Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(4)
Message 121 of 2887 (769390)
09-20-2015 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
09-20-2015 1:46 PM


Re: Moved Post: There's Just Something Funny about the Transitionals Idea
Dr Adequate writes:
It's called a Spinosaurus,
btw, your spinosaurus reconstruction is wrong. some of the missing portions (like the legs) were reconstructed from closely related dinosaurs. apparently, it should look a bit more like this:
crazy, right?
Because mammals evolved from reptiles.
well, they didn't. there's no clear clade we can associate with "reptile" except maybe sauropsids, and the ancestors of mammals actually diverge lower than sauropsids. mammals evolved from synapsids, which aren't exactly reptiles. they're kind of reptile-like amniotes.
some people use "reptile" as a kind of evolutionary grade, because the things we call "reptiles" are a paraphyletic grouping, including a bunch of things but not their common ancestor, and excluding certain crown groups like mammals and birds.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-20-2015 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-20-2015 6:32 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 122 of 2887 (769421)
09-20-2015 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by arachnophilia
09-20-2015 3:42 PM


Re: Moved Post: There's Just Something Funny about the Transitionals Idea
Well, yes, I'm using "reptile" as a grade, to mean "the sort of thing where, if you saw one, you'd say "oh look, a reptile"."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 09-20-2015 3:42 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 123 of 2887 (769456)
09-21-2015 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
09-20-2015 7:23 AM


Reptiles to Mammals
From Homo naledi thread.
Faith writes:
... How did we get this neat progression of types of middle ear bones as described by Mr. Hertzler, in what sounds like a similarly smooth gradation from one type to another, each perfectly fitted to its reptilian or reptilian-mammalian or mammalian host? ...
There is information of this sequence of evolution that I have posted before ...
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 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). ...
Paleontologists point out that the therapsids possessed many of the characteristics of both reptiles and mammals:
"In many respect, the tritylodont skull was very mammalian in its features. Certainly, because of the advanced nature of the zygomatic arches, the secondary palate and the specialized teeth, these animals had feeding habits that were close to those of some mammals . . . . Yet, in spite of these advances, the tritylodonts still retained the reptilian joint between the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the lower jaw. It is true that these bones were very much reduced, so that the squamosal bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw (the two bones involved in the mammalian jaw articulation) were on the point of touching each other." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 127)
... it is apparent that, during the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal, the jaw joints must have shifted from one bone to another, freeing up the rest of these bones to form the auditory ossicles in the mammalian middle ear. .... As Arthur N. Strahler puts it, "A transitional form must have had two joints in operation simultaneously (as in the modern rattlesnake), and this phase was followed by a fusion of the lower joint." (Strahler 1987, p. 414) ...
... it can be clearly seen in a remarkable series of fossils from the Triassic therapsids. 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:
"Probainognathus, a small cynodont reptile from the Triassic sediments of Argentina, shows characters in the skull and jaws far advanced toward the mammalian condition. Thus it had teeth differentiated into incisors, a canine and postcanines, a double occipital condyle and a well-developed secondary palate, all features typical of the mammals, but most significantly the articulation between the skull and the lower jaw was on the very threshhold between the reptilian and mammalian condition. The two bones forming the articulation between skull and mandible in the reptiles, the quadrate and articular respectively, were still present but were very small, and loosely joined to the bones that constituted the mammalian joint . . . Therefore in Probainognathus there was a double articulation between skull and jaw, and of particular interest, the quadrate bone, so small and so loosely joined to the squamosal, was intimately articulated with the stapes bone of the middle ear. It quite obviously was well on its way towards being the incus bone of the three-bone complex that characterizes the mammalian middle ear." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, pp. 228-229)
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. ...
There are several other fossils that are in this lineage of transition detailed in the article. Please read the article to get the full transition description.
I can understand how convincing this seems to be, with all the apparent gradations that would get from the reptilian to the mammalian jaw bones, with a therapsid type in between that appears to be a perfect transitional between the two, but it has to be pointed out that the whole scenario is assumed for starters. Evolution from one to the other is assumed, so the task is clearly laid out as speculating about how the one set of bones changed into the other type of bones. It's all quite plausible, if you assume evolution between the specimens to begin with. These bones had to shift, we had to get a different arrangement here, then thus and so had to occur, and because there is enough similarity between them to make the changes plausible -- if you believe one evolved from the other -- it makes a very neat progression from the one to the other. It would help to have drawings or photos of the different sets of bones to illustrate the sequence of changes being discussed so one could judge just how much change is being talked about, just how neat the sequence would have been had it occurred in reality. I did look up some images of therapsids just to know what that creature is supposed to have looked like.
