Summations Only

Welcome to this fray Eliyahu,But I have to wonder how well\ill prepared you are to answer questions raised by those that reply to your (albeit shortened) lengthy cut and paste from a website of questionable value given that you have not provided us with your understanding of these matters ...Ignorance is not an argument, Eliyahu, nor is being deluded by others, but these are conditions that are curable:
An introduction to evolution - Understanding EvolutionA good place to start for remedial education in evolution. Pasting PRATTs copied from a creationist website without researching to see if they are PRATTs is intellectual dishonesty. Pasting material from a source not your own without citation of your source is plagarism, another form of dishonesty.Fossils are like snap shots of prehistory. If you walked across the US and took a picture each day of you in your then current location, and plotted them on a map, you would see that you just "pop up suddenly" in different places without any link to previous locations. So why are no two fossils identical? And the evidence for punctuated equilibrium.Do you know that not all fossil records behave according to punctuated equilibrium?web.archive.org/web/19990203140657/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html

quote:

---

EVOLUTION AT SEA COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES
Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

​

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

​

Punctuated equilibrium holds that new species may arise fairly quickly (over thousands instead of millions of years) from small animal populations that somehow become isolated. Intermediate stages are too fleeting to become fixed in the fossil record--thus the conspicuous gaps or so-called missing links. (Darwin blamed the "imperfection in the geological record" for the gaps in the fossil record.)

​

But in the near-perfect record exhibited by the forams studied at FSU, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work. The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.

---

oops.When punctuated equilibrium occurs there is an explanation for it, but it isn't a universal occurrence.A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus

quote:

---

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

oops again eh?So if there IS evidence of actual evolution actually taking place, then why are there instances of punctuated equilibrium? Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium

quote:

---

One of the problems that creationists seem to have with evolution is how new species can disburse and displace existing species. This is especially true for the punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") model of Gould and Eldridge. This article is to discuss the dispersal aspects of small populations into a new environment, removing the issue of new species evolution from the discussion.

​

Bird species introduced into North America, both intentionally and accidentally, have shown different levels of dispersal across the continent. In some cases we know that they had only small initial populations located in one place, the point of release. We also know that they were not here before being introduced. Thus such species are good models for new species dispersal behavior into a new environment.

​

(1) European House Sparrow

​

From only 50 sparrows to continent wide in less than 150 years (maximum - probably more like 50 years).

​

(2) European Starling

​

From only 50 starlings to continent wide in less than 50 years.

​

(3) English Skylark

​

Those skylarks did not survive. Others introduced to Vancouver Island (BC, Canada) in the 1900's have established a resident population on the island.

​

(4) Crested Myna

​

Now getting down to the point where sightings are rare and they are expected to die out soon -- the last count only found two birds. One of the reasons for the decline is competition with the European Starlings: the decline started in the 1930's and that was about when the Starlings showed up.

​

(5) Chukar

​

Numbers and range expanding in spite of being hunted.

​

(6) Budgerigar

​

Peaked and now in decline

​

(7) Rose-ringed Parakeets

​

Established in 3 different locations and apparently growing in one of them.

​

Conclusions

​

Thus we see two extremely successful dispersions and others of limited success and finally some that succeeded only to lose out to later competition. Obviously not all introductions are successful, and just as obviously not all newly evolved species will win out in similar circumstances.

​

Native species are being impacted by the "successful" introductions (Starlings and House Sparrows) but they are still viable at this time (probably most impacted is the Eastern Bluebird). There was no eco-niche vacuum for the newcomers to fill and there was competition, but they have been able to disperse across the continent.

​

Any one of these would have appeared "suddenly" and "without any transitions" in the fossil record.

