The Confessing Seventh-day Adventist

Does this theory satisfy the definition of a scientific theory?

It all depends on the definition you wish to start with. My theory is based on all the essential criteria according to David Hilbert's philosophy of science. See The Quintessential Language of Science. I believe it is well within the range of the most popular definitions of a scientific theory.

What are your postulates?

My theory is both a tweak and a refinement of standard evolutionary theory.

According to the New World Encyclopedia, Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics and mathematical population genetics. I accept the theory of genetics and mathematical population genetics. To those two pillars I add the tautology, "Whatever survives, survives." In my revised theory I call that tautology the principle of natural selection. And last, I also refine the Darwinists' principle of random variation in the same way that geneticists do. Errors occur in the DNA copying process. At this point my theory inherits all the observational and predictive success of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

To all that wonderful success I add two new postulates that I claim are stronger than the postulates that I have just enunciated.

To those unfamiliar with David Hilbert's philosophy of physics, I must digress to state a definition first. By definition, if we adjoin a scientific hypothesis to a scientific theory such that it refines the old theory and is logically consistent with it, then the refined theory is also a scientific theory.

The principle of refinement is a mere tautology but it's useful. This principle is just as self-evident in mathematics as it is in Hilbert's logical approach to science. Every refinement of a scientific theory is a scientific theory.

Formally then, the theory of descent with modification (devolution) is based on two postulates, in addition to my preferred definition of a scientific theory and the minor adjustment to the modern evolutionary synthesis.

1. All life forms are molecular machines. I don't believe that any scientist doubts this scientific hypothesis. [1][2][3].

2. The second postulate, the devolution hypothesis, stipulates that all models of molecular machines are becoming less robust over time. As genetic code in all life forms continues to get corrupted and degrades through copying errors and other mutations, successive generations of machines, in all series, must plod along with increasing inefficiency and sometimes features are entirely lost. [4]

The theory of devolution is now being recognized as a legitimate science:

Evolution may provide us with the most abundant phenotypes (observable genetic characteristics) rather than the fittest, according to a new theory published on July 18 in the open-access journal PLoS Computational Biology. That is, natural selection may be optimal for choosing the most fit organism of the moment, but evolutionary biologists question if the process leads to the optimal organisms in the long run. Researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, led by Drs. Matthew Cowperthwaite and Lauren Ancel Meyers, propose a new theory: life may not always be optimal.

Natural selection is driven by genetic mutations, and we usually can predict and understand the short-term fate of a mutation. If a mutation makes the organism more fit, it tends to last through the years; if the mutation is harmful, it usually dies off with its host organism. Evolutionary biologists, however, do not have such a complete understanding of the long-term consequences of mutations. Is it possible that what is good now may be not-so-good later? — Evolution May Yield Most Abundant Traits, Not Best

Yes. The theory of devolution is a logical possibility.

IF YOU want to know how all living things are related, don't bother looking in any textbook that's more than a few years old. Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought. These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny, yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt.

The idea of loss in evolution is not new. … However, the latest evidence suggests that the extent of loss might have been seriously underestimated. Some evolutionary biologists now suggest that loss - at every level, from genes and types of cells to whole anatomical features and life stages - is the key to understanding evolution and the relatedness of living things. — Evolution: hacking back the tree of life.

Another article in the same journal is titled, Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity. Please note the subtitle: "natural selection often leads to ever greater simplicity."

If you don't use it, you tend to lose it. Evolution often takes away rather than adding. For instance, cave fish lose their eyes, while parasites like tapeworms lose their guts.

Such simplification might be much more widespread than realised. Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain.

These newscientist articles unquestionably support the theory of devolution!

Experimental support for the theory of devolution is just beginning to be noticed. Consider the article, Evolution of Penicillin-Binding Protein 2 Concentration and Cell Shape during a Long-Term Experiment with Escherichia coli, in the Journal of Bacteriology, 2009 February; 191(3): 909–921. The Abstract states: "In a long-term experiment, 12 populations of Escherichia coli having a common ancestor were allowed to evolve for more than 40,000 generations in a defined environment." The abstract specifies the "physiological trade-offs and ecological specialization during experimental evolution" and identifies them precisely. The trade-offs were that "both mutations that evolved were beneficial in the environment used for the long-term experiment and that … both mutations decreased cellular resistance to osmotic stress."

That's a very precise confirmation of the theory of descent with modification (devolution). Yes, the mutant Escherichia coli that survived were better adapted to the new environment and could outcompete the more robust ancestral strains in that new environment. However, the more robust ancestral strains were more robust in their preferred environment than the mutant Escherichia coli were in their specialized environment. That's exactly what the theory of devolution predicts. As the theory of devolution affirms, along with evolution (change), which is due to accumulated mutation, there is devolution (the decrease in robustness).

The Inveritable Encyclopedia of Universal Evolutionary Knowledge highlights this essential point:

"Another adaptation that occurred in all these bacteria was an increase in cell size and in many cultures, a more rounded cell shape. This change was partly the result of a mutation that changed the expression of a gene for a penicillin binding protein, which allowed the mutant bacteria to out-compete ancestral bacteria under the conditions in the long-term evolution experiment. However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures." [5].

Obviously, in the background, there is a rather unsurprising principle. Escherichia coli and their descendants can adapt to eating junk food but it's not good for them. They would have been better off in their original environment.

