Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 181 of 2887 (769741)
09-24-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
09-24-2015 4:55 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Thank you for finally posting that after I don't know how many hints and veiled threats about something I supposedly wrote that to you means I should never say a word about any of this. Yes, I've never claimed more than a rudimentary understanding, but of course I claim to understand enough to make the arguments I make.
And this is awfully, you know, Ad Hominem of you ...
Yeah, a bit.
Look, this thread was set up --- by me --- to talk about the fossil evidence for evolution.
Then you butt in to say that no matter what the fossils look like, they can't be evidence for evolution, because the Faith Theory Of Genetics says that evolution can't happen.
Only you don't call it that. You say "genetics" says that evolution can't happen. At that point, you are arguing from authority, and I am perfectly entitled to point out that you are not an authority.
And then I might ask you to look again at the fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 4:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 182 of 2887 (769742)
09-24-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2015 4:39 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
But, once again, that's just what species means.
You keep making this point to Faith over and over again, that this is what species means, this is how it's defined, but this seems somewhat unfair, since almost no working biologist actually defines species this way. And I'm not talking about asexual species - few mammal species, as we usually consider them, are genetically incompatible with their nearest neighbours. And many of them do interbreed in the wild - consistently and regularly.
To take one example, different baboon species often hybridise at their margins. Now, you could take a lumping view and say that you don't accept six (or seven, or eight etc.) species of baboon, and consider the hybridising populations con-specific. But then you'd need to lump all baboon species into one, since all are interfertile. And you couldn't stop there either, since baboons often hybridise in the wild with geladas as well; and possibly mangabeys. The kipunji has been argued to be derived from a hybrid mangabey-baboon population.
So let's stop insisting on a fruitless argument that this is what species means when we don't really mean, and it doesn't actually. If you both agree that a daughter population can be genetically incompatible with its parent, then what's the disagreement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2015 4:39 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2015 3:37 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:23 PM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 183 of 2887 (769745)
09-24-2015 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-23-2015 9:42 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
Genetics makes dogs that are all structurally and behaviorally dogs even if they differ enormously in size and overall appearance. None of the breeds has structural differences from the others. The bones all fit together the same way. And you've said nothing to prove that rearranging bones as required by the theory of transitional fossils being talked about here is genetically possible. Nada.
If you believe the bolded part - you need to look at more dogs. The structural variation in dogs is enormous - an Irish wolfhound is not just a really big chihuahua - they're clearly different shapes. I found a nice collection of photos here on a blog about how to draw animals:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-23-2015 9:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 2:05 PM caffeine has replied
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:27 PM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 184 of 2887 (769747)
09-24-2015 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Faith
09-24-2015 11:37 AM


So to my mind the next task on this thread is for someone to give evidence that the necessary rearrangement of bones to show an evolutionary connection between those fossils is really genetically possible and not just assumed and imagined.
But look, it works the other way round.
If we just think about genetics, then there is certainly a chain of mutations that would get from a monkey to a man. Or from a hippopotamus to a butterfly. If we just look at genetics, without natural selection, all things are possible.
But the intermediate forms show that being intermediate is possible, practically. And that it looks exactly like it happens. We have the fossils. We win.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 185 of 2887 (769748)
09-24-2015 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
09-24-2015 11:05 AM


