Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 217 (490094)
12-02-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
12-02-2008 8:20 AM


Facts of evolution
Hey Percy,
And here's a bit more detail about the current state of research as of June of this year:
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
This also goes to reinforce the argument about neutral mutations surviving and spreading in a population, and then later becoming beneficial mutations. Mutations that would not be available to later generations if they were not passed from generation to generation.
This again shows that "evolution" - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - "is a fact" just as the thread title says.
Every time evolution is observed to occur it is a fact.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 12-02-2008 8:20 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 217 (521287)
08-26-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon
08-26-2009 5:30 PM


Degrees of Confidence
Welcome to the fray, God of Pokiphlanon.
Evolution is NOT a fact.
As has been pointed out, there is some confusion about which evolution one is talking about when the word is used alone:
1) the process that is ongoing in all known species living today: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This process is measured and documented and this forms the basis for ...
2) the theory of evolution, that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from archeology, from paleontology and the fossil record, and from the genetic record. The investigation of the validity of this theory is ...
3) the science of evolution, the study of mechanisms by which populations change and react to opportunities provided by ecology and mutations.
We know that (1) is a fact, (2) is a theory that can be tentatively regarded as true until contradicted by evidence, and (3) is the process of testing the theory, which testing includes intentional attempts to invalidate the theory, but so far has failed to do so.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a valid theory that provides an adequate explanation of all the evidence currently known. That may not count as fact, but it is much closer to fact than falsehood at this time. We can be justified to have a high degree of confidence that the ToE is mostly correct in the overall picture, with some details that may need to be ironed out as time passes.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
Edited by RAZD, : ps added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon, posted 08-26-2009 5:30 PM God of Pokiphlanon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 145 of 217 (523982)
09-13-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:21 PM


Hi Archangel, welcome to the fray, sorry to add to the dogpile here.
Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, ...
Here is a bit of evidence from the fossil record for Pelycodus:
Pelycodus: gradulastic
quote:
Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.
What you see is a series of snap shots of a species population, covering many generations, with a gradual trend to larger individuals over time, eventually reaching the point where the largest end population, Pelycodus jarrovi (before being clasified as Notharctus venticolis) is several times larger than the original population Pelycodus ralstoni. In between these two on the main branch are arbitrary speciation classifications made because the population had changed traits sufficiently to warrant this. At no time is there a gap where the smallest new population is larger than the largest previous population, just that the distribution of alleles for size shifts gradually to larger and larger individuals within the population.
Also visible are three branches, where the population divided into non-interbreeding daughter populations, each descended from a common ancestor population, as show by the lines. These are non-arbitrary speciation events, as the population divided and separated to the point where interbreeding no longer occurred. The first two branches apparently became extinct, but the third branch, Pelycodus frugivorus developed into a parallel population distinct from Notharctus venticolis.
This is descent with modification. The time lapse between the bottom and the top of this graphic covers about five million years.
We can also see the same thing happening in the Asian Greenish Warbler ring species:
Greenish warblers
quote:
Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow. By studying geographic variation in the ring of populations, we can study how speciation has occurred. This unusual situation has been termed a 'circular overlap' or 'ring species'. There are very few known examples of ring species.
The changes in each of the variety daughter populations distinct from the other daughter populations shows descent with modification, and this is sufficient for the two end ring varieties to prevent interbreeding: they are too different to be mates.
There are many such examples in the living world today and in the fossil record.
... which means show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, ...
No, descent with modification just means that the daughter population/s is/are different from the parent population.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation. The amount of change does not need to create a whole new species de novo nor even be genetically incompatible with previous generations (although it is hard to mate with dead ancestors), it just needs to be different.
Over many generations of such change you will see more accumulated differences, especially where two daughter populations become reproductively isolated, as with the Pelycodus example above, and yet even here it is not necessary to form a new taxon in the process.
... show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, and then, since we are well past that stage of evolution, go on and show how that amphibian evolved in the reptile and how the reptile evolved into mammals.
If you are really interested we can cover this as well. Part of it is covered by the therapsids, a series of species that show the gradual development of mammalian characteristics from reptile ancestors:
http://www.geocities.com/...naveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
quote:
... The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished. ...
...