The same observations and questions apply that I've already brought up.
I would guess that microevolution occurred between some of the specimens but without knowing exactly what they looked like, how many there are, what positions they were in relative to each other in their burial places, what distances etc., there isn't anything to go on, and it would involve too much time anyway. But most likely two of the same type of reptile with small differences between them would be genetically related, but whether both evolved from an original population or one evolved from the other, and in this case whether the one higher in the strata evolved from the lower or vice versa, would be impossible to know.
The article mentions an "earlier" form of therapsid, which must mean that it was found in a lower position than other forms, as having a more reptilian arrangement of bones, while a later specimen has a different, more mammalian arrangement.
This is again very plausible sounding but only if you are assuming evolution from one to the other to begin with. Otherwise I would understand them as simply different variations or breeds of the same creature, with no way of knowing which came first or how closely they might be genetically related.
Just how reptilian or mammalian the arrangements are must be a highly subjective judgment. Because one type is lower you'd be expecting it to be more reptilian, and the higher to be more mammalian. There probably are enough morphological reasons to make the judgment based on the assumption of evolution, but what if they are simply variations as I would guess they are?
Because you believe in evolution you are looking for gradations between morphologies. Apparently this particular set of fossils is very encouraging for that kind of speculation, apparently more so than other sets of fossils since it is being studied as a particularly fine example of a transitional series.
One question I'd have is whether there is enough similar transitional morphology between other parts of the creatures to parallel the supposed transition of these sets of bones in the jaw area. Perhaps if I read the rest of the article something would be said about that? But I have more than enough to think about just from what you posted here.
As I was arguing before, genetics doesn't normally produce gradations. Microevolution produces phenotypic variations, even between parent and child, but in an isolated population complete changes from the parent population, not just a gradual change. Darwin bred some of his pigeons to exaggerate a particular chosen feature, and in that case you'd see gradations of the qualities of that feature from generation to generation.
But nature doesn't very often do it that way. You isolate a few pairs of lizards on an island and they develop a very large head and a new digestive system in thirty years. These features didn't exist at all in the parent population, they arose from the new gene frequencies in the few individuals that were put on the island, that were different from the gene frequencies of the original population.
Darwin's finches had different kinds of beaks that were adapted to different kinds of foods. Not gradations of change in one kind of beak. That's because the genome is designed to produce new variations.
So your different kinds of bone arrangements in the fossils being discussed would best be understood as merely genetic variations. Assembling them in a graded series is a mental exercise that probably doesn't reflect the reality at all.
Yes I know there are the dates. What can I say, the dates don't make any sense. Both because of how genetics works, as I've been saying, and because the changes that occur with microevolution can occur very rapidly, in a matter of years, maybe hundreds but that seems unlikely. In any case millions is out of the question.
(Also, note that I highlighted the word "advanced" in the discussion because it's one of those words that sneaks into evolutionary descriptions that implies what evolutionists claim isn't the case, the implication that one species is higher or more evolved than another.)
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2015 7:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 10:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 125 by herebedragons, posted 09-21-2015 2:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2015 3:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2015 7:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 124 of 2887 (769460)
09-21-2015 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
09-21-2015 9:40 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
I can understand how convincing this seems to be, with all the apparent gradations that would get from the reptilian to the mammalian jaw bones, with a therapsid type in between that appears to be a perfect transitional between the two, but it has to be pointed out that the whole scenario is assumed for starters. Evolution from one to the other is assumed, so the task is clearly laid out as speculating about how the one set of bones changed into the other type of bones. It's all quite plausible, if you assume evolution between the specimens to begin with.
Well, you're exhibiting a classic creationist confusion between the evidence for evolution and evolutionary interpretation.
To test evolution, we say: if it's right, we should be able to find things which look like an evolutionary pathway between A and B, in that they will have intermediate forms.
When we've been convinced by this and other evidence that evolution happened, then we can look back at the same fossils and say: A did evolve into B, and these are transitional species.