MORE transitionals ...
... There has been only that evidence: RAZD's claim that dog breeds illustrate the genetic situation with transitional fossils. ...
Which it does, because it illustrates that the bones can change sizes dramatically and that the relative positions can change significantly.
Now here is another set of drawings of the transition from non-mammalian amniote to early mammal:
quote:
The following discussion is taken from "29 Evidences for Macroevolution; Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree" Copyright 1999-2002 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Reptile-mammal transition, with emphasis on the evolution of the interdependent mammalian middle ear ossicles.
As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy - several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional. ...
Figure 1.4.2. A comparison of the ears of reptiles and mammals. The reptile ear is shown on the left, the mammal ear on the right. As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise and the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow. The stapes is shown in brown. Note how the relative arrangement of these bones is similar in both taxa, in the order of inner ear-stapes-quadrate-articular.
Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)
Since Figure 1.4.3 was made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles.
So to be very very clear, these stages involve just the kind of bone size changes seen in dogs, and they do not represent a "rearrangement" of the bones any more than is seen in dogs. Again I quote for emphasis:
quote:
... Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. ...
You can see this in the drawings, it is clear that the bones change sizes and that the jostling of positions is due to those changing sizes. Just as we see in some dogs compared to other dogs.
We see incremental changes in size and shape of bones in these intermediate fossils, just as we see incremental differences in size and shape of bones in some dogs compared to other dogs.
The only place you see movement of the bones that is not associated with the size changes is after the mammalian ear has been formed, and it becomes detached from the jaw bone. This kind of detachment of bones where their attachment no longer serves a purpose is common (ie whale hips, etc)
As you can see the evolution develops by stages, by gradations, by intermediate steps, with different things occurring at different times of the overall transition. Note the time scale on the drawing: to be intermediate the fossils need to be found in the right location and the right time to fit between the ancestor and the offspring. They do.
Note that Tiktaalik was found by determining the right time (geological layering) and place (environment) for the intermediate fossil, and then looking in that specific formation. That is how science works: prediction and test and validation.
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 176 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 11:21 AM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 186 of 2887 (769749)
09-24-2015 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by caffeine
09-24-2015 1:44 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
But I think you're missing the point. Faith said, and you quoted her and put it in bold, that "the bones all fit together the same way". Well, the bones do in fact fit together the same way --- just like the bones of humans and chimps fit together in the same way, though Faith probably wouldn't use that as an example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 1:44 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 2:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(2)
Message 187 of 2887 (769750)
09-24-2015 2:26 PM


For The E People
I thought maybe I could use some of that black space on my picture to quote these:
The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
"The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute.
I'm thinking maybe just the second one, in small type at the bottom.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 188 of 2887 (769751)
09-24-2015 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2015 2:05 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
But I think you're missing the point. Faith said, and you quoted her and put it in bold, that "the bones all fit together the same way". Well, the bones do in fact fit together the same way --- just like the bones of humans and chimps fit together in the same way, though Faith probably wouldn't use that as an example.
I was considering 'fit together the same way' to mean 'be in the same relative position to one another', which the dog bones clearly aren't. All that changed with the therapsid bones was relative size, shape and position - all of which vary in the dog skulls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 2:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 10:03 PM caffeine has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 189 of 2887 (769759)
09-24-2015 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by caffeine
09-24-2015 1:19 PM


Isolation is key to independent evolution
So let's stop insisting on a fruitless argument that this is what species means when we don't really mean, and it doesn't actually. If you both agree that a daughter population can be genetically incompatible with its parent, then what's the disagreement?
Yep, that was kind of where I was heading on "species" as really a term of reference, a generally homogeneous breeding population but some fringes.
The important thing to the evolution of diversity is the separation of a breeding population into two (or more) daughter populations that do not generally interbreed, whether for physical, biological or behavioral reasons, and then are free to evolve independently as a separate branch in the clade.
Distinctive differences in evolution occur between populations when they are isolated from one another by any mechanism.
ps -- nice dog skulls. You could also compare shoulders of boxers and greyhounds.
Edited by RAZD, : sp