A second clear example of devolution is nitrofurantoin-resistant E. coli mutants. The fitness of susceptible and resistant strains was measured as growth rate in the presence and absence of nitrofurantoin in rich culture medium. The mutant E. coli showed a reduction in fitness when compared with the susceptible parent strain.

"Conclusions: Nitrofurantoin resistance confers a reduction in fitness in E. coli in the absence of antibiotic. In the presence of therapeutic levels of nitrofurantoin, even resistant mutants are so disturbed in growth that they are probably unable to become enriched and establish an infection." — Nitrofurantoin resistance mechanism and fitness cost in Escherichia coli.

"Mutations that confer antibiotic resistance affect essential processes and often reduce fitness, manifesting as decreased virulence, transmission and growth rate (reviewed in ANDERSSON and LEVIN 1999)." [6]. There are no known examples of mutants that are unquestionably intrinsically healthier than the ancestral strains.

Clearly then, robustness is a measure of the "fitness for life," not the ability to spread genes. Niles Eldredge makes this point in his book, Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene. [7].

The Eldredge anti-Darwinian emphasis also appears in Life on Earth: An Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Ecology, and Evolution:

"Fitness is not equivalent to survival or the number of offspring that an organism produces, but in the long run individuals that are more fit are more likely to survive and produce more offspring." Vol. 1, p. 521.

Here is another interesting thought: Eldredge characterizes robust species as generalists. Logically then, generalists becoming specialists would imply a loss of robustness.

"In any case, if the ability of an ecosystem to persist or rebound after disturbance is exceeded, the system degrades and collapses; it finally undergoes ecosystem replacement, as a new system is built up at the same location either from the durable remnants of the previous system (the physiologically robust species, resource generalists, organisms with resting stages) or from invading species able to exploit or tolerate the new environmental factors." Ibid., pp. 306-7.

The logic is undeniably correct. Specialization is speciation. The generalists are more robust. Therefore speciation implies devolution.

Here is a powerful confirmation of the theory of devolution, published in Hum Mutat. 2003 Jan;21(1):12-27:

Kondrashov AS wrote: Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases.

National Center for Biotechnology Information, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.

I estimate per nucleotide rates of spontaneous mutations of different kinds in humans directly from the data on per locus mutation rates and on sequences of de novo nonsense nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, and complex events at eight loci causing autosomal dominant diseases and 12 loci causing X-linked diseases. The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude. There is only a moderate tendency for loci with high per locus mutation rates to also have higher per nucleotide substitution rates, and per nucleotide rates of deletions and insertions are statistically independent on the per locus mutation rate. Rates of different kinds of mutations are strongly correlated across loci. Mutational hot spots with per nucleotide rates above 5x10(-7) make only a minor contribution to human mutation. In the next decade, direct measurements will produce a rather precise, quantitative description of human spontaneous mutation at the DNA level. Published 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

There are no beneficial Mendelian diseases.

HERVs
Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are a family of viruses within our genome with similarities to present day exogenous retroviruses. ERVs provide marvelous support for the theory of devolution. They have no known biological benefits.

HERVs have been inherited by successive generations and several HERVs have been implicated in certain cancers and autoimmune diseases. Over 20 HERV families have been identified during the past two decades. Although many are defective through the accumulation of mutations, deletions, and termination signals within coding sequences, a limited number of HERVs have the potential to produce viral products and, indeed, to produce viral-like particles. Furthermore, some HERVs have been implicated in certain autoimmune diseases and cancers and might have a role in the aetiology and pathology of disease.

HERV insertion mutation, molecular mimicry, superantigen motifs, and recombination with other viruses could be responsible for the development and pathology of disease.

It has been suggested that HERV-K may be important in the progression of testicular germ cell tumours through inhibition of an effective immune response.

HERV-K might be important in the pathogenesis of human breast cancer.

Although the exact function of HERVs in the carcinogenic process is still under investigation, the evidence implicating HERVs in the carcinogenic process is substantial and further investigation will be required to elucidate the contribution of HERVs to the development of malignancy. [8].

The modern evolutionary synthesis has met the criteria of a scientific theory. It explains the observable phenomena of biological diversity, and can make specific predictions about it via the study of populations and gene sequencing.

Fine. I'm delighted that you're so comfortable. But now you have a competing theory to contend with.

What exactly does robust mean? What is robustness?

I have adopted the term robust from computer science to mean well designed and inherently stable, with numerous safeguards to prevent catastrophic failure.

Robust Definition
The word robust, when used with regard to computer software, refers to an operating system or other program that performs well not only under ordinary conditions but also under unusual conditions that stress its designers' assumptions.

Software is typically buggy (i.e., contains errors) and fragile, and thus not robust. This is in large part because programs are usually too big and too complicated for a single human mind to comprehend in their entirety, and thus it is difficult for their developers to be able to discover and eliminate all the errors, or to even be certain as to what extent of errors exist. This is especially true with regard to subtle errors that only make their presence known in unusual circumstances.

A major feature of Unix-like operating systems is their robustness. That is, they can operate for prolonged periods (sometimes years) without crashing (i.e., stopping operating) or requiring rebooting (i.e., restarting). And although individual application programs sometimes crash, they almost always do so without affecting other programs or the operating system itself.

