of species with different reproduction strategies.

Here's a recent story, I really liked. Some crickets evolved to be quiet to avoid predators (or rather the wing deformation made it hard for a particular type of parasite to find them and also made them silent)--but the females still needed to hear the chirps to mate--so the silent survivors hang around the still chirping males (who are sitting ducks for the parasite) and succeeded in mating on occasion. But it would be hard to see this evolution or understand it with fossils. And it's not just predator prey relationships in the survival of the fittest game--symbiotes and social groups and communities (like man-o-wars and reefs) are also major players in evolution and complexity.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/061201_quietcrickets

Humans and chimps need to eat vitamin C--they don't synthesize it although other animals do. Our vitamin c genes have mutated, but we didn't need it to survive--so this may have been deleterious to some of our ancestors (who suffered scurvy), but overall, it didn't seem to slow down our reproductive success of our "founders". There has been losses in olfactory senses too-- There has been trade offs for our bigger brains. When eyes devolve from an organism that no longer uses them, other senses co-opt that portion of the brain--things like whisker-sensing and the like. There are a lot of non-eye creatures at the bottom of the ocean. But I can't imagine how the fossil record could have clued us into these intriguing details, much less why they occurred.

 

[delphi_ote]

Sometimes there is enough evidence to at least suggest what was going on. Climate changes, asteroid impacts, floods, there are many things we get out of the ground besides fossilized bones. Not to mention the diseases and injuries one finds along with stomach contents and fossilized remains of what has been eaten strewn about with matching teeth marks, and whether young and adults are together. If there are enough fossils you might see a malnourished population or a well fed one.

It's definitely good evidence. My point was that it's not direct evidence of natural selection. The only direct evidence of natural selection we could observe is when we see a creature dying that hasn't produced offspring. You could definitely point to that and say, "Look, creationists! Natural selection just happened!"

 

[articulett]

We do observe evolution in real time in rapidly multiplying organisms. It's over tens of thousands of years for humans.

I think there are other ways to interpret the evidence about the survivability of intelligence. First, we haven't been here long enough to conclude we won't be here as long as other species have been. And second, greater and greater intelligence seems to have been selected over the 3.5 billion years since life started on Earth so you could just as easily conclude intelligence has been very successful.

I'm sure grateful for every brain cell I have. I feel lucky to know what we can know. But we are the only life form that we know of that has developed the ability to transmit large amounts of information via language and writing and teaching each other... whereas, other life forms have to wait to evolve adaptations. Humans teach each other how to get food, stay warm, survive, --they change the environment to suit them...they make fire--other animals must rely on their own instincts, environment, and genomes to keep themselves and their species going. It is interesting to see the recent studies that show tool use and weapons (spears) evolving in chimpanzees--primarily in the young and the female--who then teach the younger males. Teaching tool use to another is a big step along the intelligence continuum.

I often wonder if creationists see the big news articles about things like the Dikika baby or Turkana Boy or the Hobbit-- do they know these exist? What do they think they are? Do they think Scientists are making things up or confusing ape skeletons with bipeds-- I'm just so curious. Have they trained their brain not to see or notice such things? Or are they just completely ignorant and think they have all the answers they need to understand "the truth".

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N

I mean Newsweek recently had this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/
video of same ( http://youtubemovie.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/the-evolution-revolution/ )

And now it has this one.
http://www.christianpost.com/articl...eve_in_God;_Nearly_Half_Rejects_Evolution.htm

The information gets clearer (just out) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/plos-bve032807.php

But the gap in ignorance just stays as wide as ever. Does religion make people uncurious? Or does it just allow you to have a sort of cognitive dissonance where information is filtered through what you've been told is "higher truth"?

I think the gaps in evolutionary understanding exist primarily in the heads of the indoctrinated. Why would they assert that there are gaps in the record, and show no curiosity over how science has filled those gaps--and why aren't they as interested in all this new information as I think humans would be? I think it's a stunning testament to human intelligence that we have figured all of this stuff out (without help from any divine source).

 

[articulett]

It's definitely good evidence. My point was that it's not direct evidence of natural selection. The only direct evidence of natural selection we could observe is when we see a creature dying that hasn't produced offspring. You could definitely point to that and say, "Look, creationists! Natural selection just happened!"

You spray the roaches and inadvertently produce a strain of insecticide resistant roaches which promptly overtake your home.

Natural selection!

Tumors tend to be really good at spawning mutants as they go that are increasingly resistant to chemo.

Dogs suck up to humans and we give them cushy lives...natural (?) selection.
And they all come from wolves--modified through selective breeding for desired traits (that sad look with the eyebrow thing for example)--

Donkeys and Zebras produce this. http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/ (see zonkey) Clearly a common ancestor was involved.