​

(Once a new species has evolved it could disperse in much the same way, and if they evolved in isolation in a small area or an area that didn't make fossils then there would be no record of any transitions)

---

So punctuated equilibrium does not occur all the time and when it does it is not a problem for evolution to explain.Edited by RAZD, : pratts: An Index to Creationist ClaimsEdited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : subT

Really?It doesn't matter what anyone says then, Faith -- especially you and your fantasies about the Grand Canyon and the age of the earth ... So it's okay if we "misrepresent" your statements to make counter arguments because "that's a perfectly valid" way to use quotes.And you claim to be honest, but scream about not being properly understood.Really?

But it is and you know it. But if you had real evidence for those different conclusions then you wouldn't need to misrepresent what they say, you could just use the evidence. The best one could claim that Eliyahu got from the quotes that he likely got from some other creationist site ... is confusion. Certainly anyone who states that Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles is confused at best, possibly ignorant or deluded regarding the actual papers (getting the quote mines second hand) or at worse deranged or just plain lying. What a surprise. Just jump in with judgmental spouting, and don't bother with facts ... they just get in the way, yes? Then you don't need to quote anyone -- just make your own observations.But to imply that people are saying something other than what they mean is ignorant defamation of character. It's dishonest Faith, very dishonest. And you don't like it do you? Why do you think anyone would like being misrepresented? When do you think misrepresentation becomes honest? Really?Meaning does matter doesn't it Faith? Other than what you've said does not explain the evidence and is based on outright fantasy?Yes, you are right that nobody has made any scientific conclusions based on your "observations" -- because they have no objective empirical basis. GIGO No Faith, the point is that any misrepresentation is dishonest. It doesn't matter how much you sugar coat it for yourself, it is still dishonest.You have the gall to say that dishonesty is acceptable ... when creationists do it ...

What is your actual source for the quotes -- did you get them off a creationist website\source or did you get them directly from the articles cited?If the former then you don't really know if you are giving exact quotes, and if the later than you are committing the sin of omission. Curiously we are used to them -- both in their proper context and in their misuse by creationists. several points here:

• you are wrong about contradicting Darwin, as Dr A has pointed out already, and
• Darwin is not evolution, his theory of origin of species by natural selection is but a part of the overall study of evolution
• it's 2014 and it has been a while since Darwin wrote his book - do you think science is that stagnant?
• Darwin was wrong about some things, like the way hereditary traits were acquired and passed
• Darwin being wrong does not mean that evolution is not and has not occurred

It appears that not only have you not read the articles in question, but that you haven't read Darwin's book as well. It appears that you are woefully ignorant of evolution.I could go on, but it should not be necessary.Suffice it to say that any biologist that you mention this to will most likely laugh at your pompous ignorance. Because they know this claim is false, so perhaps your time would be better spent actually learning what evolution is about -- that is the way you fix ignorance.Meanwhile Message 5 is still unanswered.Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : Fossil is the proper spelling not fossile btw

So now you are going to insult me rather than deal with the points I made -- how typically dishonest creationistic of you. My opinion of you just dropped. A lot. Look long and hard at that last one -- when you hold an opinion or belief that is contradicted by actual evidence then that is the what you are choosing to be.You might also look at The first defense is to attack the messenger.Sadly, for you, ad hominems are not refutations.Your apparent inability to answer my first post Message 5 means that you do not know how refutation works in science. Denial is not refutation, ignoring evidence is not refutation, insulting people is not refutation.Edited by RAZD, : ...

Hm, I note that Message 5 is still unanswered but you reply to this ... why is that? Inability to argue real science? Or too much cognitive dissonance? Cute. But your problem remains, because I have read the articles and I do KNOW what they said and why, and that they in no way demonstrate that evolution is not or has not occurred. There is no dissonance here, nor conflict with my worldview -- which you do not know but have to make up stuff about -- another form of lying. Ah, the wormy equivocation starts already. You cite them as evidence, you quote them out of context, and you say that based on those statements you conclude that evolution did not occur, you do not provide any real evidence other than quotes which you cherry pick to suit your a priori conclusion.If you aren't claiming that "Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles" then your argument is a spurious, and grabbed out of the air non sequitur ...So which is it?Meanwhile Message 5 still unanswered. Fail.Edited by RAZD, : +