The first is a successful prediction, the second is interpretation. The fossil evidence for evolution is, of course, the successful prediction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 9:40 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Diomedes, posted 09-21-2015 3:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 125 of 2887 (769472)
09-21-2015 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
09-21-2015 9:40 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Assembling them in a graded series is a mental exercise that probably doesn't reflect the reality at all.
The funny thing is that we can group organisms together in a nested hierarchy based on morphological characters. Then we can examine genetic characters and group the organisms in a nested hierarchy based on genetic differences and the two groupings largely agree.
Now, I know what you are thinking... "Organisms that are similar morphologically should be similar genetically." Sure, but these trees are often made from "junk DNA" such as simple sequence repeats, introns, intergenic spacers and internal transcribed spacers. Why would these "throw-away" pieces of DNA have changed over time in pretty much the same way the morphological characters have changed? Why do we get very, very similar nested groupings from morphological data as we do from "junk DNA" data? Common descent is simply the BEST explanation (not the only explanation, simply the one that makes the most sense).
Both because of how genetics works
But, you don't really understand how genetics work. You have your own made up version of it based on limited examples.
because the changes that occur with microevolution can occur very rapidly
Yes, changes can happen rapidly, but they don't have to. In fact, deniers of evolution lament that we don't witness evolution on a daily basis in the real world. If what you say is the rule rather then the exception, every time we go out to study evolution we should witness a "microevolutionary" event. We don't.
In any case millions is out of the question.
Interesting premise to start with.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 9:40 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 126 of 2887 (769485)
09-21-2015 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
09-21-2015 9:40 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
I lost my first reply so I'll try again.
... It's all quite plausible, if you assume evolution between the specimens to begin with. These bones had to shift, we had to get a different arrangement here, then thus and so had to occur, ...
To add to what Dr A said, this is not an assumption, it is a prediction: IF B evolved from A, THEN there should be intermediate stages in the fossil record.
... and because there is enough similarity between them to make the changes plausible -- if you believe one evolved from the other -- it makes a very neat progression from the one to the other. ...
That the fossil record does provide intermediates between A and B that are within the spacial\temporal matrix, just as the theory predicted, is validation of the theory. Remember that the theory is basically that microevolution over generations, causing anagenesis and cladogenesis, is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
... It would help to have drawings or photos of the different sets of bones to illustrate the sequence of changes being discussed so one could judge just how much change is being talked about, just how neat the sequence would have been had it occurred in reality. I did look up some images of therapsids just to know what that creature is supposed to have looked like.
Indeed, and I used to have a link to a website that provided details on each one with interactive links up and down and sideways. You could go from Synopsidae to Mammalia and back. Unfortunately it is down for reconstruction:
Palaeos: Life Through Deep Time
Wayback Machine*
We can, however look at wikipedia:
Therapsid - Wikipedia
quote:
Therapsida is a group of synapsids that includes mammals and their ancestors.[1][2] Many of the traits today seen as unique to mammals had their origin within early therapsids, including having their four limbs extend vertically beneath the body, as opposed to the sprawling posture of other reptiles. The earliest fossil attributed to Therapsida is Tetraceratops insignis from the Lower Permian.[3][4]
Phylogeny
See the last link for a chart of both the path from Synapsida to Mammalia.
But it doesn't talk about the evolution of the ear, for that we need:
Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia
quote:
Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles
The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles is one of the most well-documented[1] and important evolutionary events, demonstrating both numerous transitional forms as well as an excellent example of exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.
The evidence that the malleus and incus are homologous to the reptilian articular and quadrate was originally embryological, and since this discovery an abundance of transitional fossils has both supported the conclusion and given a detailed history of the transition.[2] The evolution of the stapes was an earlier and distinct event.[3][4]
Early therapsid jaws and ears
The jaws of early synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, were similar to those of other tetrapods of the time, with a lower jaw consisting of a tooth-bearing dentary bone and several smaller posterior bones. The jaw joint consisted of the articular bone in the lower jaw and the quadrate in the upper jaw. ...
Mammalian and non-mammalian jaws.
In the mammal configuration, the
quadrate and articular bones are much
smaller and form part of the middle ear.
Note that in mammals the lower jaw
consists of only the dentary bone.