We can see lines dying out and animals in the process of speciating all over the place. How do creationists explain this? God has a sense of humor and a taste for waste, as well as a massive need to do experimentation and tinkering?

How can nearly half of Americans not accept evolution? What do they imagine --or are their blinders so tight that they cannot see? Why are all these examples and explanations of no interest or relevance to the OP? What more evidence could there possibly be?? I don't really think people have a lot of problem seeing the big picture until it gets to the part about humans coming from apes--and then their mind snaps shut. If they can't grasp the ape thing, they sure as heck can keep themselves from grasping their ancestry back to the primordial ooze, eh?

 

[VonNeumann]

...
Anyway after pondering the continuity of evolution that is claimed to be demonstrated by the fossil record, I still come up again the conceptual obstacle that, when the lifetime of the Earth is scaled to take place over a day, evolutionary events take place over time periods that are long enough that it seems that one wouldn't necessarily accept entities separated the various intervals of time to have arisen from one another. For instance, if one were to set a candle on a table, look away for 1.92 seconds, which is 100,000 years in the analogy to evolution, and turn around to see a more ornate or just different shaped candlestick, one would not assume that one candlestick "evolved" into another candlestick but that someone had replaced one candlestick with the other.

<snip>
...but I am trying to understand the creationist (or ID) position by think thinking like an creationist (or ID proponent). This means at least indulging those positions as if they are honestly posed.

The sudden appearance of phyla and classes without gradualistic precursors in the fossil record, circa Cambrian, is a mysterious thing. I wonder if that is what you mean with the candlestick analogy. I don't find it satisfactory to say that the fossil record has a gap due to soft body parts etc because there actually is an abundance of fossils from pre-cambrian. Also, there exists fossilized protobacteria from more than 1BYA. Incredible! What happened in between?

Anyway, you already studied all that stuff and so you can tell me about it if you want -- your take. But this is what I'd really like to say in response to your OP:

About the very word "creationism". Think about what the root word means for a sec. As a belief system, it seems to me that "creationism" merely means that stuff that used to not be here, then came to be here and was "created" by something. Most all would agree on that seemingly trivial thing wouldn't they? ...the question being, what mechanism or process did this "creating".

Ev-theory teaches that a natural mechanism can do this. To me, this may be so, but I am still waiting on something more convincing than mere random mutation and natural selection. I get nailed with the label "creationist" for making that statement. That's a dogmatic attack. I am a skeptic because I find this simple mechanism to be in great need of overhaul. I'm not saying it is not a partial explanation, I just think there is a great missing ingredient.

The missing ingredient:
Here is the way I'd approach inducing you to start thinking along the lines of a non-naturalistic creationist. ...not saying this from a religious view, but in the vein of seeking out some new way of looking at this. Suspend belief in the simplistic darwinistic/neo-darwinistic mechanism for a moment and entertain the idea that it is incomplete. Now, with that mindset, move on to the very general question, what is "creativity". How do we, in our minds, create new stuff. Where are these words coming from that are appearing here as pixels before me, and there for you to read? We don't really know. The naturalistic mechanism is that neural networks and underlying brain chemistry is sufficient to explain this 'creative' phenomenon.

But we don't know this for certain. We don't have sufficient evidence that mind is mechanism. It is an assumption. We may assert that mind is mechanism, but no answers come from science, yet. Nevertheless, we have a personal experience with creativity. We each have it, yet we don't know how we do it. I think that creativity in the mind requires consciousness. I don't think zombies can create. ...not any more than a spider creates a web (it comes from his hardwired neural network?) or such as that.

Is the complexity of all the huge interacting variables of the natural selection mechanism sufficient to support creativity? If you think about all the interacting molecules and bio-molecules and micro-organisms and macro-organisms, and even galactic radiation and sunspot cycles, isn't that a huge network of signals (so to speak) in feedback and feedforward connections? Isn't it even more complexly wired than the human brain? Could the natural cause of creativity espoused by darwinism, be this complex network we call natural selection? Surely, as it is more complex than a brain, it should be able to do so? Could it even have a consciousness of it's own? But no, darwinism axiomatically is founded upon non-teleology.

That previous paragraph is my view on how YOU might think about how the mechanism of evolution works. To be clear, I'm not trying to sell that notion, just presenting it for consideration: that the biosphere here should be as creative or moreso than humans are; or that the biosphere is like a mind in itself (at seems to have plenty enough complexity if the human brain is a benchmark). Maybe that's where the new agers with their Gaia theme comes from -- I dunno.

