|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
quote: That is a blatant misquote -just answer what is the animal before Hyracotherium? Or we don't have a complete lineage anyhow.. Now let me make my point:See those two pictures in YOUR post.. I would accept that as two specimens as part of the lineage.. The problems is you cannot show me a lineage from an animal very UNLIKE a horse to the modern horse..I believe your link had more specimens but there were HUGE gaps especially from NON-horse like to horse like ... If I am wrong let me know.. and repost the link .. Also, I am not necessarily conceding that Hyracotherium may have evolved into Mesohippus - they simply could have been two different types.. But if you have got a whole series of changes from an animal very different from a horse to a horse - my argument would not seem plausible..
quote:Not sure where you got that from..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
just answer what is the animal before Hyracotherium?
A Condylarth. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I still maintain that Erectus actually is homo sapiens .. That's all very well but useless unless you can give reasons why you wouldj continue to maintain that in the face of the opinion of those who study them and the evidence we can see in photos. As for the link it would be nice if you stated why you thihk it is relevant. I did a quick scan of it. Here is what I think. I like the fact that the author of the article included discussion with individuals who disagree with him. That is something I look for when assessing a source. It is unfortunate that the whole thing seems to be based on opinions without carefull analysis. At least no such analysis is given.What is done in the literature is analysis of careful and numerous measurements of the specimens. Then computer analysis can give an idea of just how different (or not) specimens are. This removes some, if not all, of the subjectivity. As an example; in looking at the few semi-clear photos supplied I do not see significant brow ridges in the KS types. They certainly do not appear to be like those of the H. erectus photos. But, as I said, this is not the way to do this. It would be very interesting if some intermediates between H. sapiens and H. erectus lived so recently. I think that is what the author is suggesting. However, I'm not sure what that means. There were probably such intermediates in the 300,000 years BP range. (btw, I don't think it's important enough to check but I think the author may have some of his dates for H. erectus wrong.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Also, I am not necessarily conceding that Hyracotherium may have evolved into Mesohippus - they simply could have been two different types.. But if you have got a whole series of changes from an animal very different from a horse to a horse - my argument would not seem plausible.. Whatever you concede what has been shown is a number of different species with certain characteristics that when closer to today are closer to those of modern horses. In great detail these fossils have horse characteristics. They are arranged with those older being less like a modern horse. Why is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A reply to posts #84 and #102 in this thread would be much appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
he problems is you cannot show me a lineage from an animal very UNLIKE a horse to the modern horse..
Hyracotherium, a foot-tall browser with five toes on its feet, isn't just a little unlike one of the Budweiser Clydesdales? It looks just a tad dissimilar to me...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Coragyps,
Hyracotherium, a foot-tall browser with five toes on its feet, isn't just a little unlike one of the Budweiser Clydesdales? It looks just a tad dissimilar to me... Nonsense, a pig can't be a transitional to a horse, they're too similar. I think we should be thankful Skeptic isn't involved with classification. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
quote:How? That's the one one of the (two) arguments that webpage is making, that not knowing what animal came before the earliest animal in the lineage somehow counts against the entire lineage. But, as I have said before we would expect there to be an end to the lineage where we don't know what came before (aside: we do now what came before, a condylarth (thanks Mark24)) because fossilization is so rare and not all animals are fossilized.quote:That is a blatant misquotequote:1. We just spent the entire thread explaining to you why it's impossible to have all the fossils until the beginning of life! Fossilization is rare! quote:Brilliant! Just what I predicted with #2. allow me to quote myself: quote:We DO have a complete lineage, from Hyraqcotherium, an animal, as your website puts it, "the size of a dog with four toes (like a dog) and teeth suited to browsing on trees," to the modern horse. Now you are saying that it invalidates the lineage that we don't have the animal directly before the lineage. quote:I assume you mean the pictures of Orohippus and Mesohippus quote:Ok quote:let me ask you, why did you post that first webpage? It seems that you have opinions comletely different from the author of that webpage. Hyracotherium IS very unlike a horse. Your webpage: quote:And how exactly is Hyracotherium very similar to a horse? Tell me, how many extra toes must an animal have before you consider it different? Everybody has been telling you that hyracotherium is very different from a modern horse, including your creationist link. quote:Could you be a bit more specific? There are seven transitional genuses between Hyracotherium and Equus, and frankly, I can't be bothered to link to every picture on that site. quote:Here it is: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm And the creationist link under discussion: http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-horses.htm
quote:Frankly, I am not even very sure what your argument is. First you say that the lineage is invalid because they are all too similar ("The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses.") Then you post a link which says that the lineage is invalid because they are too different! quote:From Message 11.quote:Not sure where you got that from.. Allow me to reiterate our conversation:
Message 1SkepticToAll:The reason i believe evolution is even standing because its arguments are sound, but there is NO physical evidence Message 10RRoman:...Chlorella vulgaris...unicellular...multicellular Chlorella growth form ... Message 11SkepticToAll:Yes, this is adaptation .. but it did not change into a drastically different species. It has NOTHING to do with the process of Evolution necessary to create a drastically different species.. Message 25SkepticToAll:Link to creationist article claiming horse evolution is invalid because the different fossils are too dissimilar. Message 59RRomanif unicellular -> multicellular is not drastically different, how can you try to disprove horse evolution by saying that Mesohippus is drastically different from Orohippus? You still haven't answered that question. And it would be nice if you could keep track of what you say. It's alot of work doing all the UBB code.(on an unrelated note, can anyone tell me how I can insert line breaks into my posts? pressing [Enter] several times doesn't seem to work.) Edit: I apologize that my quotes don't look all too aesthetically pleasing, but it would look worse if I used the qs quotes (due to there being no line breaks). If people want me to use the qs quotes instead, please say so. This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-29-2004 05:29 PM "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon Roman's drum blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
quote:Figures, considering that you apparently can't tell any organisms within a family apart. erectus=sapiens, unicellular=multicellular, hyracotherium=equus, hey, next you'll be trying to tell us that Hitler was black, Gahndi was an australian aborigne, and Martin Luther King Jr. was chinese. "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon Roman's drum blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
Come on! It's been days. ok, ok, I'm sorry for making fun of your argument. Just come back and write something. I'm so bored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Can you list some objective qualifications for determining "unlikeness"? Or, is this argument going to go on ad infinitum until we reach the first tetrapod transitional fossil? I think that a five toed leafe eater to a single toed grass eater that is substantially different in size and morphology would be enough to satisfy a "complete lineage". We have the complete lineage from the small, five toed tree eater to the large, one toed grass eater. Boom, done.
quote: Yeah, there is that gap between synapsids and . . .
quote: So why the hell are you asking for a complete lineage when you will arbitrarily decide that you can pull out the "they're the same species" when they look too much alike, and then pull out the "they are too dissimilar" when the gap is too large? You have decided to discount these fossils before you even see them, which is evidenced by the fact that you have never put forth objective criteria that would put them into the same species. By objective criteria, I am expecting comparisons of bone size, density, muscle attachment, muscle size; those sort of things, things that are measureable and objective, not a subjective statement like "they look too much alike" or "it still looks horse like".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
You made a number of points but I'll just deal with the most important.
