Transitional Forms

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thmsberry:
[b]Everykneeshallbow,I agree with your problem. I never can understand how based on a lack of subjective evidence can anyone say that they have scientific evidence of something.The fossil record simply is not falsifiable. [/QUOTE][/b]
If you take it at that level of abstraction sure, you'd have a problem.However:
1) you aren't dealing with the other lines of evidence
2) you aren't dealing with the many examples of transitions that have been found that demonstrate a fine changes in the fossil record
The Transitional Fossil Challenge again:
/getdoc.xp?AN=658808870http://x52.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658808870[/URL]Could the above example or hundreds of others be wrong? Yes. But it doesn't necessarily follow that they are wrong. Either you have evidence to falsify the above or you are making empty claims.A complete lack of transitionals is what the originsal author contended and that simply isn't true. We do see finely graded transitional series in the fossil record matched both by relative and absolute dating methods. There is no doubt that the series occurred, the only doubt could be whether evolution as we now understand it could produce such results or some other process produced them--such as God snapping his fingers. Given we observe the necessary processes in mutations, natural selection, etc., why would we conclude anything except for evolution? This doesn't deny God, it simply takes the most parsimoniuos explanation given the evidence. [QUOTE][b]
How can a theory claim to be falsifiable if you alway have the ability to rely on the conjectur of absence data to corraborate the data. [/QUOTE][/b]The above rests on data. Either you have data to contradict it or you don't. If you don't why isn't it a strong finding? Could it be wrong? Sure, but that isn't the same as demonstrating it is wrong. An abscence of falsifying data generally means the theory is confirmed. That might change later if new data is found. [QUOTE][b]
I have made this next example in this forum before Let's see if you can see how this is the same sort of faith.One could argue that creationism is falsifiabe because the corrobarating evidence, i.e. the creator could decide to show up and say "creationism is wrong, Darwin was basically right. Yes, I created the first cell, but by descent with modification the myriad diversity of life evolved." Thus, Creationism is falsifiable. [/QUOTE][/b]The above is a remarkably silly example. There is no physical evidence supporting the creation. Or do you know of some? We do have physical evidence supporting evolution and we have specific ways in which it could be falsified. Invoking the miracle of God appearing isn't a scientific potential falsification. Science deals with the observable world and the above seems to invoke a being appearing that we are not able to detect so far. [QUOTE][b]
The point is both faith systems rely on a beliefs in something for which there is no current evidence available for. [/QUOTE][/b]See:
/getdoc.xp?AN=639870526http://x76.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=639870526[/URL]
That isn't faith--it is scientific evidence. You seem to want to claim there is no reason for us to infer evolution, but it appears that everything we know about biology makes it possible, and we observe very clear phenomena that provide evidence for it. What else would you infer from the above? [QUOTE][b]
Darwinism, Neo Darwinism, Modern Synthesis is not a true scientific theory it actually an origin narrative that does not predict the evidence. It actually serves as an origin narrative that can be adjusted to conform almost any finding to its canon. Its stength actually comes from the fact that it provides naturalist, materialist, and humanist the best self-fufilling natural, material, human explanation for something for which their is an extreme lack of corrobarating evidence. [/QUOTE][/b]The only challenge you make above is that the theory changes to fit new findings. While this is true in a rather minor way, why is this bad? No one is arguing the same thing Darwin did in the 19th Century and this is clear from any modern source.In the minor way that it is modified to fit new evidence, this simply accomodates new knowledge of observed processes. You mentioned differing mechanisms for creating genetic diversity in another posting, but this doesn't contradict the essential holding of modern theory that minor genetic changes lead to long term major changes in populations.

quote:

---

The saddest part is most of them will not simply come to terms with the fact that this faith system does not actually fall into the framework provided by the scientific method.

---

How does it not--you have:
A testable theory
confirming evidence
potential falsificationsWhat else do you want?Cheers,
Larry Handlin

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

You keep talking about evidence.

​

What evidence?

---

The citation would be a place to start.

quote:

---

Every explanation that I have ever heard for the Cambrian explosion has been pure speculation.

​

If it was not for the Cambrian explosion, you would have a stronger argument.