Robustness is something that should be designed into software from the ground up; it is not something that can be successfully tacked on at a later date. The lack of advance planning for robustness is a major factor in the numerous security and stability problems that plague some non-Unix-like operating systems.

For completeness, please consider the following definitions also:

Robustness
The degree to which a system or component can function correctly in the presence of invalid inputs or stressful environmental conditions. (1991). "Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology (ANSI)". The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.

Robustness is the quality of being able to withstand stresses, pressures, or changes in procedure or circumstance. A system, organism or design may be said to be "robust" if it is capable of coping well with variations (sometimes unpredictable variations) in its operating environment with minimal damage, alteration or loss of functionality. —Wikipedia.

The words healthy, vigorous and robust are synonymous.

Robust

English

Etymology
From Latin rōbustus, from rōbur, rōbus, "strength", "hard timber", "oak".

Adjective
robust
1. Evincing strength; indicating vigorous health; strong; sinewy; muscular; vigorous; sound; as, a robust body; robust youth; robust health.

He was a robust man of six feet four. * Anthony Trollope (1815-1882)
She was stronger, larger, more robust physically than he had hitherto conceived.

2. Violent; rough; rude.
3. Requiring strength or vigor; as, robust employment.
4. Sensible (of intellect etc.); straightforward, not given to or confused by uncertainty or subtlety;
5. (systems engineering) Designed or evolved in such a way as to be resistant to total failure despite partial damage.
6. (software engineering) Resistant or impervious to failure regardless of user input or unexpected conditions.
7. (statistics) Not greatly influenced by errors in assumptions about the distribution of sample errors.

Robust (adjective)
robust (sturdy and strong in form, constitution, or construction) "a robust body"; "a robust perennial"
robust (strong enough to withstand or overcome intellectual challenges or adversity) "the experiment yielded robust results"; "a robust faith"
robust (rough and crude) "a robust tale"

Dictionary.com has these definitions:

Robust
adjective
1. strong and healthy; hardy; vigorous: a robust young man; a robust faith; a robust mind.
2. strongly or stoutly built: his robust frame.
3. suited to or requiring bodily strength or endurance: robust exercise.
4. rough, rude, or boisterous: robust drinkers and dancers.

Synonyms:
1. powerful, sound. 4. coarse, rambunctious.

Antonyms:
1. feeble. 2. weak.

adj.
1. Full of health and strength; vigorous.
2. Powerfully built; sturdy. See Synonyms at healthy.
3. Requiring or suited to physical strength or endurance: robust labor.
4. Rough or crude; boisterous: a robust tale.


Word Origin & History
robust
1549, from L. robustus "strong and hardy," originally "oaken," from robur, robus "hard timber, strength," also "a special kind of oak," named for its reddish heartwood, from L. ruber "red" (cf. robigo "rust"). Robustious (1548) was a common form in 17c. (cf. "Hamlet" iii.2); it fell from use by mid-18c., but was somewhat revived by mid-19c. antiquarian writers.


Computing Dictionary
robust
Said of a system that has demonstrated an ability to recover gracefully from the whole range of exceptional inputs and situations in a given environment. One step below bulletproof. Carries the additional connotation of elegance in addition to just careful attention to detail.

Society in general has a very clear understanding of the inadequate robustness of present-day humans and that we are all just biological machines to some degree.

Perhaps the most memorable statements on the machine-like characteristics of human beings, and the great complexity and inferior robustness of humans, are the following lines from the Star Trek episode The Changeling (stardate 3541.9):

NOMAD: That unit is defective. Its thinking is chaotic. Absorbing it unsettled me.

SPOCK: That unit is a woman.

NOMAD: A mass of conflicting impulses.

NOMAD (thinking that Captain Kirk is the creator): Will the creator effect repairs on the unit Scott?

CAPTAIN KIRK: He's dead.

NOMAD: Insufficient response.

CAPTAIN KIRK: His biological functions have ceased.

NOMAD: Does the creator wish me to repair the unit?

CAPTAIN KIRK: All right, Nomad. Repair the unit.

(a few moments later):

NOMAD: Creator, the unit Scott is a primitive structure. Insufficient safeguards built in. Breakdown can occur from many causes. Self-maintenance systems of low reliability.

CAPTAIN KIRK: It serves me as it is, Nomad. Repair it.

(Suddenly, a heartbeat, and the indicators rise into the green area.)

DR. MCCOY: It's unbelievable.

SPOCK: Fascinating.

NOMAD: The unit Scott is repaired. It will function correctly if your information to me was correct.

DR. MCCOY: I'd like to check it out, if you don't mind. A man is not just a biological unit that you can patch together.

In the religious world, I have been impressed by a few Christians that have such an intelligent understanding of the Bible that they make the theory of descent with modification (devolution) — in some form — seem believable.

Ellen G. White (1827–1915) wrote:

Man came from the hand of his Creator perfect in organization and beautiful in form. The fact that he has for six thousand years withstood the ever-increasing weight of disease and crime is conclusive proof of the power of endurance with which he was first endowed. And although the antediluvians generally gave themselves up to sin without restraint, it was more than two thousand years before the violation of natural law was sensibly felt. Had Adam originally possessed no greater physical power than men now have, the race would ere this have become extinct. CTBH 7.1.