In particular, mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a number of skeletal traits. Reptiles have a much larger number of individual bones in their skulls than do mammals. In reptiles, the teeth are all of the same shape, and although they vary slightly in size, they all have the same simple cone-shaped form. Mammals, however, possess a number of different types of teeth in their jaws, from the flat, multi-cusped molar teeth to the sharp cone-shaped canines. In reptiles, the lower jaw is made up of a number of different bones, and the jaw joint is formed between the quadrate bone in the skull and the angular bone in the jaw. In mammals, by contrast, the lower jaw is made up of a single bone, the dentary, which articulates with the squamosal bone in the skull to form the jaw joint. Reptiles also have a single bone in the middle ear, the stapes. In mammals, there are three bones in the middle ear, the malleus, incus and stapes (also known as the hammer, anvil and stirrup). At the top of the skull, reptiles have a small hole through which the pineal body, or "third eye", extends--this is absent in mammals. Finally, the reptilian skull is attached to the spine by a single point of contact, the occipital condyle. In mammals, the occipital condyle is double-faced.
...
The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian:
...
The therapsid-mammal transition was completed with the appearence of the Morganucodonts in the late Triassic. This group is described by paleontologist T.S. Kemp:
"The axes of the two jaw hinges, dentary-squamosal and articular-quadrate, coincide along a lateral-medial line, and therefore the double jaw articulation of the most advanced cynodonts is still present . . . The secondary dentary-squamosal jaw hinge had enlarged (in the Morganucodonts) and took a greater proportion if not all of the stresses at the jaw articulation. The articular-quadrate hinge was free to function solely in sound conduction." (Strahler, 1987, p. 419)
Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years.
Emphasis added - please note that the amount of time required for PART of the transition you asked about took 40 million years, not a generation.
I mean, as has been stated already, a FACT requires evidence, so prove your claim of descent by modification/MACROEVOLUTION has actually happened in the real world and in the animal kingdom leading up to we human beings.
And in spite of your attempt to move the goalposts from the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in population from generation to generation - to accumulated changes of phylogenic significance (to humans anyway), there is still abundant evidence for it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : s

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:21 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 7:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 167 of 217 (524213)
09-14-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Archangel
09-14-2009 7:01 AM


Hi Archangel, thanks for your response. Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I've been traveling.
I must sincerely compliment you on at least finally posting something that from an evolutionists point of view can be considered evidence of evolution in all of the examples you document here.
Yes, they show the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. What you asked for.
For the sake of time, I will deal with the first evidence you offer and apply it to all of the evidence as my reasoning/criticism remains consistent and the same for all of it. Although I disagree with your sciences definition that this fossil record for Pelycodus is evidence of macroevolution speciation in any way, even according to what evolution generally accepts as a reasonable definition of macroevolution, this example fails since it is still called a Pelycodus, ...
Excuse me? Your objection is that the arbitrary names given by science still refer to the same genus (except at the top where a new genus is arbitrarily assigned, due to the accumulated differences)???
. It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal as I asked for.
Curiously, the one example you chose to critique the evidence on shows not one species but ten (10) species in addition to the new genus.
Interestingly this is MORE -- much more -- than what is necessary to show the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- which is what you asked for:
Message 141
subbie writes:
Yes, it is.
Evolution can be described by the phrase "descent with modification." Change in the population of various organisms across generations has been directly observed, both in the lab and in nature. Thus, it is an fact.
Simple as that.
Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, ...
Note that - properly anyway - you are (should be) asking for substantiation of what subbie said, and not any additional (moving the goalposts) requirements you can dream up.
This has been done: you can admit it and we can move on. Or you can deny it and we get into looking at your reasons for the denial of the evidence that has been presented.
Your only criticism is that because all mammals are still called mammals, that nothing has been demonstrated about evolution - a rather pathetically weak and obviously false position, if you ask me, for the sum of your response. Gosh, all plants are plants! Wow, all animals are animals! Zowie, all cellular life forms still have cells!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP THE PRESSES ...
It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal ...
And here you are ignoring the third example, where we not only have a number of different species involved, and a number of different genera involve, we have the derivation of the mammalian ear from the reptile ear, as we go from reptiles to mammaliforms.
In other words, your complaint is not only weak and petty, it is downright false: you either did not read it, did not comprehend it, or chose to ignore it.
It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal as I asked for.
But are you asking the right question? Is you question one based on the natural evidence of life as we know it, from the world around us today, from history, from prehistory, from archeology and paleontology? Or is it one based on a false understanding of evolution as taught\promulgated by creationists?
Now IF you are going to mean a change such as evolution does NOT claim occurs then that is YOUR misunderstanding of what evolution says occurs. To clarify this you need to define what change\type you THINK you can ask for evidence of.
See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Now here's the problem for you: the evidence has been presented that is more than sufficient to demonstrate evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - AND is is more than sufficient to demonstrate the formation of lineages of descent, including non-arbitrary speciation events and development of novel traits, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AS USED IN SCIENCE.
