|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Remedial Evolution: seekingfirstthekingdom and RAZD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seekingfirstthekingdom Member (Idle past 5371 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
quote:mammal.amphibian.bird.reptile. the genetic boundary is obvious. quote:lol?you are misrepresenting my position.read again what ive said.the extent of what you are claiming is the issue that i have. the proof that you have of kinds changing from one to another are tenuous "links" in the fossil record.the natural world shows no crossover.except the coelcacanth.right? ![]() once again you are making assertions that we are transitional.ill ask you how much ape like material was found in egyptian pharoahs who were buried some 3000 odd years ago?of course even a tiny amount would strongly support the theory we are transitional.they were very well preserved and i understand 3000 years is only a tiny amount of time compared to the many tens of thousands of years you claim humankind to have existed.but surely it would show something. quote:no evidence of reptile to bird.its still a bird. quote:you ve posted hoaxes on that page?im not sure how that supports your position?please pick a specific one that you feel supports the theory the most. quote:i will have a read.are you picking this case as the strongest for changes in kind? can you clarify please that you say there has been no transition from reptile to bird?and ill will be back in a few weeks.i will come back into town and have a read up on foraminfera evolution.plus try to expand on habilis.its hard finding peer reviewed material that supports my assertion its a chimp.i might have to concede.however look at its size(3.5 feet) the cranial capacity,the puny amount of fossils uncovered and the possibilty that a chimp whoops i mean handyman that small could take down anything decently sized.where im going has no internet access but ill be back.take care. ![]() Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 1926 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Ignore coyote's post, it will be deleted by moderators as this is a great debate thread. Perhaps what I posted could be refuted before it is deleted? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
do you have a shorter name to use? S1tk for instance?
... the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis. The problem I have with this claim is convergent evolution. Consider these fellas:
Berkeley - evolution 101:
quote: From this (and many other examples) I would conclude that there is no barrier that prevents a marsupial from evolving to be virtually identical in behavior, size, appearance, etc, to a placental mammal. When you look at the fossil record the ancestors of these animals are less similar than these two, so they have been evolving separately to be similar towards a common end. added by edit: The alternative is that all mammals back to the first mammal are one "kind" - thus including not only duckbilled platypus, kangaroos, koala bears and echidna, but elephants, whales, giraffes, and mole rats ... to say nothing of humans. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : abe last P 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 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk (if you don't mind my using that abbreviation)
mammal.amphibian.bird.reptile. the genetic boundary is obvious. ummm, no it isn't. Are therapsids mammals or reptiles? Is archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur? Are dinosaurs reptiles? Is Tiktaalik rosea a fish or an amphibian?
you are misrepresenting my position No, it is that I don't understand it. If you agree that all life shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation then we can agree that evolution exists, and that all life forms evolve. Then we can move on to the question/s of the descent of daughter populations from common parent populations, and where\when this pattern of common descent, with modification, first starts.
the natural world shows no crossover.except the coelcacanth.right? What is a "cross-over" and how is the coelacanth one?