Through the successive generations since the fall, the tendency has been continually downward. Disease has been transmitted from parents to children, generation after generation. Even infants in the cradle suffer from afflictions caused by the sins of their parents. CTBH 7.2.

Moses, the first historian, gives quite a definite account of social and individual life in the early days of the world's history, but we find no record that an infant was born blind, deaf, crippled, or imbecile. Not an instance is recorded of a natural death in infancy, childhood, or early manhood. Obituary notices in the book of Genesis run thus: “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.” “And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.” Concerning others the record states, “He died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years.” It was so rare for a son to die before his father, that such an occurrence was considered worthy of record: “Haran died before his father Terah.” [Genesis 5:5, 8; 25:8; 11:28.] The patriarchs from Adam to Noah, with few exceptions, lived nearly a thousand years. Since then the average length of life has been decreasing. CTBH 7.3.

It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men, animals, and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth's crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God. Ed 129.2.

The Multi-Layered Fossil Record

In a landmark 1972 paper—based on an extensive study of the fossil record—Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould established the now widely accepted conclusion that the great majority of species that have ever lived originated in geological moments (punctuations) and persisted unchanged over long periods of time (stasis). Since 1972, "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould were correct." The Eldredge-Gould theory, called the theory of punctuated equilibrium, according to Richard Dawkins, "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis." [9].

As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108 (December 5, 1985): 67. Dr. Kemp was curator of the University Museum at Oxford University.

I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it. Stephen J. Gould, "The Ediacaran Experiment," Natural History 93 (February 1984): 23. Dr. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard, was arguably the nation's most prominent modern evolutionist until his death in 2002.

One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups—classes and phyla—in full-fledged form, in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. This must reflect a sudden acquisition of skeletons by the various groups, in itself a problem. Alfred G. Fisher, "Fossil record," in Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 2002 (i3) [CD-ROM]. See also Stephen J. Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monster." Natural History 86 (June/July 1977): 22-30.

Phyletic gradualism [gradual evolution] was an a priori assertion from the start—it was never "seen" in the rocks. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, Abstract to "Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered," Paleobiology 3, no. 2 (Spring 1977): 115.

Compiled by Henry M. Morris, Some Call It Science, pp. 13, 14, 43.

This ultra-modern view of the fossil record now called punctuated equilibrium actually predates Charles Darwin. Britannica Online Encyclopedia states the following:

catastrophism
A doctrine that explains the differences in fossil forms encountered in successive stratigraphic levels as being the product of repeated cataclysmic occurrences and repeated new creations. This doctrine generally is associated with the great French naturalist Baron Georges Cuvier (1769–1832). One 20th-century expansion on Cuvier’s views, in effect, a neocatastrophic school, attempts to explain geologic history as a sequence of rhythms or pulsations of mountain building, transgression and regression of the seas, and evolution and extinction of living organisms.

Cuvier Opposed Gradualistic Theories of Evolution
Georges Cuvier was critical of the evolutionary theories proposed by his contemporaries Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which involved the gradual transmutation of one form into another. He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated that one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form. Instead, he said, the typical form makes an abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and persists unchanged to the time of its extinction (this is the well-documented paleontological phenomenon now referred to as "punctuated equilibrium"). In other words, Cuvier, the father of paleontology, was a saltationist. Like other saltationists, he offered no explanation of how living things could undergo unusually fast transformational changes. Note the title of Cuvier's book, Discourse on The Revolutionary Upheavals on The Surface of The Globe and on The Changes Which They Have Produced in The Animal Kingdom and the absence of any explanation in the book on the mechanism of change in species.

saltationism
–noun Biology.
any of several theories holding that the evolution of species proceeds in major steps by the abrupt transformation of an ancestral species into a descendant species of a different type, rather than by the gradual accumulation of small changes.

A Specific Example
To correct the distortions imposed on the minds of evolutionists, I believe that we should consider what modern-day paleontology has to say about horses and the supposed ascending ladder of evolutionary progress. Stephen Jay Gould claimed that it was Thomas Henry Huxley who first extended the imaginary ladder of horses as a metaphor for all vertebrates.

Amitabh Joshi wrote:Stephen Jay Gould wrote extensively and elegantly about misunderstandings of pattern and process in evolution. In the essay reproduced here, which appears as Chapter 11 in ‘Bully for Brontosaurus’, he takes up the tale of the evolution of modern horses, a tale that is familiar to most of us from high school biology texts. Gould shows in his inimitable style how the prejudiced notion of evolution leading to some kind of clear progression up a ladder of increasing perfection was projected onto the data on fossil horses, leading to figures reproduced in biology texts world-wide as canonical examples of adaptive evolution that are, nevertheless, plain wrong.

The following excerpts from ‘Bully for Brontosaurus’ describe the actual facts about horses according to paleontologists' most thoughtful understanding of the fossil record:

Stephen Jay Gould wrote:Evolutionary genealogies are copiously branching bushes – and the history of horses is more lush and labyrinthine than most. To be sure, Hyracotherium is the base of the trunk (as now known), and Equus is the surviving twig. We can, therefore, draw a pathway of connection from a common beginning to a lone result. But the lineage of modern horses is a twisted and tortuous excursion from one branch to another, a path more devious than the road marked by Ariadne’s thread from the Minotaur at the center to the edge of our culture’s most famous labyrinth. Most important, the path proceeds not by continuous transformation but by lateral stepping (with geological suddenness when punctuated equilibrium applies, as in this lineage, at least as read by yours truly, who must confess his bias as coauthor of the theory).