If you want to discuss some other meaning, then you are going to have to define what you mean, because what you have been presented is more than sufficient evidence to support macroevolution as the term is used in biology in general and evolutionary science in specific. If you are talking about something else, you need to be specific on what it is.
If you cannot clearly define your "/type" of change as something that is not per the definition of the terms used in science (biology, evolution), and demonstrate that this is indeed part of the fossil record or observable in the world today, THEN you are talking about some fantasy rather than anything involved in the science of evolution in particular and biology in general.
Have fun.
note: If you cannot do this then you cannot complain that the evidence has not been presented that you asked for.
Also, you know that creationists interpret the same evidence you observe differently because we don't accept the old earth standard of life evolving over millions or hundreds of millions of years as evolutionists do.
Fascinatingly, I am well aware of the weaseling done by creationists with the evidence. Do you agree that the evidence is representative of reality? Do you agree that the best explanation of ALL the evidence is more likely to agree with reality than ones that only explain bits and pieces of evidence?
Here's another thread you can peruse to understand that disagreeing with the interpretation is a problem:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
And now you have and ADDITIONAL problem -- now you not only need to define what kind of change you are talking about, but you need to answer the clear evidence of an old earth, based on multiple correlations that are mutually supportive and confirming of each other.
If you are going to argue for a different interpretation of the fossils based on some pretense of "not accepting" the evidence of an old earth, you now need to show how each of those age measuring systems are individually wrong, and WHY THEY AGREE.
Have fun.
note: If you cannot do this then you cannot use the pretense of "not accepting" evidence as support for a different interpretation.
Here is the creationist explanation for this alleged fossil record and for the increase in size of this animal which I believe is more a case of rapid adaptation than macroevolution. What we have here are a series of fossil finds of the same animal at different ages when they met their unfortunate demise. And I hold up as evidence of how ludicrous your apologetics link is as it attempts to solidify its claims by saying this:
This claim is just incredible for a couple of reasons. ONE, that it implies that every fossil example at every strata level are somehow, miraculously not only complete enough examples, but are all the same approximate age at the time of their individual death.
The problems for you are (1) what you see at every level is the distribution of size of the population from smallest to largest for each level, (2) scientists can tell the age of bones and teeth, and tell that the size distribution is not just age related, (3) it does not explain the division of the populations, (4) it does not explain the fact that the two top branches go on to form more and more different populations (including the ape family), and finally (5) this hand waving exercise (an attempt to deny the evidence) does not work when we look at another fossil record:
Geology Dept article 3
quote:
Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) are the developers of what reportedly is the largest, most complete set of data ever compiled on the evolutionary history of an organism. The two scientists have painstakingly pieced together a virtually unbroken fossil record that shows in stunning detail how a single-celled marine organism has evolved during the past 66 million years. Apparently, it's the only fossil record known to science that has no obvious gaps -- no "missing links."
"It's all here -- a complete record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this organism has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."
...
The study focuses on the microscopic, fossilized remains of an organism belonging to a huge order of marine protozoans called foraminifera. Often heard shortened to "forams," the name comes from the Latin word foramen, or "opening." The organisms can be likened to amoebas wearing shells, perforated to allow strands of protoplasm to bleed through. The shell shapes range from the plain to the bizarre.
"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."
Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.
The exhaustive species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented -- just odds and ends," Parker said. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old. We have the whole creature, minus the protoplasm."
By being so small, the fossil shells escaped nature's grinding and crushing forces, which over the eons have in fact destroyed most of the evidence of life on Earth. The extraordinary condition of the shells permits Parker and Arnold to study in detail not only how a whole species developed, but how individuals physiologically developed from birth to adulthood.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sle.htm
quote:
Well-documented examples of speciation and gradual morphological change in marine microfossils (e.g. forams, radiolarians, diatoms, and coccoliths) are increasingly common, particularly from the Cenozoic but also from earlier periods. For instance, Wei and Kennet (1988) provide evidence for the origin of the foram species Globoconella sphericomiozea from G. conomiozea terminalis about 5ma based on fossil material from sediment cores from four Deep Sea Drilling Project sites (DSDP 284, 207A, 208, and 588). Motoyama (1997) provides evidence for the Pliocene (~2.5ma) origin the radiolarian species Cycladophora davisiana from C. sakaii, and its subsequent morphologic evolution, based on fossil material from DSDP core 192. Sorhannus et al. (1998, 1999) provide evidence for the divergence of the diatom Rhizosolenia praebergonii and and R. sigmoida from R. bergonni at about 3ma, based on fossil records from several Pacific cores. Lazarus et al. (1985) and Lazarus (1986) provide evidence for the origin of the radiolarian species Pterocanium prismatium from P. charybdeum around 4ma, based on fossil material from sediment cores from the northwest Pacific. Kuwahara (1997) document evolutionary changes in the radiolarian genus Albaillella from Japanese chert sections. Raffi et al. (1998) provides evidence for the Miocene origin of several species of nannofossils from western Atlantic sediment cores, ODP Leg 154. They write: "Examination of Middle-Late Miocene sediments recovered during ODP Leg 154 in western equatorial Atlantic has led to identification of evolutionary transitions in some groups of late Neogene calcareous nannofossils. Through analyses of high resolution samples (10-cm sample interval equivalent to average interval of 6 kyr) we were able to document the origin of the genera Catinaster, Amaurolithus, and Ceratolithus, and the nannofossil species Discoaster berggrenii and D. quinqueramus. The presence of intermediate morphotypes between end-members representing distinct species sheds new light on phylogenetic relationships and/or confirms relationships suggested in previous studies. . . Successive branching from Triquetrorhabdulus rugosus is demonstrated for Amaurolithus primus, `Amaurolithus amplificus', and Ceratolithus acutus" (p. 17).