Twin-jointed jaws
During the Permian and early Triassic the dentary of therapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, continually enlarged while other jaw bones were reduced.[26][26] Eventually, the dentary was able to make contact with the squamosal, a bone in the upper jaw located anterior to the quadrate, allowing two simultaneous jaw joints[27] - an anterior "mammalian" joint between the dentary and squamosal and a posterior "reptilian" joint between the quadrate and articular. This "twin-jointed jaw" can be seen in late cynodonts and early mammaliforms.[28] Morganucodon is one of the first discovered and most thoroughly studied of the mammaliforms, since an unusually large number of morganucodont fossils have been found, and
Morganucodon is an almost perfect intermediate in this respect (the "twin-jointed jaw") between the higher mammal-like reptiles on the one hand and the typical mammals on the other.[29]
Morganucodontidae and other transitional forms had
both types of jaw joint: dentary-squamosal (front)
and articular-quadrate (rear).
Mammal-like jaws and ears
As the dentary continued to enlarge during the Triassic, the older quadrate-articular joint fell out of use. Some of the bones were lost, but the quadrate (which is directly connected to the stapes), the articular (connected to the quadrate) and the angular (connected to the articular) became free-floating and associated with the stapes. This occurred at least twice in the mammaliformes ("almost-mammals"). The Multituberculates, which lived from about 160M years ago (mid-Jurassic) to about 35M years ago (early Oligocene) had jaw joints that consisted of only the dentary and squamosal bones, and the quadrate and articular bones were part of the middle ear; but other features of their teeth, jaws and skulls are significantly different from those of mammals.[18][30]
So there is also an evolutionary branch with the same ear (and other earlier evolved traits of mammals) that does not lead to mammals (another one of your "deviant" paths).
And it looks like there were several intermediate species with double jaws as well as intermediate species where the bone size and shape lead up to the double jaw and then move from the double jaw to the single mammalian jaw and inner ear pattern seen in all mammals today.
The fossils fit the pattern predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 123 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 9:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:53 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:21 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 127 of 2887 (769487)
09-21-2015 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate
09-21-2015 10:39 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
To test evolution, we say: if it's right, we should be able to find things which look like an evolutionary pathway between A and B, in that they will have intermediate forms.
When we've been convinced by this and other evidence that evolution happened, then we can look back at the same fossils and say: A did evolve into B, and these are transitional species.
The first is a successful prediction, the second is interpretation. The fossil evidence for evolution is, of course, the successful prediction.
The additional proof is DNA. Upon it's discovery and when we started genome mapping, scientists began aligning the findings against our current taxonomy table. The results matched the predictions. i.e. species that diverged had common DNA traits that could be linked back to specific common ancestors. And species that were deemed 'close' to each other from an evolutionary standpoint and a specific timescale (i.e. Chimps and Humans) had a high level of overlap in their respective genomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:28 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 2887 (769497)
09-21-2015 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Diomedes
09-21-2015 3:23 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
The additional proof is DNA. Upon it's discovery and when we started genome mapping, scientists began aligning the findings against our current taxonomy table. The results matched the predictions. i.e. species that diverged had common DNA traits that could be linked back to specific common ancestors. And species that were deemed 'close' to each other from an evolutionary standpoint and a specific timescale (i.e. Chimps and Humans) had a high level of overlap in their respective genomes.
But this can be deceptive. Common traits would of course have common DNA because the finished house follows the plan. Similar plans, similar houses. But descent from one to another cannot be known from these comparisons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Diomedes, posted 09-21-2015 3:23 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2015 6:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 6:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 132 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-21-2015 6:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 141 by herebedragons, posted 09-21-2015 9:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(2)
Message 129 of 2887 (769501)
09-21-2015 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
09-21-2015 6:28 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Very similar-appearing critters - say, European moles (Talpidae) and marsupial moles (Notoryctidae) are very different in their DNA. Similar finished houses, but the blueprints don't gee-haw at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 7:01 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 2887 (769502)
09-21-2015 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
09-21-2015 6:28 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
But this can be deceptive. Common traits would of course have common DNA because the finished house follows the plan. Similar plans, similar houses.
But crocodiles and birds don't have a similar plan. And yet molecular phylogeny puts them together just as one would expect from the fossil record.
