|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand | |||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Please see original article for figures.
quote: Invertebrate transitionals;
< !--UB http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm -->http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm< !--UE--> Consider the brachiopod Eocoelia from the Lower Silurian of Great Britain (Ziegler, 1966). We find two species both classified as Eocoelia based on the details of internal morphology. However, the shells of the older species are coarsely ribbed whereas the shells of the younger species are smooth (Ziegler, 1966). If we examine samples collected from geochronologically intermediate positions, we find a succession of Eocoelia that progressively reduced and ultimately lost the ribs (Ziegler, 1966). This morphologic progression can be illustrated both qualitatively with specimen illustrations and quantitatively by measuring rib strength and plotting the data as a series of histograms in stratigraphic order (Ziegler, 1966). Such sequences are the preserved remains of temporally successive populations of organisms that morphologically changed from one species into another. All of these intermediate forms thus qualifies as transitional fossils. The only logical conclusion is that such successive populations were produced by normal reproductive processes. That is descent with modification (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266-269). Research has provided many examples of successive species and genera (and in some cases families) linking major higher taxa of order or class rank (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266). For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between [1] Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), [2] Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978), [ 3] Class Rostroconchia and Class Pelecypoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Pojeta, 1978), [4] Class Rostroconchia and Class Scaphopoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976, 1979) , [5] Subclass Bactritoidea and Subclass Ammonoidea (Erben, 1966).
< !--UB http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#trilobites -->http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/...e/talk_origins.html#trilobites< !--UE--> Showing Trilobite transitionals. Pikaia gracilens (Science & Earth History, Arthur N Strahler, 1999, p405)
< !--UB http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html -->http://www.asa3.org/...topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html< !--UE--> The Cambrian lobopods occupy a transitional morphological position between several living phyla. The oldest known lobopod from the Early Cambrian is Xenusion. This organism bears similarities to both palaeoscolecid worms and to living onychophorans and tardigrads. Furthermore, lobo-pods also have morphological features in common with the arthropods, particularly with peculiar Cambrian forms such as Opabinia and Anomalocaris. Recent redescription of Opabinia has also disclosed the presence of lobopod limbs strongly suggesting a lobopod to arthropod transition. The discovery of a Cambrian gill-bearing lobopod reinforces this conclusion. These forms fall nicely into a transitional position between extant phyla. Another very important group of Early Cambrian fossils is represented by a wide variety of tiny cap-shaped and scalelike skeletal elements. It is now known that many of these belonged to slug-like animals that bore these hollow mineralized structures like a dermal armor. Two well-known, and well-preserved, examples of this group of organisms are Wiwaxia and Halkieria. Called the Machaeridia or the Coelosceritophora, these organisms are mosaics of phylum-level characteristics, and their taxonomic affinity is a matter of present debate. A strong case can be made for the assignment of at least some of these taxa to the Mollusca. However, a relationship to the polychaete annelid worms is also strongly suggested by some workers, as with Wiwaxia. The taxonomic confusion associated with these scale-bearing slug-like animals, and with the lobopods, is consistent with their stratigraphic position at the base of the Cambrian metazoan radiation. &, Of course, from one of your own references, no. 18. A bit of an own goal, this one.
< !--UB http://www.natureasia.com/get.pl5/abstracts/issue991202/abstract991202_518.shtml -->Nature Portfolio< !--UE--> An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate Jun-Yuan Chen, Di-Ying Huang and Chia-Wei Li Since the identification of the Lower Cambrian Yunnanozoon as a chordate in 1995, large numbers of complete specimens of soft-bodied chordates from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan (southern China) have been recovered. Here we describe a recently discovered craniate-like chordate, Haikouella lanceolata, from 305 fossil specimens in Haikou near Kunming. This 530 million-year-old (Myr) fish-like animal resembles the contemporaneous Yunnanozoon from the Chengjiang fauna (about 35km southeast of Haikou) in several anatomic features. But Haikouella also has several additional anatomic features: a heart, ventral and dorsal aorta, an anterior branchial arterial, gill filaments, a caudal projection, a neural cord with a relatively large brain, a head with possible lateral eyes, and a ventrally situated buccal cavity with short tentacles. These findings indicate that Haikouella probably represents a very early craniate-like chordate that lived near the beginning of the Cambrian period during the main burst of the Cambrian explosion. These findings will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.
quote: See above, for a few invertebrate examples. The remarkable completeness? Says who? A non creationist reference please. This claim is in direct contradiction of the undicovered inferred fossils you outline elsewhere in this article.
quote: The transformation formation from invertebrate to vertebrate requires only one species. But as you point out, only 0.0125% of organisms are vertebrates. You have gone to great pains to point out to your readers how small a slice of the pie vertebrates take up, and then tell us that vertebrate evolution was a major event. How so? There are three transitionals I have given above. Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, & Haikouella lanceolata, Two of the transitionals are in one of your own references, so why does the fossil record does not leave a single shred of evidence for this enormous transformation?