Please note the "they are still forams" (before you haul out that tired complaint) but now we are talking about a "superorder" level evolution
Foraminifera - Wikipedia
quote:
Domain: 	Eukaryota
Kingdom: Protozoa=?Rhizaria
Phylum: Sarcodina
Class: Rhizopoda
Superorder: Foraminifera

and you can compare this to the superorder that humans belong to:
quote:
,pre>Domain: Eukarya
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Which also happens to include Pelycodus.
Organisms will ALWAYS be members of the same category as the organisms they evolved from. Dogs are dogs, are canines are mammals. They are members of the same branch of the evolutionary tree because of common descent, no matter how much or how little they appear to evolve.
But even more incredibly, that they were able to extract genetic material in order to test the change in alleles in fossils going back 40 million years, or even 10 million years.
Interestingly, one does not need to extract the DNA to observe the effect of the DNA within a population.
At each level you have a distribution of size from large to small, and the effect of individual age can be ruled out by comparing teeth of the same age development.
The claim is ridiculous and defies scientific reason and current capabilities.
It appears that you fail to comprehend the link between the genetic level allele and the expressed trait in the developed organism. I can measure the number of alleles for eye color without needing to extract the DNA. I can measure the number of alleles for hair curliness without needing to extract the DNA.
Mendel measured the number and frequency of the alleles for different traits in peas before DNA was known.
Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia
We see the same kind of distribution of size within a population in all living species and all species of record, and we can study the distribution of size in a population without measuring the actual DNA, although we can ALSO now add this information to CONFIRM that we are seeing the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
So tell me, assuming that this accepted understanding of the limitations of DNA's survivability
... is irrelevant when you can directly measure the variation of the expressed traits in a population from generation to generation, and seeing that - GOSH - the distribution of these expressed traits in the population changes from generation to generation.
Curiously, natural selection operates on the expressed trait. Any genetic difference that is not apparent in the developed individual does not affect selection and thus does not contribute to evolution of the species.
With all due respect to you, I rest my case as a skeptic who must oppose and reject your stated evidence on the grounds that it defies standards and practices which the known science of DNA extraction claims is possible. It also exposes more of the inconsistencies which causes we common sense creationists to reject your claims of being a valid and honest science.
Sadly, your case is weak, contrived, false, based on denial of the evidence presented, and is not based on a full understanding of the evidence, the science, or the terminology being used. That's the best you can do?
As an open-minded skeptic, with all due respect to you, I ask if you are equally skeptical of claims for some different "\type" of change, or of claims for a young earth, when a creationist talks about it? Or are you only skeptical when it is convenient for your beliefs?
Is denial common sense? Or is it just a common response.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 7:01 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 168 of 217 (524214)
09-14-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanndarr
09-14-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Hi Tanndarr, welcome to the fray, if I have not said so before.
Are you suggesting that a change in allele frequency can only be measured directly by sampling intact genetic material?
Gregor Mendel did not need no steenkin DNA to make table after table after table measuring and predicting the change in hereditary traits in the populations of peas.
Here's the question: Do populations change over time? We can see it, we can measure it...therefore: evolution is a fact.
Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away I'm afraid
Exactly.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanndarr, posted 09-14-2009 6:24 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Tanndarr, posted 09-15-2009 12:45 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 184 of 217 (524338)
09-15-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Tanndarr
09-15-2009 12:45 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
Hi Tanndarr,
A change in allele frequency can be deduced from observations other than comparing fully sequenced genomes.