You say that PE just is gradualism at a different rate. Well yes but thats not the point. The point is that it replaced a previous idea. I understand that you are trying to say it only replaced a 100% all-the-time etc thing.Yet this is not true. The men who suggested PE are famous for this new idea. It was not just a extension. It was a correThey were also attacked in evolution circles at first. My whole point about PE is not that it is opposed to gradualism. Rather it was brought in because the evidence of fossils,though not scientific evidence, insisted the old idea was untenable.How can you say PE did not replace an important point in evolution thought? And so the process of replacing is open to scrunity. And creationists can demonstrate that the previous idea was not backed up by Science but rather was speculation based on evidence of fossils found. It was never a scientic theory and so it was easy to overthrow it with another "idea". (which also one day will be overthrown in like manner). INDEED you yourself said the old idea was falsified and tested and then found wrong.Well what took so long? 100 years before this took place or the previous falsification and testing itself was wrong? NO instead it is clear there was no previous falsification/testing. It was never a thing of science. And the replacement hasn't falsified or tested anything either. I can't see why we disagree on this. \
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: PE opposed the thought that gradualism was tenable in EVERY situation. Gradualism is still tenable, but not in every case. PE recongized that we see quick transition between species within the fossil record, but we see gradual changes above the species level (ie genus or family level). PE is about quick changes in the overall gene frequency in populations. That is, PE theorizes that sub-populations can quickly overwhelm the rest of the population instead of the whole population gradually changing at the same rate. However, PE still asserts that mutation and selection happen at accepted rates, but smaller population sizes allow rapid build up of beneficial mutations that are then released into a larger population. Also, if fossils are not scientific evidence, then why do creationists ask for complete lineages? Don't you think that it is dishonest to ask for fossil evidence, and then claim afterwards that fossils can't be evidence?
quote: How can you say that evolutionists can never change their mind, then gripe because their theories change?
quote: There is a whole fossil sorting thread for you to peruse. I think it is pretty obvious that creationists are NOT able to demonstrate ANYTHING with respect to the fossil record. Here is an example of PE seen in the fossil record. A small population was observed to change gradually, but in another area the same species is observed "suddenly" in the fossil record. From Punctuated Equilibrium Example: A Marine Microfossil
The paper Spencer-Cervato, C. and Thierstein, H.R., 1997. First appearance of Globorotalia truncatulinoides: cladogenesis and immigration. Marine Micropaleontology, v.30, p.267-291.reports on the species Globorotalia crassaformis. There is a location in the South Pacific where this species gradually turns into a transitional species, G. tosaensis, and then into G. truncatulinoides. The gradual change took 500,000 years. In the Indian and Atlantic oceans, in slightly more recent sediment, we find the "sudden" appearance of the descendant species. This "suddenness" is therefore from migration, not Creation. We know that these are different species (and not just strange looking fossils of a single species) because both species still exist today. Thanks to geologist Dr. Andrew MacRae for this example. As you can see, this fits in perfectly with the ideas of PE. A small subpopulation develops through gradualism in one area and then expands into another area. If we only observed the area into which they expanded, it looks to be a 'punctuated' event. This is exactly what PE is trying to relate, rapid migration into a new area from a confined area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
INDEED you yourself said the old idea was falsified and tested and then found wrong. Well what took so long? 100 years before this took place or the previous falsification and testing itself was wrong? NO instead it is clear there was no previous falsification/testing. It was never a thing of science. And the replacement hasn't falsified or tested anything either. I can't see why we disagree on this. One problem you have is that you reach conclusions without knowing much about the subject at hand. Let's look over the history a bit more. When Darwin proposed his ideas there was pretty well no fossil evidence. (Of course,"no" is a bit strong. But in comparison to what we have now that was the case. There was enough to show that there had been different living things that were no longer around.) He made a statement that the changes were slow and gradual. It was based on the nature of his theory and his observations of artificial selection. It was a reasonable conclusion with the evidence at hand. It was as reasonable as Newton's laws of motion where when they were forumlated 400 years ago. The idea of slow, gradual change is still born out by the fossil record just as Newton's laws are still valid in some circumstance. However, to say that the changes are always slow and gradual isn't right. We have new evidence for that. Not just lack of intermediaries but actual, detailed lineages