< !--UB http://oldsci.eiu.edu/geology/Jorstad/3560/stratstuff/sauk.htm -->http://oldsci.eiu.edu/...gy/Jorstad/3560/stratstuff/sauk.htm< !--UE--> The earliest trilobites were found 550/540 m.y.a. Giving a potential 10/20 million years, of evolvable time, not 2-3 million.Regarding Haikouella lanceolata. The Cambrian started 540 million years ago (new dating system), Haikouella lanceolata was discovered in rock 530 million years old. That’s 10 million years of explosion to evolve in. Also it’s not a fish, as the Boston Globe states. This is deliberately misleading. Interestingly, modern sea squirts are chordates,
< !--UB http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/urochordata.html -->Introduction to the Urochordata< !--UE--> , they outwardly exhibit no more complexity than a jellyfish. Regardless, there is no reason why a simple tunicate like animal cannot evolve into a slightly more complex organism in 3 million years, let alone 10/20 million.
quote: < !--UB http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0810011.htm -->Plausible Biological Cause For Major Climate Events< !--UE--> Both the lowering of the Earth's surface temperature and the evolution of many new types of animals could result from a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide and a rise in oxygen caused by the presence on land of lichen fungi and plants at this time"An increase in land plant abundance may have occurred at the time just before the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, when the next Snowball Earth period failed to occur because temperatures did not get quite cold enough," Hedges says. "The plants conceivably boosted oxygen levels in the atmosphere high enough for animals to develop skeletons, grow larger, and diversify." Despite your strawman, Fred, namely, that the current theory of evolution only allows gradualism, made in a later paragraph. The current theory allows rapid evolution, as well as stasis.The Pre Cambrian organisms were environment limited. The low oxygen levels would not allow building of exoskeletons/shells of the size required of the Cambrian organisms, nor allow for the necessary growth. So, because of the extra oxygen, many new body plans quickly evolved & filled & created new niches. Once filled, true competition & natural selection began to have effect. Organisms that evolved body plans sans true, harsh competition would now begin to suffer. In effect, decimation of less fit phyla occurred. This is entirely within evolutionary theory, & is reflected in the fossil record. (Wonderful Life. Stephen Jay Gould.) The Cambrian organisms displayed an evolutionary radiation because their environment changed favourably, allowing the previously "impossible" adaptions. This post extinction radiation is reflected many times in the fossil record, the Triassic radiation, after the granddaddy extinction, at the end of the Permian. The mammal/bird radiation after the K/T extinction etc. The question remains, why did the Cambrian explosion give rise to so many phyla, when none of the others did? Crucially, in none of the other major extinctions was there such a large environmental change in the form of atmospheric oxygen, from such a low level, to a much higher level, the oxygen levels 600 m.y.a. were thought to be only 1% of current levels < !--UB http://www.handprint.com/PS/GEO/time9.html -->http://www.handprint.com/PS/GEO/time9.html< !--UE--> . In actuality, the explosion never technically followed an exinction at all. The existent Phyla were not complex extinction hardened phyla.The receding ice age at (roughly) the same time allowed terrestrial photosynthesisers to (re?) colonise the land, greatly increasing oxygen output. This, combined with the very few multicellular body plans that existed in the Pre-Cambrian, allowed a radiation into body plans & niches that had NEVER existed before. By contrast, for example, birds would be in direct competition with pterosaurs in many occupied niches, & could only truly diversify into those niches after the pterosaurs became extinct, whereas the carnivorous, Cambrian Opabinia was the first of its type, & suffered no such environmental restraints, & nor did any of its contemporaries. What new phyla could compete with highly adapted birds for the pterosaur niche? In any other major extinction/subsequent radiation, the radiations were made by MANY EXISTENT COMPLEX PHYLA (by & large), if any new phyla were to try their luck, there were in direct competition with highly advanced surviving organisms, & not just the lucky beneficiaries of the early Cambrian. Cambrian fauna were not the adapted, multicellular product of extinction in the first place. In short, the Cambrian explosion was started with VERY FEW SIMPLE PHYLA.
