Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Grammar
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 105 (46773)
07-21-2003 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-21-2003 6:15 PM


Mike,
I have been listening to John Mackay's (geologist) and his evidence is very good, the fossils are a problem for me, as he explained there are a huge amount of fossils that look exactly the same as animals today, frogs, starfish, sharks, he has found many fossils that have missed the 'evolutionary boat' is this a major problem? I think it is but I'm no expert, whats your view?
This is a misrepresentation. To illustrate, can you show me a fossil species of starfish from the Mesozoic that is alive today? What about a frog, or shark even? What about the creationist staple, the coelacanth? In truth there are coelacanth fossils, but not the living ones today. In fact Latimeria chalumnae has an extra pair of ventral fins plus a double tail. An analogy would be creationists of 70 million years in the future saying that our four legged cow is identical to their six legged bovines!
This question needs tackling on two levels, firstly, I assume you are generally familiar with the classification system? As you probably know, it is a heirarchical system that has big groups full of smaller & smaller subsets. Take frogs, for example. They belong to Order Anura (along with toads). An Order is a fairly high level taxa, the equivalent to Therapsida, containing monsters such as T.Rex, Velociraptor, Allosaurus, etc. Or the Primates, containing mammals as diverse as humans, bush babies, lemurs, & marmosets, for example. Now, the higher the level of taxa, the longer you can expect members of that taxa to have hung around, since a high level taxa has MANY smaller taxonomic levels within it, & therefore has a greater taxonomic survivability than smaller taxa. Order Anura contains families, genus', & species. What could we reasonably expect of the pattern of survivability of different taxonomic levels, then? Families are the larger of the taxonomic scales (that contain genus' & species), so we could reasonably expect fossil members of Anuran families to go back further than the genus or species level. That is what we see. There isn't a single genus or species living today that is represented in the Mesozoic (251-65 mya), yet families are. So to say frogs are found unchanged in the fossil record is disingenuous. The further you go back the more basal Order Anura becomes, which is by itself strong evidence of evolution. In fact this is a trend in the fossil record. Creationists always claim that taxa appear with no precursors (with justification), yet fail to take into account that when they do appear, they are very primitive versions of what they eventually become. Take Order Carnivora, for example, containing the canines & felines. Today it's fairly easy to tell any one canine skeleton from any one feline. The further you go back, however, the features that makes felines felines, & canines canines become more & more less pronounced. But I digress....
To put it another way, Order Anura may survive, but many smaller sub-groups do not, & are even replaced by newly evolving organisms that are different enough to be placed in a new genus, yet are still frogs or toads by definition!!
Secondly, why would an organism change in morphology over time? Very simply, because their environment does. Imagine an organism that isn't well adapted to it's environment. It will suffer as many (roughly) mutations as an organism that is well adapted to it's environment. The difference being that all mutations that affect the well adapted organism will be deleterious (because they upset the optimal morphology/chemistry), but the substandard organism is going to get some of it's mutations be beneficial (because there is room for improvement). There come a point where our maladapted organism becomes well adapted, & any further mutations are selected against. This is called stabilising selection. Hence, if an environment doesn't change appreciably as far as our organism is concerned, it will remain in "stasis".
Hope this helped.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-21-2003 6:15 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 07-21-2003 8:34 PM mark24 has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 105 (46778)
07-21-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
07-21-2003 7:51 PM


Mark I thankyou for this insight, I'm a 'layperson' so I didn't get all of that. You obviously know a lot more than me about this so bare with me.
'Today it's fairly easy to tell any one canine skeleton from any one feline. The further you go back, however, the features that makes felines felines, & canines canines become more & more less pronounced.'
so am I right in thinking this suggests adating and evolving? (I know I'm stupid!)
'Hence, if an environment doesn't change appreciably as far as our organism is concerned, it will remain in "stasis". '
Is this the explanation for unchanging animals? I know you put them in periods but lets just say I didn't study .lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 07-21-2003 7:51 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 07-21-2003 8:55 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 18 of 105 (46781)
07-21-2003 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
07-21-2003 8:34 PM


