|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
As for some trilobites rolling up I'll have to think about that but offhand it doesn't suggest more than some difference in the way the appendages are arranged, or whatever they are called. The fact that they all have that same overall shape means structure versus a less fixed sort of characteristic. I just can't look at all those various trilobites without putting them in the same class, even the ones where they look like they've unraveled as it were, because they still have that same basic arramgnement of parts. vs the exact same argument re dogs and cats:
As for cats being more flexible than dogs I'll have to think about that but offhand it doesn't suggest more than some difference in the way the appendages are arranged, or whatever they are called. The fact that they all have that same overall shape means structure versus a less fixed sort of characteristic. I just can't look at all those various dogs and cats without putting them in the same class, even the ones where they look like they've unraveled as it were, because they still have that same basic arramgnement of parts. I note that you changed from trilobites all being one species to all being one class ... in your ever evolving position. This is why we think your criteria are not consistently applied nor adequate to explain your position. Also by your argument above, horses, donkeys and zebras are more similar than trilobites. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Continuing from Message 214 ...
... Yes genes make proteins but particular alleles make particular proteins that form particular traits. Are you going to argue with that? If HOX genes make an arm in one creature but a flipper in another I'm not sure why you'd want to make a big deal out of that. Aside from the erroneous description of how HOX genes work, lets look at the same simplistic criteria of "structural" differences you have delineated for trilobites vs cats and dogs, but instead compare the "structural" differences in DNA between donkeys vs horses and then between humans vs chimps:
quote: Now we look at humans and chimps:
quote: So based on the (simplistic) criteria of the "structural" differences of chromosome numbers, humans are more similar (more closely related) to chimps than donkeys are to horses. Especially when further investigation shows that human chromosome 2 compares structurally to combined chimp chromosomes 2A and 2B, with evidence of fusing remaining in the chromosome 2. Additionally, when we look at the fusion site (above ref continued):
quote: These fusions and the rearrangement of these genes are rather obvious mutations, as the added genetic material was existing in other chromosome structures, so this should not be a problem for your view on new "species that are varieties not species using existing DNA" argument. And I have no problem with these evidence based conclusions ... perhaps you should think about it. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Well, as long as the three lobes are arranged as they are in all the trilobites, yes. Oh look, I found a bunch of modern trilobites for Faith:
quote: Where 2, 3, and 4 are the unmistakable 3 lobes arranged as they are in all the trilobites and the primal characteristic of all trilobites ... Gosh this really overturns centuries of scientific thought. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have been thinking about trilobites since "The Lumper*" led us down this rabbit hole. ... * Among taxonomists there are are sometimes 2 groups, the lumpers and the splitters. The splitters often describe individual species based on a very narrow variation of features, sometime single features and the lumpers tend to disregard narrow variation in features and lump various related populations as a single species. I am not aware of anyone lumping together a whole taxonomic class of organisms like trilobites. ... Except when it comes to human/chimpanzee relationships, then she becomes the consummate splitter: the different lengths of bones become criteria for lack of relationship. Such fun Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Mike,
I am not sure if you want an answer to the question, "what would a transitional fossil look like." Call me silly but it seems you would be implying that if one is qualified that we can then affirm the notion that it actually was one, which would seem like an extremely basic error in reason from my perspective. Yes, it is okay to "qualify" what a transitional may look like, the problem is presented in the question, "does that therefore mean it certainly was one?" To answer that question you have to look at the big picture. Criteria is simple:
For instance, Pelycodus:
quote: Comparing the data from one level to the ones above and below:
Ergo each layer is intermediate between ancestor population/s and descendant population/s. Ergo they are transitional fossils. QED. BTW, that's several hundred transitional fossils in that diagram ...