the proof that you have of kinds changing from one to another are tenuous "links" in the fossil record. Again, this is a meaningless statement without a definition of "kinds" that holds up to the evidence. Populations descend from previous populations, with modification as they inherit different mutations, and different ecologies select for different adaptation of organisms to the ecologies. All such populations will necessarily be of the same type\group\form\kind\etc as their parent populations. They evolve as they descend, so the descendants are different from the ancestors, but mammals don't become birds (they become bats, another example of convergent evolution). Even the coelacanths have evolved over the last 65 million years. So now we are talking about transitions rather than your amazing magic yeast? That's called moving the goalposts when you cannot answer the questions. added by edit:
mammal. ... As noted above (after edit) this includes an extremely large and diverse group of organisms, including man. Can you tell be what kind of time period was necessary to generate this diversity? The first mammal (or protomammal) in the fossil record is from the transition from synapsid to therapsid:
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIESquote: This is where the ear evolved from a single bone attached to a multi-bone jaw into a structure composed of three bones separated from a single bone jaw, characteristic of all mammals. The series of transitional fossils includes several that have two jaw joint, both the old reptile joint and the new mammal joint, while the various bones change in dimensions and positions. This restructuring was already well underway by the mid-Permian Period, some 271 to 260 million years ago. Note that therapsids predate dinosaurs quote: Also see: Palaeos: Page not foundand Palaeos: Page not found From an excellent interactive website that you can search up and down the evolutionary path from synapsid to modern mammal Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added end info 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 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
continuing
once again you are making assertions that we are transitional.ill ask you how much ape like material was found in egyptian pharoahs who were buried some 3000 odd years ago?of course even a tiny amount would strongly support the theory we are transitional.they were very well preserved and i understand 3000 years is only a tiny amount of time compared to the many tens of thousands of years you claim humankind to have existed.but surely it would show something. Actually I'll go you better. We have DNA from H. neanderthalis and from Cro-Magnon age H. sapiens that can be compared with ape DNA. The consensus is that H. sapiens are more closely related to H. neanderthalis than to chimps, but that we are still some 95% similar to apes DNA and that H. neanderthalis branched from the hominid line some time after the hominid line branched from the chimp line. That means we are 95% chimp now. We are likely closer to the common ancestor to both chimps and humans, as the DNA would change in both lineages, each different from that ancestor population in different ways.
(added by edit?) ill ... try to expand on habilis.its hard finding peer reviewed material that supports my assertion its a chimp.i might have to concede.however look at its size(3.5 feet) the cranial capacity,the puny amount of fossils uncovered and the possibilty that a chimp whoops i mean handyman that small could take down anything decently sized. It's the tools that provide the leverage. Have you seen any of the documentation of chimps using weapons to hunt? I also remember seeing an old video of a band of chimps attacking a (mock for the purpose of the experiment) tiger with sticks, taking turns to beat it. You also need to study "cursorial hunting" Persistence hunting - Wikipedia
quote: Dogs (whoops I mean wolves) use this method of hunting. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added in response to added material 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 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk, do you know what the term "gish gallop" means? It means piling on a bunch of questions and assertions without answering the ones you have to answer for YOUR position to be valid.
no evidence of reptile to bird.its still a bird. The greenish warblers are evidence of the minimal amount of evolution necessary to achieve reproductive isolation, so it was not intended to show the transition from reptile to bird. You have moved the goalposts again. The transition from reptile to bird first goes through the transition from reptile to dinosaurs, and then one branch of the dinosaurs, the therapods, evolves into birds (some people consider birds to be living dinosaurs). You do realize, don't you, that the evolution of feathers by dinosaurs is becoming increasingly well known as more and more fossils of dinosaurs with feathers are found? Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia
quote: The early feathers are symmetrical, while modern bird feathers have become asymmetrical as this slight change provides improved flight characteristics.
and http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/featdino.html or just google "feathered dinosaur" We now know that feathers evolved long before the first flying therapod, and only later were they adapted to flight.
(added by edit?) can you clarify please that you say there has been no transition from reptile to bird? Not at all what I said, the transition from reptile to bird includes ALL the dinosaurs in between. Here is some additional information on the transitional elements: Dinosauria On-Line
quote: Shared characteristics, elements that existed in the ancestor dinosaurs and which are preserved in archeopteryx. Several (jaws with teeth) that are lost in modern birds. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added to respond to added question Edited by RAZD, : added transition link and quote 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 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk
you ve posted hoaxes on that page?im not sure how that supports your position? What? Again the information on Pelycodus is provided to demonstrate the evolution of the population and that speciation is recorded in the fossil record. You can find this same evidence on several different sites. Pelycodus: gradulastic
Notice that it says "[diagram after Gingerich]" and this refers to the original science journal article by Philip D. Gingerich (U of M). You can read one of his papers here http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/...m/2027.42/48507/2/ID358.pdf Are you claiming that Pelycodus speciation is a hoax? Or are you refering to Don Lindsay's article on the Piltdown man? Did you read the article? Do you really want to change the topic to fraud\hoaxes now?