of shelled sea creatures that show stasis and "rapid" change. This evidence required a change in the consensus view. Science is always conservative so it took some pushing and shoving to get the changes in view accepted. After 300 years we understood Newton's laws to be 'wrong'. I'd say that the changes in the ToE were done pretty quickly by comparison. However, the original idea wasn't fully wrong either. The nature of the ToE isn't fundamentally different even yet. The changes are a result of genetic change and natural selection. The rate of change is better understood. It was a scientific conclusion at the time with the available evidence. The statements Darwin made about rate weren't based on a lot of evidence and to that degree he was out-on-a-limb. To the degree that the evidence didn't cover all possible scenarios you are right: it wasn't as well founded as it should have been. That happens now and then. So what? That is why we continue to gather more evidence in all the sciences. That is why we keep retesting Einstein's ideas too. You seem to have this idea that because a scientific theory is subject to change and modification and even, total falsification that somehow creationism will win out in the end. This is simple not the case. Creationism has been shown to be wrong. It can not be resurrected. There is too much evidence against it. If, somehow, there is anything that requires an actual replacement of the ToE it won't be creationism that is the replacement. It is also very unlikely that an outright replacement will be needed. Just like relativity is a "replacement" for Newton's laws but leaves them useful and accurate enough a lot of the time so would a change to the ToE be a modification leaving the overall idea intact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Robert Byers,
You say that PE just is gradualism at a different rate. Well yes but thats not the point. The point is that it replaced a previous idea. I understand that you are trying to say it only replaced a 100% all-the-time etc thing. Yet this is not true. The men who suggested PE are famous for this new idea. It was not just a extension. It was a correThey were also attacked in evolution circles at first. Sorry, mate, your 100% wrong, I've already explained why. You are just repeating yourself. It is both a new idea AND an extension of evolutionary understanding. In the same way that when electrons were discovered to exist in shells around a nucleus it in one way falsified the old "plum-pudding" view of atoms, & required a modification of the theory, & ultimately added to our understanding of what atoms were. Elements of the plum-pudding theory were correct but had been added to. Gradualism is correct, just not in the way Darwin thought. PE threw away the wrong bit & added to it. Unlike you I have read Gould, & what he specifically means PE to be. Read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, the chapter on PE. One of the authors of PE should know what they mean, shouldn't they? My last post stands.
My whole point about PE is not that it is opposed to gradualism. Rather it was brought in because the evidence of fossils,though not scientific evidence, insisted the old idea was untenable. No, it insisted that gradualism occurs, but not at the same rate.
How can you say PE did not replace an important point in evolution thought? Easily, see my last post for an explanation.
And so the process of replacing is open to scrunity. And creationists can demonstrate that the previous idea was not backed up by Science but rather was speculation based on evidence of fossils found. No, it was inference based upon the evidence at the time, & was at that time not contradicted by evidence. Perfectly scientific.
It was never a scientic theory and so it was easy to overthrow it with another "idea". (which also one day will be overthrown in like manner). No, it was inference based upon the evidence at the time, & was at that time not contradicted by evidence. Perfectly scientific.
INDEED you yourself said the old idea was falsified and tested and then found wrong. Yes, it was inference based upon the evidence at the time, & was eventually tested by new evidence. Perfectly scientific. THis is how science works.
....it is clear there was no previous falsification/testing. It was never a thing of science. But there WAS falsification/testing, you agree with me in your previous post. See below.
And the replacement hasn't falsified or tested anything either. I can't see why we disagree on this. Yes it has, the notion that evolution proceeds via slow, constant phyletic gradualism & nothing else is falsified. That's why you said this:
Rather it was brought in because the evidence of fossils,though not scientific evidence, insisted the old idea was untenable If it is now untenable because of new fossil evidence it has been tested/falsified. You say some bizarre things! The evidence is perfectly scientific, it consists of direct observations of fossils, their character values, & the context of their discovery. What's unscientific about that? I guarantee a strawman argument. Guarantee it. Science works by inductively producing a hypothesis based upon observation. It then deductively tests that hypothesis via observations (predictions, falsifications, etc.). In the light of that, could you please explain what is "scientific" evidence, as opposed to common or garden evidence? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 08-03-2004 06:00 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024