Mike,
MarkToday it's fairly easy to tell any one canine skeleton from any one feline. The further you go back, however, the features that makes felines felines, & canines canines become more & more less pronounced.'
Mike: so am I right in thinking this suggests adating and evolving? (I know I'm stupid!)
Yes, it suggests divergence from a common ancestor.
Mark: Hence, if an environment doesn't change appreciably as far as our organism is concerned, it will remain in "stasis". '
Mike: Is this the explanation for unchanging animals? I know you put them in periods but lets just say I didn't study, lol
Yes, it's a bit more complicated than that, but is generally true. Organisms may show habitat loyalty, ie. they move to an environment that is what they are comfortable with, rather than staying in a changing environment, thus doing away with the necessity of that nasty evolution business. Furthermore, there is neutral drift, sexual selection etc. to take account of, which is why it's so hard to stop real change, but the basic body plans of various taxa are easily preserved, in the same way a peacock has evolved so much by sexual selection, (but is still a member of Class Aves) rather than natural selection (strictly speaking), it's natural habitat probably hasn't changed much at all. But if the girly birds want a bigger fan tail, then that's what will be selected for!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 07-21-2003 8:34 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 07-21-2003 9:02 PM mark24 has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 105 (46782)
07-21-2003 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mark24
07-21-2003 8:55 PM


You have explained well about the animals not changing.
Do you know if their is fossils that you can actually put together and say 'look here is a fossil of a frog (for arguments sake) and here is a fossil of it's ancestor? (it's best to speak to me in simple terms as I'm a simple chap. lol) Or am I asking for too much info from fossils?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 07-21-2003 8:55 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 07-21-2003 9:50 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2003 4:04 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 105 (46784)
07-21-2003 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
07-21-2003 9:02 PM


Mike,
Do you know if their is fossils that you can actually put together and say 'look here is a fossil of a frog (for arguments sake) and here is a fossil of it's ancestor? (it's best to speak to me in simple terms as I'm a simple chap. lol) Or am I asking for too much info from fossils?
What you are describing are intermedate & transitional fossils. I had a looked up a site which had some great photos of the reptile-mammal transition, but my computer froze & I couldn't find the same site after that. grrrr. Anyway, this graphic shows the essence of what was in my lost url. This particularly shows the transition from a reptilian middle ear to a mammalian one, your hammer anvil & stirrup.
"Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)"
With exceptions, the fossil record is generally too patchy to get a slow transitional series between one taxa & another. The reptiles to mammals are an exception. I don't think cetaceans (whales) are tooooo bad, nor are the fish-tetrapods.
That said, there are other intermediate fossils like Archaeopteryx lithographica which are clearly part way between reptiles & birds.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 07-21-2003 9:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 105 (46795)
07-21-2003 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
07-21-2003 7:18 PM


So, Mike, do you think all the dating methods we have for dating rock are wrong? Based upon what do you believe this?
Do you think that the speed of light is different now than it was in the past, so the light from distant galaxies that Astronomers observe is somehow coming to us at a different (faster) speed than the speed that light travels here on Earth? Based upon what do you believe this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 07-21-2003 7:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 105 (46816)
07-22-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
07-21-2003 9:02 PM


Transitions
I hope this is not going into too much detail.
Can we take two fossils of different species and say that one is the ancestor of another ?
Well for a start we can't say that the individual animals were ancestor and descendant. The best we can manage is that the species are related as ancestor and descendant.
Often we don't have the fine-grained record that would allow us to say even that the species of the later fossil is the descendant of the older fossil. Sometimes we do, but usually we don't.
So usually we are restricted to saying that the older fossil is either the ancestral species or closely related to the ancestral species of the more recent fossil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 07-21-2003 9:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 105 (46870)
07-22-2003 10:18 AM