quote: The transitional forms say they do, if you had researched properly, you could have saved yourself this paragraph. Regarding terrestrial vertebrate evolution & your claim that there is NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER! Lets take the evolution of the horse, from: Hyracotherium (Eohippus), to Orohippus, to Epihippus, to Mesohippus, to Miohippus, to Parahippus, to Merychippus, to Pliohippus, to Modern Horse. Why is this sequence inferred? In all cases, a progressive reduction in side toe functionality appears, with increased emphasis on the middle toe. The side toes become increasingly vestigial, as the middle toe becomes more prominent, ending up as the hoof. Not enough? A similar progression is seen in size, skull shape, & teeth forms. Still not enough? The side toes on modern horses are represented today as splints at the back of the shins. The process can be seen in the flick book of horse evolution. If this sequence never occurred, why do the side toes appear in modern horse embryos? Also, they are present occasionally in adult horses, exactly where the ToE PREDICTED they would be, replacing the splints. (Science & Earth History. Arthur N. Strahler 1999) NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER! I think not.
quote: Well, 1/ It is, & 2/ It has & can be. What’s your point? Scientific methodology allows this.
quote: Regarding Archaeopteryx. Present In Dinosaurs But Not In Birds: Pubic peduncle, long bony tail, abdominal ribs. Present In Birds But Not In Dinosaurs ; Pygostyle, bony sternum, furcula (wishbone), hypotarsus, feathers. Present In Archaeopteryx ; All of the above. Dr. Alan Feduccia needs to go back to the drawing board. He may understand birds, but he needs to brush up on dinosaurs.
quote: So someone wasn’t aware of a conclusion of scientific methodology? So what? This is evidence against evolution? You say yourself Pigliucci was apparently unaware of the new evidence. How is this sleight of hand" on his part? New data overturning prior misconceptions is a GOOD thing. Just not for creation scientists who’s facts are already long established.
quote: Again, you misunderstand scientific methodology, no one forced anyone into anything. Opinions changed because of new evidence. Regarding Pikaia:
< !--UB http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/shale/ppikaia.htm -->http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/shale/ppikaia.htm< !--UE--> PLEASE NOTE. Pikaia is not a vertebrate - no one can say if this particular creature is our direct predecessor. Nevertheless, Pikaia is a representative member of the chordate group from which we undoubtedly arose. It resembles a living chordate commonly known as the lancet. Please reference you Pikaia sentence. I wasn’t aware it was debunked.
quote: That Coelacanths were reckoned to be an intermediate between fish & amphibians is Dentons straw man, not yours, Fred, but still a straw man. The Crossopterygians contain two groups, the rhipidistans (from which the first amphibians are thought to of evolved from), & the coelacanths. The coelacanths were far removed from the main line of evolution to the land vertebrates. (Science & Earth History, Arthur N. Strahler, 1999, p455). I suspect the confusion arose with the discovery of the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae, which was RELATED to a group thought to be ancestral to amphibians (rhipidistans).
quote: An unreferenced claim. Some evolutionists might argue soft bodied organisms fossilise well, on a regular basis, which is your inference. When you reference this claim, you might wish to ask the question of some evolutionists as to why no dinosaur fossils have been found complete with skin & flesh. Or amphibians, or Archaeopteryx, or hominids etc, etc ad infinitum. The reason dinosaurs, mammals, fish etc. are found as fossil bones & not as entire organisms is precisely BECAUSE soft bodies do not fossilise well. To give an idea of the scale of difference ; we found conodont teeth for 127 years before finally finding a fossilized conodont animal in it’s entirety. Conodont TEETH are extremely common in late Cambrian to Triassic rocks, the entire soft body including teeth is extremely rare. (Life, Richard Fortey, p132).
quote: Why diverse & unusual should preclude them, rather than making them front runners, is beyond me. Also, it’s not as clear-cut as you think.
< !--UB http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4426 -->Just a moment...< !--UE--> Lophotrochozoans. The ancestral lophotrochozoan may have looked slug-like, creeping across the seafloor on a muscular foot. The Ediacaran Kimberella may be an early representative, and the armored halkieriids from the Lower Cambrian are possibly a subsequent development. A surprising discovery is fossil embryos, from the Lower Cambrian of Siberia, that are reasonably attributed to the halkieriids. From a halkieriid-like stock, it may be possible to derive not only the molluscs, but more surprisingly two more bodyplans, specifically in the form of the brachiopods and annelids.
quote: The soft bodied excuse is still for you to explain. Why only bones & not flesh? Also, the reason they are only recently being found, & only in great numbers IN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS is testament to the special requirements for fossilisation of these orgainisms.
quote: Expression of genes via neutral drift would account for increased brain (bud) size. Selective pressure is not necessary until increased size has use. We have unused brain mass ourselves. There is absolutely no need for both increased brain size, & increased brain function to occur at the same time.