Each lateral step to a new species follows one path among several alternatives. Each extended lineage becomes a set of decisions at branching points – only one among hundreds of potential routes through the labyrinth of the bush. There is no central direction, no preferred exit to this maze – just a series of indirect pathways to every twig that ever graced the periphery of the bush.

Prothero and Shubin have made four major discoveries in the crucial segment of history that Simpson designated as the strongest case for a gradualistic sequence of lineal transformation – the transition from Mesohippus to Miohippus.

1. Previous experts were so convinced about the imperceptibly gradual transition between these two genera that they declared any search for distinguishing characters as vain, and arbitrarily drew the division between Mesohippus and Miohippus at a stratigraphic boundary. But far richer material available to Prothero and Shubin has permitted the identification of characters that cleanly distinguish the two genera. (Teeth are the hardest part of a vertebrate skeleton and the fossil record of mammals often contains little else. A technical course in the evolution of mammals is largely an exercise in the identification of teeth, and an old professional quip holds that mammalian evolution is the interbreeding of two sets of teeth to produce some slightly modified descendant choppers. Miohippus and Mesohippus do not have distinctive dentitions, and previous failure to find a clear separation should not surprise us. The new material is rich in skull and limb bones.) In particular, Prothero and Shubin found that Miohippus develops a distinctive articulation, absent in ancestral Mesohippus, between the enlarging third metatarsal (the foot bone of the digit that will become the entire hoof of modern horses) and the cuboid bone of the tarsus (ankle) above.

2. Mesohippus does not turn into Miohippus by insensible degrees of gradual transition. Rather, Miohippus arises by branching from a Mesohippus stock that continues to survive long afterward. The two genera overlap in time by at least 4 million years.

3. Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today). One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Mesohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

4. The species of these bushes tend to arise with geological suddenness, and then to persist with little change for long periods. Evolutionary change occurs at the branch points themselves and trends are not continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes. Of this phenomenon Prothero and Shubin write:

There is no evidence of long-term changes within these well-defined species [of Mesohippus and Miohippus] through time. Instead, they are strikingly static through millions of years. Such stasis is apparent in most Neogene [later] horses as well, and in Hyracotherium. This is contrary to the widely-held myth about horse species as gradualistically varying parts of a continuum, with no real distinctions between species. Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years. At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of horse evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species.

— Excerpts from Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus, Chapter 11.

The Larger View
Taking the punctuated equilibrium theory seriously leads to startling conclusions but it must be considered.

According to the Inveritable Encyclopedia of Universal Evolutionary Knowledge, each time the equilibrium is punctuated, evolution progresses and lasts at most 100,000 years:

"Punctuated equilibrium differs from hopeful monsters in that the former acts on populations rather than individuals, is far more gradual (taking 50,000 to 100,000 years), functions by isolating mechanisms (particularly allopatric speciation), and the latter says nothing of stasis." [10].

As my authoritative sources indicate, punctuated equilibrium theory and the Eldredge-Gould observations admit to numerous abrupt disappearances of many species on a global scale. That's an important number. So how many global extinctions were there? How many layers should I assign to the postulate of symmetrical dinosaur-stacking?

Again, the Inveritable Encyclopedia of Universal Evolutionary Knowledge states:

"Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty." [11].

The average between 5 and 20 being 12.5 is acceptably minimally miraculous from my perspective so, being as conservative as I am when it comes to observational science, I propose, tentatively, that the number of mass extinctions up to the current epoch are an even dozen. I must concede this point. It appears that Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with this number.





Thus, if we multiply the typical time interval of punctuated stasis (approximately 50,000 to 100,000 years) by the number of punctuations (global extinctions), we then arrive at the thoroughly hilarious conclusion that evolution took place in a mere .6 million to 1.2 million years.





I would, of course, be extraordinarily pleased to have to increase the number of layers (global extinctions) in my symmetrical dinosaur-stacking postulate.

Clearly, as the number of globe-sized mass-extinction layers goes up, even greater attention should be directed to the miracle of symmetrical dinosaur-stacking.

Actually, I would be absolutely thrilled to learn that the fossil record should be divided into 40, 80 or more global catastrophes but I'm willing to wait for my philosophical preference to be confirmed by the best available evidence. Until then, I will simply play with all my critics and detractors and let them struggle with the gigantic mountain of evidence.

Charles Darwin wrote:Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by the short and sure, though slow steps. — Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Given the remarkably slow changes in the evolution of species over time, as required by Darwin's hypothesis, what is the probability that millions of fossils collected randomly from a fossil record spanning 650 million years would show a pattern of abrupt appearances and equally abrupt extinction events for most fossil species and that these highly visible fossil species would span an intervening time of many millions of years without any evidence of evolution?

The evolution hypothesis should not be called true science without passing obvious mathematical tests. Suppose that the millions of fossils already collected randomly from the entire fossil record can be sorted and cataloged as belonging to n distinct species S1, S2, S3, … Sn. Let Mi (i=1,2,3, …,n) be the number of fossils discovered for species Si. Assuming that each fossil was taken randomly from a virtually smooth continuum of fossils, how do we measure the likelihood that the fossil record supports the idea that Darwinian evolution took place?