But where I'm coming from, as a fallen true-believer in random mutation and natural selection, is I've always wanted to get down to the cause of intelligence. I'm a grad school dropout but before I dropped out I was aiming for specializing in artificial intelligence (a long time ago). I decided that there was nothing very practical going on at the time. And gradually I started doubting that "mind" is "mechanism". If mind is not mechanism, then maybe the origin of life is not mechanism.

So for me, it all comes down to a common question about what is "mind" and what is "intelligence" and especially what is "consciousness". I've come to doubt it is mechanism.

Does that make me a "creationist"? Heck, we are all creationists, we're just arguing about what comprises the generating source: can it be completely mechanistic? or is there some yet to be discovered thing (if it isn't part of natural science yet, then, by definition it is "supernatural" ... bad word).

To circle back to your fossil record question... yes, I think the fossil record is a great thing that has taught us many things but it STILL doesn't support gradualism. Darwin said lack of fossil support for gradualism would sink his theory. Well.... it hasn't. It atleast sinks "gradualism" though, has it not? That's why SJGould and (the other guy?) came up with Punctuated Equilibrium, right? Give it a name! hehehehhh

Can't a guy say the fossil record doesn't support gradualism without being called "creationist"? Yes, as long as he still asserts that no damage was done to darwinism. But tell me what do you think these words really mean: design, intelligence, consciousness, mind... That's what darwinism is purported to be, to paraphrase Dawkins: evolution does something that looks exactly like it designs but it doesn't.

 

[Slimething]

How can nearly half of Americans not accept evolution? What do they imagine --or are their blinders so tight that they cannot see? Why are all these examples and explanations of no interest or relevance to the OP? What more evidence could there possibly be?? I don't really think people have a lot of problem seeing the big picture until it gets to the part about humans coming from apes--and then their mind snaps shut. If they can't grasp the ape thing, they sure as heck can keep themselves from grasping their ancestry back to the primordial ooze, eh?

Besides the pride thing (I didn't come from no hairy ape!), there really is no penalty for ignorance about evolution. Most people can comfortably go about their daily lives without having to decide about evolution one way or the other. Their lives, incomes, reputations do not hinge on their honestly looking at the issue and deciding intelligently. Quite the opposite is true. Most people are rewarded by their equally ignorant peers for either not making an informed decision or for ignoring the question altogether and stating that they don't believe in evolution. Too bad "evolution" is not asked the same question!

 

[VonNeumann]

This was similar to how Behe's claim of no precursor to the flagella was refuted. He was looking in the wrong place. In Behe's case, he was looking for a similar structure. It turns out the precursor genetic code was for a structure that didn't look anything like a flagella.

You make it sound as if a precursor genetic code for a structure was found. And you say it as if there was only one component. I thought the problem was to come up with a precursor for each component and then show how they may have mutated/adapted and come together to make the whole system. After all, you have several major sub-systems: the motor, the bearings, the seals, the ion delivery, the "propeller", etc. You say "flagellum" as if it is just one simple structure that has a precursor structure that has been found.

Was it found or is it merely postulated that a plurality of structures for different function other than locomotion could have adapted in parallel?

 

[VonNeumann]

The Origin of Species, chapter 10, "On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings" summarizes the reasons why the fossil record demonstrates evolution.

1. Species are continuously created. But these new species appear only slowly. This is what is expected under evolution by natural selection.

2. Some species persist through the geological record; others go extinct, as expected under the theory of natural selection. [this argues against theories of successive, regular extinction and creation]

3. Throughout the fossil record, new species resemble previous species

4. The more ancient a species, the more different it is.

5. The more ancient a species, the more "intermediate" it is. i.e., ancient species tend to fall between distinct groups of modern species. The more ancient the species, the more distinct modern groups it links. The totality of fossil species blends the distinct genuses we have today.

6. Once a species disappears from the fossil record, it does not reappear -- as expected by the theory of evolution by natural selection

7. When we consider groups of species that closely resemble each other (genuses, families) their existence in the fossil record is continuous. [This is necessary if species arise via evolution. If the group goes extinct, no new species in that group can ever again emerge.]

8. When a new group of species appears in the fossil record, initially there are only a few species representing the group. Gradually the number of species increases. This is explicable under evolution by natural selection. If species were created by some other means, why don't we see a group filled with numerous species appear all at once?

9. Lastly, and most tellingly: the fauna of each continent tends to be distinct from other continents. But the most recent fossil beds of each continent comprise species which closely resemble those living there today.

That chapter's fascinating reading. I'd post a link, but the forum software won't let me :-( you can find it at

literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-10.html

When I write a book, I type on pages and throw intermediate and extinct pages away, and if you looked you'd find the fossil record of my book's evolution on my floor of my office. It would be fossil evidence that my book evolved. And in more recent eras, you'd find the fossil evidence in the upper strata of my hard drive with date stamps and it would be proof that I don't create books, the words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, they self-create or evolve.