It's more than that, as it has to do with how alleles are actually defined. When a genomic sequence is identified as an allele it is matched to an expressed hereditary trait.
We know there are alleles for green eyes, because there are green eyes, not because there is a specific genetic sequence. The gene may be recessive, so it is not always expressed, until there are diploid copies, but that is what Mendel studied.
The expressed trait is what is affected by natural selection. The group of genetic sequences that causes the expressed trait to develop is called the allele for that trait.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Tanndarr, posted 09-15-2009 12:45 AM Tanndarr has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 185 of 217 (524340)
09-15-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


Hi again, Archangel, I'll answer in greater detail later, as I am still traveling, it is late (and I don't like posting when tired), and the connection here is pathetic (supposed to be broadband, but more like old dial-up), so I'll just note one thing:
By that I mean that unless animals were buried via cataclysmic events such as the biblical flood which would have realistically laid down layer after layer of animal rich strata via sedimentation throughout the world in a very short period of time, which offers us a fossil record which your side misinterprets at every level of understanding, can the fossil record be rationally explained at all.
The problem for you is then to explain how the foraminifera are sorted by layers rather than randomly distributed throughout the whole sedimentation layers. Why do they show the gradual evolution of species after species and the tree of common ancestry? How does that occur from stirring a pot of mud with dead forams in it?
You claim to be a skeptic: lets see you apply your skeptical outlook to the claim of the flood laying down layers of fossils in discrete, sorted and organized layers.
Have fun, see ya later, when I get home.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 215 of 217 (524704)
09-18-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Archangel
09-17-2009 7:57 PM


Already a thread covering this topic
Hi Archangel, still struggling with confirmation bias I see.
Since you asked for evidence here, here is where I'll place it. A complete thread isn't needed to debate what is overwhelming evidence of major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved. But by the time the frauds were discovered, and the retractions were quietly placed on back pages compared to the fraudulent discoveries releases which were widely disseminated, the damage was done since millions upon millions of people heard about the fraudulent evidence on the evening news everywhere; where as 12 laymen saw the retractions on the back page of the scientific journal that laymen never read. Challenge me on this point and I will give details if you like.
Evolution Fraud and Myths
Curiously, there is already a thread covering this topic, one where you can try to defend your point of view against the facts. Of course that means you need to look at the facts, not just take some creationist website as evidence without any skepticism or lack of gullibility.
Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
See you there.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 7:57 PM Archangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 216 of 217 (524712)
09-18-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Tanndarr
09-17-2009 6:45 PM


Re: A second explanation
Hi Tanndarr,
How is it possible to have a discussion with you if you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is lying? Either go present evidence for this vast global conspiracy in an appropriate topic (I suggest calling it "The Conspiracy Theory of Evolution") or actually engage the topic here.
How can you tell when you are dealing with cognitive dissonance?
Cognitive dissonance(Wikipedia, 2009)
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
Worldview
worldview —n (American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
When everyone and everything that disagrees with you are lies and liars, and the number keeps expanding as the evidence grows.
Archangel is facing cognitive dissonance. There is no "second explanation" that comes close to explaining all the evidence in a consistent manner, so denial is the next tool.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Tanndarr, posted 09-17-2009 6:45 PM Tanndarr has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 217 of 217 (524803)
09-18-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


I'm baaaack ...
Hi Archangel, I am back now from my travels, with time to devote to your assertions and opinions. I'll combine a couple of your posts in my answer, so I apologize for the length: many errors require many answers.
But here's the problem for you RAZD, nothing you promote here is founded in solid evidence that anything you claim is true at all regarding the timing for the events you claim. I don't believe that any of the fossil evidence which you interpret as million to hundreds of millions of years old is the least bit valid or rational as my time lapse video above clearly shows.
Curiously, and unfortunately for you, reality is completely unaffected by what you believe, what your opinion is, or what ad hoc explanation you can pull out of the air. Reality is what is shown by the evidence.
By that I mean that unless animals were buried via cataclysmic events such as the biblical flood which would have realistically laid down layer after layer of animal rich strata via sedimentation throughout the world in a very short period of time, which offers us a fossil record which your side misinterprets at every level of understanding, can the fossil record be rationally explained at all.
As noted in Message 185 the foraminifera fossils provide evidence contrary to this assertion of yours:
RAZD writes:
The problem for you is then to explain how the foraminifera are sorted by layers rather than randomly distributed throughout the whole sedimentation layers. Why do they show the gradual evolution of species after species and the tree of common ancestry? How does that occur from stirring a pot of mud with dead forams in it?