please pick a specific one that you feel supports the theory the most. All of life. There is not one aspect of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from pre-history and archeology, from geology, physics and paleontology, from the fossil record and from the genetic record, that contradicts or challenges the theory of evolution and of the descent (with modification) of existing life-forms from the simple single cell forms that appear in the first rocks that are known to carry evidence of life, some 3.5 million years ago. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : graphic missed before Edited by RAZD, : added to last P 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 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
S1tk
i will have a read.are you picking this case as the strongest for changes in kind? Not really, it is just one of many pieces of information that fit evolution. Notice the near perfect continuity of fossil lineages.
and ill will be back in a few weeks.i will come back into town and have a read up on foraminfera evolution. Take your time. You might want to read this: Foraminifera - Wikipedia and note the taxonomic classification:Phylum: Foraminifera see http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.htmlfor how it fits in the picture. for reference the phylum for humans is Chordata, animals with a spinal chord, which includes fishes, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals ... a wide range of life forms Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : finished 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 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
note that I have added bits at the end of Message 35 and Message 36 as it appears that you added to the end of your post after I had written them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You have not been invited to post in this thread Coyote. Please do not post here again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey S1tk, hope you had a good time, and are ready to delve back into the fray.
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis. Another example of convergent evolution, one that extends even further into the dark ages of life on earth, is the killer whale and the white shark:
quote: Great white shark - Wikipedia
quote:(except that a shark is not a "true" fish ...) It appears there is no "genetic barrier" that prevents mammal evolution from becoming similar sharks, which are from an ancient order:
Cartilaginous fish diverged from the branch that mammals are on over 450 million years ago, and pre-date "true fish" ... that's a lot for one "kind" eh? This puts true fish, amphibians, birds and mammals together with Cartilaginous Fish into one "Kind" ... or does this make Chordata the "kind" division? The ultimate conclusion is - once again - that all life is of one "kind" ... as shown by the structure of DNA in all life, that there are no apparent genetic barriers that divide life into two or more groups of organisms. 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 1225 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey S1tk,
I found an on-line copy of a paper by Gingrich with a review of the fossil data for pelycodus and another version of his chart:
SYSTEMATICS, PHYLOGENY, AND EVOLUTION OF EARLY EOCENE ADAPIDAE (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES) IN NORTH AMERICAVol. 24, No. 22, p. 245-279 (13 text-figs.) August 15,1977 I want to quote one particular section as it mirrors what I've said:
quote: Here's the graphic:
quote: Always good to go to an original source, if you can. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seekingfirstthekingdom Member (Idle past 5371 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
hi razd i hope things are good with you.we have come into town somewhat earlier than expected due to an unforseen occurence so im here for an evening before going out again.now i feel i must reemphasise my problems with the theory with evolution and remind you i believe in the account of genesis.
this tends to render most of your examples that you have provided rather moot.i have a problem with. .1.simple lifeforms like bacteria being able to become superior lifeforms.2.reptiles being able to become mammals,especially reptiles becoming birds. .3.habilis being a link in mans ancestry. the example you provided in this post doesnt actually address my concerns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seekingfirstthekingdom Member (Idle past 5371 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
quote:never heard of fish that can survive outside of water for periods of time?also show me in clear fossil form how this representative of your transitional beliefs evolved from fish to land if thats what you are getting at? quote:you seem to know a lot more about this "transitional" creature than scientists who have studied it and have decided to put it on a seperate branch rather than a direct ancestor between reptile and bird.also in some quarters its been regarded with suspicion.further study will provide the answers someday.but to promote it as a direct ancestor is untrue. quote:cold blooded probably reptilian.warm blooded probably mammal.i have issues with evolutionary artistry and creative license.lets see some actual fossils please.and without step by step fossil links to prove this is a link,it becomes just another variety.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seekingfirstthekingdom Member (Idle past 5371 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
quote:i find the 95% figure misleading .to me theres a huge difference between chimps and man.care to disagree with that statement?you ignored my example of evidence of young male pharoahs 3000 odd years old that show no sign of being more primitive.dna similarities are due to being designed to cohabit. quote:interesting strategy.you are using chimp behaviour to justify that habilis isnt a chimp.chimps use stone tools as well according to jane goodall. quote:except you would need a lot of 3.5 foot high small brained chimps to take anything down.how many fossils of handyman have been found in the area again?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023