To imagine a 650 million-year timeline is easy. To reasonably estimate the mathematical distribution of catastrophes over time that caused the ancient animals to be fossilized seems doable. What is preventing us from being able to create a mathematical model of the fossil record's creation?

DR. EGON SPENGLER: This is hot Ray.
DR. RAY STANTZ: Symmetrical book stacking, just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947.
DR. PETER VENKMAN: You're right, no human being would stack books like this.

As amazing as it seems, the preeminent and most revealing characteristic of the fossil record is what I call, symmetrical dinosaur-stacking — the generally overriding, conspicuously neat layering of stasis fossils on top of other kinds of stasis fossils interspersed with geologically brief moments of global catastrophes. To help my critics understand the philosophical implications, here is a similarly remarkable unexplainable mystery that even children can understand: symmetrical rock stacking:







Is this evidence of intelligent design or merely fantastic improbability?

If - as you contend - life never becomes more robust, which you state categorically, then are you asserting that life somehow arose with a high degree of complexity and robustness and has been devolving ever since?

That is correct.

In that case you appear to require the intervention of a creator to initiate that complex life.

I do not make that assumption. I believe strongly in playing the well-defined game called science according to the rules because the definition of that game is very reasonable.

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P. Feynman.

In science, God can't be investigated, put in a box or poked with a stick. What testable ideas or intelligent creations come about by assuming God? Revelation is valid but external. Theologians often put God in a box but I don't recognize their fanciful constructions as a fruitful intellectual endeavor. No. I'm sufficiently satisfied to explain that just as there is a theistic and non-theistic theory of evolution, there is also a theistic and non-theistic version of molecular and quantum creationism.

Can you elucidate?

High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence. That's the view of all mainstream physicists. You can hear Sir Roger Penrose express that very orthodox belief at exactly 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the following Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur.

Shouldn't we then see evidence of very advanced forms of life in the most ancient fossil beds?

I believe that the ancient Earth was full of extraordinarily robust forms of life. Consider the beast named Quetzalcoatlus. "This winged creature—the largest flying machine nature ever constructed—was the size of a small airplane. It was nearly 20 ft. long; its wings stretched 40 ft. across; and it boasted a toothless, 6-ft.-long beak that tapered to the width of chopsticks." [12]. That's wonderful evidence of robustness. Who in the world can imagine an airplane-sized flying bird or bat? You just can't make any kind of unimaginably large flying creature the size of airplanes anymore.



(According to Professor Wikipedia, Quetzalcoatlus was a pterodactyloid pterosaur and "pterosaur" means "winged lizard.")

Have you ever been bitten by a parakeet? I ask because I think parakeets are surprisingly vicious. I remember being bitten by one when I was a child and it hurt a lot. Now consider the strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are genetically related to the meat-eating dinosaurs (theropods). There are many stunning similarities, including the evidence that at least some theropods had feathers. [13].

Perhaps there are reasons to compare the preceding facts to the following outlandish illustration:

Just from watching dinosaur movies, I believe that most reasonable persons would agree that the theropods were far more efficient killing machines than modern-day parakeets. And who would believe that you could take parakeet DNA, manipulate it somehow and create a super species of monster-sized theropods? Actually, I do believe it's possible theoretically but I also believe that the efficiency of modern bird DNA has decreased so greatly that any huge theropod a scientist could create today wouldn't even have the strength to stand up.

This argument is no proof. It is simply what I expect from the postulate that all biological machines are becoming less robust over time.

How Can Dinosaur Soft Tissue Survive for 80 Million Years?

2009
60 Minutes on B-Rex November 15, 2009
Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found -- Blood Vessels, More
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins
Soft tissue preserved in 80-million-year-old dino fossil
Researcher Finds Soft Tissue in 80 Million-Year-Old Dinosaur
First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone
What’s New About Hadrosaur Goo
Dinosaur-Bird Link: Ancient Proteins Preserved In Soft Tissue From 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur
Hadrosaur remains include fragments of several proteins, tests suggest
Proteins, soft tissue from 80-million-year-old dino support theory that molecules preserve over time

2008
New study has a bone to pick about dinosaur soft tissue
Response to Comment on "Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry"
Comment on "Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry"

2005
Dino Dig Updates: Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery
T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved


How Can the Current Understanding of Radiometric Dating be Wrong?
A possibility of controlled variation of radioactive decay rate of atomic nuclei
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection
The prolific mathematician John Von Neumann was awed by the existence of living organisms. And I believe it takes a little humility to say of living organisms, as he did, “That they should occur in the world at all is a miracle of the first magnitude” (Reproduced in Papers of John von Neumann on Computing and Computer Theory, W. Aspray and A. Burks, eds., MIT Press, pp. 481-482).

Knowing how miracles happen is a worthy research project to pursue. John von Neumann has presented a respectable challenge. For the brilliant scientist or engineer, "a machine that replicates itself can, with some difficulty, be imagined; but such a machine that could originate itself offers a baffling problem which no one has yet solved." Harold F. Blum, Times Arrow and Evolution (Harper 1962), p. 178G.