Thanks for that Paul, you put yourself out.
You mentioned some interesting stuff BUT the main thing I noticed was your honesty. (no big claims)just the info.
As for your question Schrafinator,I do think the faraway universe was ageing faster and faster and we were going slower. That subject fascinates me, I've forgot the name of this book which is a theory about this , I'll try and look for it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2003 11:12 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 25 by nator, posted 07-22-2003 11:21 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 07-22-2003 12:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 105 (46883)
07-22-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 10:18 AM


Unfortunately Mike, any idea of changing light speed is certainly wrong over at least the time since supernova 1987a occured or about 170,000 years.
Any other idea of changing light speed is either confined to the initial moments of the universe and/or is wild eyed speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 10:18 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 105 (46886)
07-22-2003 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 10:18 AM


What about the dating methods for rocks, Mike?
Radioacrive decay rates are also different now, but all in different ways to make them all agree. What about the correlation with other dating methods like ice cores?
I mean, why would God make all these many, many different lines of evidence all point towards an ancient Earth?
Why would he make it such that the lines of evidence all point towars the same age for the Earth, as well?
Is God trying to trick us into thinking the Earth is old? If not, then why did he make every evidence we have point towards an old Earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 10:18 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 7:48 PM nator has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 105 (46896)
07-22-2003 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 10:18 AM


Mike,
What about this fantastic concordance between dating methods?
Why such agreement between dating methods with different isotopes? Do you really ascribe such things to coincidence?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 10:18 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 105 (46939)
07-22-2003 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nator
07-22-2003 11:21 AM


'Is God trying to trick us into thinking the Earth is old? If not, then why did he make every evidence we have point towards an old Earth? '
Not every evidence, just ask creation scientists that!
'I mean, why would God make all these many, many different lines of evidence all point towards an ancient Earth?'
Or could you be wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 07-22-2003 11:21 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 07-22-2003 7:58 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2003 3:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 105 (46941)
07-22-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 7:48 PM


Mike,
Not every evidence, just ask creation scientists that!
Well, there's a data filled retort!
Your creation scientists don't use rulers to measure things. They are too prone to human error, I myself have made a mistake using a ruler & certainly won't be using one again. I will of course ignore the vast number of corroborating results made with rulers & declare them unfit for their intended use against all evidence to the contrary on the basis of a few poor results.
Sound familiar, anyone?
If you try to answer these questions in here, Mike, you'll see you have been spun a yarn just as big the "why-you-should-not-use-a-ruler" ruse, above.
What about this fantastic concordance between dating methods?
Good luck!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 7:48 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:01 PM mark24 has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 105 (46943)
07-22-2003 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
07-22-2003 7:58 PM


'Well, there's a data filled retort!'
Well should I believe an evolution scientist over a creation one, and if so why? They're both scientists, ridiculing me is not going to make me believe your version when there is a perfectly and logically different interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 07-22-2003 7:58 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 07-22-2003 8:34 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 31 by zephyr, posted 07-22-2003 8:39 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 36 by John, posted 07-22-2003 9:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 30 of 105 (46947)
07-22-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
07-22-2003 8:01 PM


Mike,
'Well, there's a data filled retort!'
Well should I believe an evolution scientist over a creation one, and if so why?
The point being, Mikey, my boy, is that you swept away Schrafs comments with absolutely jack shit. You didn't attempt to respond, your answer was essentially, "well, there are cleverer people than me who disagree with you"!!!
Not very convincing.
For the third time:
What about this fantastic concordance between dating methods?
Yours, & the creationist position in general is untenable if it cannot respond to corroborative data such as this. Buzsaw has ejected from his third thread because of his inability to deal with contradictory evidence. Question is, are you going to ignore it & pretend it isn't there like he did, or are you going to factor it into your thinking?
I've put a lot of thought & time into providing responses for you earlier in this thread, it's only fair you respond in kind. It's what debate is about, after all.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 8:41 PM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024