​

But most of the variety of life that we see today evolved in such a ridiculous short period of time.

---

Why is this a challenge to evolution? If a niche is open one would expect evolution to be quite rapid.

quote:

---

The problem people always miss is the fact that during Cambrian we had an ozone layer so nothing would increase the rate of mutation.

---

Why would the rate of mutation have to be increased? Could you provide some citations for this claim?

quote:

---

There is no speculate explanation of this element of the fossil record that actually works genetically.

---

Sources please.

quote:

---

The evidence does not match the genetics.
Are you trying to transform the evidence to your image to your likeness.

---

That is quite an assertion. Why does the genetic nested hierarchy match the fossil nested hierarchy so well then? [QUOTE][b]
And let's not even begin to talk about the fact that the fossil record suggest that Prokaryote precede Eurokaryotes and yet if you were actually to use random natural processes Eukaryote cells are more probable than Prokaryotes. [/QUOTE][/b]Since on one posits only random natural processes what is your point? Something that no one argues is unlikely. Okay.

quote:

---

The existence of Introns and Junk DNA better fit a naturalistic model of descent with modification than an entire kingdom of creatures without Introns and junk DNA evolving into creatures with unnecessary information. In terms of Natural selection Prokaryotes are better suited for their environment than unicellular eukaryotes. They can replicate faster and even mutate faster and more efficiently.

---

This doesn't falsify evolution.

quote:

---

Note: I am not talking about Archae (Phyla/Kingdom there is a debate on there classification).

---

Since it doesn't appear that you can falsify evolution you must be offering a theory that better fits the evidence. Would you care to offer it? And given the existence of fossils before the Cambrian Explosion, how does PreCambrian life fit into your theory?The challenge you never seem willing to address is--since the evidence is consistent with evolution, why would you propose another theory? And what is that theory?Cheers,
Larry Handli

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Everykneeshallbow:
[b]Gene90
How can the THEORY of hierarchy in evolution stand on its own? Without transitional forms, cannot other THEORIES explain the similarity between species and groups of species? [/QUOTE][/b]If you noticed in the link I provided is a cite to a paper that details a series of transitions. Also, there are a few illustrations on the web linked from the article. Please address that paper before claiming there are no transitionals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

Keep in mind that no one argues against the fact that life on this planet has varied over time. Evolution.

​

We are arguing against descent with modification.

​

Using descent with modification, how do you get the development of Introns in Eukaryotes from there supposed Prokaryote ancestors?

​

Thanks. If the theory works, it needs to work here as well. Unless, like I have been arguing all this time, it is just a partial theory.

---

As I'm sure you are aware, there are a few different ideas on how this might have happened.
Two of which are:
1) nuclear origin hypothesis
2) prokaryote origin hypothesisHow would either of these disprove biological evolution or demonstrate that it is inadequate?Finally, are you now claiming that this evolution was inadequate to this point, but then took off and can explain the rest of the diversity of life? I'm rather confused about what you are claiming--you don't seem to be interested in making a positive case.Cheers,
Larry Handlin

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
You wrote:
"If they found human fossils in the Cambrian that would falsify evolution because organisms do not appear without ancestors. Small gaps are to be expected, but there must be a starting point.

​

Your argument is invalid because you are not basing it upon the Theory of Evolution, you are basing it upon what you believe scientists would do. "

​

This is not true. Keep in mind these are origin narratives.

​

This is how it will go. At some point in the future, Human beings figure out how to artificial produce worm wholes. They use them to travel in time. One period of interest was the Cambrian explosion for the possible descent with modification implications (I hope we will know enough by this time that people will not still be claiming that this theory alone explains the origin of all life on this planet). A few of the time travelling scientist got killed and fossilized during their exploration. Thus, this is why we have human fossils and no prehuman forms.

​

Using Occum's razor, devoid of any human mammalian ancestors this would be the second best solution.

​

The first is the human fossil are false or the result of an accident in the lab.

​

From the realm of science fiction, human fallibility, and etc. Scientist can pull these origin stories out of thin air. All these stories sound quite correct. So did spontaneous generation.

​

You can always shape the story to account for contradictory or a lack of evidence.