You attempted another hand-waving denial of the evidence in Message 187 where you again expressed an opinion rather than providing an argument supported by evidence:
I don't believe the fossil record shows this organized and gradual record of evolution as you assert it does. I believe the only thing organized about evolution science is the lie which it tells in order to convey a convincing story. It is no different than the dishonest, yet very neat way your original testimony of the Pelycodus reads. On its face one would have to be a denier of facts to reject your claims, but upon minimal scrutiny, it defines all of the inconsistencies and contradictions which are endemic with this false and pseudo science. Claiming something does NOT make it true at all, and neither does it become true if a massive volume of lies have been created over decades or even centuries. A lie doesn't become truth just because it is repeated thousands or even millions of times.
Interestingly, the mark of cognitive dissonance is to regard any and all evidence that contradicts your pet belief as a lie, misinformation and the product of some conspiracy.
Fascinatingly, calling any evidence you don't like a lie is not a different interpretation of the evidence, as you claimed was the case for creationists, nor is it skepticism, common sense or rational thinking, it is just ordinary denial of inconvenient evidence.
Unfortunately, for you, denial does not make the evidence go away, or even affect it in any way. The evidence does in fact show an organized and sorted structure:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf
The gray column on the left is the age determined by radiometric dating methods, the next set of columns are ages determined by relative stratigraphy (CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY), the third set of columns lists the different species of foraminifera and other similar species (BIOSTRATIGRAPHY). The problem for you is that every time we find the same species of foraminifera, we find them in the same stratigraphic layers, and whenever we date those layers by radiometric methods we end up with the same ages for the layers.
Why is that true if the layers are not sorted and organized by the layers of sedimentation?
Because I have showed in real time video how quickly an animal decays even when it is protected from scavengers.
Place that rabbit in the unprotected wild and its decomposing odor is to animals, equivalent to the inviting odors we sense when passing in front of a restaurant. In other words, that any animals could survive unmolested long enough to become a fossil is a massive and ludicrous assumption which defies logic and observable evidence.
And yet your "real time video" is just something in your imagination, a made up attempt to explain away evidence that you find uncomfortable.
By that I mean that unless animals were buried via cataclysmic events such as the biblical flood which would have realistically laid down layer after layer of animal rich strata via sedimentation throughout the world in a very short period of time, which offers us a fossil record which your side misinterprets at every level of understanding, can the fossil record be rationally explained at all.
Once again, the fact is that the foraminifera evidence is not something that is scavenged by predators, it is the calcium shells ("tests") of the dead animals, shells that have rained down onto the bottom of the seas around the world year after year after year after year. No cataclysmic event required, nor does your proposed cataclysmic event explain the sorted and organized layers.
You need to explain how your flood model can produce these layers, not just assert some imaginary eventuality.
When you think you have a valid explanation, you can try an experiment: take a bag of diatomaceous earth (you can get it in a garden store and divide it into different piles that you then dye different colors; now mix them in a large container with water and get them to sort out by color.
If you cannot do this then you cannot explain the layers of diatoms and forams that are found all over the world, sorted and organized by sedimentary layers with a flood model.
Have fun.
In order for you to build your theory, you must deny and ignore common sense and rational consideration for how the real world actually works.
So you keep preaching, but common sense to me says that the diatoms and forams are formed in layers and organized by age, because this is perfectly consistent with what we observe in the world today, while thinking that the colored diatoms can be layered and organized by a certain swirling agitation of some imaginary flood process is totally against all common knowledge.
But you could prove be wrong by doing the experiment. That, of course, would be the scientific approach to determining how the real world works, as opposed to relying on opinion and belief, eh?
I never denied that evolution doesn't tell a nice story which you have captured in your well written defense. But that doesn't mean that anything you accept as real is true at all in reality.
The difference is that the "story" told by evolution matches and predicts the evidence and the pattern of evidence that we find, while your "real time video" fails to explain anything other than there are fossils. Curiously, that is not a useful explanation when we start with the fact that there are fossils.
And by that, I mean that it happened when you say it did. If you apply your beliefs to having taken place within the past 10,000 years or so, then all of a sudden the science starts to make sense to me. But when you insist that this is evidence of evolution occurring over the last 40 to 50 million years, you lose me.
Amusingly, I see that you have absolutely failed to take up the challenge I gave you in Message 167
RAZD writes:
Here's another thread you can peruse to understand that disagreeing with the interpretation is a problem:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
And now you have and ADDITIONAL problem -- now you not only need to define what kind of change you are talking about, but you need to answer the clear evidence of an old earth, based on multiple correlations that are mutually supportive and confirming of each other.