Dr. Murray Eden, Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offers a delightful insight on the quintessence of the theory of evolution. He has reduced Darwinian evolution and natural selection to a hilarious mathematical problem:

Dr. Murray Eden wrote:Clearly to every ancestor of an organism living today there is associated a meaningful DNA sequence. In humans the linear DNA sequence is estimated to contain on the order of 10^9 nucleotides. Taking the length of time life has existed on earth to be of the order of 1 billion years, we find that the average rate of accretion is about one meaningful nucleotide to the DNA sequence per year. If randomness is taken to mean that a uniform probability is assigned to each possible independent substitution or addition, the chance of emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete. — Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1967, p. 110.

It sounds like a powerful argument for the theory of devolution to me.

I appreciate it when well-informed Christians are honest about radiometric dating. They are right to admit that our current limited understanding of physics implies that the history of life on Earth is on the order of a billion years. However, I don't see any reason to be threatened by the seeming contradiction between modern science and the global flood postulate. What Bible-believing Christian is intimidated by a God that uses nature to carry out His purposes? Noah's flood was a fantastic quantum miracle. "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall" (Proverbs 16:33 NLT).

According to the mainstream understanding of nuclear physics, ordinary radioactive decay is a purely probabilistic effect. Yet radioactive decay rates of atomic nuclei are provably variable. How many Darwinists understand the physics? The theological challenge to believing Seventh-day Adventists is the extent to which God catches the wicked in their own craftiness (1 Corinthians 3:19). Isn't it true that sometimes God purposely allows superficial minds and the worldly wise to be deceived?

Albert Einstein often remarked that "God is subtle, but He is not malicious." Later in life Einstein said, "I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious." The context to Einstein's quip is readily transparent. It is quoted in Jamie Sayen, Einstein in America (1985). It was said to Vladimir Bargmann with the meaning that God leads people to believe they understand things that they actually are far from understanding. (The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, 2006).

I think it's interesting that atheists sometimes express greater insights about God than Seventh-day Adventists.

I am advocating the creation of axioms to precisely define the theories of evolution and devolution in the style of David Hilbert's philosophy of physics:

David Hilbert wrote:If geometry is to serve as a model for the treatment of physical axioms, we shall try first by a small number of axioms to include as large a class as possible of physical phenomena, and then by adjoining new axioms to arrive gradually at the more special theories....The mathematician will have also to take account not only of those theories coming near to reality, but also, as in geometry, of all logically possible theories. He must be always alert to obtain a complete survey of all conclusions derivable from the system of axioms assumed.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm

Clearly, David Hilbert viewed the study and investigation of a great atlas of all "logically possible theories" as a legitimate science. Therefore, if devolution is logically possible, then a precise characterization of it and its study should not be regarded as anathema. It belongs to science, according to David Hilbert.

As described by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron (2004), Evolutionary Analysis 4th Edition, Darwin’s theory rests on four postulates:

The postulates, which apply to populations of organisms, are as follows:

1. Individuals within populations are variable.
   
   
2. The variations among individuals are, at least in part, passed from parents to offspring.
   
   
3. In every generation, some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing than others.
   
   
4. The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random; instead they are tied to the variation among individuals. The individuals with the most favorable variations, those who are better at surviving and reproducing, are naturally selected.

If these four postulates are true, then the composition of the population changes from one generation to the next. The logic is clear: If there are differences among the individuals in a population that can be passed on to offspring, and if there is differential success among those individuals in surviving and/or reproducing, then some traits will be passed on more frequently than others. As a result, the characteristics of the population will change slightly with each succeeding generation. This is Darwinian evolution: gradual change in populations over time. (Freeman and Herron (2004) Evolutionary Analysis pp. 72-73).

The postulates of Darwinism are laughably bad when compared to David Hilbert's standards of substance and precision. I believe Dr. David Berlinski is right to avoid characterizing Darwinism by the meaningless postulates of this supposedly sophisticated text. And I strongly agree with Dr. Berlinski in his affirmation that Darwin's theory doesn't even pass the threshold of anecdote.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... playnext=1

Mathematically speaking, if Darwin's four postulates (D4) constitute a scientific theory, then so is the more specialized theory of those four postulates adjoined to the common descent (CD) postulate. And by definition, if the common descent postulate and its converse is unprovable from the first four postulates, then CD is logically independent of D4. Consequently, D4 adjoined to the negation of CD is also a scientific theory. More specifically, D4 adjoined to the devolution hypothesis must also be classified as a scientific theory.

I agree with Berlinski. Darwin's Origin of Species never did merit being called a scientific theory. I'm especially sympathetic to the requirement that a theory much represent a singular category of coherent knowledge, such as relativity theory, probability theory, group theory, set theory, etc. By that standard, all of Darwin's ideas constitute an incredibly shallow non-theory.

Serge Lang
What evolutionists and creationists need to understand most is the spiritual quality called grace. There is an excellent example of grace by Serge Lang, the famous mathematician, professor, and prolific writer of mathematical texts. It appears that Lang felt strongly that homological algebra was an extraordinarily elementary mathematical theory. So in the first edition of his graduate level textbook on algebra, he had this exercise: "Get hold of any book on homological algebra and prove all the theorems without looking at the proofs given in that book."