That you could insult people and expect to be treated differently? How vain indeed.What a precocious precious little hissy fit. By your works are you known. How long before you don't talk to anyone? Is that what you are looking for?LOL Message 5 is still unanswered ... if you truly had an argument that was more than a sad compilation of old discredited misrepresentation quotemines then this post should have elicited your first response to actually show it is in error, where and why, and you haven't done that.Your failure\inability to respond to Message 5 is more telling than anything you have posted. This ... this of course ignores the third very real possibility that what I posted was in fact evidence of evolution occurring in the past and reasons for punk-eek appearing suddenly.Your apparent inability to conceive let alone consider this third possibility shows a shallow intellectualism. Sad.If this is the best level of refutation you are capable of, then your argument is entirely gutted by your failure of ability to support it.Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : +

I saw that. It is not an answer, it is denial and willful ignorance coupled with delusion. yeah we got a treasure with this one. and then he whines about Dr A.

Indeed.Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

quote:

---

Quote 26

​

"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)

​

Is [the quote-miner] Canadian? This quote is from a Canadian newsmagazine, and would be relatively obscure outside of Canada. The quote has clipped off part of the last sentence, and some of the punctuation has changed:

​

A major problem in proving the theory has been the "fossil record," the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead, species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God as described in the Bible.

​

Once again, this seems to be a glossing over of the controversy surrounding Punctuated Equilibrium. Given that many in the news media seem to have a superficial understanding of science, I'm not inclined to take the technical aspects of a news article about the evolution-creation controversy seriously, especially when I see a gem like this:

​

Essentially, Darwin stated that a species evolved by the random mutation of genes, which then produced variants of the original species.

​

The claim that Darwin knew about genes and mutation is news to me, as I'm sure it is to a lot of people. But Czarnecki does raise an interesting point. Discussing how some people view the difference between fact and theory, he writes:

​

Such a pedagogical approach, though initiated with the best of intentions, strips the corpus of scientific knowledge down to certain facts that can be perceived by the five senses with the aid of technology; everything else is factually suspect because it cannot be directly "observed" - so much for paleontology (fossil study) and all of nuclear physics.

​

And a few sentences later:

​

What about history? Past events cannot be observed, records of them are just fallible memories, words - just like the Bible, in fact.

​

- Jon (Augray) Barber

---

MacLeans is not a peer reviewed scientific journal last time I checked ... and we know that Mr Czarnecki is no real scientist because he talks about "proving the theory" ...Something we can also tell by reading The Other Darwin, Walrus Magazine, September 2008 because of the poor understanding of evolution exhibited in that article, but one (sadly) that is typical of journalists and other scientifically under-literate people.AND: one of the ways that we can tell that intellectually dishonest people like I-lie-to-you is that they quote the version shown above which is from a creationist source rather than the actual version from the actual article.Edited by RAZD, : lies that liars tellEdited by RAZD, : +

No she is saying that your use is a misrepresentation that portrays their meaning in a false way -- that your usage is a lie. One hopes you realize that no one person personifies the science of evolution and that using quotes is making the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. And that when you obfuscate and ignore their true meaning that your usage of such authority is invalid.It seems you are incapable of making any argument but quote-mining misrepresentations -- why is that? Lack of real evidence? or just too lazy.