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 182 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 1:19 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:29 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 190 of 2887 (769773)
09-24-2015 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
09-22-2015 9:51 AM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
Variations are the differences within a breeding population generation, while gradations are the differences between generations of a breeding population.
I don't know if that holds up, but the main thing I'd want to keep in mind is whether the gradation that is seen is anything at all like the gradation imagined between the bones being discussed that have to undergo changes from the reptilian to the mammal as the evolutionary pathway. That would take many generations at least, but my objection is I don't think it's genetically possible, and the dog breeds example isn't relevant.
I think this is the only part of that post I missed earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2015 9:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 11:37 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 191 of 2887 (769774)
09-24-2015 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
09-23-2015 12:08 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
You strike out my argument claiming it has been refuted. Then show me the refutation. All refutations I've myself refuted in turn. This is another reason for me to abort this discussion.
Relative sizes in dog bones is not the same thing as the repositioning and other changes needed for evolution between reptiles and mammals. Size is regulated throughout the dog body type for all its parts. The differences between reptile bones and mammal bones have to be in their respective genomes. There is no way genetically for changes to occur that could change the bones from one to the other and so far nobody has shown an example that is relevant.
But all this is sheer unproved and unprovable assumption. Granted, again, that the apparently progressive sequence is very seductive, still it's all a merely imagined sequence. ...
As shown by the fossils. By the evidence.
The fossils are not the evidence. We are looking for evidence that the different bones did evolve from one type to the other, or even that they could evolve genetically, and so far no evidence has been produced.
By the spacial\temporal matrix that connects the fossils.
Which means what? There is no evidence to be found in their location as far as I know although nobody has produced information about exactly where they were found in relation to each other. Nearby or at great distance from each other?
Why do these intermediates occur between the ends of the sequence in both time and location, why don't they show up earlier if they are separate populations, why don't the end fossils show up before the intermediates if they are separate populations.
I don't know, but I do know that you can't assume genetic relatedness from mere physical location or morphology, and again, I don't know of any genetic processes that could make such changes as imagined between the different structures over time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2015 12:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 9:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 10:05 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 192 of 2887 (769775)
09-24-2015 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by herebedragons
09-23-2015 5:47 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
In the case of "bones evolving in that fashion," what would happen if there was a shift in ossification points (the points at which the bone begins ossifying) so that they were slightly further apart, or in a different location? What if an ossification point was added or the regulation of the existing points was changed so they expanded for a greater or lesser amount of time? What if an ossification point was deleted or down regulated?
Show me that ANY structural changes occur in normal genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by herebedragons, posted 09-23-2015 5:47 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 193 of 2887 (769776)
09-24-2015 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by herebedragons
09-23-2015 5:52 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
they are just new varieties or breeds that are genetically depleted.
How would you identify "genetic depletion" in a specimen you have been given to characterize?
First I assume I'd know if it could still breed with the parent organisms.
Second I would look at the percentage of fixed loci or homozygosity in the genome for the distinctive traits.
What does "genetic depletion" look like from a molecular point of view? What kind of test would you propose to see if an organism is "genetically depleted?"
See above. But there are two ways to go about checking reduction in genetic diversity from population to population:
1) is to collect specimens from ring species in the wild to see what differences there are in the genome from one population to the next. Fewer alleles for the dominant traits, or an increase in fixed loci from one population to the next for the dominant traits.
2) The other would be to control populations in a lab environment, starting from a few pairs and letting them breed for a few generations, then taking a few pairs from that new population and doing the same thing until you get to a point that no further variations are being produced. Check the DNA for each population.
First generation would be like the Pod Mrcaru lizards; isolating another set of pairs would be the next step etc. I expect the changes to occur and spread through the population in a much shorter period than the thirty years it took for those lizards to develop their large heads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by herebedragons, posted 09-23-2015 5:52 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 194 of 2887 (769777)
09-24-2015 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by edge
09-24-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
However, I did read your comment that, ' ... old ages are simply out of the question.'
No explanation, no reasoning, ...
Not true, I did offer reasons, but they follow from my argument: evolution reduces genetic diversity. Evolution happens a lot faster than is allowed for by the ToE. Millions of years is fictional. Nothing would be left alive after even a million years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by edge, posted 09-24-2015 12:09 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2015 12:46 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 195 of 2887 (769778)
09-24-2015 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2015 1:18 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
So you didn't want debate when you set up this thread, even though "we win" certainly is going to provoke debate. Then when you get debate you attack the person and treat the argument like trash.
I like my argument, I think it's viable, I think it kills evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 1:18 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2015 1:02 AM Faith 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