. But descent from one to another cannot be known from these comparisons.
But the results of these comparisons can be predicted on the basis of common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 2887 (769503)
09-21-2015 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
09-21-2015 3:14 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
To add to what Dr A said, this is not an assumption, it is a prediction: IF B evolved from A, THEN there should be intermediate stages in the fossil record.
Yes, it's certainly not just an inadvertent assumption, but it does function as an untested assumption when you get into postulating how particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones. You are assuming that genetics can make this change without knowing if it can or not. Again, I don't see gradations in how genetics works, do you? At least not in the most common patterns of inheritance. As I keep saying, you get variation, not gradation, but you need gradation, small differences that accumulate over time, to fit the changes postulated from one creature to another.
Yes, if B evolved from A supposedly there would be such intermediates, but you'd have to show that this is genetically possible, which I'm questioning, and besides, it's just as possible that nature has made lots of similar creatures that are nevertheless not related genetically to each other.
That the fossil record does provide intermediates between A and B that are within the spacial\temporal matrix, just as the theory predicted, is validation of the theory.
Yes this is logical and I can see how it's persuasive, but the problem is that you don't have any direct actual evidence, it's all subjective judgments about similarities and differences. You can see that to get to bone arrangement B from bone arrangement A the bones would have to undergo a particular series of changes, but you have no way of showing that those changes ever occurred or are even genetically possible. Again, I don't think genetics works that way; it works by producing variations not gradations.
Remember that the theory is basically that microevolution over generations, causing anagenesis and cladogenesis, is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
Sure, and again it has its plausibility as a theory, but again there is absolutely NO actual, real, hard evidence that microevolution is anything but the working out of built-in genetic possibilities within the genome of a species.
I did think it would be helpful to have the illustrations I mentioned to be able to visualize what is being talked about, but now I've got so many people responding to me and you are providing so many links I'm too tired to deal with them. Maybe I'll get a second wind. The point was to see if I think the similarities warrant the speculations about possible changes between different formations, but it wouldn't change what I've said above anyway.
I don't know how you have the energy, RAZD. You put up complex post after post. It wears me out. I'll have to come back later if I can.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2015 3:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 7:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2015 8:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 132 of 2887 (769504)
09-21-2015 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
09-21-2015 6:28 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Faith writes:
But this can be deceptive. Common traits would of course have common DNA because the finished house follows the plan. Similar plans, similar houses. But descent from one to another cannot be known from these comparisons.
The only deception here is implying that DNA is similar to human constructed house plans.
Faith, I know you have been told about Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) in past discussions. Comparisons of these viral elements in the genome can indeed show which species are most closely related and at what level in the descent tree their common ancestors occupy.
Wikipedia has a good discussion at: Endogenous retrovirus They also list 42 references.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 7:05 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 2887 (769505)
09-21-2015 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Coragyps
09-21-2015 6:46 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Very similar-appearing critters - say, European moles (Talpidae) and marsupial moles (Notoryctidae) are very different in their DNA. Similar finished houses, but the blueprints don't gee-haw at all.
Nature is likely to have all sorts of anomalies that no particular analogy is going to cover, but make up your minds here: I was responding to the statement that the morphological tree is neatly paralleled by the genetic tree. Perhaps not so neatly then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2015 6:46 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2015 8:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 134 of 2887 (769506)
09-21-2015 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
09-21-2015 6:53 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Yes, it's certainly not just an inadvertent assumption, but it does function as an untested assumption when you get into postulating how particular sets of bones could have changed over time into another arrangement of bones.
Please read my post again, the one explaining the difference between prediction and interpretation.
---
As for this stuff about genetics, we've seen your theory of genetics, and pointed out how it's contradicted by (a) the theory of genetics as used by geneticists (b) reality.
So if your best argument that the fossil record doesn't show evolution is that your own private version of genetics says that it can't, then that would be just one more reason to think that the Faith Theory of Genetics is inferior to the theory adhered to by geneticists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 6:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 09-21-2015 7:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 2887 (769507)
09-21-2015 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Tanypteryx
09-21-2015 6:53 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
You are bringing up a different argument and I'm still involved in the argument on the table. You'd have to make your case for endogenous retroviruses in a lot of detail for me to see the point anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-21-2015 6:53 PM Tanypteryx 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