Why aren't evolutionists and creationists treating each other the same way? "Get hold of any book on evolution or devolution, prove all the theorems without looking at the given proofs and check all the relevant empirical data."

As amazing as it is to some, the first fundamental theorem of molecular creationism proves that it is perfectly consistent with all the fundamental laws of physics for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day. Naturally, ultra-Darwinists don't know this. Their religious bigotry and inexcusable ignorance of fundamental physics prevents them from even imagining that nature is profoundly complex. That's why the definition of true science is important to understand. A hypothesis is tenable unless it's proven to be impossible. And it is also possible, unless proven otherwise, that one form of life can't be transformed into every other by slow, small changes. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

An astoundingly powerful argument for the theory of devolution is the PBS special: "Pedigree Dogs Exposed," which is on right now in my area. The program description states: "Purebred dogs and related health issues from inbreeding are discussed." This program clearly proves that speciation in dogs produces an undeniable and directly observable generational increase in genetic diseases, cancers, infertility and expected extinction, all due to inbreeding. As I have written, "The logic is undeniably correct. Specialization is speciation. The generalists are more robust. Therefore speciation implies devolution."













Now compare those pathetic dogs with the true story of the noble wolf named Lobo. He is literally The Wolf That Changed America:

In 1893, a bounty hunter named Ernest Thompson Seton journeyed to the untamed canyons of New Mexico on a mission to kill a dangerous outlaw. Feared by ranchers throughout the region, the outlaw wasn’t a pistol-packing cowboy or train-robbing bandit. The outlaw was a wolf. Lobo, as locals simply called him, was the legendary leader of a band of cattle-killing wolves that had been terrorizing cattle ranchers and their livestock. It was up to Seton to exterminate this “super-wolf.” The ensuing battle of wits between wolf and man would spark a real-life wilderness drama, the outcome of which would leave a lasting effect on a new and growing movement in America: wilderness preservation.

What does the Spirit the prophecy say about the size of animals before the flood?



Clearly, the devolution of dogs' documentary confirms that speciation accelerates devolution. Likewise, the opposite action produces hybrid vigor, which minimizes devolution.

Dr. John C. Sanford "has engaged in genetic research as a Cornell professor for almost three decades, holds over 30 patents, and has published over 80 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals." [14].



Sanford's Genomic Degeneration Theorem is irrefutable. I believe that makes Dr. Sanford a qualified devolutionist.

DNA Varies More Widely From Person to Person, Genetic Maps Reveal

James Owen
for National Geographic News
November 22, 2006

The genetic makeup of the human race is much more varied than previously believed, new research shows.

Scientists say that surprisingly many large chunks of human DNA differ among individuals and ethnic groups.

The research also suggests that humans have less DNA in common with chimpanzees, our closest living relative, than is widely supposed.

The new findings, based on several studies, will have dramatic implications for research into deadly diseases, the researchers add.

In the lead study, reported tomorrow in the journal Nature, scientists created the first map of the human genome that shows that large segments of DNA are missing or duplicated between normal, healthy people.

Known as copy number variants (CNVs), some of these altered DNA sequences can be responsible for increased susceptibility to cancers and many other diseases, the study team says.

"Astonishing" Results

The new map provides a much clearer picture of human genetic variation, says geneticist and co-researcher Charles Lee of the Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

"This evidence is showing that we are more genetically unique from one another—we all have individualized genomes," he said.

The team analyzed the DNA of 270 people with ancestry in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

More than 1,400 CNVs were detected, covering 12 percent of the human genome—the complete set of chromosomes, present in almost every human cell, that contains a person's genetic code.

Until now only relatively small amounts of genetic difference between people had been identified.

"The number and magnitude of this type of variation was totally unexpected," said Huntington F. Willard, director of the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

"The variation among seemingly 'normal' human genomes is quite astonishing," added Willard, who was not involved in the study. [15]

Has it occurred to anyone that 1,447 CNVs are a powerful scientific confirmation of Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem?

Previous studies focused on analyzing polymorphism (variation) in DNA nucleotidic bases. But the new approach tackled deletions or duplications of code among relatively long sequences of individual DNA and then compared the so-called copy number variations (CNVs) across individuals from different human breeds.

"Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA," said Matthew Hurles from Britain's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. "One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12 % of the genome."

"The copy number variation that researchers had seen before was simply the tip of the iceberg, while the bulk lay submerged, undetected. We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals."

Some missing or duplicated DNA fragments are very large, thus CNVs might have a big impact on gene expression. About 16 % of genes related to disease have been found to possess CNVs, like those involved in the rare DiGeorge, Williams-Beuren and Prader-Willi syndromes or more common schizophrenia, cataracts, spinal muscular atrophy and atherosclerosis. But kidney disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and vulnerability to malaria and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which recent research has blamed on single-letter variations in the gene code, are also suspected for CNVs. "The stage is set for global studies to explore anew... the clinical significance of human variation," said Huntington Willard at Duke University in North Carolina. [16].

The studies referred to above clearly prove that evolutionary geneticists are clueless. How is it possible that human races and populations can differ in their DNA by extraordinary amounts because of copy number variations (CNVs) if all humans are genetically only 1.5% different than chimpanzees? When will mainstream scientists admit that the geneticists who pretend to have determined scientifically that "race is a social construct with no genetic basis" are as silly as the persons in the Emperor Has No Clothes story?