If you are going to argue for a different interpretation of the fossils based on some pretense of "not accepting" the evidence of an old earth, you now need to show how each of those age measuring systems are individually wrong, and WHY THEY AGREE.
You have not done this, and your continued prattling on about having trouble with the age of the earth is rather amusing denial of reality, without your even attempting to answer this challenge.
You made a rather insipid attempt in Message 187 to confront the first part of the evidence of an old earth:
And speaking of tree rings, Can you explain why, in such a old earth, no trees have survived past 8000 years anywhere according to this link, with the previous oldest at around 5000 years old? http://www.t.../Worlds-oldest-tree-discovered-in-Sweden.html Now, by all means let the excuses fly as you attempt to explain to this innorant christian why he just doesn't understand what you secularists see so clearly.
Interestingly, we don't expect every living thing to live forever. Curiously there are three independent tree chronologies that agree with one another with 0.5% error over 8,000 years, as noted in Message 4 of the thread in question. Fascinatingly we can also measure carbon-14 levels in those tree rings, and we find the same levels in each of the three chronologies for the same year/s. Amazingly, the sun goes through an 11 year cycle of cosmic ray production that is responsible for making carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and the carbon-14 levels in the tree rings show this same 11 year cycle year after year after year.
What you fail to understand, is that evidence of young things in an old earth is entirely possible - common sense will tell you - that parts can be younger than formation of the earth.
What you cannot have - common sense will tell you - are parts older than the formation of the earth. Thus you cannot have formed features in a young earth that are older than the earth, and you certainly cannot have evidence of life that is older than any kind of valid concept for a young earth.
You guys make it seem as easy as reading tree rings when in reality the only way the majority of all fossils survived to become that way only through cataclysmic upheavals. So by its very nature, that would explain why there are pockets of fossils at certain strata levels apart from the universal layers which were created by the great Flood of Noah. How sad that you secularists misinterpret all available evidence and attempt to erase our Maker from the equation of how we came to be here.
As already demonstrated with the foraminifera, no cataclysmic event is needed to explain the layers of foram shells, nor does a cataclysmic event explain the layering and organization observed in the foram shells.
Lake Suiketsu in Japan offers a similar pattern of organization and layering, but one with an additional element that your model is incapable of explaining.
From Message 5 in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1:
Scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to measure a chronology extending over a period of 29,100 years. ...
Just a moment... (3)
quote:
A 75-m long continuous core (Lab code, SG) and four short piston cores were taken from the center of the lake in 1991 and 1993. The sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin laminations or varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61 mm/year during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core is estimated to be older than 100,000 years, close to the beginning of the last interglacial period.
To reconstruct the calendar time scale, we counted varves, based on gray-scale image analyses of digital pictures, in a 10.43- to 30.45-m-deep section, producing a 29,100-year-long floating chronology. Because we estimated the varve chronology of older than ~20,000 yr B.P. (19-m depth of SG core) by counting in a single core section, the error of the varve counting increases with depth, and the accumulated error at 40,000 cal yr B.P. would be less than ~2000 years, assuming no break in the sediment (12).
Note that annual varves run for a period of 29,100 years (from 8,830 back to 37,930 cal yr B.P if correctly aligned with the tree chronology), and that this alone is several times older than any YEC model for the age of the earth. The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, with some assumptions made below the 37,930 cal yr BP level. As the data below this 37,930 cal yr BP level does not use annual varve layers but an estimated rate of sedimentation, we cannot use it for our minimum annual layer counts other than to say that the earth is older than the annual varves show.
Note that the layers are formed by alternating precipitation of diatom shells and clay, with the diatom layers coming from the spring-season diatom growth, and the clay layers formed during the rest of the year (particularly the winter months when no diatom growth occurs). Clay settles slower in water than the diatom shells.
Now in addition to the previous experiment proposed to test your "alternate explanation" of foram layers, we can try this: mix clay and diatomaceous earth with water, shake and stir according to your proposed explanation, and see if you can get the results to be alternating layers of diatoms and clay.
Have fun.
Note that these layers are used to calibrate carbon-14 dating, so the carbon-14 dates are not measured to date the layers, they are measured to compare to the layers. Curiously, there is a good correlation between the two: your model also needs to explain that little detail.
But it doesn't end there. In Message 21 of the same thread you have an additional correlation that needs to be explained:
Here is some more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the 14C ages with the actual depth in the sediment.
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE
quote:
Figure 1 shows the varve and 14C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The 14C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 11,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth.
When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurements that are along an exponential distribution:
...
There is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does - age.
Common sense tells you that the only rational explanation of these triple correlations is that they are the result of the same process - the gradual deposition of diatoms and clay, year by year by year, for over 29,000 years.