---

ROTFLMAO--nice dodge. And you are doing a good job of providing such stories. Do you care to deal with any evidence? Gene and I will accept human fossils found in the Cambrian as falsification. Is there such evidence? Yes or no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:

Larry,

​

You wrote:"As I'm sure you are aware, there are a few different ideas on how this might have happened.
Two of which are:
1) nuclear origin hypothesis
2) prokaryote origin hypothesis"

​

Your side likes the term strawman. I have been trying to use it, but I have no word for this strategy that you guys use. I ask you about evidence for the origin of introns. A specific question. And you talk about the origin of the nucleus. Which sole purpose appears to eliminate introns out of gene sequences and protect chromosones. Hey I got a term. It's a chicken before the egg argument.
And honestly, I am going to need more than you simply mentioning the prokaryote origin hypothesis. What specific hypothesis do you mean? Are talking Akaryote, Archae, symbiosis, and etc? What do mean? I need an explanation.

---

Why? You brought up the subject--if it is relevant to demonstrating that microevolution is inadequate to explain common descent explain specifically why? My question was:How would either of these disprove biological evolution or demonstrate that it is inadequate?Choose any specific hypothesis and explain what you appear to be implying.Are you trying to change the subject again? How do any of the potential hypotheses present a barrier to microevolution leading to macroevolution? Why is this such a difficult question to answer? You claim a barrier and point towards the introns in eukaryotes--why does that demonstrate a barrier? Or was it a red herring?

quote:

---

Also, stop blurring the issue. Why would I be try disprove biological evolution? I do not need to. My argument is it only acount for allele changes in an organisms genome. These mechanism over time can lead to speciation and genus level events. But organisms of higher taxa similarities have distinct genomes that actually contain new genes and nucleotide differences so varied in the nonevolutionary hierarchy that a new explanation is needed.

---

You have only asserted this and until you demonstrate such a barrier you don't have an argument. Could you be right? Sure, but you have yet to cite any evidence to support your claim.

quote:

---

Darwin and the framers of the Modern sythensis had no idea of true genomic structure and this accounts for most of the problem.

---

Darwin didn't? Wow.How is the essential finding of the Modern Synthesis wrong? Either you claim to know of a barrier that stops microevolution from progressing into macroevolution or you are simply suggesting there is another genetic mechanism that is missing. Either way you need to support it, but the latter certainly doesn't challenge the essential element of the Modern Synthesis. In which case your objections are trivial. [QUOTE][b]
I am arguing the evidence. [/QUOTE][/b]No, you have not provided any evidence yet. You have danced around and avoided evidence.
Demonstrate a barrier. It would be amazing if you could do that without citations.

quote:

---

Descent with modification is a good partial theory that can explain the apparent species and genus level variations in genomes. However, the extrapolation used to go from "microevolution" to "macroevolution" is pretty much science fiction or what I like to call an origin narrative that does not have cooberating evidence.