Heheh, don't get too carried away with the ambiguity of this line of thinking. It does not stand alone. But if you are already sure that books evolve, the intermediate files are damn good evidence of it and anybody'd be a stupid fool to doubt it.

 

[articulett]

Besides the pride thing (I didn't come from no hairy ape!), there really is no penalty for ignorance about evolution. Most people can comfortably go about their daily lives without having to decide about evolution one way or the other. Their lives, incomes, reputations do not hinge on their honestly looking at the issue and deciding intelligently. Quite the opposite is true. Most people are rewarded by their equally ignorant peers for either not making an informed decision or for ignoring the question altogether and stating that they don't believe in evolution. Too bad "evolution" is not asked the same question!

Yeah, and evolution does not promise eternal salvation.

And Von Neumann (my favorite creationist )--we're discussing the mind/brain thing here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2486203#post2486203

By gradualism, are you referring to what we see or what we see in the DNA.
You do know that point mutations can make big differences in morphology. So can founder effects. Because I don't think that current scientific thought is on the same page as you regarding what you see as a lack of evidence.

Now that we know that liquid water was or is on Mars coupled with the fact that we now know there is life everywhere there is water on earth (including in ice and boiling lava and in the air and in our gut)--the field of "astrobiology" is making pretty great leaps: http://images.google.com/imgres?img...channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=G

I don't see mention of the problems you see regarding evolution of life on earth--although I do see possibilities of prebiotic material coming from meteors and the like since water seems to be more available that we had imagined in our universe. Of course, there may be a type of life that doesn't need water--we were surprised to learn of life that does not need sunlight or oxygen.

And yes, I think complexity can and does evolve from simplicity all the time.
It's not just random mutation and natural selection--it's an infinite number of experiments going on all the time with only the "successes" being part of what we eventually see. Nature has been breeding the best of the best and culling the rest for eons. It looks amazing because we don't see the unfathomable numbers of failures or dead ends that withered away in the pruning process--or before even getting a chance to start. We are just now getting a grip on the life we never knew about on our own earth--microbes--we had to wait to invent the tools to see them, measure them, and detect them.

Crystals look very complex and designed, yet we know they are not--so do mountains, and all creatures--even slime mold cells when you see them through a microscope. Diatomes are pretty amazing too. Check out these beauties: http://ebiomedia.com/feat/totalarray.html

All of them evolved, because they were the sum total of "best solutions" to whatever environment was molding their ancestors along the way. Just as the complexity of the internet was built from the bottom up--so, too, was our planet, the mountain, and the creatures on it. I really can't see any evidence except an argument from incredulity that this is not so.

I've heard your argument before--but where is the evidence?

 

[Taffer]

You make it sound as if a precursor genetic code for a structure was found. And you say it as if there was only one component. I thought the problem was to come up with a precursor for each component and then show how they may have mutated/adapted and come together to make the whole system. After all, you have several major sub-systems: the motor, the bearings, the seals, the ion delivery, the "propeller", etc. You say "flagellum" as if it is just one simple structure that has a precursor structure that has been found.

Was it found or is it merely postulated that a plurality of structures for different function other than locomotion could have adapted in parallel?

This has some pretty interesting things to say about the impossiblity of IC to evolve.

 

[articulett]

You make it sound as if a precursor genetic code for a structure was found. And you say it as if there was only one component. I thought the problem was to come up with a precursor for each component and then show how they may have mutated/adapted and come together to make the whole system. After all, you have several major sub-systems: the motor, the bearings, the seals, the ion delivery, the "propeller", etc. You say "flagellum" as if it is just one simple structure that has a precursor structure that has been found.

Was it found or is it merely postulated that a plurality of structures for different function other than locomotion could have adapted in parallel?

They have multiple times. Here's an exampleL http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
And there were multiple references in the Dover trial. Moreover, there are even youtube demos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
and computer programs. (This one is by JREF member Lee Graham) http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/ (and here's another)
http://www.complexity.org.au/vlab/evolution/irreducible-complex/

But wait there's more...
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/irreducible_complexity/

So please leave that tired worn out creationist argument in your bag of tricks at home.

 

[articulett]

This has some pretty interesting things to say about the impossiblity of IC to evolve.

Damn, you beat me.

But check out the video I linked--good music (if you like Boston)

 

[Taffer]

Damn, you beat me.

But check out the video I linked--good music (if you like Boston)

I shall. I didn't know that the ICE was written by a forum member?