Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 61 of 88 (70221)
12-01-2003 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Sonic
12-01-2003 4:49 AM


Sonic,
I gotta say it is very possible since I have fallen from the Macro/micro debate, from the dating debate, that I will fall yet a 3rd time.
Glad I could help. I have to say it's been a great pleasure debating with you. Although I sense you want to dismiss evidence, I also sense that you want to be logical & consistent at the same time. You obviously understand that you can't have both & have taken the path to the light in going with logic, reason, & evidence. Changing your worldview can't be an easy thing to do, so I guess it's forgivable to encounter some resistance to it.
Talk Origins
I'm sure you've seen this site before, but read it again. This time don't look at the evidences as singular entities. Look at them one at a time & in your head "multiply" them together (as corroborating facts should be). Then ask yourself, what are the chances that all of this, all of the corroboration between palaeontology, stratigraphy, genetics, cladistics, molecular biology, embryology, morphology etc is due to anything else but evolution?
The Tree of Life
Click on, in this order, the root of the tree, eukaryotes, animals, bilateria, deuterostoma, chordata, craniata, vertebrata, gnathostoma, sarcopterygii, terrestrial vertebrates, synapsida, therapsida, mammalia, eutheria, primates, catarrhini, hominidae, homo, Homo sapiens.
That's just walking up one branch of the tree of life, all of which is inferred independantly by cladistics, all of which is corroborated by the stratigraphic order of appearance, & again confirmed by radiometric dating.
Mark
------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Sonic, posted 12-01-2003 4:49 AM Sonic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 12:34 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 75 by Ooook!, posted 12-09-2003 8:08 AM mark24 has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 62 of 88 (70279)
12-01-2003 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by mark24
12-01-2003 5:25 AM


I have one silly question here - why are the radially symmetric echinodermata found under the bilateria? Looks like a farg-up to me....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 5:25 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by lpetrich, posted 12-06-2003 4:08 PM zephyr has replied
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 12-06-2003 4:22 PM zephyr has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 63 of 88 (70303)
12-01-2003 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Sonic
12-01-2003 4:49 AM


I just hope that their is more foundation in the evolutionist world then what you have shown me.
Good grief!!!!
What you have seen is some incrediably tiny part of it all. It is a bit like you have seen a comic book taken from a major city library!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Sonic, posted 12-01-2003 4:49 AM Sonic has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 88 (71339)
12-06-2003 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
12-01-2003 12:16 AM


My point was not to distinguish between them, but that there needs be more of a balance in the fossil record with a greater quantity of Macro fossils than exists.
And what I'm telling you is, there's as many macro-transitional fossils as micro-transitional fossils, because they're the same fossils. Each fossil is a macro-transitional fossil and a micro-transitional fossil, because those distinctions are as meaningless as the distinction between micro-driving-on-the-highway (where you only go one city over) and macro-driving-on-the-highway (where you cross the country.) The only difference is of degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2003 12:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 88 (71381)
12-06-2003 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by zephyr
12-01-2003 12:34 PM


zephyr writes:
I have one silly question here - why are the radially symmetric echinodermata found under the bilateria? Looks like a farg-up to me....
Though adult echinoderms are radially symmetric, echinoderm larvae are bilaterally symmetric -- and resemble the larvae of indirect-developing hemichordates.
Here's a nice gallery of echinoderm larvae -- they have little resemblance to their adults, and those adults grow from a special part of them. That "farg-up" is caused by their style of growth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 12:34 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 12-06-2003 4:52 PM lpetrich has not replied
 Message 69 by zephyr, posted 12-07-2003 6:26 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 88 (71383)
12-06-2003 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by zephyr
12-01-2003 12:34 PM


zephyr,
Sorry mate, I missed your question & only noticed it when I saw Ipetrich's post.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 12:34 PM zephyr has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 88 (71384)
12-06-2003 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by lpetrich
12-06-2003 4:08 PM


quote:
Though adult echinoderms are radially symmetric, echinoderm larvae are bilaterally symmetric -- and resemble the larvae of indirect-developing hemichordates.
Hey! You know how science works? We make a prediction and see if it is observed. My prediction: molecular biology should confirm the observation of morphology in showing that echinodermata is related to hemichordates.
We have a winner!
Check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lpetrich, posted 12-06-2003 4:08 PM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 12-06-2003 9:04 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 68 of 88 (71406)
12-06-2003 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chiroptera
12-06-2003 4:52 PM