You see your problem is, mathematics alone can prove we can find things that look like transitionals in any designed things as long as there are enough of them. Problems with the design (or progressive creation) hypothesis: (1) it does not explain how the design is actualized, what is the mechanism of design?(2) it does not explain the nested hierarchy of development (why cars don't qualify) (3) but most important, it does not explain the distribution in the temporal/spatial matrix, why there and not elsewhere/elsewhen? The Theory of Evolution does -- remember that the purpose of a theory in science is to explain all the evidence. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
More funny stuff from Faith:
That Pelycodus thing is such a joke, RAZD, it's nothing but where the creature and its various relatives, children and cousins were buried in the Flood. Curiously there is no evidence of a major mountain topping flood in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, just lots of little annual floods limited to the river flood plain. Just like everywhere else in the world, now and in the past. A single flood does not explain the changes between layers. The Theory of Evolution does explain their location and timing and the gradual transition in form over time ... ALL the evidence. As noted in The Right Side of the News, Message 1295 you have a cognitive bias problem:
quote: Thank you for your detailed response. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There are multiple violations of your proposed hierarchy. For example, there are models of light trucks and cars that share the same engine while two cars from the same model have different engines. Automobiles do not fit into a nested hierarchy. Then there are SUVs that combine truck frame and engine (and so evade car engine emissions restrictions) with car cabs ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No offence meant to you Sir, as I wouldn't mean this in a negative way RAZD but this does seem to be a little bit ignorant of creation geology explanations. There really is in modern times a growing list of evidence which is better explained as coming from a mage catastrophe. In fact the record itself is expected from a flood, especially with 100 million years worth of flat gaps in place in many locations, where there is no erosion at the contact points. In other words there are many areas where there is no Cambrian, or no pre-cambrian. With a flood if the rock was laid down by depositions, a series of them, we would expect this because the rock would not be an "era" but a deposit. I don't want to get into this too much but there is the B.E.D.S model which a flood explains better, as well as paraconformities. Also recent experiments on bloat-and-float fossils indicate that local floods wouldn't be sufficient to counter the buoyancy from depositional gases in large critters. It would seem absurd to say that such a huge hydraulic force would not leave giant sediment hauls. It also explains many strange geomorphological features such as water-gaps and planation. Erosional remnants are also well explained given a famous one we know happened because of an ice-age flood. (steamboat inselberg) Huge remnants such as devil's tower tend to change in their explanations and timing. We also have the rates of erosion which just don't match millions of years. I am not intending to elephant-hurl this all at you, I just think that if you are going to give a fairly quick argument/summary, for "not a flood" it's also fair for me to summarise. The problems with the creationist "explanation" for a world wide mountain topping flood are many fold, not least is the problem of timing -- there is no evidence of a single one time flood everywhere around the world and pole to pole. It's the temporal/spatial matrix again. The same problem creationists have with intermediate/transitional fossil "explanations" like design and progressive creation. But an IDologist shouldn't be concerned with biblical stories, unless of course it is just a dodge ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It makes the trilobite one Kind ... This is your main impetus: to create a fictional "kind" that appears nowhere in the bible (or other religious documents), for the sole purpose of making a frivolous line of argument based purely on your ego and your insistence on keeping each "kind" crammed into one "species" ... which in your usage bears no relationship to the scientific biological definitions of species. The fact that the same criteria you use to force this argument can be applied with equal validity to other families of plants, animals, and other organisms is ignored as bias. Keep the comedy rolling. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes, one species or one Kind, that's how I see all those trilobites climbing up the fossil record for the supposed hundreds of millions of years represented there, and it is the sameness of their body structure that enables me to classify them that way. And where did I call it bias to classify other creatures the same way: The problem you have is that you refuse and ignore classifying other creatures the same way:
... the Kind or species is identified by the body structure. ... Then dogs and cats are a "Kind or species (faith usage)" and chimps and humans a "Kind or species (faith usage)" ... where "species (faith usage)" means some original fantasy "species genome" and NOT species as used in biology, science, reality. So funny to watch you wiggle around the actual evidence. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I don't care what you've "seen," the definitions I gave are my definitions. As usual this "discussion" has become a farce. Nevertheless for a while I will resist the impulse to leave this popstand and go on Inactive because the stupidities and misrepresentations do keep temping me back. And it is your fault that the discussion has become a farce -- you have made it so with your loose and variable "definitions" that defy reason, evidence and consistency. This is the result of your misusing words with known consistent standard definitions to mean something else that is neither standard nor consistent. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for further discussion on the need to use proper definitions of technical terms. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You are misusing the terms I use. ... How can that be when I specifically reference your usage -- here it is again:
quote: Note that "species (faith usage)" specifically refers to your fantasy definition of species and your inconsistent usage thereof. It appears that you define "species (faith usage)" for trilobites but then not use that definition anywhere else.
You do not get to use my terms to establish your own definitions and impute them to me. And yet they are your definitions, specifically referenced as such. You have caused the discussion to devolve into a farce, by insisting on your attempt to redefine words and then use your daffynition inconsistently.
Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... They do complicated things with their spines ... Trilobites have spines? Yes, but not like vertebrate spines ...
quote: See link for descriptions of 19 species, 7 with no spines. Spine locations and number vary considerably from head to toe on those 12 species with spines, as do the number of ribs. For instance:
quote: The spines of trilobites have nothing to do with their relative ability to curl up like a sow bug. The spines, when present, can be on the head (Cephalon), thorax, or tail (Pygidium ) and of varying lengths.
As for chimps etc I already said why I consider their body builds to be too different from the human. ... Note the three lobes are longitudinal not transverse. Transverse segments - ribs - vary in number from species to species. This alone makes them more different one to another than are chimps and humans ... if you use the same criteria for classifying the "faith species" (purportedly set by the "faith genome") for trilobites and humans and chimps. And that is the crux of why your classifications are a farce. As for the topic: What would a transitional fossil look like? Without discussing the use or misuse of "species" ...
ie -- a transitional fossil would be intermediate in form (traits/characteristics) between an ancestral population and a descendant population. Derived traits are traits that have evolved from ancestral traits.
quote: quote: Finally, coming back to trilobites ...
quote: Location in the temporal/spacial matrix is established by the "different stratigraphical ranges" and the "biogeographic data" linking the various fossils in time and space. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added topic bitby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024