---

ROTF--are you a troll?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thmsberry:
[b]Larry,You wrote:"ROTFLMAO--nice dodge. And you are doing a good job of providing such stories. Do you care to deal with any evidence? Gene and I will accept human fossils found in the Cambrian as falsification. Is there such evidence? Yes or no?"But Larry, the reason for my science fiction scenario and the hoax scenario is that science has strongly established that no homosapiens were alive during PreCambrian or Cambrian. Thus, if human fossils in the Cambrian is a falsification. Yet, we know except for my fantastic scenario this could not possible happen. Then, the fossil record is not falsifiable. QED [/QUOTE][/b]LOL--you have many potential falsifications available, but you were offered one. Stomping your feet is not adequate. How about mammals showing up before reptiles? Do you have evidence of that? Or reptiles before amphibians? Do you want me to continue? [QUOTE][b]
But more importantly, Dodge Dodge. You have failed to explain how a known mechanism of mutation in a genome can make the transition from Prokaryote to Eukaryote. Or unicellular to multicellular organisms. Or the entire family of proteins that separate Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes. [/QUOTE][/b]Thanks for pointing out you were dodging some more.I maintain it is possible under known mechanisms. Since you are implying that it is impossible under known mechanisms please demonstrate it--you implied that such a thing is impossible--why? [QUOTE][b]
My argument is like being pregnant. Either you have a placenta or you don't. The ancestor of creatures, using descent with modification, that had a placenta did not have one. So it is a series of proteins with a novel function and regulating hormones which determine when the mother develops it. What mechanism can produce such change in one generation. [/QUOTE][/b]Why one generation? Who makes such an absurd claim? Cite it please and no Duane Gish cites.You completely avoid the issue of why the genetic nested hierarchy is so close to the morphological nested hierarchy. Besides common descent what other explanations are there? [QUOTE][b]
Are you getting my argument or not? [/QUOTE][/b]Yes, you aren't getting mine. You say that anything can be put in a nested hierarchy. That is incorrect.Where your argument falls apart is at the genetic evidence level. Are the same genes used for the placental development in fish and mammals? And if not then it appears that we have something that doesn't resemble a car at all where the "air conditioners" are not the same if you will. For someone who likes to talk genetics you sure seem to be missing the point--if the morphological nested hierarchy closely resembles the genetic nested hierarchy--your argument is reduced to silliness. Development of similar body plans to meet similar environmental pressures is quite expected given common descent--however, different genetic pathways to such adaptations is only consistent with common descent as far as I am aware. Or do you have another explanation?BTW--is there something radically different about invertebrate genetics and vertebrate genetics? Or invertebrate with fossilizing part genetics and invertebrate without fossilizing parts genetics? [QUOTE][b]
When you look at lower levels of taxonomical difference you do not get any problems. You avoid any of these problems. The scientific evidence does not support the extrapolate higher levels of taxa using descent with modification. [/QUOTE][/b]Then how do you explain already introduced evidence that you have refused to address? In the 29 lines of evidence for macroevolution you have not addressed any of the evidence involving pseudogenes, molecular vestigal characteristics, molecular paralogy--also interesting in light of your claims regarding new genes, molecular convergence, molecular suboptimal function, etc. What else is such evidence consistent with? [QUOTE][b]
But let's go back for a second.Using descent with modification, What mechanism changes a prokaryote to a Eukaryote?Does your side have an answer? [/QUOTE][/b]Does it have a final answer no? As I mentioned competing theories this is obvious. However, you have yet to introduce anything about the process that would make it impossible for evolution to produce such results. You are implying that such a process is impossible--what is the evidence why it is impossible? [QUOTE][b]
If the theory is not simply a partial theory like I argue, it must work in all cases. [/QUOTE][/b]Given our understanding of genetics why would such a process be impossible? Could it be different--yes. What good reason do you have to say it MUST be different? Why couldn't the known mechanisms of evolution end up with such a result? [QUOTE][b]
You have briefly referred to some theories on how this happened, but do those theories actually support descent with modification or do they utilize a different mechanism to explain this evolution. [/QUOTE][/b]Nothing that I'm aware of---are you claiming they do? I keep asking and you keep ignoring. [QUOTE][b]
Does your side spend so much time debating with young earth creationist about speciation that you have not bothered to deal with the issue of whether descent with modification can be extrapolated? [/QUOTE][/b]I provide 29 lines of evidence that you have refused to address. Why? [QUOTE][b]
And please stop referring to that genus/species transitional fossil link. I have examined it about three times now and still do not see how it directly addresses my extrapolation argument. I am arguing higher taxa and it arguing lower taxa. But I agree with lower taxa. It's a red herring. [/QUOTE][/b]Finely you clarify. Thank you. If you noticed I provided you with three options of clarifying and you didn't even do it then. You apparently like to avoid dealing in substance sich it might lead to less confusion. [QUOTE][b]
The force of gravity and electromagnetism are the forces that determine the behaviour of matter until you get to the nuclear level. They are merely partial explanations of the forces that govern matter. [/QUOTE][/b]sighhhhhh.....So, are you claiming that a new genetic mechanism is required? Or are you arguing something bigger? It MUST be the second because the first wouldn't change the essential finding that small genetic changes lead to big genetic diversity now would it.Since you must be arguing the second, you have yet to demonstrate a barrier. You claim there is one by setting up a rather bizarre claim of how much change one mutation must undergo, however, you refuse to deal with the argument that such a claim is a strawman. The creation of a new gene that is vastly different from anything previous in one mutation is never asserted in biological evolution. What you must show is that the rate of genetic change is insufficient--meaning falsify one of the 29 lines of evidence or demonstrate that there is some sort of natural barrier. [QUOTE][b]
Similary, Scientist are observing organisms using genetics. Descent with modification explains the origin of genus, species, and individual variation. But these mechanism do not produce new genes with entirely new functions. Organisms with higher taxanomical differences have distinct functions and genomic arrangements. Extrapolation has not been demonstrated to provide a scientific explanation. [/QUOTE][/b]You have never explained why small changes do not lead to large changes after repeated changes. Why not? Why are you avoiding this issue and arguing for something that is not necessary--specifically a one time dramatic mutation. [QUOTE][b]
Show that descent with modification is the only mechanism. [/QUOTE][/b]Who claims it is a mechanism? What theory are you talking about? Descent with modification is a result of the other mechanisms. If you are this confused I'd suggest starting with some preliminary work on evolution. Talkorigins.org might be a good place for you.

