|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In the dog skulls I see variations on the basic structure, I don't see actual structural changes such as an arrangement of bones that change position relative to each other, which is what the reptile-mammal evolution requires.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. You are not looking at genetics here. You are as usual just imagining how a series of changes COULD get you from a monkey to a man without the slightest evidence that these sort of changes have ever happened or are genetically 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. Being intermediate seems to occur at many places in the tree of life; there is no reason to assume genetic relatedness, it's just a variation. You are ASSUMING that "it happens," you cannot show that it happens genetically. The fossils represent variations, not incremental evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. Yes, you got my point, thank you. But there is nothing to prove genetic relatedness in similar structures either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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 All of this is nothing but an exercise in imputing relatedness to a series of interestingly similar but different morphologies. Comparative anatomy can make the same mistake as paleontology, imagining relatedness without evidence, thereby "confirming" the claims of paleontology. I'm sure there are more complex mistakes involved in the other disciplines that confirm the paleontological mistake. They all really need to stick to their own arena where they know what they are doing.
"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 But fossils can't prove any such thing. You are just making imaginative leaps from morphological forms to genetic relatedness that is turning out on this thread to be impossible to demonstrate. Yes, the imagination is so powerful it even pronounces its fantasies as facts.
"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. In reality all this is sheer speculative interpretation. The actual facts are that the fossil record shows many different species and breeds of species, the "transition" is purely imagined. It's a matter of noticing similarities and assuming relatedness, which is not warranted because no actual evidence has ever been given for it. The "origin of new physical features" is also purely imagined: the different features are all products of different genomes for different species, there is no reason to think otherwise except the dogged determination of the evolution camp to make connections where none are evidenced. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. I'm too tired to check right now but I remember the therapsid bones as shifting a lot from the reptilian position. The written description sounds like a drastic shift.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All of this is nothing but an exercise in imputing relatedness to a series of interestingly similar but different morphologies. No. This has been explained to you. You're getting the chain of reasoning backwards. Stop it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are not looking at genetics here. You are as usual just imagining how a series of changes COULD get you from a monkey to a man without the slightest evidence that these sort of changes have ever happened or are genetically possible. The fact that they could happen is in fact evidence that they are possible. To find out whether they have happened, we'd want to look at, guess what, the fossil record. Among other things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: According to your assumptions. But since the evidence shows that "millions of years" is reality that's just a reason to consider your assumptions false. So, no your "reasoning" is obviously faulty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: it s supposed to be debate about the fossils. And your argument is still speculation with strong evidence against it. Using it as a reason to dismiss evidence is simply neither rational nor sensible.
quote: Obviously you like it or you would have abandoned it after your repeated failures to make an adequate case. But to say that it kills evolution is a ridiculous - and obvious - falsehood. You can't kill well-evidenced scientific theories with speculations. You need to have better evidence - and you aren't anywhere close.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are not looking at genetics here. You are as usual just imagining how a series of changes COULD get you from a monkey to a man without the slightest evidence that these sort of changes have ever happened or are genetically possible.
The fact that they could happen is in fact evidence that they are possible. Not necessarily. Imagination can come up with a lot of "coulds" that don't turn out to be possible in reality. And the many changes required for evolution to be true between different species defy any known genetic processes that I'm aware of, especially if you're relying on mutation accidents. So they may LOOK "possible" and actually be GENETICALLY impossible.
To find out whether they have happened, we'd want to look at, guess what, the fossil record. Among other things. That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species. You'd just be imposing the theory on them, not getting evidence from them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Please don't presume to "explain" things to me that I have my own argument about. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I lost my first reply so I'll try again. If you're writing in the EvC reply box it saves what you've written even if you hit the wrong button or EvC itself suffers a glitch. I've been able to back up six or seven steps on some occasions to find my post still in the box. Otherwise, just keep saving the post as you write it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
And this is exactly the sort of scenario I keep talking about. Yes you can get some dramatic new phenotypes this way, and they will be highly divergent from each other. But always always always at the cost of diminishing genetic diversity in relation to the parent population, within each separate daughter population. It may take more population splits and lots more generations before it reaches anything like a point where further evolution is impossible, but if it should continue through those many population splits, each time producing new phenotypes, it will eventually reach that point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species. You'd just be imposing the theory on them, not getting evidence from them.
And that's a pretty pathetic understanding of the fossil record. Do you know why?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024