Curiously stasis is predicted by evolution, but I have to wonder if you know what stasis really means (on top of your ignorance of how evolution works). The selection process means that those that have better adaptation to an ecology will have higher reproductive and survival success and their traits will become predominant in the breeding population if there are no changes to the ecological pressures.Thus in a stable ecology selection will occur against detrimental changes (that make individuals less fit) and for stasis (for the average population traits being reproduced).Even during stasis the process of evolution continues, and this will still allow neutral traits to develop and be dispersed within the breeding population -- new traits that are not under any selection process but which increase the diversity of the breeding population -- traits that may enable individuals to make use of a wider range of ecologies in the surrounding areas.As the population breeds, normally with more offspring than necessary to replace deaths, there will be pressure for individuals to move into surrounding ecologies to expand the breeding population further. This virtually ensures that some individuals will move into less optimum ecologies where selection pressure will be different than the main body of the breeding population.This is where "punctuation" comes into the picture. Sudden in geological timescales of course. You would not recognize it as sudden if you were living at the time and observing it, but then I don't expect you understand this either. This too is false. There may be a gap but the new species will be similar in many respects to the previous population/s. Again fossils are like snapshots rather than motion pictures.When we look at fossils like the Therapsids we not only see a progression from reptile jaw and ear to mammal jaw and ear, we see several intermediate forms where the jaw is double jointed -- one at the reptile location and one at the new mammal location. Functional intermediates.

quote:

---

The reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. ...

​

... it can be clearly seen in a remarkable series of fossils from the Triassic therapsids. The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian: ...

​

In a slightly later group, known as the ictidosaurians, the mammalian part of the double jaw joint seen in Probainognathus was strengthened, while the old reptilian part was beginning to become reduced in size. In describing a member of this group known as Diarthrognathus, paleontologists Colbert and Morales point out: "The most interesting and fascinating point in the morphology of the ictidosaurians (at least, as seen in Diarthrognathus) was the double jaw articulation. In this animal, not only was the ancient reptilian joint between a reduced quadrate and articular still present, but also the new mammalian joint between the squamosal and dentary bones had come into functional being. ...

​

Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. ...

---

This is the process of evolution demonstrated in spades in the fossil record.Any bets whether you will reply ... similar to your failed reply to Message 5?Amusingly it doesn't matter whether you have the intellectual honesty to reply to the post rather than attack the messenger -- people reading this thread will know.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

You are welcome to your opinion, however opinion has shown a very poor record of affecting reality in any way.Actually in science we would rely on what the evidence shows and how the evidence is best explained by theory -- and not on what any one person says.Curiously I did this in Message 5 which you have ignored.The fact that you don't seem to know this, shows a rather sad scientific illiteracy on your part. Actually you haven't: in at least one instance I KNOW that you used a creationist site for a quote and not the original source because they are different.You also do not quote the full statements that show the complete meaning -- you do know what a lie of omission is don't you?Cherry picking statements does not prove anything other than that you can copy sentences from other people instead of thinking for yourself.Evidence is what counts in science. But you have been shown proof of your lies. Denial does not make them go away. Repeating your false assertions does not make them any more valid. For instance this: Is a lie because Mr Czarnecki is not a scientist, neither in evolution or in paleontology: he is a journalist. Nor is MacLeans a scientific journal or even a rag magazine of any intellectual merit.And you don't even have a proper quote of his article. Because you didn't read it did you? If you have a reasoned argument then you don't NEED to take anyone out of context to support it. If this is the ONLY evidence you have then your argument is not reasoned but invented from whole cloth.And when I do present you with reasoned argument in response you reply by saying reasoned intellectually mature statements like this: Rather than reply with reasoned argument to refute my post you insult the messenger, and now you say I am being childish.This is because you apparently are scientifically unequipped and intellectually unprepared to refute the information on a scientific basis with a reasoned argument.Amusingly I note that this is your first foray into the science forums on this site, and I suggest that maybe you either LEARN some science or go back to bible study.Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : ..

That and calling people liars and fakes.Looks like the quiver is empty of any real substance.

Or running scared from facing reality.

Refuted in Message 5. Yawn.You apparently are incapable of either replying to, or understanding, this.Repeating your assertion does not make it any more valid. It just make you delusional.Deal with the evidence that refutes your argument or accept that it is refuted ...... or continue to babble in the corner.