|
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 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evolution of the mammalian jaw was one of the great puzzles in evolution. However, the intermediate forms were found and the problem was solved by the fossil evidence. Evidence that would be completely unexpected if mammals were not related to reptiles. A "transitional" is just one of the variations possible within a genome. You still have the same problem between these "transitionals" you have without them in the picture, if you are trying to get from one form to another by trial and error. It's not possible. It's either a variation built into a creature's genome or the only way for it to evolve from one genome to another is by trial and error through mutations, and that' is not possible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
I've been looking for a generic "evolution vs creationism" debate thread, but they all seem to be about narrow subtopics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I guess that reptiles and mammals are all the same species to you, then. If not then you have to explain why intermediate forms for a transition that was hard to explain just happen to exist at the right point in the fossil record. Because dismissing evidence like that with off-hand comments that fail to address the issues is not honest argument.
quote: The real problem - that we could not understand how this transition could occur is solved by the discovery of intermediate forms. Which - especially when we add in the fact that they are discovered in the right place in the fossil record is strong evidence that the transition did occur. That you declare it impossible is not a problem for us. Science does not care about crank opinions, and nor do I.
quote: Evolution from one genome to another is not only possible, it is a virtual certainty in any population that persists for long enough. Even populations which do not change much in morphology will experience genetic drift.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I guess that reptiles and mammals are all the same species to you, then. If not then you have to explain why intermediate forms for a transition that was hard to explain just happen to exist at the right point in the fossil record. Because dismissing evidence like that with off-hand comments that fail to address the issues is not honest argument. Not just at the right time but also in the right place -- located where predecessors and descendant fossils exist, thus showing opportunity existed. This is why the spatial-temporal matrix is such a powerful validation for the ToE. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... A "transitional" is just one of the variations possible within a genome. ... In the beginning there was only one genome, or as scientists call it ... DNA. Modifications to the DNA make all the variations known for life on earth to exist. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
How could I have left you out of my 2020 Vision thread! I hope that you have a happy new year and that you finally send that cancer packing for good! We need work on our EvC Volkswagon Van and we nominate you to fix it up!
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction . "~Thugpreacha You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith "You may not like it, but the dog bites both ankles."~Tangle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1298 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
This idea that there is a clear "pathway" of evolution from one type of organ to another has got to be a major delusion. These differences are not built into any genome, say the reptilian genome, so that the mammalian genome could have a different kind of heart by evolution from the reptilian, which means that evolution would have to proceed by trial and error, and just try to wrap your mind around that for a few minutes and it will drive you screaming bonkers. There is no way you could ever get a four chambered heart with its own peculiarities by evolution from a three-chambered heart, merely by trial and error. Unless you can point to something in the genome that makes this possible and I know you can't. I tried to think this through for the necessary changes that would have to happen to evolve the mammalian ear from the reptilian. You have to depend on mutations to come up with the right sequence in the right order and that is simply impossible. I'll try to elaborate this more later if you want to contest it. But why do you think this change of heart () is impossible? After all, the 3-chambered reptilian heart is made up of two atrial chambers and a single ventricular chamber. All that is required is for a partition to form across ventricle to split it in two and you have a 4-chambered heart. And this is exactly what we see happen in the last stages of our own heart during foetal development. The problem is that there is nothing in a genome that describes what organs or even a final body plans will look like, which is why analogies like blueprints or computer programs fail as they create this false impression. Instead one way I’ve heard the genome described which is somewhat more fitting is origami, since it is a series of simple folds which on their own don’t mean much, until they all come all come together to create a final form.The genome has protein-coding genes which provide a toolset of different ‘folds’, and regulatory genes which tell cells when these different ‘folds’ are to be performed. And these folds are being performed by many generations of cells, from a single fertilised egg cell to a multicellular adult, a different page of the instructions at a time. From this it doesn’t seem so far-fetched how a colony of cells can change how they distribute themselves to alter organs or body plans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 178 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Faith writes:
Faith, please google on: There is no way you could ever get a four chambered heart with its own peculiarities by evolution from a three-chambered heart, merely by trial and error.hyperdactyly and Francesco A. Lentini Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Please quote whatever it is you want me to see. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Let's get the order of things in perspective here: You had said that evolution has been observed, so I answered that only microevolution has been observed, which is the familiar changes from generation to generation that we see in all sexually reproducing species at least, but that we do not ever see species-to species evolution. In other words I was merely answering your claim that evolution is observed. No it is not. Sorry, but you have rendered all of that completely meaningless by your senseless and contrary-to-reality gross redefinition of "species", making it mean nothing. Remember that by your redefinition, all trilobites are of the same species. No, they're not. Rather, all trilobites are of the same class, which is a higher taxon. Here's the Linnean classification system:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
The trilobite class, Trilobita, breaks down into eleven (11) orders: Agnostida, Asaphida, Corynexochida, Harpetida, Nectaspida, Redlichiida, Lichida, Odontopleurida, Phacopida, Proetida, and Ptychopariida. Each order breaks down into several families; eg, Asaphida contains the six (6) families Anomocaroidea, Asaphoidea, Dikelokephaloidea, Remopleuridoidea, Cyclopygoidea, and Trinucleioidea. Each family breaks down into several genera (plural of genus) and, in turn, each genus breaks down into several species. Since your pontifications about whether species-to-species evolution has been observed are rendered absolutely meaningless by your having rendered the term "species" meaningless. By having destroyed your usage of the term "species" you have rendered all your statements about species to nothing but mindless blatherings of blythering nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah well I object to your paradigm and support my own. What you call "wrong" is just your own prejudice against the different system. I've defended it you know. So you don't like it. The many different kinds of trilobites can be called "subspecies" if you like, but the are all Trilobites. You can't rationally treat what is nothing but an interpretation as if it were hard science.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My point is that if you sincerely try to think through the trial and error required to get from one type of heart to the one you think it evolved to, you will discover that it is simply impossible. Try it for the task of evolving the mammalian ear from the reptilian. Sincerely, I said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
So then since humans are so much more closely related to chimpanzees than the different higher tax of trilobites were related to each other, then your redefinition of species should have you declaring that humans and chimpanzees are of the same species.
The fact remains that you have completely destroyed your own usage of "species", thus destroying any and all statements that you make regarding species. You have made all of them complete and utter nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I haven't "destroyed" anything. That's YOUR interpretation, not mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Wrong! I and the rest of us here use the standard meaning for "species" in order to make meaningful statements about species.
You completely redefined "species" to destroy the ability to make any any meaningful statements at all. When you use the word "species", you are clearly not saying the same thing as everybody else. You are attempting to deceive us into thinking that you are talking about the same thing as we are, which you are not. We are not so easily deceived. Instead of engaging in such gross dishonesty, why don't you just use a different term for your nonsensical idea? I'll even offer you one: "kerplopplop." So whenever you want to use your nonsensical redefinition of "species", just use the word "kerplopplop" instead. So, do we see kerplopplop-to-kerplopplop transitions? No, not that we can tell. But what would a kerplopplop-to-kerplopplop transition look like? Who the hell knows? Only you have any insight into your bag-of-cats mind and I'm sure that even you get lost there. If you are going to discuss scientific concepts, then use proper scientific terminology properly. If you are going to spout nonsense, then come up with and use your own nonsensical words.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024