God bless Pubmed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chiroptera, posted 12-06-2003 4:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoBody, posted 12-08-2003 5:18 AM mark24 has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 69 of 88 (71481)
12-07-2003 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by lpetrich
12-06-2003 4:08 PM


Cool!
Many thanks for the explanation.
Kudos also to Chiroptera for the demonstration. Much appreciated

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lpetrich, posted 12-06-2003 4:08 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 70 of 88 (71524)
12-08-2003 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by mark24
12-06-2003 9:04 PM


Hey guys I have a question. I am researching phylogenies and I am wondering, are these phylogenies based from theoretical silent mutations (i.e. genetic drift,mutation,etc)?
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 12-06-2003 9:04 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 12-08-2003 10:41 AM You replied
 Message 73 by sfs, posted 12-08-2003 10:18 PM You have not replied

     
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 71 of 88 (71565)
12-08-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoBody
12-08-2003 5:18 AM


Nobody,
Molecular phylogenetics uses sequence data, it matters not a jot whether the loci are neutral or have been subject to drift.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoBody, posted 12-08-2003 5:18 AM NoBody has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NoBody, posted 12-08-2003 8:11 PM mark24 has not replied

  
NoBody
Guest


Message 72 of 88 (71721)
12-08-2003 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by mark24
12-08-2003 10:41 AM


I dont understand what you mean by, sequence data.
------------------
But Who Am I?
NoBody

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 12-08-2003 10:41 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 12-09-2003 3:57 AM You replied

     
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 73 of 88 (71764)
12-08-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoBody
12-08-2003 5:18 AM


quote:
Hey guys I have a question. I am researching phylogenies and I am wondering, are these phylogenies based from theoretical silent mutations (i.e. genetic drift,mutation,etc)?
(Not exactly my field, but . . .) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by basing a phylogeny on silent mutations. Phylogenies are based on comparisons of DNA sequence between organisms. The particular sequence chosen can be nonfunctional, in which case all mutations are neutral, or it can be functional (a gene, generally), in which case many mutations will be deleterious. Neutrally evolving sequences change too fast to be useful for any kind of deep phylogeny, so most phylogenies use genes, since these are kept from varying too fast by natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoBody, posted 12-08-2003 5:18 AM NoBody has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 74 of 88 (71795)
12-09-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by NoBody
12-08-2003 8:11 PM


Nobody,
Sequence data is the sequence of nucleotides in DNA, or amino acids in proteins. Both are essentially chains.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NoBody, posted 12-08-2003 8:11 PM NoBody has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NoBody, posted 12-09-2003 10:10 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 75 of 88 (71820)
12-09-2003 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by mark24
12-01-2003 5:25 AM


Hello,
Nice link to the tree of life website - it really puts everything into perspective when you look at things in order like that . I couldn't find much in the way of fossils though, and I'd like to able to see, in simple terms the progression from one stage to another through 'fossil steps' (eg jawless fish to the first land quandropeds).
Could you (or anyone else for that matter) point me in the direction of such a set of pictures? I don't want to try it myself in case I make a glaring mistake (my knowledge in the area being only passing and in no way up to date).
Then maybe a creationist or two could debate specific examples rather than using hand-wavey arguments about how small the number of transitional fossils are
regards
Ooook!
Edit: attack of the apostrophe's'
[This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 5:25 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2003 9:11 AM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 77 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-09-2003 9:35 AM Ooook! has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024