quote: Straw man. You have presented Darwinian evolution, long since abandoned by evolutionists, as indicative of modern evolutionary theory, & destroyed it. 1/ Modern evolutionary theory supports rapid evolution as the main mechanism, though doesn’t preclude stasis/gradualism. 2/ The fossil record does show simple to complex transitions. Single celled bacteria to colonial bacteria (stromatolites). Prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic single cells to multiple celled organisms. Simple tissued organisms to complex organisms with tissues arranged as organs, & organisms with organs arranged in organ systems. The reverse is not precluded, & is even a prediction. For example, simple tunicate chordates. Organisms with vestigial traits, no eyes, blind, atrophied limbs etc. 3/ There are clear cut molecular lineages, backed up by taxonomic, & morphological traits. 4/ See 3/
quote: 1/ Sudden appearance. The creation model predicts sudden appearance of ALL kinds within a 6 day genesis.They do not appear at the same time. Bacteria appear over 3 billion years ago, & the Cambrian fauna, a little over half a billion years ago. Fishes about 440 million years ago. Amphibians about 360 million years ago. Reptiles about 280 million years ago, etc, etc. Creationists will argue that the flood mixed them up & hydrodynamic processes distributed them, settling out in different level strata. But they patently weren’t. Dense, shelly molluscs should be right at the bottom of the fossil record, 3 billion years plus ago, whilst single celled bacteria should ONLY settle in still water, & be present in upper strata only. The slightest current would cause them to remain in suspension. Yet they are at the lowest portion of the fossil record?! Similarly sized Eocene mammals & similarly sized Jurassic reptiles should be found together, but aren’t. 2/ Any viable organism at any time is fully formed. What would you accept as a transitional? Even transitionals are fully formed, a bacteria is fully formed. What is the point of this statement? 3/ The creationist model does not predict stasis. You can argue with the baraminologists if you wish.
quote: I wonder why!? Given your arguments.
quote: I have presented invertebrate transitionals. Also, Darwin was not privy to punctuated equilibrium. See your straw man, above.
quote: I have given examples that fall within the 99.99%. Nevertheless, that they can show it as well in the 0.01%, adds credence to evolutionary theory, not detracts from it. Lots/most of the record is incomplete, but others are remarkably complete. See the Horse example of vertebrate transitionals, above.
quote: You have presented us with typical creationist fare.Articles such as this are EXACTLY the reason science opposes creation science. In an attempt to garner more support for your ideas, straw men, omitted relevant information, & outright deception has been put to the layman, who has no means to refute your claims. It is not a search for Truth, but for more souls. Mark [Edited on 28/8/02 to remove unclosed quotes] ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 01-13-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: wj, Indeed, I wonder why there are bivalve molluscs & brachiopods that represent the sessile benthos in the same strata as marine mammals! Presumably they managed to escape the roiling waters better than mobile jawless fish, icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ambulocetus, pakicetus, & basilosaurus? If you drop a mussel in a bucket of water, you will note that it sinks like a stone. Is there ANYONE who would expect such a dense shelled organism to be anywhere other than the bottom of any fossil bearing strata, & nowhere else? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Nimlore, I really don't care whether the transitional fossils are there or not, I need no faith that they are in order to bolster my faith. That predicted transitionals & intermediates are being found with annoying regularity should speak for itself. Regardless, there are enough fossils as it stands today, or a hundred years ago to infer evolution from. They are simply unexplainable from a from a creationist flood scenarios perspective. I haven't even started on rooted fossilised trees rooted in fossil soils, complete with animal tracks & burrows found from devonian times onward. Or why the seed ferns, that is, a group of trees are not found after Jurassic times. Trees float, right? All you are telling me when you say "well I have faith that they are there..." is that you will reject any evidence contrary to your position, & blindly accept anything that supports it. Not a strong intellectual starting point. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
A Christian,
Evolution is theoretically based on mounds of presumptions I have to say I get mighty tired of this, let's face it, ignorant bullshit. Put your money where your mouth is, mate. Show us these "mounds of presumptions". I predict every point you raise is either logically flawed, or simply factually incorrect. Put up or shut up.
The retoric is only surpassed by the notion that pretictions cannot be manipulated through an educationally trained bias. W-H-A-T? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
A Christian,
Apologies for my earlier tone. Frustration sometimes gets the better of me. I have begun a new thread here, where you may add flesh to your assertions that evolution is based upon presumptions. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Quetzal,
Why was there a rapid radiation of shelly fauna? Was there? As far as I was aware the SSF made an abrubt appearance, as-is. Does it appear in a basal form & then become more derived? Any links/refs to this would be greatly appreciated. Mark ------------------"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
MrOpus,
Wierd, there was a guy here, Ahmad, who combined exactly the same arguments, IC & the Cambrian explosion, whom I tackled on these very subjects. You'll probably find the style & content similar. Mark ------------------"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Thanks for the ref. Quetzal.
Mark
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024