quote:

---

Thus, making it a complete theory. Thus, show that descent with modification, can produce the difference between Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes. Given that the theory argues that Prokaryotes came first.

---

Why is such a process inconsistent? If you are arguing we don't have the final answer so the theory is incomplete that isn't much of a challenge. It simply says we don't know the particular path. Do you have evidence that any proposed hypothesis would invalidate evolution based on the different hypotheses? Please share.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thmsberry:
[b]I basically answered this in my long series of replies to gene and nibelung in one post in the other board. In my section of responses to Gene's post 67, 68, 69. [/QUOTE][/b]No, you didn't even approach an answer. And you certainly didn't answer many of the questions I asked you. And you demonstrated that you are using a strawman in regards to what the Modern Synthesis actually states. [QUOTE][b]
You have a habit of referring to the great oracle 29 lines of information for macromutation. [/QUOTE][/b]Yes, I developed that habit after your habit of ignoring them developed. [QUOTE][b]
It simply does not counter my argument. [/QUOTE][/b]Why not? You've read them haven't you? Why not address just the ones based on molecular evidence? [QUOTE][b]
If you think it does. Could you please show me how? and include the link. I can't seem to find it. [/QUOTE][/b]I've already stated I'm not providing you with links after I have done so before. I provided the link more than twice. The point of my refusal is that you have not responded substantively to any of the points and in fact, have said things that if you had read posts 2 & 3 you would not have said. And it is amusing for me to watch you avoid addressing what you claim to have read. Since you are clearly not interested in a serious discussion I might as well be amused. Of course, the link is still available in this thread if you chose to look it up. Given the new search capability it would be trivial--now wouldn't it? [QUOTE][b]
And descent with modification, is the theory that all life on this planet originated from a common living ancestor. The organism evolved by genetic mutations within its genome. Speciation, Genu,... kingdom level events occur as organisms adapt as some of these mutation are favored by their changing environment or different genetic populations of the organisms are isolated by this ever changing environment or the formentioned adaptation cause some of the organisms to sexually isolate themselves. and etc.Your side has the habit of mentioning aspects of Neutral theory, macromutation (not to be confused with macroevolution), endosymbiont hypothesis, foreign transposons, horizontal transfer, and etc. [/QUOTE][/b]I already covered this in the other thread, but this is an example of what amuses me. If you disagreed with Futuyama when I first cited the page why didn't you bring it up then? [QUOTE][b]
If you are accepting of these theories, then you agree with my argument. The modern synthesis is a partial theory. [/QUOTE][/b]LOL. You have no shame. [QUOTE][b]
It's like you are attacking my argument that Modern Synthesis is a partial theory by using elements of different theories that if they were correct would infact make Modern Synthesis a partial theory. [/QUOTE][/b]So why are you right about what the Modern Synthesis is and Futuyama wrong?I'm also starting a new thread concerning how you explain that the morphological nested hierarchy is very similar to the genetic nested hierarchy.Cheers,
Larry Handlin