But these differences in interpretation of the paleontological evidence and the evolutionists interpretations of nature is why Creationists and Evolutionists will never see eye to eye. Sorry I can't respond to your post point by point, but I don't have all day to spend on a rebuttal which your long winded post would require. But I couldn't leave without responding to this claim also.
Interestingly, I have no problem responding to your long and winding posts, sorting out the erroneous information from the made up fantasy, and rebutting it all with clear evidence of reality that is at odds with your opinion and your belief. Surely, if your beliefs, opinions, and assertions were remotely true, you should have no problem providing your "differences in interpretation" that actually explain ALL the evidence -- I can. I have.
It is also a fact that Mendel never asserted in any way that his predictions via observations were evidence of allele changes at all. He studied clear cut inherited traits and anticipated changes but it wasn't until much later that actual molecular science revealed the existence of genes or alleles at all.
Fascinatingly, I didn't claim that Mendel said anything about alleles, and indeed he studied the clear cut inherited traits that were later matched to genetic sequences and then identified as alleles. Curiously, the evidence of Pelycodus, Asian Greenish Warblers, Therapsids, Foraminifera and other fossil and living animals can also be compared in the same way, and when we look at the genetic evidence we see the same match between observed inherited traits and genetic sequences that we then label as the alleles for those traits.
ou just proved once again how you will adopt an unrelated science in order to further defend your original erroneous claim which was blatantly and factually FALSE and can accurately be called dishonest in its conclusions.
And yet we still see a distribution of hereditary traits in these populations, we still see that this distribution changes from generation to generation in those populations. It is only since the science of genetics has developed that we have been able to identify sequences responsible for the formation of the hereditary traits observed in all species, whether fossil, dead, or living.
The question is whether you understand that identifying a hereditary trait means that there is a genetic sequence related to it, and that the genetic sequence is then labeled as the allele for that trait.
You call my complaint downright false, but can you post absolute and undeniable evidence according to DNA which shows that the animals claimed in the two stages of evolution are in fact related?
The hereditary traits in the populations demonstrate this. To claim that this relationship is not validly demonstrated because you don't understand the context of the reference to alleles just means that you are grasping at straws in order to deny the evidence. This is another symptom of cognitive dissonance.
Let me ask you a simple question: are you aware of a single observable hereditary trait that is not associated with an allele?
Have fun.
No matter what aspect of evolution we are speaking about, we must take it all on faith in mans interpretation of observations which are alleged to have happened millions, to hundreds of millions of years ago.
Not at all. What we must do is filter through all the explanations that are proposed for the ones that best explain all the evidence.
Science does that.
Your model/s fail to do that, and your model/s are contradicted by some evidence that you cannot explain.
So if your interpretation of the available evidence is so fundamentally wrong from the outset, how can you be expected to come to accurate conclusions at all? The answer is, you can't expect to come to accurate conclusions.
So tell me again, then, why do you stick with falsified and hopeless explanations that are demonstrated to be wrong, that are invalidated by evidence that is contrary to it, and that can't even explain a fraction of 1% of the evidence that is explained by geology, physics and evolution?
Why don't you apply your alleged skeptical attitude to these failed models?
Message 197
From what I see of RAZD's thesis is that trees are used in order to determine the minimum age of the earth. What is also painfully obvious is that evolutionists make some dramatic assumptions later on in order to extend their dating of the earth as far back as possible. Never coming even close to 4.5 billion years though, of course, but only making it to the estimated 400,000 year age from his evidence. In other words, it comes no closer to proving that any of the overall beliefs regarding the age of the earth which evolution promotes are even close to accurate in reality.
Curiously, I don't need to come close to 4.5 billion years old, as a minimum age of 400,000 years makes your young earth concept impossible, while the maximum age can be greater still.
Fascinatingly, your absolute failure to address the issues of "dramatic assumptions" on the thread in question - content instead to fire blanks from the sideline, creating a lot of noise and disturbance, but accomplishing squat - means that you are still avoiding the issue of correlations and the consilience of all the different methods in demonstrating not only age, put consistent patterns repeated in each of the different methods.
Failure to confront the evidence that is contradictory to your pet beliefs and opinions is not skepticism, failure to provide a single different explanation that covers all the evidence is not skepticism.
Skepticism means questioning ALL concepts equally, and looking for actual factual evidence that supports the concepts.
You have failed to question a single creationist source that you have trotted out, content to use confirmation bias to select those that you think support your opinion and belief, while ignoring the ready evidence that such sites are full of misleading misinformation.
Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are NOT the tools of science.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : morclrty
Edited by RAZD, : evnmor

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024