Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 2887 (769779)
09-24-2015 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by caffeine
09-24-2015 1:19 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals (dogs, cats and cows)
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 1:19 PM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 197 of 2887 (769780)
09-24-2015 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by caffeine
09-24-2015 1:44 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 1:44 PM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 198 of 2887 (769781)
09-24-2015 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2015 1:56 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 1:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 11:58 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 199 of 2887 (769782)
09-24-2015 9:36 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.
Yes, you got my point, thank you.
But there is nothing to prove genetic relatedness in similar structures either.

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

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


Message 200 of 2887 (769783)
09-24-2015 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2015 2:26 PM


Re: 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
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 2:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 11:55 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 201 of 2887 (769784)
09-24-2015 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by caffeine
09-24-2015 2:27 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2015 2:27 PM caffeine has not replied

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


Message 202 of 2887 (769789)
09-24-2015 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
09-24-2015 9:58 PM


Re: For The E People
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 203 of 2887 (769790)
09-24-2015 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
09-24-2015 9:32 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 204 of 2887 (769791)
09-25-2015 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
09-24-2015 9:17 PM


Re: Moderator Requests
quote:
Millions of years is fictional. Nothing would be left alive after even a million years.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 205 of 2887 (769792)
09-25-2015 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
09-24-2015 9:22 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
quote:
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.
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:
I like my argument, I think it's viable, I think it kills evolution.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:22 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 206 of 2887 (769794)
09-25-2015 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2015 11:58 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 11:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by edge, posted 09-25-2015 3:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2015 4:25 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2015 12:05 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 207 of 2887 (769795)
09-25-2015 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2015 11:55 PM


Re: For The E People
Please don't presume to "explain" things to me that I have my own argument about. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2015 11:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 208 of 2887 (769796)
09-25-2015 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
09-21-2015 3:14 PM


Re: Reptiles to Mammals
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2015 3:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 209 of 2887 (769797)
09-25-2015 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
09-24-2015 3:37 PM


Re: Isolation is key to independent evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2015 3:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2015 11:20 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 210 of 2887 (769798)
09-25-2015 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
09-25-2015 3:15 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 4:37 AM edge 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