Donald,
Ah! Some very good points. Let's see if I can address them.
I agree that there should be an enormous number of "transitional" forms. But let us look at this statement more carefully. What, exactly, are we really saying? I think implicit within that statement is that, given our current fossil records, there are gaps where there should be "transitional" forms. In other words, what we are really saying is that the number of species is enormous, especially when compared to the number of fossilized species records. So we have two main options from here:
a. there were such species, but there do not exist fossil records, or
b. there were never such species, because there do not exist fossil records.
So we have to consider the process by which we get fossils. Things get fossilized by either imprinting into mud, which then dries and hardens to preserve that imprint (OK... this is probably technically not fossilization... but I think it counts in our discussion), or when minerals enter into the bones of dead animals and the resultant mineralization takes the shape of the bones (just like petrified wood). There may be other ways fossils are formed, but I am reasonably ignorant of them. Oh... and bugs that get trapped in amber.
Would you agree that the fossilization of an animal is an extraordinarily rare event? I'll continue with this post assuming that we are in agreement that this is so - just so I don't have to keep saying, "if you agree that fossilization is very improbable." :-)
So far, we have neither proved (a) nor (b), above. I am merely trying to lean the argument in favour of (a).
In any case, I think we can address your points, now. Political polling can be accurate since the small samples are a sufficiently good representation of the whole population. This model, however, is very different from the fossil model of sample and population. In the political model, you are measuring, for example, whether people will vote yes or no on a proposition. What you are measuring is very simple. Even if the voting is for candidates A, B, C, D, E, or F, it's still very simple. I say "simple" only to juxtapose it with the "complex" nature of what we are considering with fossils. In fact, what exactly are we measuring with fossils? What are we trying to say about the whole population of (possible) fossils from the sample of fossils we have? For statistics to tell us anything, we have to clearly ask a question. What questions are we asking?
The questions we are asking are nothing like the ones of the political example. Let me go back to the rope example in my last post (#reply-4569875) and reiterate: given only a small number of small pieces of a rope, what are the odds of coming up with even a two-piece continuous section?
Statistics do not at all demand that we should find fossils of transitional forms. The odds of finding fossils is dependent only on the number of animals (available population for fossilization, which, if we agree, is very large) and the probability of fossilization (which, if we agree, is very, very small).
Hmmm... that took a little longer to say than I expected. Do you agree with me so far? Once again, I have proved neither (a) nor (b), but I hope you see that (b) is not necessarily correct.
The information theory point you raise is much more difficult to address. The question comes down to one thing. Could DNA form by itself? Just because it's complex and the results are complex do not necessarily imply that DNA did not arise naturally. A lot can happen in the primordial soup of millions of years ago, so to speak. :-)
I'm using DNA as a catch-all for genetics. I realize there are other issues in genetics, but I think this simplification is good enough for our discussion.
Once DNA forms, though, I can see how all the functions of all the animals and plants could evolve in minute segments caused by mutations and sexual reproduction (which, itself, is the result of evolutionary mutations). We are talking about a lot of time... A LOT OF TIME! Blue-green algae to the condor... tough to see... but possible over the millions of years. So once we have DNA, I don't see there being a problem with evolution. So...
Did DNA form by itself?
I have no idea. God? Aliens? or just a fortuitous number of random chemical events? I don't think you, me, or anybody can declare any one of these options as "impossible".
And if we go back to everything being formed from hydrogen or quarks or whatever... Phew! Do you know what you had for breakfast a year ago? Try billions of years ago. Ha ha... :-) That's just a joke... not a serious argument.
In any case, it is expected that scientists continually change their theories to accommodate new data. To do otherwise would make science just a religion. ;-)
Greg |
